HPL Astrological Birth Data
me
Not just the date but the exact time and place too?
I have been studying astrology for several years now and would be interested
produce a birth chart for HPL.
For all you sceptics ("astrology is rubbish" "just pseudo science" etc) I
did my 3rd year university thesis on the link (if any )between astrology and
the personality and got a lot of statisitically significant results
supporting the hypothesis that sun sign affects personality to some extent.
The experiment involved self-rating questionnaires and over 170 subjects.
Not one guessed what it was about until I told them afterwards as a few 'red
herring' questions were thrown in to mask the true purpose of the
experiment, thereby avoid biased responeses.In addition to being asked date
of birth at the start they were asked birth position amongst siblings(if
any), ideal career and gender. Quite a few thought it was about birth order
and personality traits or sex differences.
Sceptics -if your opinion on astrology comes from reading Russell Grants
newspaper predictions than its no wonder you are a sceptic. This man has
been shown to be a lazy fraud. My work is mainly in birth charts and
personality rather than predictive astrology (although I am trying to teach
myself this too). I used to think there was nothing in astrology until I
noticed definate similarities in friends of the same sun signs, found a book
in Oxfam on Sun signs and was suprised to read that my observations and
deductions of certain similarities were given as traits for these signs.
If anyone is interested in my thesis experiment or anything else mentioned
then let me know and I can give more info. to you, but as this is the
"alt.horror.cthulhu" NG rather than an astrology NG I better end this mail
now...
D.E. Kesler
E. Hoffman Price worked up an astrological chart for Lovecraft which
was presented in Meade and Penny Frierson's _H.P.L._. Price's notes
which he has scribbled all around the actual chart read as follows.
"H.P. Lovecraft chart calculated on basis of _Solar_ time not local
mean time. Solar - Mean + 3 min. 9:00 am Aug. 20, 1980. Providence,
R.I. 71* 25'- 41*, Sidereal Time Birth, 7 hr 13 min."
Please share your findings.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Mike Tice
> For all you sceptics ("astrology is rubbish" "just pseudo science" etc) I
> did my 3rd year university thesis on the link (if any )between astrology and
> the personality and got a lot of statisitically significant results
> supporting the hypothesis that sun sign affects personality to some extent.
Well, publish ...
> The experiment involved self-rating questionnaires and over 170 subjects.
Though your sample is small. Larger studies have shown no such link,
with the possible exception of the Gacquelin Mars study, over which people
continue to argue. It looks like selection bias is at fault, since more
careful protocols have been unable to replicate the result.
--Mike
"We know nothing except through logical analysis, and if we reject
that sole connexion with reality, we might as well stop trying to
be adults and retreat into the capricious dream-world of infantility."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 8/16/32
Nunya D. Bidness
Will these superstitions ever end?!
Are we nothing more than midless drones, twitching and following every proposed explanation and theorum?
*startz the Cult of Intelligence*
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:26:04 +0100, "me" <south...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know detailed data on HPL's birthday?
>Not just the date but the exact time and place too?
>I have been studying astrology for several years now and would be interested
>produce a birth chart for HPL.
>
>For all you sceptics ("astrology is rubbish" "just pseudo science" etc) I
>did my 3rd year university thesis on the link (if any )between astrology and
>the personality and got a lot of statisitically significant results
>supporting the hypothesis that sun sign affects personality to some extent.
>The experiment involved self-rating questionnaires and over 170 subjects.
>Not one guessed what it was about until I told them afterwards as a few 'red
>herring' questions were thrown in to mask the true purpose of the
>experiment, thereby avoid biased responeses.In addition to being asked date
>of birth at the start they were asked birth position amongst siblings(if
>any), ideal career and gender. Quite a few thought it was about birth order
>and personality traits or sex differences.
>Sceptics -if your opinion on astrology comes from reading Russell Grants
>newspaper predictions than its no wonder you are a sceptic. This man has
>been shown to be a lazy fraud. My work is mainly in birth charts and
>personality rather than predictive astrology (although I am trying to teach
>myself this too). I used to think there was nothing in astrology until I
>noticed definate similarities in friends of the same sun signs, found a book
>in Oxfam on Sun signs and was suprised to read that my observations and
>deductions of certain similarities were given as traits for these signs.
>If anyone is interested in my thesis experiment or anything else mentioned
>then let me know and I can give more info. to you, but as this is the
>"alt.horror.cthulhu" NG rather than an astrology NG I better end this mail
>now...
>
>
>
>
>
>
If marriage as outlawed, then only outlaws would have inlaws.
me
Thanks !
I'll share my findings, as requested, probably be in a few days time (as I
have a million & one other things to do too as well...)
armi...@berk.com
"me" <south...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know detailed data on HPL's birthday?
> Not just the date but the exact time and place too?
> I have been studying astrology for several years now and would be
interested
> produce a birth chart for HPL.
>
1. What is the date of origin of the charts that you use to construct
horoscopes?
2. Do the charts also incorporate the influence of the other planets?
I ask of course because Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered from
1781 to 1930. Do you use new charts created from whole cloth, ancient
charts that ignore the outer planets, or ancient charts that have been
arbitrarily altered to incorporate the outer planets? None of theese
options are particularly good.
armi...@berk.com
"No Nyarlathotep, No Chaos. Know Nyarlathotep, Knw Chaos."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
me
crabby if I post to alt.horror.cthulhu. Will let you know as & when this
happens.
Yes my sample was small at 170 but the statistical analysis took this into
account:i.e. the smaller the subject group the greater the effect has to be
before it is said to be statistically significant.
---> "Selection bias is at fault" you say- Please explain what you mean. -
i.e a bias in myself in selecting subjects (I approached people at random,
anyone and everyone who would do the experiment basically, from the
libraray, the bars, the cafeteria, all around the campus. Plus i asked
anybody and everyone I knew outside college inc. all friends of friends,
peoples's parents etc) Or do you mean a bias in the subjects (e.g. I am an
Aquarius so therefore as an air sign I must rate myself highly on
'Reflectiveness' say). As i mentioned, nobody knew what the experiment was
about so that hopefully eliminated the bias of people responding as they
expect their sun sign to respond.
No one would have been able to replicate my study as I did not replicate
anybody elses and my results would be in the university library but nowhere
else (except in my parents attic). What it consisted of was this: A few
basic questions in order to throw them off the trail (of astrology) and to
get their sun sign (from DOB) and gender. Then 36 questions where subjects
rated themselves on various personality traits from a scale of 1 to 7. I
picked 3 main traits for each sun sign, these traits were chosen from my own
previous research and from books on astrology. Then 104 questions taken
from Hans J. Eysencks famous personality traits tests. This bit was
concerned with the elemental groupings as well as sun-sign, e.g. Fire or Air
signs. For example Fire signs are meant to be the most extrovert and active
signs, and doers rather than thinkers.So I used some questions from the
personality test for Extroversion vs Introversion as well as some from the
Active vs Passive test. In fact all 3 fire signs (Leo, Aries and
Saggittarius) were significantly more extroverted and active than any other
signs.
Have you read Carl Jungs 'Synchronicity'? He looks at some aspects of
astrology in that. His main finding was this: there is a significant effect
in married couples , or those in long term relationships, that one partners
Moon is in the same sign as the other partners Sun.
Mike Tice wrote in message ...
>
>> For all you sceptics ("astrology is rubbish" "just pseudo science" etc) I
>> did my 3rd year university thesis on the link (if any )between astrology
and
>> the personality and got a lot of statisitically significant results
>> supporting the hypothesis that sun sign affects personality to some
extent.
>
> Well, publish ...
>
>> The experiment involved self-rating questionnaires and over 170 subjects.
>
willm...@delphi.com
It's very interesting that E. Hoffmann Price, an extremely
hard=nosed individual with a military background, became a professional
astrologer. I thought it also interesting that Price's horoscopic
analysis suggested the subject avoid the occult--of course he means
I think psychic experience or dabbling in real life, not literature.
It would be interesting to rectify HPL's chart and determine
his rising sign. My money would be on Scorpio or Libra.
me
I started by using the Placidus - the most commonly used House system but a
few years ago started using the Koch and Natural Graduation systems as well.
Placidus is from C17 (many other systems e.g. Regiomantus, Campanus date
even earlier than Placidus.) and Koch & Nat.Graduation C20; Koch introduced
in 1962. Placidus does indeed incorporate planets not discovered at the time
on its invention, it is also the only non-geometrical system of
division.Koch is time based and is widely used today - the only problem is
that it cannot deal with births higher than 60degree latitude as its table
of houses does not support it! also it cannot apply to those born in Polar
regions.
Natural Graduation seems the best overall choice but i will apply all 3
methods to the chart for comparison.
If you have any advice/suggestions please let me know.
Mike Tice
with your study since I haven't seen it. I was referring to Gacquelin's
study, which purported to find a link between Mars and athletic ability.
He chose 'famous French athletes' and examined their astrological data and
discovered a significant effect. However, critics have said that he was
peculiarly choosy in deciding who fit the criteria of 'famous French
athletes'. Other studies that used more neutral criteria (I think it was
all people who received more than 2 column inches in a sports
encyclopedia) found no effect.
--Mike
> ---> "Selection bias is at fault" you say- Please explain what you mean. -
> i.e a bias in myself in selecting subjects (I approached people at random,
> anyone and everyone who would do the experiment basically, from the
> libraray, the bars, the cafeteria, all around the campus. Plus i asked
> anybody and everyone I knew outside college inc. all friends of friends,
> peoples's parents etc) Or do you mean a bias in the subjects (e.g. I am an
> Aquarius so therefore as an air sign I must rate myself highly on
> 'Reflectiveness' say). As i mentioned, nobody knew what the experiment was
> about so that hopefully eliminated the bias of people responding as they
> expect their sun sign to respond.
>
> Mike Tice wrote in message ...
me
>*growlz*
>
>Will these superstitions ever end?!
Superstitions? I did a scientific investigation. if you read my original
posting you would see that I used to think there was nowt to astrology but
after real-life observations/findings i had tallied with what I read in
books I began to study it seriously. I formed by opinions after lengthy
study and numerous observations.
Look if the moon affects our planet , not only with tides, planting cycles,
menstrual cycles, but police dept. crime statistics show an increases in
violent crime around time of full moons, the word 'lunatic' comes from
observations that mental patients were stimulated by full moons - more
restless, 'troublesome' etc ('luna' = moon),positive ions in the atmosphere
increases around the times of full moons(this may explain rise in violent
crimes as increasaein + ions can result in disturbed moods, tension etc).
And as you must know, there would be no life on earth without our Sun. Is it
thus not possible that our brains/bodies are also affected to some degree by
planets. How? It could be a scientific explanation to do with magnetic
radiation, ionisation of atmosphere, gravitational fields - who knows at
the moment.
Just 'cos we cannot prove HOW something works doesn't mean it CANT work.
Just that we dont know the mechanisms (yet)
>Are we
Are you using the royal "we" here?
>nothing more than midless drones, twitching and following every proposed
explanation and theorum?
You need to decrease your dose of Largactil and get over your 'hive'
mentality
D.E. Kesler
Bear in mind that you are presenting material that is not recognized as
valid by the scientific community. As such, you are going to encounter
scepticism.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Gregory L. Hansen
me <south...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nunya D. Bidness wrote in message <37d80eb3...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>*growlz*
>>
>>Will these superstitions ever end?!
>
>Superstitions? I did a scientific investigation. if you read my original
>posting you would see that I used to think there was nowt to astrology but
>after real-life observations/findings i had tallied with what I read in
>books I began to study it seriously. I formed by opinions after lengthy
>study and numerous observations.
Which system of astrology? There are two systems in common use, they
sometimes give mutually contradictory results.
>Look if the moon affects our planet , not only with tides, planting cycles,
>menstrual cycles, but police dept. crime statistics show an increases in
>violent crime around time of full moons, the word 'lunatic' comes from
Where did you find the police statistics?
>observations that mental patients were stimulated by full moons - more
>restless, 'troublesome' etc ('luna' = moon),positive ions in the atmosphere
Where did the mental patient statistics come from?
For what it's worth, my brother used to work with someone who was in an
institute. He says they'll all go crazy at the turn of the century,
because that's just the way they think. He seemed to think it was a
decision, not an involuntary response.
>increases around the times of full moons(this may explain rise in violent
>crimes as increasaein + ions can result in disturbed moods, tension etc).
>And as you must know, there would be no life on earth without our Sun. Is it
>thus not possible that our brains/bodies are also affected to some degree by
>planets.
I don't see how. Any magnetic or gravitational effects of the planets are
swamped out by terrestrial noise.
>How? It could be a scientific explanation to do with magnetic
>radiation, ionisation of atmosphere, gravitational fields - who knows at
>the moment.
You might look for unusual behavior patterns that occur every eleven years
with the solar cycle. Solar activity does hit our magnetosphere and can
even cause damaging magnetic storms. If you're looking for magnetic
effects, solar activity is more likely than planets.
>Just 'cos we cannot prove HOW something works doesn't mean it CANT work.
>Just that we dont know the mechanisms (yet)
There's also an important interpretive element to astrology. Even if it
is a reliable predictor of events, I'm not so sure it's from going by the
numbers in the ephemeris or due to the people casting the fortunes.
>>Are we
>
>Are you using the royal "we" here?
>
>>nothing more than midless drones, twitching and following every proposed
>explanation and theorum?
>
>You need to decrease your dose of Largactil and get over your 'hive'
>mentality
He could as well have asked if were are nothing more than mindless drones,
twitching and following every planetary orbit and lunar shadow.
--
"Honey, would you mind opening the window? The police have Daddy's
fingerprints on file." - Homer
Christophe Thill
>Just 'cos we cannot prove HOW something works doesn't mean it CANT work.
>Just that we dont know the mechanisms (yet)
Well, actually, YES, that's just how it works.
Continental drift was just a funny and alluring idea for a while. But
as no explanation of how it could work was proposed, scientists
preferred to invent the silliest alternative explanations (earth
bridges, etc). So when plates tectonics came and offered a good
explanation, everybody became a believer in the drift...
A comment from a statistician (yes, that's my job) : analysing raw
figures can lead to the most contradictory and misleading figures.
Even if there was a significant difference between months of birth,
this wouldn't indicate the cause behind the difference ; opposite
theories could explain it just as well. And let's not forget possible
multivariate effects, that have to be carefully neutralised.
A comment from a lovecraftian: submitting HPL to astrology seems very
cruel to me. He did a very strong campaign against astrology, after
all...
Christophe Thill - Paris, France (c_t...@worldnet.fr)
ArKa/D/ia! Homepage: http://www.worldnet.fr/~c_thill/
HP Lovecraft page: http://www.worldnet.fr/~c_thill/hpl/
"The King in Yellow": http://www.worldnet.fr/~c_thill/chambers/
DAIKAIJU! Les monstres japonais: http://www.worldnet.fr/~c_thill/kaiju/
florinaldo
launched your little study, you should know that random selection the way
you describe it can very well reinforce biases in your selected population.
Sample selection cannot be left totally to chance, especially with small
samples and in an environment where individual charactereistics are at the
same time limited on one aspect (a sizeable sub-population of students and
teachers) and diverse on another (various fields of studies). You can
overselect some sub-population and reinforce biases at the same time you
believe you are randomizing.
As for your references to moon effects in one of your other posts, where
should I start? First of all, the effect of the moon on tides is great only
because it is acting on a gigantic volume of liquid, spread over great
distances and depths. The net force of the moon is in fact quite small.
But the oceans being so big, even a little effect can have great
consequences. When acting on the human body, the resulting effect is indeed
vanishingly small because the mass and size of the liquid the force is
being exerted on is small. That's the physics part.
Now for crime statistics increasing on a full moon, this canard has been
demonstrated to be false. Crime levels, birth rates, riots in psych wards,
etc. show no correlation to the phases of the moon. What studies have
demonstrated is a psychological effect: selective memory. People (policemen
among them) remember more the crimes committed under a full moon, and tend
not to notice that as many of them are committed at oher times. If a peak
in the crime rate occurs on a full moon, the moon immediately becomes the
explanation (after all, it is right up there in the sky to be seen!); if it
happens on any other night, it's just part of natural fluctuations (and
there is nothing to notice in the sky). Any sensible mind would conclude
that it is always because of fluctuations and that peaks and valleys will
coincide, at some time, with any parameter one chooses (Friday the 13th,
milk delivery day, social security checks being received, student being
given homework in history and geography on the same night, etc.).
The leap from your mention of the Sun maintaining life on Earth to the
possibility of planets (stars really) affecting our lives and bodies over so
great distances is a classic example of intellectual non sequitur. The
processes ("alleged" processes in the case of astrology) are so vastly
different in nature as to not warrant being equated.
And yes, if you can't explain HOW it works, then it is not proven and it is
not scientific. Throwing random scientific vocabulary around hoping
something will stick to the wall does not do the trick. But even before you
start proposing an explanation, the reality that something is happening must
be established.
It is up the the people claiming that something as extraordinary as
astrology exists or works to show that it does. Not to the rest of us ot
prove it does not. The onus is on the ones making the claims.
And the bottom line is that each time astrology has been subjected to seriou
study to simply establish the existence of an astrological effect, it has
been found not to be there. And absent that basic demonstration of fact,
any proposed explanation is a useless exercise of blowing in the wind.
As an exercise in pessimism, I think I'll dig up Lovecraft's words on the
subject of astrology. From what I remember of his thoughts on the matter, I
fear that the level of credulity has not changed much in all the years since
he railed against it.
--
Florinaldo
----------
Dans l'article <936969877.19936.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "me"
<south...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> I may be publishing results to another NG, as I think alot of people may get
> crabby if I post to alt.horror.cthulhu. Will let you know as & when this
> happens.
>
> Yes my sample was small at 170 but the statistical analysis took this into
> account:i.e. the smaller the subject group the greater the effect has to be
> before it is said to be statistically significant.
>
> ---> "Selection bias is at fault" you say- Please explain what you mean. -
> i.e a bias in myself in selecting subjects (I approached people at random,
> anyone and everyone who would do the experiment basically, from the
> libraray, the bars, the cafeteria, all around the campus. Plus i asked
> anybody and everyone I knew outside college inc. all friends of friends,
> peoples's parents etc) Or do you mean a bias in the subjects (e.g. I am an
> Aquarius so therefore as an air sign I must rate myself highly on
> 'Reflectiveness' say). As i mentioned, nobody knew what the experiment was
> about so that hopefully eliminated the bias of people responding as they
> expect their sun sign to respond.
> No one would have been able to replicate my study as I did not replicate
> anybody elses and my results would be in the university library but nowhere
> else (except in my parents attic). What it consisted of was this: A few
> basic questions in order to throw them off the trail (of astrology) and to
> get their sun sign (from DOB) and gender. Then 36 questions where subjects
> rated themselves on various personality traits from a scale of 1 to 7. I
> picked 3 main traits for each sun sign, these traits were chosen from my own
> previous research and from books on astrology. Then 104 questions taken
> from Hans J. Eysencks famous personality traits tests. This bit was
> concerned with the elemental groupings as well as sun-sign, e.g. Fire or Air
> signs. For example Fire signs are meant to be the most extrovert and active
> signs, and doers rather than thinkers.So I used some questions from the
> personality test for Extroversion vs Introversion as well as some from the
> Active vs Passive test. In fact all 3 fire signs (Leo, Aries and
> Saggittarius) were significantly more extroverted and active than any other
> signs.
>
> Have you read Carl Jungs 'Synchronicity'? He looks at some aspects of
> astrology in that. His main finding was this: there is a significant effect
> in married couples , or those in long term relationships, that one partners
> Moon is in the same sign as the other partners Sun.
>
>
>
> Mike Tice wrote in message ...
>>
>>> For all you sceptics ("astrology is rubbish" "just pseudo science" etc) I
>>> did my 3rd year university thesis on the link (if any )between astrology
> and
>>> the personality and got a lot of statisitically significant results
>>> supporting the hypothesis that sun sign affects personality to some
> extent.
>>
>> Well, publish ...
>>
>>> The experiment involved self-rating questionnaires and over 170 subjects.
>>
Mike Tice
<flori...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> And yes, if you can't explain HOW it works, then it is not proven and it is
> not scientific.
That's not entirely fair. If it could be demonstrated that astrology had
validity, then science would sit up and take notice, whether or not an
explanation could be offered for it. You have to know something exists,
before you can attempt to explain it.
> It is up the the people claiming that something as extraordinary as
> astrology exists or works to show that it does. Not to the rest of us ot
> prove it does not. The onus is on the ones making the claims.
Ah, that's much better.
--Mike
"This hypocrisy, of course, has to do with the new mysticism or
neo-metaphysics bred of the advertised uncertainties of recent science --
Einstein, the quantum theory, and the resolution of matter into force.
Although these new turns of science don't really mean a thing in relation
to the myth of cosmic consciousness and teleology, a new brood of
despairing and horrified moderns is seizing on the doubt of all positive
knowledge which they imply; and is deducing therefrom that, since nothing
is true, therefore anything can be true ... whence one may invent or
revive any sort of mythology that fancy or nostalgia or desperation may
dictate, and defy anyone to prove that it isn't emotionally true --
whatever that means."
--HP Lovecraft, letter to James Morton 10/30/29
Wmvrrvrrmm
award...@aol.spam (Mike Tice) writes:
>That's not entirely fair. If it could be demonstrated that astrology had
>validity, then science would sit up and take notice, whether or not an
>explanation could be offered for it. You have to know something exists,
>before you can attempt to explain it.
I think that if a demonstration of it's validity could occur, science might sit
up and take notice about ten to twenty years later.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remove "zmmmzmmm" when e-mailing me personally
The Wmmvrrvrrmm Page!
http://member.aol.com/wmvrrvrrmm/wmmvrrvrrmm.html
florinaldo
----------
Dans l'article <awardsgame-10...@ts28-13.wla.ts.ucla.edu>,
award...@aol.spam (Mike Tice) a écrit :
> In article <8WgC3.1061$EP3....@wagner.videotron.net>, "florinaldo"
> <flori...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> And yes, if you can't explain HOW it works, then it is not proven and it is
>> not scientific.
>
> That's not entirely fair. If it could be demonstrated that astrology had
> validity, then science would sit up and take notice, whether or not an
> explanation could be offered for it. You have to know something exists,
> before you can attempt to explain it.
>
True, which is exactly the point I made elsewhere in my original post.
Perhaps the sentence you objected to was indeed a tad lacking in nuances
and made it seem as if I meant that if you don't have an explanation for an
event, it is not proven even though its existence has been established as a
simple matter of observation. The crux of the matter is that proposing
fancy explanations (cosmic rays, magnetism, unknown forces, etc.) without
first establishing the reality of the phenomenon is not valid in terms of
the scientific process; and then one must also make sure that any theory
proposed for explaining that phenomenon is also developed critically and
rationally (not throwhing around random thoughts without trying to assess
their validity). And yes I know that in the real world of science, things
do not always follow a neat course of
observation-experimentation-explanation and that the chronology gets a bit
mixed up at times with steps overlapping. But the basic scheme it still the
underpinning of scientific work.
But in the case of astrology, we are not even at the stage of evaluating an
underlying theory for its inner workings, since the basic fact of an
astrological effect has not even been established.
-----
Florinaldo
Gregory L. Hansen
>launched your little study, you should know that random selection the way
>you describe it can very well reinforce biases in your selected population.
>Sample selection cannot be left totally to chance, especially with small
>samples and in an environment where individual charactereistics are at the
>same time limited on one aspect (a sizeable sub-population of students and
>teachers) and diverse on another (various fields of studies). You can
>overselect some sub-population and reinforce biases at the same time you
>believe you are randomizing.
In parapsychology this was known as the "file drawer effect". A number of
statistically significant experiments had been published, but critics
complained that the null results were not published. So, loosely
speaking, one out of a hundred experiments would be published, and the
literature would be full of experiments that are significant at the 1 in
100 level.
>And yes, if you can't explain HOW it works, then it is not proven and it is
>not scientific.
Well, not really. All that's needed is a clear and reproducible
demonstration. After all, superconductivity and ferromagnetism were known
to physicists long before they could explain it, and they still can't
claim to understand it completely.
>Throwing random scientific vocabulary around hoping
>something will stick to the wall does not do the trick.
Nice! And I certainly agree with that.
>But even before you
>start proposing an explanation, the reality that something is happening must
>be established.
Um... I wouldn't go that far. Tentative explanations, hypotheses, can
guide your investigations. The interplay between theory and experiment
can be very fruitful. But in this case he was just throwing random
scientific vocabulary around hoping something will stick to the wall.
>> ---> "Selection bias is at fault" you say- Please explain what you mean. -
>> i.e a bias in myself in selecting subjects (I approached people at random,
>> anyone and everyone who would do the experiment basically, from the
>> libraray, the bars, the cafeteria, all around the campus. Plus i asked
>> anybody and everyone I knew outside college inc. all friends of friends,
>> peoples's parents etc) Or do you mean a bias in the subjects (e.g. I am an
>> Aquarius so therefore as an air sign I must rate myself highly on
>> 'Reflectiveness' say). As i mentioned, nobody knew what the experiment was
>> about so that hopefully eliminated the bias of people responding as they
>> expect their sun sign to respond.
>> No one would have been able to replicate my study as I did not replicate
>> anybody elses and my results would be in the university library but nowhere
Anyone can replicate your experiment by reading it, and then asking the
same sets of questions and doing the same analysis on another population.
>> else (except in my parents attic). What it consisted of was this: A few
>> basic questions in order to throw them off the trail (of astrology) and to
>> get their sun sign (from DOB) and gender. Then 36 questions where subjects
>> rated themselves on various personality traits from a scale of 1 to 7. I
>> picked 3 main traits for each sun sign, these traits were chosen from my own
>> previous research and from books on astrology. Then 104 questions taken
At first glance it looks okay to me. What does worry me is how you picked
the traits for each sun sign. All traits and correlations must be chosen
in advance so that you have no decisions to make during analysis. What
you'd really want to do is have somebody else (or a computer) rate each
person "blind". That is, generate an extroversion rating and the other
traits without knowing date of birth or sun sign.
Another statistical effect I'd look into is that birthdays may not be
randomly distributed. Say a disproportionate number of people are born in
autumn (because of intimate moments last winter?), and those months are
associated with something like (I really can't remember) extroversion. If
people in general tend to be extroverted regardless of their birth dates,
you may get a bias in your results, depending on how it was analyzed.
I would also want to do the same analysis on randomly generated data. Get
a computer to randomly fill in the responses for a few thousand subjects
and analyze the data as you did before. There *should* be no
statistically significant results, but it's something you really should
check.
D.E. Kesler
Although I have no way of knowing for certain, I doubt if Lovecraft
would be too offended. After all, Lovecraft seemed amused rather than
insulted whenever someone wrote him a letter asking about the validity
of the Necronomicon.
While it is true that Lovecraft was very outspoken against astrology,
even this was approached in a spirit of fun.
Regards and Best Wishes,
Donald Eric Kesler
Christophe Thill wrote:
(snip)
Donovan K. Loucks
Does anyone know detailed data on HPL's birthday? Not just the date but
the exact time and place too? I have been studying astrology for
several years now and would be interested produce a birth chart for
HPL.
I'd first like to point out that I have about as much faith in astrology
as Lovecraft did -- that is, none. Lovecraft was born at 9 a.m. on 20
August 1890 at the home of his grandfather in Providence, Rhode Island.
The figure of 9 a.m. can be found in a letter he wrote to his aunt, Annie
Gamwell, on 19 August 1921:
It is now past midnight--and officially the 20th according to civil
time. (By astronomical time it is still the 19th until the following
noon.) At 9 a.m. I will be one more milepost nearer the welcome
sepulchre which yawns for my gray head. 31! How I wish those numbers
read backward, giving me the youth & the optimism of 13!
Lovecraft's maternal grandfather's house was located at 454 (then numbered
194) Angell Street. This spot is found at a latitude of 41 degrees, 49
minutes, 46 seconds North and a longitude of 71 degrees, 23 minutes, 29
seconds West. That should be precise enough for your purposes!
Lars B. Lindholm in his _Pilgrims of the Night_ constructs astrological
charts for a number of "pilgrims", Lovecraft being amongst them. Lindholm
comments on Lovecraft's chart:
Lovecraft's data are from the inside jacket of a pocket book and
represent his official date of birth, I suppose. As to the time of
day, I confess that I'm all at sea. I don't know enough about him to
attempt a correction. With the comparitively _few_ facts at hand,
there are several obvious possibilities, but to decide upon one of them
would demand access to more research material than I have available at
this time.
Here's the summary of Lovecraft's chart, less the actual diagram:
Date of Birth: August 20, 1890
UT: 16:48:42
Latitude: 41 degrees, 48 minutes North
Longitude: 71 degrees, 23 minutes North
ASC 16 Scorp 34
MC 27 Leo 34
Placidean House Cusps:
11--29 Virgo 46
12--25 Libra 39
2--16 Sagit 16
3--21 Capri 4
Planet Degree
--------------- --------------
Sun 27 Leo 34
Moon 23 Libra 34
Mercury 21 Virgo 11
Venus 11 Libra 02
Mars 10 Sagit 46
Jupiter 4 Aquar 38(R)
Saturn 6 Virgo 02
Uranus 23 Libra 42
Neptune 6 Gemin 43
Pluto 7 Gemin 51
Asc. Node 20 Gemin 17
Part of Fortune 12 Capri 34
After all this I must cleanse my palate with anti-astrology quotes from
Lovecraft...
Recently a quack named Hartmann, a devotee of the pseudo-science of
Astrology, commenced to disseminate the usual pernicious fallacies of
that occult art through the columns of _The News_, so that in the
interest of true Astronomy I was forced into a campaign of invective
and satire. I began seriously, with _Science versus Charlatanry_,
which I followed up with _The Falsity of Astrology_, but eventually the
stupid persistence of the modern Nostradamus forced me to adopt
ridicule as my weapon. I thereupon went back to my beloved age of
Queen Anne for a precedent, and decided to emulate Dean Swift's famous
attacks on the astrologer Partridge, conducted under the nom de plume
of Isaac Bickerstaffe (or Bickerstaff -- I have seen it spelled both
ways). Accordingly I published a satirical article wherein I gave with
an air of solemn gravity the most nonsensical collection of wild
prophecies that my brain could conceive; the whole entitled _Astrology
and the Future_, and signed "Isaac Bickerstaffe, Jr." I there
"predicted" the end of the world by an explosion of internal gases in
the year 4954. Hartmann scarce knew whether or not to take me
seriously, and kept up his mountebank performances, so I prepared
another Bickerstaffe paper whose ridicule should become more open
toward the end. In this final effort, _Delavan's Comet and Astrology_,
I explained how the human race shall be preserved after the destruction
of the earth, by transportation to the planet Venus! Even the obtuse
intellect of the charlatan must have discovered the sarcastic nature of
this ponderous prophecy, for he has now quietly ceased to inflict his
false notions on a gullible public. (to Maurice W. Moe, 8 December
1914)
As for astrology -- since I have always been a devotee of the real
science of _astronomy_, which takes all the ground from under the
unreal and merely apparent celestial arrangements on which astrological
predictions are based, I have had too great a contempt for the art to
take much interest in it -- except when refuting its puerile claims.
Back in 1914 I conducted a heavy newspaper campaign against a local
defender of astrology, and in 1926 I read quite a few astrological
books (since largely forgotten) in order to ghost-write a thorough and
systematic exposé of the fake science for no less notable a client than
the late Houdini. That comprises the sum of my astrological knowledge
-- the casting of horoscopes never having been included among my
ambitions. If I ever employ any astrological lore in stories, I shall
most gratefully call on you for realistic detail. (to E. Hoffmann
Price, 15 February 1933)
Ahhh... I feel much better now.
-------------------
Donovan K. Loucks <webm...@hplovecraft.com>
The H.P. Lovecraft Archive: http://www.hplovecraft.com
The alt.horror.cthulhu FAQ: ftp://ftp.primenet.com/users/d/dloucks/ahc
Wmvrrvrrmm
<webm...@hplovecraft.com> writes:
>I'd first like to point out that I have about as much faith in astrology
>as Lovecraft did -- that is, none. Lovecraft was born at 9 a.m. on 20
>August 1890 at the home of his grandfather in Providence, Rhode Island.
>The figure of 9 a.m. can be found in a letter he wrote to his aunt, Annie
>Gamwell, on 19 August 1921:
I'd like to thank you for the data.
Donovan K. Loucks
I'd like to thank you for the data.
You're quite welcome.