Topic: Poll :: Which star sign likes BTC most/least - page 5. (Read 10804 times)

What it means is that people see something in the stars, then something happens, and then attribute the thing that happened to the stars, even though there was no such relationship. That other post explained it really well. You can't test the hypothesis if the stars influence personality, events and other things like that.

all i hear is 'no, YOU prove god DOESN'T exist!"

you're the one making the claim, i expect you to prove that the data demonstrates more than random chance. i sincerely don't have the vested interest to take the time to prove you wrong.

read about 'burden of proof', perhaps?

plus, this is not scientific because users can easily lie on polls (not saying they did, just tending to controls). furthermore, it's not even single blind as users can read the thread before they vote. in other words, your poll cannot conclusively demonstrate anything.

The problem here is we have not had the sufficient technology for creating a model large enough to verify affect on humans at such a large scale.  I think in time such a model could be constructed.  It would be arrogant and closed-minded to say that this is impossible.

also pse to note that I never advocated a 'belief' in astrology, I'm just interested in looking at the sychronisity of such archetypes say in how they may coincide with human psychological behaviour in a measured situation & also if you haven't got it yet in having some fun ffs



(60 votes divided by 12 options gives 5 as a statistic norm average or whatever that may be called) & a graded distribution above & below 5 would be expected, any predicting of that which was specific to the 12 signs much less so imo



I've given up reading this post for today - seems like it's mutated in to some sort of it's sience-nazi created Frankestien & anyway prefer to concentrate on getting drunk atm



tipsy update

Just for the record, I don't "believe in" star signs / astrology any more than I "believe in" technical analysis or I "believe in" the majestic power of the authority of a central bank.  But I have to work with what works best personally for me.

As I stated earlier, I understand Western astrology is broken, but for some reason it still works for me.  Confirmation bias, maybe, but at some base level, isn't all science just confirmation bias to keep people from going insane?  I.e. the need to turn data into information via any method available -- usually the "path of least resistance", and Astrology, broken or not, just happens to be that path for some people.  Like religion, as long as it is not forcibly pushed on anyone (i.e. as long as it does not get in the way of anyone else's freedom to practice whatever "science" they like / works best for them), there's nothing inherently wrong with practicing it.

wrong. science involves explaining behavior through models.

1. unexplained behavior
2. form hypothesis about correlation/causation between two variables
3. verify if causation holds given the evidence

there is no model here besides 'stars affect personality types'. this hypothesis needs to be tested. furthermore, unless a mechanism can demonstrate causation, it is a correlation at best (think ice cream sales and drownings).

your bias is assuming the model, and therefore focusing on the predictions of astrology that 'fit' your common sense (and most likely disregarding far more than you realize)

You are wrong because sometimes people are wrong.  Got ya.  It sure explains a lot.

Please look up the definition of "illusory correlation". Might explain a lot more than those stars =)

Definition:

An illusory correlation is the perception of a relationship between two variables when only a minor or absolutely no relationship actually exists. For example, people sometimes assume that because two events occurred together at one point in the past, that one event must be the cause of the other. These illusory correlations can occur both in scientific investigations and in real-world situations.

Stereotypes are a good example of illusory correlations. Research has shown that people tend to assume that certain groups and traits occur together, and frequently overestimate the strength of the association between the two variables. For example, let's suppose that a man holds a mistaken belief that all people from small towns are extremely kind. When the individual meets a very kind person, his immediate assumption might be that the person is from a small town, despite the fact that kindness is not related to city population.

um as it's you who seems to have got his knickers in a twist about this then why don't you do the statistical analysis to show that this isn't an approximately even spread & don't forget to take in to account on a scale of 1 to 12 adjusted for positive,neutral & negative expectations stated by my predictions for each sign, hard maybe to do exactly but even a dodo could probably spot that Libra/Virgo/Capricorn are rated low whilst Sagittarius/Aquarius are rated high, use an independent third parties to do a blind comparisons or program a bot to do it for you & you will see that your probability stats are pwned - average or not & perhaps ur narrow view on reality too if you were honest with ur scientific testing (& yes this can happen every x thousand/million times you run a test but we're talking here about my one time predictions & your one time calling me out on them)

I see unexplained behavior.
I seek new information.
That new information explains the behavior.

Sounds more like the scientific method than confirmation bias to me.

I agree... Even just studying the archetypes is useful as they are just descriptions of various personality types.  But, (and this is a weakness of astrology that needs to be understood by anyone who takes it seriously) it is very easy to accept the wrong archetype and live as if it is your natural state.  For example, I'm a scorpio sun sign by western astrology, but a libra by Vedic (positionally-accurate) astrology.  I happen to also have a strong Mars influence in my chart, so scoprio was plausible to me until I discovered the truth about Western astrology's origins.  However, I never really believed in western astrology, just looked at it with idle curiousity.  It just didn't seem accurate.

Also, with Vedic astrology, you don't just look at the sun sign.  The sun sign is indicative of the outer personality you show those who know you, the moon sign is indicative of internal emotional personality, and the ascendant sign (the sign rising on the horizon at birth) is indicative of the personality you show those who you consider "strangers".  Those are just key indicators and a real reading looks at all the grahas(sanskrit for "heavenly body") as well as Rahu/Ketu (the eclipse points), both at birth, and their current positions.

[emphasis mine]

btw, thanks for defining 'confirmation bias' for me.

+21397123791273

Please listen to this wise man

please learn about confirmation bias, and about the psychological success of cold reading.

then learn some astronomy, and you'll find that the constellation in which the sun rises on the birthdays bounded by the astrological symbols have shifted in the 2000 or so years such that the calibration is now completely off (ironically, by almost 1/12, such that the signs ought to be shifted roughly one over).

then explain to me, even if it does somehow 'predict' personality archetypes, how correlation = (or even implies) causation; i.e. you have to find a mechanism through which the time of year you're born permanently and decidedly limits/predicts your personality.

...then get your head out of your ass and stop believing in star signs. really.

"LOL 1 HAZ 9 AND 1 HAZ 1 UR WRONG"

please use statistical analysis and show me that given the sample size, this is not an 'approximately' even spread, since i did in fact use that word.

+ many 1's for defending astrology in a general sort of way...

Like any other "science", it is just a method (or algorithm or set of rules) for computing machines (human brains) to take raw data and transform it into information (data with meaning).

I find that even with the whole lack of account for precession in Western Astrology, I can still use the signs as they are and the archetypes that they attempt to explain to apply meaning to human behavior that would otherwise be completely random noise, and to divide behaviors into categories based on the archetypes so as to better organize the data in order to manipulate it into information (i.e., in order to better make sense of my environment).

The main general argument from the layman I tend to hear against astrology in any form, is something like:  "Yeah right, how can those stars and planets BILLIONS of light-years away possibly be affecting WHAT I'M DOING?"
This general argument is usually easily countered by invoking the big-bang:  Usually the layman will have some faith in the whole "Big Bang" theory.  So you say something like, "OK, well if at one point everything was just a single thing, that blew up to form the Universe, then isn't everything in the Universe really just part of everything else?  That is, Everything was at least at one point in time, Connected..."
If I were the layman, I would counter-argue with extrapolation on the phrase "in time", and dicker as to whether the Big Bang happened in time or not 
I am not the layman though.

FTFY

Western Astrology is based on a translation of Vedic Astrology that was accurate at the time it was translated.  However, they simplified it by ignoring precession (earth's wobble on it's axis).  In present day, western astrology is off by almost one whole sign.  It's hard to make accurate predictions about how celestial bodies will effect us when all of their supposed positions are wrong.  Vedic Astrology, OTOH, is accurate about positions and can be tremendously useful.  When my girlfriend gets fussy, I check out her chart.  It doesn't tell me exact details, but it lets me know the types of energy she is dealing with and when it will pass.  It is often blindingly obvious where the behavior comes from once I look at the chart.  It's also useful when I feel off and want to know why.

Am I just inventing patterns where they don't exist?  Perhaps.  But, astrology is a tool that has eased my mind and helped me decide how to move forward several times.  Life is always better after I check some charts and see what the hell is going on.  Besides, I do believe that EM radiation from the sun bounces off each planet differently before it returns to us.  It seems plausible to me that we are effected by how all those frequencies interact as they are seen from here on Earth.

I have never explored using it for trading, as to me that seems cheap.  I have too much respect for the usefulness of it to abuse it for monetary gain.

right, for all you skeptards, astrology is kinda like, cosmic elliott waves ffs 

Astrology is just as rigorously scientific as any technical analysis.

My hypothesis was that Aquarius would dominate this poll, and so far that hypothesis is supported by evidence.

♫ This is the dawning of the age of aquarius ♫


scorpio myself tho