Episode 3: Article Review: Astrology Versus Personality Tests
This episode is a change in format. I go solo to explain a particular piece of research. The article is "Science Versus the Stars: A
Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
and Computer-Generated Astrological Natal Charts," by Alyssa Jayne Wyman and Stuart Vyse. It appeared in The Journal of General Psychology in 2008. It touches on a few issues raised in episode 2, my interview with Dr. Glenn Perry. Let me know how you like it!
Some links:
The abstract of the Wyman & Vyse paper
A short personality test based on the Big Five personality traits
Blog entry outlining the proposed move to make personality disorders based on the Big Five (part 2)
B.R. Forer's 1948 "personality analysis"
Tyler Cowen's tasty, tasty economics blog
Zac Efron
Some links:
The abstract of the Wyman & Vyse paper
A short personality test based on the Big Five personality traits
Blog entry outlining the proposed move to make personality disorders based on the Big Five (part 2)
B.R. Forer's 1948 "personality analysis"
Tyler Cowen's tasty, tasty economics blog
Zac Efron
Download | Duration: 00:19:14
Posted by Psyconoclast at 5/29/2009 11:33 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: research podcast episode 3 astrology
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: research podcast episode 3 astrology
I agree with your approach to scrutinize astrological practice. I am also a skeptic, but lately I have found more information that is coming to light now that we have been in the computer age for a while. I suggest looking at Richard Tarnas' "Psyche and Cosmos." It a view from a skeptic enmeshed in the world of history, philosophy, and psychology who has discovered that there is a truth residing underneath astrology that is remarkable - and also much deeper than the pop astrologists acknowledge or comprehend. Unfortunately, they're the ones that seem to get all the attention.
I also agree with your first guest that the mind, while being worthy of much scientific scrutiny, is ultimately beyond the reach of science to fully comprehend. As a counselor myself, I am just as skeptical, perhaps even more so, of objective data regarding psychology as I am of subjective, or case-history-oriented studies. Oftentimes (but not always) the more subjective studies seem to reveal something more human, more real. The trick seems to be to keep questioning, keep looking, keep wondering about how you could be wrong.
Anyway, keep investigating, I enjoy your podcast.
Reply to this