Too obvious if an interlocutor is an engineer. Too severe if an interlocutor is a woman.

Typical Virgo

Your explanation is 100 times worse than basic astrology to me. It's astrology wrapped in scientism.

We can't even be sure about what part of character comes from all of the environment versus what part comes from genetics without very careful experimental settings.

Obviously any systematic change due to ecological seasons would have a minuscule effect, drowned in the noise of a million other parameters.

It's not even like astrology can make any predictions about anything, there is nothing to be explained.

Historically, I bet you could find trends based on which seasons certain developmental landmarks were hit. I'm sure it isn't a coincidence that Leos are attributed all the heroic traits, when they are mostly gestating in the Summer, and get their first couple months of life in the Fall harvest season.

Nowadays I guess it would line up to school seasons. If you are born in August your parents can arrange for you to be among the oldest kids in the class. First couple grades, that extra year of development helps out, and then you get the reputation as the smart kid, it snowballs...

Baseball player? Bet he's a Leo.

> when they are mostly gestating in the Summer

Leos gestate throughout the year, depending on where they are located. Perhaps that remark was US-centric?

Wouldn't it be northern-hemisphere-centric? Which makes sense -- I mean, there isn't like a uniform standard for astological signs. Even within the northern hemisphere there are different labels. The trend I'd look for is an association between strength and being born near the beginning of the local harvest season, or so. But this stuff is all ad-hoc folk observations and the practitioners are motivated to add extra history, to give it the appearance of "ancient wisdom." So I'm not motivated enough to gather the data to back it up, haha.

Edit: It also would be the case, I guess, that summers being generally pleasant-ish would be regional, right? Like some hotter regions can have pretty lean summers I think.

Seems like something that could be "easy" to validate. Compare children's development in the US with those in Australia and see if there's a 6 month difference.

Note I put easy in quotes, because this should be provable, but I don't think it's trivial to do so due to all the different factors that contribute to a child's development.

Edit: And by "6 month difference", I mean that if seasons have anything to do with child development, you would see the same kind of development in children born in March in the US and children born in September in Australia.

The timing of birth does at least slightly influence a child's development through the relative age effect - the oldest kids in each academic year get a few benefits over their peers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect

>I dunno, I'm willing to believe the timing of birth can influence a child's development

That's a post-hoc justification for an obviously ridiculous belief.

1) Astrology makes much stronger claims. "Today, you will be lucky in love, but avoid conflicts at work". You're committing a motte-and-bailey.

2) If that's the justification, say "winter babies" and "summer babies", not virgo and capricorn.

3) If that's the justification, there should be much stronger effects, such as "born in an ex-communist state, so different nutrition", "born in colder climate, so less sun" that absolutely dwarf that effect. Yet you don't see idiots making intricate psychological profiles based on what latitude you were born in.

>I don't hate women; I just hate everything women like

It's a retarded belief regardless of who holds it.

>There are many reasons that the gender gap in modern astrology belief exists, but some sociologists say that it is, like most things, a result of the patriarchy.

Well, this is something else people say that makes me immediately lose respect for them.

I'm so infuriated by your link I'm at a loss for words.

EDIT: This is an UNIVERSITY newspaper? I thought it would be some kind of british tabloid or something... depressing

The article makes an important point.

Astrology isn't meaningful or rational. However, the level of contempt shown for people who are believers in astrology is wildly out of proportion. There are lots of equally dumb things that don't get the same level of vitriol.

It's valid to dismiss astrology, but that doesn't mean that all dismissal of astrology is based on high-minded scientific ideals. A lot of it is based on sexism.

Really? What equally dumb things are believed by 40% of women and 20% of men (as per the article) and are a constant topic of conversation?

I'm really struggling to think of any.

It seems to me that epistemically indeterminate ideas (astrology, religion, health (viruses), politics, etc) do something strange to the human mind. It's hard to miss what they do to the minds of believers, but it's very easy to overlook what they do to the minds of non-believers. I wonder if this has something to do with the increase in polarization among the public, where some people cling ever harder to religion, while other people increasingly cling to science. The mind seems to seek "certainty" (correct or otherwise) first and foremost, but epistemic soundness shows up much further down the list, if at all.

Good observation. I wonder if we go through certain cycles of polarization and if there are external causes for these events. I believe there is something to astrology, at least the part about the planets gravitational forces having an effect on human physiology. I'm not sure what that something is, but I don't reject it out-of-hand simple because there isn't enough scientific understanding around it.

An interesting way to think about it: even if there was some effect from the planets (you know, like on full moons people swear that people genuinely act differently, and I don't have a good reason to conclude otherwise), the likelihood that we would necessarily be able to detect it seems slim - and yet, this type of possibility seems to not even be on the radar of The Big Brained representatives from the dominant thought directing institution going: The Science.

When one's Best and Brightest are actually quite dim, I do not think it is a recipe for substantial success. They are excellent at deciphering the complexities of physical reality, but for the most part they seem oblivious to other dimensions....while constantly complaining about them!!!

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious.