Aeisx.134
net.misc
utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!mhtsa!rabbit!npois!eiss!eisx!ggw
Mon Mar 1 09:47:37 1982
Astrology digest:V.1 No.1
As promised, here is a digest of the replys received as of the
time this was submitted.
-------------------------------------
>From mhtsa!ucbvax!decvax!yale-comix!bj Thu Feb 25 13:47:22 1982
Subject: Horoscopes
I have had a partial horoscope done (as part of an interesting class).
It only considered the house and the sign each planet was in at the
time of my birth - one out of 12^18 combinations. Several of the
paragraphs were good partial descriptions, and the overall view
was also good. One paragraph in particular pointed out to an aspect
of myself I had not noticed before.
I say it was partial because it did not take into account the conjunctions
between the planets. There is one close conjunction and I would like to
study my horoscope more.
The thing that impressed me the most was some examples of the effect of the
conjunctions between the natal signs and the current signs. The instructor
looked at his book and at the current locations and asked "does anyone have
planet x in house y". Someone responded affermative and the teacher
said "have you been having problems the last few weeks?". When the student
said how terrible she had felt recently the teacher read a paragraph saying
that the configuration meant that this would likely be the most trying month
of her life and described the type of mental problems she was having.
The making of a horoscope in the correct manner involves many details. They
may not totally agree - the overall effect if the end result. They do not
claim to be perfect - heredity and environment may have an effect that is
much greater than the horoscope. But if there are no "exceptional" conditions,
they may affect your personality and the path of your life. The individual
paragraphs can be quite vague - they each apply to 1/12 th of the population.
They often say x will affect y - but specify a wide range of affects could
have. 18 paragraphs which each apply to 1/12 of the population can sketch
quite well.
This, of course, is only if you believe them. I do not, but what I know about
them is enough to prevent me from rejecting them. I believe in magic and the
power of the mind and even use it - but not much more than most people do.
Horoscopes deserve study. There are a lot of fakes (as with anything).
If you can get a horoscope done correctly, take a look at it. You may learn
something from it but be prepared to critize it. Do not be afraid to look for
something that is not right and do not convince yourself that you have
personality trait x just because the stars say so.
B.J. (decvax!yale-comix!bj)
-------------------------------------
From: eiss!npois!houxi!houxn!govern Wed Feb 24 15:44:19 1982
Re Astrology:
See This month (+-2)'s Scientific American -- Doug Hofstadter's
column. Also, an interesting study was reported in Psych. Today several
years back, titled, (~~) The P.T.Barnum Effect, which found that the accuracy
of a horoscope was correlated very strongly with the amount of information
obtained from the subject -- even though (not told to subject) that information
was totally ignored. All subjects were given the same well-written horoscope.
Also, try and find out two things from your astrologers:
1) How they take stellar information and get personal information from it.
2) What mechanism, if any, do they assume causes the relation between the two?
--- gravity waves? Underlying unity to the universe? whatever?
You might try asking the astrologer to make future-oriented predictions of
a *specific* nature, put them away somewhere unread, and compare them
several months later with a diary. Ask for info like: good days, bad days,
major events. Try chi-squared when comparing.
Regards; Bill Stewart FJ 1C-112 npois!houxn!govern
-------------------------------------
>From ucbvax!decvax!ittvax!sii!drd Wed Feb 24 23:48:12 1982
If you were doing a real test you would have given an analysis done
the same way but for someone else to see if some independent observer
would also agree that it described you.
-David Dick (decvax!ittvax!sii!drd)
-------------------------------------
>From mhtsa!ucbvax!halbert Wed Feb 24 20:10:16 1982
Subject: apparent accuracy of horoscopes
For an example of a how a description of you can be made to sound extremely
precise, without anything being known about you, I suggest you look at
Doug Hofstader's "Metamagical Themas" column in the February (I think)
Scientific American. --Dan
-------------------------------------
[ Thanks also to:
- Glenn Golden (ihnss!houxg!lime!glenn)
- Martin Minow ( ucbvax!decvax!minow )
for this reference to Doug Hoffstader's excellent column.
(Which I had read.)
]
-------------------------------------
>From harpo!uwvax!wel Thu Feb 25 00:08:20 1982
Subject: astrology
For some good examinations of astrology, look at various back issues of
"The Skeptical Inquirer", the quarterly magazine of the CSICP (Committee for
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). Your local
library should carry it; if not, I'd be happy to send you their address.
The fundamental lessons of astrology, palm reading, biorhythms, and many other
forms of "character reading" are:
1) There are many traits that people assume are highly individual and yet
turn out to be part of nearly everyone's assessments of self and friends. A
classic study generated a single character description from a library of phrases
from astrological predictions, distributed many copies in a plausible setting,
and found that a large majority of the recipients judged they'd been given
accurate and highly personal assessments of their positive and negative traits.
2) People usually decide that mildly negative judgements about matters
they don't regard as essential are very likely to be true and very unlikely to
be given impersonally, especially if mixed in with personal-sounding favorable
comments. (Based on my careful reading of your horoscope, I can see that you
do have a good sense of humor, but it's clear that you sometimes take things
too seriously.) Apparently, most of us believe that only an honest person or an
accurate test would say anything unfavorable: "if they wanted me to believe
them, they'd flatter me."
3) Most of us do not have carefully worked out images of our friends or
even very definite notions about our own characters and feelings. We tend
instead to adopt opinions that are persuasively presented as being our own
judgements. If I tell you that I know you worry too much about something,
the odds are that you will agree, especially when I reveal that this something
is either financial or concerning someone close to you... I'll pick either
choice - without telling you there is any choice to be made here - and say it
confidently. For further validation, you can check with your friends: if they
know you well, they'll agree I really understand you. But don't worry: even
though you tend to put off doing important things, when you really have to
you can buckle down and get them done. Still, you should be more prudent with
your money....
Happy stars,
Will Leland
(ucbvax!uwvax!wel or wel@uwisc)
-------------------------------------
>From ucbvax!decvax!utzoo!henry Sun Feb 28 15:57:17 1982
Subject: astrological descriptions
Have you ever read Kamman and Marks' "The Psychology of the Psychic"?
Highly recommended. One of the things they point out is that when
people are fed a description of themselves, supposedly custom-tailored
to them, which actually says nothing and says it very well (vague,
general, widely-applicable statements, including some that would be
contradictory to each other if they weren't so vague), 100% of people
agree that this is an excellent description of them and shows considerable
insight into their personality. "Cold reading" (telling a person things
about themselves while actually knowing nothing at all about them) is a
skilled art that can seem positively awesome if one does not realize the
techniques involved. Be wary; remember that fooling people is very
lucrative, many people are very good at it, and it takes an expert to
spot the tricks.
-------------------------------------
Thanks to all for responding.
Not stated in my original blurb, are the qualifications of the
reviewer. The person is trained in clinical psychology, and a student
(as it turns out) of astrological/tarot/etc... character readings.
The analysis was done using a placidian house system, and based
upon the Rosicrutian "Simplified Scientific" ephemeris. Full details
can be made available.
Admittedly, caution must be taken when dealing with Astrology and
other character analysis/prognostication methods; however, I am more
interested in other's experiences with them than in the background techniques.
As B.J. pointed out, there are many factors in a well cast natal horoscope
that, in combination, could be very specific.
In your experience, are they?
Thanks, and keep on writing.
Greg Woodbury
(harpo!npois!eiss!eisx!ggw)
-------------------------------------
[End of Astrology Digest]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
