On May 8, 4:12 pm, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 6, 11:34 am, Ray Murphy <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 10:45 am, Apollia <xerxes...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > It has sure been an interesting discussion.
>
> > RM: I was thinking of you sitting on the side, identifying issues of
> > interest..
>
> Well, my creativity/inventiveness/etc. fluctuate a lot, so, I didn't
> really think of much... :-)
>
> > >I finally got a copy of
> > > the book "Statistics for Dummies", but haven't read far in it yet,
> > > but, I plan to read all of it eventually. [...]
>
> > RM: Don't let it put you off, because a lot of it won't be needed in
> > astrology.
>
> OK. It's interesting and enjoyable so far.
RM: I find it strange that there is still no single formula in
statistics for predicting random distributions, or any references to
actual computer tests or real life tests which sup****t any given
formula, or any references to the margins of error we should use in
any of them.
It's understandable that Chi squared was used as a simple, standard
measuring stick up until the age of personal computers (say 1985) but
for simple work the G-test is apparently better and not very hard to
calculate. I've just finished some comparison graphs which show the
difference between those two methods, and it's quite surprising how
far out-of-whack Chi square apparently is. It was also interesting how
the G-test came closer to my tests with PC generated random data -
although still not good enough.
One problem with trying to verify the value of the various tests that
are used to show how far our data varies from normal distribution is
the fact that some personal computer programs generate better random
numbers than others.
> > > How about Taurus/Virgo players in s****ts other than basketball? If
> > > basketball really does appeal to Virgos in general I'm guessing
there
> > > ought to be other s****ts which appeal as much.
>
> > RM: I still need to gather a lot more data for other s****ts. S****ts
> > preferences of people wasn't a priority before, but this basketball
> > observation has made the topic look more interesting.
>
> Yes. I also look forward to finding out if the same thing happens in
> completely different sets of basketball player data. If it happens in
> numerous sets it probably isn't just random noise (even though there
> still could be some other non-astrological explanation).
RM: I've just started gathering more basketballers data for current
players in the U.S., and the trend is not holding up for that 450 that
I've collected so far. A small percentage of them are the same as the
data in the big Astrodatabank collection.
I've also done something with the combined set of basketballers data
that I occasionally try with other sets, that is -- isolate the data
where people are born on the same day or the next day - on the
assumption that if something astrological is at play, then it will
become more obvious in the results. This threw up a statistically
significant result shorty after I began tagging data and progressively
checking it. By the time I got to the end - using 899 selected pairs
out of the database of 3198, Sun in Cancer was clearly the leader
above all other Sun signs and it is statistically significant when
using Chi square. It is interesting to see how Taurus in THIS test is
extraordinarily low. It's a lot lower than Virgo of course but much,
much lower than Sun in Cancer. Don't forget this isn't a valid test -
selecting only multiples on the same date or either side, but it IS
interesting.
> > I'll see what I
> > can find in relation to Virgo and Taurus, but I've already noticed a
> > s****t that Taurus seems to have an aversion to (in the database I'm
> > using).
>
> Interesting, which one?
RM: Football. (I'm assuming that it would be mostly American
football). It would be interesting to isolate footballers into the
various codes, such as Rugby, Soccer, Gaelic football and Australian
rules. I could see some Taureans thriving in Rugby - perhaps because
(in Australia) they nearly all end up looking like archetypical
Taureans, on the field and off.
[.....]
>
> Apollia
Ray
|
