posted March 15, 2012 01:21 AM            

Discuss!

posted March 15, 2012 02:56 AM            

I'm going to recreate this experiment with Pizza:
I don't like pizza, so I am going to -
1. Make a really gross pizza.
2. Put it in a box labeled "PIZZA", pump the smell of pizza into the room and ask a group of people if they like pizza.
3. When 9 out of 10 people say they like pizza, I'll feed the gross pizza to them.
4. And finally, laugh while I prove to them that their belief in pizza being delicious is idiotic!

I haven't proven that people can be tricked under the right conditions at all, I have proved pizza is gross damnit! LOL

Here is Bertram Forer's Chart in case anyone was interested (I was unable to find his birth time so the houses are likely incorrect).

posted March 15, 2012 03:45 AM            

quote:

---

The problem is, you wouldn't employ a professional architect to disprove a medical theory, so why would we look to a professional in a completely different field to disprove a topic he spent 3 min. prepping for, by browsing the newspaper?

---

Good point!

quote:

---

It proves people are capable of relating with broad generalizations (which is a bit like a test to prove dogs bark

---

Yes.. and No.

It's more difficult to be a good psychologist and put in the research to create generalisations that are broadly very relatable.... than it is to make dogs bark.

Also, the average Joe does not like this kind of mind bender. So the average Joe will read about 'the forer effect' and he will probably neither understand it nor believe it... just like the average Joe does not understand how much the media dupes him daily when it comes to the clothes he wears, the car he bought and so on....

posted March 15, 2012 04:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Betty Boop:
But to be fair.... before this was proven as a scientific theory - that average Joe would've been even *further* down in the dark... and even more hopeless.
So the experiment is not entirely pointless... (not as pointless as proving 'dogs bark')

---

Perhaps I should have said "scientists prove your dog has emotions" (an equally obvious conclusion IMO). =) hehe http://www.nzherald.co.nz/food/news/article.cfm?c_id=206&objectid=10763963

I think you raise a great point BB. We are talking about roughly 100 years of difference between Forer's time and our present world. Even our comprehension of astrology has evolved since then. Another thing to mention are the contributions made by psychologists like Jung, Gauquelin, and Rudhyar toward the validity of astrological topics. Anyone educated on these topics should easily be able make the unsuspecting skeptic choke a bit.

posted March 15, 2012 05:06 PM            

why does astrology work - resources http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=291766&postcount=12 http://www.magicalmiracles.com/astrology.htm http://www.thedreamtime.com/Astrology/Why-Astrology-Works.html http://www.thegreenduck.com/ka/astwork.shtml http://www.islandnet.com/~licht/why_astrology.htm http://www.miscellaneoustalk.com/misc/does-astrology-work/ http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2010/09/does-astrology-really-work-how/

bettyB,
"Some astrology authors seem to use the forer effect to their advantage, which is pretty 'low' in my opinion.
I think Liz Greene does this."

I don't think it's JUST lize greene, I think ALL computerised readings, are very much like this, generic, people pleasing statements...

------------------
In Astrology 2.0 forum, beginners learning astrology
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/212463.html

in Astrology 2.0 forum, What’s next for learning (intermediate)
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/212464.html

In Astrology 2.0 what’s next for learning (advanced)
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/212465.html

posted March 15, 2012 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SaggiMC:

I don't think it's JUST lize greene, I think ALL computerised readings, are very much like this, generic, people pleasing statements...

---

Exactly, they are. However, I think they are really good starting points for individuals who are just starting out with things. Nevertheless, they can easily lead a person astray just as well.

The thing is, no one is immune to the forer effect. Human naturally look for patterns and things that apply to our own personal experiences. I have been studying several personality theories for many years now (which are far less controversial then astrology is) and ran a forum that catered to one of these personality types. The forer effect was rapmant on there. That's not to say it invalidated things very much (it did for some though). Nevertheless, individuals were very often unable to see how vauge and easily appliable a description would be for some one. Additionally, the more "happy and pleasing" something is, the more apt the person would be to say it fits them.

No one, is immune to the forer effect. Myself included, I catch myself slipping into it often and I have to tell myself to back off. For a long time I felt I was "beyond it" but I am not. Not a single person is, because it is basic human behavior.

The way around this, is to allow room for high specefics for an individual. As saggi has said many times in the past, to have an accurate reading for someone, you need to look at ALL of the information present. Every last minutia, and it has to come from a real person. That way, it is specefic for a person, and not so vauge and full of counter statements that it can't be easily invalidated.

I know for many people when they first learn of the forer effect they have knee jerk reactions, and instantly think to skeptics that use this all the time. Here's the thing though, a lot of the time I think the skpetics are mostly right. There is one key thing that they are missing though. On the individual scale, this works. Many will tell you that. They'll scoff but that's their perogative.

Astrology is wishy washy, and I see people here and else where fall into classic traps with it. They see what they want to see. That's ok though because at least they are getting somewhere and learning something about themselves in the process.

Also, I am a scientist (chemist) by trade, so I approach astrology from that sort of mindset and point of view. I do try and balance and consider the fallbacks of it. It's not an infallable system but it is still very accurate from what I have seen.