Astrology is 100% Real - Emily | Street Epistemology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Emily believes in astrology. She reads her Zodiac signs and uses them to figure out the traits of herself and her friends. We also try to test the accuracy of the signs.
__
To learn more about street epistemology (this conversational method), please visit the SE website.
streetepistemo...
__
Twitter: / cordialcurious
Facebook: / cordialcuriosity
Instagram: / cordialcuriosity
#streetepistemology
You should have watched James Randi's video on zodiac signs. What he did was get a classroom of people together, with a paper of a story for a given zodiac sign. Which he said was based of their birthday they gave him before. - Then people were asked with raising their hands if the zodiac sign matched them. And almost all of them raised their hands. - He then asked people to trade the paper with their neighbours, and read that one to see if it matches too. - The people in the room then discovered that they were given all the same paper with the same zodiac sign. Yet they almost all thought it applied to them.
Matthijn Dijkstra
I was actually going to post the link to that.
Here is the link to the short video: ruclips.net/video/3Dp2Zqk8vHw/видео.html
Exactly. It's called the Forer Effect (aka "Barnum Effect"). John Stossel also did a pretty good demonstration of this back in his ABC days:
ruclips.net/video/qPCsCiOqmXA/видео.html
She eventually find the ad hoc for these fails (forer effect), so.. with that bias nothing work..
Can't see as Channel 4 have blocked it in the UK.
Wow, that was Yoda level straight face keeping!!!
This is hard to watch. Where smugness meets dumbness. Dunning Kruger effect in full swing. I lost count of her 'like' s.
Kay Bee LMAO
Ricky Lamar Smugness meets dumbness 😭😭😭😭😭😭
mtopper66 TBH I don't see her being any dumber than the Xians interviewed on here. It's just her beliefs are less popular so they seem even stranger.
Edit: nvrmnd just watched full vid this girl is insane
amazing, how quick she went from "that's me" to "that's the opposite of me"
so graceful... majestic I would say.
And she doesn't even realize what happened
Her: “people think zodiac is unscientific”
Her *describes a reliable and valid way to test if its real*
Him: “So do you think anyone has ever done any study like that?”
Her: “No I don’t think so. “ 🙄🙄🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Her cognitive dissonance is maximally great. She easily dismisses other "out there" ideas as crazy, while sounding just as deluded when talking about astrology.
I laughed when she said she'd miss knowing a person immediately based on their zodiac.
She is an astrology enthusiast, yet she does not know how many zodiac signs there are? WTF? Even I know there are 12, and I am a total skeptic.
ernesto1956. If you have ever looked one up on your internet or daily paper, you should have noticed each sign covers about exactly a month, while looking for your own sign.
For some people the "two step" to figure that it means there are ”like" 12, is one step too many.
Amazing xD
We’re forgetting Ophiuchus.
m.ruclips.net/video/JNQIGtFJmrQ/видео.html
www.cnsnews.com/blog/barbara-hollingsworth/nasa-identifies-13th-sign-zodiac-we-just-did-math
Just a dumb basic bitch who has never thought about why she believes, or really even what. She just likes it. End of thought process for her.
And that's why you are a skeptic.
She perceives herself as: Reliable, patient, practical, responsible, stubborn, uncompromising, independent, cooperative, gracious, confrontational
She does not feel she is: devoted, possessive, progressive, original
She could improve by being less confirmation biased and more skeptical. It is nice that she is a satisficer.
She picked Taurus's traits as the ones she matches the most, did not really bother with the rest of the descriptions because she made her mind. When it was revealed it was the opposite sign of hers, she rationalized by saying Taurus is the zodiac with complementary traits to hers, which is weird mental mental gymnastics, because she substituted the original question from "what best matches you" to "what is complementary to you" in order to keep her belief.
robinbuster - Very nice analysis
And Taurus was not the opposite sign of hers in the first place - the opposition of Taurus is Scorpio, which she said was the sign that least fit her.
Taurus and Capricorn are still in the same group. They do share very much similar traits! That's why they're "Earth signs".
A better solution would be to run the test for A to D and total up each sign 1 for a matching trait. My results were A 9 B 8 C 9 D 13. So Im a Libra and not Pisces.
OMG, she 100 percent believes in the zodiac, is not sure how many there are. Seriously. -_-
The ZODIAC? There's only one zodiac- Ted Cruz
Like.... I know, right??? Like......... I know.
So what’s a Scorpio like, like ?
I 100% believed in christianity and didn't know half of the shit that was in the bible lol!
Stevo Devo
Well that’s evolution for you.
I love that you were able to actually test her claims. It's amusing how she justified the misses. Perfect example of motivated reasoning. Every miss is a hit if you're willing to twist and fictionalize reality.
Definitely, and I think that's why Reid switched to asking things like "If you stopped believing, what would you miss about it?" He could tell that she wouldn't change her mind unless there was an alternative solution to quickly getting to know people/getting them to like you.
I've put the blue thumb because of this. But the way it went didn't satisfied me... He started well: setting the rules before the test but I didn't feel he realy applied them afterwards. Of course, he couldn't have known about the opposite compatibilty. Strangely she only validated the opposite compatibility, that's strange.
@@strontium7641 The compatibility thing is just a way of making it impossible to lose. That way it's unfalsifiable.
"If you didn't believe this a year from now, what would you miss most about it?"
Emily would miss, "the predictability" which is a good business model. It's exactly why a Big Mac is the same in two McDonald's that are a thousand miles apart. What's amazing is that one finds predictability in a grab bag like astrology, but I totally get it. I wasn't and am not unlike Emily - I think her sentiment is profound. Predictability is very desirable. I mean, we make plans on predictions - when things go awry, it can run the spectrum from annoying to catastrophic. Kudos to Emily and Reid. Great conversation.
@@MohawkMangopit yes its a "positive "state of affairs to live constantly in hope and fear.
I don't believe in astrology but to be fair to Emily, it might be good enough for her purposes (rationally) if it allows her to better retain facts and speculations about other people's personalities. By providing a framework, astrology allows you to have more fun thinking about other people, and therefore perhaps do it better. Indirectly, through practice, you might even become better at assessing a new person's personality through lifelong use of astrology. It also helps with remembering people's birthdays, at least approximately. And there may be other benefits.
Her last line: "it's so funny you don't strike me as a Taurus"
Funny since she said she hasn't met anyone who doesn't align with their sign.
.you guys HAVE to realise it’s NOT based on just your SUN sign BUT you’re chart. but you treat it like you judge it and you’re scared to look into charts.
@@ItzZay1 this is such a cop out. As soon as someone has traits that defy their sign, you say look at the chart. Isn't it more likely that we're all just human beings and carry the full range of emotions and opinions rather than these things being determined on when and where we were born? One claim is very mundane and believable, the other is pretty extraordinary
@Ill President like I said, and many astrologersbsay, it's not JUST YOUR SUN SIGN. there's other PLANETSTHAT U RELATE WITH WIT DIFFRENT ZODIAS BASED O YOUR TIME OF BIRTH TOO. THOSE ARE astro chats/ sun signs just happen to be the most accurate.
@Ill President actually for the last bit, there’s different types of astrology charts which u cna choose to relate to. In my personal preference, Vedic charts are way accurate than tropical charts. There’s differences between these types of charts and yes there is evidence to astrology.
Tropical- egoistic, based on how you act under the influence of how others act around you
Vedic- your soul, the one persona you grow out to be.
Try filling out an Astro chart, and changing one placement to relate to another sign in that placement/planet, see if it is accurate for you.
Also, try finding out your most pal cement sign mentioned. In order to test this, u have to test it out for yourself, to see how accurate it is.
and you cannOT tell me that you can’t relate to your sun sign more than any other signs.
Of COURSE, we can relate to every single zodiac sign, our birthday decides which one we relate to the most and also based on the exact time we were born, which makes sense. It is pseudoscience, it always will be, but you cannot judge something if you can’t prove why it is so accurate aswell..
This is actually one of the best RUclips channels. Period. I feel like 100 years from now it will be a total treasure
"It's funny, you don't strike me as a Taurus. Welp ... time to ignore that disconfirmitory evidence - bye!"
Massive Confirmation Bias.
CRITICAL HIT
I'm like...totally like...blown away by like...this girls' knowledge and like understanding in like....what she like...believes.
Like ummmm ... 9 or 10 zodiacs ... it's like a mystery. As long as like no one can disprove it. A questionnaire ... like ... no one cares.
WTF !!!???!!! Frighteningly dumb.
I went on a date with a girl who was super into astrology. We were at a bar getting drinks and she was telling me how her personality is 100% "her sign" (can't remember what it was) and that she knows it's real. I looked up sign characteristics on my phone and instead of her sign, I started reading her a different, random sign. The whole time she was like yes yes yes, that's 100% me, see it works! Then I turned my phone around and showed her I was reading a different sign. She wasn't too happy. We didn't hang out again after that... whoops.
Lol, can't get laid when disproving astrology 😂
you just said that you couldn’t remember the sign anyways so maybe you were reading her actual sign without you knowing since you can’t remember
Or, more likely, he cannot rememberher star sign now but knew it just after she said it!@@kenza3662
Bro, you could've gotten laid. Dumb move.
I'm wondering, if instead of offering a test that would reduce her confidence, what would happen if you asked "What would make you even more confident?" And follow that up with "Okay, what would make you less confident?" once you shook the confidence into a place that was easier to move.
You could she was getting increasingly uncomfortable when she realized she was making excuses for her belief after being surprised by the results of the test. I think her confidence might have dropped a bit even though she didn't choose to report it.
For the test, maybe instead of just having thumbs up and down you should have maybe worked with degrees, i.e. a judgement from 1-10 of how well each description fits to your personality.
Great conversation though, you're really good at this. I especially like your inclusion of emotion-based questions, i.e. "if you were to lose this belief, what would you miss about it and how else could you get that thing". Emotion is so often an undeniable part of people's epistemology, even when they don't realize it.
Yeah, just counting up matches vs nonmatches for each sign would make this much more objective than thumbs up / down. But it's easy to say this after watching the whole thing play out
Your poker face is great, how you don't even smile at hearing some of these things is amazing, let alone laughing out loud.
_"No one's disproven it to me yet."_
There it is, the illusion of security that comes with a perceived unfalsifiability.
22:07 “I looove confrontation. I love when people try to fight me .... I am a loudmouth”
She doesn’t align with my decency scope
It's funny how after spending more than a half hour with Reed, she ends by saying that he doesn't strike her as a Taurus (which he is). That one assertion by her alone speaks to the apparent failure of the accuracy of the Zodiac, and effectively reveals it untrue. Yet she clearly just ignores/dismisses her own stated opinion that conflicts with her strongly held belief in it. I wonder if she will ever be able to rise above her cognitive dissonance so as to honestly explore the reason(s) behind her own psychological need to believe this stuff (which is nothing more than nonsense that emanated out of the utter ignorance and superstition of our ancient ancestors).
She would have failed the interview.
"You don't strike me as a Taurus" felt like the punchline to a comedy sketch.
she said that there are border examples that dont have to match, there is also personal developement (which Reed obviously underwent), and lastly one exception does not prove hre belief wrong.
@@johnytwo In other words, you embrace fantasy and nonsense. Got it.
@@VariedVids nope. you did not get it :D
“My ex boyfriend was intense, sex-crazed, snaky etc”
-her
Great video! I laughed out loud at her certainty (100%) vs knowledge (0%) of astrology. As always great video. Exposing unfounded beliefs is important.
Individuals born on May 21st excel in certain social skills, team work, and may shine in human resources and other areas of expertise that require character matching, conflict resolving, and creating contacts that everyone benefits from. Their talents will blossom in positions that air their voice, public appearances, and preaching of any kind.
Talkative, connecting and willing to seek understanding for every side of the problem, they are positive thinkers and people who realize that no other human is truly their enemy.
Horoscope of Jeffrey Dahmer
Hahahahaha, I want to see a list of horoscopes of 12 serial killers of every zodiac
@@tima5033 Especially the Zodiac killer
She’d be the type of person I’d expect to be a regular Tony Robbins seminar goer.
"You don't strike me as a Taurus." Oh, the irony of that statement... :P
Great conversation and experiment, Emily and Reid.
Love her reaction at 32:28 "... you don't strike me as a Taurus..."
It's her cognitive disonance talking :v
Ad Brouwer that last little comment of hers was the most telling of all - worth the entire interview!
Little Bird sure was. I just heard what she said after abovementioned quote: "Then again I don't know you very well..."
This strikes me as adding another justification for herself explaining why it didn't work out as she thought it would.
Missed opportunity:
Emily: "What's your zodiac sign?"
CC: "T-Rex"
nice example of correlation between number of “like” per sentence and ability to think critically
This was an awesome talk. I really liked how a false reading could be explained away through the obfuscation of overlapping birth months, or the sun and moon example she named. I really think you hit the nail on the head when you asked her why Zodiacs should matter if they seemingly all apply. Emily was extremely earnest and had some great responses. It was interesting that she uses “sus” as a slang term because it makes it seem like she is very familiar or experienced with suspect things.
Sus doesn't even mean suspect anymore. It's just a slang word to use now.
the number of “like” per sentence correlates with intellect 100%
Thumbs up for actually conducting a test! It was predictable (ironically, I guess) that she would find excuses if the test failed, but would be relentlessly certain of the result if it didn't. You did try to make sure in advance that you could correctly interpret the test results, but maybe you should've spend two more minutes on covering all the possibilities for her backing out of it. I don't think this would have changed her mind in the end, however, so the Carnegie-quote is pretty accurate.
MyMusics101
Funny how she says there's different places you can get the readings from and mentioned the 2 she likes best.
I wish he would have jumped on that, and compared the different readings from different sites.
It doesn't seem to phase her that she's cherry picking her readings.
It's scary how gullible and naïve people can be, to the point of dishonest even.
Crazy prayingmantis Exactly. If this was real then the description of the signs should be consistent across all sites. But it definitely is not. This especially applies to the daily horoscopes. Just utterly random between different sources.
stanj85 I'm wouldn't be so sure. Even for an area of a "hard science" like quantum mechanics, there is a lot of quantum woo on the Internet. And of you take a "softer" one like psychology, even more so. Overall, I don't think the reliability of a number of sources is a reliable way to measure truthfulness of the topic concerned.
MyMusics101 I guess that's a good point. But that also highlights the fact that there is no authoritative source to measure against. And it reminds us that all these different sources give such vague results that it will always seem to match up with someone's experience.
Yeah that's true I guess
At the start she said it will tell you your career path, seems like the easiest one to point out to me, you should be able to walk into any company and have the hundreds of people all tell you they were born in the same month.
The birthday parties at a company like Amazon must be lit.
What would have been a better test:
1. The 3rd party reads out all the attributes, scrambled (not grouped by sign)
2. Each participant marks whether they identify with it or not
3. If astrology is true, there should be a very clear grouping of matches with attributes for that person's actual sign.
4. If astrology is false, there will be a broad distribution of matches across multiple signs.
Wow, you actually did an experiment.
I was so tempted to start the video over and count how many times she said the word like. Had to be at least a thousand
Also, calling everything "sus". She's an idiot.
My wife is a Scorpio like me, and we are complete opposites in so many aspects for personality, likes, and even dislikes....
This was a hard interview.
In light of SE it went absolutely nowhere.
The subject changed all of the time.
Focus was to strong on the WHAT and not enough on the HOW/WHY.
"Anytime I meet someone, I'll look up their zodiak sign and read about it, and it's ALMOST always 100% true."
==> If the zodiak information is 100% true, then can you predict the zodiak sign of people you meet with 100% certainty ?
Reading the comments, I think you all are being a bit unfair. The predictability of astrology is genuinely astounding. Getting asked my zodiac sign at the beginning of a conversation can tell me right away to a scary degree of accuracy if I want to spend more time with that person.
Ouch
31:40 “A [hu]man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”
A great quote.
Too bad it doesn’t apply to this cordial conversation at all since Reid is more considerate than anyone I’ve seen to not pressure or coerce people into just agreeing with his view. Actually Street Epistemologists usually don’t even have to share their own view. Only provide questions.
No one here is trying to oppress you or force you to think more rationally. But when we go into conversations determined to avoid persuasion, we’ll very easily succeed at that and miss opportunities to progress.
I went a little extra on my comments on this one. But I won’t apologize.
I think this one Triggered me!
came in like "I SOOOO 100% BELIEVE AND KNOW IT'S REAL AND FIGHT ME!" left like "i umm still like pretty much believe"... i'd say this was a success. no way she's not gonna think more critically about it from now on.
MISSING THE QUESTION!:(
- I have observed this in some people interviewed.
Example:
[32:08]
Q. Do you CARE if your beliefs are accurate and true?
A. I THINK they are... Zodiacs.
- That answer does not address the question (care vs. think). It is an answer to a different question. In fact, it's essentially an assertion of the belief (and seemingly defensive, even).
- Perhaps one can be so connected to their belief that they are unable, or at least unwilling to honestly question the veracity of their belief, thus miss the actual question altogether.
- Hm? Human nature!
Interesting!
"Skip to 23 for results"
Oh, why would I? This looks fun!
Hahaha, same.
The Penn and Teller Astrology episode was great. Darren Brown performed an astrology experiment which was awesome too.
Penn and teller astrology
Loch Ness monster?! She could believe that?! Education in ecology and biology is more important than people think it is. I'm not poking fun at her specifically but it's amazing the impact a proper education will have on predispositions
Loved this interview! its almost like zodiac can do no wrong-and even if the evidence seems to prove its wrong in a personal case- thats brushed aside with being " not interpreted correctly " adjustments are made to " connect the dots" until it "fits" - So much like religious texts in that way.
It seems like she finds a lot of comfort and maybe even feels she gets an edge in life by being able to " read someone" before getting to know their traits with experience. but i think she had some discomfort and doubt during the experiment and possibly will scrutinize more closely the next time she's confronted with a glaringly incorrect zodiac prediction.
Nice session Reid. The curious thing about epistemology, done well, is to have the interlocutor, or source step outside their own paradigms to objectively evaluate themselves. The irony and remarkable approach to this is the continuance of using the same brain to do so. Teasing objectivity out of an irrational thought is difficult, but when the same brain employs rationale to justify it's irrational position, it becomes complicated and epistemologists must be highly skilled to keep their interlocutor's rationale focused on critiquing their thoughts instead of supporting them.
Your sign is A - There are times when you know you need to be brave. You believe in some thing or some person deeply and you long to find someone who loves you deeply. You can be stubborn when your beliefs are challenged.
Your sign is B - There are times you wish to be alone. You wish to be great at writing, art or music. Being among strangers can make you feel less comfortable than if you were alone or with friends.
Your sign is C - You love a good laugh, and you hate when good people, especially those you personally love, are hurt. You want to open yourself up to some people but you are afraid of those you don't trust possibly hurting you .
These descriptions are as accurate and unique as a sign that claims "caution: floor may or may not be wet."
I think your guest just reinvented the scientific method
"My belief can't be disproven, therefore, it's true!"
Did I detect a bit of cognitive dissonance at the end there?
Absolutely, same here
Definitely.
She understands so little about even how Zodiac supposedly works but is so invested.
exactly, she got basic white girl fake astrology
Emily is a sweet and thoughtful person who is so committed to the idea of astrology that she doesn't update her certainty, even a little, throughout the conversation. She does however update or even toss out method after method of testing truthfulness. In the end she declined the offer to back off 100% on the scale but her words did change from "I totally believe in astrology." to "yeah I pretty much still believe in astrology."
9 to 10 zodiacs :)
This is perhaps the definition of confirmation bias taken to the extreme. Like, this is a TEXTBOOK example of confirmation bias. This is why we should understand psychology.
I almost killed myself from facepalming. 🤦♂️
*Believes 100% in Zodiac*
-doesn’t know how many there are.
-doesn’t know the time periods.
-Couldn’t predict a single zodiac sign correctly
-Was wrong about basically everything
*-believes 100% in zodiac.*
I can’t even....How? How can someone confirmation-bias themselves into such a rabbit hole without realising they’re neck-deep in...?
I liked seeing the testing and all the easy to follow graphics
less than three minutes watching and she said "like" like hundred times.
I literally had to stop watching I couldn't.
For people who really just want some personal labels to identify with and for some kind of community to compare oneself to - why not at least choose a less arbitrary categorization, like the Myers-Briggs personality types.
Their descriptions make more sense, AND are determined by your own feedback from answering a survey of questions more relavent than your date time and place of birth.
I don’t give a crap what zodiac sign I was determined to be at birth, but it was informative and kinda useful to asses Myself as an ENFP.
And this could even change as I mature. Unlike whatever star sign I’d be.
My girlfriend was big into zodiac signs before I met her.
I slowly switched her to be obsessed with mbti instead somehow... It's a psuedoscience no doubt, but one with at least arguably more logical
this girl is a gem that must be protected at all costs
In case Emily does read the comments and is interested, I am a Taurus (which was the first one on the list) but I picked Libra (the last one) as more like me :)
This experiment would have been interested with more people, sooo...
Did anyone else's sign appear on the list? And if so, did you pick it out or did you pick something else?
*Mack Reynolds* wrote a wonderful story _”Through all your houses wandering”_ back in the 70s that gave a new twist to the idea behind the zodiac...
“Ah yeah, I am reliable.” said in a offhand way. Love it.
I'm a Scorpio, Emily. I'm 'intense and snaky and sex-crazed?" Lololol. Sometimes intense, but "snaky and sex-crazed". Sorry, not me. And thanks for the insults and prejudging me.
It's because you have a lot of sixth house in your moonhole that's shielding your ascending
Her: what's your sign?
You: porcupine
Her: that's not a real thing
You: none of it is
Mine is T-Rex
One thing I got out from this talk for sure. Never play poker with this man!
Another question: "My aunt used to work for a local paper. She was assigned writing the daily horoscope and she made everything up every day. How do you know your horoscope was written by someone like my aunt, or by a "real" astrologer?"
Thought it was interesting how she commented that she could look up an interviewer's birthday (for a job interview) and then determine how to interact with them and determine their personality. Then at the end she goes, 'It's so funny, you don't strike me as a Taurus. Then again, I don't know you very well'. I am not sure if his face expression after that comment came to this same realization, but gosh it sure looked like it lol.
Dude I love your Expressions! Priceless!
30:15
Excellent question!
You got to the root of her need for astrology.
-Seems very vague.
-Yeah that's how the SAT works, ACT works.
Very telling indeed...
I'd say with that one name drop Derren Brown at the end. You did everything you could.
Ben Edmundson his segment on this was stunning. Love how emotional they got to be before the reveal.
Great video! What is it with Street epistemology and the Monty Pythonesque "office in a field" aesthetic?
I could potentially see the time you're born as an indication of who you might be, because seasons change, and early experiences can affect who you are as an adult
Wow you are a true warrior..... I would have been not this patient with her.. I’m going to subscribe just to learn how to be more patient. How come you didn’t bring up that the test failed ?
Really interesting how you gently ask Emily questions, especially about how to know if something is true or not. It looks like she is very invested into astrology belief and finds it helps her, in my opinion, there are better ways to assess personality and basing your opinions on when someone is born ends up creating a "halo effect" so that everything will be prejudiced to fit the star sign. The "Forer effect" is powerful and a major part of how "psychics" pretend to know more than they do. I really like street epistology, but I am far from good at it, I tend towards being confrontational or mocking because "woo" beliefs annoy me somewhat, especially if they can affect people's health and the health of others.
If you ever get one that comes up again about astrology/zodiac, consider bringing up the 13th sign (calculating for astronomical shift) or whether or not they should also believe in Zodiacs from non-euro-centric backgrounds (i.e. Chinese Zodiac, etc.). Something else to consider is that seasons aren't the same everywhere on the globe, which is why season-aligning star signs is also euro-centric because it was a system developed in the northern hemisphere.
Also from an epistemology standpoint this seemed to shift towards feeling debate-like towards the end, rather than exploration.
The last thing she said was "You don't strike me as a Taurus." I wonder if she realizes what that line means then.
21:00 the moment when the test became invalid, she chose based on her own bias, good thing you were there to be honest
Just another way of thinking that puts the individual in the center of the universe. Ridiculous to think that one's self could be determined by the time and location in the universe they were at when they were born.
There are all sorts of easy criticisms that point out the flaws in astrology but I saw an episode of Richard Dawkins’ old show that really made some great points. He essentially called astrology the only acceptable form of bigotry around. Imagine if we went around ascribing personality traits based on other things we can’t change about ourselves like race or sex like astrologists do with birth dates. That certainly wouldn’t be acceptable by society’s standards. In fact, we have words for those types of people: racists and sexists. How is it okay to assume all sorts of things about me based off of when I was born? (This woman seriously just called me a low-key snake based off of my unchangeable date of birth. How is this acceptable?)
By the way, I’m not equating the disgusting views of racists with astrologists. I fully understand that racism has done far more damage than a belief in astrology but I do think both are rooted in the same disturbing bigotry of basing your viewpoints of others off of simple demographic traits. Honestly, I think that’s just vile.
A good hypothetical to ask zodiac believers is to propose that someone they know well finds out they were adopted and given an arbitrary birthday. She’d have been basing things about that person on false info such as thinking they’re a Virgo and then find out they’re actually a Leo.
What you find for horoscopes online tend to be vague.
Late to the party, i know, but there are so much interesting things in this talk:
Generally, Emily seems to be really quick with making up excuses for when the zodiac signs apparently fail. What I mostly mean by this is adding complexity to her ideas if it is necessary to justify keeping the idea but at the same time pointing out how useful it is because it is so simple.
The test obviously was something else, it was wild. The most striking thing was of course her justification for why she chose the wrong sign. In a single heartbeat, she went from "that's mostly me" to "it's the complete opposite of me" and both made sense to her at the time she said them.
You mostly agreeing with all of them didn't give a single pause, not even when you pointed that out with the ink test. Instead, she was really quick at jumping on the one where you first went with "kinda na". Granted, she might have been suspicious that you are faking it to undermine her confidence.
The most telling thing to me however was, that she immediately tried to identify the signs before actually thinking if the characteristics applied to her. She chooses the characteristics based on the zodiacs not the other way around It shows the danger in all this astrology thing IMO
The final comment made this talk almost look like satire "You don't strike me as a taurus"
"I'm, like, an idiot and, like, proud of it". Thanks for sharing.
00:06 Okay ! Haha
My girlfriend and all her friends take astrology Very seriously. They swear by it when being selective about which men are trustworthy to date.... based on their birthday...
I Refused to tell her friends my date of birth when I first met them at Delores Park in San Francisco. it was the second thing they asked me, after my name.
This really frustrated them, like I was concealing something very significant about myself and then they got really suspicious and kept guessing that a must be a “bad” Star sign I was trying to hide.
It’s kinda like a form of exclusive group identity, and judgement, except based on literally nothing.
When I’ve gotten a (pseudo-)scientific explaination from some believers, for how the position of very distant planets and even more incredibly distant stars could possibly influence our personality types at the moment of birth in any predictable way (hahaha) they’ll sometimes think to refer to the pull of our Moon’s gravity on our oceans to cause regular tides.
“We are made of mostly water, so why wouldn’t this gravity effect our brains like the oceans.”
Clever idea (for a kid) but the first question that comes to mind is how would even the Moon pull on our brains in a particular way if we our constantly turning our heads around in all different directions...? even in utero a fetus is constantly being reoriented as the mother walks around and lays down to get off her sore feet!
Secondly, even the celestial object that has the most gravitational influence on us after the Sun - our Moon - only has an infinitesimally minute gravitational influence with objects as small as our bodies.
The entire ocean is ENORMOUS compared to the liquids in our heads, so the magnitude of the Moon’s gravitational pull on it is relatively much greater.
The scientific method has provided us with the calculations to determine how much lighter your body is with the Moon directly over your head compared to it being on the opposite side of the planet.
You can look that up and then consult a neurologist to see if that tiny amount of pull would even have any perceivable effect on the brain.
But the zodiac houses and other astrological thingies aren’t even concerned with real, measurable, predictable forces of nature. The stars that form the constellations which just Appear to us to look like relatable shapes from anceant cultures IF you connect the dots are really thousands to millions of light years apart.
A stone in Australia has more gravitational influence on you than the stars you see.
Buts it’s really all just metaphorical connections. WHICH COULD BE CUTE/Fun, if people didn’t need to take it literally and actually be influenced in their decisions by it.
I could enjoy spotting familiar shapes in the clouds as a lazy social activity...
but I’m not going to choose a girlfriend based on which fuckin cloud animal was directly looming over her at the moment we met ! what the heck Ajhh haha!
But last I checked around 70% of my generation of Americans actually believe in this pseudoscience/mysticism.
Compared to a recent poll of Chinese that showed 92% of them know it’s a bunch of baloney.
(America also elected a reality TV bigot for president tho - so I shouldn’t have high expectations)
You WERE hiding something. They were right
The very end.
“It's so funny, you don't strike me as a Taurus. But then I don't know you very well.”
If this isn't evidence the theory isn't valid, what could such evidence possibly look like? Is it possible the whole system is set up so that, no matter how wrong it might be, you could never allow yourself to be convinced it's wrong?
Allan Cady - "You don't strike me as a Taurus. But then I don't know you very well" yet she said she relies on zodiac so she doesn't have to spend time to get to know someone. Hmm.
Delusion at its best.
What I did is ask for the birthday, deliberately enter it wrong, thus reading out the wrong description and when they nod vigorously in agreement, show them what sign I was actually reading.
Emily's parting comment of "A man convinced against his will is of his same opinion still," is spot on and "there is the rub."
Hey man. I really love this idea. I have kinda thought of doing the same thing at college campuses. But you are REALLY good at it, in a way that has a chance of changing their mind. The way you hold their hand and lead them is excellent. Going to watch more after this one :)
I'm only in the first minute and a half she says "It's almost always 100% true".... wait... whut?! There is no such thing is "almost 100%". Even 99.9999 is not 100%. That's like saying it's almost on, or almost off. Or saying almost dead or almost alive. I hate when people say such nonsense.
Shes quite full of herself. Surprising how confident she is. Sounds likr a leo.
Did anyone count how many times she said “like”?
How about this:
“If it wasn’t true, would you want to know about it?”
“How many people do you know?”
I'm with him. There were a number of things in each sign that I would say match with me, so you could put any one of those lists under my sign and I would say that it was at least 50-75% accurate, but none, (including the actual list for my sign, which was mentioned) really stood out from the rest as accurately describing my personality.
She took control of the whole interview immediately. I loved "we'll cross that bridge when we get there." Not complaining tho, she was great.
Does an astrological forecast for someone born in the Northern hemisphere apply to someone born in the Southern hemisphere?
If so, why?
They would be born under different stars that are visible.
I really need to learn how to keep a straight face like you. 😅
I like love like the way like she like says like so many times like wow.
The traits off my sign only got 1 to 2 items out of each category right and in depth descriptions get them completely wrong. I have investigated this previously; not one instance did it definitively describes people around me accurately, as in, every category and traits gets a check mark. Pure bologna and love when Richard Dawkins describes it as "Facile Discrimination" :D