I don't imagine this is news to anyone who every considered the issue from a scientific perspective, rather than from wishful thinking of the "wouldn't that be cool?" type, but a major study has shown that no, of course
there's no relation between your talents, traits, proclivities, and the time of the day/month/year you were born.
For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits.
The babies were originally recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2,000 babies born in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at regular intervals.
Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.
The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the "time twins", however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: "The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success... but the results are uniformly negative."
...Dr Dean said the results undermined the claims of astrologers, who typically work with birth data far less precise than that used in the study. "They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the 'house cusps'," he said. "But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client."
The findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles yesterday. Roy Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, said the study's findings should be treated "with extreme caution" and accused Dr Dean of seeking to "discredit astrology".
I don't think "seeking" is quite the right word there, Starmaster Gilbert.
This will have zero effect on people who put value on a horoscope, after all. Humans invent and utilize patterns and systems of organization to superimpose on our random, chaotic world. Religion is the biggest one, but things like astrology, political ideologies, racial and gender stereotypes, and others are all popular as well, and probably always will be. After all, if someone can believe that a case of alleged parthenogenesis = divinity in the flesh, which led to a human sacrifice that redeemed all the sins of the world, it's comparably much easier to believe that position of Saturn when you were born might have some effect on your personality or destiny.
In more reality-based news, it turns out that porn is good for men, providing they find a variety that turns them on, and take that visual excitement to
its logical conclusion.
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
Men could reduce their risk of developing prostate cancer through regular masturbation, researchers suggest. They say cancer-causing chemicals could build up in the prostate if men do not ejaculate regularly.
Australian researchers questioned over 1,000 men who had developed prostate cancer and 1,250 who had not about their sexual habits. They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer. The protective effect was greatest while the men were in their 20s. Men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.
...
Dr Giles said fewer ejaculations may mean the carcinogens build up. "It's a prostatic stagnation hypothesis. The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them."
A similar connection has been found between breast cancer and breastfeeding, where lactating appeared to "flush out" carcinogens, reduce a woman's risk of the disease, New Scientist reports. Another theory put forward by the researchers is that ejaculation may induce prostate glands to mature fully, making them less susceptible to carcinogens.
Dr Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at the UK's Prostate Cancer Charity, told BBC News Online: "This is a plausible theory."
This news hit a week ago, and I read it, chuckled, imagined the conservative hysteria it would create, and forgot about it until a friend sent me the link yesterday. I'm not curious enough to go fishing in the fever swamps, but some of the religious, self-appointed moralists have to be apoplectic over this by now, right? These people
fight to stop cancer vaccines because they'd rather women die of cervical cancer than possibly have more sex. They must be bursting blood vessels over medical evidence that frequent ejaculation, whether from auto, homo, or heterosexual activity, has health benefits.
On the other hand, that's about male sex and male needs and male health, so perhaps not. There's a reason far more health insurance plans pay for Viagra and Cialis than birth control pills, and it's not a reason that's going to be real comprehensible until you view society through the lens of the sexist men and self-loathing women who hold most of the political and cultural power in America.
Labels: politics, science
