This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I don't think it valid at all. Fun perhaps, but that's all.
Astrology, like tarot-cards and tea-leaves, works on subtle but simple psychological effects such as latching onto co-incidences.
These tend to highlight themselves in your mind, so you forget all the incidents that had no connection to any constellation, pretty picture or unwashed crockery.
The columns in the papers are meaningless of course: written randomly. However, "professional" fortune-tellers giving personal "consultations" know these effects, and are skilled at reading and manipulating their customers' vocal and body responses to leading questions, to guide the "consultation".
Fortune-telling is entertaining, but should not be taken seriously as a guide or predictor of your life.
Astrology, like tarot-cards and tea-leaves, works on subtle but simple psychological effects such as latching onto co-incidences.
These tend to highlight themselves in your mind, so you forget all the incidents that had no connection to any constellation, pretty picture or unwashed crockery.
The columns in the papers are meaningless of course: written randomly. However, "professional" fortune-tellers giving personal "consultations" know these effects, and are skilled at reading and manipulating their customers' vocal and body responses to leading questions, to guide the "consultation".
Fortune-telling is entertaining, but should not be taken seriously as a guide or predictor of your life.
Crazychick · 36-40, F
@ArishMell There is nothing in the world less valid than a "coincidence". There is simply no such thing, there cannot be such a thing and that's a fact provable by dictionary-based facts. Mark, the manager of our local Internet café, has known that for decades and he's forever harping on about it every time someone casually mentions the word "coincidence". Here are the facts:
"Coincidence" = abstract noun, derived from the prefixed verb "to coincide".
"Coincide" = prefixed verb derived from the nonexistent verb "to incide" plus the prefix "co" meaning "together".
This means that the verb "to coincide" can only mean "to incide together", and since there is no such word as "incide" to begin with, things cannot possibly "coincide" or "incide together", which proves beyond all doubt that the word "coincidence" is an invalid and improperly formed word that some brainless idiot made up to describe a nonexistent concept. There is no way that it conforms to the rigid, inflexible logic of the English language, which only makes it even more incomprehensible why people still use such a word after knowing all these facts for so long. I myself knew these facts before I got to know Mark as a person, it was easy enough for me to figure it out myself when I was in school. So why do people continue to say things are a "coincidence" as if there really is such a word as "incide" and it's been carelessly omitted from every dictionary ever published?
"Coincidence" = abstract noun, derived from the prefixed verb "to coincide".
"Coincide" = prefixed verb derived from the nonexistent verb "to incide" plus the prefix "co" meaning "together".
This means that the verb "to coincide" can only mean "to incide together", and since there is no such word as "incide" to begin with, things cannot possibly "coincide" or "incide together", which proves beyond all doubt that the word "coincidence" is an invalid and improperly formed word that some brainless idiot made up to describe a nonexistent concept. There is no way that it conforms to the rigid, inflexible logic of the English language, which only makes it even more incomprehensible why people still use such a word after knowing all these facts for so long. I myself knew these facts before I got to know Mark as a person, it was easy enough for me to figure it out myself when I was in school. So why do people continue to say things are a "coincidence" as if there really is such a word as "incide" and it's been carelessly omitted from every dictionary ever published?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Crazychick Intriguing idea! :-)
The second word is a verb form of the noun "incident". So two unrelated incidents at the same time... hence co-incidental.
- I fell into the local harbour when very young.
- The tide was high at the time.
That was a coincidence - though perhaps a lucky one because I had a soft landing. Low tides can expose the sea-bed at that point.
It put me off water for years - but that was due to falling into some, not due to the tide being high, and the sea did not drag me in (calm waters)!
I can correlate falling in with my fear, and explain the former as causing the latter; but correlation does not mean cause. It be be simple co-incidence but people have become horribly unstuck through mixing correlation with cause when the events were really co-incidental.
The second word is a verb form of the noun "incident". So two unrelated incidents at the same time... hence co-incidental.
- I fell into the local harbour when very young.
- The tide was high at the time.
That was a coincidence - though perhaps a lucky one because I had a soft landing. Low tides can expose the sea-bed at that point.
It put me off water for years - but that was due to falling into some, not due to the tide being high, and the sea did not drag me in (calm waters)!
I can correlate falling in with my fear, and explain the former as causing the latter; but correlation does not mean cause. It be be simple co-incidence but people have become horribly unstuck through mixing correlation with cause when the events were really co-incidental.
Crazychick · 36-40, F
@ArishMell The words "incident" and "incidental" are also meaningless because they too are derived from the nonexistent "incide". "Correlation" is a much better word, although I still don't understand the logic behind the second "r" (it means "co-relation", of course).
BlueSkyKing · M
@ArishMell [media=https://youtu.be/WH-VGQueGl8]
Crazychick · 36-40, F
@BlueSkyKing That doesn't prove that the nonexistent word "incide" exists, therefore it is not valid proof of coincidence.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell confirmation bias
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn Sorry - I don't really know what that means.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ArishMell It describes what you said. Picking out the instances that agree with your beliefs while ignoring the facts that don't agree.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@JimboSaturn Thank you. So a very common trait, of course, and in serious matters, not just in fun things like fortune-telling.