Women and Astrology, psychics etc.

mcmoustache

Mister Vain wrote: »

No I'd be more into the conspiracy theories and storming area 51 and what not.

This is the point I made yesterday.

The market for woo could well be split 50/50 between men and women but the difference is in the types of woo that the sexes are attracted to.

Standman

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

My swamp donkey on an ex-wife used to visit psychics a lot. Funny they weren’t able to tell her that I was ending the marriage and moving out for the good of my sanity and happiness.

Haha! Hope she got a refund.

branie2

This is really weird! There's only supposed to be one in each pack!

I've no belief in religion, psychics, astrology, homeopathy, flying spaghetti monsters or numerology, but I don't think anyone who does is automatically stupid.

Some people have more room for doubt than others, whereas I would fully accept cold reading, say, as a likely explanation for a psychic pinning down things about my life, other people are harder to convince. That could be because of how they think or because of an innate bias, and we all have our biases.

Research shows that beliefs are formed first, and rationalised after, and that's it's very difficult to shift an ingrained belief from a person with even very good, or obvious, evidence. This swings both ways, someone like me would be very hard to convince that astrology* has something to it, even if evidence suddenly emerged that completely validated it. That's because of how I think, and my biases.

I don't have any belief in any of the things outlined in the OP and I think people should bear in mind that just because something isn't easily explicable or currently explicable, doesn't make it magical or mystical. It just means we don't know - yet. Again, willingness to believe doesn't always equal credulity - although it can.



*and I say that as someone who's parents were given a traditional Indian jyotisha birth chart compiled by an apparently renowned expert, as a gift when I was born. It's very general and I recognise nothing about myself in it, but if I wanted to believe it held some insight I could easily find it in its very broad scope.

Mister Vain

Swamp donkey.

jpm4

Mister Vain wrote: »

Swamp donkey.

Or Moon Pig.

the culture of deference

Stars change position over time so all the constellation positions and structures are constantly changing.

kikilarue2 wrote: »

So you don’t hang out with anyone who’s religious at all, and as well as considering them stupid you think they are cretins?

If you choose to believe a particular religion without understanding the history of it then yes.

kikilarue2 wrote: »

How is believing in psychics any more ridiculous than believing the central tenets of Catholicism or Islam?

They are equally ridiculous.

Candie wrote: »

I've no belief in religion, psychics, astrology, homeopathy, flying spaghetti monsters or numerology, but I don't think anyone who does is automatically stupid.

Everything you mentioned can be debunked. If you know something is not real and you still believe it then you are leaving yourself open to ridicule

HappyAsLarE

I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss a belief in religion or God as being as shallow as a belief in psychics or horoscopes.

Religion is humans’ way of teaching morals. Of course it has flaws, but this method has been selected by nature for more or less every branch of human evolution across the globe.

I don’t believe in God, but I believe we should act like He exists. Horoscopes don’t carry such meaning.

Holly13

I know a few people (all female) who have gone to psychics at some point.
Most have them have gone for a bit of fun etc.
I don’t believe anyone can predict the future but I do believe some “psychics” do have a “gift”.
This gift is a talent for reading people. A few of my friends who have gone to psychics have been amazed that the psychic “knew things about them, stuff that happened to them”.
However this stuff was all either in the past or present.
I also think some psychics might not realize they are using this talent and may actually believe they are “psychic”.
These reading techniques can be developed and improve with practice. Apparently intelligence agencies/ spies use them when questioning people.

Holly13

Holly13 wrote: »

This gift is a talent for reading people. A few of my friends who have gone to psychics have been amazed that the psychic “knew things about them, stuff that happened to them”.
However this stuff was all either in the past or present.
I also think some psychics might not realize they are using this talent and may actually believe they are “psychic”.
These reading techniques can be developed and improve with practice. Apparently intelligence agencies/ spies use them when questioning people.

You've touched on something few others have in this thread. Essentially, those who proclaim to be "psychic" are often better at perceiving body language than the average individual. This is an advantage when a subtle gesture can betray something revealing about the person without them even realising it. I won't post the video here in case I'm breaching guidelines, but there is a YouTube clip of a former FBI agent (via Wired) who offers a compelling insight into reading techniques.

Hangdogroad

Holly13 wrote: »

I know a few people (all female) who have gone to psychics at some point.
Most have them have gone for a bit of fun etc.
I don’t believe anyone can predict the future but I do believe some “psychics” do have a “gift”.
This gift is a talent for reading people. A few of my friends who have gone to psychics have been amazed that the psychic “knew things about them, stuff that happened to them”.
However this stuff was all either in the past or present.
I also think some psychics might not realize they are using this talent and may actually believe they are “psychic”.
These reading techniques can be developed and improve with practice. Apparently intelligence agencies/ spies use them when questioning people.

Can't post as on phone but there's an interesting clip of Orson Welles on YT talking about cold reading .

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

Do you disagree that women are more commonly interested in astrology than men? That’s all I’m trying to figure out here.

As you said yourself there is likely no definitive answer but likely a lot of little answers.

One such answer:

I think men - historically - have been brought up with the idea that they should be less inclined to seek assistance for others with their emotional, mental and life problems. Therefore they may be less inclined to advertise being interested in such practices to people they wish to attract.

Put another way - is it that men are less inclined to believe supernatural or paranormal bull crap - or just less inclined to let others know that they do?

Wibbs

mcmoustache wrote: »

This is the point I made yesterday.

The market for woo could well be split 50/50 between men and women but the difference is in the types of woo that the sexes are attracted to.

This +1000.

kikilarue2

kikilarue2 wrote: »

As per my example of meditation, there was no evidence for it until one day there was. And lots of people just like you thought any benefits people thought they were getting from it was BS up until that point.

I have no issue with your claim that it is "possible" such people exist - so I will not be getting as upset with you as others may have done But - That comparison above which you made in a few posts now - is a fallacious move used in quite a few types of conversation and is worth dropping as an argument for your position.

For example people spreading the most crack pot conspiracy theories will - in the face of your scepticism - often point to other conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. Or people trying to get your to bet on a horse might point out that _one_ time they made a prediction - you did not put any money down - and the horse came in. It is a "selection bias" basically. Filter out the hits and ignore the much more massive quantity of misses.

Yes things we did not know or believe in the past turned out to be true. But that is all. This says _absolutely nothing_ about the next thing we do not know or believe to be true.

Your scepticism for the next claim should be fresh - not tarnished by past misses. The opposite actually - as the fact we proved those things to be true later, having not believed them at first, is a vindication of that previous scepticism.

For what it is worth I believe you to be both right _and_ wrong on this issue. I think you are 100% right that some people work on human interaction in a superior way analogous to how high level sports stars work in a physical space. I however think you are wrong to think of this as "psychic" or other paranormal loaded words. Rather they are just better at reading queues and signs and tells than the rest of us.

In other words it does not appear that something is going on there that science can not explain. Rather the assumption there is anything there _for_ science to explain is possibly fallacious.

Some of us are better at this stuff by training and practice. I do cold reading myself for example and have convinced people I am "psychic" and I have learned ways to influence and control behaviour leading people to think I do not just read minds but control them. I had to work really hard to get as good at this stuff as I am.

Others just have these skills naturally. Such people do not appear to have abilities the rest of us lack - but like sports stars just have more honed abilities that we all have. As another user already put it - we might not be 100m gold medal runners but we can mostly all at least run. Similarly most of us have ways to guess at what another person is feeling or thinking or has experienced. Some of us are - naturally or by intent and hard work - better at it than others. And their skills are so impressive when they do it well - that many people assume there must be something extra dimension of explanation required for it.

I hope this fits the civil tone you have been requesting.