I think astrology may once have had a point, but doesn't any longer.
Now, wait, let me explain.
Umpteen thousand years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this planet a new species. Us'ns.
We tended to be, even when nomadic, confined to small areas of the planet, relatively speaking. A couple hundred miles in any direction, and man, that was a *hike*.
So assume that local populaces were, for the most part, at a particular longitude and latitude. Particularly latitude.
It's now known that human (particularly female) hormone cycles, when left alone, follow annual cycles as well as menstrual ones. Not as obvious, but they're there. We also now know that hormones are washed over a developing fetus at various times during a pregnancy, and that they trigger specific phases. (An interesting hypothesis regarding homosexuality pops up here - that the hormone 'injections' for setting the body morphism and brain chemistry misfire, and you get one of each in a mismatch. Anyway.)
So, given that seasonal hormonal fluctuations are controlled for by a specific locale and latitude, and that these fluctuations have some input into a fetus' development, it isn't *that* big a stretch to say that babies born in the fall *might* be predetermined to have slightly different traits than those born in the spring... diets were also tied fairly tightly to what was available during the seasons, and fetuses need different nutrients at different phases, etc, etc.
Given all *that*... it isn't that big a jump to say that primitive peoples noticed that babies born at certain times of the year, *all other things being equal*, tended to have certain inclinations.
Simple biology, really.
However.
We now have birth control pills, artificial light year round, homogenized diets and everything else that basically put our environment at our mercy, instead of the other way around. Not to mention that we are now a continent-hopping primate, and out genetic pools are so mixed and locales so swapped around that any hope there was originally of predicting one's personality traits based on one's birth date are completely and utterly bogus.
Of course, sheer chance can still pop up in ways to make people believe.
in south of equator the seasons are contrary to north.
so if you are born eg april 1, in argentina, you should not be aries but libra. right?
the nutrition of the mum during and after the pregnancy and the food of the infant for the few monts make difference. in summer and autumn there is more fresh food (just naturally, more food in season) > the mother eats better > the ameba. . i mean, the fetus, child, whatever, absorbs better nutrition.
there have been interesting researches about some features in relation to the month the people were both.
intelligence seemed in average a bit higher those born in or just after the parts of year with more fresh food (autumn, summer), or in spring. and the people born in spring or early summer are more likely to develop anorexia, this latest i could backtrack to a bbc news.
so "you are what you eat" translates also "your fetus is what your wife eats".
as the seasons are opposite on the other side of the earth (north / south) the signs should run contrary there. frankly, i've never understood if they do or don't run that way. but there at least the spring and autumn run contrary, so a january child is born in summer.
And you just pointed out precisely why it's bogus.
I was talking about small local populations way back when, where the observations were only valid for that populace.
And, would it interest you to know that many cultures around the world have had some sort of birth date -> personality mapping, but most of them are wildly different? Only the European zodiac astrology has been adopted as a 'universal' one... only problem is, it never would have made sense for anyone living outside of Europe in the first place.
I think that ancient cultures were probably making observations that for their population, at their location, with their annual dietary changes, were possibly statistically meaningful.
As soon as wide-spread travel, artificial light, diet and homogenized hormone cycles came about, it all went out the window.
Comments
I think astrology may once have had a point, but doesn't any longer.
Now, wait, let me explain.
Umpteen thousand years ago, our forefathers brought forth on this planet a new species. Us'ns.
We tended to be, even when nomadic, confined to small areas of the planet, relatively speaking. A couple hundred miles in any direction, and man, that was a *hike*.
So assume that local populaces were, for the most part, at a particular longitude and latitude. Particularly latitude.
It's now known that human (particularly female) hormone cycles, when left alone, follow annual cycles as well as menstrual ones. Not as obvious, but they're there. We also now know that hormones are washed over a developing fetus at various times during a pregnancy, and that they trigger specific phases. (An interesting hypothesis regarding homosexuality pops up here - that the hormone 'injections' for setting the body morphism and brain chemistry misfire, and you get one of each in a mismatch. Anyway.)
So, given that seasonal hormonal fluctuations are controlled for by a specific locale and latitude, and that these fluctuations have some input into a fetus' development, it isn't *that* big a stretch to say that babies born in the fall *might* be predetermined to have slightly different traits than those born in the spring... diets were also tied fairly tightly to what was available during the seasons, and fetuses need different nutrients at different phases, etc, etc.
Given all *that*... it isn't that big a jump to say that primitive peoples noticed that babies born at certain times of the year, *all other things being equal*, tended to have certain inclinations.
Simple biology, really.
However.
We now have birth control pills, artificial light year round, homogenized diets and everything else that basically put our environment at our mercy, instead of the other way around. Not to mention that we are now a continent-hopping primate, and out genetic pools are so mixed and locales so swapped around that any hope there was originally of predicting one's personality traits based on one's birth date are completely and utterly bogus.
Of course, sheer chance can still pop up in ways to make people believe.
in south of equator the seasons are contrary to north.
so if you are born eg april 1, in argentina, you should not be aries but libra. right?
the nutrition of the mum during and after the pregnancy and the food of the infant for the few monts make difference. in summer and autumn there is more fresh food (just naturally, more food in season) > the mother eats better > the ameba. . i mean, the fetus, child, whatever, absorbs better nutrition.
there have been interesting researches about some features in relation to the month the people were both.
intelligence seemed in average a bit higher those born in or just after the parts of year with more fresh food (autumn, summer), or in spring. and the people born in spring or early summer are more likely to develop anorexia, this latest i could backtrack to a bbc news.
so "you are what you eat" translates also "your fetus is what your wife eats".
as the seasons are opposite on the other side of the earth (north / south) the signs should run contrary there. frankly, i've never understood if they do or don't run that way. but there at least the spring and autumn run contrary, so a january child is born in summer.
I was talking about small local populations way back when, where the observations were only valid for that populace.
And, would it interest you to know that many cultures around the world have had some sort of birth date -> personality mapping, but most of them are wildly different? Only the European zodiac astrology has been adopted as a 'universal' one... only problem is, it never would have made sense for anyone living outside of Europe in the first place.
I think that ancient cultures were probably making observations that for their population, at their location, with their annual dietary changes, were possibly statistically meaningful.
As soon as wide-spread travel, artificial light, diet and homogenized hormone cycles came about, it all went out the window.