Astrology

[avevale_intelligencer]

Apparently something has happened (I don't know precisely what, but it may have to do with Ophiuchus and the precession of the equinoxes, which is old news to serious astrologers but who cares), and [EDIT: insulting phrase redacted] various sceptics have been popping up to point and laugh at the stupid people who believe inanimate balls of gas and rock know what you're going to have for breakfast next Tuesday, or something. [Paraphrase is a composite of various general comments on astrology from Terry Pratchett, David Langford and others, and does not refer to any specific comment on this issue.]

So I thought it would be a good time to re-run my speculative theory about the origin of astrology, which I arrived at using my special variant of Occam's Razor, in which you go with the simplest explanation that fits all the available facts and doesn't depend on everyone except you being a moron. Here goes, then:

1. The personality traits came first. Gazing into the sky and propitiating the gods is all very well, but I think it's been fairly well established that your successful king, general or merchant tended to be a pragmatist and was more likely to pay good money for something which would tell him useful information about his subjects, customers or enemies. The traits were not made up, they were observed.

2. Once they had been observed and codified, some form of classification would have been needed, and animals have always been linked in folklore to particular qualities of humans, so that would be a useful way to go. Some people are like bulls, some are like fish and so on. (I seem to remember being told that we went through various systems before arriving at the current zodiac, but I'm not sure what they were.)

3. This is where the stars come in. Looking for some way to explain the progression of animal-like traits they'd discovered, the ancient astronomers found that if they grouped the stars along the sun's path in a certain way and really used their imaginations, they could find the relevant animal shape in the position where the sun was at the moment of the person's birth. To be honest, I'm quite surprised they thought of this at all, since barring an eclipse it's kind of hard to see the stars immediately behind the sun. It doesn't seem intuitive, if you see what I mean. Nevertheless, think of it they did.

4. And this is where the gods come in. "Why is there a bull in the sky?" people would ask, after the relevant constellation had been pointed out to them ("No, there...well, try squinting a bit..."). And the ancient sages eventually came up with a story, which by the time the Greeks came along had been fully incorporated into the corpus of myth surrounding the tenants of Olympus. This explains the bittiness of the stories and the unlikely selection of bods who got asterised.

The beauty of this theory is that it's not in any way a defence of astrology itself. I personally believe there might be something in it, but it's just as likely that the original observations were flawed, that witnesses were inadvertently led, that cold reading techniques were employed. Humans are a diverse lot and don't fit easily into any number of boxes, so all that could ever have been observed and codified were broad tendencies which could have been illusory.

What it is, I think, is a right way round view of events which are commonly viewed in reverse; that the ancients, looking for ways in which the gods might have shaped the souls of humanity, decided the stars were full of creatures and then arbitrarily imposed their characteristics on people. Nothing within the history of science (as far as I know) has been decided that way, and it's not a very sensible way of going on whether you believe in gods or not. My way of looking at it has as much chance of being true as any other version, and it's a good deal kinder to our ancestors, to whom we owe a fair bit.

And it opens up the possibility that the progression of personality traits documented by ancient astrologers, if it exists, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the stars or the planets as such, but has some other cause which nobody has bothered to look for, because opinion is polarised between "it's true, and it's the stars" and "it isn't true at all because the stars explanation doesn't make sense." If that's so, it explains why the precession of the equinoxes hasn't affected the casting of birth charts in any significant way (till now, and if it does I think it will just mess things up for honest astrologers).

That said, if you want to pour scorn, go ahead. I have no proof to offer, nor any particular emotional investment in this issue, so be as sceptical as you like. And if you know something which knocks my theory into a cocked hat, do please share.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Exactly the same argument (minus the gods...I think) could be made for Chinese birth years.

And those take 12 years to cycle.

So the theoretical observations of how personality types are grouped cannot both be right. They can, however, both be wrong.

And if personality types aren't grouped at all (which seems to me most likely, anyway) how did this pervasive belief that they *are* arise? Why would people group them chronologically instead of, say, geologically (if you're born over shale you're oily; if you're born over limestone, you're base; if you're born over granite, you're stubborn...) or geographically (if you're born by a river, you're energetic, if you're born on a mountain, you're ambitious...)

Why chronology? No idea.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I've seen at least one book in which Western and Chinese astrology are combined to produce a series of composite types, the Aries Rat, the Taurus Sheep and so on...the traits are broad enough that they could be regarded as both right. And there are many possible reasons for the idea of chronological grouping becoming pervasive; one possibility is the earnest desire to produce a solid and persuasive result for the king and thus avoid being executed. Another is that humans love patterns and systems and things they can observe and chart.

(It is, I grant you, if it exists, a tenuous thing at best; I know a fair bit about "star signs" from my reading, but I wouldn't even try to guess anyone's sign from just looking at them, and if I were to say "oh, of course she's a Gemini" when told, you would have to take my word that I wasn't just lying, either to you or to myself. Gather a hundred Geminis in a room and you would have a hundred very different people, and the common factor linking them all together would seem very vague indeed, if it seemed to be there at all.)

Maybe there were such other systems as you describe, and they didn't stand up to scrutiny whereas astrology did. Climate might be an influence; many of the differences between Northern and Southern English, or between Scots and English, could be ascribed to the differences in climate and landscape--people talk about "the soft south."

I don't know, and I'm not really that bothered. I happen to identify quite strongly with the set of traits associated with the sign Sagittarius (and, for that matter, with the Chinese Ram/Sheep/Goat) but whether that's because I'm predisposed to those traits or just a happy chance I haven't a clue. My only impulse in thinking about this is to find a way to credit our ancestors in this with the intelligence they clearly showed in many other endeavours, and make them seem a little less like credulous clowns who ignored reality.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

A Sagittarius? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_%28astrology%29) Really?

You hadn't struck me as particularly optimistic or partial to the great outdoors. Nor did I know of your interest in foreign languages.

Fascinating.

I'm a Sagittarius too, and I'm not very optimistic either. And while I certainly am partial to the great outdoors, I haven't a smigeon of interest in understanding the world from a "higher" (presumably meaning "religious") perspective, nor do I have a great capacity for "faith" (presumably meaning "religion".)

Sure there's stuff in there that might be said to apply to me, or to you, but it's a shotgun blast of unrelated attributes, stated in positive terms, pretty much guaranteeing that anyone born in any month will find a handful of things in there that are true, or that he or she would like to believe are true.

Which is how this point of view perpetuates itself, of course.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

But hey, now I have a ready-made excuse for the times I feel like abandoning the effort of tact.

Except, of course, that using an untrue excuse would be a betrayal of my principles.

Dagnabbit.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Funny. I think of it as a reason to be more watchful of what I say than I might otherwise be. (And I still manage to put my hoof foot in it, as witness lo these many pages.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

The great outdoors made me sneeze, wheeze and itch from an early age and stung me once in an unprotected spot. Some things are not astrological, and I can take a hint. My interest in foreign languages, though, was there before I even knew what astrology was; I've always been fascinated by other languages, to the point of going on to study them at university and getting bogged down in all sorts of other stuff that didn't interest me. As for optimism, why do you think I'm so damn disappointed all the time?

How much of the above is self-fulfilling whatnot I leave to you. As for your interest in understanding the world from a higher perspective, I'm not going to quote that line of yours again; it is, however, a very Sagittarian sentiment, as I understand it.

The impression I have is that it isn't so much the individual shot holes as the picture you make by joining them up. Maybe it would be possible to make anyone sound like a Sagittarian, or a Virgo, or a Pisces. I don't know; I've never tried, though I'm sure Derren Brown or one of those jokers has.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Of course you don't have to quote anything of mine if you don't want to, but I'm afraid while you choose not to I don't know which line you mean. Which is okay with me, but might interfere with some degree of understanding you were hoping to convey.

I had never thought of optimism meaning being disappointed all the time--I had always thought of it as recovering from disappointment quickly and tending to see the bright side. Perhaps I don't know that much about it, with my generally pessimistic nature.

Some things are not astrological? Are you sure? I thought it was fairly routine for horoscopes to include things like what diseases and injuries one is supposedly vulnerable to?

For example, here at www.astrology-online.com (http://www.astrology-online.com/sagittar.htm) it says:

Possible Health Concerns...

Sagittarius governs the hips, thighs and sacral area; subjects suffer from ailments of the hips and thighs and are liable to sciatica and rheumatism. An alleged deficiency of silicon in their physiques can give them poor skin, nails and hair.

As they are often sportsmen indulging in dangerous pursuits, they are prone to accidents which arise from these. The ancient astrologers mention falls from horses and hurts from them and other four-footed beasts. The taking of risks in other sports is a danger to the modern Sagittarian, and he is also liable to accidents with fire and heat.

Nothing in there about allergies--which are, of course, a perfectly valid reason to avoid the great outdoors (as is simply not liking it; it's not for everybody.)

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the time of year we're born doesn't govern our health risks. That's all. It doesn't govern our love of the great outdoors, our love of foreign languages, our success in academia, or any other aspects of our personalities. Nor do I think these unrelated traits (optimism and hip troubles, for instance) cluster in any recognizable way.

Humans are very good at picking out patterns, in the midst of confusing "noise." Unfortunately, we're so good at it, we do it even when there is no underlying pattern. Once we think we perceive a pattern, we tend to remember random events that confirm the pattern and forget random events that disconfirm the pattern.

There's nothing about this that makes our distant ancestors more stupid than we are. Our advances in understanding the universe come from a system we've worked out that, shakily and imperfectly, lets us work around these exact same tendencies in us. That's all.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, okay. The line I was thinking of was:

"The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand."

Oh, I recover quickly. It just keeps happening again. And again. And...you get the idea. :) But I am basically optimistic, otherwise I'd never get out of bed.

And I do have poor skin and nails, and the hair while exuberant (at the moment) is coarse and prone to be bristly when short. Rather like horsehair, in fact. Falling off horses I've managed to avoid by never getting on one (mostly due to lack of opportunity: I'd love to try). No hip problems as yet. Problems with being hip, of course, but I tend to ignore those.

There are people who will maintain that astrology can predict future events, that it dictates the courses of our lives and every aspect of our natures. Most of them are either selling something, or buying from someone who is selling something (Joan the Wad, anyone?). I'm more inclined to suspect that there are influences, maybe very weak ones, maybe sometimes stronger, and that our destiny is actually in our own hands--we can go with the flow or against it, and most of the time we don't even notice it, but sometimes, in small and unconsidered ways, it helps or hinders us.

And I could be wrong on that, being a pattern-picker myself.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Remember, I was writing that song from the perspective of a believer. The fact that I can, somewhat, adopt that worldview as my own for the length of time it takes to write a song about how a believer can reconcile science and religion, does not mean I have any interest in adopting a religious perspective permanently myself.

You have poor skin and nails and my skin and nails are okay. You have coarse "horselike" hair and my hair is as fine as a baby's. We both have no hip problems.

And if it counts when one of us matches the characteristics, it counts just as much when one of us doesn't. The reason these patterns start to seem like there's something to them is in part because we fall on matches with glad cries of interest, and pretty much ignore mismatches, or come up with some reason why they don't count. Like "no hip problems yet."

Old people tend to get hip problems, but do old people born in December have more? Probably not. What's probably going on is that old Sagittarii ascribe their hip problems to their birth date, and old non-Sagittarii ascribe them to their age, and point out that when they were young, they didn't have hip problems. And vice versa for young ones. And of course in a large population a few young non-Sagittarii have hip problems, but they're just anomalies: the pattern generally works.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"Remember, I was writing that song from the perspective of a believer. The fact that I can, somewhat, adopt that worldview as my own for the length of time it takes to write a song about how a believer can reconcile science and religion, does not mean I have any interest in adopting a religious perspective permanently myself."

But I for one thank you for making the effort to at least do it for that long, which many wouldn't. And now I wanna know what this song is and where I can find it. =:o}

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The Word of God (http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

[keristor.livejournal.com]

With "The Word of God" and "Acts of Creation" you did a wonderful job of putting yourself into the mindset of a believer, they both feel completely genuine to me.

So I say "thank you for the music"[1] to both you and Zan, and for making those efforts to get 'into' an alien-to-you perspectives.

[1] And yes, I am thinking of that song...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It was not particularly difficult to get into the mindset--the culture I live in is saturated with it. But I'm pleased to hear I made a good job of it, and glad you like the songs.

[howeird]

That's pretty much the way I picture it too, except you put it better than I ever could have.

The Chinese, as you know Bob, have a zodiac of animals too, but they grab a year at a time, not just a measley month. And many Native American tribes have as a rite of passage the naming of a totem animal for each young man. I'll bet there are a lot more examples out there.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

My theory, which is mine and belongs to me, and thought of years ago is as follows, ahem:

People born in late Autumn/early Winter are born after the harvest but then spend their early months wrapped up and kept indoors and experience relatively less daylight (through shorter days and colder outside temperatures). People born in spring/early summer on the other hand have lots of light and warm temperatures and are probably exposed more to the outside. And the foods available would vary. Also the distance from the sun varies throughout the year (closest in January, furthest away in July I believe) and the Sun is so massive and such a large energy source, that again I could quite believe it could have an effect on embryonic development and early mental development of humans. Many animals have breeding seasons when it is best for cubs/chicks/baby salmon etc. to be born, but humans breed and produce all year around ...

And whether it is in the first three months, the next three months or whatever ... it means that development of personality, whichever part is determined by environment and nutrition, would be affected by which part of the year you were born in.

But I have seen no serious study that attempts to categorise/analyse people into 12 "types" and then match them against the month of their birth (astrological month rather than Gregorian calendar). I find that when I read most astrological predictions and ignore what the star sign is, then they tend to be vague enough that they all equally apply (or don't apply) to me.

But what would be interesting is to see whether people who are born a month early have the traits of someone who was born at full term on that date, or of a person conceived at the same date (eight months before) ... again I know of no study that has determined whether it is conception or delivery date that matches best with the 1/12th astrology.

But basically I believe the stars know nothing. There may be things that can be affected by solar radiation, temperature, light levels and early nutrition, but those don't magically change from, say, January 1st to January 2nd ... but I think it might be more significant that several of the changes of signs are against solstices and equinoxes, so when seasons change and light levels are changing too (day lengths etc.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I think we all agree that the stars, if they are conscious, have other concerns than whether I have a tendency to open mouth and insert foot (one of the not so positive attributes of Sagittarius; judge for yourself). Light levels and temperature are a possibility, but I'm thinking that if there is any truth to it, the causative factor is something we haven't even noticed.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

As an Aquarium (sic) I should be, amongst other things I am not, sympathetic, empathic, interested in all sorts of Woo, and spiritual.

You can see why I fell about laughing at the idea of astrological character traits from an early age.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

*looks at ceiling* I wouldn't dream of arguing...

Seriously. If anyone asks me I shall stoutly deny that you are any of those things. Especially that you have any interest whatsoever in, er, Woo. Trust me.

"Interest" doesn't have to be positive. I'm just saying.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, here at www.astrology-online.aquarius it says:

, though as they seek truth above all things, they are usually honest enough to change their opinions, however firmly held, if evidence comes to light which persuades them that they have been mistaken

If I were an aquarius, this would fit.

And for you:

Many are strongly imaginative and psychically intuitive, so that the Age of Aquarius, which is about to begin, is much anticipated by psychic circles as an age in which mankind will experience a great spiritual awakening.

That does not sound like an "interest" in discouraging woo.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Drat. Link here. (http://www.astrology-online.com/aquarius.htm) Sorry.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, that's something anyone would want to be true of themselves, whether it is or not. There's a lot of that about, as I've noted. Whether there is actually any wheat among all the chaff I don't know, though I have my opinion.

As for "psychically intuitive," well, I've known three other Aquarians (in the sense of knowing them to be Aquarians; probably lots more) and I wouldn't have said that of any of them. (One was Jan's father, and the less said about that the better.) They're completely wrong, though; the spiritual awakening isn't due till the Scorpian Age. I have it all mapped out here somewhere...

You pays your money (or not) and you takes your choice.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

Most of these traits are something anyone would want to be true of themselves, and that most people can manage at least part of the time.

When someone tells you you're intuitive, or loyal, or flexible, what are you going to do? Say "I have the imagination of a rock, I stab my friends in the back routinely, and I ignore new evidence in favor of pre-conceived conclusions"? Probably not.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Actually, I am about as intuitive as a plastic spoon, and there are many other virtues of which I am horribly short. And I will say so.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

[GRABS YOU BY THE COLLAR (NOT EASY AT MY HEIGHT)]
Who's been talking to you? Who's leaked the details my new patent-pending intuitive plastic spoon? TELL ME!!!!

Ah well, I might as well start te advertising campaign now:
Never miss a drip again! Bristow's Intuitive Spoons [patent pending] are made from Auton Plastic^TM, and can anticipate every involuntary tilt or slip, immediately compensating by flexing and stretching to catch the food before it falls. Perfect for baby's first meal!

Special discounts available for hospitals, mental institutions and old people's homes.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Can I get a discount please? Or at least a viscount or a no-account?

"Never miss a drip again!"

I don't miss them. No, I celebrate that I let them drip as they will...

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

good little knee muscles various sceptics have been popping up to point and laugh at the stupid people

You know, Zander, this sounds awfully personal. I had the impression you generally try to adhere to standards of not tarring large groups of people with the bad actions of a few? If so, being a bit more specific about who said what that upset you would be helpful. And you generally try to take issue with the words, and not the people who spoke them? If so, refraining from referring to humans as "knee muscles" might be better suited to your normal pattern of speech?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

You're right. That was uncalled for. I'm sorry.

(Though, strictly speaking, I was comparing them to knee muscles rather than saying they were...but it was still over the line.)

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"knee muscles"? This is some usage with which I am unfamiliar (I don't think I've ever been compared to one, nor would I know whether to be pleased or insulted if I were).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Think "knee-jerk reaction."

Zander was implying that skeptics are contemptuous of non-skeptics as a reflex reaction, no reason involved.