Avatar

what is life

@faefaye / faefaye.tumblr.com

She/her, adult. Tumblr noob, just here for my fandoms and my OTPs. (AO3/FFN: Coroniel | Wattpad: FayeSquare)
Posts

Pinned

Avatar

So I thought I'd finally make an intro post.

Hey, I'm FaeFaye on social media, Fae or Faye for short. I've been on Tumblr for years and still feel like a noob.

Can be found in a variety of fandoms, current brainrot is Lord of Mysteries (LOTM). Other fandoms I'll post quite a bit for: Psycho-Pass, Tokyo Ghoul, Pokemon.

(beware of spoilers, I try to tag but might forget)

Some posts of mine that might help in navigating this blog: Tags, Behind the Text, my Tumblr fanworks.

Blanket statements for my fanfics.

For the LOTM fandom, fic recs! : English, Chinese.

I'm anti-censorship so for anyone who's an anti / is adamantly "proshippers DNI", you might want to avoid me :p. Here's an excellent Tumblr post that explains the viewpoint.

I think that should be everything, have a great day/night!

#personal
Avatar
Reblogged watsdaughter
Avatar
Avatar
Avatar

Some highlights:

  • Astrologers helped design the study
  • No one did better than random chance, even though they only included people in the study who are experienced with astrology and stated that they expect themselves to do better than random chance
  • They gave every astrologer a set of 50 things about a person and 5 birth charts to choose from. They werenโ€™t even coming up with the chart themselves!
  • After taking the test, most thought they nailed it. Zero out of 152 did better than 5 out of 12. None nailed it
  • Astrologers who rated themselves highly experienced (โ€œworld class expertsโ€) did the same or worse as those who said they have limited experience. Both performed the same as random chance
  • This is hilarious
Avatar

No lie, this is a really great example of experimental design, explained in simple language.

In particular, it highlights something that science-illiterate folks don't get, which is the extent to which is it a scientific norm to load the dice against the result you're expecting to get.

In this experiment, the researchers are not subjecting astrology to rigorous debunking, intended to investigate and expose ways that astrologers' claims about their abilities are overblown, or other possible explanations for what they claim to be doing.

Instead, this experiment is looking for any evidence, even weak evidence, that some astrologers may be able to do any of what they say they can do.

  • Astrologers were asked, in both the planning stages and the actual experiment, to evaluate whether the task is something they think they can do. (They were given a questionnaire filled out by a volunteer, and 5 astrological charts, of which 1 was "real" and the other four were generated based on randomly-selected birth information--date, time, and place. The task was to pick out the chart that was based on the volunteer's real birth information.)
  • They were asked, in planning, what information they would want to have, in order to do their best at the task, and the experiment was designed to provide that information.
  • After doing the task, they were asked again whether they thought they'd done well--so that, if they decided during the task that it was too different from normal astrological practice to be a fair test of their abilities, they would have an explicit opportunity to raise that objection.
  • The researchers set two different (yet compatible) success conditions: if, as a group, the astrologers' average performance on the task beat random chance by any statistically significant amount--even if very small--or if even one astrologer did a lot better than random chance. This design allows for the possibilities that astrologers overstate the amount of insight that they can gain from the practice (but there is some insight), or that a lot of practitioners are mistaken about their skill level (but a few people actually are good at it). Either of those results would suggest there's something happening when astrologers do astrology--but neither result occurred.
  • They also compared the astrologers' answers to the questions to one another, and to a control group of people who were randomly guessing--so, if a lot of the astrologers matched the same chart to a questionnaire, even if that answer was wrong, that would show up as something the astrologers were seeing, but the control group wasn't. It didn't happen.
#science#astrology#research#reblog
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.