Unbelievably, it has been 3.5 years since I last addressed the readership. Life gets in the way, indeed. Well, not entirely. I have been semi-actively analyzing athletics at my other blog. Also, I was preoccupied, in no particular order, amassing insurmountable debt for a graduate degree, leveling friendships, making unsound financial choices, learning that ≥25.21% of the American adults I’ve never met are ignobly myopic, forsaking my practiced skills, discarding possessions, falling for unavailable women, leaving projects unfinished, and reconfiguring my perspective.

Readers who have interacted with me in the physical world, or IRL, know that I stubbornly oppose any attribution to the paranormal. They know I quickly brandish alternative—material—explanations or at least hypotheses at any mention of purported phenomena such as hauntings and sorcery. Every day, humans impose undue burdens onto each other and onto sentient actors of other species. So, I needn’t cite any examples of human behavior when I casually pose that I am more afraid of human behaviors than I am of their ghosts and incantations.

One of those paranormal concepts that particularly irks me is attributions of purpose in events. By ‘purpose’ I mean, references to destiny or preordainment as if an outcome or series of events was somehow special, “meant to be”, or “supposed to happen”. Without question, fortuitous, unexpected, and coincidental outcomes occur every day. But, by all indications to the present, we exist in a dull state of otherwise meaningless outcomes.

Humans though, you and I, it seems, are programmed to endow meaning to outcomes and events, often arbitrarily. And we do so prolifically. We are the creators of meaning, the ascribers of valence; we are the quantum measurement problem. Unsurprisingly then, persistent are notions about the influence of astrology, the occurrence purpose, and so on. Some folks, paranormal researchers, even resort to examining these phenomena—dare I say, systematically—and have been for well over a century.

I personally believe that we create the meaningfulness in the moments of our lives through our interactions with others, through our engagement in activities, and in our responses to events in the environment, and that’s good enough for me. The materiality of life and the experience of living itself are, perhaps, insufficient for some. Allow me to interrupt my reductionist ramblings but, just wait ‘til I someday tell you a love story.

Let us imagine that I have long-believed that red is an omen. A significant event will come without notice. One day, Imaginary me notices the situation in the parking lot of an apartment building I previously took residence in, as shown in Figure 1. The preponderance of red automobiles is undeviatingly an omen. It might be great or it could be painful, Imaginary me has no way of knowing. Imaginary me experiences cognitive dissonance because he has been taught to consider alternative explanations before reaching for conclusions. But…but, it’s red. So. Much. Red. It must be an omen.

Imaginary me elects to leave it to chance so I flip a coin and dispute the outcome. 37 rolls of unbiased dice and I’m still unconvinced. It is an omen. Having had cursory training in statistical analysis, Imaginary me reckons that this is a matter of counts and proportions. Specifically, that the proportion of red automobiles in the parking lot is greater than we would expect based on the proportion of red exteriors within all automobiles in the USA (in the analysis its North America) and therefore, it is an omen. Imaginary me prepares a table identical to Table 1 on a kitchen napkin, while dripping anxious sweat. Table 1 contains the observed counts and proportions for exterior colors of the 14 automobiles in the parking lot contiguous the building. Table 1 also contains the counts and proportions of colors we would expect to find in that parking lot based on that of all automobiles currently in use. (Real me’s methods for deriving expected proportions are outlined at the close of the post, after the fox graphic.)

	Observed		Expected
Color	count	%	count	%
Silver	1	0.071	2.50	0.179
White (solid+pearl)	2	0.143	2.69	0.192
Black (solid+effect)	2	0.143	2.04	0.145
Blue	0	0.000	1.41	0.100
Gray	0	0.000	1.54	0.110
Red	6	0.429	1.54	0.110
Brown/beige	0	0.000	0.89	0.064
Green	2	0.143	0.57	0.040
Gold/yellow	0	0.000	0.30	0.022
Other	1	0.071	0.52	0.037

Imaginary me really wants to ‘prove’ it is an omen and to assure himself, he consults an old statistics textbook. Table 1 lends itself to a Chi-square (goodness-of-fit) test that was outlined in Imaginary me’s textbook.  Our null hypothesis is that the proportions of automobile exterior colors in Figure 1 are no different than that of all automobiles currently in use. Our alternative hypothesis is that the proportions of colors in Figure 1 differ from that of the population of automobiles. To uphold the integrity of empiricism, Imaginary me takes the textbook authors’ advices and explicitly specifies that only a Chi-square value with a p-value < 0.05 will be considered compelling evidence of different proportions; or, in more sensational language: PROOF IT IS AN OMEN.

A Chi-square test indicates that the proportions of exterior colors in Figure 1 are significantly different than that of all automobiles in use, χ2 = 22.308, df = 9, p = 0.008. Imaginary me interprets this to mean that because it is statistically significant, the omen is very real. Real me says shut the fuck up and directs our gaze to the farground of Figure 1, beyond the parking lot. Real me pushes Imaginary me away from R and creates a new vector that also includes the 4 white, 1 black, and 1 grey automobiles that are identifiable beyond the parking lot. Imaginary me futilely argues that only automobiles located in the parking lot are relevant. With the 6 other automobiles, the result is no longer significant at the 0.05-level, χ2 = 15.927, df = 9, p = 0.068. Imaginary me is so flummoxed he dematerializes just in time for this paragraph to end.

Indeed, there is the lack of established material mechanisms by which paranormal phenomena are actualized. However, the belabored antidote exemplifies my concerns with the statistically significant results reported in a slew of systematic examinations of paranormal phenomena. There was not a good theory indicating why this sample of exterior automobile colors would be expected to differ from all automobiles. That is, there was no grounds for comparing this sample to the population.

Chi-square tests can be used to, say, test whether there is a lower proportion of twin-births by vegan mothers compared to that by omnivorous and vegetarian mothers. The test would be warranted because studies of biochemistry and nutrition provide good theory for why vegans’ twinning proportions would differ from other mothers.  Besides proximity to my then-apartment, however, the hypothesis offered by Imaginary me contained no concrete rationale for distinguishing our sample of automobiles from the population. I suppose we could have performed the analysis if, for whatever reason, we wanted to test whether the distribution of exterior colors of automobiles owned by residents of that building at the time the image was captured differed from the distribution for all automobiles.

Regarding paranormal research, it is a bit more involved than our example. People for millennia have reported experiencing paranormal phenomena. A host of individuals from the late-1800s through present have examined related phenomena. Like our example above, there is no theory for why or how these phenomena occur, simply subjective reports that the phenomena were experienced. And I agree, researchers should systematically examine subjective accounts of experience.

However, aside from being marred by outright fraud^a,b and selective reporting of data,c  as well as repeated failures to replicate,^d,e,f an accumulated paucity of evidence over ~140 years bespeaks discontinuing the research program. Thus, Imaginary me’s interpretation of statistical significance found in the first Chi-square test from our example is common in the paranormal research literature. Paranormal researchers hail statistical significance as proof of phenomena. Fine. Great. Whatever. Absent a theoretical foundation and controllable variables, really, it’s just algebraically torturing numerical values yielded by whatever method of data collection was used.  Err to parsimony and control your variance or GTFOH.

Let me conclude my somnolescent and overwrought return by emphasizing two points. One, assuming honest data and that there were not ~140 years of distortion, paranormal research findings would be anomalous and intriguing, indeed. However, in the ~20 manuscripts published from 1930-2012 that I have read, there is never any attempt to manipulate the laboratory procedures to alter the findings. By that I mean, paranormal researchers never implement additional variables or constraints to experimentally alter the intensity or frequency of the paranormal phenomena they examine. Two, aside from loose allusions to developments in physics, there is never any attempt to examine the phenomena within the parameters of the currently measurable world. By that I mean, paranormal researchers will hypothesize, say, causal mechanisms hidden beyond the firmament of unresolved topics in quantum physics. However, they never design experiments where good theory indicates that manipulating some established physical or cognitive variable(s) would be expected to produce outcomes reminiscent of a given paranormal phenomenon. That is, outcomes that could be misinterpreted by reasonable observers as the occurrence of a given paranormal phenomenon. As I alluded earlier, while good enough for me, material explanations are perhaps insufficient for others.

 

The derivation of expected proportions. I obtained median age of all highway vehicles registered in the USA, 2000-2014. For each year, 2000-14, I computed the year in which vehicles of the median age would have been new. I obtained quantities of all highway vehicles registered in the USA, 1960-2014,  and new highway vehicles registered in the USA, 1960-2014. I computed the proportion of registered vehicles that were new, 2000-14. Then I obtained the proportions of new automobile exterior colors for each year 2000-14. I used these values to estimate the proportion of automobile exterior colors in 2014 that were from new vehicles in each year from 2000-14.  I used these values to estimate the proportions of exterior colors for all automobiles in 2014. Each year-color proportion was multiplied by 1/quanity of year-color combinations for all years <= 2014. Then all the year-color combinations from 2000-14 were summed, producing the 2014 estimates. Essentially, I generated an estimate for each year prior to 2014 such that the proportion of year-color combinations were assigned the most weight at the median year and progressively less weight as the years departed from the median.

why date of birth matters but astrology does not

Man. I respect individual differences but I am annoyed by notions of interconnectedness between living organisms and distant, lifeless masses. Cool picture though. So what then? Well, astrology doesn’t matter because stars and constellations do not contain information about the human lives on planet earth. Okay, that is somewhat presumptive. Let me elaborate.

From our perspective here on earth, we can observe a multitude of celestial bodies; stars, most easily. A star is an incandescent, spherical mass of plasma with helium and hydrogen gases swirling at the core. Before this, large molecular mists and space dust coalesce into smaller portions and simultaneously release heat. As temperatures increase, some fragments may condense and alas, a star is born. Slowly, that core dissipates and in some instances, the weight of the outer layers causes the star to collapse in upon itself—though, this process is decidedly more complex than my lay understanding and explanation suggests. Needless to say, stars, the faraway freckles of night sky, form and fall regardless of the happenings in human lives here on earth.

Astrology is the practice of interpreting how stars and constellations are situated in the sky and using those positions to make inferences about forthcoming life events and individual differences. At least here in the Western world, such divinations are often disseminated in horoscopes or, predictions written in generalized language (nomoethetic), and partitioned amongst the population according to birth date. This is one of the inherent flaws in the predictive robustness of astrology that also contributes to its popularity: Broad and ambiguous narratives allow imbibers to select the traits they identify in themselves. Furthermore, prescribed believers are more likely to remember those anecdotes that came to fruition (confirmation bias).

Indeed, I could continue to objectively describe this intuitional approach to predictive analytics but—consider the blog title. In the interest of full disclosure, because I like transparency and honesty, I share the sentiment of the character of Dr. Cooper in the video below. However, I would like to state, it is my understanding that some individuals may, for myriad reasons, possess a certain fondness of astrology and I, by no means, intend to impede upon, abase, or detract from their experiences. Simply stated, as a quasi-scholar, a facet of my research interests pertains to establishing tangible explanations of purported immaterial phenomena.

So essentially, the astrological methodology of classifying persons is dependent on the position of stars and constellations at the point of birth in relation to the position of those at a given period of time. You see, from our perspective here on earth, the position of stars and constellations change as the earth spins in its orbit around the sun. Likewise, as the earth spins, seasons change and the vicissitudes of seasons include shifts in weather. Thus, instead of using the arrangement of the stars at the time of parturition to infer personality and circumstance, a more sound explanation for such an inference is the fluctuation of meteorological conditions during gestation. That is to say, weather conditions such as temperature, barometric pressure, and precipitation, can affect the mother and intern affect the fetus in a manner that would promote certain personality traits.

There is a lengthy list of teratogens, or substances that can interfere with typical development of the fetus. For example, the deleterious effect of maternal alcohol consumption on fetal growth has been established since at least 1973 but medical reports date to the late 19^th century and likely further into antiquity. Inadequate prenatal nutrition can lead to birth defects. Air pollution can result in preterm births and lower birth weights. And it gets redundant. Exposure to any of the above teratogens can bring about marked intellectual deficits and cognitive dysfunction. Conceivably, such deviations could manifest, in sum, as a unique expression of personality.

From here we progress to well-established associative links between prenatal exposure to flu and schizophrenia. Similar relationships have been identified between gestational flu and depression as well as bi-polar. At pathological levels, these are diagnosable psychiatric disorders; at any level of severity, each constitutes unique embodiments of personality. Thus far we have established that prenatal exposure to various substances and ailments poses significant detriments in the developing fetus and later functioning of the maturated person.

Weather (i.e., sunlight, precipitation, & air pressure) has been shown to have a small yet, significant, acute effect on mood that varies according to the individual individual. Mere exposure to light can improve mood, an effect that may be more or less pronounced depending on genetics. Well-documented are the periodic shifts in mental states that accompany seasonal affective disorder. Higher birth-month temperatures—or, lower gestational temperature—can predict the traits of self-directedness and persistence (both self-explanatory).

Continuing, May-June birthdates positively correlate with reward dependence, a personality trait characterized by an innate need to socialize and seek the approval of others. Unsurprisingly, the corresponding astrological symbol, Gemini, is described, in part, as being a veritable socialite who will often conform to those around them. Conversely, Sagittarius focuses on their own motivations and can communicate in such a manner that they appear to fail to consider how their words affect others. Likewise, Novemeber-December birthdates have been negatively associated with reward dependence; identified as being personally independent, practical, and, at times, socially insensitive.

For April-May births, these individuals have tested to be high in the trait of novelty seeking, that is, they are engaged by novel stimuli and assume extravagant approaches to potential reward. Conjunctly, the Taurus is described as having an innate proclivity for pleasures, material goods, and luxury. Thus, October-November birthdates and Scorpio’s which are low in novelty-seeking, are both described as reflective and resilient.

Now, these personality traits are grounded in empirical data. Psychological, genetic, and neurochemical correlates of these traits have been identified or at least appear evident when considering the data. However, I would not be surprised if you gleaned different interpretations from the astrological descriptions. After all, I was attempting to describe how astrology, an age-old practice, corresponds with—and is, in effect, accounted for by—recent empirical findings. That is, I, as infallible as I can be, may have inadvertently employed heuristics and succumbed to the confirmation bias and saw what I wanted to see.

So yes. Those are my essential grievances with astrology. I feel like I’m due some random bickering but, I’ll spare the reader. Forthcoming is the blog ‘everyone’ has been waiting on entitled Sex During Menstruation. Wrote it several years ago and am just now getting around to refining it and preparing it for public consumption. Others in preparation as well. Talk soon. All the best.

The young Tibetan sand fox will marvel in youthful conquest; stoic wisdom only comes with age.

The Comeback

So it’s Spring Break. I suppose I could be on some overcrowded beach along the coastline, screaming “TITTIES!!” and getting shithoused; goading some inebriated coed(s) into compromising their morals and lowering their standards. However, I’ve elected to forgo such activities—and tanning my upper thighs—in favor of Morehead.  

Anyhow, without further ado, I would like to welcome myself back into the blogosphere. I’m approaching a five-year hiatus. I didn’t miss it. Fuck the blogosphere and specifically those fucking bloggers who, while engaged in face-to-face interactions, make throaty quips about their blogging some arcane topic or introducing some novel viewpoint that ‘most people’ are unaware of or unable to understand. GO MILK A COW WITH YOUR MOUTH. Furthermore, I’m sure no one experienced a pronounced longing for my wares, the product of a distorted perspective that is, of course, fueled by my first-world notions of entitlement. However, the reader interested in familiarizing themselves with my vainglorious and misogynistic writing is directed to the earlier incarnation of the blog.

So, how about Facebook and flirting?

Several months ago, actually nearly a year now, a friend of mine (who, mitigating circumstances aside, could totally get it) informed me that Facebook is a lucrative vehicle for mate selection. That is, several of her female friends had been courted using the popular social networking service. Now my friend, she is the same age and was in high school during the same epoch as I. However, to me, the act of pursuing a mate via Facebook is, at least ostensibly, borderline stalker behavior; though I cannot deny engaging in quasi-flirtatious behavior on Facebook—as both initiator and receptor. 

Familiar with my innate obliviousness for many of the processes that govern social convention and sensing my curiosity, she helped me probe deeper.^twss T he process operates on the premise that, the suitor ought to have had even the most limited of face-to-face contact with the target mate (e.g., “saw you at a bar once”). Pursuant on this, a suitor could simply send the target a private message (PM) on FB. I’m dumbfounded; this is considered an acceptable catalyst for continued correspondence. I was advised that employing this method, the PM, as an initial approach is superior to contacting the target via the ‘live’ chat feature. This is because, unbeknownst to me, many females are often bombarded with requests to chat upon logging-in and many will disable that feature. She described other parameters of these courtship displays which exceed the scope of the current text. 

Why is this relevant today?

Since moving to Eastern KY, I have noticed that there is, amongst female eligibles, a sheer paucity of posterior. Anyhow, I ventured into the marketplace today, here in tiny Morehead, KY and happened upon an esthetically pleasing young woman with inklings of donk. It could have been her pants; I could be losing my skills. Regardless, I do not recall having seen her in this location or anywhere else about town. She was smiling and was generally amicable during the course of our interaction. I caught her name, and the absence of any child-soldier-sacrifice-studded finger-pendant signifying everlasting commitment. However, other patrons swayed, waiting as I completed my transaction and I exited without securing any further details about her. 

Now, I could have, yes, inquired about her relationship status and/or acquired contact info while waiting on line. However, in my view, that would be an unfair proposition because she is at her place of business; that is, she is focused on the duties of her post. Thus, I would stick her in the uncomfortable place of having to judge my character from and make a hasty decision based upon our brief interaction. While there is that annoying fucking adage “all’s fair in love and war”, in all fairness, I would prefer she had the opportunity to make a sound assessment of the pertinent factors before proceeding.

Okay. So back to Facebook. I believe that courting via FB is stalkery but, waiting outside someone’s place of employment is on some next-level, Richard-Ramirez-but-not-a-killer ass-crazy. Which I could have done, or I could have simply reentered the marketplace and made an attempt at simple discourse but, the aforesaid complications remain. Thus, I thought “why the fuck not look this broad up on Facebook,” and I did just that. 

The last time I used the Facebook people-search feature was a little less than a year ago. I searched for a female who is just ridiculously attractive and her intelligence is proportionate to her absurdly serious rear. I had not seen her in ages and, like a COMPLETE IDIOT, I declined to pursue a conversation upon seeing here while I was at work. Anywho, finding her was easy, perhaps because we have like 70-something mutual FB friends. 

However, today, when I tried to look up the girl from the market, I could only find like 12 females by her name attending or living near the University—a common white-girl name. So I tried some other variables to no avail. I even searched from some of the undergrads I deal with but am not FB friends with and also, was unable to find them. 

FUCK

Not about the female from the market though. She’s a fleeting desire that passed before writing half of this text. I’m hoping that my inability to find her or anyone else is the result of improved privacy restrictions FB has implemented. Otherwise, all of my well-honed research skills must be relearned. Ultimately though, I’ve reconciled that my little 17-minute experiment, based on some conversation I had a year ago, was pointless. I had no interest in and was frankly confused by the idea of FB courtship.

Yes. This was the woefully unremarkable reemergence of my blog, I Deux What I Want. Soon to follow will be a number of fun topics such as Personality is Not Unique to Humans: Dogs can be Bitches Too and Why Date of Birth Matters but Astrology Doesn’t. So be on the lookout for those and others. Oh, and this fox knows all