Hi baby what's your sign?

[Dr_Strabismus]

Horoscopes are bullshit. Of Course. But:

My wife, who claims that she wouldn't have got together with me if we didn't have compatible Zodiac signs, constantly surprises me with her greater-than-one-in-12 chance of guessing people's Zodiac signs.

And my character is a "typical" Gemini.

So basically horoscopes are bullshit, but I believe them. Are you a believer?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm a Leo. Obviously .

 

[SimonDoom]

No, not in the slightest. I'm not expert on it but from the little I've read there is no evidentiary basis for it at all. I have a relative in the extended family who is into it who likes to talk about it at the dinner table and I find it grating. They confidently make assertions they can never back up.

Belief in astrology is a classic case of cognitive bias. A crackpot will make 100 predictions. 1 will come true, but that's the only one the astrology believers pay attention to and feverishly cite as proof.

 

[SimonDoom]

The idea that your personality or destiny or whatever is somehow influenced or determined by the positions of the stars trillions of miles away at the moment you leave your mother's vagina is, on its face, nuts. A nearby microwave oven probably has more effect on you than where the Gemini constellation stars are. But nobody says, "Ah, I see. You're an Amana."

 

[MrPixel]

No, but with a twist. My wife has a hobby casting horoscopes of and sometimes for friends and family. She has a bunch of books and charts for this, and will spend hours on it when the muse strikes. She will ask her victims friends for what time they were born, she gets that specific.

In the end, it's strictly "for entertainment purposes only". The results are always the highly generalized could-apply-to-anybody BS horoscopes are well-known for.

"Ah, I see. You're an Amana."

Love it.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

I know that horoscopes work because I'm a perfect cross between Miles Davis and Donald Trump, both fellow Geminis.

 

[Dr_Strabismus]

+ we're all assholes. And I suffer from flatulence, a fart is called a "trump", Miles played trumpet, Donald "Trump" -- come ON guys, you can't tell me there's nothing in it.

 

[Demiurging]

An interesting thought: while the position of the stars at the time of birth affecting a person's temperament is dubious at best, perhaps if one is exposed to their astrological sign and astrology at a young age, then follow their horoscopes for a long time, might their development be passed through a lens colored by their sign's stereotypes?

Neurology is weird that way sometimes.

 

[SimonDoom]

An interesting thought: while the position of the stars at the time of birth affecting a person's temperament is dubious at best, perhaps if one is exposed to their astrological sign and astrology at a young age, then follow their horoscopes for a long time, might their development be passed through a lens colored by their sign's stereotypes?

Neurology is weird that way sometimes.

There's probably something to this. People read or hear what kinds of traits members of their sign supposedly have, and they show or talk about those traits when the subject comes up with other people, and they and others come to think of them this way. But it's the same thing I talked about before: confirmation bias. Astrologers always give a long list of not necessarily consistent traits that supposedly apply to a sign, which gives you the opportunity to pick the traits cafeteria-style that apply to you, to ignore all the others, and then to confirm to yourself and others that you really ARE like members of that sign.

Some of the alleged traits of my sign apply to me, and some do not. There's lots to pick from.

 

[oggbashan]

The 'science' behind astrology hasn't moved over time. What were the twelve astronomical groups when astrology was first defined, have shifted with the stars and are now about ten days out. So unless you were in the middle of a star sign, you probably actually aren't what that star sign represents.

Either way, I'm still a Taurus, built like one, and like a bull, tending to rush in and destroy anything fragile.

But it's all a load of bullshit.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Horoscopes belong in the same bag with religion and similar nonsense. Yet, unlike religion, they are incredibly easy to prove as false. Then again, same as with religion, it doesn't matter how many rational and scientifically sound arguments you bring, you won't shake people's belief in it, for the simple reason that people's belief in horoscope doesn't come from logic and reason, but from the same place where believing in Toothfairies and Santa Claus comes from. Most people stop believing in the last two once they reach a certain age, yet horoscopes seem to be far more resilient

 

[SimonDoom]

Since for most of us, our educational and social system is to be built on annual cycles, I've no doubt that, statistically, it makes a difference at what part of that year you're born.

I'd be cautious about expressing "no doubt" about such things in the absence of actual evidence. What seems logical and intuitive to us, to me, doesn't count for much. Evidence matters. There might be evidence that it matters in some statistical way what month you are born, or there might not be. It seems logical to me that even if there is, whatever small influence it has is probably outweighed manyfold by other factors for most people. But then again, that's just my intuition, and it doesn't count for much either.

 

[Seadog777]

Horoscopes are bullshit. Of Course. But:

My wife, who claims that she wouldn't have got together with me if we didn't have compatible Zodiac signs, constantly surprises me with her greater-than-one-in-12 chance of guessing people's Zodiac signs.

And my character is a "typical" Gemini.

So basically horoscopes are bullshit, but I believe them. Are you a believer?

#GeminisRule

I do not believe in the nonsense of this sign is only compatible with that sign or anything else of that ilk.

 

[MrPixel]

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics!"

 

[DarkWhispers2U]

I'm a Libra born in the year of the Fire Dragon. Let's just say, I am sooo Libra when it comes to wanting peace, balance, fairness, etc. Not really as social, unreliable or idealistic as the sign suggests -- think a harsh childhood kinda smothered those as possibilities. Clever? Well, that's always arguable. LOL. Indecisive, non-confrontational, self-pitying? Hell yes! That's me for sure.

Anyway, I take what I can from that information, use it as I may and let the rest roll off my back. As a matter of fact, I've been learning more about the zodiac to help me in varying my characters.

Also, I have a nephew who is on the autism spectrum with behavior disorders thrown into the mix. His birth date says he is a Pisces and he has the creativity to prove it. However, he's a bit of a shit when it comes to treating others nicely. My husband and I are pretty much the only people he acts respectfully to. So, I took it upon myself to introduce him to the zodiac, pointing out that as a Pisces he is capable of being a compassionate, empathetic and generous person like his uncle (my brother), who is also a Pisces. Can't say the pep talk did a ton of good, but he has chilled out some in the last year.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm a Virgo, the adopted daughter of a Virgo, and I've never checked out my horrorscope in my life. I mean horoscope, but the slip of the fingers might give you an idea of what I think about them. Nothing good comes from reading what other folks think about your future. I may have a long lifeline, but my life can be cut short by any number of circumstances. In fact, fate, circumstance, natural disasters, the gods of traffic, satan, idiot people, or some disease is plotting against me right now.

 

[SimonDoom]

Wikipedia on 'Relative Age Effect'

One out of many examples you can easily find:

Cobley and Till, International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(3) 2017

This doesn't prove the point. It tends to disprove it. What it shows is that during the span of years when people tend to be going through puberty, relative age has a significant impact on participation. That seems like an intuitively obvious point, and the evidence seems to support it. But by the age of 21 the difference is almost entirely dissipated. This has nothing at all to do with the kinds of claims that are made regarding Astrology. It simply reflects that during the teenage years those within a certain sporting group who are older tend to be more developed athletes. That makes sense.

If you were to conduct further versions of this test by CHANGING the cutoff dates for participation, I imagine the results would change completely, with those born in months immediately after whatever the eligibility cutoff date is showing disproportionate participation. So what this study shows is that the chosen cutoff date is what matters, not the birth month, in terms of athletic participation. There's no reason to believe, based on this data, that birth month is intrinsically significant. The significance results from decisions that are made by society about cutoff dates for group participation.

 

[MillieDynamite]

This doesn't prove the point. It tends to disprove it. What it shows is that during the span of years when people tend to be going through puberty, relative age has a significant impact on participation. That seems like an intuitively obvious point, and the evidence seems to support it. But by the age of 21 the difference is almost entirely dissipated. This has nothing at all to do with the kinds of claims that are made regarding Astrology. It simply reflects that during the teenage years those within a certain sporting group who are older tend to be more developed athletes. That makes sense.

If you were to conduct further versions of this test by CHANGING the cutoff dates for participation, I imagine the results would change completely, with those born in months immediately after whatever the eligibility cutoff date is showing disproportionate participation. So what this study shows is that the chosen cutoff date is what matters, not the birth month, in terms of athletic participation. There's no reason to believe, based on this data, that birth month is intrinsically significant. The significance results from decisions that are made by society about cutoff dates for group participation.

Little historical trivia with some (if only just) relevance to ponder. All horses, for the purpose of registering, are born on January 1st of their birth year. A horse who folded on Jan 2, 2000, thousand is the exact age of a horse born on December 30th of, 2000, at any point in the year 2003.

Some horse owners don’t report the folding date in December but delay and state the folding date is January or February of the year following the birth year. Some really unscrupulous horse owners report horses folded in October or November as being in January or February the following year. This is done primarily for those involved in racing. It gives the 2-year-old born the prior but reported as folded the following year a size (and speed) advantage.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

My sign says, "Beware of Cougar's sharp claws." My zodiac sign is Taurus, but I'm a woman, so no bull about me.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I'm not a believer in horoscopes, but there is more to astrology than that concept alone.

Do celestial events affect human behavior?

There is empirical evidence that it just might. From solar flares to full moon cycles, psychologists, sociologists, and other scientists have been studying the influence that celestial events have on moods and behavior, both in humans and in animals. You have probably all heard that emergency rooms are frequently busier during a full moon than at other times of the month. Science knows that solar flares can affect electronics, communications, and the migration of birds and other animals. Certain planets being in retrograde are also being studied by scientists to ascertain what influence this has on animal behaviors.

The difference between these studies and tracking one's horoscope is that these are physical celestial events that science can observe as they occur and they are independent of when a person was born.

 

[oggbashan]

Like many religions, IF you believe, it will affect your behaviour.

If you don't believe, it will have no effect.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not sure what you're saying here. You think that, what happens during puberty doesn't affect the rest of people's lives? Did you only give a quick look at the figure, or did you also check out the Wiki-page? (or, heaven forbid, did you start googling yourself? By doing so you might also find other cutoff sections, like grouped by month. And not only about participating in Rugby)

I agree, it doesn't seem to back up claims 'based on Astrology', but I still have no doubt that the month in which we are born has a statistical effect on the rest of our lives; not on an individual base, but when you hit the large numbers, I'm convinced you'll see trends.

Consider it this way. A rugby league has a division for 14 year old boys. To participate, your 14th birthday must happen NO EARLIER than May 1.

Obviously, the boys born in May have an advantage. On average, at that age they are developmentally further along than those who were born in April of the following year.

And perhaps, too, it's possible that by having that advantage they may have permanent life advantages. They might know what it's like to be number 1, to be team leaders, to dominate over their peers, etc. etc. Those advantages may persist in some small statistical way throughout their lives.

But change the cutoff date to June 1, and everything changes. The June-born kids have the advantage, and the May-born kids have the disadvantage.

The advantage depends entirely upon the cutoff date, and nothing else. So the month you are born in has an impact on your life (granting the assumption) only because of the cutoff date, and not because of anything else. One cannot say that "May" kids have an advantage over "April" kids or "June" kids, or whatever. Obviously, the stars have nothing to do with it. Nor does anything else relating to that month of the year as opposed to other months of the year. It's all about the chosen cutoff date.

So, yes, there's a relative age advantage, but it exists only because of cutoff dates, and it has nothing at all to do with advantages that exist intrinsically because of the month in which you are born.

 

[TxRad]

My sign has always said "Yield."

 

[oggbashan]

That's the point; those cutoff dates are generally fixed. Because of that, it does matter in which month you are born. That's part of our system.

Any correlation with astrology is circumstantial, but I'm not aiming to defend astrology.

In my youth, I entered for an examination. The cut-off date was that you had to be between 18 and 28 on the 1st September in that year. I was 18 a few months before September so I entered. But it was a post-graduate examination. At the time, it was said you could enter every year until you were 29, so I thought, even if I failed, I would have another chance.

I was wrong. It was the last year ever of such examinations.

The pass rate was set that the first 250 candidates would be successful. I was 247. The first 50 would be appointed. The next 200 had to take a marked interview. I scored equal highest in that interview and moved from 247 to 149.

But the date had nothing to do with astrology. That entrance criterion has been set at the first such examinaton in 1870.

 

[Demiurging]

I'm still thinking about it on an epistemological level. Of course you have the Barnam effect where vague information is being interpreted based on a subject's biases, but I would argue that there's a habitual element as well.

For instance, the thought "I'm a [blank] so I should do [activity]" leading a person to try specific things and potentially discover that they gel with it. An accretion of such moments over years could be a significant factor in the formation of skills and habits. And I'm sure we all know that it's easier to keep doing something than it is to try something new.

But that would require knowledge of the stereotype, I'm well aware. I'm a Pisces but I'm only now looking up what that should mean, apparently I should be creative and introspective (sure, whatever), but also selfless and extroverted (which couldn't be further from the case). I think I was more influenced by having glasses and access to lots of scifi early on than by my sign.