Well, of course ! Everyone Knows it’s written in blood type and eye color !
Oh because mars are is much logical.
And good luck getting anything resembling analysis from a moon child.
If zodiac signs were really meaningful, we’d never have to ASK “what’s your sign”, we’d KNOW after a few minutes of talking to them. (Of course, the real reason behind asking “hey, baby, what’s your sign?” is to AVOID having to say anything meaningful….)
While I’m sure you’re being humorous, this virgo-libra has to point out he knows several people who have a high degree of accuracy in identifying peoples’ zodiac signs with out knowing their natal information. Of course it does require excellent observation skills and an in-depth knowledge of astrology; neither are common talents.
Uh, is that people’s zodiac signs according to the conventional old labeling of dates, or according to the actual star signs aligned with the sun when people were born (which are off by about one sign due to the earth’s precession, a fact that astrologers conveniently ignore)?
If you do know people who have real ability to identify people’s star signs, I suggest you contact the James Randi Educational Foundation (randi.org) because they will pay out USD $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural abilities. It’d be a shame not to take them up on their offer!
People who are actually clued on what they do, do have adjusted tables (and usually computer software these days) for progressions, there are also several different systems used to calculate a chart.
Yes I refer to Natal and daily charts. The ones in the paper (kinda “casual” signs are loosely based on peoples’ sun sign (which constellation the sun was in at the time) and ignores much of the actually important detail. But people who get direction from that kind of prediction are seldom clued up/analytical enough to handle real natal/daily charts (and often bug the hell out of the more professional astrologers. (eg whats me today, whats me tomorrow, will I get a job, will someone notice me, will I become rich and powerful by doing nothing oneday…. advice: go out the door and find out).
Your comments re:Randi.
It appears you may the type who prefers superstition or rumour over research and science. Have you actually ever researched what Randi does, and why?
He interviews people. But only if they’re been in the media/reported previously (ie have some sort of media presence). He sifts through looking for people to debunk and then puts them on his TV show. He has already had quite a few people doing some basic telekinetic and other psychic stuff but it’s low key (moving paper in sealed jars etc). But they’re not “TV worthy” so they don’t “qualify”.
So if you research what he does, and who qualifies, you’ll notice he’s not willing to pay $1M for “supernatural abilities”, he’s willing to dangle a carnival showpiece “prize” to bring in suckers to put on his TV show. Sad but true.
I’m very familiar with the Randi challenge, and I’ve met Randi and some of the other staff at the JREF who work with it. What you described bears no resemblance to the challenge. (Nor has there been a “TV show” for a long time).
The JREF staff works with the claimant to devise a test under controlled conditions that the claimant agrees is a fair test of their abilities, and that the JREF is satisfied eliminates the possibility of cheating, and the problem of confirmation bias. It’s a two-phase test, one at a local level to determine if there really might be some “paranormal” ability present, and then, if the first level is passed, a final challenge for the million. So far, no one has ever managed to pass the first phase. And many of the claimants are surprised at how their “psychic” powers seem to vanish when things are set up so that people can’t cheat or fool themselves.
The Randi foundation would love to really find someone who can pass the test. Finding an honest-to-goodness psychic or dowser or aura reader would be a huge news story. So far, all they’ve found is charlatans and crackpots.
Dear Ubi, you say “no TV show” then go on with “would be a huge news story”.
I have looked into it twice, and seen for myself some of the criteria; talked with people who have been on the show and who have been turned away. Yes most are kidding themselves, & I dont bother with self important or media hog cheats.
And I do appreciate that what was the sheer volume of the responses does need some form of vetting process.
However, it was clear that those selected at the were for public screening value, and from the setup of some of the conditions that the vetting people didn’t seem to understand what they were measuring, setting systems that were detrimental to the actual work (a parallel would be asking an engineer to build a radio, then giving them a bunch of fruit to do it with, and then failing them because it won’t sent pictures.)
Now I do sympathise that many practitioners and hopefuls actually have no idea what they are doing, or have technical expertise in what is going on…. however that itself is part of the process (re: “magical thinking”). Also I doubt many of them have operated in a cold environment (ie one which has no supportive free energy) and wouldn’t know what or how to deal with that. But did the processes involved take that into account? None of what I saw or read revealed any awareness of the effect of observers on the phenomena under study!
As for “paranormal”, as I’ve stated several times, and is the standard line you’ll get from any real practitioners “there is nothing ‘para-normal’ going on. There is stuff which doesn’t have direct/traceable causality, stuff which shouldn’t happen but reliably does, a lot of synchronicity, often higher levels of information than should occur. But that’s pretty much the point, it’s not necessarily understand stuff, but in it’s own way, it’s natural phenomena.
eg a friend of mine can cause 0.5v fluctuations in a steady circuit. Its been tested, repeatable, and doesn’t involve physical or inductive connection. However this is ruled out as a phenomena as there might be electromagnetic or bioelectric involvement. Whereas, this is not “normal”, nor is the medium particularly traceable – but the tester [not JREF] decided it might be a body connection thing and insisted on insulation of the person and placing metal plates between them. The person was rather upset at the denial, found the insulation chair distracting, and the whole process off putting. Because the effect failed to appear under the altered circumstances, she was dismissed as a fraud. I have yet to see the reviewers manage to repeat the initial process with themselves, and my friend can still do the up to 0.5v thing – but doesn’t seem to be able to manage it so well when insulated from earth. I’ve since lost contact with her so, unable to explore the phenomena further.
I’m keen to do more testing myself, but finding people who have the magical/psychic skills AND the level of examination WITHOUT falling prey to lay expectations – and who aren’t more interested in getting followers or doing their own work… very hard.
part of my point there: re my friend. Is she would have never have thought to test herself insulated from the earth (being a very nature and earth huggy type) and would have never seen a reason to put metal plates (oven dishes IIRC) better her and the circuit!
She would practice and play with the effect to get good at it, but you don’t deliberately de-tune a violin when you practice, or put a bag on your head when going to a sports match to see if it’s the same experience. And these things count when personal emotion and psychological/mental focus are part of the process.
No surprise… It’s been a while no reply from Ubi.
Ok Ubi. If your words were true (the JREF folks are so keen to find someone) then why do the practioners have to be _published_ in a formal study or public media before they can apply??
That can be proven by just checking the site for the rules (as opposed to our opinions which are just web opinion)
That means its media whores or science types that get previously disqualified by dodgy experiments (as mentioned earlier).
Also you claim “devise a test which is fair…that the claimant agrees”. Having spoken with some of those who applied, and been recorded on tv several times myself (for other things). The “claimant agrees” is more like the shoehorning one gets at a job review. Claimants are often told their claim will be denied if it isn’t done a certain way so do it or else be disqualified. Often the claimant is rushed to fit to other peoples’ schedules or is considered ‘talent’ (those who have been in a TV show recording will know what I mean). Often the experiments proposed are done so by people who understand very little about what they’re studying and who will not see the differences and difficulties point out to them (a parallel would be trying to prove radio transmission works, and the experimenter demanding to see pictures – yes pictures -can- be sent (agreement, y’see) but it’s much much harder than a tone or audio signal – but the experimenter refuses to accept less than their own photo as “proof”). so you end up with a HAM enthusiast, rapidly trying to set up SlowScan TV gear outside the area of their expertise – while the tester is getting more and more impatient and negative. (and that negativity does affect the experiment – in the HAM metaphor, it’s like trying to setup the SlowScan TV while someone keeps hiding the parts).
The experimenters do not set up success, then test from there.They go from their bias, then make things harder to establish failure. (Often disavowing acceptance when some proof is found – to use the HAM metaphor, the radio picks up a local station; the claimant says there’s some music; the experimenters are “well that’s not -our- signal” it is obviously already existing randomly so it doesn’t count,)
I don’t believe in horoscopes – but then that’s typical for a Capricorn, we tend to be sceptics.
Why Magical Thinking works for some people — http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=superstitions-can-make-you
REad hte article before Fabio, but here’s an important business thought, from someone who does practice magic and alchemy:
The “magic ball”/”lucky pen” type of thought when done on a group, there are some people for whom it works the opposite! Now considering a lot of this stuff is powered by the subconscious and unconscious, just what does that reversal tell you about that persons inner drives. And you can bet, when things start to move companywise they’ll always be out of step; and if there’s anyone in the group who this just go wrong for… guess who it’ll happen to…
Good to know when hiring.
Mist, I would love to hear more about what kind of magic and alchemy you practice and with what results. If you’re willing, email me at nfq at noforbiddenquestions dot com.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could find out how much supernatural hoodoo people buy into before hiring them, and use that to gauge their analytical prowess? Sigh. In a perfect world…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids that…
Yes, and as an atheist I’m glad of it. But I still wish we lived in a world where saying “I believe that unicorns are real” or “I believe in talking snakes” or “I believe that there is a giant invisible man watching everybody have sex and he has strong opinions about it” was fair game to consider in a job applicant.
I get where you’re coming from, but if it means that you can’t be discriminated against for being an atheist, I think it’s okay that you can’t discriminate against people for being Christians, or Hindus, or believing in astrology or whatever.
Which begs the question — why do people want to work in groups that *would* discriminate against them if they could? And a step further: do you want to work with people that are ruled by anything, be it logic or Jupiter? Who do you prefer — someone that plays with the idea of horoscopes, instead of taking it far too seriously, or someone that worships logic and certainty and is unable to see the limited applicability of logic in an universe that may very well be beyond any given human’s capacity to reason?
We all discriminate. For example, that is the point of a job interview, to discriminate in favor of the employee with more intelligence, experience, and general ability to do the job. I’d just say that there are some jobs where discrimination on the basis of logic or lack thereof may be perfectly reasonable. For example, if I was having my brain operated on I’d prefer an atheist to a homeopath. That is all.
” or “I believe that there is a giant invisible man ” – NFQ
Oh I totally agree about the analytical prowess; then people like yourself would be able to spot their own Strawman fallacies (and their usual “Moving Goalpost” fallacies on their own, without others having to do it for them.
eg: The number of “Science”(tm) believers, who reject Alchemy – when they have never studied or observed alchemy, let alone tested it (and described it’s requirements and limits). No… someone they know or a book they read, mentioned a very poor inaccurate idea about what it might be, then based their assumptions on that judgement – often without exploring the source, accuracy or origins of the opinion. Even the religious types require a “validation from a position of authority” to act as a check on their accepted claims.
Actually NFQ : here’s an open challenge for you since you public declare yourself an atheist.
I -can- prove the exist of god.
First however before you test it: Find me the true Scotsman.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar
©2009-2014 Stuart Ritchie | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑