posted April 15, 2010 11:09 AM         

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

A Different Mind Is Not A Deficient Mind.

posted April 15, 2010 12:02 PM         

Fuzzy logic is a valuable tool with astrology, and especially in regards to orbs. Nature isn't going to abide by our rules and can play things fast and loose whenever she wants. So, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...

posted April 15, 2010 12:11 PM         

5 degrees????

That's the maximum orb that I use in ecliptic longitude and Right Ascension.

I don't know.

If you use very wide orbs like that, then anything can work.

The Forer Effect can easily be argued.

Very wide orbs seem to show a lack of discipline and much subjectivity which many critics argue that Astrology is based on.

if you can use 5 degrees for the declinations, then it would be logical to use a 25 degree orb for ecliptic longitude and Right Ascension aspects. 5 degree is 5 times the maximum orb that is usually used for declination. I use a 5 degree maximum orb for ecliptic longitude and Right Ascension, and so 25 degree orb.

Of course, I wouldn't use any of those orbs. Aspects would be all over the place, and it would be hard to read the chart.

I am starting to think that maybe Astrology works because of Forer Effect.

Forer effect

The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer (1914-2000) found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality.

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate.

In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign. The Forer effect seems to explain, in part at least, why so many people think that pseudosciences "work". Astrology, astrotherapy, biorhythms, cartomancy, chiromancy, the enneagram, fortune telling, graphology, rumpology, etc., seem to work because they seem to provide accurate personality analyses. Scientific studies of these pseudosciences demonstrate that they are not valid personality assessment tools, yet each has many satisfied customers who are convinced they are accurate.

The most common explanations given to account for the Forer effect are in terms of hope, wishful thinking, vanity and the tendency to try to make sense out of experience, though Forer's own explanation was in terms of human gullibility. People tend to accept claims about themselves in proportion to their desire that the claims be true rather than in proportion to the empirical accuracy of the claims as measured by some non-subjective standard. We tend to accept questionable, even false statements about ourselves, if we deem them positive or flattering enough. We will often give very liberal interpretations to vague or inconsistent claims about ourselves in order to make sense out of the claims. Subjects who seek counseling from psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, mind readers, graphologists, etc., will often ignore false or questionable claims and, in many cases, by their own words or actions, will provide most of the information they erroneously attribute to a pseudoscientific counselor. Many such subjects often feel their counselors have provided them with profound and personal information. Such subjective validation, however, is of little scientific value.

Psychologist Barry Beyerstein believes that "hope and uncertainty evoke powerful psychological processes that keep all occult and pseudoscientific character readers in business." We are constantly trying "to make sense out of the barrage of disconnected information we face daily" and "we become so good at filling in to make a reasonable scenario out of disjointed input that we sometimes make sense out of nonsense." We will often fill in the blanks and provide a coherent picture of what we hear and see, even though a careful examination of the evidence would reveal that the data is vague, confusing, obscure, inconsistent and even unintelligible. Psychic mediums, for example, will often ask so many disconnected and ambiguous questions in rapid succession that they give the impression of having access to personal knowledge about their subjects. In fact, the psychic need not have any insights into the subject's personal life; for, the subject will willingly and unknowingly provide all the associations and validations needed. Psychics are aided in this process by using cold reading techniques.

David Marks and Richard Kamman argue that

once a belief or expectation is found, especially one that resolves uncomfortable uncertainty, it biases the observer to notice new information that confirms the belief, and to discount evidence to the contrary. This self-perpetuating mechanism consolidates the original error and builds up an overconfidence in which the arguments of opponents are seen as too fragmentary to undo the adopted belief.

Having a pseudoscientific counselor go over a character assessment with a client is wrought with snares that can easily lead the most well intentioned of persons into error and delusion.

Barry Beyerstein suggests the following test to determine whether the apparent validity of the pseudosciences mentioned above might not be due to the Forer effect, confirmation bias, or other psychological factors. (Note: the proposed test also uses subjective or personal validation and is not intended to test the accuracy of any personality assessment tool, but rather is intended to counteract the tendency to self-deception about such matters.)

…a proper test would first have readings done for a large number of clients and then remove the names from the profiles (coding them so they could later be matched to their rightful owners). After all clients had read all of the anonymous personality sketches, each would be asked to pick the one that described him or her best. If the reader has actually included enough uniquely pertinent material, members of the group, on average, should be able to exceed chance in choosing their own from the pile.

Beyerstein notes that "no occult or pseudoscientific character reading method…has successfully passed such a test."

The Forer effect, however, only partially explains why so many people accept as accurate occult and pseudoscientific character assessment procedures. Cold reading, communal reinforcement, and selective thinking also underlie these delusions. Also, it should be admitted that while many of the assessment claims in a pseudoscientific reading are vague and general, some are specific. Some of those that are specific actually apply to large numbers of people and some, by chance, will be accurate descriptions of a select few. A certain number of specific assessment claims should be expected by chance.

There have been numerous studies done on the Forer effect. Dickson and Kelly have examined many of these studies and concluded that overall there is significant support for the general claim that Forer profiles are generally perceived to be accurate by subjects in the studies. Furthermore, there is an increased acceptance of the profile if it is labeled "for you". Favorable assessments are "more readily accepted as accurate descriptions of subjects' personalities than unfavorable" ones. But unfavorable claims are "more readily accepted when delivered by people with high perceived status than low perceived status." It has also been found that subjects can generally distinguish between statements that are accurate (but would be so for large numbers of people) and those that are unique (accurate for them but not applicable to most people). There is also some evidence that personality variables such as neuroticism, need for approval, and authoritarianism are positively related to belief in Forer-like profiles. Unfortunately, most Forer studies have been done only on college students. http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

posted April 15, 2010 12:29 PM         

Just kidding.

But really, I do not trust any "expertise" that is completely based on subjective feeling. Because we can explain ANYTHING with that kind of argument. I don`t doubt that the feeling is there; but maybe it is not this special wideorbed aspect that reflects your experience.

posted April 15, 2010 12:41 PM         

I agree.

That's why I think Forer Effect can easily be argued.

Man...approaches like this don't help with the subjectivity that's already accused of us by critics of Astrology.

Stuff like this adds fuel to their arguments.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

A Different Mind Is Not A Deficient Mind.

posted April 15, 2010 12:46 PM         

"Man...approaches like this don't help with the subjectivity that's already accused of us by critics of Astrology."
Exactly.

posted April 15, 2010 04:11 PM         

GeoCosmic has said in the past that sometimes wider degrees can apply...if the client FEELS them, then why not? If the shoe fits, wear it.
I don't think this is subjective so much as individual.

If I have a wide Mars/Pluto opposition for instance and I feel it, are you seriously going to tell me that because it's too wide, I am not feeling it? lol. You could tell me it's something else, but you might also be wrong. Maybe I am feeling it.
Astrology can be rather esoteric and arguing with how a person grasps or feels something is completely weird to me.
We're not talking about chemistry here or something like 'facts'... astrology is not even something which has been fully explored yet, so attempting to instill rules like this is rather odd.

posted April 15, 2010 04:19 PM         

I see astrology as a science.

EDIT:

If there are no rules that apply, why doing astrology at all? Then it`s all arbitrary.

For the wide orbed aspects - Robert Hand suggests that the reason why it still is experienced is that a midpoint picture is existent.

I have checked several charts of people I knew. And so far it seems he was absolutely right. In the cases when people showed traits that were reflecting these wideorbed aspects, there was always a direct midpointpicture (or indirect one through squar) involved, at very close orb.
In other cases where the same wideorbed aspect existed without people exhibiting these particular traits, there was no such midpoint picture.

posted April 15, 2010 04:36 PM         

well

there can be alternative explanations for why people identify with wide Pluto aspects.

1. There are many transneptunian objects in our solar system. Pluto is not alone in the transneptunian region which was previously thought until the discovery of 1992 QB1 in 1992 which is also the same year that Pholus was discovered which lead to conclusion that there were other centaurs like Chiron in the solar system. Those centaurs number over 60 now. Over 1,000 transneptunian objects have been discovered, and at least 70 meet the criteria for Plutoid (transneptunian dwarf planet) which Pluto,Makemake,Haumea,and Eris are classed as.

people that identify with wide orbed Pluto aspects might be having aspects involving other transneptunian objects...some might be aspecting the planet that they think Pluto is aspecting.

for example
I have Sun contraparallel Pluto with 45 minutes of arc which I feel is too wide now.
I have Sun contraparallel transneptunian dwarf planet candidate/plutino,Orcus with 1 minute of arc.
I have Sun conjunct transneptunian dwarf planet candidate/plutino,Ixion with 5 minutes of arc.
I have Sun conjunct Quaoar with 2'58 orb (1'47 in Right Ascension)
I have Sun oppose Sedna with 44 minutes of arc in Right Ascension.
I even have Sun closely oppose the heliocentric,geocentric Eris Nodes.

Both Ixion and Orcus are plutinos,and so they have 3:2 orbital resonance with Pluto. That's why astronomers named them after Underworld characters. It's a rule for astronomers to have plutinos after Underworld characters. Their orbital periods are only a few years different from Pluto.

2. Pluto and other transneptunian objects tend to have significant difference between ecliptic longitude and Right Ascension which is the equatorial longitude coordinate that astronomers use to locate objects. They don't find objects with ecliptic longitude observation.

for example
in my chart

Pluto in 0'51 Libra
trine Midheaven in 11'14 Gemini

in Right Ascension:
Pluto in 7'10 Libra
Midheaven/Imum Coeli in 9'40 Gemini/Sagittarius

Pluto and Midheaven are in actual trine less than 3 degrees in Right Ascension, and that's probably the reason why I probably identified with it in the Astrological Psychoanalysis that Liz Greene created with her very wide aspect orbs.

3. the wide orb Pluto aspect could actually be part of a midpoint configuration

for example

a person might think that they can relate to Mercury conjunct Pluto, but they could be having Mercury conjuncting the midpoint of Sun and Pluto which are not in aspect to each other. I have something similar.

4. Forer Effect

shrugs
Maybe Astrology really doesn't work like we think it does. Maybe all of it is Forer effect. Maybe we are fooling ourselves.

I have already grown skeptical of Mainstream Astrology.

Too much Astrology is subjective and can easily be questioned and debated.

That's why it's even dismissed by the scientific community.

It can be argued that Astrology is like a religion. Many people in Astrology don't agree with what works in Astrology. Critics of Astrology point that out.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

posted April 15, 2010 04:38 PM         

But there need to be guidelines or we will delude ourselves.
Or even if not, if there are no guidelines, how could we even interprete other people`s charts?
If all and nothing could be true, we can never make reliable interpretations.
Of course we still can find a bit of truth through our intuition.
But well, that actually reminds me of the astrologers on TV, where people call their numbers, and you can see and listen how they apply just a little bit of psychology, utilizing informations they have gotten in the short talk they had through phone. Everyone could have told the caller the same. It is nothing, that is specifically connected to their charts.

Of course we can do it that way, but then it would be more honest to just listen to someone and give t hem advice without pretending to have seen anything in the tarot cards or the charts.

I am not saying that this is what you or anyone here is doing. I just see the risk that it can detoriate into something like this.

posted April 15, 2010 04:54 PM         

I view it as a metaphysical science. I guess that's the same. I believe the delineation of a chart is an art.

Astrology is a science in that is largely based on the use of physical objects in the sky. Most Western Astrologers use the objects that astronomers discovered. Astrology is based on mathematics which is a branch of science for Mathematics are used to calculate the positions of the heavenly bodies. Aspects are based on mathematics because they are geometrical angles. The Ephemeris would not be possible without Astronomers recording the positions,movements of objects.

The astrologers don't even use the same coordinates that the astronomers use to locate objects. Astronomers locate objects by using Right Ascension and Declination. Astrologers use the ecliptic longitude.

"But there need to be guidelines or we will delude ourselves.
Or even if not, if there are no guidelines, how could we even interprete other people`s charts?
If all and nothing could be true, we can never make reliable interpretations.
Of course we still can find a bit of truth through our intuition.
But well, that actually reminds me of the astrologers on TV, where people call their numbers, and you can see and listen how they apply just a little bit of psychology, utilizing informations they have gotten in the short talk they had through phone. Everyone could have told the caller the same. It is nothing, that is specifically connected to their charts."

Exactly.

Cold Reading.

There is also the Forer Effect aka Barnum Effect.

"Of course we can do it that way, but then it would be more honest to just listen to someone and give t hem advice without pretending to have seen anything in the tarot cards or the charts."

I agree.

"I am not saying that this is what you or anyone here is doing. I just see the risk that it can detoriate into something like this."

I am in agreement. That's been deteriorating into something throughout the years.

Look how some astrologers swear that the use of hypothetical transneptunian objects work even though they haven't even been discovered by astronomers. People "discover" these objects because they don't see any logical explanation for them based on what's already in the chart. BTW..these objects were devised before Pluto's fellow transneptunian objects were discovered. None of them are the uranian astrology objects. Futhermore, their orbits are totally unnatural. They are perfectly circular. Planets tend to orbit elliptically. Objects like Pluto,Eris,and Chiron tend to have highly elliptical orbits.

Many Vedic Astrologers accuse us Western Astrologers as being undisciplined too with all our numerous ways of looking at chart including the use of objects that orbit beyond Saturn.

They believe that they can find the same things without the use of transSaturnian objects. The same arguments Mainstream Western Astrologers use against using Asteroids in Astrology.

I think an astrological system needs to have some structure and discipline as well as be consistent with certain rules.

However, I do believe that Astrology evolves. The proof is how most Mainstream Astrologers use Uranus,Neptune,and Pluto which weren't used by the ancient astrologers.

If anything, Mainstream Astrology is what could be referred to as New Age. It's not like the classical,traditional astrological systems.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

posted April 15, 2010 04:54 PM         

Gluacus:
"It can be argued that Astrology is like a religion. "

posted April 16, 2010 04:17 AM         

view addtl tables pdf