The one thing I don’t find plausible with what your saying is that whether or not he used astro info to make the mixes is absolutely irrelevant due to the fact that the mixes have been effective for others in the past. Obviously in a theoretical sense if he did use it hes actually actually proving that astrology does work to at least some degree.
I don’t believe in chance and to even think to counter by saying that he luckily had a erroneous belief that just managed to make him stumble upon the mix by accident is preposterous.
Beer is made and is to be enjoyed my individuals everywhere. Do you really care how it was it was derived? Where it was developed? Why it tastes the way it does. Probably not.
Please help me win the lotto Miko. I don’t know what degree to chase anymore. I don’t even like school to the point of not being able to study.
The strong reaction comes from having had to deal with too many people saying ignorant things about things they know nothing about for too many years. I appreciate your apology. The astrology in the early part of this thread relating to mones is purely experimental, and tentative correlations that seem to make sense. It’s not really something I have much time or opportunity to experiment with or research, so I wrote it here to keep notes I could refer to as I had more chance to work on it.
The calculator is based on - let’s call it science, since I am not sure how exactly to classify it, but I expect that science will be delving into this area directly within the next 50 to 75 years or so - that you would not understand because I can’t say that I fully understand it yet. I cannot for the life of me find a concrete way to explain the how and why it works… I just know that it does. (Much the way it is with astrology, actually.) I have theories, but I cannot prove or disprove them; thus the constant difficulty I have believing that the damned thing works. It quite blatantly defies current scientific understanding. I suspect that we will have to literally discover and explore an entirely new form of what I am postulating will be a “meta-mathematics” before this will be possible to explain with science.
Beyond that, I dare not say anything at this time, because it’s just too far beyond what science currently understands. Better to wait and learn what I can, and leave my journal to someone who exists when the right time comes. Right now, we are just not ready for this.
The PUA community: Understand the general mindset. These guys are usually going for speed and volume. Even the best pheromones for speed - let’s say Instant Jerk, or MX302, for example - are going to introduce a variable that is just that: a variable. Thus, they no longer have a concrete method of knowing how a woman will respond. Once that happens, it takes patience and genuine skill to make things work. SteveO is a good example of that. For most PUAs, it’s easier to just keep it simple.
On the other hand, anyone who is skilled enough with mones to get the results we who are present here often get, is not going to be telling people his “secret weapon”. Do I tell my family I use pheromones to regulate their responses to me? No. Do I tell women that I use pheromones to regulate and manipulate their responses to me in the direction I desire? No. (It might sound bad, but really, that’s what we are doing. I just happen to have this calculator that allows me to instantly optimize what and how much I wear to do it.)
The double standard I speak of is very easily seen in constant use by Randi, and heck, even a lot of politicians.
To manipulate the general public into believing what you want them to believe (as opposed, say, actually educating themselves on a subject), you approach it with sarcasm, and act as if “everybody knows it’s [insert negative here]”. Say this loudly and repeatedly. Use doublecross methods that seem to be genuinely studied or explanatory, but interject subtle sacrasm and derogatory statements that subtlely imply that anyone who believes what you are talking about is valid, must be a nut case, or stupid.
Randi likes to put on “experiments” that are based on faulty logic, which few people realize because humans are so emotionally based as a whole that they don’t think rationally. Especially in the United States. For instance, the experiment that was mentioned above was a valid experiment, but it did not prove what Randi wants you to believe it proved, which is that astrology is bunk. What it proves is that people are uneducated concerning the subject and are easy to manipulate the minds of because they expect that everything they read is automatically true. In other words, he has succeeded in proving that people (at least in the United States) have become sheep, and very gullible, because advertising has for generations now told us that everything should be instant, effortless and done for us.
Think about it. When you know next to nothing about a subject, and someone hands you a flyer that says “this describes your sun sign”, and then you list a series of statements that obviously apply to 98% of the population, you aren’t even dealing with astrology - you’re just using psychological sleight of hand and deception to make people think you are. Then, when you tell them what you did, they suddenly feel off balance and stupid for having been duped. Nobody wants to feel stupid, so most people seek a scapegoat, which Randi conveniently provides in an “You’re not stupid, astrology is baloney.” And yet, astrology never even really entered into the debate. Which is exactly what he wanted, because if it did, he couldn’t use what basically amounts to a stage magician’s trick to deceive everybody. (Ever notice how the super skeptics are also usually stage magicians?)
But do you think he’d do the same thing to astronomy? Hell no! It could be done, of course. Just change the subject being blamed for the way he made the people feel stupid, and the “data” you present them with. You can make people believe anything you want to with deception and manipulation techniques like those. In fact, it could be said to be a form of rapid brainwashing.
Most people don’t know the first thing about astrology because all they know about it is what they read in newspapers, which is about as close to worthless as … well… it is pretty much worthless. It’s not really even astrology at all. So if they read their “horoscope” in a newspaper and that’s all they now about “astrology”, what are they going to say when they get a piece of paper that was specifically designed (premeditated deception) to describe 98% of the people who read it?
What Randi is doing with that “experiment” is perverted stage magic and psychological manipulation. Nothing more.
When I say fear, I am talking about subconscious fear. This is a very subtle phenomenon, which manifests outwardly in extremist thinking and absolutist thinking. When you get into rigid all or nothing beliefs and thinking, you are dealing with someone who can’t handle the idea that maybe, the world exists as shades of gray, and is more complex than they understand. That fear of the unnown is what drives the absolutist thinking - whether it be emotion based or logic based. The only difference is that one side seeks solace in religion-based self delusion, and the other side seeks solace in faulty logic-based self delusion.
Scientists are supposed to identify a question they wish to answer, and then approach it from the standpoint of having a theory that they experiment on to prove or disprove. But, if that theory is too precious to disprove, the result is someone who manipulates the situation so that it appears that their foregone conclusion is true, regardless of what the truth and facts are. This describes the majority of scientists concerning astrology, not necessarily because they have the subconscious fear I describe in that specific manner (although that happens) but because it is simply too dangerous for anyone within the scientific community to oppose the Status Quo (read, the people at the top who control their funding). These people at the top frequently have the sort of fear I refer to originally, or they will simply have inherited their position from the “natural progression” and do not wish things to change because they are in a position of power because of them.
When a scientist steps sufficiently out of the acceptable boundaries, he or she is immediately attacked. In some cases, attached and destroyed. Why? Because anyone thinking outside the box is a threat to the status quo.
If Einstein had not been proven right for some reason, he’d have gone down in history as a quack, and nobody would now his name. Even if, 50 years later, someone vindicated him. Sometimes it takes decades and even generations for the brave souls who step out on a limb and try to discover something truly great to be accepted by science, even after they were proven correct within their own lifetimes. Science as a whole operates with strict boundaries and rules, some of which are not beneficial. But all of the greatest scientific minds we can call to mind were people who were laughed at, ridiculed and attacked by other scientists, because they threatened the status quo.
Genuine science is impartial. The hypothesis is not held because it is comfortable, or “safe”. It is held because it is a best guess until proven or disproven.
According to my research into winning the lottery, which I spent seven years on as a hobby, astrology is entirely unsuitable as a way to win. The best I can suggest is that:
A) Jupiter is associated with “good fortune”, and may help you out, if you play the lotto when you are having your Jupiter return. Didn’t work for me. Either time.
B) I would love to do a research study of the charts of all the winners and analyze both their birth charts and the transit charts for when they won to determine if there is anything that astrology could tell us. I cannot get the birth data, however.
My best efforts say that you really can literally improve your odds, but good luck getting them below about 1/22nd what they were to begin with. (In most cases, you’ll still be dealing with a million to one odds or more.)
A little more about using astrology to calculate a mix… I am a little stumped on how. What I did with the calculator was basically to figure out what would sell the best - which extrapolates to “what works best for the most people”. I don’t think any mix works well for everyone, and in every situation.
Alright. Let me wrap this up as to not waste anymore time on this subject, as I see that we have reached an impasse. Catlord is not going to give out enough information about the “calculator” for anyone to begin to understand it. This is his right. So at this point I will be focusing only on the mixes, and nothing else. Any talk of astrology or psychology or anything else from Catlord that is part of the mix creation is simply useless at this point, as I have no idea if it actually part of the calculation. Catlord has stated many times now that his “calculator” to too complicated for anyone on this board to understand, as he himself doesn’t fully understand it (but claims that it works). I look forward to continuing to experience his mixes, but as for talking about their creation, Catlord has made it clear that he simply doesn’t want to share this information.
As for the “it’s too complicated” excuse ; I find this to be unfortunate. This forum was designed to share information about mones with a community if like-minded individuals. Catlord has now made the decision to withhold information that, at the very least, would help provide some insight into the creation of some of the best mixes that have ever been produced. He no longer wants to share his information as part of this community, and that is his right; but we will continue to tolerate this behavior because of his stellar mixes (and they are magnificent!!!). He has every right to keep this information to himself, and we should respect that by focusing on what we can understand, and leaving the “science of the future” material to Catlord himself.
I look forward to the possible release of PS, and I believe the mix will speak for itself.**
You have an odd way of dealing with certain responses, I notice. You refer to me as if I am not present.
That aside, the fact of the matter is, if you want this to ever get anywhere, it has to remain secret until the time is right to release it, because until then, there won’t be a sufficient bridge between what I am exploring and what science can follow. Without that bridge, we will only end up with people saying it’s impossible, and nothing will happen anyway.
Furthermore, it is also potentially dangerous. I don’t care to be responsible for what could happen should it fall into the wrong hands.
Believe me, I’d love to share what I have discovered. It’s just not the right time. Science wants to understand, and without a vector for understanding, whatever you are talking about is automatically rejected. Until the “meta-math” I am hypothesizing is discovered, there’s no such vector.
As for the complexity of the subject, it really is too complex. It gets into intricacies that are so delicate and subtle that statistics and quantum mechanics are the closest thing we have to make sense of it, and they don’t come very close. Quantum physics comes closest, and if you consider that this appears to be an effect that should only appear in the realm of quantum physics (the super small bizzare world of), you can see why I am at a loss to explain it. Not that I’m an expert on the subject, by far, but basically, to understand what I am doing, you need to be able to know how to translate quantum strangeness directly to the macro world, and (as far as I know), science doesn’t have the “theory of everything” to do that yet. Based on what I observe, I believe that is in large part because science is trying to see the whole image with one eye shut. Until they open the other eye, they’ll find themselves stuck at the present impasse.
So kindly don’t get upset with me for withholding this. I know it’s cruel and curiosity is probably driving you crazy, but really… it’s better this way. Trust me. Science will catch up eventually, and then they’ll discover this for themselves. In the mean time, I’m just doing experiments trying to comprehend it as best I can and find use for it.
I understand, …you’re saying Randi uses a strawman argument to win his case. Using the astrology of the news papers as “what astrology is” and then debunking it.
Is there verifiable evidence that astrology’s claims are true?
As for my second question you didn’t answer it.
What theory exactly out there are scientists trying not to debunk out of fear it will become invalid? By definition Science is always trying to disprove it self, called falsifiability.
**I just wanted to clear something up. I referred to you in the third person because you have separated yourself from everyone else in the forum with either your “higher understanding” or “lack of understanding” of the particular subject of which you speak.
From what I have read in your posts, I see no evidence that you are working with anything beyond “modern scientific knowledge” as much as is it humanly possible to do so (we are never fully aware of all of the areas of science/human behavior in which we are working). Until I see any evidence of such a “advanced” system, I will have to stick with the probabilities : that you are an intelligent guy who has put a great deal of time and effort into studying pheromones and created some incredible mixes through simple trial and error (more than the average user). It appears that you have shrouded this basic model in an colorful mixture of scientific and metaphysical jargon, that, in the end, is faith based (as in you asking us to “trust” you). “Trust but verify.” I would be happy to provide the former, if you could provide any of the latter.
I continue to be excited about the mixes that you produce, and I hope that you understand that I have no ill will toward you. I just can’t trust your word any longer, as it seems to take me farther away from understanding of the magnificent mixes that you create. So, as I said before, I’ll let your mixes speak for themselves. If the next PS mxs are anything like 333, then we are all in for a real treat. Thanks Catlord!!!**
Read what I said again, please. It goes beyond the straw man argument.
As for the second point, “scientists” refers to the set of all scientists; I am not talking about all scientists. I am talking about those scientists who choose to use a double standard, or hide from true and realistic investigation of, the subject. There seems to have been a miscommunication somewhere, because there is no single theory to refer to, aside from perhaps the idea that astrology can be or fails to be valid. What I am basically pointing out is that the same standards are not being applied to the investigation of astrology as a valid subject of scientific scrutiny as are being applied to other more “acceptable” topics. This can be seen by considering the world of Michael Gauquelin, who approached it from the point of trying to use valid investigation methods to document his explorations.
Basically, what happens is that it is not explored because “everybody knows it’s bunk”, but then that same logic could be applied to anything we have a hard time understanding, explaining, or believing - and modern science is encountering many such things these days. Would anyone have considered black holes as “bunk” a hundred and ten years ago? You bet.
Astrology cannot be explored using hard science as easily as most subjects. In this way, it is much like (and some branches are very strongly intertwined with) psychology - but psychology manages to be a valid science. What I am interested in seeing is that people (scientists) stop approaching the subject from the point of view of already knowing that it isn’t worth really studying to verify or disprove. The “studies” done so far have been done in such manner as to arrive at the desired conclusion, not to get a valid answer impartially; and, knowing that these “studies” could then be pointed to as “valid research”, they would prevent anyone from seriously trying in the future.
Astrology does not survive because people are stupid and gullible. Astrology survives because intelligent people are curious, and some of them are willing to look outside the box, and a few of these discover astrology, and wonder if it really can possibly “work”, and upon enough education and investigation, see for themselves that it does. What other subject do you know of that is discounted out of hand by people who have no idea what they’re talking about, who are them taken to be supreme authorities on the subject they have no understanding of?
But if you’re going to investigate it, prove it works, you have to consider it (in this case, natal astrology) a soft science akin to psychology, and deal with it accordingly. You must consider that measuring a personality is damned hard to do! You must consider that, as with n-body mathematics, everything interacts with and influences everything else. So you don’t get these discrete boxes (Sun in Libra = XYZ), you get (as an analogy) a field of different colors that all blend and merge and affect all the other colors to some degree. How do you make absolute statements about such a field of colors? That’s like trying to state that “blue” is only visible at 475 nanometers. Even the accepted 450 to 495 nm is not exact - it can’t be!
So basically… most scientists I ave encountered expect astrology to conform to their methods of study, which are only suitable for hard science; natal astrology is based on math, but requires the consideration of all the points in the chart, where they are located, and how they interact to get an understanding of the whole. This is then correlated with personality traits, but these traits must necessarily be affected by all the other traits being described, which means that a personality is never absolute - and you can’t try to understand it as, or measure it as an absolute either. Doing so is faulty logic.
Yet scientists continue to try to do just that, while claiming the understand logic. That seems a bit ridiculous. It seems to me to be a convenient way to hide from the chance to genuinely study the subject, because the fact that it does work is 180 degrees from what they all said for so long, so it’s now a matter of pride to keep going. Much easier too. And of course there’s this fear of the unknown and “unexplainable” (no sane astrology student will claim to know how and why astrology works, trust me - they just understand that it does). And finally, there’s the herd instinct, which says that if I’m not accepted by the group, I can’t be taken seriously, and my reputation (and funding) will go bye bye.
Astrology seems to be the “inconvenient truth” in this regard.
If you want verifiable evidence, Gauquelin’s work is the only thing I know of that is scientifically valid. Mainly because he’s the only one to ever try to study it like you would study anything else. And boy did he ignite a firestorm with that .
I am not trying to set myself above anyone else in knowledge or understanding. Apologies if it comes across that way.
You see no evidence that I am working with anything other than modern scientific understanding because I have been careful to keep it that way. I did that so that the collective “you” could not follow, and what I am working with could not be proven or disproven to be anything but what you state. What do I care if anyone believes me? If I wanted credit or attention or glory, I’d try to share it. But what this is, happens to have such amazing potential that I am of no consequence and to try to have glory from it would do a huge disservice to mankind by delaying its eventual discovery by science. So, by all means, as you were! Believe what you prefer.
Trust but verify is a good motto. I like that motto. But as I said… verification would be to delay the discovery, and I don’t want that to happen. So presume I am just creating these mixes by chance and research.
And of course, there is no problem with you choosing to believe and accept only what you can verify for yourself. That’s how I do things, too.
If you’d like to consider astrology, it’s a huge subject with many branches, and it’s an amazing field of study. If you are interested in psychology, learning natal astrology will really open your eyes. But there’s a lot of BS out there aimed at lazy minds who only want to be thoughtlessly entertained. If you decide to consider it as a serious subject of study, you will find most of your books on Amazon, and not in bookstores. I don’t really recommend the Internet as a way to learn about it, because it’s completely unregulated and anyone can say anything.
If you admit it’s not hard science then I have no problem.
I read a few things of Gauqelin’s work, looking for something scientifically valid, but I haven’t found anything yet. I did find a quote of Gaugelin’s from (The Scientific Basis of Astrology" but it said
“It is now quite certain that the signs in the sky which presided over our births have no power whatever to decide our fates, to affect our hereditary characteristics, or to play any part, however humble, in the totality of effects, random or otherwise, which form the fabric of our lives and mold our impulses to action.” (The Scientific Basis for Astrology) So I shall keep looking.
As I understand it, hard science deals with absolutes. Mathematics is a hard science. The aspect of astrology that deals with calculating the chart is hard science, but interpretation is a soft science, as far as I understand. “Admitting” doesn’t seem to be the proper word here. Call a rose a rose. I’m not admitting something, I am stating things that don’t seem to be very obvious to the majority of people.
Gauquelin’s views do not necessarily all agree with mine concerning astrology. However, I recall that he did a study of thousands of people to try to find correlation between their professions and the prominence of certain factors in their chart, and that what he found was statistically significant.
If we were to consider my chart, you’d think to laugh at anyone who told you what the traits of my sun sign are commonly accepted to be, had you known me when I was in high school. But, when you understand where my ascendant is, and my Mars and Venus, and my Saturn, and you understand what these planets represent and what their signs of placement indicate, and you consider these factors as a whole, the result you would have seen in me was much more obviously right. Since I have grown and changed, certain factors have grown stronger and more prominent and others have waned, as my personality has shifted in response to my maturation. The change isn’t outside my chart, it’s a reflection of my focus on specific aspects of my personality that were previously less obvious.
Again, it’s a complex subject, and difficult to examine using hard science. People do not represent discrete absolutes, but rather ever changing flows of intermixed personality traits which shift and change as they grow. Psychology finds itself against the wall for the same reason: these things are very hard to examine with hard science.
In regards to the Gauqelin quote above, he did find that there was a statistically significant correlation to the position of certain planets in the sky and the person’s profession. Mars in the case of athletes, giving the famous “Mars Effect”. This was true for all the planets, such as Jupiter being in a “Gauquelin Sector” for politicians, journalists, and writers. (Interestingly, I have Jupiter in a Gauquelin sector and have always displayed great facility with language, even from a very young age.) He did NOT find any statistical proof for the traditional “houses” or “signs” in astrology, which are all out of whack astronomically due to the precession of the equinoxes anyway. Indian astrology uses different house systems based on different notions of just where 0 degrees of Aries actually is, and an individual astrologer might use several different house systems in one reading of a chart! Thus leading me to believe that the houses and signs are all bunk. But I’m a Taurus and we tend to be very sceptical
The houses and signs being affected by the precession of the equinoxes depends on whether you are using the sidereal or tropical zodiac. Sidereal takes precession into account, and tropical does not. I have only studied the tropical, which is what most students of astrology use, and I have found that not only does it work, but that signs are fairly obviously accurate and houses adds a great deal of subtle shading to the detail of the chart. In my experience, the problem is that many people have insufficient guidance in how to use and interpret the houses. I prefer to use Koch houses when dealing with a fully erected chart, and Placidus as a secondary. Indian astrology I have very little knowledge of.
I suspect that he did not find any statistical proof for signs or houses in astrology is that his analysis methods were trying to use too much absolutism looking at something that is too complex. Again, the whole chart must be considered as a blended unit, and can usually not well be divided into discrete chunks. As I discovered the hard way.
I haven’t done a serious statistical examination, but I have noticed that those signs which fall into the Fixed triplicity tend to be most absolute in their thinking, especially when the Mercury placement is in the same sign as the Sun, and that they tend to be the most skeptical primarily because they are the most resistant to changing what they have accepted as being true. Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius. It is the Mercury placement, primarily, and not the solar placement, which reveals and correlates with the thinking style.
Yes, waiting almost a year is not enough of being patient. I’ll start complaining next year about this time, or right before Christmas.
I know one thing! If I’m asked to be patient NEXT YEAR … somebody’s getting hit with spit balls!
I wonder how patient I must be to get another shot at P86&P96?
You know … the forum is getting cluttered with all the WHEN IS IT COMING BACK IN STOCK posts. It would REALLY be nice if ANDROTICS had ONE post that gave all the answers, and something was posted weekly, where** only the people IN THE KNOW can post. :o** And if they missed posting an update on any week … all forum members gets a free TO-GO bottle of something + FREE SHIPPING.
(In most cases, you’ll still be dealing with a million to one odds or more.)
