1
00:00:11,890 --> 00:00:09,379
on this episode of skeptical we decided

2
00:00:16,340 --> 00:00:11,900
to just in a moment in time grab

3
00:00:20,029 --> 00:00:16,350
screenshot all of top 1000 people who

4
00:00:22,730 --> 00:00:20,039
have Twitter follower numbers people

5
00:00:25,340 --> 00:00:22,740
like Justin Bieber I had the most

6
00:00:28,519 --> 00:00:25,350
Twitter followers Oprah Winfrey was in

7
00:00:30,919 --> 00:00:28,529
there Dalai Lama was in there and then

8
00:00:33,049 --> 00:00:30,929
looked for the charts so the chance of

9
00:00:36,020 --> 00:00:33,059
the celebrities having that alignment of

10
00:00:37,280 --> 00:00:36,030
those planets is over 90 percent over 90

11
00:00:40,549 --> 00:00:37,290
percent of them are in that range and

12
00:00:42,470 --> 00:00:40,559
then of the control group it's 45

13
00:00:43,810 --> 00:00:42,480
percent and then you ran all these

14
00:00:46,130 --> 00:00:43,820
trials and when you run that through

15
00:00:49,639 --> 00:00:46,140
statistical analysis the odds of that

16
00:00:51,350 --> 00:00:49,649
just being chance is far less than one

17
00:00:53,660 --> 00:00:51,360
out of a hundred right that's a good

18
00:00:55,850 --> 00:00:53,670
summary so that was step one and then

19
00:00:59,330 --> 00:00:55,860
step two in that paper was to show a

20
00:01:01,580 --> 00:00:59,340
correlation so of your list of 86 those

21
00:01:03,590 --> 00:01:01,590
are spread across that fouls and

22
00:01:05,810 --> 00:01:03,600
rankings so you might have somebody they

23
00:01:07,940 --> 00:01:05,820
might be down in the thousand range like

24
00:01:11,300 --> 00:01:07,950
you just said and then the real stunner

25
00:01:14,450 --> 00:01:11,310
what you said is anyone of that 86 who

26
00:01:17,149 --> 00:01:14,460
happened to rank in the top 100 100%

27
00:01:20,030 --> 00:01:17,159
correlation between that and having this

28
00:01:22,039 --> 00:01:20,040
certain position of the planet kind of

29
00:01:22,550 --> 00:01:22,049
thing that's absolutely right that's

30
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:22,560
what we've done

31
00:01:29,500 --> 00:01:24,810
wow that is that is pretty incredible

32
00:01:40,020 --> 00:01:37,730
[Music]

33
00:01:41,550 --> 00:01:40,030
welcome to skeptic Oh where we explore

34
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:41,560
controversial science and spirituality

35
00:01:44,910 --> 00:01:43,930
with leading researchers thinkers and

36
00:01:47,670 --> 00:01:44,920
their critics

37
00:01:49,230 --> 00:01:47,680
I'm your host Alex Icarus and this

38
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:49,240
introductions going to be a little bit

39
00:01:55,290 --> 00:01:52,170
of a long one because this story today

40
00:01:58,170 --> 00:01:55,300
is a long one interesting one

41
00:02:00,390 --> 00:01:58,180
it's about astrology it starts with me

42
00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:00,400
getting an email the kind of emails I

43
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:02,770
love to get from a skeptical listener

44
00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:06,010
who's well informed is science oriented

45
00:02:10,859 --> 00:02:08,530
and is digging for more emails from a

46
00:02:12,300 --> 00:02:10,869
guy named Jonathan and he writes dear

47
00:02:14,130 --> 00:02:12,310
Alex I write you as a huge fan of your

48
00:02:15,780 --> 00:02:14,140
show out of all your guests it is dr.

49
00:02:17,820 --> 00:02:15,790
Julie by shell and her rigorous

50
00:02:19,949 --> 00:02:17,830
methodology that has impressed me the

51
00:02:21,900 --> 00:02:19,959
most she clearly has a love of science

52
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:21,910
and uses the scientific method to

53
00:02:26,760 --> 00:02:24,010
discover knowledge once thought

54
00:02:28,500 --> 00:02:26,770
undiscoverable in that vein I wanted to

55
00:02:31,350 --> 00:02:28,510
introduce you to the work of Renee

56
00:02:33,570 --> 00:02:31,360
awesome she's using her genius level

57
00:02:36,390 --> 00:02:33,580
mind and mathematical skills to

58
00:02:38,430 --> 00:02:36,400
investigate astrology and getting

59
00:02:40,470 --> 00:02:38,440
results like dr. Byles

60
00:02:43,710 --> 00:02:40,480
now Jonathan goes on but you get the

61
00:02:46,890 --> 00:02:43,720
gist of the email catches my attention

62
00:02:50,310 --> 00:02:46,900
I love Julie's work exactly as he said

63
00:02:53,130 --> 00:02:50,320
using scientific methods to unmask

64
00:02:55,259 --> 00:02:53,140
[\h__\h] scientific paradigms he doesn't

65
00:02:58,140 --> 00:02:55,269
say that I do and give us a better sense

66
00:03:00,229 --> 00:02:58,150
of what's really going on in these kind

67
00:03:03,090 --> 00:03:00,239
of Fringe areas that we think may be

68
00:03:06,660 --> 00:03:03,100
somewhat true but we can't really put

69
00:03:08,759 --> 00:03:06,670
our hands up astrology hey great fits

70
00:03:11,580 --> 00:03:08,769
into that category we all know it's

71
00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:11,590
[\h__\h] right well we all kind of think

72
00:03:14,250 --> 00:03:13,090
it's [\h__\h] we kind of think maybe

73
00:03:16,140 --> 00:03:14,260
there's something to it

74
00:03:17,910 --> 00:03:16,150
we know the ancient Chinese were into

75
00:03:20,430 --> 00:03:17,920
astrology and we have Vedic Astrology

76
00:03:23,009 --> 00:03:20,440
from India and then of course we have

77
00:03:25,380 --> 00:03:23,019
ancient Egypt and Babylon and a lot of

78
00:03:27,660 --> 00:03:25,390
history that somehow rolls into the

79
00:03:30,660 --> 00:03:27,670
astrology that we see today and gives us

80
00:03:33,630 --> 00:03:30,670
this sense that while this daily reading

81
00:03:35,330 --> 00:03:33,640
stuff that we read might not be true I

82
00:03:38,220 --> 00:03:35,340
think a lot of us have a sense that

83
00:03:41,039 --> 00:03:38,230
maybe there's something there that all

84
00:03:44,159 --> 00:03:41,049
these great traditions for thousands of

85
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:44,169
years knew about now of course what also

86
00:03:48,350 --> 00:03:46,090
makes this so interesting to me is that

87
00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:48,360
when you turn to science

88
00:03:52,550 --> 00:03:50,970
and say hey from an observational

89
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:52,560
standpoint we have a question is there

90
00:03:59,090 --> 00:03:55,370
anything going on here what you get is

91
00:04:00,740 --> 00:03:59,100
classic scientism opinionated dogma I

92
00:04:03,770 --> 00:04:00,750
wouldn't believe it even if it was true

93
00:04:06,020 --> 00:04:03,780
as an example you know after doing this

94
00:04:07,430 --> 00:04:06,030
whole Shahs listening to Joe Rogan who

95
00:04:09,650 --> 00:04:07,440
of course everybody knows and does this

96
00:04:12,170 --> 00:04:09,660
excellent podcast even though he

97
00:04:14,270 --> 00:04:12,180
sometimes can't get past this kind of

98
00:04:16,310 --> 00:04:14,280
inbred skepticism that he has but

99
00:04:18,530 --> 00:04:16,320
anyways he's got Neil deGrasse Tyson on

100
00:04:20,479 --> 00:04:18,540
the show one of the most famous atheist

101
00:04:23,030 --> 00:04:20,489
scientists of our time who everyone

102
00:04:25,220 --> 00:04:23,040
thinks is so smart I just I don't get it

103
00:04:26,930 --> 00:04:25,230
I don't think the guy is that smart

104
00:04:28,790 --> 00:04:26,940
I mean I've interviewed dozens and

105
00:04:31,160 --> 00:04:28,800
dozens of people on skeptical that I

106
00:04:34,610 --> 00:04:31,170
tell you just from an intellectual

107
00:04:36,830 --> 00:04:34,620
horsepower able duck handle issues seem

108
00:04:39,410 --> 00:04:36,840
a hell of a lot smarter than this guy

109
00:04:41,270 --> 00:04:39,420
but hey everyone's romanced with Neil

110
00:04:42,020 --> 00:04:41,280
deGrasse Tyson he's a great presenter so

111
00:04:44,420 --> 00:04:42,030
any because they're talking about

112
00:04:46,910 --> 00:04:44,430
astrology here's what they say then you

113
00:04:49,220 --> 00:04:46,920
go to the astrologers tables and they

114
00:04:51,830 --> 00:04:49,230
say oh this is the raine sign or this is

115
00:04:54,020 --> 00:04:51,840
a dry drought sign and they take the

116
00:04:56,030 --> 00:04:54,030
names of things and those names are what

117
00:04:58,220 --> 00:04:56,040
they interpret based on where the moon

118
00:05:01,430 --> 00:04:58,230
is the Sun is where the planets are and

119
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:01,440
all whatever the angle configurations

120
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:03,450
there are and each angle has a certain

121
00:05:09,470 --> 00:05:06,210
latitude over which they'll count it as

122
00:05:13,400 --> 00:05:09,480
a hit rather than as a miss and so this

123
00:05:15,710 --> 00:05:13,410
gives extraordinary capacity of the

124
00:05:26,990 --> 00:05:15,720
astrologer to tell you what's going on

125
00:05:28,909 --> 00:05:27,000
in your life so it's [\h__\h] so classic

126
00:05:31,790 --> 00:05:28,919
Neil deGrasse Tyson he's mixing in some

127
00:05:33,470 --> 00:05:31,800
stuff that's probably true factual with

128
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:33,480
just some [\h__\h] crap that he's never

129
00:05:38,990 --> 00:05:35,490
investigated here to me is the

130
00:05:41,570 --> 00:05:39,000
scientific question about astrology is

131
00:05:44,060 --> 00:05:41,580
there a correlation between the

132
00:05:45,350 --> 00:05:44,070
positioning of these planets and events

133
00:05:46,010 --> 00:05:45,360
that are happening down here in the

134
00:05:49,159 --> 00:05:46,020
physical world

135
00:05:52,250 --> 00:05:49,169
that's it because look what science

136
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:52,260
enters into a fringe area it has to work

137
00:05:56,779 --> 00:05:53,970
from the ground up right it has to work

138
00:05:58,610 --> 00:05:56,789
from observation to correlation to

139
00:06:00,050 --> 00:05:58,620
causation I mean it'd be great if you

140
00:06:01,890 --> 00:06:00,060
could start with causation and say hey

141
00:06:03,450 --> 00:06:01,900
we found these two things cause you

142
00:06:05,129 --> 00:06:03,460
each other now let's go out in the real

143
00:06:06,900 --> 00:06:05,139
world and find out all that stuff that

144
00:06:09,270 --> 00:06:06,910
happens but that's not usually the case

145
00:06:11,969 --> 00:06:09,280
take for example you know our buddy

146
00:06:13,980 --> 00:06:11,979
rupert sheldon right cambridge biologist

147
00:06:15,060 --> 00:06:13,990
does all this fringe stuff dogs that

148
00:06:16,770 --> 00:06:15,070
know when their owners are coming home

149
00:06:20,070 --> 00:06:16,780
but he also does this great thing with

150
00:06:21,779 --> 00:06:20,080
the steering thing right so this is that

151
00:06:23,879 --> 00:06:21,789
we have the sense that we're being

152
00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:23,889
stared at and he wanted to look at that

153
00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:26,050
so you start with the observation the

154
00:06:30,120 --> 00:06:28,210
observation here in that case on the

155
00:06:32,999 --> 00:06:30,130
steering phenomenon is that we have

156
00:06:35,340 --> 00:06:33,009
overwhelming anecdotal data if you go to

157
00:06:37,140 --> 00:06:35,350
people who do professional surveillance

158
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:37,150
they say hey know if you're following

159
00:06:39,840 --> 00:06:38,530
somebody don't stare man back at the

160
00:06:42,060 --> 00:06:39,850
head they're liable to turn around if

161
00:06:43,409 --> 00:06:42,070
you go to spies if you go to undercover

162
00:06:45,450 --> 00:06:43,419
detectives I mean it's part of their

163
00:06:47,790 --> 00:06:45,460
training they say don't stare at the

164
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:47,800
back of somebody's head so this for a

165
00:06:52,890 --> 00:06:50,410
trained biologists like Sheldrick says

166
00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:52,900
hey this seems to be occurring in the

167
00:06:59,159 --> 00:06:55,930
natural world let's go run a test and

168
00:07:01,350 --> 00:06:59,169
see if we find a correlation so the

169
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:01,360
correlation would be if I stare at the

170
00:07:05,159 --> 00:07:03,250
back your head for this given time under

171
00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:05,169
these controlled conditions do you turn

172
00:07:09,990 --> 00:07:08,410
around that's the correlation and when

173
00:07:12,779 --> 00:07:10,000
you find that correlation like Sheldrick

174
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:12,789
dud it should change people's mind

175
00:07:16,439 --> 00:07:14,770
people should go wow that's important

176
00:07:19,770 --> 00:07:16,449
that science now let's look for a

177
00:07:22,110 --> 00:07:19,780
causation let's look for a physics kind

178
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:22,120
of explanation for what might be going

179
00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:25,090
on but you don't deny the correlation

180
00:07:28,909 --> 00:07:27,010
because the correlation is this really

181
00:07:31,409 --> 00:07:28,919
important part of this process so

182
00:07:34,439 --> 00:07:31,419
similarly if you will now let me switch

183
00:07:37,740 --> 00:07:34,449
back over to astrology so for astrology

184
00:07:40,290 --> 00:07:37,750
the scientific question is is there a

185
00:07:41,790 --> 00:07:40,300
correlation between the planets Sun star

186
00:07:45,060 --> 00:07:41,800
whatever being in this particular

187
00:07:47,460 --> 00:07:45,070
position and then events happening in

188
00:07:49,560 --> 00:07:47,470
the physical world if there is that

189
00:07:51,180 --> 00:07:49,570
correlation then we would have to

190
00:07:53,250 --> 00:07:51,190
investigate further and figure out what

191
00:07:56,700 --> 00:07:53,260
the causation is but we'd be down the

192
00:07:58,830 --> 00:07:56,710
track of saying that astrology has some

193
00:08:00,570 --> 00:07:58,840
realness to it so you know I was kind of

194
00:08:03,480 --> 00:08:00,580
getting on Neil deGrasse Tyson earlier

195
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:03,490
but it's over and over again he seems to

196
00:08:09,300 --> 00:08:06,370
kind of miss that point because that

197
00:08:11,940 --> 00:08:09,310
question has been asked for a long time

198
00:08:13,350 --> 00:08:11,950
and the results of it have been mixed I

199
00:08:15,660 --> 00:08:13,360
mean sometimes people have found that

200
00:08:17,190 --> 00:08:15,670
correlation sometimes they have it

201
00:08:19,170 --> 00:08:17,200
you don't get any sense of that from

202
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:19,180
what he talks that's because what he's

203
00:08:24,630 --> 00:08:21,610
really doing is just promoting a

204
00:08:26,820 --> 00:08:24,640
particular worldview this status quo

205
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:26,830
keep everything going the way it is kind

206
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:28,570
of worldview and it's disguised and

207
00:08:32,310 --> 00:08:30,370
people like Joe Rogan who is a super

208
00:08:33,600 --> 00:08:32,320
smart guy but they don't just catch on

209
00:08:36,690 --> 00:08:33,610
to that part of the game and it just

210
00:08:39,990 --> 00:08:36,700
kind of slips past but it's not gonna

211
00:08:43,560 --> 00:08:40,000
slip past us today I'm skeptical

212
00:08:45,990 --> 00:08:43,570
hopefully but back to my story right so

213
00:08:47,850 --> 00:08:46,000
I contact Jonathan and Rene's work

214
00:08:49,980 --> 00:08:47,860
immediately has my interests because I

215
00:08:52,860 --> 00:08:49,990
investigate a little bit further I look

216
00:08:55,230 --> 00:08:52,870
up and Rene has published in the journal

217
00:08:58,080 --> 00:08:55,240
for scientific exploration which I know

218
00:08:59,640 --> 00:08:58,090
is a very good journal I've had editors

219
00:09:01,380 --> 00:08:59,650
of the journal on this show I've had

220
00:09:03,810 --> 00:09:01,390
people who have published in the journal

221
00:09:05,820 --> 00:09:03,820
on this show and I know from talking to

222
00:09:07,800 --> 00:09:05,830
them that it's not only an excellent

223
00:09:10,410 --> 00:09:07,810
journal that's brave enough to tackle

224
00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:10,420
these controversial areas of science but

225
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:13,330
it's also a hard journal to get into in

226
00:09:17,130 --> 00:09:15,130
fact I know you know referring back to

227
00:09:19,080 --> 00:09:17,140
dr. Julie Burchill she's told me that

228
00:09:21,000 --> 00:09:19,090
she's published in several academic

229
00:09:24,090 --> 00:09:21,010
journals and that the review process for

230
00:09:26,220 --> 00:09:24,100
JSC journal scientific exploration was

231
00:09:28,620 --> 00:09:26,230
by far the hardest review process that

232
00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:28,630
she went through so it's a real deal and

233
00:09:32,460 --> 00:09:30,250
when I saw that she had published there

234
00:09:33,900 --> 00:09:32,470
my interest was piqued and I really

235
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:33,910
wanted to go forward with the interview

236
00:09:39,300 --> 00:09:36,130
but I still had in the back of my mind

237
00:09:42,390 --> 00:09:39,310
these questions concerns about astrology

238
00:09:44,460 --> 00:09:42,400
being mostly [\h__\h] so I set up the

239
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:44,470
interview with Rene and at the same time

240
00:09:48,780 --> 00:09:46,450
I said why don't we do a reading because

241
00:09:51,180 --> 00:09:48,790
let's be clear Rene isn't just an

242
00:09:53,520 --> 00:09:51,190
astrology researcher she's also a

243
00:09:54,960 --> 00:09:53,530
practicing astrologer so she provides

244
00:09:57,000 --> 00:09:54,970
that service people pay her for that

245
00:09:58,860 --> 00:09:57,010
service I paid her for that service with

246
00:10:01,560 --> 00:09:58,870
the understanding that I would use it in

247
00:10:04,050 --> 00:10:01,570
the show as part of this exploration of

248
00:10:05,820 --> 00:10:04,060
astrology and astrology research so

249
00:10:08,010 --> 00:10:05,830
we've got everything set up and then we

250
00:10:10,890 --> 00:10:08,020
went ahead and did the reading and the

251
00:10:13,470 --> 00:10:10,900
reading was not very good not very good

252
00:10:14,910 --> 00:10:13,480
at all and some of the things that

253
00:10:18,150 --> 00:10:14,920
really concerned about the reading was

254
00:10:19,950 --> 00:10:18,160
not only was it not accurate but Rene

255
00:10:21,990 --> 00:10:19,960
seemed really uncomfortable with the

256
00:10:24,750 --> 00:10:22,000
fact that the reading wasn't kind of

257
00:10:27,180 --> 00:10:24,760
working out I wasn't I was like hey I

258
00:10:28,530 --> 00:10:27,190
get that these things aren't perfect and

259
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:28,540
that they don't always work and there

260
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:29,250
was this

261
00:10:33,380 --> 00:10:31,410
about the time of my birth and whether I

262
00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:33,390
had that right which I didn't and I

263
00:10:36,230 --> 00:10:35,250
later confirmed by getting a copy of my

264
00:10:38,900 --> 00:10:36,240
birth certificate

265
00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:38,910
but the whole reading was making me

266
00:10:43,070 --> 00:10:41,010
question the idea that you can really

267
00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:43,080
give somebody the time and place your

268
00:10:47,930 --> 00:10:44,970
birth and they can start telling you all

269
00:10:49,790 --> 00:10:47,940
these precise things about your life and

270
00:10:51,530 --> 00:10:49,800
what's going to happen in the next 90

271
00:10:53,630 --> 00:10:51,540
days or a couple years or any of that

272
00:10:55,310 --> 00:10:53,640
stuff so I was in this space I wasn't

273
00:10:56,900 --> 00:10:55,320
put off by Renee's reading and I was

274
00:10:58,580 --> 00:10:56,910
ready to move on and do the next

275
00:11:01,160 --> 00:10:58,590
interview we had scheduled to really

276
00:11:03,770 --> 00:11:01,170
talk about her research but the email

277
00:11:06,590 --> 00:11:03,780
exchange we had after that reading

278
00:11:08,510 --> 00:11:06,600
changed everything so Renee freaked out

279
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:08,520
she goes oh my god that was such a

280
00:11:12,530 --> 00:11:10,530
terrible reading please don't publish it

281
00:11:14,180 --> 00:11:12,540
I don't want to do any more interviews I

282
00:11:18,020 --> 00:11:14,190
should have never done this I'm out of

283
00:11:19,910 --> 00:11:18,030
here so I was I was surprised I was

284
00:11:21,470 --> 00:11:19,920
really surprised because again during

285
00:11:23,630 --> 00:11:21,480
the reading I said hey this is no big

286
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:23,640
deal I've had medium readings from

287
00:11:28,760 --> 00:11:26,010
really good mediums that didn't go well

288
00:11:30,140 --> 00:11:28,770
and yet I still believe there's after

289
00:11:31,550 --> 00:11:30,150
death communication and I believe

290
00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:31,560
there's people who can facilitate that

291
00:11:36,110 --> 00:11:34,170
so this doesn't matter all that much to

292
00:11:38,300 --> 00:11:36,120
me let's talk about the research but

293
00:11:40,010 --> 00:11:38,310
Renee was in freakout mode and the more

294
00:11:42,800 --> 00:11:40,020
I talked her through email the more

295
00:11:45,500 --> 00:11:42,810
pissed off I was getting pissed off

296
00:11:47,930 --> 00:11:45,510
because if you got the goods if you've

297
00:11:49,760 --> 00:11:47,940
done the research you ought to be able

298
00:11:52,730 --> 00:11:49,770
to suffer the slings and arrows that

299
00:11:56,090 --> 00:11:52,740
come with being uncut in edge science

300
00:11:58,450 --> 00:11:56,100
now as I say that there's another side

301
00:12:03,500 --> 00:11:58,460
of me that wants to highlight how

302
00:12:07,970 --> 00:12:03,510
freaking difficult this crazy biological

303
00:12:11,329 --> 00:12:07,980
robot scientific materialism stupidity

304
00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:11,339
makes it for people to endure to

305
00:12:16,520 --> 00:12:14,370
persevere to push their research forward

306
00:12:20,030 --> 00:12:16,530
when it goes against this kind of dogma

307
00:12:22,100 --> 00:12:20,040
and I think I suspect that's what was

308
00:12:23,510 --> 00:12:22,110
going on with Renee but still I don't

309
00:12:26,450 --> 00:12:23,520
cut her any slack hey if we're gonna

310
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:26,460
push this edge we gotta expect the

311
00:12:30,770 --> 00:12:29,010
pushback and we gotta push through it so

312
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:30,780
I went back to Jonathan the guy who

313
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:32,490
originally turned me on to Renee and we

314
00:12:36,170 --> 00:12:34,170
had a long talk and I told him exactly

315
00:12:37,670 --> 00:12:36,180
what happened and I told him the same

316
00:12:39,560 --> 00:12:37,680
thing I told her an a hey I'm going

317
00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:39,570
ahead with the show and if you want me

318
00:12:42,889 --> 00:12:41,850
to do the show with just your crappy

319
00:12:45,109 --> 00:12:42,899
reading

320
00:12:47,660 --> 00:12:45,119
then I'll do that if you want to come on

321
00:12:49,579 --> 00:12:47,670
and explain yourself and stand up for

322
00:12:50,389 --> 00:12:49,589
your research then maybe we'll have a

323
00:12:53,389 --> 00:12:50,399
different show

324
00:12:57,079 --> 00:12:53,399
now fortunately Rene came around and I

325
00:12:59,590 --> 00:12:57,089
think we had a darn good interview about

326
00:13:03,769 --> 00:12:59,600
what I think is some incredibly

327
00:13:06,730 --> 00:13:03,779
important research concerning astrology

328
00:13:10,850 --> 00:13:06,740
there is no doubt she's super smart

329
00:13:12,970 --> 00:13:10,860
super capable she's using AI big data

330
00:13:16,369 --> 00:13:12,980
very sophisticated statistical

331
00:13:19,129 --> 00:13:16,379
techniques very solid science to bring

332
00:13:19,699 --> 00:13:19,139
forward a new picture about what's going

333
00:13:21,590 --> 00:13:19,709
on here

334
00:13:23,269 --> 00:13:21,600
one that you'll never hear Neil deGrasse

335
00:13:25,639 --> 00:13:23,279
Tyson talk about because he's a boob

336
00:13:28,100 --> 00:13:25,649
anyways if you really just want to as

337
00:13:29,809 --> 00:13:28,110
Jonathan said in that opening email

338
00:13:33,079 --> 00:13:29,819
discover knowledge once thought

339
00:13:34,460 --> 00:13:33,089
undiscoverable here you go oh one more

340
00:13:36,530 --> 00:13:34,470
thing as you're listening to this

341
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:36,540
interview it starts again in kind of an

342
00:13:40,340 --> 00:13:38,850
unconventional way because but the first

343
00:13:44,900 --> 00:13:40,350
time in my conversation with Rene

344
00:13:47,090 --> 00:13:44,910
getting on Rene for backing out of this

345
00:13:49,519 --> 00:13:47,100
initial interview and I think I pushed

346
00:13:52,790 --> 00:13:49,529
her pretty hard but to her credit she

347
00:13:55,790 --> 00:13:52,800
withstood it and then we eventually got

348
00:13:58,579 --> 00:13:55,800
into the interview that we both wanted

349
00:14:01,970 --> 00:13:58,589
to have here's my interview with Rene Oh

350
00:14:04,129 --> 00:14:01,980
a shop you published in JSC you must

351
00:14:05,869 --> 00:14:04,139
have taken a lot of criticism because

352
00:14:07,879 --> 00:14:05,879
that's part of the process but maybe you

353
00:14:09,829 --> 00:14:07,889
did it maybe you snagged the whole thing

354
00:14:11,780 --> 00:14:09,839
past him maybe they never asked really

355
00:14:14,269 --> 00:14:11,790
hard questions they were just bamboozled

356
00:14:15,949 --> 00:14:14,279
by the data I don't know but I tell you

357
00:14:18,590 --> 00:14:15,959
what I didn't have those questions going

358
00:14:20,660 --> 00:14:18,600
in like I say I was totally on board

359
00:14:22,489 --> 00:14:20,670
because I've interviewed several people

360
00:14:24,049 --> 00:14:22,499
that are published in the GAC and

361
00:14:26,090 --> 00:14:24,059
they've also always told me hey it's

362
00:14:27,650 --> 00:14:26,100
really hard you know the the reviewers

363
00:14:31,220 --> 00:14:27,660
are really tough and this and that so

364
00:14:32,780 --> 00:14:31,230
again I had that assumption but no Rene

365
00:14:34,610 --> 00:14:32,790
I don't I don't have that same

366
00:14:36,619 --> 00:14:34,620
assumption about your work so now that's

367
00:14:37,939 --> 00:14:36,629
where I'm at anyone who listens to the

368
00:14:40,850 --> 00:14:37,949
interview is going to know that the

369
00:14:42,889 --> 00:14:40,860
reading wasn't good but who cares it's

370
00:14:45,410 --> 00:14:42,899
just one individual reading what I'm

371
00:14:48,410 --> 00:14:45,420
trying to figure out is this research

372
00:14:50,780 --> 00:14:48,420
worth anything is the second part of

373
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:50,790
that and when the researcher can't stand

374
00:14:56,390 --> 00:14:53,730
behind their research well then you know

375
00:14:59,180 --> 00:14:56,400
that just raises a lot of red flags

376
00:15:02,150 --> 00:14:59,190
what I expressed to you was you know my

377
00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:02,160
bias based on my experience was

378
00:15:07,490 --> 00:15:05,130
everyone thinks they're 95% you know all

379
00:15:09,530 --> 00:15:07,500
the psychics think they're 95% all the

380
00:15:11,750 --> 00:15:09,540
mediums think they're 95% and you're

381
00:15:15,590 --> 00:15:11,760
telling me you think you're 95% you know

382
00:15:17,150 --> 00:15:15,600
what you're not 95% and no one's 95% but

383
00:15:19,340 --> 00:15:17,160
that doesn't take away from the fact

384
00:15:20,000 --> 00:15:19,350
that it might be real so here's the

385
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:20,010
question

386
00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:24,330
whole thing is I have no doubt that

387
00:15:29,510 --> 00:15:27,450
astrology works but does it work in the

388
00:15:31,220 --> 00:15:29,520
same way that Tarot works does it work

389
00:15:33,710 --> 00:15:31,230
in the same way that reading coffee

390
00:15:37,010 --> 00:15:33,720
grinds work in that the individual

391
00:15:38,390 --> 00:15:37,020
person is connecting to extended

392
00:15:39,680 --> 00:15:38,400
consciousness realm so if we don't

393
00:15:41,570 --> 00:15:39,690
really understand what they are but

394
00:15:44,660 --> 00:15:41,580
we'll just put that name on it is that's

395
00:15:46,730 --> 00:15:44,670
what's happening is astrology a means

396
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:46,740
for the person who's doing the

397
00:15:51,830 --> 00:15:49,530
individual reading to connect with this

398
00:15:54,200 --> 00:15:51,840
extended consciousness and bring forth

399
00:15:57,310 --> 00:15:54,210
information is that what's happening or

400
00:16:00,380 --> 00:15:57,320
is there some real physical

401
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:00,390
materialistic really connection between

402
00:16:07,490 --> 00:16:03,690
the layout of these planets in these

403
00:16:10,130 --> 00:16:07,500
stars and what's going on I don't want

404
00:16:11,930 --> 00:16:10,140
to misrepresent the show one way or

405
00:16:13,790 --> 00:16:11,940
another I'm not an advocate for an

406
00:16:16,550 --> 00:16:13,800
astrology but I'm not here to debunk

407
00:16:19,370 --> 00:16:16,560
astrology and your research in ways that

408
00:16:21,410 --> 00:16:19,380
it shouldn't be but tell me why someone

409
00:16:25,130 --> 00:16:21,420
who's skeptical of your research should

410
00:16:26,810 --> 00:16:25,140
have confidence in it so let me

411
00:16:28,280 --> 00:16:26,820
interject something here so we're having

412
00:16:29,930 --> 00:16:28,290
this conversation Renee and I I'm

413
00:16:31,640 --> 00:16:29,940
telling her some of the problems I had

414
00:16:34,130 --> 00:16:31,650
had with the way she handled things and

415
00:16:35,750 --> 00:16:34,140
I'm very very skeptical of her research

416
00:16:37,670 --> 00:16:35,760
but I'm trying to figure out whether we

417
00:16:39,260 --> 00:16:37,680
should go ahead with the show and I'm

418
00:16:41,750 --> 00:16:39,270
being pretty hard on her but it then at

419
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:41,760
some point we switch over and we start

420
00:16:45,050 --> 00:16:43,290
talking about her research so let me

421
00:16:47,090 --> 00:16:45,060
just give you we talked about it in

422
00:16:49,100 --> 00:16:47,100
length in this interview what the

423
00:16:52,190 --> 00:16:49,110
research is but it might be helpful here

424
00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:52,200
to kind of understand big-picture what

425
00:16:55,850 --> 00:16:53,610
we're talking about two pieces of

426
00:16:59,630 --> 00:16:55,860
research that Renee did that are really

427
00:17:02,540 --> 00:16:59,640
fascinating one is she looked at Twitter

428
00:17:04,610 --> 00:17:02,550
followers she took this idea that there

429
00:17:07,430 --> 00:17:04,620
is this planetary alignment that would

430
00:17:08,540 --> 00:17:07,440
suggest that some people are more likely

431
00:17:11,990 --> 00:17:08,550
to be fame

432
00:17:14,180 --> 00:17:12,000
followed celebrity types than other

433
00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:14,190
people right so that's something you

434
00:17:18,020 --> 00:17:15,570
could test see if there's a correlation

435
00:17:19,430 --> 00:17:18,030
and that's what she did the other thing

436
00:17:22,730 --> 00:17:19,440
that she did which is really interesting

437
00:17:24,710 --> 00:17:22,740
she said there's this Mercury retrograde

438
00:17:26,210 --> 00:17:24,720
thing that's been around for a long time

439
00:17:28,550 --> 00:17:26,220
people have talked about that

440
00:17:30,170 --> 00:17:28,560
hey people kind of go nuts and can't do

441
00:17:32,450 --> 00:17:30,180
mental functioning the way that they

442
00:17:35,690 --> 00:17:32,460
normally do when this thing happens and

443
00:17:38,060 --> 00:17:35,700
she did some research on that trying to

444
00:17:41,990 --> 00:17:38,070
correlate it with common spelling airs

445
00:17:44,570 --> 00:17:42,000
in this huge database of Amazon comments

446
00:17:45,980 --> 00:17:44,580
again a very clever bit of research that

447
00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:45,990
you'll hear a lot about but I want you

448
00:17:50,870 --> 00:17:48,690
to at least have big-picture view of

449
00:17:53,750 --> 00:17:50,880
these two pieces of research that we

450
00:17:55,100 --> 00:17:53,760
talked about as this goes out ok back to

451
00:17:57,890 --> 00:17:55,110
the interview here goes

452
00:18:00,110 --> 00:17:57,900
well again I want people to tear it

453
00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:00,120
apart with a fine-tooth comb that is

454
00:18:05,570 --> 00:18:02,970
what happened at JSC I did rewrite it

455
00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:05,580
three times and it was awesome

456
00:18:11,030 --> 00:18:07,890
experience I learned a lot from it and I

457
00:18:13,340 --> 00:18:11,040
appreciate the JSE all the more for that

458
00:18:15,770 --> 00:18:13,350
it may be some potential criticisms that

459
00:18:19,250 --> 00:18:15,780
you're likely to hear so I spoke with

460
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:19,260
one person that I am I feel very

461
00:18:23,240 --> 00:18:21,210
confident in the research and I feel

462
00:18:26,120 --> 00:18:23,250
very confident in the process that

463
00:18:28,190 --> 00:18:26,130
they've gone through with JSC again the

464
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:28,200
journal for scientific exploration that

465
00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:30,210
I keep saying I have this high regard

466
00:18:33,950 --> 00:18:31,770
for and he pointed out a couple of

467
00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:33,960
things he said number one there's no

468
00:18:38,180 --> 00:18:36,330
huge red flags in the research as it

469
00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:38,190
stands because if you want to talk to

470
00:18:40,940 --> 00:18:40,050
the JSC editors number one they're not

471
00:18:42,680 --> 00:18:40,950
going to talk to you

472
00:18:45,740 --> 00:18:42,690
they've done their thing and they're not

473
00:18:47,720 --> 00:18:45,750
going to come in and kind of answer

474
00:18:49,580 --> 00:18:47,730
those kind of questions but number two

475
00:18:52,820 --> 00:18:49,590
if they did answer those questions what

476
00:18:55,370 --> 00:18:52,830
they'd say is based on the data that we

477
00:18:58,520 --> 00:18:55,380
have from her and her representation of

478
00:19:02,210 --> 00:18:58,530
it yes that's what we analyzed we can't

479
00:19:04,310 --> 00:19:02,220
analyze whether or not she really did it

480
00:19:06,860 --> 00:19:04,320
exactly the way that she said she did it

481
00:19:09,890 --> 00:19:06,870
but it and that's where replication

482
00:19:12,230 --> 00:19:09,900
could would come in so do you agree with

483
00:19:13,940 --> 00:19:12,240
that and number two what about this

484
00:19:16,190 --> 00:19:13,950
issue of replication what about someone

485
00:19:18,560 --> 00:19:16,200
who says ok that's all well and good

486
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:18,570
what she's written there but without

487
00:19:21,800 --> 00:19:21,210
replication we don't really know if it's

488
00:19:24,740 --> 00:19:21,810
real

489
00:19:28,250 --> 00:19:24,750
I would worship the feet of anyone who

490
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:28,260
would want to take that project on I

491
00:19:34,670 --> 00:19:31,770
would seriously I would love it if it

492
00:19:39,140 --> 00:19:34,680
were attempted replication I hope it

493
00:19:42,260 --> 00:19:39,150
would come back the same as what I put

494
00:19:44,960 --> 00:19:42,270
out there but it may not that's the

495
00:19:46,640 --> 00:19:44,970
point of replication I want replication

496
00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:46,650
I would love a replication please

497
00:19:51,200 --> 00:19:49,170
replicate me ah anyone out there

498
00:19:53,180 --> 00:19:51,210
listening how would someone go about

499
00:19:56,030 --> 00:19:53,190
replicating your work I was in the

500
00:19:57,110 --> 00:19:56,040
methods and materials my approach it's

501
00:20:03,830 --> 00:19:57,120
all laid out there

502
00:20:05,690 --> 00:20:03,840
I have available all of my data in the

503
00:20:07,970 --> 00:20:05,700
form of screenshots because I took the

504
00:20:11,150 --> 00:20:07,980
data from Twitter at a particular

505
00:20:15,050 --> 00:20:11,160
snapshot in time so they could totally

506
00:20:18,350 --> 00:20:15,060
just follows at the steps a doozy and

507
00:20:22,400 --> 00:20:18,360
the methods and materials of the Twitter

508
00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:22,410
paper for example really I put out the I

509
00:20:29,570 --> 00:20:26,250
released the datasets and I release had

510
00:20:32,480 --> 00:20:29,580
the methods and materials ok another

511
00:20:35,060 --> 00:20:32,490
this isn't a red flag per se but the

512
00:20:36,980 --> 00:20:35,070
other thing that that my friend said is

513
00:20:39,590 --> 00:20:36,990
you know one thing that kind of just

514
00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:39,600
doesn't totally sit right is I don't see

515
00:20:45,290 --> 00:20:42,530
any missteps here I see just kind of a

516
00:20:47,210 --> 00:20:45,300
you know oh this is just what we set out

517
00:20:49,220 --> 00:20:47,220
to do and we did it and it all came out

518
00:20:51,260 --> 00:20:49,230
great he said in my experience research

519
00:20:51,910 --> 00:20:51,270
never works that way what do you respond

520
00:20:54,560 --> 00:20:51,920
to that

521
00:20:57,680 --> 00:20:54,570
are we talking particularly about the

522
00:20:59,540 --> 00:20:57,690
Twitter paper oh I suppose cuz that's in

523
00:21:02,120 --> 00:20:59,550
JSC but I'd also like to talk more

524
00:21:05,350 --> 00:21:02,130
broadly about the Amazon misspelling one

525
00:21:08,180 --> 00:21:05,360
because that's interesting as well yeah

526
00:21:13,220 --> 00:21:08,190
you had two totally different divergent

527
00:21:18,740 --> 00:21:13,230
experiences with Twitter in the JSE that

528
00:21:22,610 --> 00:21:18,750
was remarkably lockstep it was where we

529
00:21:26,810 --> 00:21:22,620
were studying in class a particular

530
00:21:28,940 --> 00:21:26,820
ancient role in astrology and my teacher

531
00:21:31,100 --> 00:21:28,950
looked at me and said hey we should test

532
00:21:34,100 --> 00:21:31,110
this with Twitter can you do that like

533
00:21:35,100 --> 00:21:34,110
yeah and so we just and we did it and it

534
00:21:37,110 --> 00:21:35,110
was fairly lot

535
00:21:41,070 --> 00:21:37,120
that now mercury retrograde as you can

536
00:21:43,410 --> 00:21:41,080
see in the material I've put up on my

537
00:21:47,070 --> 00:21:43,420
website regarding it and it has not been

538
00:21:49,860 --> 00:21:47,080
published yet it has only been released

539
00:21:53,039 --> 00:21:49,870
in steps when you say Mercury retrograde

540
00:21:54,690 --> 00:21:53,049
are you talking about the Amazon yet so

541
00:21:56,039 --> 00:21:54,700
briefly summarize what that experiment

542
00:21:59,130 --> 00:21:56,049
is and then please continue

543
00:22:01,950 --> 00:21:59,140
sure fundamental question hey if there's

544
00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:01,960
this thing called my Curie retrograde we

545
00:22:08,430 --> 00:22:04,770
should be able to see it in things like

546
00:22:10,590 --> 00:22:08,440
increased tech support cows don't you

547
00:22:12,210 --> 00:22:10,600
educate because people are having more

548
00:22:14,310 --> 00:22:12,220
problems more mistakes more

549
00:22:16,830 --> 00:22:14,320
misunderstandings things associated with

550
00:22:19,169 --> 00:22:16,840
mercury retrograde well how do we

551
00:22:21,930 --> 00:22:19,179
measure such things without access to

552
00:22:25,440 --> 00:22:21,940
for example Verizon's tech support call

553
00:22:27,570 --> 00:22:25,450
records so how can we get public data on

554
00:22:29,549 --> 00:22:27,580
mistakes what does that even mean and

555
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:29,559
then I happened just during that time

556
00:22:35,730 --> 00:22:32,410
come across Stanford's public repository

557
00:22:39,900 --> 00:22:35,740
of big data sites fascinating place to

558
00:22:43,490 --> 00:22:39,910
go explore and I think it it's just

559
00:22:45,930 --> 00:22:43,500
called that you can just google that and

560
00:22:47,070 --> 00:22:45,940
Stanford repository of big data

561
00:22:50,220 --> 00:22:47,080
something like that

562
00:22:53,370 --> 00:22:50,230
and anyway they had all of the Amazon

563
00:22:58,680 --> 00:22:53,380
reviews from the inception of the review

564
00:23:02,669 --> 00:22:58,690
system in 1996 to mid 2014 that's what

565
00:23:05,190 --> 00:23:02,679
twenty years no 18 years and so on

566
00:23:08,250 --> 00:23:05,200
that's a lot of data in contemporary

567
00:23:11,520 --> 00:23:08,260
terms so what's in there in terms of

568
00:23:13,409 --> 00:23:11,530
mistakes there's now I would say just on

569
00:23:16,970 --> 00:23:13,419
the face of it there's no record in the

570
00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:16,980
data set for example of of fixing

571
00:23:22,970 --> 00:23:20,530
misspellings what we do see is a

572
00:23:27,260 --> 00:23:22,980
dampening if you go into the data of a

573
00:23:29,850 --> 00:23:27,270
downward pair of spelling mistake rates

574
00:23:33,900 --> 00:23:29,860
that might be consistent with better

575
00:23:35,640 --> 00:23:33,910
spelling mistake catchers you know the

576
00:23:36,270 --> 00:23:35,650
software that catches your spelling

577
00:23:39,210 --> 00:23:36,280
mistakes

578
00:23:42,600 --> 00:23:39,220
anyways sorry so there you can see I

579
00:23:45,030 --> 00:23:42,610
went through tons maybe 20 iterations of

580
00:23:46,320 --> 00:23:45,040
that Renee let me interject because you

581
00:23:47,530 --> 00:23:46,330
were kind of on the line of kind of

582
00:23:48,910 --> 00:23:47,540
explaining it at a high

583
00:23:51,100 --> 00:23:48,920
and then we kind of you kind of got

584
00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:51,110
sidetracked into Irish and that's an

585
00:23:55,870 --> 00:23:53,210
interesting little aspect of it so but

586
00:23:58,930 --> 00:23:55,880
back to the big picture story so you get

587
00:24:02,490 --> 00:23:58,940
this big data set and your idea is hey

588
00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:02,500
you know here is actually a log of

589
00:24:09,310 --> 00:24:05,570
mistakes that is measurable if I can

590
00:24:11,980 --> 00:24:09,320
somehow do this massive spell check on

591
00:24:14,110 --> 00:24:11,990
that and see if there's more spelling

592
00:24:16,570 --> 00:24:14,120
errors on these certain dates and then

593
00:24:18,790 --> 00:24:16,580
if I can go ahead and not only do that

594
00:24:20,740 --> 00:24:18,800
looking back and kind of a data mining

595
00:24:22,630 --> 00:24:20,750
way that people don't like but then if I

596
00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:22,640
can also predict that going forward and

597
00:24:26,710 --> 00:24:24,650
saying okay I've looked at this much of

598
00:24:29,170 --> 00:24:26,720
the data and yeah that pattern seems to

599
00:24:31,210 --> 00:24:29,180
exist now without looking forward let me

600
00:24:33,790 --> 00:24:31,220
predict what days are going to be more

601
00:24:35,650 --> 00:24:33,800
prone to spelling errors and let me see

602
00:24:37,540 --> 00:24:35,660
if that plays out am I getting this

603
00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:37,550
right and then yeah I think that's what

604
00:24:41,830 --> 00:24:39,770
I said that's right and I went through

605
00:24:44,350 --> 00:24:41,840
tons of mistakes on that one maybe

606
00:24:47,040 --> 00:24:44,360
because I was doing it on my own and I

607
00:24:49,270 --> 00:24:47,050
wasn't coming from any great

608
00:24:52,480 --> 00:24:49,280
astrological principle from a thousand

609
00:24:55,180 --> 00:24:52,490
years ago I just was going into the data

610
00:24:59,290 --> 00:24:55,190
and saying show me data is there a

611
00:25:04,030 --> 00:24:59,300
periodic regular cyclic increased during

612
00:25:09,190 --> 00:25:04,040
Mercury retrograde and using kind of

613
00:25:11,620 --> 00:25:09,200
classical Fourier transform I I found

614
00:25:14,890 --> 00:25:11,630
out oh my gosh there is there is this

615
00:25:18,820 --> 00:25:14,900
regular periodic increase during Mercury

616
00:25:21,760 --> 00:25:18,830
retrograde up to 17 percent not always

617
00:25:24,060 --> 00:25:21,770
17 percent but there there is this

618
00:25:27,580 --> 00:25:24,070
regular periodicity

619
00:25:30,400 --> 00:25:27,590
then I used linear regression model to

620
00:25:33,820 --> 00:25:30,410
find the exact coefficients of when is

621
00:25:35,950 --> 00:25:33,830
it 17 percent per word increase in

622
00:25:37,870 --> 00:25:35,960
misspelling rate I don't reckon

623
00:25:41,110 --> 00:25:37,880
retrograde and when is there still a

624
00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:41,120
Mercury retrograde increase but at maybe

625
00:25:48,400 --> 00:25:45,410
at five percent per word likelihood

626
00:25:51,310 --> 00:25:48,410
increase I own and using the linear

627
00:25:54,330 --> 00:25:51,320
regression model with the AI I found

628
00:25:59,700 --> 00:25:54,340
that a model that works really well is

629
00:26:01,330 --> 00:25:59,710
one that employs all the planets are

630
00:26:06,070 --> 00:26:01,340
retrogression

631
00:26:08,350 --> 00:26:06,080
and there's a beautiful interaction

632
00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:08,360
there now mercury retrograde just being

633
00:26:13,540 --> 00:26:11,570
one of them but I believe when those

634
00:26:16,150 --> 00:26:13,550
retrogression is in Uranus Neptune or

635
00:26:18,850 --> 00:26:16,160
Pluto and also retrogression in mercury

636
00:26:22,120 --> 00:26:18,860
that's when it's at its highest but when

637
00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:22,130
there's only one of those it's less than

638
00:26:29,740 --> 00:26:25,610
that how do you get at the old causation

639
00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:29,750
versus correlation thing so you know the

640
00:26:33,370 --> 00:26:31,490
big complaint that everyone has

641
00:26:35,800 --> 00:26:33,380
immediately when they look at astrology

642
00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:35,810
is that your data mining right so every

643
00:26:40,600 --> 00:26:37,970
year one of these skeptical

644
00:26:42,970 --> 00:26:40,610
organizations presents this ha ha here

645
00:26:46,030 --> 00:26:42,980
is the zodiac sign that is the worst

646
00:26:48,160 --> 00:26:46,040
driver right and one year it's Capricorn

647
00:26:49,780 --> 00:26:48,170
and the next year it's Sagittarius and

648
00:26:53,170 --> 00:26:49,790
what they're just doing is taking the

649
00:26:55,240 --> 00:26:53,180
huge database of claims that are made

650
00:26:57,040 --> 00:26:55,250
against their insurance for accidents

651
00:26:59,260 --> 00:26:57,050
and then their data mining looking

652
00:27:00,370 --> 00:26:59,270
through that and saying which one fell

653
00:27:03,520 --> 00:27:00,380
into this group and they're reporting

654
00:27:05,230 --> 00:27:03,530
that as if that means anything and then

655
00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:05,240
they're coming back and saying see this

656
00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:07,250
is what people do they just date a mine

657
00:27:12,010 --> 00:27:09,770
and then they report it as there's some

658
00:27:13,690 --> 00:27:12,020
kind of causation rather than there's

659
00:27:16,720 --> 00:27:13,700
just some correlation which there always

660
00:27:18,940 --> 00:27:16,730
is in the data you totally I'm saying

661
00:27:20,290 --> 00:27:18,950
but I just want to under I just want to

662
00:27:22,810 --> 00:27:20,300
lay that out there for other people to

663
00:27:24,640 --> 00:27:22,820
understand how do you respond to someone

664
00:27:27,250 --> 00:27:24,650
who says how do we know you're not just

665
00:27:28,720 --> 00:27:27,260
doing the same thing yeah we might be

666
00:27:32,230 --> 00:27:28,730
talking about something that is

667
00:27:37,870 --> 00:27:32,240
happening at the same time as Mercury

668
00:27:38,260 --> 00:27:37,880
retrograde each year you know for 18

669
00:27:40,210 --> 00:27:38,270
years

670
00:27:42,070 --> 00:27:40,220
um but hold on that's not really my

671
00:27:44,440 --> 00:27:42,080
point I mean I'm just I'm giving I'm

672
00:27:46,810 --> 00:27:44,450
giving you a live question there which

673
00:27:49,360 --> 00:27:46,820
is and the answer is because that's what

674
00:27:51,040 --> 00:27:49,370
my [\h__\h] research shows is that that's

675
00:27:53,470 --> 00:27:51,050
why you did all these fancy statistical

676
00:27:55,390 --> 00:27:53,480
analysis is because you kept running it

677
00:27:57,730 --> 00:27:55,400
over and over and over again with

678
00:28:00,670 --> 00:27:57,740
different dates over time and it

679
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:00,680
wouldn't repeat if the skeptics ran that

680
00:28:05,620 --> 00:28:03,170
and they ran it for 20 years and every

681
00:28:07,510 --> 00:28:05,630
year the same astrological sign came up

682
00:28:09,400 --> 00:28:07,520
and saying yet Sagittarius worst drivers

683
00:28:11,020 --> 00:28:09,410
Sagittarius worst drivers well then they

684
00:28:13,090 --> 00:28:11,030
would have something but what they're

685
00:28:14,720 --> 00:28:13,100
making a joke of is when one year at

686
00:28:16,340 --> 00:28:14,730
Sagittarius in the next year

687
00:28:18,289 --> 00:28:16,350
Capricorn in the next year it's Gemini

688
00:28:20,870 --> 00:28:18,299
well then that shows that it really is

689
00:28:24,770 --> 00:28:20,880
no pattern and there's no meaning to it

690
00:28:28,580 --> 00:28:24,780
yeah right that's that's right and that

691
00:28:30,200 --> 00:28:28,590
this is something that's sustained by

692
00:28:32,539 --> 00:28:30,210
definition I was looking for something

693
00:28:38,900 --> 00:28:32,549
that was sustained through the entirety

694
00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:38,910
of 18 years and that happened during

695
00:28:43,640 --> 00:28:41,010
Mercury retrograde and I just want to

696
00:28:47,180 --> 00:28:43,650
point out that you brought up causation

697
00:28:49,700 --> 00:28:47,190
and I'm not speaking to causation in my

698
00:28:51,620 --> 00:28:49,710
research at this point I would love to

699
00:28:54,620 --> 00:28:51,630
get there but at this point we are

700
00:28:57,610 --> 00:28:54,630
talking about the first step causation

701
00:29:00,860 --> 00:28:57,620
studies as I understand it and that is

702
00:29:02,980 --> 00:29:00,870
correlation right and I think that term

703
00:29:05,060 --> 00:29:02,990
and we should add that that term is just

704
00:29:08,390 --> 00:29:05,070
misused and misunderstood by people

705
00:29:10,250 --> 00:29:08,400
right it's become such a trite axiom

706
00:29:12,590 --> 00:29:10,260
that that people lose sight of it it's

707
00:29:14,659 --> 00:29:12,600
like exactly what you said you know a

708
00:29:18,169 --> 00:29:14,669
really good correlation it's carefully

709
00:29:22,070 --> 00:29:18,179
done is definitely a pointer towards

710
00:29:24,740 --> 00:29:22,080
causation so what axiom was supposed to

711
00:29:27,049 --> 00:29:24,750
point out is that a poor correlation

712
00:29:29,690 --> 00:29:27,059
like I was just saying about the fact

713
00:29:32,180 --> 00:29:29,700
that you can data mine out with one

714
00:29:33,799 --> 00:29:32,190
years of data which astrological sign is

715
00:29:36,590 --> 00:29:33,809
the worst driver well that's really a

716
00:29:38,810 --> 00:29:36,600
very poor correlation right so maybe you

717
00:29:42,560 --> 00:29:38,820
can expound on that yeah there's going

718
00:29:49,010 --> 00:29:42,570
to be some sign that is the worst driver

719
00:29:50,990 --> 00:29:49,020
for a year or a month or a day and even

720
00:29:53,299 --> 00:29:51,000
for a decade there's going to be someone

721
00:29:58,299 --> 00:29:53,309
at the peak at the top of that histogram

722
00:30:01,159 --> 00:29:58,309
you know Sun signs and and driving

723
00:30:04,580 --> 00:30:01,169
accidents yeah this whole idea of

724
00:30:07,130 --> 00:30:04,590
causation is huge I mean even in

725
00:30:09,110 --> 00:30:07,140
medicine it you know does it's a huge

726
00:30:11,690 --> 00:30:09,120
thing to show that something causes

727
00:30:13,850 --> 00:30:11,700
something else but yeah the first step

728
00:30:17,169 --> 00:30:13,860
is to show a correlation and we showed

729
00:30:19,190 --> 00:30:17,179
that in the twitter paper pretty well

730
00:30:23,600 --> 00:30:19,200
subsequently in the Mercury retrograde

731
00:30:26,600 --> 00:30:23,610
we showed it too and then also showed an

732
00:30:28,400 --> 00:30:26,610
AI prediction engine can be built from

733
00:30:31,460 --> 00:30:28,410
it that's really accurate too

734
00:30:34,460 --> 00:30:31,470
using standard measures of AI one thing

735
00:30:36,140 --> 00:30:34,470
we might want to do just for sake we

736
00:30:37,700 --> 00:30:36,150
kind of gloss over the Twitter thing

737
00:30:40,550 --> 00:30:37,710
maybe you just want to explain at a high

738
00:30:43,820 --> 00:30:40,560
level what the Twitter experiment set

739
00:30:48,350 --> 00:30:43,830
out to do sure thanks yeah

740
00:30:51,050 --> 00:30:48,360
there's this sutra in sanskrit from a

741
00:30:52,820 --> 00:30:51,060
book from a thousand years ago well

742
00:30:57,140 --> 00:30:52,830
understood to be a thousand-year-old

743
00:31:01,070 --> 00:30:57,150
text that says that when these

744
00:31:02,930 --> 00:31:01,080
particular planets are in squares to

745
00:31:05,450 --> 00:31:02,940
each other and went that 90 degrees to

746
00:31:10,370 --> 00:31:05,460
each other that the person is more

747
00:31:12,980 --> 00:31:10,380
likely to be famous that you can

748
00:31:13,940 --> 00:31:12,990
interpret their charge as being bad of a

749
00:31:16,460 --> 00:31:13,950
famous person

750
00:31:18,760 --> 00:31:16,470
okay so again breaking it down to kind

751
00:31:22,220 --> 00:31:18,770
of a six-year-old kind of thing the

752
00:31:23,650 --> 00:31:22,230
astrological chart is based on the

753
00:31:26,990 --> 00:31:23,660
position of the planets and the stars

754
00:31:29,390 --> 00:31:27,000
when you take your first breath there's

755
00:31:31,690 --> 00:31:29,400
this Vedic Astrology that's been around

756
00:31:34,850 --> 00:31:31,700
for a long time and it has all these

757
00:31:36,260 --> 00:31:34,860
axioms and ideas about what to do and

758
00:31:38,240 --> 00:31:36,270
you say one interpretation is hey when

759
00:31:39,980 --> 00:31:38,250
these two things are at this particular

760
00:31:41,900 --> 00:31:39,990
position that means the person's going

761
00:31:44,510 --> 00:31:41,910
to be famous right so go ahead continue

762
00:31:46,970 --> 00:31:44,520
with the story yeah I think more exactly

763
00:31:50,200 --> 00:31:46,980
that in the exact words of the Sanskrit

764
00:31:53,240 --> 00:31:50,210
that the person has a lot of followers

765
00:31:55,490 --> 00:31:53,250
followers and so we were just chewing on

766
00:31:57,890 --> 00:31:55,500
that idea of followers and we're like

767
00:32:01,400 --> 00:31:57,900
well what does that mean nowadays to

768
00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:01,410
have a lot of followers Oh Twitter the

769
00:32:07,070 --> 00:32:03,930
Twitter is a numerically accessible

770
00:32:09,140 --> 00:32:07,080
accessible way to find out how many

771
00:32:11,960 --> 00:32:09,150
followers a person has and it's

772
00:32:15,530 --> 00:32:11,970
different from theme or exactly like

773
00:32:19,120 --> 00:32:15,540
Leonardo DiCaprio has a lot of Fame but

774
00:32:22,760 --> 00:32:19,130
not a lot of followers why is that why

775
00:32:26,300 --> 00:32:22,770
do some people who not relate anything

776
00:32:29,690 --> 00:32:26,310
else than a Twitter celebrity have a lot

777
00:32:31,280 --> 00:32:29,700
of followers but not a lot of fame so

778
00:32:33,920 --> 00:32:31,290
you know it's a very it's an interesting

779
00:32:36,230 --> 00:32:33,930
thing and you can you can tell that in

780
00:32:38,090 --> 00:32:36,240
Leonardo DiCaprio's chart if I recall

781
00:32:41,180 --> 00:32:38,100
correctly he does not have this

782
00:32:45,350 --> 00:32:41,190
signature this astrological

783
00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:45,360
signature for hi followers but he does

784
00:32:49,460 --> 00:32:47,610
have it for fame now you got to realize

785
00:32:50,960 --> 00:32:49,470
there I mean that's kind of problematic

786
00:32:53,780 --> 00:32:50,970
because what a lot of people would

787
00:32:56,630 --> 00:32:53,790
suggest is that one social media

788
00:32:58,850 --> 00:32:56,640
platform does not really is not

789
00:33:00,830 --> 00:32:58,860
indicative of the number of followers I

790
00:33:04,490 --> 00:33:00,840
would I would think that Leonardo

791
00:33:07,100 --> 00:33:04,500
DiCaprio has a lot a lot of followers in

792
00:33:09,710 --> 00:33:07,110
them in the general sense so I think

793
00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:09,720
that actually doesn't really fit with

794
00:33:14,270 --> 00:33:11,250
your research because I think your

795
00:33:16,820 --> 00:33:14,280
research methodology is is is good but I

796
00:33:19,760 --> 00:33:16,830
don't think it fits with that that part

797
00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:19,770
so tell folks what you did in terms of

798
00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:22,650
defining your followers group versus

799
00:33:27,950 --> 00:33:25,050
your non followers group and then how

800
00:33:32,210 --> 00:33:27,960
you did your analysis yeah thanks that

801
00:33:35,200 --> 00:33:32,220
was a fascinating process where we

802
00:33:40,130 --> 00:33:35,210
decided to just in a moment in time grab

803
00:33:43,760 --> 00:33:40,140
screenshot of top 1,000 people who have

804
00:33:46,550 --> 00:33:43,770
Twitter follower numbers people like

805
00:33:48,860 --> 00:33:46,560
Justin Bieber I had the most Twitter

806
00:33:52,670 --> 00:33:48,870
followers Oprah Winfrey was in there

807
00:33:55,010 --> 00:33:52,680
Dalai Lama was in there and really all

808
00:33:56,480 --> 00:33:55,020
of them just and we chose a thousand

809
00:33:59,030 --> 00:33:56,490
because that was the only number

810
00:34:00,980 --> 00:33:59,040
available was the top 1000 so we

811
00:34:03,890 --> 00:34:00,990
screenshotted that in a moment in time

812
00:34:06,620 --> 00:34:03,900
and then fed in that data into a

813
00:34:10,220 --> 00:34:06,630
spreadsheet and then looked for the

814
00:34:13,639 --> 00:34:10,230
charts when it online and not for charts

815
00:34:15,680 --> 00:34:13,649
of the Dalai Lama Oprah Winfrey Justin

816
00:34:17,180 --> 00:34:15,690
Bieber so I don't know and some of them

817
00:34:19,280 --> 00:34:17,190
did you be able to get more information

818
00:34:20,600 --> 00:34:19,290
like birth time and birthplace and did

819
00:34:22,850 --> 00:34:20,610
you figure that in when you couldn't

820
00:34:24,710 --> 00:34:22,860
when you didn't did you just leave it

821
00:34:25,369 --> 00:34:24,720
out I mean how did you do that yeah

822
00:34:29,119 --> 00:34:25,379
exactly

823
00:34:31,669 --> 00:34:29,129
I so CNN for example it has a high

824
00:34:34,580 --> 00:34:31,679
number of Twitter followers but we could

825
00:34:37,280 --> 00:34:34,590
there's no birth chart for that so all

826
00:34:39,950 --> 00:34:37,290
the businesses were tossed out all the

827
00:34:42,500 --> 00:34:39,960
people we could not find accurate birth

828
00:34:45,070 --> 00:34:42,510
times for we tossed out now how do we

829
00:34:49,930 --> 00:34:45,080
know it's accurate there's actually

830
00:34:53,419 --> 00:34:49,940
astrological research sites that have

831
00:34:54,649 --> 00:34:53,429
reputations behind them such as Astro

832
00:34:57,289 --> 00:34:54,659
databank and so we

833
00:35:01,190 --> 00:34:57,299
Astra databank a lot and they're very

834
00:35:04,010 --> 00:35:01,200
good at recording how how they know the

835
00:35:07,579 --> 00:35:04,020
birth information so we only I used

836
00:35:12,020 --> 00:35:07,589
those Twitter accounts whose owners we

837
00:35:13,339 --> 00:35:12,030
had very good astronomical data for you

838
00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:13,349
have any reason to believe that that

839
00:35:18,980 --> 00:35:16,170
would have skewed the data in one way or

840
00:35:22,839 --> 00:35:18,990
another yeah for example there's a lot

841
00:35:26,240 --> 00:35:22,849
of Saudi Arabian princes or something

842
00:35:29,599 --> 00:35:26,250
royalty who were in that top 1000 for

843
00:35:32,720 --> 00:35:29,609
whom we do not have good birth data or

844
00:35:35,569 --> 00:35:32,730
any birth data so they had to be tossed

845
00:35:41,299 --> 00:35:35,579
out so absolutely there's a geographic

846
00:35:43,490 --> 00:35:41,309
skew skewing there's even a time skewing

847
00:35:47,510 --> 00:35:43,500
like for instance you know there's only

848
00:35:50,390 --> 00:35:47,520
there's said these were mostly American

849
00:35:53,120 --> 00:35:50,400
celebrities or some European celebrities

850
00:35:55,569 --> 00:35:53,130
for whom we could get the birth data now

851
00:36:00,200 --> 00:35:55,579
check this out the way we got a

852
00:36:02,859 --> 00:36:00,210
comparison group to compare whether this

853
00:36:05,870 --> 00:36:02,869
incidents of this ancient

854
00:36:08,000 --> 00:36:05,880
thousand-year-old idea of what should be

855
00:36:10,579 --> 00:36:08,010
seen in a chart to show a lot of

856
00:36:14,900 --> 00:36:10,589
followers to show whether there's a high

857
00:36:19,160 --> 00:36:14,910
incidence of this combination in the

858
00:36:21,500 --> 00:36:19,170
celebrity group 86 only 86 people how do

859
00:36:24,640 --> 00:36:21,510
you know how do we show that

860
00:36:28,880 --> 00:36:24,650
well we developed a Monte Carlo

861
00:36:33,589 --> 00:36:28,890
bootstrapped comparison group Jafra no

862
00:36:36,529 --> 00:36:33,599
no the Jacobin another Ephron 1979 and

863
00:36:40,390 --> 00:36:36,539
his Stanford PhD paper developed this

864
00:36:43,250 --> 00:36:40,400
really cool system where you can build

865
00:36:45,380 --> 00:36:43,260
comparison groups you can build a

866
00:36:47,720 --> 00:36:45,390
comparison group from something called a

867
00:36:50,029 --> 00:36:47,730
Monte Carlo bootstrapped system which is

868
00:36:52,609 --> 00:36:50,039
where it's okay that these are mostly

869
00:36:57,470 --> 00:36:52,619
European and American celebrities that

870
00:37:00,829 --> 00:36:57,480
were not including the Arabic group for

871
00:37:03,490 --> 00:37:00,839
example it's it's not bad because the

872
00:37:07,640 --> 00:37:03,500
comparison group is that same

873
00:37:08,490 --> 00:37:07,650
distribution of places times so if I

874
00:37:09,960 --> 00:37:08,500
understand this

875
00:37:12,540 --> 00:37:09,970
the only way you can really get the

876
00:37:14,640 --> 00:37:12,550
astrological data that you need to test

877
00:37:16,230 --> 00:37:14,650
out this sutra and this positioning of

878
00:37:17,550 --> 00:37:16,240
the planets is you have to go to this

879
00:37:20,309 --> 00:37:17,560
website what was the name of the website

880
00:37:22,829 --> 00:37:20,319
again Astro data being which you've

881
00:37:25,109 --> 00:37:22,839
found to be reliable in terms of getting

882
00:37:26,880 --> 00:37:25,119
so anyways you take your thousand off of

883
00:37:28,680 --> 00:37:26,890
Twitter you pare it down and the way

884
00:37:31,020 --> 00:37:28,690
that you did and you wanted to put 86

885
00:37:33,150 --> 00:37:31,030
and you say okay we have these 86 now we

886
00:37:34,440 --> 00:37:33,160
want to compare that with probably not

887
00:37:36,420 --> 00:37:34,450
the correct term but basically your

888
00:37:38,520 --> 00:37:36,430
control group and then you say okay so

889
00:37:39,900 --> 00:37:38,530
since our asked your database is where

890
00:37:41,730 --> 00:37:39,910
we're getting the data we want to get

891
00:37:44,099 --> 00:37:41,740
the same data from that how do we start

892
00:37:45,780 --> 00:37:44,109
selecting people out and not bias our

893
00:37:47,700 --> 00:37:45,790
selection where we just take hand

894
00:37:49,020 --> 00:37:47,710
picking out ones that'll kind of give us

895
00:37:51,720 --> 00:37:49,030
the result we have and then you say you

896
00:37:53,460 --> 00:37:51,730
looked at this guy who did this Stanford

897
00:37:55,109 --> 00:37:53,470
PhD and he said yeah there's a way to do

898
00:37:57,120 --> 00:37:55,119
it using this Monte Carlo this

899
00:37:59,339 --> 00:37:57,130
randomization kind of thing where you

900
00:38:01,440 --> 00:37:59,349
can kind of get a good data set for your

901
00:38:02,640 --> 00:38:01,450
control group so now you do that you

902
00:38:04,380 --> 00:38:02,650
have your so how many do you wind up

903
00:38:06,420 --> 00:38:04,390
with your your control group and was I

904
00:38:07,200 --> 00:38:06,430
right that you have 86 and then what do

905
00:38:09,150 --> 00:38:07,210
you do from there

906
00:38:11,339 --> 00:38:09,160
yeah and the control group I believe

907
00:38:14,010 --> 00:38:11,349
there's five thousand four hundred and

908
00:38:16,050 --> 00:38:14,020
sixty you can find that exact number in

909
00:38:20,250 --> 00:38:16,060
the paper and what we did was just

910
00:38:22,829 --> 00:38:20,260
generate these theoretical charts which

911
00:38:26,940 --> 00:38:22,839
were constructed from randomizations as

912
00:38:31,620 --> 00:38:26,950
you say of the earth x places and dates

913
00:38:34,530 --> 00:38:31,630
of the celebrity group so we mixed them

914
00:38:38,250 --> 00:38:34,540
all up constructed these five thousand

915
00:38:41,520 --> 00:38:38,260
four hundred or so comparison group

916
00:38:43,530 --> 00:38:41,530
charts and these are sort of theoretical

917
00:38:45,720 --> 00:38:43,540
people that we can compare the

918
00:38:48,630 --> 00:38:45,730
celebrities to him and the point there

919
00:38:52,170 --> 00:38:48,640
is that we can say hey there's not a

920
00:38:54,240 --> 00:38:52,180
skewing because the celebrity group tend

921
00:38:55,200 --> 00:38:54,250
to come from the LA area at the Los

922
00:38:56,640 --> 00:38:55,210
Angeles area

923
00:38:59,849 --> 00:38:56,650
maybe there's something special about

924
00:39:01,770 --> 00:38:59,859
the Los Angeles area well that's in the

925
00:39:05,460 --> 00:39:01,780
comparison group maybe there's something

926
00:39:08,720 --> 00:39:05,470
special in the planets from 1964 well

927
00:39:11,700 --> 00:39:08,730
hey that would be in the constructed

928
00:39:13,940 --> 00:39:11,710
comparison group as well so this is a

929
00:39:17,730 --> 00:39:13,950
very nice technique this bootstrap

930
00:39:19,290 --> 00:39:17,740
technique to to reduce all of those

931
00:39:22,329 --> 00:39:19,300
concerns that there's something

932
00:39:28,179 --> 00:39:22,339
anomalous in 1964

933
00:39:30,789 --> 00:39:28,189
in Los Angeles or in 8 a.m. or whatever

934
00:39:34,150 --> 00:39:30,799
kind of special qualities are in that

935
00:39:37,239 --> 00:39:34,160
small celebrity group we can recreate

936
00:39:39,969 --> 00:39:37,249
those in the comparison group so I

937
00:39:42,219 --> 00:39:39,979
thought it was a really appropriate and

938
00:39:44,349 --> 00:39:42,229
helpful approach to constructing that

939
00:39:45,779 --> 00:39:44,359
comparison group that's excellent I

940
00:39:47,949 --> 00:39:45,789
think people will be very interested

941
00:39:48,939 --> 00:39:47,959
skeptical listeners especially be very

942
00:39:51,039 --> 00:39:48,949
interested in those kind of little

943
00:39:53,049 --> 00:39:51,049
nitty-gritty details so hence that's

944
00:39:55,929 --> 00:39:53,059
where you get those bootstrap things so

945
00:39:58,599 --> 00:39:55,939
you can throw this data set at it and

946
00:40:01,839 --> 00:39:58,609
say give me a random data set that kind

947
00:40:05,170 --> 00:40:01,849
of controls for these variables that

948
00:40:07,209 --> 00:40:05,180
might be skewed in my data set that I

949
00:40:09,819 --> 00:40:07,219
want to look at and make sure that it's

950
00:40:11,709 --> 00:40:09,829
equally representative of the larger

951
00:40:13,539 --> 00:40:11,719
group and it does that very cool and

952
00:40:16,449 --> 00:40:13,549
then so what are the results that you

953
00:40:18,989 --> 00:40:16,459
get out of that sure well we looked for

954
00:40:22,390 --> 00:40:18,999
incidents of this astrological

955
00:40:25,299 --> 00:40:22,400
arrangement from a thousand years ago is

956
00:40:28,959 --> 00:40:25,309
it higher in the celebrities the twitter

957
00:40:31,499 --> 00:40:28,969
celebrities then in this huge general

958
00:40:33,429 --> 00:40:31,509
populace what was the astronomical

959
00:40:36,729 --> 00:40:33,439
relationship again in a way that people

960
00:40:39,759 --> 00:40:36,739
would kind of understand it sure it is

961
00:40:43,359 --> 00:40:39,769
that the planet with the highest degree

962
00:40:45,759 --> 00:40:43,369
like you put up an astrology chart which

963
00:40:48,249 --> 00:40:45,769
is really a birth astronomy chart and

964
00:40:50,559 --> 00:40:48,259
you look at the doobies there's going to

965
00:40:53,049 --> 00:40:50,569
be a little degrees next to each of the

966
00:40:57,939 --> 00:40:53,059
planets that describes how many degrees

967
00:41:00,400 --> 00:40:57,949
in 30 degrees that planet has passed

968
00:41:04,569 --> 00:41:00,410
through to get into that sign really

969
00:41:08,949 --> 00:41:04,579
that constellation so even an astronomer

970
00:41:12,039 --> 00:41:08,959
will say that say moon is at 20 degrees

971
00:41:14,609 --> 00:41:12,049
Pisces right now and sure enough you

972
00:41:18,279 --> 00:41:14,619
know it's a it's just an astronomical

973
00:41:22,509 --> 00:41:18,289
observation how many degrees a planet is

974
00:41:24,939 --> 00:41:22,519
in a constellation so the planet with

975
00:41:27,099 --> 00:41:24,949
the highest number of degrees and the

976
00:41:29,229 --> 00:41:27,109
planet with the fifth highest number of

977
00:41:31,779 --> 00:41:29,239
degrees should be at 90 degrees to each

978
00:41:34,599 --> 00:41:31,789
other that's what the suture predicts

979
00:41:35,740 --> 00:41:34,609
yeah and as you just explained that is a

980
00:41:38,230 --> 00:41:35,750
very measure

981
00:41:39,880 --> 00:41:38,240
Herbal yet back there really isn't gonna

982
00:41:41,740 --> 00:41:39,890
be like you said you could put an

983
00:41:43,990 --> 00:41:41,750
astronomer and take open your telescope

984
00:41:46,210 --> 00:41:44,000
and without that person believing in

985
00:41:48,580 --> 00:41:46,220
astrology they could tell you whether or

986
00:41:51,610 --> 00:41:48,590
not that relationship between those two

987
00:41:53,350 --> 00:41:51,620
planets and their movement exists or

988
00:41:55,840 --> 00:41:53,360
doesn't exist right absolutely

989
00:42:00,510 --> 00:41:55,850
completely calculable completely

990
00:42:04,330 --> 00:42:00,520
hands-off no interpretation in any of

991
00:42:07,510 --> 00:42:04,340
the Twitter study none just applying

992
00:42:11,200 --> 00:42:07,520
that Sutra looking for that Sutra and we

993
00:42:15,750 --> 00:42:11,210
found absolutely its incidence I believe

994
00:42:20,920 --> 00:42:15,760
it's 76 out of 86 in the celebrity group

995
00:42:23,110 --> 00:42:20,930
and in the huge comparison group five

996
00:42:26,170 --> 00:42:23,120
thousand four hundred charts the mean

997
00:42:28,330 --> 00:42:26,180
was in the forties like forty six or

998
00:42:31,060 --> 00:42:28,340
something like that forty five forty

999
00:42:33,880 --> 00:42:31,070
four is something like that and moreover

1000
00:42:36,340 --> 00:42:33,890
the standard deviation was you know

1001
00:42:38,200 --> 00:42:36,350
seven or something and so you could you

1002
00:42:40,780 --> 00:42:38,210
know in the normal curve that is

1003
00:42:44,590 --> 00:42:40,790
generated from that standard deviation

1004
00:42:47,890 --> 00:42:44,600
and that mean you find that the p-value

1005
00:42:52,960 --> 00:42:47,900
of getting the celebrity chart incidents

1006
00:42:57,160 --> 00:42:52,970
is like 0.001 or something the chance of

1007
00:42:59,770 --> 00:42:57,170
getting the celebrity incidents given

1008
00:43:03,420 --> 00:42:59,780
the distribution as found in the general

1009
00:43:08,170 --> 00:43:03,430
population model of the comparison group

1010
00:43:10,420 --> 00:43:08,180
is is very low so that was step one to

1011
00:43:14,200 --> 00:43:10,430
show that there is indeed a higher

1012
00:43:16,720 --> 00:43:14,210
incidence a statistic that we can say

1013
00:43:18,910 --> 00:43:16,730
with statistical confidence that there's

1014
00:43:21,550 --> 00:43:18,920
a higher incidence in the celebrity

1015
00:43:24,100 --> 00:43:21,560
group of this ancient signature than in

1016
00:43:26,830 --> 00:43:24,110
the general population so the chance of

1017
00:43:29,050 --> 00:43:26,840
the celebrities having that alignment of

1018
00:43:30,610 --> 00:43:29,060
those planets is over ninety percent

1019
00:43:33,670 --> 00:43:30,620
over ninety percent of them are in that

1020
00:43:36,610 --> 00:43:33,680
range and then of the control group or

1021
00:43:38,950 --> 00:43:36,620
just not control group that the random

1022
00:43:40,870 --> 00:43:38,960
group it's in forty five percent and

1023
00:43:42,490 --> 00:43:40,880
yeah you ran all these trials and when

1024
00:43:44,350 --> 00:43:42,500
you run that through statistical

1025
00:43:47,020 --> 00:43:44,360
analysis the odds of that just being

1026
00:43:48,370 --> 00:43:47,030
chance that you just the null hypothesis

1027
00:43:49,780 --> 00:43:48,380
that it just hey it just happened that

1028
00:43:52,300 --> 00:43:49,790
way is

1029
00:43:53,770 --> 00:43:52,310
far less than one out of a hundred right

1030
00:43:55,720 --> 00:43:53,780
thank you yeah

1031
00:43:58,000 --> 00:43:55,730
that's a good summary so that was step

1032
00:44:01,480 --> 00:43:58,010
one and then step two in that paper was

1033
00:44:02,800 --> 00:44:01,490
to show a correlation all right so it's

1034
00:44:05,380 --> 00:44:02,810
one thing to show a high incidence

1035
00:44:08,020 --> 00:44:05,390
that's actually kind of neat in itself

1036
00:44:10,870 --> 00:44:08,030
but it's not yet a correlation where

1037
00:44:15,070 --> 00:44:10,880
what we would want to see in step two is

1038
00:44:18,190 --> 00:44:15,080
that as the follower numbers for a

1039
00:44:23,560 --> 00:44:18,200
Twitter account increases the likelihood

1040
00:44:26,050 --> 00:44:23,570
of having this incidence increases - so

1041
00:44:29,200 --> 00:44:26,060
there's a positive correlation that as

1042
00:44:32,980 --> 00:44:29,210
follower numbers increase the likelihood

1043
00:44:35,880 --> 00:44:32,990
of the holder of that that Twitter

1044
00:44:38,650 --> 00:44:35,890
account having this astronomical

1045
00:44:41,560 --> 00:44:38,660
configuration at Birth increases as well

1046
00:44:43,660 --> 00:44:41,570
why is that important well we talked

1047
00:44:46,600 --> 00:44:43,670
earlier about the Mercury retrograde

1048
00:44:49,470 --> 00:44:46,610
study and how important it is to show

1049
00:44:53,740 --> 00:44:49,480
correlation as a first step for

1050
00:44:57,580 --> 00:44:53,750
causation studies oh just it's important

1051
00:45:01,360 --> 00:44:57,590
to to show correlation does you know

1052
00:45:03,760 --> 00:45:01,370
that's even out there in general science

1053
00:45:05,590 --> 00:45:03,770
that's the first thing people do is show

1054
00:45:08,740 --> 00:45:05,600
a correlation I get that and we can take

1055
00:45:10,320 --> 00:45:08,750
this off if it's distracting but I kind

1056
00:45:12,700 --> 00:45:10,330
of don't get but that part of it I mean

1057
00:45:15,310 --> 00:45:12,710
the correlation you showed in that first

1058
00:45:17,620 --> 00:45:15,320
part in terms of someone rising in the

1059
00:45:19,210 --> 00:45:17,630
ranks I mean they can rise as much as

1060
00:45:21,370 --> 00:45:19,220
they want their chart is either going to

1061
00:45:23,380 --> 00:45:21,380
be there or not be there so whether or

1062
00:45:25,110 --> 00:45:23,390
not they rise to a level of come on to

1063
00:45:27,550 --> 00:45:25,120
your radar doesn't seem to be

1064
00:45:29,800 --> 00:45:27,560
significant in what you're measuring in

1065
00:45:31,900 --> 00:45:29,810
terms of the the you know the

1066
00:45:33,700 --> 00:45:31,910
correlation so there's a lot of people

1067
00:45:35,460 --> 00:45:33,710
out there that like he said there's 45

1068
00:45:38,590 --> 00:45:35,470
percent of people in your control group

1069
00:45:41,280 --> 00:45:38,600
have that they might be rising stars on

1070
00:45:45,100 --> 00:45:41,290
Twitter in the future you know who knows

1071
00:45:47,020 --> 00:45:45,110
isn't that fascinating they might not be

1072
00:45:51,070 --> 00:45:47,030
though and the reason why it might be

1073
00:45:53,440 --> 00:45:51,080
because of the chart the highest that

1074
00:45:56,650 --> 00:45:53,450
very highest tail as it's called of the

1075
00:45:58,510 --> 00:45:56,660
correlation is you know people like over

1076
00:46:02,460 --> 00:45:58,520
Wimpy's people like Justin Bieber people

1077
00:46:03,530 --> 00:46:02,470
have a very tippity top of the the

1078
00:46:05,870 --> 00:46:03,540
pyramid

1079
00:46:08,420 --> 00:46:05,880
therefore how many followers you have in

1080
00:46:11,660 --> 00:46:08,430
your Twitter account in that top tail of

1081
00:46:14,060 --> 00:46:11,670
the correlation they all have this

1082
00:46:15,860 --> 00:46:14,070
ancient signature so if I understand

1083
00:46:18,410 --> 00:46:15,870
correctly then I misunderstood I

1084
00:46:21,280 --> 00:46:18,420
apologize what I hear you saying now is

1085
00:46:25,310 --> 00:46:21,290
that then you kind of reanalyzed your

1086
00:46:27,140 --> 00:46:25,320
8686 celebrities and you said okay now

1087
00:46:29,120 --> 00:46:27,150
is there a correlation in terms of their

1088
00:46:32,060 --> 00:46:29,130
total number of followers and again

1089
00:46:34,790 --> 00:46:32,070
you're saying the the high tip of the of

1090
00:46:36,380 --> 00:46:34,800
the followers are they more even

1091
00:46:37,700 --> 00:46:36,390
strongly correlated i I didn't think

1092
00:46:39,410 --> 00:46:37,710
that be that significant since you're

1093
00:46:41,900 --> 00:46:39,420
already above 90% I don't know how you

1094
00:46:43,280 --> 00:46:41,910
could have you how far you could go but

1095
00:46:45,080 --> 00:46:43,290
you're saying yeah even the top ones

1096
00:46:47,120 --> 00:46:45,090
it's a hundred percent and then it there

1097
00:46:48,860 --> 00:46:47,130
is a correlation where it tails down on

1098
00:46:50,660 --> 00:46:48,870
the number of followers right is that

1099
00:46:53,930 --> 00:46:50,670
what you're saying that's exactly right

1100
00:46:57,140 --> 00:46:53,940
yes and that was step two and an

1101
00:46:59,990 --> 00:46:57,150
important in its own right to not just

1102
00:47:02,780 --> 00:47:00,000
show okay high incidence in the general

1103
00:47:05,750 --> 00:47:02,790
celebrity group yay that's that's pretty

1104
00:47:08,900 --> 00:47:05,760
cool but let's go further as following

1105
00:47:11,390 --> 00:47:08,910
numbers go up so too does this incidence

1106
00:47:14,390 --> 00:47:11,400
so that people at the bottom of the

1107
00:47:17,690 --> 00:47:14,400
thousand top 1000 Twitter followers I

1108
00:47:21,940 --> 00:47:17,700
only have this incident 56 percent of

1109
00:47:24,230 --> 00:47:21,950
the time now you go up into the top 500

1110
00:47:28,750 --> 00:47:24,240
followers Twitter followers they have it

1111
00:47:30,950 --> 00:47:28,760
at 70 percent you go to the very top 100

1112
00:47:33,320 --> 00:47:30,960
people with the highest Twitter

1113
00:47:36,200 --> 00:47:33,330
followers they have it a hundred percent

1114
00:47:37,790 --> 00:47:36,210
of the time so of your list of 86 again

1115
00:47:39,920 --> 00:47:37,800
that started with a thousand and you

1116
00:47:42,200 --> 00:47:39,930
pared it down to 86 because some of the

1117
00:47:43,910 --> 00:47:42,210
people being followed our CNN or

1118
00:47:47,000 --> 00:47:43,920
Infowars or something like that that you

1119
00:47:48,770 --> 00:47:47,010
can't even kind of there's no person

1120
00:47:51,290 --> 00:47:48,780
associate there's no astrological data

1121
00:47:53,900 --> 00:47:51,300
associated with it so then you pare that

1122
00:47:56,120 --> 00:47:53,910
down you might have put 86 and then so

1123
00:47:58,940 --> 00:47:56,130
of those 86 though those are spread

1124
00:48:00,800 --> 00:47:58,950
across that still spread across that

1125
00:48:03,140 --> 00:48:00,810
thousand rankings so you might have

1126
00:48:05,330 --> 00:48:03,150
somebody yeah even though it's 86 they

1127
00:48:07,460 --> 00:48:05,340
might be down in the thousand range like

1128
00:48:10,820 --> 00:48:07,470
you just said and then the real stunner

1129
00:48:13,970 --> 00:48:10,830
what you said is anyone of that 86 who

1130
00:48:16,670 --> 00:48:13,980
happen to rank in the top 100 100%

1131
00:48:17,530 --> 00:48:16,680
correlation between that and having this

1132
00:48:19,700 --> 00:48:17,540
certain

1133
00:48:22,250 --> 00:48:19,710
position of the planet kind of thing

1134
00:48:24,140 --> 00:48:22,260
that's absolutely right that's what that

1135
00:48:28,820 --> 00:48:24,150
is that is breeding croaking so how many

1136
00:48:33,140 --> 00:48:28,830
does that represent I think it's 12 over

1137
00:48:35,240 --> 00:48:33,150
the 86 yeah that's that's significant so

1138
00:48:37,160 --> 00:48:35,250
check out our paper and see what you

1139
00:48:40,070 --> 00:48:37,170
think and please give it a shot I've

1140
00:48:43,880 --> 00:48:40,080
replicated right now and see if it still

1141
00:48:45,710 --> 00:48:43,890
holds or if I was a one-off and you know

1142
00:48:48,050 --> 00:48:45,720
just on that particular day at that

1143
00:48:51,980 --> 00:48:48,060
particular hour when we took that

1144
00:48:54,710 --> 00:48:51,990
snapshot of the top 1,000 the final kind

1145
00:48:57,080 --> 00:48:54,720
of criticism might be that okay that

1146
00:49:00,050 --> 00:48:57,090
happened but it was something in that

1147
00:49:02,390 --> 00:49:00,060
snapshot alone so let's take a few more

1148
00:49:05,510 --> 00:49:02,400
snapshots and like I said every step is

1149
00:49:09,770 --> 00:49:05,520
in the methods and materials it's not

1150
00:49:12,230 --> 00:49:09,780
too hard computationally and I'd love to

1151
00:49:14,750 --> 00:49:12,240
give any support to anyone out there if

1152
00:49:17,990 --> 00:49:14,760
I can to replicate it

1153
00:49:20,090 --> 00:49:18,000
I'm all for replication efforts I think

1154
00:49:22,430 --> 00:49:20,100
that would be the next thing here with

1155
00:49:23,690 --> 00:49:22,440
the Twitter paper no fair-minded person

1156
00:49:25,250 --> 00:49:23,700
could ask for anything more than that

1157
00:49:27,560 --> 00:49:25,260
Renee excellent you've acquitted

1158
00:49:30,230 --> 00:49:27,570
yourself very well and I'm glad we have

1159
00:49:32,420 --> 00:49:30,240
this follow-on conversation very glad to

1160
00:49:34,820 --> 00:49:32,430
talk with you like I said it's it's an

1161
00:49:37,580 --> 00:49:34,830
honor to be on your show I really

1162
00:49:39,260 --> 00:49:37,590
enjoyed it thanks again to Renee Asha

1163
00:49:41,390 --> 00:49:39,270
for joining me today on skeptic oh

1164
00:49:43,400 --> 00:49:41,400
there's really only one question to tee

1165
00:49:45,440 --> 00:49:43,410
up from this interview do you think

1166
00:49:48,140 --> 00:49:45,450
there is a correlation between certain

1167
00:49:50,480 --> 00:49:48,150
planetary alignments and physical things

1168
00:49:53,210 --> 00:49:50,490
that happen down here on earth do you

1169
00:49:55,730 --> 00:49:53,220
think Renee's research moves us towards

1170
00:49:58,820 --> 00:49:55,740
coming to that conclusion based on the

1171
00:50:00,680 --> 00:49:58,830
statistical analysis of her data so let

1172
00:50:02,540 --> 00:50:00,690
me hear your thoughts of course the

1173
00:50:06,650 --> 00:50:02,550
place to do it is through the skeptical

1174
00:50:08,720 --> 00:50:06,660
forum or at skeptic Oh calm SK EP tik Oh

1175
00:50:11,260 --> 00:50:08,730
calm and there you can download of

1176
00:50:13,280 --> 00:50:11,270
course all the 350 previous shows and

1177
00:50:14,270 --> 00:50:13,290
subscribe to the newsletter and do some

1178
00:50:16,580 --> 00:50:14,280
other cool stuff

1179
00:50:18,290 --> 00:50:16,590
all the usual podcasting stuff so please

1180
00:50:19,970 --> 00:50:18,300
do that please share the show tell your

1181
00:50:21,380 --> 00:50:19,980
friends about the show and please stay

1182
00:50:23,780 --> 00:50:21,390
tuned because I have some more great

1183
00:50:27,600 --> 00:50:23,790
episode's coming up that's it for this