Please feel free to bring any counter arguments.
Send them to me via e-mail (raffethefirst@yahoo.com) or as posts on one of the forums where I discuss the theory (see homepage) or as a comment around this blog - you can sign them if you want but is not mandatory.
By counter arguments I mean constructive logical arguments.
As you see there are not too many yet - I`ve heard something like "I assure you that this theory is wrong" but that sounds more like an opinion which I don't know how relevant can be if is not backed by arguments - so if you will send me something like this I might not post it.
So - open list of counter arguments:
1. Given previous research demonstrates no correlation exists between the variable of 'date of birth' and any other variable, it is reasonable to predict no correlation will exist between date of birth and order of needs.
-
-
-
Answer to 1:
Why previous research on signs is both - wrong as research on signs - and is not applicable to "the order of needs" theory (even if it would have been correct):
I do agree that there is a lot of research and this is an argument.
But I don't think is a heavy argument because actually all research didn't found a correlation - and not finding something is not definitive prove that there is no gold while finding gold is definitive prove that there is gold
. I think the tests were bad constructed - they were searching for suicide correlations, sun correlations, correlation between sun sign and over 60 occupations.
Those tests were also checking if ppl with same signs share similar traits - and they did not found any correlation.
Which is correct.
What is wrong - is to extend that conclusion to initial moment and personality - the order of needs theory.
Trying to prove that "ppl with similar initial moment shares same personality" - is different from trying to prove that "ppl with same sign share similar traits" because:
- working with traits is not useful in this case.
Why? Because traits are not specific enough for this task - they average (level) the answers - scientists should have used for comparation only one question at a time.
There seems to be some questions which do represent more strictly one particular personality - and ppl answer them promptly with the same answer each time, but other questions - that might look as the same question (almost same idea - but different phrasing) - can be answered differently by same personality because is interpretable (in the view of that specific person).
This error invalidates also most of the research on signs - not only it makes the research not applicable to the "order of needs" theory.
- signs don't represent personality groups (in a strict scientific way) - they are ... bad understood and might be very wrong as there is no proven relation between signs and stars - the whole thing is myth and folklore. They are more like guidelines - science will have to map the personality in whatever other groups by the initial moment and do it right.
What could go wrong when searching for scientific patterns in groups determined by folklore (signs)?
When science will study the initial moment it might discover that there are groups but the groups are different - they start in different moments and might be much more than 12 or other differences can be found.
So initial moment groups might be different from signs - and because of that - scientific research on signs cannot be extended to initial moment groups.
How to make the correct test? http://needsorder.blogspot.com/p/definitive-prove.html
No comments:
Post a Comment