Apologetics of Astrology, TaroT and I Ching

[Xru]

I, Xru, Lord of the Frigid Highland, am here to defend the truthful predictions made by Astrology. I just threw in Tarot and I Ching to get your attention.

Any takers . . . come on . . . lets hear you cogent arguments against Astrology.






Disclaimer: I disavow any belief in Astrological prediction; and further, do not propose that any sane person use Astrology to guide their life.

Just for fun . . . name calling is encouraged, slander, threats of violence . . . well maybe not that. i however, will refrain from such things!!!!!!

This should be good . . . he he he.

Fair warning: I know a good deal about Astrology so if'n ya say something ya better have some facts to back it up or I'm gonna whip your . . . . (lets see, what was my last infraction for) . . . oh ya . . . whip your behind.

[Xru]

K . . . so if no one posts I'm gonna assume every TWebber agrees that Astrology is accurate, or TWebbers are afraid to go toe to toe with . . . .























Xru, Lord of the Frigid Highlands

[Xru]

As a bonus . . . anyone who gives me their birth date (day, month, year) and their time of birth (its probably on your birth certificate) and your place of birth I . . . . Xru, Lord of the Frigid Highlands, will personally draw you Natal chart.

[Chrs]

Sup,

In today's adventure of "things that Xru is wrong about" we enter the land of astrology.

Have a few studies:
A double-blind test of astrology - Nature and a non-paywalled article about it - I do have and have read the paper but you're unlikely to have access to it.

A paper on why people think such things work. Essentially, if a description is mostly positive and vague, most people will agree with it. This kind of experiment has been repeated plenty of times and the average score given to the personality analysis (which is the same for everyone) has been around 4.2 every time.

That should be enough for now. Any evidence that it actually works, Xru?

[Xru]

Wow . . . something went wrong int he Quote function . . . anyway . .

Sup,

In today's adventure of "things that Xru is wrong about" we enter the land of astrology.[/quote]

Excellent start Bo.

[Chrs]

I'm thinking of writing an A-Z of it.

Soooooo, any responses?

[Cow Poke]

I'm thinking of writing an A-Z of it.

Soooooo, any responses?

B = Bacon

[Xru]

Have a few studies:
A double-blind test of astrology - Nature and a non-paywalled article about it - I do have and have read the paper but you're unlikely to have access to it.

Well I was looking forward to reading it but since I'm not a registered user I can't. Is this some joke Chrs or are you going to try to use this sort of crap as real evidence?

So your link to http://psychicinvestigator.com is going to be your authoritative evidence. Kind of like evilbible.com. BTW, WOT has rated this site as "untrustworthy."

Summaries of studies are not going to hack it, Chrs.

Your second link goes to a link on personal gullibility . . . hardly a criticism of Astrology unless you first assume that everyone that does astrology is gullible . . . hardly a objective stand.


Next . . .

[Xru]

Anyone want me to write a Natal Chart for them? Anyone . . ..

Well . . . okay. I have Mars square Sun (the Sun being in Gemini of course since I am a Gemini).

Anyone out there KNOW what Sun square Mars is or implies?

"Sun square Mars, Sun opposition Mars
There is an unmistakable competitiveness and a "me-first" attitude with those who have Sun square or opposition Mars in their natal charts. The fighter persona is most apparent in youth, when the child is described as a "bundle of energy", or it is remarked that he or she "can't sit still". The abundant energy generated by the hard aspects (especially the square) between the Sun and Mars is hard to direct in childhood. Later in life, ideally, those with these aspects have learned to channel some of their excess energy into productive avenues--perhaps through career, sports, or any area where competitiveness is considered an asset. Nevertheless, people with these aspects can meet up with more than their share of conflict, and they can most certainly rub people the wrong way. They are very motivated to get things done, to take action rather than simply talk about something, and to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Those who know them quite well might describe these people as hot-headed and temperamental at times. They are easily frustrated, and they're given to impulsive actions and assertion of their wills. If the aspect is found in cardinal signs, it gives impulsiveness and a short temper. If the aspect is found in fixed signs, the natives can be very hard-headed and willful. If it's in mutable signs, it gives a restless and frustrated impatience.

Essentially, those with Sun square Mars in their charts have faced conflict and are not particularly afraid of it. They have faced having their need to assert themselves blocked. Their parents may have done as much as they could to "tame" what they felt to be excess energy or aggression. In other words, they know all about conflict and blockages, so that when they are faced with a challenge or a roadblock, they don't run away from it or hide under the covers feeling sorry for themselves. They meet challenges head-on.

Sun opposition Mars people are more confrontational and argumentative than active. In youth, they might feel that they often face anger from others. They might see the Mars energy as coming from the outside. If and when they face the fact that the aggression is actually a part of their own personalities, they are more equipped to direct the competitive energy into productive avenues."
http://cafeastrology.com/natal/sunsquaremars.html

Sound familiar . . . what if any of that seems to apply to me . . .

Bold is mine . . .

Come on you hosers . . . lets do this . . . no, I'm not Canadian.

BTW, anyone of you anti-Astrology losers out there EVER read a credible book on Astrology . . . not just the trash you read in the newspaper? Huh . . . . well, have you.

[Xru]

I don't hold that Astrology is accurate, partially accurate or more likely mostly inaccurate.

What kind of chaff's my hide is that some people, actually most people comment on Astrology without having a clue other than what they read in the paper.

Houses, sun signs, conjuct, trine, square, opposition, rising sign, the meaning of vertex . . . does ANYONE know the first thing about any of that.

It's like casual agnostics and opportunistic atheists turning up their noses before Christianity (I do not in any way equate Christianity with Astrology) because they'd formed their opinions about Christianity by what they saw on TV, in movies and what they here from their friends.

[Chrs]

So your link to http://psychicinvestigator.com is going to be your authoritative evidence. Kind of like evilbible.com. BTW, WOT has rated this site as "untrustworthy."

You are aware that's about net-sec rather than content..

Summaries of studies are not going to hack it, Chrs.

Well, I can't give you the link to any studies because you don't have journal access unless you're willing to pay the million million dollars they charge these days. I have the paper right here

Your second link goes to a link on personal gullibility . . . hardly a criticism of Astrology unless you first assume that everyone that does astrology is gullible . . . hardly a objective stand.

So, you neither read it nor understood it.

This paper is concerned with some of the methodological errors which can affect estimations of the validity of personality interpretations and measuring instruments.

So, it's about the problems with using a person to verify predictions (or, in this experiment, "diagnostic tools" - a personality test.)

The following experiment was performed' in the writer's class in introductory psychology to demonstrate the ease with which clients may be misled by a general personality description into unwarranted approval of a diagnostic tool. The writer had discussed his Diagnostic Interest Blank (5) (hereafter referred to as DIB) in connection with the role of personal motivational factors in perceptual selectivity. The DIB consists of a list of hobbies, reading materials, personal characteristics, job duties, and' secret hopes and ambitions of one's ideal person. The test is interpreted qualitatively and personality dynamics are inferred along lines similar to projective tests.

So, the people in the study were given a personality test.

One week later each student was given a typed personality sketch with his name written on it. The writer encouraged the expressed desire of the class for secrecy regarding the content of the sketches. Fortunately, this was the day on which a quiz was scheduled; hence it was possible to ensure their sitting two seats apart without arousing suspicion. From the experimenter's point of view it was essential that no student see the sketch received by any other student because
all sketches were identical. The students were unsuspecting

All the students were each given identical results to this personality test.

The personality sketch contains some material which overlaps with that of Paterson, but consists of 13 statements rather than a narrative description. These statements came largely from a news stand astrology book.

The results the students got were completely unrelated to their answers on the test (and were from an astrology book, but that's not the point, it's just amusing )

1. You have a great need for other people to like and admire you.
2. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself.
3. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turnedto your advantage.
4. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generallyable to compensate for them.
5. Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you.
6. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisomeand insecure inside.

7. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made theright decision or done the right thing.
8. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and becomedissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations.
9. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not acceptothers' statements without satisfactory proof.
10. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself toothers.
11. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at othertimes you are introverted, wary, reserved.
12. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
13. Security is one of your major goals in life.Before the sketches were passed to the students, instructions weregiven first to read the sketches and then to turn the papers over andmake the following ratings:

These were deliberately designed to be universally applicable and vague. The students then filled out the following questions:

A. Rate on a scale of zero (poor) to five (perfect) how effective the DIB is in revealing personality.
B. Rate on a scale of zero to five the degree to which the personality description reveals basic characteristics of your personality.
C. Then turn the paper again and check each statement as true or false about yourself or use a question mark if you cannot tell.

Then...

In answer to their requests students were informed that the writer had another copy of their sketch and would give it to them after the data were collected. After the papers had been returned to the writer students were asked to raise their hands if they felt the test had done a good job. Virtually all hands went up and the students noticed this.Then the first sketch item was read and students were asked to indicate by hands whether they had found anything similar on their sketches. As all hands rose, the class burst into laughter. It was pointed out to them that the experiment had been performed as an object lesson to demonstrate the tendency to be overly impressed by vague statements and to endow the diagnostician with an unwarrantedly high degree of insight. Similarities between the demonstration and the activities of charlatans were pointed out.

The exact results are in the paper. On average, people accepted 10.2 out of 13 of the points. All the students judged the tool as a good or perfect way of judging personality.

So, to summarise:
1. The students were given a personality test, then every student was given the same answer.
1b. The answers were deliberately vague and basically universally applicable.
2. The majority of the students said that the results were descriptive of their personality.
3. ALL of the students said the tool was at least good at judging your personality.

This study has been repeated hundreds of times with similar results.

Essentially:
Humans are AWFUL at judging the effectiveness of a method of describing themselves.

Sound familiar . . . what if any of that seems to apply to me . . .

Hey, certainly does! How about that!

Any evidence in the form of:
1. Hey, look at this astrology thing for me!
2. Isn't it accurate?
3. Therefore, astrology.

Is subject to the well-studied, massive cognitive bias that comes as a result of trying to treat a person's evaluation of something said about them as objective.

[Xru]

You are aware that's about net-sec rather than content..

I don't know what this means.

So, you neither read it nor understood it.

I read what was there, about 5 pages, the rest were blank. I understood it as best as I can.

BTW, accusing me or anyone of not reading or not understanding is a shady tactic in debate Chrs.

Have you read or understood any writings on Astrology that were not critical of Astrology? At least I looked at the article, read it, and attempted to understand it while you have read nothing but anti-astrology studies. Did you ever give Astrology a REAL chance? I doubt it.

Well, I can't give you the link to any studies because you don't have journal access unless you're willing to pay the million million dollars they charge these days. I have the paper right here

In that case it is irrelevant.

The personality sketch contains some material which overlaps with that of Paterson, but consists of 13 statements rather than a narrative description. These statements came largely from a news stand astrology book.

News stand astrology books are NOT sources any qualified Astrologist would use. They are crap just like you describe.

So this argument is invalid . . . it is not Astrology . . . it is pop Astrology which is a bastardization of Astrology.

I assume that the rest of your argument is based on the same use of the News Stand Astrology book which is trash . . . all those type of Astrology books are trash.

So the rest of your argument is invalid too.

For your information, when I was studying Astrology for the fun of it, I had around 20 books. Several on each of the planets, except Earth of course, and several on aspects between planetary bodies, Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto, and several books on Sun signs.

As I said any News Stand book on Astrology is trash. ANY argument based on results from using those books would be trash. Trash in trash out . .. surely you understand that.

[Xru]

Oh . . .okay I had to allow some blocked scripts to see the complete paper here http://www.scribd.com/Psych101/d/173...of-Gullibility

I;ll read the rest of it . . . sorry.

[Chrs]

BTW, accusing me or anyone of not reading or not understanding is a shady tactic in debate Chrs.

Well, you certainly don't understand it, given the rest of this post.

News stand astrology books are NOT sources any qualified Astrologist would use. They are crap just like you describe.

Okay, now it's sufficient for me to say that you neither read my post nor the paper because you've just completely missed the point. I see no other way you could've managed this but to have Ctrl-F'd to look for the first appearance of the word "astrology" and replied to that.

This paper is concerned with some of the methodological errors which can affect estimations of the validity of personality interpretations and measuring instruments.

That paper isn't about astrology specifically, it's about cognitive bias in ways of testing personality diagnostic tools by making people read them. Go read it. Or just read my summary.

You may be able to get a copy at any of the following links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18110193
http://www.mendeley.com/research/the...f-gullibility/
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...hPis2zjcQj6TXw

[Xru]

Okay . . . well I read the rest of the Gullibility paper (I had to turn off some script blockers on Firefox) . . . and yes as presented the results and predictive power is trash just like the News Stand book that was used to compile the test, i.e., there results did show that the general characteristics given in the News Stand book on Astrology was too general and could apply to anyone.

Unfortunately, as I said, no qualified Astrologer would use such a book to draw a Natal Chart. Those books are trash just like the Astrological page in the newspaper.

Would you please answer the questions I asked of you above . . . such as . . . have you ever read a serious work on astrology?

This is not going to work for you unless you admit to yourself that you know next to nothing about what body of knowledge qualified Astrologers use in drawing a Natal Chart.

You can't just sit back and make judgements about this unless you at least get your feet a little wet.

I'll even buy you a good beginners book on Astrology if you give me an address to send it too . . .

BTW, Chrs, you do know that I have a Masters Degree in Psychology . . . I can get my transcript and make a copy and post it if you want.

Antioch University, 1985 . . . I think it was. I also certified an expert in Adult Psychology by the American Nurses Association for years. So I think I can understand an article on Cognitive Bias

Not that you should take my word for it or that having pieces of paper mean anything . .. . I could have a Ph.D. in Psychology and still be a Zipper-head.

Maybe you'd like to see all my degree and past certifications?

BTW, I am not a Clinical Psychologist as some like phank have jumped to the conclusion.