Weening a friend off a little superstition... but how?

[komencanto]

OK, here´s the situation. I have a Spanish teacher here in Spain who is a lovely women, in her early thirties and we get on well. Overall intelligent nice person.
However, yesterday she made some comment about how she was Capricornio and is stubborn and strongwilled (because of it?). At first I thought she was joking, but it turns out she really does believe that the horoscope determines your personality (not always) but in some cases. It always shocks me how many people fall for this.... anyway...

The reason is that she has met someone who she got on really well with and had a similar personality and when she asked her if she was capricornio it turns out that.... yes, she was. Damn.
It also doesn´t help that I´m a bit of a straight for the throat "typical capricornio" (at least according to her) myself =)

I explained to her that this was simply an illusion and that all serious studies have revealed that nobody can find any relationship between birthdate or any aspect of a personality. But of course, hard evidence is never enough to combat a simply explainable personal anecdote so she just repeats her own experience.

Where does one go from here? I´m thinking of getting this: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=32 and translating it into Spanish for her (good practice anyway) and seeing what her reaction is.

But what do you guys reckon I should do?

*Cue trumpets*

Komencanto...... ridding the world of stupidity, one belief at a time!

Seriously though, whats the best course of action?

 

[Yahweh]

First, "Are you a Capricorn" is standard line, its a little like "What's your sign" but has a slightly more personal twinge to it.

This might be helpful...

From Randi's Commentary on August 29, 2003:

Reader Kris Vasquez Davantes offers us this account of his daughter Ana's heady introduction to becoming an "expert."

<blockquote>I read this week's commentary about the Enchanted Forest Intuitive Camp. While I have nothing that outrageous to report, I thought you might be interested in the way my daughter's elementary school introduces its students to research. They use something called an "Expert Fair," and the idea is that every child can choose a topic that interests them and become an expert on it. The child then presents their topic in a science-fair type of display. Overall, I have no quarrel with it, except that there are no topics out of bounds, and "facts" from any source are considered legitimate. So my daughter and her friend ended up next to each other with displays on astrology. Her friend had "facts" like "If you're an Aries you're stubborn" and "Astrology was invented before 1965." My daughter, after much discussion in our household, conducted a test at the fair. She pasted 12 adjectives onto cards on her display board and asked people to choose the one they thought described them best, then lift the card to see if they had identified their "sign." She asked each person to write down what they chose and what their birthdate was. She learned two things. First, of more than 80 people who passed her booth, only 5 managed to select their "sign" — so we had a good discussion about laws of probability. Second, most of the adults could not understand why she was doing this, even after she explained it to them. Sigh.

Enclosed is a photo of Ana with her "Certificate of Expertise."</blockquote>

Thanks, Kris. I'm happy to see that you're concerned enough about the standards employed by the school. I wish more parents took that much interest.

"Stubborn and Strongwilled" sounds more like "Taurus" to me anyhow...

 

[komencanto]

Yeah, but that don´t work for some reason =/

 

[TLN]

Yeah, but that don´t work for some reason =/

Not surprising. I wish I knew who said this first, but I heard it here. It was the statement that you cannot rationally argue out that which was not rationally argued in.

It's not like your friend put all the world's belief systems on a table, evaluated them, studied them, then concluded "yes, this one seems the most reasonable and scientific, I'll go with it." She picked Astrology for the same reasons anyone picks any belief: it comforts her and makes her feel connected to the universe.

I had a friend who was mad for John Edward. Over a very long evening, I showed her the tricks of cold reading, reminded her that television was the land of illusion and editing, and talked a great deal about skepticism. She no longer believes in Edward; but that Sylvia Browne, she's amazing!

Folks who need these kinds of security blankets, well, need these kinds of security blankets. I hate to sound cynical, but you probably can't snatch the blanket away and even if you did, she'd only resent you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Tell her you have some horiscopes, and you want her to tell you which are for what sign.

Because horoscopes have titles and clues in them (ie. 'You'll have good luck with Capricorn.', so that horoscope probably isn't for a Capricorn!), just retype them without those titles and clues.

See how she does. If horoscopes are accurate, she should be able to get them, riiigghhhtt?

 

[Clancie]

You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence?

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too). After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.

Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.

Anyway....since the zodiac groups personality characteristics together in four different dominant ways, there's a good chance that someone willl feel they "match up" with their sign (probably any two of the four would be a VERY good fit--so, at least six zodiac signs). Add in moon signs, rising signs, etc. (and, of course, belief and wanting it to fit) and you improve your chances immeasurably of thinking, "this really works!".

I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."

Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.

edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.

 

[Zep]

Find as many horoscopes as you can for her from different sources but for the same day, eg. Capricorn for 1 November 2003. Put them all side-by-side and have her go through them. Chances are none will same the same thing, and some will even be contradictory.

Now do the same for a few other signs on the same day. Same result?

You could also sift through all the horoscopes for one day, hide their signs so she can't tell, and try to get her to match them up by their content alone. Then reveal the signs for each one - signs all over the place?

You can do these same exercises with movie stars, famous people, your family, etc, etc. Matching the stars to the stars...

Of course, there's none so blind as those that will not see...

 

[BillHoyt]

You mean that astrologers who say that Gemini (me) and Capricorn (Claus) are two of the least compatible signs in the zodiac just got it right by coincidence?

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too). After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.

Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.

Anyway....since the zodiac groups personality characteristics together in four different dominant ways, there's a good chance that someone willl feel they "match up" with their sign (probably any two of the four would be a VERY good fit--so, at least six zodiac signs). Add in moon signs, rising signs, etc. (and, of course, belief and wanting it to fit) and you improve your chances immeasurably of thinking, "this really works!".

I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."

Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.

edited to add: beyond that, astrology is probably one of the less harmful paranormal beliefs--unless one follows the advice in horoscopes or spends a lot of money on astrologers.

Do you have any evidence for these claims, Clancie? Please provide it.

Cheers,

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Do you have any evidence for these claims, Clancie? Please provide it.

Its not a "claim" requiring "evidence", Bill. Its a non-paranormal interpretation of a social practice. (Didn't you ever leave the science lab? Social science and humanities offer theories based on real-life observations all the time).

If you read any astrology book in the light of what I posted, you'll see what -my- theory is. Whether you feel, at that point, that it has merit or not, is totally up to you. Agree or disagree...I couldn't care less. )

 

[hgc]

...

Seriously, your friend's beliefs might aggravate you less if you think of astrology as a way of categorizing common personality traits (and present it to her that way, too).

That's backwards. It's a way of categorizing based on which of 12 sections of the calendar year people are born into (and more complicated formulations of birthdate/time). And then matching those to a pre-set notion of personality traits.

After all, if you really look at the 12 signs, there are really only four basic types of characteristics being described: earth, fire, water, air signs. The 12 categories are kind of all variations on one of those four themes.

What evidence matches personality traits to earth/fire/water/air?

Jung was influenced by this aspect of astrology in developing his theory of archetypes, although its true that he also thought astrology had merit beyond psychological convenience.

Jung's archteypes had no basis in science in Jung's day, and they still don't.

I think it would be more fruitful with a believer in astrology to point out this organization around earth/air/fire/water signs and encourage them to look at "their sign" and "their personality" in terms of those categories instead of thinking, "I'm definitely a Libra, not an Aries."

This sounds like an interesting idea. Are you saying they should use one type of nonsense (earth/air/fire/water) to readjust their thinking about another type of nonsense (astrology)?

Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.

What could be more fun than that? How about looking at the universe in all its wonder as it actually is, and thinking about the mystery of what is yet unknown, and where you fit into it all. I think it's a great alternative to adopting notions that have no basis in reality.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by hgc

How about looking at the universe in all its wonder as it actually is, and thinking about the mystery of what is yet unknown, and where you fit into it all. I think it's a great alternative to adopting notions that have no basis in reality.

How about understanding what I wrote?

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....)

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Just a suggestion. Playing with astrological categories as a kind of tool of psychological insight--rather than "star-inspired"--can actually be fun.[I

But worthless.
Playing with personality profiles gleaned from astrology statements in the newspaper led Forer to show that people will accept such generalized statements as accurate. This is also called the Barnum Effect.

 

[hgc]

How about understanding what I wrote?

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....)

Before your eyes roll out of your head, you might want to explain how earth/air/fire/water categorizations are useful in describing personality traits. I did actually read that in what you said.

 

[BillHoyt]

Before your eyes roll out of your head, you might want to explain how earth/air/fire/water categorizations are useful in describing personality traits. I did actually read that in what you said.

As did I.

Cheers,

 

[renata]

komencanto, if your friend has access to the internet, have her take the reverse astrology test.
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/reverse_astrology.htm

Of course, there is a 1/12 chance it could get her right, and reinforce her belief. Good luck

 

[Flame]

Renata that's hilarious!

is she (edit HE - guess I think most wishy washy nutcases are female) for real???

apparently Leo was my probable sign (wrong) and the least probable one was capricorn (which I am).

Here's the bit about if it's wrong:

If you feel the results of this form are incorrect, you must be mistaken as to your actual birth date, or maybe it has something to do with your rising sign. In such a case I'd suggest you contact a professional astrologer, or I could take another stab at it if the price is right ;-].

 

[voidx]

How about understanding what I wrote?

Some people think looking at real life human characterisitics, analyzing and studying peoples' similarities (we all have them, you know....remember? that's one of the reasons cold reading can work). is every bit as interesting as pondering the "mystery of what is yet unknown".

(resisting the temptation to include one...more...rolley-eye guy.....)

Looking at real life human characteristics and analyzing our similiarties is fine. However, since there's no real evidences that I know of, of astrology providing a basis for these types of analysis, why should we use it at all? Analyze our characteristics and similiarities based on something scientific and proven, something astrology is not. I think that's the basis of hgc's question. How can astrology be used to look at human characteristics, even for fun, when there's no proof it has any basis in identifying categories of said characteristics.

 

[voidx]

As for the question at hand, get her to take one of the test, which will invariably lead to identifying her sign wrong. Then ask her why this is possible. Question her on the process of astrology and how it accounts for this being wrong. I find this a much more useful tactic. Without being overbearing, just firmly question her knowledge of astrology, of the loopholes or logical holes in it. She won't be able to answer them adequately. She may not convert on the spot and praise your wisdom, but more than likely she'll start to question. Initially probably to read up on the process so she can kill your points, but if she's intelligent at all, it might just start to become more obvious that there are holes in the process, the more she looks into it.

It's the classic case of them finding one example where it works and asking you to disprove it. I find it better, and more logical to turn it around. Even ◊◊◊◊◊◊, inconsistent process's work sometimes, so turn it around and ask her to explain why and how it fails.

 

[renata]

Renata that's hilarious!

is she (edit HE - guess I think most wishy washy nutcases are female) for real???

apparently Leo was my probable sign (wrong) and the least probable one was capricorn (which I am).

Here's the bit about if it's wrong:

If you feel the results of this form are incorrect, you must be mistaken as to your actual birth date, or maybe it has something to do with your rising sign. In such a case I'd suggest you contact a professional astrologer, or I could take another stab at it if the price is right ;-].

It is pretty good, but I am apparently wrong about 1/12 chance. For one thing, upon further reflection, the test is not random, he person who composed it did take the most common characteristics of each sign. If someone knows their sign, they are more likely to be correct. Furthermore, according to this page
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/astrology/results.htm
from the results he collected, out of 187 people who took the test, 50 got correct results, or 26.74%. His comments

One thing is evident: After completing the self assessment myself, and finding that I'm almost a Virgo and a Pisces as well, I'd bet, instead of the 1 in 12 natural odds, it's more like a 1 in 4 chance that a person would think a sun sign was accurate, considering that a number of them could describe the same person. Also, as a test of my inclusion of both positive and negative characteristics (I kept them balanced for each sign but it's very subjective), and as a test of how we view ourselves, we can look at the average scores of all our visitors. It seems no one wants to be a Cancer. Also note, from visitor #8 to 32 we have an abundance of people who score as skeptical Virgos. Could that be because they all came in on the day this site received a link from James Randi's weekly commentary? It seems web surfing habits may do a much better job of predicting personality traits than sun signs. I think I'm on to something; now just to make it mystical (and marketable)....

Just so you know, I was one of those visitors, and scored a skeptical Virgo...and I am a Pisces!

So there is the possibility she might get it right, 1/4 people do. You must be prepared that will reinforce her belief- and then have a Plan B- perhaps have a few other people take the test, take the test herself in front of her. Show her the results of other people who took the test.

 

[voidx]

Aries Mar 21 to April 19 45.5
Taurus April 20 to May 20 60
Gemini May 21 to June 21 58
Cancer June 22 to July 22 54.5
Leo July 23 to Aug 22 44
Virgo Aug 23 to Sep 22 72
Libra Sep 23 to Oct 22 60.45
Scorpio Oct 23 to Nov 21 58
Sagittarius Nov 22 to Dec 21 50
Capricorn Dec 22 to Jan 19 49
Aquarius Jan 20 to Feb 18 62
Pisces Feb 19 to Mar 20 61

My results from the reverse astrology test. I am actually an Aries, the second lowest score and consequently most likely not "me". It says I'm most likely a Virgo, whoops. Heh maybe the should have included my birthdate in the calculation .

Edited to add: And 72 out of 100 is the greatest accuracy margin they can give me? Surely the stars are more accurate than that? What the hell kind of calculation are they running anyway? Seems to be I could randomly generate numbers in a similar test and come up with the same quality of results, so what good is this crap?