13 ms·

Speaking of stereotypes, if anyone takes astrology seriously, I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them

• roenxi 3y ago
  Although broadly agreeing, it seems relevant that most people are irrational on most topics. I would expect belief in astrology to correlate negatively with beliefs that require systemic thinking but it is impolite to dismiss intelligent discussion with someone before testing them directly and making an effort to figure out what their strongest topics are.
• varjag 3y ago
  There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Not saying you're not entitled in disregarding astrology believers but the cut-off point is completely arbitrary and dare I say irrational.
  • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I would argue that astrology is in principle testable and it should be able to make concrete predictions. Obviously, popular astrology uses such woolly terms that all of the predictions can be interpreted as accurate to the believer. However, the few times that anyone has tried to verify astrological predictions, it's turned out to be false. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-30007-001
    • varjag 3y ago
      If we get into this territory all major religions struggle as well. Petty gods from the canon somehow fail to deliver unambiguous punishment for clearly worded insults. The outrage over Bible or Quran burnings is largely driven by the demonstrated impotence of the deity rather than the sacrilege itself. The stories themselves are completely bonkers and self-contradicting in many aspects. But I guess ignoring all religious people in the world is simply impractical.
      • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        I can't think of any religions that make any clear predictions, so they're not even wrong (as opposed to astrology which is clearly wrong). So-called punishments are typically enacted in some other realm (e.g. after-life, rebirth into a lower form etc) which leads to some experimental problems in verifying the claims. I disagree about your interpretation of burning of religious books - surely that's more to do with people getting angry about their beliefs and culture being deliberately insulted. Burning a flag doesn't get people angry because of the impotence of whatever grouping the flag represents - it's because it's a direct insult to the people who value what the flag represents.
        • xvedejas 3y ago
          In college a Christian friend readily gave "evidence" of predictions in the bible as reason why he believes that religion. I think a lot of religious people do think there are clear predictions. I wish I remembered his examples (which I found uninteresting at the time) — I think one was a prediction of an invasion of Tyre?
          • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
            The problem with a lot of historical predictions is that they were too vague to be useful i.e. could someone armed with a bible have known enough about an invasion of Tyre to make a bet with someone before it happened? e.g. I bet they get invaded in the next two weeks. Predictions of that nature are usually just re-interpretations based on knowledge after the fact.
  • valianteffort 3y ago
    I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. These things are intertwined afterall. It would be interesting to gather data that could make assertions about someone based on when they were born. However it's clear other things have a far grater impact on someones development, like whether they have a father, financial situation, etc.
    • InitialLastName 3y ago
      > I'm sure on some level, the position of the earth, moon, sun, and planets has some effect on all life. Ask any (mostly pre-industrial) farmer or sailor: the positions of the sun and the moon are profoundly influential to their day-to-day lives. Even I, an urban, post-industrial home office laborer make meaningful changes to my activities depending on whether the sun is in the sky.
  • machina_ex_deus 3y ago
    To me there is an a huge difference. I can accept religions, which are adding axioms that aren't falsifiable, and that are usually taught to a person when he is a child. And religions had their roles in shaping society for good. I can accept conspiracy theories and disbelieving the known consensus. I just can't accept a person who, in the age where we know exactly how planets move and what they are, decided to believe they have correlation with psychology. It's the worst. It shows the person doesn't even try to connect cause and effect in a meaningful way, and in astrology this is all there is to it. No epistemology. No logic. It's one thing to believe in unfalsifiable things, and another to believe in falsifiable things that we fully understand and have no causual relationship.
    • varjag 3y ago
      I feel it's more of a personal background issue. Do you really have objection with planets effects on personality but at the same time feel turning water into wine is plausible in the slightest? To a raised atheist all religions are not far removed from belief in Santa Claus. But to someone with religious people in the family cutting them off may come not as natural as of strangers with astrology brain.
      • throw0101a 3y ago
        Or how about the sun dancing around the sky? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
        • skrblr 3y ago
          On the page you have linked, there is a section titled "Skeptical explanations," which contains explanations of the event that are both plausible and satisfying. If you stare at the sun for a while you're going to see some weird stuff. Don't try it at home.
      • Footkerchief 3y ago
        Saying water/wine happened exactly once 2000 years ago is much harder to falsify than claiming a present, ongoing, and universal correlation between planetary bodies and psychology.
  • throw0101a 3y ago
    > There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Some of the world's religions can start off from a basis of logic: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
    • rcme 3y ago
      How is this not bigger news? He actually proved God exists???
      • 4gotunameagain 3y ago
        Because it is impossible to prove such thing. All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation.
        • throw0101a 3y ago
          > All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation. No, they do not. Aristotle's Argument from 'Motion': 1. Some things in the world are changing. (Observation) 2. Whatever is changing is being changed by another.[1] (Lemma 1) 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of instrumental changers.[2] (Lemma 2) 4. Therefore, there must be a changer that is not itself being changed by another. * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...
          • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
            I'm not clear on the meaning of 2 and how would it apply to something such as atomic decay? Who would be the "another" that causes an atom to decay?
            • throw0101a 3y ago
              See perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay": * https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radioactive-decay.html https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio...
  • hardlianotion 3y ago
    One of those world religions being the irrational belief in the power of science.
    • johnnyworker 3y ago
      > It is not the greatest of modern scientists who feel most sure that the object, stripped of its qualitative properties and reduced to mere quantity, is wholly real. Little scientists, and little unscientific followers of science, may think so. The great minds know very well that the object, so treated, is an artificial abstraction, that something of its reality has been lost. -- C.S. Lewis
      • vacuity 3y ago
        Tell that to the "little unscientific followers of science". They really need to hear it.
    • commonlisp94 3y ago
      Not only science itself, but humanity being a grand progression of scientific progress leading to our year 2023.
      • kergonath 3y ago
        You’re reading more than he wrote. Science is an abstraction, a model of our world that we use to make prediction. It is true that the model is not the world, but it is also true that we have made unquestionable progress in our models and understanding of the reality we inhabit. We just can predict and explain a lot more than we could a century ago.
        • yadingus 3y ago
          We can also harm and destroy a lot more than we could a century ago.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • rcme 3y ago
    How is believing in religion rational?
    • flkenosad 3y ago
      Is it not rational to partake in activities which make one feel good?
      • ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Not if those activities end up causing harm to yourself or others. e.g. drugs can make you feel good, but is it rational to keep taking them until you are addicted?
      • rcme 3y ago
        Yes, “X is true because it feels good to believe so” is not a rational basis for belief. Most people act rationally and irrationally. So you can hold an irrational belief, i.e. that your religion is the One True Religion, and then take rational actions like going to church based on that irrational belief.
    • throw0101a 3y ago
      > How is believing in religion rational? By having personal experience(s) of things that cannot be explained in any other way? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun By employing one's sense of logic? * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
      • gochi 3y ago
        There's an entire explanation section on that link, I don't know why you're using it as proof that "it cannot be explained in any other way". Choosing to believe something happened is one thing, choosing to believe that is undeniably attributed to a larger power is an added layer that isn't rational at all. You are misusing logic in the same way. You are disconnecting it from its value in order to justify a belief in a larger power. This is neither logical or rational. The entire idea that religion is rational or logical is one that's been pushed since the late enlightenment era upon realizing that you cannot control others through religion unless they believe that you are operating rationally on behalf of a larger power. This is the trick. It's very effective!
  • taylorius 3y ago
    At least the world's great religions have a track record of acting as a code of conduct that helps to build and grow societies and nations. Astrology - not so much.
    • varjag 3y ago
      Let me put it this way, their track record is mixed on that.
      • ajmurmann 3y ago
        It seems many improvements to our world view and value system had to be pushed through against the pushback of religion. IMO the value of religion is to have a forcing function to enforce consensus around certain norms without renegotiating them every generation which is hard since it exceeds the capacity and willingness of much of society.
  • swayvil 3y ago
    Take away the experiments, mess up the models a bit, throw in a little Harry Potter fan-fiction, and even Physics would look like Astrology.
  • lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    That is simply false. The first problem is the word "religion", which, in common usage, is as if we were talking about different flavors of ice cream, and the atheist or "unbeliever" is some version of someone who simply doesn't like ice cream. Man is a religious animal in the sense that, as a rational animal, he must worship something he takes to be the highest good. The question is never "do I worship something" but "what do I worship" and "is what I worship the proper object of worship to which I owe worship". How do you know? Well, as in all cases, if no rational defense can be made of the claims of a religion, then there is no rational basis for giving our assent to those claims. So the question is: can a rational defense be made? Too often, people lazily assume such a defense cannot be made of any religion in principle. They simply take it for granted that that is the case. So, if we interpret astrology as something explanatory, and there is no strong rational basis for it, then that means it is unlike those religious traditions that are rationally defensible. If astrology is a practical art, specifically, if it makes predictions based on some correlation between the positions of the stars and planets and whatever else, and this correlation happens to hold, then astrology is a more or less predictive model. (The "whatever else" also matter, as you could call the science of tides a kind of natural astrology because the moon does in fact have an effect on the tides.) (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm
    • varjag 3y ago
      Astrology makes its predictions in a vague and personally flattering way as to overwhelm critical facilities. This is not very different in how religion uses the language of threats and social coercion to deliver doctrine over one's senses. In both cases it's a defeat of rationality (and sorry I dismiss your whole first paragraph as sophistry). > (FWIW, the Catholic Church rejects astrology, not as some "competing" doctrine, but as a pseudo-science and a superstition [0].) Russian Orthodox church also rejects astrology as a superstition, or rather manifestation of paganism which is a competing doctrine. It also blesses missiles with holy water.
    • gilbetron 3y ago
      You diluted "religion" into something basically like "belief". Religion is the belief in some supernatural power (and, I would add, that requires faith because there is no evidence). Believing in ideas, in "highest good" is not religion, although religions include them as part of their dogma.
  • lnxg33k1 3y ago
    No qualitative difference but a huge substantial difference, you are born to believe in a religion, its 24/7 in television, in school, in politicians talk, its much harder to protect yourself from religions than it is to stay away from astrology, astrology is a thing you pick up, religion is served/forced upon you from the day you’re born, when you swear in court you swear to god not to sagitter
    • varjag 3y ago
      How many people who believe in astrology but are not otherwise spiritual/religious have you ever met?
  • Georgelemental 3y ago
    I read a survey once (can't find it now) that measured people's belief in astrology vs religious convictions. Committed atheists were least likely to believe in astrology, but committed religious people (go to church every Sunday, etc) were close behind. Most likely to believe in astrology were agnostics and the weakly religious.
    • kergonath 3y ago
      I would like to see the survey, but what you say is not really surprising (which is why it would be interesting to check, of course).
  • briandear 3y ago
    “Thou shall not kill” is far different than “Capricorns love bunnies!”
  • satvikpendem 3y ago
    By going to your logical conclusion, perhaps we should not accept any of the world's religions then either, given that they are also arbitrary. Just because many are old and have many followers does not give them credence over astrology.
    • varjag 3y ago
      I mean, sure? Fine by me.
  • ravenstine 3y ago
    There is a lot of overlap, but there's also a big difference. In my experience, when you get an individual in the right setting, there's a high likelihood you can get them to admit doubt in the reality of their own religion, upon which they may also state that they still "choose to believe" anyway because their religion gives them both a moral framework and a community. Astrologists are usually the opposite. They start out by telling you something like "I don't know if I believe in any of it, but I find it interesting." However, upon further conversation revealing more mystical thinking, it becomes apparent that they do believe to at least a fair extent, but are just too embarrassed to reveal their belief until they know you won't act judgmental towards them. On the face of it, yes, religions are (from my understanding) largely made up of beliefs that are just as non-scientific as astrology. The escape hatch that religions have is that they are founded on a question that is largely unprovable. What astrology is based on is a fraudulent attempt at answering questions through what should be demonstrable mechanisms, and it doesn't matter whether facts disprove every single assertion in front of their very own eyes. Hell, at least religions have largely managed to change their views on the age of the Earth and whether dinosaurs existed, even if they still get aspects of those facts wrong. Astrology doesn't adapt to new information at all. For those reasons, I see Astrology, unlike most other religions, as a black hole of belief. If someone believes in it, I really do feel sorry for them, and I also have no interest in having a conversation with someone that irrational. Even flat-earthers, whose beliefs are just about as dumb as that of Astrology, are more interesting to talk to and will at least be able to display flawed reasoning. Astrology is about as irrational as it gets, and people whom I've known who believe in it usually are either set in their ways or are extremely gullible that you can convince them of practically anything. Sorry, but the average religious scholar is at least 1000% smarter than Astrologists. I try to be even handed with everything, but I can't here. Astrology is just a trap. EDIT: Another difference between Astrology and other theological beliefs is that it is not based on faith. Astrologists, once they've been convinced there's something to it, usually lack sufficient doubt. Having faith means admitting that one doesn't know for sure. In that sense, there is a certain rationality to a religion like Christianity, even if I don't think that god exists in reality. Most astrologists only speak in uncertainty because they don't want to be judged for believing something so unreasonable. It's not because they know what they don't know; they actually think that they know. Just try the next time you have a conversation with someone who says they believe in any form of Astrology; the more you talk to them, the more they will reveal their certainty. And yes, there are plenty of religious people who think they know the truth with certainty, but chances are they don't understand their own religion if that's how they think, and true belief doesn't really describe the majority of people. Most religious people have faith, if they aren't just going along with the song and dance.
  • rayiner 3y ago
    Most secular researchers agree that Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, etc., were real historical figures, so that’s a qualitative difference. Moreover, there are entire civilizations built on those belief systems—including the one you live in. Comparing those civilizations is an empirical basis for comparing the underlying belief systems.
    • gochi 3y ago
      Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. We wouldn't have created anything more than mud huts if we were to rely on adhering to belief systems. You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress.
      • skissane 3y ago
        > Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. Islamic civilisation would have never existed without Islam the religion. Even if we suppose the Arabs might have expanded into an empire under someone other than Muhammad, the end result would have looked very different. Islam was the glue that held together an empire composed of many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, tribes; without Islam, they would not have had that glue. > You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress. The first few thousand years of human civilisations were all about power and control. They did a perfectly good job of pushing the then-existent limits of humanity despite lacking individualism. It is only as we get into the modern period that individualism began to produce real benefits (new ideas, science, technology); but without that earlier anti-individualism, it would never have had the economic foundation it needed to produce those benefits. Even in the modern period, the benefits of individualism have mainly been something pursued by the upper and middle classes, economically sustained by the exploitation of the working class and by colonialism. We also really don't know what the future holds. The religious fundamentalism of the Puritans led to the founding of the English colony of Massachusetts; maybe decades or centuries from now, religious fundamentalists will end up playing a major role in colonising our solar system – they may have motivations to establish colonies that secular people lack.
  • pxc 3y ago
    > There is no qualitative difference between belief in astrology and any of the world's religions. Religion pretty much always involves beliefs that are as easy to problematize epistemologically as astrology is, but there are real differences in the kinds of people who are into astrology or neopaganism and the kinds of people who are Catholics. When a religion is established and dominant, a lot of people engage with it in a detached way just because it's expected of them. They 'believe' essentially by default. They submit themselves to certain absurd beliefs as part of the tradition, but not all of them (e.g., the existence and presence of demons, for many Christians) are operative in their lives. People who participate in religions in that way can be very rational in a slightly strange way, with exceptions carved out just for religion. I don't see this with 'serious' (i.e., metaphysical realism about the supernatural) belief in woo, at least among people like that in my life.
• nirui 3y ago
  Well, I also do similar kind of judgement. I.e. if someone is seriously religious, flat earth believing or ghost worshiping etc, then I would just assume they... have many things to left learn. But often as I encountered it, some individual is also too cute to be treated rudely. This is a bit of dilemma, really. Because if you share what you've learned, then no matter how respectful you tried to make it look, they might still switch to defense mode and spoil the feelings. So, the real question is, if a really cute girl that you like smiling in front of you, and she asks your "star type" (or "constellation"), what would you really do at that spot? (BTW, you probably don't want to answer G, because I guess it's not hot enough. I'll try A next time)
  • dtx1 3y ago
    > Well, I also do similar kind of judgement. I.e. if someone is seriously religious, flat earth believing or ghost worshiping etc, then I would just assume they... have many things to left learn. Yeah that's all dandy until they refuse to learn things because it's against doctrine, start restricting your bodily autonomy and freedoms and ultimately make learning things that disprove their illusions punishable.
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    Reframing mundane life as sexual social fantasies is about on par with astrology imo
  • rollo 3y ago
    > So, the real question is, if a really cute girl that you like smiling in front of you, and she asks your "star type" (or "constellation"), what would you really do at that spot? That's an oxymoron because stupidity is never cute. If she appeared cute before saying that, she certainly wouldn't after.
    • acuozzo 3y ago
      > That's an oxymoron because stupidity is never cute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pceDfPLf2hw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pceDfPLf2hw Note: This is not an endorsement. It is just a pedantic refutation of your claim.
• roadrunna 3y ago
  Especially young people are still developing, learning, evolving and it is quite normal to be convinced of x and "practice it" until one realizes that the application of x never yields positive results or opens one up to manipulation. In fact, lies and liars can build convincing games and keep you hooked until the day you die. When it comes to astrology, theory and practice are rather simple. Here's the hyper light version: Once upon a time, civilized communities were small, the gene pool was not yet diverse. "P" identified patterns and created narratives around these patterns. Children were parented and socialized using these narratives and so it seemed like these patterns were indeed natural occurrences. "V" didn't like the pattern her child was supposedly born under and raised it differently. Naturally, the child broke the patterns and the narrative. "Only" the children, who grew up close to "V" or her children kept diverging. Even today, people raise their children under certain narratives, with certain convictions, following patterns in thought, speech and actions. For some of those, more than enough actually, astrology actually hits bullseye more often than not. Some people crave the same kind of "higher order". It's story telling, neuro-linguistic programming, socialization, marketing, rationality with bogus, unverifiable premises. The logic is sound until people decide to diverge from the norm, opening themselves up to all the variety in the reality outside the walled garden.
• jb1991 3y ago
  > I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them seriously There are a lot of people who are highly regarded in history but who also believed in astrology, so you shouldn't be too hard on it. Do you feel similarly about people who believe in various religions? These people believed in astrology to varying degrees: Winston Churchill J.P. Morgan Nancy Reagan Theodore Roosevelt (even displayed his horoscope in the Oval Office) This is just a small sample.
  • Footkerchief 3y ago
    Source on Winston Churchill?
    • jb1991 3y ago
      I just dug into it further and it's rather interesting. TLDR Churchill did not personally believe in astrology, but he did in fact use astrologers as part of his political and military planning on several occasions, but not for the reasons it at first seems. He knew his opponents often believed quite a bit in astrology, so he used astrologers as a way to better understand what and when his opponents might move, often with effective results. Fascinating. Thanks for the prompt to look into this more.
  • confidantlake 3y ago
    One of those people is not like the others.
    • jb1991 3y ago
      It’s true, Nancy is the only woman in the group.
  • kergonath 3y ago
    Smart people believe a lot of stupid things. It’s not realistic to expect them to be perfect in all aspects of their lives, particularly if they have no background in epistemology or science in general. I mean, Jobs was obviously smart, and yet believed in all sorts of new age and alternative medicine bollocks. This should be enough of a proof that you can be smart and believe stupid things.
• coldtea 3y ago
  >Speaking of stereotypes, if anyone takes astrology seriously, I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them seriously. Doesn't that speak more about you than about them?Highly intelligence (IQ wise) people have also been into astrology (and alchemy, magic, etc.). Not just in the time of Newton (an avid follower of the above), but in our times too. >I can tolerate conspiracy theories, or aliens, or whacky religions, but astrology is just so dumb. That's a quite crude model of what's rational. Something doesn't have to follow physics to have utility (I mean, utility beyond "making astrologers money"). A less crude epistemology would focus on what makes astrology resilient and widespread throughout several millenia, and what kind of purposes it might serve, as opposed to focusing on whether its compatible with hard sciences, or the knee-jerk reaction that "it's because people are stupid". I'm not much for astrology (I barely know my sign), but I've read a couple of posts about it, and there's something to be said for not jumping to conclusions about a phenomenon with a complex history. Here's, for example, a classic failure in criticizing astrology that I've read about somewhere: many "rationalists" make fun of astrology's claim that we're supposed to be influenced by the stars, since (the argument goes) their gravity pull is too low to matter, besides the moon would influence many orders of magnitudes more. But astrology doesn't claim that the stars influence us through gravity. It speaks about influence on the astral plane (which is some kind of different dimension), not through some mechanistic principle. And, of course, astrology is so much older than the discovery of gravity, that "rationalists" making this argument must not know history, or maybe just had a temporary brain fart in making that argument. I'd say astrology is not that far removed from religion (which you say accept or tolerate). I also found this interesting note on astrology on a "metaphysical" blog: "Before we go on, it’s probably necessary to note a few points that may come as a surprise to some of my rationalist readers. Yes, I know about the precession of the equinoxes; astrologers discovered the precession of the equinoxes. (Where did you think all that talk about the Age of Aquarius comes from?) Yes, I know that the constellation Aries is no longer in the 30° wedge of the ecliptic that astrologers call the zodiacal sign Aries. (Signs are not constellations and constellations are not signs; every beginner’s textbook of astrology explains that.) Yes, I know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa; astrologers use the geocentric positions of the planets because we live on the Earth, not the Sun. (It’s the planetary positions relative to where you are that matter in astrology.) Finally, yes, I know that nobody knows how astrology works; so? It’s a thumping logical fallacy to insist that an effect can’t happen just because the cause isn’t known".
• soufron 3y ago
  Well, what do you make with people who go to church every week? That's a hell lot of people. And you certainly have your own set of beliefs that are also well beyond rationality. You would be better inspired to let them have their fun with what they want to believe.
  • vacuity 3y ago
    You're certainly correct that everyone has beliefs beyond rationality. The notion of "live and let live" is less reasonable when it involves controversial topics such as how induced abortions or rapes are treated. A multitude of moralities can lead to people feeling like they just can't live their lives without ensuring the "other" won't quash them. Maybe they're right on a given case, or maybe they're wrong. There's conflict all the same.
• glimshe 3y ago
  You can "tolerate" aliens? Alien life has a very high chance of existing - according to many scientists, more likely than it not existing. Alien intelligence less so, but still quite likely to exist. I find your take on people who believe in Astrology condescending. I know intelligent and accomplished people who believe in Astrology. The explanation is very simple: they simply didn't think it through and keep checking Astrology predictions because they find them entertaining.
  • pedrosorio 3y ago
    > find them entertaining I also find them entertaining. That doesn’t mean I believe them. > The explanation is very simple: they simply didn't think it through Something I rely on to predict the future is the kind of thing I would want to think through. That’s particularly hard to believe of “intelligent people” when checking that it’s nonsense takes very little effort. There may be an education-intelligence gap that explains why astrology is not evidently false to those people though.
    • glimshe 3y ago
      Intelligence is multi faceted. You can be an excellent lawyer yet not stop to think about whether Astrology is falsifiable and what were the results of experiments that tested it. It can be fun in the sense that it appears useful and uplifting. Not every intelligent and capable person is a rationalist. I'd say that normal people reflect little about truths, instead relying on feelings and word of mouth. It got us to survive all the way to 2023, it's not such a terrible approach.
      • vacuity 3y ago
        In the US: Pizzagate? Jan 6 Capitol riot? I'm not sure the whole "go with your gut, bro" thing is working out. Tribalism, confirmation bias, fundamental attribution error, etc. are real obstacles to understanding each other and having a big world of content people.
    • yadingus 3y ago
      I'd not be surprised if people who are extremely intolerant of astrology have much lower emotional intelligence than people who believe in astrology. Astrology's biggest role is drawing a map of how people relate to each other, it's not primarily about making claims of the physical world.
• atlantic 3y ago
  About a third of Newton's surviving manuscripts deal with physics. The rest deals with esoteric biblical exegesis and alchemy. Just another dumbo, I guess.
  • suslik 3y ago
    Not a dumbo, but such a massive waste of talent. Nobody would care to remember Newton's name if that wasn't for his work in physics. T. Acquinas is a another example - an extremely intelligent person who wasted his life on a word salad that can now be generated using chat GPT.
    • atlantic 3y ago
      "Word salad" - I can't understand it, so surely it's meaningless.
    • tomjakubowski 3y ago
      If you think Summa is word salad, then what makes you consider him extremely intelligent?
  • marcosdumay 3y ago
    The birth of physics was very interesting. It was full of people discussing how the heavens and Earth follow the same rules while in one room, and then doing astrological predictions to pay the bills in another room.
• paganel 3y ago
  > I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, You sound like a Taurus. Let people enjoy things, the general socio-economic situation is already as shitty as one could imagine, asking people to be rational 100% of the time, with no beliefs, no nothing, is just a sign of socio-economic privilege.
  • machina_ex_deus 3y ago
    Another failed prediction for the astrology here. Not the it's going to shake your beliefs in it. That's our difference I guess. When I'm wrong it's something I strive to fix, but when you're wrong, what do you do? So believing random wrong things is something you do because you enjoy it? I believe things because I think they might be true, and you believe things because you enjoy believing them ? What an alien (to me) epistemology. So what do I need to do, convince you that thinking rationally is even more fun? Try reading Harry Potter and the methods of rationality. Or doing math. And how is socio economic related to this? You're ironically just proving me right.
    • yadingus 3y ago
      The belief that you're a completely rational being is irrational in itself. If that's the belief you hold about yourself I guarantee you can find a friend or acquaintance who can point out contradictory and irrational behavior of yours.
• FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Jokes on you, humans aren't rational, and are no better than GPT. Just because some people are GPT2, and some are GPT4, both are parrots. Now what?
• safety1st 3y ago
  I don't believe in astrology either, but frankly, this sort of zealous hyper-rationality is a great way to die alone. Like someone who's not into astrology will overhear you and the word that will get around will be "Don't invite that guy to parties, he is not fun." You will reap far better dividends from just taking people as they are and trying to find the best in them. Which is the most rational thing to do is it not?
  • booleandilemma 3y ago
    Ah yes, the "tolerate astrology or else women won't have sex with you" argument.
    • yadingus 3y ago
      I think it's more "tolerate other people's harmless views". After all, science has undeniably caused more harm to the world than the belief in astrology.
      • booleandilemma 3y ago
        Give me a break. Science has also saved far more lives than astrology ever has or ever will.
  • kergonath 3y ago
    > Don't invite that guy to parties, he is not fun I have been bored to death by flat earthers at parties before. If that’s their takeaway message, then so be it. There are many interesting people to meet everywhere anyway.
• BobbyJo 3y ago
  I am personally ok with someone believing in astrology provided they are aware that it is hooey. It's fine to want some magic in the world, and to choose to believe in something that is obvious nonsense for the fun of it. I personally choose to believe in UFOs, remote viewing, ghosts, and all manner of omen, just because it makes the world feel a little more mysterious in my every day life. Yes, there is plenty of rational magic in physics and materialism, but none that I can encounter on a dark camping trip, or staying in a spooky house. Nonsense can be fun!
• mekoka 3y ago
  The conditioned response that you're talking about is typical in a culture where we're taught to trust in science. I'm not saying that anyone should believe in astrology (I don't), but having spent the last few years looking into a number of topics similarly treated as esoterica, my understanding is that we're often unaware that science as a discipline is not dogmatic in what is possible. But human bias is probably its weakest element. How it has historically impeded our ability to understand certain phenomena (and continues to do so today), combined with our amazing ability to forget how wrong we can be, has convinced me that being open minded is not just politeness, but an imperative for anyone who wants to truly understand what's going on. Most of what we think we know as individuals is actually just a set of beliefs (often never tested) to which we heuristically assign some probability of truth. When you really start to dig yourself, you often discover that scientists, like any humans, are not immune to religiosity. They believe some thing is possible, or that some other thing is not. Those beliefs tend to color how the research is done. It also seeps into the culture of a society that has learned to so overly rely on "what the science says", that what it remains silent about is mistaken as untruths. Research must start with a hunch, a belief. But beliefs are often consensual and if the consensus is strong, it can be very difficult for a competing theory to hint at a possible different direction, even with supporting evidence. Our history books are full of examples. We set out to study a misunderstood phenomenon, but because there is a strong consensual belief that it must have certain properties, we approach our explorations with those premises as established truths. When we get stuck, we have to wait for an entire generation to die off to reorient the research (as Max Planck remarked). Having observed the above in my own diggings into certain topics that (luckily) have some scientific documented intersects, I'm now reeducating myself to have less of the conditioned response of taking my own beliefs (e.g. astrology is probably BS) too seriously, when evaluating people's intelligence if they believe the opposite.
  • AlexandrB 3y ago
    The most fundamental element of science is not today's body of understanding, but the process with which we arrived at that knowledge. A process that generally recognizes human fallibility and how easy it is for us to trick ourselves. So yes, a lot of the stuff we think we know today might be wrong, but the point of science is continuous refinement and trying to eliminate the biases you mentioned. Applying the process of science to astrology causes the whole edifice to quickly crumble[1], that's why it can be dismissed out of hand. Not just because of what we think we know about the universe. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYm_0AGMHIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYm_0AGMHIg
• RajT88 3y ago
  I used to date a gal who was really into astrology and all manner of new agey stuff. I was crazy about her, but it would never have worked out. The number of dumb arguments just about astrology was high.
• ke88y 3y ago
  > If a person's logic and epistemology lead to him believing in astrology > I can tolerate conspiracy theories, or aliens, or whacky religions, but astrology is just so dumb. To be honest, I find your epistemological lapse even more confusing than believers in astrology. There's no significant epistemological difference between eg astrological claims and religious claims. You don't even have to limit yourself "whacky" religions; any of the mainstream ones will do.
• mistermann 3y ago
  If you review the assertions in your comment, do you consider yourself good (or better) at epistemology and rationality, on an absolute scale?
• goodbyesf 3y ago
  > I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them seriously... I can't see an intelligent person ever falling for it. Some of the smartest people we know, who gave us modern astronomy - Galileo, Kepler, et al - were into astrology.
• RetpolineDrama 3y ago
  >Speaking of stereotypes, if anyone takes astrology seriously I agree. One potential rub though is the time of year you're born impacts your relative age to your peers when entering school. This absolutely _would_ shift things subtly, but it has nothing to do with star patterns.
• Enginerrrd 3y ago
  I mean, I get what you're saying, but it's not totally unreasonable to me that your relative age compared to peers in your school grade cohort could lead to correlated personality traits. I would expect a tremendous amount of noise, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a signal in that. Astrology sign is an information preserving transformation on relative age to within a couple months of precision.
• CuriouslyC 3y ago
  Not a believer in astrology, but it's not insane to think that there are cyclical processes in the universe that influence people and events which are correlated (without causation) to other cyclical processes in the universe. Flat earthers on the other hand are just insane.
• SeriousStorm 3y ago
  I was born into a cult adjacent / high-demand religion and then left in my mid-thirties. There are a lot of people who are extremely intelligent but have a corner of their world-view (religious beliefs, etc) that completely contradict the other rational areas of their beliefs. I think it's much more helpful to consider their beliefs in this area irrational or illogical rather than assume that this lack of logic applies universally to all of their knowledge. Every single human that has ever lived has, at one point in time or another, held beliefs that are illogical and irrational. And nearly all of us still do hold such beliefs.
• RichardCA 3y ago
  Astrology is important to the extent that it represents the history of Astronomy. If someone can correctly explain the difference between the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiac, that requires a certain level of knowledge and skill. I've been to planetarium shows where the presenter goes out of their way to debunk Astrology and it's usually the argument that the constellations don't line up with the Zodiac. But that lecturer must not understand the Ptolemaic Model and it's role in history, or knows it but fails to explain it because they are patronizing and condescending to their audience. The thing that really annoys me are TV shows like "Indian Matchmaker" where they bring in a so-called Astrologer who can't even explain whether he uses the Western or the Vedic system. That's just insulting.
  • WorldMaker 3y ago
    That lecturer may not even need to know or care about the Ptolemaic Model. It is interesting history, but it isn't relevant to modern day science. It's a bit like being angry at a chemistry lecturer for not wanting to discuss any old Phlogiston Model or use the alchemical signs for Oxygen or Mercury when he has a perfectly nice, modern and up-to-date Periodic Table right next to him. Which is also a fun comparison to make because the astrology symbols for planets directly relate to the old useless and outdated alchemical signs. So yes, Astrology has some relevant historic interest, but it's so far detached from modern science that I think it is almost weird to bring up in that sort of context.
    • RichardCA 3y ago
      I grew up watching the Project Universe show on PBS. It was hosted by Ed Krupp, no one is a more tireless Astronomy educator than he is, and he knew a lot about Archeoastronomy (to the point of writing books that are primary references). There is nothing weird in it. It's still available but all that's left are VHS transfers: https://youtu.be/EoBEruyOnSo https://youtu.be/EoBEruyOnSo I guess what I'm really "on" about is how someone can visit a place like Stonehenge, and appreciate the precision of the ancient calendar systems, without being accused of supporting Bronze Age Druidism. But for some reason Astrology is held in a different category, subject to a special kind of opprobrium. I find that interesting in itself. Also - Full Disclosure - I used to have fun with the "Astrolog" software for Linux and even wrote an XScreenSaver integration for it. It was just a way to have fun and break the ice with people. It's a well maintained project that's been around since the Web 1.0 days. You know, when it was easier to have quirky interests without being called out to explain yourself. Cheers. :) https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm https://github.com/CruiserOne/Astrolog https://github.com/CruiserOne/Astrolog
• pxc 3y ago
  > If a person's logic and epistemology lead to him believing in astrology, I don't think this happens to anyone, in this day and age. Belief in astrology is driven by aesthetics, romanticism, and maybe an initially detached engagement with the practice that yields positive results. But people who take astrology seriously don't reason their way into it. Probably everyone adopts unreasoned beliefs, of course. We don't explicitly think through every single idea that is or seems to be operative in our behavior. But in my experience, extremely intuitive people (who also tend to be spiritual, religious, of into some other form of woo) also tend not to filter or sanity check their intuitions by thinking them through explicitly. (Obviously anyone can do that, and everyone does sometimes. Some people just do it less often.) And they're also more likely to (explicitly) hold onto beliefs that they can logically acknowledge they have good reasons to doubt. They know they're something wrong with the belief, but their thought which identifies something wrong with it is subordinate to the feeling that something is essentially right about it. That feeling can and will shift, but usually in response to processes that are mostly invisible, or in response to direct experience. People like this aren't stupid, imo, even though being close to them definitely involves moments where 'they're so stupid!' feels like the easiest way to write off frustrating behavior or communication problems. Generally, intuition-forward people do manage to live reasonably coherent lives and don't do dangerously irrational things. They're just extremely frustrating to communicate with for people on the opposite end of the spectrum, and not often directly responsive to rational appeals. I have a few people like this in my life and they all have a lot of wonderful qualities. I'm glad they're in my life. But like you, I'm pretty confident that people like that would be bad fits for me as life partners, or even roommates.
• JohnFen 3y ago
  > I automatically assume they are not intelligent, irrational, and I find it impossible to take them seriously. You shouldn't, though. Belief in astrology is certainly irrational, but it's not incompatible with being intelligent. In fact, the more intelligent a person is, the higher the chance that they have at least some irrational belief, because it takes intelligence to weave together a plausible-sounding chain of reasoning for why the belief is true. Broadly, belief in irrational things such as this are highly correlated with people being insecure, afraid, and/or feeling that they have little control over their lives. You can see the correlation in populations between how insecure the population is and belief in this sort of thing. So, don't look at it as indicative of intelligence. It's an emotional/social thing, not a brainy thing.
• ddgflorida 3y ago
  Based on experience, highly intelligent people can and do believe in things that are absurd.