/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4298739]

Hey /sci/

We now that Horoscope is bullshit, but is it?

Every general description of my sign that i read, is like someone wrote it about me, even the comic ones about the negative things are scarily accurate.

Could it be that the month of your birth and the month in which your mind is formed, as in weather, position of the planets, position of the sun, actually affects a childs mind and influences it, so that most of people born in one month would share many characteristics.

I mean it sounds logical that if actions of adults around a newborn affect it's future personality, than why wouldn't climate changes and electromagnetic fields also affect it?

[Anonymous No.4298745]

>>4298739

Sage. You're not even serious, this is just blatant trolling.

>>>/x/

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4298744]

[Anonymous No.4298748]

>>4298745

Im serious actually, you can't come up with an intelligent answer so u sage?

>>4298744

Glorious exposition comrade, im serious here

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4298760]

>>4298748
So am I.
Horoscopes are superstitious nonsense, they are not science and they are not accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

[Anonymous No.4298780]

Yes, everything in the universe affects everything else in some way, however small. That does not necessarily translate to 12 simple categories of effects. That's not even what astrology was based on, anyway.

[Anonymous No.4298783]

>>4298748
If you'd be withheld the names of the descriptions of the various horoscopes, you'd almost certainly pick the lion instead of the virgin, or whatever,

These horoscopes are vague for a reason. They have to fit to most people.

Let me test you. I'll present you with horoscopes from every sign, withholding which is which of course, and you pick the one that suits you the best. I will then tell you what sign it was, and I can guarantee you it wasn't your sign. I promise to be honest.

So, tell me your sign now.

[Anonymous No.4298784]

>>4298748
they intentionally make horoscopes general enough that it applies to nearly everyone

it's not magic and it sure as hell isn't science, it's just cheap trickery for the plebeians.

[Anonymous No.4298794]

>>4298783
Taurus

[Anonymous No.4298804]

lol i always thought horoscopes were just a game that people used to think about themselves. PEOPLE ACTUALLY FOLLOW THIS SHIT WTF?!?

[Anonymous No.4298810]

>>4298784
I read that as plesbians, and it is a word I intend to use in future.

[Anonymous No.4298839]

>>4298794
Ok. I'm going to change the text a lot so you can't google it, but the forecast will be completely as it was. Each paragraph represents a different sign. I will only show you the January forecast, as the rest is irrelevant.

Socializing, checking with your health and worries for finance. January is the month to take a break from every-day life and relax with your family.

Change is the main thing. Change in how you look to your personal environment is all going to happen this year. You will be positive about everything and this is infected to the people that you know personally.

Sharing and caring are the main things for you. You are a smart worker and you indulge in anything with much interest. You enjoy hanging out with your friends. You cannot stand betrayal and can end in hurting the person who fooled you.

This year you will come across a few painful scenarios. Don’t give up; you will have to come across this level carefully to make it less painful. You will be more rash and you will not be able to react more.

You are ready to have a steady on-going in your life in the year 2012 after the changes you went through last year. You might have to plan and work on way too many things at once. Therefore, it is good to remain focused on yourself.

xxx, prepare for a year filled with various activities and projects. You will be under the influence of Uranus, which will bring in new assignments and new hopes. Your time of repetitious things will come to an end.

Take your time. I'll be here.

[Anonymous No.4298848]

>>4298839
i believe he meant the general description of the person, not the weekly or monthly horoscope thing.

[Anonymous No.4298852]

>>4298848
Yeah, these (>>4298839) are predictions, not descriptions of personality.

[Anonymous No.4298855]

>>4298852
That doesn't matter. If you choose the wrong sign, I've demonstrated that horoscopes are false.

[Anonymous No.4298862]

>>4298855
It really does. Description of personality is a completely different thing to a prediction of what will be important in a person's life during a month.

[Anonymous No.4298866]

>>4298862
Yes, but if I demonstrate that the forecasts were false, I have demonstrated that horoscopes are false. Now, choose.

[Anonymous No.4298871]

>>4298866
Horoscopes =/= forecasts.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4298872]

>>4298855
Technically you will only have proved that this particular horoscope is inaccurate, it does not prove that all of them do not work. (Although this is the case)

[Anonymous No.4298879]

>>4298872
>you can't prove a negative, although I will believe the negative anyway

you are so not a scientist

[Anonymous No.4298932]

>>4298871
Oh shit, this is embarrassing. Let me reconstruct my answer.

1. need for giving happiness, extremist
2. lazy, romantic, good students
3. aggressive, secretive
4. individualistic, strong, glamorous relationships
5. emotional depth, falls easily in love
6. security, order, self-assurance
7. defensive, family important
8. busy, need to serve, versatile
9. never gives up, not content with current conditions
10. frankness, practicality

[Anonymous No.4298945]

>>4298932
Well, 2, 5 and 10 suit me pretty well. I'd go with 2.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4298949]

>>4298879
I am actually, and you have clearly missed the point of my post.

I was playing devils advocate and pointing out that people who do believe some horoscopes are real might only consider those that are created by someone they consider to be an 'expert' in the field, and will admit that anyone could create a horoscope that is false if they are not an expert, and would suggest that what you have disproved was created by some such amateur.

For the record, I do not believe any horoscopes work ever.

[Anonymous No.4298951]

>>4298872
Reported for woman.

[Anonymous No.4298954]

>>4298945
Taurus was #6:

http://www.ask-oracle.com/taurus-personality/

[Anonymous No.4298964]

lol cancer, oh you americans

[Anonymous No.4298965]

>>4298949
>I am actually

Good for you, but irrelevant because that post was obviously a joke.

>I was playing devils advocate and pointing out

Yes, it was clear what you were pointing out, and you were correct.

>For the record, I do not believe any horoscopes work ever.

For the record, your beliefs don't matter.

[Anonymous No.4298981]

>>4298954
Ok, so right from the first sentence of that webpage you linked to, it says that Taureans are IN NEED OF, whereas the way you presented it suggested that those things were the already present personality characteristics of Taureans.

I admire your attempt to do this kind of thing publicly and off the cuff like this, but you were sloppy.

[Anonymous No.4298992]

>>4298981
No sign description has an "in need of" prefix, so it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.4298998]

>>4298981
Also: I didn't present it that way. If I did, it'd be:

secure, ordered, self-assured

[Anonymous No.4299010]

>>4298964
Use of horoscopes and similar cosmic predictive nonsense is not limited to Americans at all. Have you actually been to Earth?

[Anonymous No.4299013]

>>4298992
Oh dear god, you're an idiot. The difference between NEEDS and HAS is HUGE. A personality which is naturally extroverted is completely different than one which needs lots of social contact. Those descriptions say two entirely different things.

Stop making excuses for sloppy work.

>>4298998
So does number 7 need to be defensive? Need their family to be important to them?

You'd make a terrible researcher. You present things inconsistently and ignore the importance of vital linguistic cues. THIS IS WHY NO ONE TAKES YOU SERIOUSLY WHEN YOU PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[Anonymous No.4299017]

[Anonymous No.4299037]

>>4299013
Wow, you're already making ad-hominems. Means I'm close to bringing you down. Notice the way in which I present the information.

1. need for giving happiness, extremist
2. lazy, romantic, good students
3. aggressive, secretive
4. individualistic, strong, glamorous relationships
5. emotional depth, falls easily in love
6. security, order, self-assurance
7. defensive, family important
8. busy, need to serve, versatile
9. never gives up, not content with current conditions
10. frankness, practicality

If you had reading comprehension, you'd notice that:

1. a) _need_ for giving happiness, b) extremIST, they ARE extremists.
2. They ARE lazy, ARE romantic, ARE good students
3. They ARE aggressive, they ARE secretive
4. They ARE individualistic, strong, glamorous
5. They HAVE emotional depth, and fall easily in love
6. What on earth is this? These words don't directly indicate your personality, as these words aren't adjectives like the rest.
7. Again, defensIVE.
8. Again, busy. BEING busy, adjective. Not Business.
9. Not applicable
10. Not applicable

I'm sorry man. You can't excuse your way out of this, I proved you wrong.

[Anonymous No.4299043]

>>4299017
And you'd need data that shows that OKCupid's matching algorithm routinely produces good matches before that would matter.

>>4299037
You suck at science. Sorry. This should have been an easy home run for you, but you blew it, and you can't even admit you were sloppy or see what's wrong with your work. You make /sci/ look bad. Really, really bad.

[Anonymous No.4299050]

>>4299043
(I'm not going to mention the fact you believe in horoscopes, okay, yes I am) Seems like you won't listen to reason. Ok. I'll try another approach.

I'm the capricorn, and #9, which is the capricorn, doesn't apply to me. I'd choose 3, 2 or 10 over 9 anyday.

There, horoscopes don't work.

[sage No.4299053]

>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4299055]

>>4299050
>I'm not going to mention the fact you believe in horoscopes

I don't, generally. I'm not OP, I'm just some random guy who wanted to see how you'd handle this experiment. I am very disappointed.

>Seems like you won't listen to reason

I can't, since you're not providing any.

[Anonymous No.4299066]

>>4299055
Sigh, you weren't OP then. What a complete waste of time.

I do know that I made a mistake, but I wouldn't admit it to a horoscope believer. I always admit it my mistakes humbly, except in cases where I deal with people such as these.

[Anonymous No.4299075]

>>4299043
>And you'd need data that shows that OKCupid's matching algorithm routinely produces good matches before that would matter.


K, here's general effectiveness, and here's a correlation to well accepted cultural differences.

If Astrology mattered at all, you would see an actual pattern. It's complete absence suggests it is bunk.

[Anonymous No.4299077]

>>4299066
>I do know that I made a mistake, but I wouldn't admit it to a horoscope believer.

So you admit to being intellectually dishonest? What a complete waste of time.

Also, I do believe in astrology and horoscopes, I just don't think pop astrology is genuine. So thanks for admitting your mistake to one of "those people".

[Anonymous No.4299089]

>>4299077
Aha, well, this should be interesting. Please explain why you think astrology and horoscopes are not folly.

I know beforehand you can't, I'd just like to see that you can't.

[Anonymous No.4299091]

>>4299077
Also, please explain >>4299075
that is really bizarre if astrology and horoscopes are correct.

[Anonymous No.4299096]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

[Anonymous No.4299102]

>>4299075
Continuing with my theme of pointing out the flaws in your argument, reply rate is nowhere near independent of match percentage, since match% influences which profiles the sender sees, how confident the sender will be that the recipient will consider them, and how the recipient actually considers them. Especially on a dating site, where there are all sorts of questions about sexual mores and drug use being asked, seeing a low percentage match rating is a clear influential antagonist. I'm not saying that OKC doesn't match people well, I'm saying your data doesn't show that they do.

The second data set is much better.

But seriously, none of you debunker types in this thread belong anywhere near serious psychological research.

[Anonymous No.4299115]

>>4299089
>I know beforehand you can't, I'd just like to see that you can't.

Cool. Enjoy your smug confirmation bias.

[Anonymous No.4299123]

>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096
>>4299096

[Anonymous No.4299157]

Here's my theory.

A child starts talking and walking around 12 months. It varies a lot, but the majority start between 10 and 14 months.
Now, in areas of the world without extreme seasons, like the Mediterranean (ironically, where the first version of astrology arose), this doesn't matter much. No matter what time of year a baby starts walking, all the babies are going to have the same experience.
But in areas where there are sharply different seasons -- like northern Europe or much of North America -- it is going to have a big effect on what you experience.
If you start walking in April, then you're going to have a lot of early experiences of walking outdoors -- on grass, on sand, running around long distances with no barriers. Then, as the next winter closes in, your walking is going to become more and more restricted.
If you start walking in November, then a lot of your early experiences of walking are going to be indoors, on carpets, to and from furniture, in a warm house with family members. When you go outside, you're probably going to be just dressed up in warm clothes and dumped in the car to go somewhere else where you're inside. Then, as spring and summer arrive, your walking experiences are going to be more and more outside and unrestricted.
What exact, precise effect could this have? I dunno, but I'm willing to believe that it has some effect on some people.

Captcha: turesev Spring.,

[Anonymous No.4299179]

>>4299157
Not just that, but a lot of other things that are season specific. Like the amount of sun the baby gets. Maybe Vitamin D levels affect personality development during certain months of a baby's first year etc.

[Anonymous No.4299184]

>>4299157
That's not unreasonable.