Seasonal variation and astrological validity?

[dachs96]

In his classic column Is Astrology for Real? Cecil points the problems with individuals being affected by planets and stars that are up to millions of light years away. There is one thing zodiac signs are correlated with, however, and that is seasonal variation.

Now, in general I disbelieve in astrology. But I am curious as to whether or not any research has been done in an attempt to see if there are any similarities between people who are conceived/developed/born during the same period.

This might be either because weather/climate etc have an effect directly, or because they affect decisions on when to have children. Of course, for the latter to have an effect, it would have to affect different types of people differently, so that they would choose differently when to have children, not just cause everyone to have more or less children at a given time.

My guess is that the variation in individual parents and circumstances far outweighs any common effect of season of birth, so there is probably little effect actually there, let alone able to be measured w/ any accuracy. But I'm curious if any one has looked into this, and other peoples' reactions.

[Measure for Measure]

Neural tube defects have a seasonal component, as revealed by empirical investigation.

In my experience, astrologers lack interest in sound scientific technique. There is no reason to believe that their predecessors were familiar with double blind experimentation and the like.

Great article, btw, Cece. Witty, pithy, concise.

[ultrafilter]

In the ancient world, the food available varied from season to season, and it's not hard to imagine that a mother's diet would have effects on her unborn children. There may have been something to astrology back then.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

In the ancient world, the food available varied from season to season.

"Ancient", in this case, meaning, at a generous estimate, "before the US civil war".

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by dachs96

Now, in general I disbelieve in astrology. But I am curious as to whether or not any research has been done in an attempt to see if there are any similarities between people who are conceived/developed/born during the same period.

This might be either because weather/climate etc have an effect directly, or because they affect decisions on when to have children. Of course, for the latter to have an effect, it would have to affect different types of people differently, so that they would choose differently when to have children, not just cause everyone to have more or less children at a given time.

You hit upon the main obstacle to this research, that of defining an effect that is correlated with the time of year itself rather than with conditions of climate, food and water availability, migration, disease, war, or other factors that are seasonally variable. Once you take all those away would you have anything at all left? The modern history of examining birth dates and personality traits suggests not.

Of course, some people would insist that seasonal variation and astrology are themselves correlated, but that's literally begging the question by putting the conclusion into the assumption.

In short, you can't save astrology by turning to seasonal variations. You might be able to explain some of its origins that way, but there's no need to do even that. Any investigation of Babylonian astronomy - which, by sheer coincidence, I'm currently doing - would show the astronomers' obsession with patterns and cycles of the bodies in the sky, the identification of deities with those bodies, and the consequent consulting of the patterns for omens that would affect the king and country. Personality traits as correlates to the Zodiac that the Babylonians created and the Greeks developed came much later. So that doesn't work either.

Don't disbelieve in astrology in general. Despise it as the 100% guaranteed mind-numbing, IQ-lowering all-encompassing fraud that it is.

[ftg]

Note that any evidence of the effect the season when a person is born in no way buttresses astrology. Astrology is not based on weather, food availability, etc. It is solely based on a mysterious "influence" of the planets.

Similar nonsense claims are:

Converting one element into another via radioactive bombardment proves alchemy.

Vaccination proves homeopathy.

Etc.

Theory 1 claims A causes B.

Theory 2 proves C causes B.

Theory 1 is hardly confirmed.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by ftg

Note that any evidence of the effect the season when a person is born in no way buttresses astrology. Astrology is not based on weather, food availability, etc. It is solely based on a mysterious "influence" of the planets.

It's never been clear to me whether astrologers say the stars, planets, etc have an actual influence on people, or are just a kind of way of telling the time.

[Exapno Mapcase]

It's clear to me that since Babylonian times astrologers have said that the planets have an actual influence. That's why it's so pernicious and fraudulent.

[elucidator]

I'm gonna regret this, I always do, opening up oneself to derision is seldom wise. Done this a thousand times, got tired of watching people preen their worldly skepticism at my expense. Once more into the breech, dear friends, once more...

I practiced (did charts), wrote about and taught astrology for about 10 years, if there were a Ph.D. in Astrology, likely I would be on the examining committee. I know of what I speak.

It doesn't "work" in the generally accepted use of the term. It is, in fact, an interpretive art based on general principles. You cannot boil it down into a test tube because it is interpretive, just as you cannot define a fugue. You can reduce a fugue down into mathematical formulae, and play it out of a computer. Few of us would contend that such a display equals the playing of a gifted and passionate musician. Music, in this sense, is interpretive: the notes make up the framework, the notes of the "Ode to Joy" are defined and set, yet there is much, much more.

The rational framework of astrology is limited. Any rational, scientific test is bound to fail. There are human capacities that lie outside the range of our strictly rationalist mind-set, intuition for instance. We can explain intuition but cannot really study it. And, fo course, our explanations must remain conjectures as no falsifying experiment is possible.

Astrology, as practiced by some, is little more than another form of tea-leaf reading or tarot cards, or any of a wide variety of practices that give some form to intuition (a word I regret that I must overuse and overburden, having no precise alternative...) There are principles to astrology, a square to Mars cannot be interpreted as mellow, a prevalence of Saturn inclines to the morose and withdrawn.

But prediction is impossible for the obvious reason: the future does not exist, therefore it cannot have any characteristics. On the rare occassion that I have approached a question based on what predictive astrology would have suggested, the results are mixed: doesn't work very well, but the wonder is that it works at all. But such results must, by their very nature, remain anecdotal, statistical analysis is impossible.

There is no human endeavor that is not subject to fraudulent abuse, nor any that is not subject to well-meaning but foolish manipulation. And, of course, anything based on "sun signs" can only be entertainment, one twelfth of humanity is not having the same bad day. But practiced wisely, and with a grain of detachment, astrology can provide interesting insights into human personality and perception. I make no further claims. I cannot even suggest that the reader have a chart done to make up their own minds, the woods are full of cuckoos, the owls are few and far between.

Nor have I the slightest interest in converting the hyper-rationalist from his chosen faith, the work is hard, the rewards neglible. Its a stacked deck, you cannot use the rationalist approach to prove things outside of its provenance: the rationalist mind is for science, just like a hammer is for nails. Nor do I intend any denigration of the entirely rationalist mind, it has its uses, and has brought us wonders and comforts beyond measure. But one does not hunt butterflys with a hammer.

Does astrology work? Sometimes, and in limited ways, yes. Can it predict the future? Of course not. Out of all that time, I can only sincerely state the following: it doesn't work all that well, but the amazing thing is that it works at all. Which it does. I am always interested in being amazed, and always grateful for the privilege.

Please do not bore me with challenges, I am not about to try to prove the unproveable, and I don't "believe" in astrology. I have studied the matter and found it interesting, nuggets of insight and intelligence in a vast fog of symbolism and intuition.

It shouldn't work at all, it works some. And that's damned interesting.

[LionelHutz405]

Originally Posted by elucidator

doesn't work very well, but the wonder is that it works at all.

That sounds like random chance to me. How do you separate the results when astrology appears to have ‘worked’ and a correct result just due to random chance? (Regardless of the methodology used, you are going to be right some of the time.)

[K364]

I have often wondered about the partitioning of 6 year-olds into grade one...

I'm making the assumption that the school year starts in September, and that all school districts have rules around date of birth and when you are eligible for grade one. For example: if you are born in September through February you will enter grade one prior to your sixth birthday; and if you are born March through August you will enter grade one after your sixth birthday.

In the extreme case, a February baby enters grade one at 5.5 years of age, and the March baby at 6.5. At these formative years that's a significant difference. Does this difference ultimately make a difference to the personality and cababilities of the child?

[PBear42]

Hey elucidator. I have a factual question. Have searched high and low for an answer, all to no avail. Perhaps you know. Or at least know whether we know. What is the vector of transmission to modern times of the astrological system currently in use? Relatedly, how old are the oldest extant texts and how old texts "sampled" in later ones but otherwise not preserved? I am familiar with Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, in which he defends astrology in general terms, but this didn't present or preserve any details of how to cast charts, etc. It's the latter for which I'm looking.

[Larry Borgia]

I can see seasonal variation and varying food supplies for pregnant women as adding or taking away an inch in height or a couple of points of IQ, but it seems to me that the overwhelming factors determining our personality are still genes and upbringing.

[dachs96]

Originally Posted by K364

I have often wondered about the partitioning of 6 year-olds into grade one...

...
In the extreme case, a February baby enters grade one at 5.5 years of age, and the March baby at 6.5. At these formative years that's a significant difference. Does this difference ultimately make a difference to the personality and cababilities of the child?

It's interesting you mention this - you remind me of something that I thought of when I originally wrote. A number of economists, some I know, have used that fact to try to isolate the effect of education on earnings from the effect of age. The researchers who started this was Joshua Angrist at MIT.

Part of the abstract of I think the first paper where he used it:

The authors establish that season of birth is related to educational attainment because of school start age policy and compulsory school attendance laws. Individuals born in the beginning of the year start school at an older age, and can therefore drop out after completing less schooling than individuals born near the end of the year. Roughly 25 percent of potential dropouts remain in school because of compulsory schooling laws. They estimate the impact of compulsory schooling on earnings by using quarter of birth as an instrument for education.

at http://tinyurl.com/rjbrx

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by PBear42

Hey elucidator. I have a factual question. ...preserve any details of how to cast charts, etc. It's the latter for which I'm looking.

Don't know that much, not much of an historian. Astrology has had a number of cycles of repression wherein texts were (presumably) destroyed. Never had much of an independent existence, as a seperate and distinct discipline, always closely associated with alchemy, medicine, etc.

It appears that what we have today is roughly equivalent to astrology as handed down from the Babylonian traditions: Mars is war, Venus love, Jupiter the ruler, etc. Like so many things, expertise was acquired by direct learning, apprentice to master. A few charts still exist from historical times (Dr. Dee in the Elizabethan court, if memory serves) that a modern astrologer would recognize the basic outlines of.

(This only refers to Western astrology, Chinese and Hindu astrology has an equally lenghty history, probably even more so, but I know D for diddly squat about either.)

Main difference, if any, would be the importance of fixed stars. The ancients regarded fixed stars as being highly significant, the variable star Caput Algol being regarded as evil due to its variation in luminosity, so on and so forth. Most modern astrologers pay little or no attention to anything outside of our own neighborhood, or even that sometimes. Myself, I don't regard Pluto as important enough to include or interpret, but you'll get a number of views on that.

Short answer: the math of chart casting is pretty straightforward, and almost certainly has seen little variation over time, what has changed is the manner in which said chart is interpreted to the victim.....uh, client. A lot of what we currently call astrology was actually formulated in the late 19th and early 20th century, when the first widely available texts were printed. As a result, they tend to reflect Victorian attitudes and structures. If you can find it, Llewellyn George made a very complete compendium, The A to Z Horoscope Delineator. Very complete, and charmingly "retro".

Always happy to answer a respectful question. Feel free to e-mail if I can further assist.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by LionelHutz405

That sounds like random chance to me. How do you separate the results when astrology appears to have ‘worked’ and a correct result just due to random chance? (Regardless of the methodology used, you are going to be right some of the time.)

You don't. What I tell you is entirely anectdotal, I can't prove any of it and wouldn't dream of trying. Rationalism and scientific method are wonderful tools, and my admiration for them is boundless. But they have limitations.

It is my experience that the "hits" produced by astrological methods far exceed what one would expect from chance. One the other hand, there are vast amounts of stuff and nonsense, and Castaneda like crapola. Goes with the territory. Now, if I had spent ten years studying biochemistry or linguistics, no doubt I would have more hard, factual data to transmit. But I didn't, and I don't, and thats that.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You don't. What I tell you is entirely anectdotal

So your claim that "it works, some" is exactly as contentless as it sounded? Thanks for clearing that up.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Askance

So your claim that "it works, some" is exactly as contentless as it sounded? Thanks for clearing that up.

I would like to thank you for your cogent contribution to the discussion. If you should happen to make one, would you advise me so that I might?

[ultrafilter]

Originally Posted by elucidator

It is my experience that the "hits" produced by astrological methods far exceed what one would expect from chance.

How do you know what to expect from chance?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

How do you know what to expect from chance?

I don't, really, not being a mathematician. Besides which, the definition of hit lacks much in the way of, well, definition. Mostly, its a rough judgement of probability, kind of "seat of the pants" rude calculation. I'm not looking to prove anything, save to myself, and even there I'm only making a "well, isn't that interesting!" kind of response. Took some time and some study to get to that point, and one might well suggest that the investment wasn't worth it, but you do what you do whackka do, doodly do. Don't you?

A pity that it didn't result in some absolute certitude, my plans for world domination might have been furthered. Shucks.

[ultrafilter]

See, that's my issue with the whole thing. I am a mathematician, and it's been my experience that almost no one has any intuitive grasp of probability. And even if someone did, they'd need a better notion of what a hit is to guess how likely it is.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by ultrafilter

See, that's my issue with the whole thing. I am a mathematician, and it's been my experience that almost no one has any intuitive grasp of probability. And even if someone did, they'd need a better notion of what a hit is to guess how likely it is.

No argument. Problem is, everything about this is, by its very nature, bound to be subjective. I make no pretense of offering "evidence", nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. I am simply relating my experience.

For instance: there is a branch of astrology called "horary", which is the most akin to divination. The idea is that you are presented with a question, and cast a chart relative to the moment the question is asked, and try to answer the question accordingly. I don't have much truck with it, myself, but the skill set (if you will) is identical but what the heck, right?

In astrology, hidden or lost objects (the nature of the question was a piece of lost jewelry, sentimental) falls under the sway of Neptune. Casting for the time of the question, Neptune is in the house associated with children. So, of course, I said "Check the children's room." The daughter had innocently purloined the piece in question for "dress up". Hit? No hit? What's the math here? How in the world would you examine the probability?

So what do I tell you? It "worked"? Well, yeah, sorta kinda. But the "house" in question also relates to gambling, I might as easily have asked "Have you been to a casino?". (If you don't see the natural association between kids and gambling, you don't have any...)

Intuition, I think, is the key here, and we understand very little about it. I suggest that a trained intuition may have access to better acuity, but I haven't the slightest idea how to construct a statistical study to prove that. Frankly, I doubt that it is even possible. For myself, that presents no problem, I am willing to shrug and say "Maybe", I have no need to insist.

There's something going on, and I don't know what it is. And, after all, isn't what you don't know more interesting than what you do?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by elucidator

It appears that what we have today is roughly equivalent to astrology as handed down from the Babylonian traditions: Mars is war, Venus love, Jupiter the ruler, etc.

I am not going to get into a discussion of astrology, but from a purely historical standpoint I consider not a word of this to be true. The Babylonians believed nothing of the sort. Their gods were aligned differently (the moon was father to the sun, e.g.) and their main gods were not even sky gods. This all sounds like later traditions trying to invent as long and as illustrious a history as possible.

[John W. Kennedy]

This all sounds like later traditions trying to invent as long and as illustrious a history as possible.

Yes and no. It is characteristic of paganism (especially Graeco-Roman paganism) to play mix-and-match with gods.

[PBear42]

Hey elucidator. "Respectful" is too strong. Say simply "polite." But thank you for your reply.

[Chronos]

Rationalism and scientific method are wonderful tools, and my admiration for them is boundless. But they have limitations.

The primary limitation being that it's a lot harder to get BS out of them.

In astrology, hidden or lost objects (the nature of the question was a piece of lost jewelry, sentimental) falls under the sway of Neptune. Casting for the time of the question, Neptune is in the house associated with children. So, of course, I said "Check the children's room."

You sure you know anything about astrology? Neptune stays in the same house for nearly fourteen years at a time. So does this imply that whenever anyone loses anything over a period of a decade and a half, that it's probably in the children's room, or at the casino, or whatever else is associated with that house? And that after it moves to a different house, all of a sudden the preponderance of lost things is associated with something else?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Chronos

The primary limitation being that it's a lot harder to get BS out of them.You sure you know anything about astrology? Neptune stays in the same house for nearly fourteen years at a time....

Pretty sure. Know enough not to confuse "house" with "sign".

A "house" is a section of the chart determined by time of day. Just before sunrise, for instance, the sun is said to be in the "first house". Just before sunrise, the sun is always in the first house, regardless of its sign placement.

Note to PBear42: politeness is repectful, in mine own eyes. I didn't mean to imply that your mind was so hopelessly open that you might give a respectful consideration to one, such as myself, who presents you with an opinion so clearly at odds with conventional wisdom. If I have overestimated your tolerance and civility, I apologize. I suppose.

[PBear42]

Elucidator, at a guess, it's petty put-downs like that which have created the air of derision about which you complained in your first post. Open to what? You pointedly refuse to prove anything, then get on a high horse about open minds? I don't know who you think this argument persuades. Not me.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by dachs96

In his classic column Is Astrology for Real? Cecil points the problems with individuals being affected by planets and stars that are up to millions of light years away. There is one thing zodiac signs are correlated with, however, and that is seasonal variation.

Now, in general I disbelieve in astrology. But I am curious as to whether or not any research has been done in an attempt to see if there are any similarities between people who are conceived/developed/born during the same period.

This might be either because weather/climate etc have an effect directly, or because they affect decisions on when to have children. Of course, for the latter to have an effect, it would have to affect different types of people differently, so that they would choose differently when to have children, not just cause everyone to have more or less children at a given time.

My guess is that the variation in individual parents and circumstances far outweighs any common effect of season of birth, so there is probably little effect actually there, let alone able to be measured w/ any accuracy. But I'm curious if any one has looked into this, and other peoples' reactions.

Getting back to the OP, the problem with this hypothesis is that the seasons are not constant throughout the Earth. They're reversed between the northern and southern hemispheres, so growing seasons are reversed as well. Plus, even within one hemisphere there can be considerable variation in food scarcity depening on local conditions, weather, etc. I can't see any reasonable way to correlate all those variations to the movement of the planets, which do not depend in any way on Earth's seasons.