An experiment allegedly showed that astrology succeeds in predicting a general compatibility between a person and the type of luck, but it turns out that it was biased, which is why no scientist was able to repeat the experiment
in the previous episode We explained why the division into zodiac signs always gives too general answers. This time we will try to see why this interferes with the scientific investigation of astrology.
Hans Eysenck was a British-English psychologist who worked in the 20th century. His research spanned many fields. The common thread for all was his experience Quantify Different sides of the human "soul", such as humor, sexual behavior, intelligence, poetry and more. He was the psychologist who was cited (in his lifetime) in scientific journals more than any other.
He summarizes his approach in his autobiography: "I have always felt that the scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that's a shame. Tact and diplomacy are suitable for international relations, politics, maybe even business. In science, only one thing is decisive, and that is the facts".
Among other things, Eysenck studied the space of personality traits. Eysenck performed advanced statistical analyzes in an attempt to discover the basic dimensions that interpret human complexity. In the end he found two main dimensions:
The first dimension is measure The extraversion-introversion of the person - At the extrovert end are the impulsive, optimistic, happy, company-loving, gratitude-seeking people. At the introverted end are those who control themselves, who have a limited social circle, those who prefer reading a book at home to a night out on the town.
Second dimension is The degree of emotional stability - At one end are those who tend to worry, have low self-confidence, set unrealistic goals and often feel feelings of hostility and jealousy. At the other end are the calm people, resistant to failure, use humor to reduce anxiety, sometimes even thrive under stressful conditions.
Beyond the fields of psychology, Eysenck was also very interested in astrology, graphology and supersensory perception.
Eysenck argued Because contrary to Karl Popper's opinion that astrology is a pseudo-science since its claims cannot be refuted, he does not see things that way. on the contrary. Astrology makes testable claims about a relationship between celestial body placement and character traits, so it shouldn't be difficult to organize a study that tests this in a non-controversial way. He mentioned the studies of Gauquelin [we will come to them later] as an example of studies of the highest level and said that we must admit that there are things in astrology that require explanation. This is a good demonstration of Eysenck's insistence on prioritizing facts over opinions. Here are some quotes from his words:
"The attractive thing about fields like hypnosis, parapsychology or astrology is their promise of new and extremely important knowledge to be gained from studying those phenomena... I don't enjoy defending empirical findings that contradict my instinctive beliefs. I would prefer to disprove all parapsychological and astrological claims. Life would be a lot easier if I could cuddle up in the warmth of orthodox science... I didn't come to my positive conclusions on these subjects just to annoy the conservative scientists... I think these fields were scorned by the conservative scientists without having any knowledge of what was really being done in them, and that to me is an intolerable act ".
"The most important development of astrology in the twentieth century"
According to classical astrology, 6 of the 12 zodiac signs are "extroverts" (Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius and Aquarius) and the other 6 are "introverts". Earth signs (Taurus, Virgo and Capricorn) are considered emotionally stable while water signs (Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces) are considered less emotionally stable.
In 1971, the British astrologer Jeff Mayo sent Eysenck a study he had conducted on about 1800 subjects, in which he compared the degree of extroversion of the subjects (according to their answers to a questionnaire he composed) and their sun sign. He discovered that there was a match as predicted by astrology!
Eysenck was very intrigued by the results and they both repeated the experiment with the help of the personality questionnaires that Eysenck had built. In a study they published together in 1978 and included about 2300 subjects, identical results were obtained! People born under the "extroverted" sign scored slightly higher on the Eysenck Extraversion Index than those born under the "introverted" sign.
The astrological newspaper "phenomena" announced in an advance notice in 1977 that "The findings are probably the most important development of astrology in the twentieth century".
Other researchers tried to repeat the experiment. Some were able to reproduce the find, but others (For example this one, from 1979) failed to do so, i.e. no connection was found between the degree of extroversion or emotional stability of the people and the sun sign in which they were born.
What is going on here?
Sun signs - the influence of celestial bodies or a stereotype that perpetuates itself?
Certain suspicions began to creep into Eysenck's mind, when he realized that the test subjects already had a strong belief in astrology (most of them were recruited from Mayo's students and clients). Such people probably knew the qualities attributed to their luck, and may have attributed qualities to themselves accordingly. It is possible that psychology, and not astrology, is responsible for the positive results!
To test this, Eysenck carried out two more studies. One in 1,000 children - this time no connection was found between the zodiac signs and their character traits. A second study was conducted on adults. In this study, he also tested the level of familiarity of each participant with the qualities attributed to his luck. Indeed, the positive findings were repeated in those who were versed in astrology, but Among those who did not know their lucky traits, no correlation was found between date of birth and character traits (described in the book "Astrology: Science or superstition?)
Other researchers from the Netherlands repeated the experiment and got exactly the same results - there was a certain correspondence between the results of personality tests and the astrological sun sign Only among those who knew what their character was "supposed" to be according to astrology.
That is, the zodiac signs are a type of stereotype that perpetuates itself. It is not the date of birth that affects the character, but the expectation of a person to have a certain character affects his self-perception, and perhaps even his behavior.
Michael Startup, after reviewing the studies on the zodiac again and also carrying out his own studies, concluded in 1984 and said: "Since the amount of research carried out on the solar signs is large, the predictions that have been tested are varied and the amounts of information that have been tested are enormous, and despite all this the evidence is so little, it may have arrived Time to come to an agreement that enough is enough - The idea of sun signs is simply not valid"
(The Validity of Astrological Theory, PhD Thesis, London University, March 1984, 246)
Additional studies confirmed this conclusion.
About self-fulfilling stereotypes
We will take a short break from astrology and take the opportunity to expand a little on this fascinating topic.
In the 50s, a psychologist named Gustav Jahoda studied the "Ashanti" people in West Africa. According to their tradition, a child receives a "spiritual name" according to the day of the week he was born. Each day has different attributes. For example, those born on Monday are supposed to be quiet and peace-loving, while those born on Wednesday are hot-tempered and aggressive.
When the researcher examined the juvenile delinquency cases opened in the area Revealed Indeed, the "label" affixed to the children had a far-reaching effect: those born on the fourth appeared in the court records much more than those born on the second.
Stereotyped effects on behavior are not limited to birth dates. in hundreds of studies The effects that stereotypes have on the behavior of the people who belong to the groups about which the stereotypes apply have been documented. Here are some thought-provoking examples:
In a famous study from 1990 The researchers gave black and white college students a difficult verbal test designated as an IQ test. Blacks' performance was lower than that of whites. When we gave the same test to another group but this time did not define it as an IQ test, the gap between the results of the blacks and the whites narrowed significantly, that is, the very label of "IQ test" caused damage to the performance of the blacks.
in another study Chess games were held between 42 pairs of men and women matched in their level, via the Internet. When the players did not know the gender of the players they were playing against (men) there was no difference between their performance and the performance of the men. When the women were told that they were playing against men there was a drop in performance. When they were told that they were playing against women (even though they were playing against men), they maintained their level.
in this study They found that women who solved a difficult math test together with two other women answered 70% of the questions correctly, while women who faced the same test in the company of two men answered only 55% of the questions correctly. Regarding men, there was no difference in performance whether they sat in the company of women or in the company of men.
The astrologers' reactions to the dismal findings
Sun signs are the most disproved claim in astrology. Even so, most astrologers are unable to admit it.
The main argument of astrologers against these studies is that "one must take into account the complete birth chart, and not a single factor such as the sun sign. Sun sign is only one of many factors. The complete interpretation is more than the sum of its parts, since the basic elements are sometimes in conflict with each other. The influence of the sun's sign can be canceled by the position of the moon, for example, or a host of other factors."
If we agree to accept this argument, we can immediately say goodbye to all those daily, weekly, monthly and yearly horoscopes that relate to the 12 sun signs and are published in the media. They have nothing to do with reality. Even astrologers admit this. (At best they will be somewhat self-fulfilling for those who believe in their validity).
The astrologers themselves differ in their opinions as to whether the publication of horoscopes based only on the sun signs brings more benefit or harm to the profession. Here's what astrologer Donna Van Toen says about it: "We say that the public treats our profession superficially and simplistically. Of course they do, because we simplified it for them. We continue to publish the astrological columns. Why? Because they bring in money... If we want to appear credible, maybe we should stop displaying our merchandise in unreliable places." (AFAN Newsletter October 1995, 12-13)
But the argument about complexity is wrong. Here is a parable from our acquaintance Eysenck: Suppose we are investigating the claim that there is a relationship between the amount of food a person eats and his body weight. Of course, many other factors also affect body weight, such as genetic load, age, level of physical activity, health status, etc. Even so, if we take a large enough sample of people we would definitely expect to find signs that people who ate a lot tended to be fatter while people who starved tended to be thinner. If the claims about the properties of the zodiac signs are true, astrology should have passed this test.
That is, if there is a shred of truth in the idea of the zodiac signs, their effect should float above all the variety of other variables that affect a person. But the findings do not confirm this. The findings show that a group of 1000 Scorpios were not endowed with "scorpio" traits more than 1000 people of another zodiac sign. If this is the case, it is not clear why astrologers continue to fill their books with descriptions that are characteristic of one or another lucky person.
You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. Either the sun sign has some effect on the person - then we would have to discover it clearly in studies (especially large-scale statistical studies in which all other personal factors are removed), or the sun sign has no effect, and then (a) it is not understood how the astrologers came to know about the attributed qualities For any luck and (b) we can part with this idea for peace.
In order not to get bogged down in debates about studies that examined only the sun sign, from now on we will only discuss studies in which expert astrologers built specific birth charts based on an exact time of birth, regarding specific people.
About that in the next post on the subject
For the first episode in the series: Astrology in the test of the sun signs
28 תגובות
I would actually rule it out.
It does not seem that people in ancient times made any attempt to attack astrology at any stage of its existence and therefore it is also unlikely that they derived it from diagnoses with any statistical validity.
This is an era when most of the "laws" that people believed in were simply "sucked from the finger".
The fingers in question have long since withered and I find it quite amazing that people are still trying to suck something out of them.
Habib is the worm,
Even so, I would not outright rule out the claim that there is a connection between the obvious influence of the sun on our lives and the fact that it was introduced as a very heavy weighted member of the astrological equation.
jubilee:
You remind me of the story about the one who studied for the biology test.
He knew that his lecturer was interested in worms so he only studied about worms.
When a question about an elephant appeared in the test, he was not confused.
He wrote - the elephant is a large, gray animal that has a trunk that looks like a worm.
The worm is "...a text of 10 pages"
moment! I will understand! Isn't the sun a considered astrological factor?
jubilee:
This is not up for discussion at all.
We are talking here about astrology and not about the importance of the sun to our lives.
Michael,
It's easy for me to dismiss the issue with "all bullshit" and move on to more serious things. But still a few words: in my response to this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astrology-in-a-trial-012111/#comment-318770
I am referring to the "starless" aspect of astrology. In this response I talked about the length of the daylight hours in the first days of the newborn and their effect on shaping his character, but there are other factors that change throughout the year, such as the temperature.
Unlike many animals that reproduce mainly in a certain season of the year (spring, let's say), humans reproduce throughout the year in a uniform distribution (or close to it). The influence of the star closest to us is very strong, so much so that already in ancient times they realized that without it there would be no life on earth. And since this influence fluctuates to some extent over the course of one year, and this fluctuation repeats itself with almost perfect precision year after year, there is reason to assume that Certain traits embedded in a person's character are dictated by the date of birth. And if indeed there are such, the sages of the ancient world would have paid attention to the phenomenon. From this to the attribution of character traits to the moon of other heavenly bodies, the distance is great and even for me it is easy to accept that it is nonsense.
jubilee:
Even the ancient astrology could not but rely on a calendar in predicting a person's future according to the day he was born.
In general, this astrology could not but be based on the person's date of birth because otherwise the predictions for all people would be the same.
Only recently have they changed the astrological maps so that they adapt to the changes that have taken place in the image of the sky over the hundreds of years since it was drawn - and this is a significant change (I no longer remember how many days it was, but it is measured in weeks).
What is clear is that the discoveries of science can only improve astrological predictions and if such nonsense is accepted today then the nonsense of the past could not have been more successful.
his brother,
Regrettably (honestly, regrettably) I am forced to filter out many of your words, even though they were said seriously and with good intentions and you clearly put a noteworthy effort into them.
You talked a lot about dates, but the dates are irrelevant. Ancient astrology relied on direct observations of the celestial bodies. Only recently, when there is a perfect overlap between the date and the position of the sun in the dome of the sky (relative to us, the inhabitants of the land), astrology enthusiasts have found an easy approach that does not require in-depth calculations (I wonder if there is a connection between the tendency to run away from calculations and the tendency to mess with zodiac signs and stars).
And for things that are acceptable to me:
I agree with you that there is a non-uniformity due to the fact that the stars and their positions look different between the southern and northern hemispheres. Moreover, non-uniformity can be expressed even between different countries in the same hemisphere.
I liked the mention of the retired supreme president's famous statement that was put in a good context.
It is clear that illusions are not science, but people's love for illusions can be used to develop entire sciences. Cosmetics, and fashion in general, is a successful economic field in which a lot of technology and scientific knowledge is invested.
Well, his brother (he wishes to remain anonymous).
Accepting the review and starting over. If this "science" is based, and it is based, on time in its essence, and on the positioning of star systems in space at said time...
And if the time (i.e. the points of reference, 'Monday', 'July 15', '1985', 'in the year of our Lord X', etc.) has changed, and we know that it has changed, at least a few dozen times during the Roman Empire, before that in the days of the Persians, Later by all kinds of countries, such as Russia, who shortened the week, extended it, omitted it, added it and more...
And if we go further back to the ancients who "founded" this "science", then the problem gets even worse, since they were geographically located in other places, and therefore the culture and hence also the perception of time, were different (there is no agricultural culture, such as for example the kingdoms of Israel or Egypt, according to the cultural law of merchants or warriors or seafarers whose clocks are adjusted according to a different rhythm than the agricultural seasons), and there was no uniformity or standardization regarding measures and weights and each ruler established his own laws, referred to a different cycle (lunar-solar) and determined the measuring tools For time, as a verb derived from government (he who controls time controls everything, religion, holidays, sowing, harvesting, well, the principle is clear), not to mention that the stars and their positions look different between the southern and northern hemispheres, etc...
And this is where the non-uniformity I mentioned is derived. That's why I argued that whoever wants to believe that, let him be, but I hope that at least between himself he knows and recognizes the truth, that is, nonsense!!
If you claim that because I was born in the sign X or Y and you don't even know and can't attribute all of your 'prophetic/reading' to an agreed upon and established starting point, then everything is "fair" as in Barak's article, and everyone can set their own 'laws and' insights Let them be valid in some invented and imaginary universe, which is fine, there are entire economic sectors that live by selling illusions to people, see the value of the entire cosmetics industry for example, but to call it science? Come On!!!
For example, in the days of the Roman Empire, it is known that there were periods with 10 months in the year. so? Two zodiac signs 'born' with the leadership of the Julian calendar? The Gregorian? did a reset? What, suddenly the archives were 'released' and all the 'hidden' information about the two missing zodiac signs was 'completed' in a flash? This is a joke and not the funniest. Not far from Khedra, reading in a cafe from Jaffa... the same 'logic', the same 'science'!
whose brother are you
If you want, then it's all nonsense.
As scientists, we must examine things in the necessary depth and provide objective reasoning. "Nonsense and scheming" is a matter-of-fact reasoning just like "earthly, stable, from the fire group".
By saying "time distortion" and "the non-uniformity of the reference points" you gave a good start to a serious discussion, and it's a shame you stopped.
bullshit!!! Unbelievable the engravings that people are willing to believe! To think that there is a connection, even a very weak one, because you were born on a certain day and time, then stars and star systems that are at such a distance from us, that we can't even imagine, will affect a strange and insignificant creature, in another universe...hahahahahahahahaha! Shame on them!
Not to mention time distortions (for example, the length of the week that has changed dozens of times, the length of the year, the day, etc.) that disrupt any such "science" due to the very non-uniformity of the reference points!
Is it possible to ignore the purely astrophysical effects? Without the abundance of electromagnetic energy we receive from the sun, life would not be possible at all. So why don't we attribute additional - more unique - effects to this energy?
And is it not possible to find parallels to the phenomenon of tides inside the human body?
Even the magnetic field of the distant planet, Jupiter, is strongly felt at a distance that also covers the Earth.
If deciding between two explanations, the one that negates an effect versus the one that obligates it, the obliging explanation is almost self-evident while the negating explanation must be proven.
My father c
We will return to the proposal made by R.H. If I remember correctly: are you sure astrology works right? So let's conduct a small experiment in which we will check if it actually works, are you ready to participate in such an experiment? We will build the experiment together with you so that you will be satisfied, you will determine the degree of success expected from the experiment and then we will carry it out according to what was agreed upon, are you ready?
From this it can be concluded that any analysis and determination of this or that personality will also have an effect in the opposite direction.
A person will create an identity if he analyzes his character, and will be affected by it for better or worse.
Whether it is in graphology or psychology or in determining personal traits in finding a profession or job that suits a person.
Any analysis and determination of character traits will also have an effect in the opposite direction.
monument
Sorry to say that what I read in the article on the research topic with the statistical facts related to astrology are simply not relevant read my explanation above. I have no problem with the researchers in subjects that I do not know or understand, but I know this field and have been involved for at least 35 years.
Father, this is getting funny.
"At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals. [1]
It sounds like a big enough recognition to me as a researcher...
His argument is not childish, and has nothing to do with personality or substance. It is related to a basic understanding of statistics.
I take it British astrologer Jeff Mayo also doesn't understand anything about astrology in your opinion?
Is there anyone out of all those people who understands something about something?
Or does the credit you give to researchers depend on only one thing - the degree to which his conclusions correspond to your belief on the subject?
You know what, please bring us the words of researchers who have found something that pleases you. Read their studies carefully.
Note that so far, in dozens of your responses, you have not brought even one weak point of view in favor of astrology.
Abi C,
I don't think you are reading the scripture carefully. You jump in a comment before you've even finished reading the article,
Then he ignores arguments, for example the one that starts with the words: "But the argument about complexity is wrong", and finally he is impatient even though it is written that we hereby say goodbye to the sun signs, and move on to studies that examined full birth charts.
I suggest, for the sake of efficiency, that you read all the articles in the series, then look at the website that I sent you twice already, (you are welcome to dive into the articles about the "arguments of the astrologers who came out against the studies"), and then we will have a substantive discussion.
Scorpio traits for a person are influenced by many combinations that are revealed to the researcher by reading the person's personal astrological map
The one who repeats and repeats and repeats the unreliability or lies of astrology and more with the help of empty studies without depth
Unfortunately, science is disparaged if it really investigates this - in my opinion, it really does not interest science and scientists.
A really childish argument for that researcher who came to compare metaphorical effects in astrology on the human personality to physiological effects on the human body by matter (matter). Tell Eysenck to wake up and not float if he wants to be recognized as a scientist/researcher.
But have fun, whoever wants to say Amen about what and how he investigates the validity of astrology, who am I to stop him
Gilad regarding stereotypes - there is absolutely no need to do this type of research when every day around you you see the behavior of people according to the type of social pressure they are under and what they feel in relation to what they think is expected of them.
You know the Israel national team in soccer when the game is not mandatory (friendly) then they manage to win more at the moment of truth in a mandatory tournament.
monument
The first study you brought up here regarding extroverts and introverts, at least the way you presented it, if it reflects the research, then I tell you that it is the great disgrace of science that if this is how research is carried out, then there are simply no words....
There is a metaphorical division in astrology regarding the extroversion or introversion of luck, but this has nothing to do with an astrological analysis of the horoscope map of an unknown person or a flamenco.
Astrology never refers to a person according to his lucky month, so a Leo, for example, as a person is influenced by a certain sign (depending on what time and place he was born), the person is affected by every star that is in a certain sign in his map.
There is an important influence between the connections between the stars (angles) a strong influence exists for constellations in the houses.
Each sign on the map is divided into 12 signs that sharpen the personality.
Simply, the complexity of the human being is such that no questionnaire of the type of research can come close to the symbolism of the extroverts and introverts of the zodiac signs.
I told you, Gilad, sit with an astrologer for an hour or two, you will understand perfectly what astrology is, even if after that you will not be able to understand how it works or not.
This is a reference to the first section of the article
interesting!
Hello Rani,
I probably missed your comment.
I dedicate two articles to the topic of Goklin's research. Be patient 🙂
Why is it not possible to share the article????
But basically it works, although not for the star parties, but it works for the placebo party.
And all the while littering the human brain with enough garbage.
Garbage should also be treated as facts that exist in the field, and not be ruled out because it goes against science.
I wrote this comment in the previous article, but I did not receive a response.
I will write it again, now in a more relevant way.
Hello Gilad.
First of all, I want to compliment you on your non-confrontational style.
A refreshing change in science and I think this is the way to at least get the other side to listen.
Regarding the Gauquelin study -
His research is valid. It was restored several times, and precisely with the corrections the astrological connection was even more distinct.
http://www.valentino-salvato.com/Astrology/articles/gauquelin_controversy.htm
Indeed, those who are not interested in accepting the opinion of the studies are not the astrologers, but rather the conservative camp of scientists (Einstein mint)
In any case, it can be said (in both directions) that the seemingly supreme decision sentence "there are studies",
is not enough to be a 'winning blow' in our world.
Great, keep it up 🙂