• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    just fun

    Yeah, no.

    People use astrology to make actual life decisions and then call it fun

  • prototact@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Frankly the amount of people in my country that make decisions based on astrologers’ advice is staggering. If people just did it for fun maybe I would think it’s okay but they actually pay scammers and make assumptions about people just from their sign, which is actual stereotyping in contrast to what is shown in the comic

  • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Generational divides are at least based in broadly shared material conditions, and while they shouldn’t be used to make assumptions about individuals, they can be used to draw conclusions about large populations as a whole. Astrology simply has no basis whatsoever for anything.

    • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yep. When comparing differences between generations you’ll find them but if you compare the differences between groups with different horoscopes, you likely wont find much.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Generational divides are at least based in broadly shared material conditions

      material conditions are not the primary factor, imho.

      your shared experience and life expectations differ wildly, depending on whether you saw the berlin wall or the twins going down in your formative years.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also Gen-Z typically refers to people born during a particular political/economic climate. Gen-Z in America is definitely not the same as Gen-Z in Russia or China.

    • molten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah. Look, it’s a dick move to roll your eyes at gen-whatever but there are solid reasons that things are different. Foremost being that generations dictate the age of a person so you could say “those 18-30 year olds don’t know shit about how hard we had it when dinosaurs wrecked homes and ate our children.” I mean, being raised during different technological eras alone can change a lot. There is a clear difference. There might be something to astrology too but we don’t have very good evidence of that.

  • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    While the gen-z comment is unwarranted, I have to side with the frog on this one (and not just because of my username), even if he’s being contrarian just to feel superior.

    ‘Harmless’ things like astrology and other types of magical thinking can become a larger problem if your society has a failing, inadequate or inaccessible education system. Without adequate education of critical thinking, they’re taken more and more seriously by wider swaths of society, which can foster mistrust in the scientific method, sometimes leading to deeply unhealthy outcomes, such as using crystals and other alternative ‘medicines’ for ailments instead of using scientifically backed methods.

    It can also lead to increased susceptibility to manipulation via conspiracies and misinformation that confirms the mystical thinking.

    Carl Sagan gets to the heart of the problem in his book, A Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle In The Dark:

    “Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

    • VoterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      I think the context matters. Just reading the paper and ask someone what their sign is so you can laugh at the horoscope section? Not really a huge deal. First date and using it as an ice breaker to get someone to talk about themselves? Mayyyyybe. Treating it with any actual level of seriousness is definitely a danger zone.

    • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think there’s another thing to pick here too. Horoscope makes some assumptions based on which time of a year you have been born. This obviously has very little effect on your life.

      However the generation you’ve been born in has a massive effect on you. Each generation grows up with other kids from that generation, they learn from each other often more than from the older gen. This sorta creates a cultural gap between the generations, or generational gap as it’s called.

      So when your mom says she was a hippie and got conservative along the years, it’s fair to call her a typical boomer

      • jonathan@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        In absolute terms, Boomers didn’t get more conservative as they aged, they got more liberal. Just at a much slower rate than the younger generations.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Time of year athletes were born correlates with hockey performance or something right?

        I’ve tried to use a fact like that to bridge the gap between me and those who like astrology.

        • enkers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I recall hearing that there’s a correlation with being good at sports and having a birthday earlier in the school year. Reason being, at a young age, on average there’s a big advantage to being 6 months older, and that advantage can often result in a positive feedback loop. You get selected more for showing aptitude and thus receive more training, which results in being selected more.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Robert Anton Wilson would vehemently disagree with you and Sagan here. I’m not saying who’s right but I think criticizing a reality tunnel like astrology is a waste of time when there are drastically worse ‘slippery slopes’ in existence

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I’m sure Mr. Wilson would indeed. I was not familiar with him until your mention, and upon researching him briefly, I would hedge that Sagan (and certainly myself) would disagree with him as well.

        Firstly, I would ask how, or rather who, determines what misinformation is worth advising against and what isn’t? The relative harm of astrology is indeed low compared to say, Capitalism, but then again, the effort to write my initial comment was also low. I don’t expect it to do much, but on the off chance it steers someone away from magical thinking, it was worth writing.

        As to why I would disagree with Wilson: I could never subscribe to his concept of trying to get people to become ‘agnostic about everything’ because the minute you take a hard stand on a single thing, you discover that to be agnostic about everything is just harmful. I think it’s good to be open-minded, and I’m not one of the dogmatic religious-level scientific fanatic he describes who blindly follow the AMA or any other scientific institution that insists they have everything figured out and demands you not question the sacred gospels, but his method seems like the ultimate cop-out: “We can’t truly know anything with certainty, so it’s all possibly right, just with different probabilities!”

        I don’t buy into that one bit, because otherwise one could use such a worldview to justify saying “Hmm… I guess maybe eugenics could be right? I’ll give it a low probability, but can’t be too sure!”

        It also could be used to justify belief in Scientology, literally any debunked scientific theory, climate change denial, radical religions, etc.

        I think it far healthier to have an open-mind to new concepts that can be proven good, and to have an active and healthy skepticism for anything that makes claims without evidence. But that’s just my 2 cents.

        I should mention that I don’t mean to strawman your argument, as you didn’t mention Wilson’s ‘agnostic’ concept, but that seems to be at the heart of this philosophy, and why he prescribed to mysticism and would likely find astrology harmless.

        • cmbabul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I give you a lot of credit for looking into RAW, I’d encourage you to look into more of his work and the work of Greg Hill and Kerry Thornly and how easily reality can be subverted.

          I’ll also say it’s cool for us to agree to disagree on this issue as I imagine there are a lot of more important things going on in this world we’d agree on

          I personally find pan agnosticism to be the correct path but that’s my reality tunnel and I’m happy with you having yours

          Edit: just to address your critiques, you can make any ideology or worldview into eugenics without much effort. ‘Maybe logic’ doesn’t encourage it any more than any other ideology.

          And I just find it hilarious that my original criticism was that it was a waste of time to criticize astrology, which you never addressed in your comment back that undoubtedly took away a lot of your time

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Have you read Jailbird yet? It’s some writings of Kerri Thornley towards the end of his life compiled by Reverend Onan Cannobite of The Church. It’s mostly about his time in NOLA and how he thought (maybe correctly) he was being groomed by E. Howard Hunt to be a patsy on Nov. 22 '63, fucking great read, but kinda sad, highly recommend specifically to you (since you know of Kerry already). PRA’BOB!

            • cmbabul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              No but that’s now been added to my reading list! A lot of Kerry’s life is sad in some way or the other but I do find him and the other Discordian’s completely fascinating and insightful. Hail Eris!

          • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            I’m familiar with Kerry Thornly from Adam Curtis’ film Can’t Get You Out of My Head, where it’s made pretty clear that Thornly suffers from pretty severe paranoia in his later life, and succumbed to the very same wild conspiracies he unwittingly created as a parody earlier in life in Playboy magazine. I would actually point to him as a prime example of what Sagan was warning against. To go down that road earnestly, in my experience, leads only to an endless spinning of wheels, no conclusions, and a very confusing self-delusion with no useful end in sight.

            I think it’s good that Thornly and RAW were anti-authoritarian and leaned toward Anarchism, but their mental states and delusions are far too offputting for me to give them any significant merit. I’ve lived in that world before where reality is based on fantasy and not hard fact, and it did me no good, only harm.

            • cmbabul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              To each their own then, I find a lot of value in the things uncovered by the four of them, specifically Greg Hill. I myself think reality is too vast for anyone to grasp completely and point to RAWs illustrations about the contrast between our scientific understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which to my knowledge are irreconcilable but are what we observe the universe to be. Those lenses are both useful but don’t describe the full truth of how the universe works by themselves.

              Seriously you and I are not going to agree here. I do wish you the best. But could never agree with your rigid understanding of reality

              • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                RAWs illustrations about the contrast between our scientific understanding of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Which to my knowledge are irreconcilable but are what we observe the universe to be. Those lenses are both useful but don’t describe the full truth of how the universe works by themselves.

                That just shows our understanding is not complete, and more investigation is necessary. The entire field of scientific inquiry is to give us a more filled in understanding of what the universe is, in terms that are able to be universally understood and built upon. Richard Feynman gives a wonderful response to that point.

                Edit: just to address your critiques, you can make any ideology or worldview into eugenics without much effort. ‘Maybe logic’ doesn’t encourage it any more than any other ideology.

                I would argue a worldview that lets an individual consider any point of view or theory to be plausible or correct, regardless of hard evidence, is more able to construct a justification for eugenics to be a worthwhile endeavour, compared to a worldview that is able to take a hard stance against it due material and historical evidence demonstrating its extreme harm and lack of humanity, and dismiss it entirely.

                And I just find it hilarious that my original criticism was that it was a waste of time to criticize astrology, which you never addressed in your comment back that undoubtedly took away a lot of your time

                I responded by asking who or what determines what is or is not a waste of time. I fundamentally disagree that it is a waste of time. I would also say that this conversation was fruitful, as it provides a good contrast between our points of view for any third party reading along.

                Seriously you and I are not going to agree here. I do wish you the best. But could never agree with your rigid understanding of reality

                I wish you the best as well.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        No I get that the frog is pulling a ‘I am very smart, I’m better than you plebs’ and being a complete buzzkill in the process, but I think the artist could’ve picked a better topic to demonstrate that mentality instead of framing a potentially harmful thing as harmless, even if the bird knows its bullshit.

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 days ago

    “general era of one’s birth” has a lot more impact on well… everything… About a person’s life Way more than “time of year”

    You are way more likely to be similar to the people born in the 5-10 years around you than to people born 50 years prior but in the same month.

    But hey, as long as it’s just for fun and you aren’t basing major life altering decisions on things… Why would I care if you like giggling at the little blurbs in newspapers about how ridiculous capricorns are when mars is in retrograde.

  • Zozano@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    I knew a girl, whose mother sold off her house because a mystic/fortune teller/crystal fellator/astrologist told her to.

    Now, whether she just inferred this on her own, or the scam artist explicitly suggested it, the outcome was the same.

    Making real life decisions based off a set of tarot cards is not wise.

  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Your cohort when you grow up can predict your development because people of a particular generation share a great multitude of environmental factors.

    Edit: this does not mean we should foster intergenerational conflict.

  • infinite_ass@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Imagine if particle physics got popularized for 10 centuries.

    I believe that there are these tiny people called Quarks and they like to spin and have charming personalities

    Astrology and religion seems like that. Something that once made sense and then got sorta socially digested.

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      10 centuries? It’s way faster than that.

      Have you seen all the “quantum” rebranding in today’s pseudoscientific bullshit? You know the type, the assholes selling you magic baubles to rebalance your “energy levels”, “detox” yourself etc.

      • bunchberry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        ngl I blame physicists who communicate to the public for this

        Notice how you always see a lot of nonsense mysticism around quantum mechanics like “quantum healing” but you never see anything along the lines of like “general relativity healing” or “inflation theory healing.”

        The difference is that often it is the physicists themselves who choose to communicate to the public who paint quantum mechanics in a mystical light. Indeed, this is not even something unique to the physicists who communicate to the public, you can sometimes even run into it in peer-reviewed publications painting QM as a theory that somehow puts conscious observers front and center and questions the existence of objective reality, or whatever rubbish philosophy people try to imbue onto some linear algebra.

        The ones who communicate to the public just are often worse because they don’t tell you QM as it really is, they usually tell you some personal theory they have. For example, rather than just describing how QM works, one of these science communicators might tell you their personal theory about how there’s a grand multiverse, or that “consciousness” plays some sort of role, and that explains why QM works. They do not just present the theory, but their own personal speculation as an underlying explanation for it.

        Because physicists themselves promote all this mysticism around a bunch of linear algebra, you end up with mystics and charlatans who realize that they can take advantage of this by talking about mystical nonsense like “quantum healing.” Sure, it might be nonsensical rubbish, but the person who hears about “quantum healing” also heard a real PhD physicist tell them about multiverses and “consciousness,” so they think there must be something to it as well. It gives the mysticism an air of legitimacy.

        We like to kid ourselves that the mysticism is just promoted by your Deepak Chopra types or laymen who have no idea what they’re talking about. But if you actually look at what a real academic philosophy department publishes, there is mysticism all throughout academic philosophy. These philosophers have also had a big impact on physicists, who often adopt these mystical attitudes they learn from the philosophy department into their own discussion, and sometimes even into their own publications.

        If you actually talk to the laymen who are deeply enthralled by those quantum mystic pseudoscience charlatans, they usually can point you to multiple real academics who back their beliefs, people with legitimate credentials. This is a problem nobody seems to address and it annoys the hell out of me. Everyone paints either the charlatans or the laymen as the bad guy here, but nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rampant mysticism in academia.

        I literally argued with a PhD physicist the other day who was going around preaching to people that quantum mechanics proves that there is no physical reality and we all live inside of a “cosmic consciousness.” I did not get very far with him because he just insulted me and pointed to academic philosophers who agreed with him and said I’m stupid for even questioning his claims, and then wouldn’t address my criticisms.