And the moon sinks low in Scorpio

[venta]

This is something I've been meaning to experiment with for ages, but never got round to. I've just been reminded of it, because someone posted on a thread elsewhere with the assumption that "birthdays are randomly distributed" - which I've always assumed they're not. For a start, there's always a bit of a clump of birthdays round February/March, which I've always blamed on people having early summer holidays in June.

Now, I'm assuming that unlike, say, musical taste, incidence of birthdays among my friends list will at least be representative of the population as a whole. If not, then we're into the suggestion that being born in a particular month predisposes you to particular behaviours and that smacks of astrology, so I don't like it.

(Yes, I know there are other non-astrological factors which might be relevant, but let's give it a whirl, shall we?)



You're getting no tickyboxes for this, dammit, it's radio or nothing. I refuse to allow people to be born in more than one month.

[Poll #424559]

Comments

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

No, not gravity (although I refer the honourable gentleman to the lunatic argument about tides for a good laugh about that one ;-) but yes to seasonal dietary effects, amount of time playing outside & conditions of same, exposure to pathogens & parasites on a yearly basis as well as basic fundamentals like day length & amount of daylight.

[wimble.livejournal.com]

That's the difference between Astrology, and a "reasonable" explanation though, at least, when Astrologers get seriously into what they are doing: precise time of birth, and location, so they can work out which signs or planets were coming over the horizon at the time.

At a crude level, if you simply take the month long sign, then it's not so much astrology, as just a different naming system: January born children (historically) started life with a different diet from July born. That's science. Claiming their differences are due to the star positions: that's astrology.