Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

The Smoking Thing


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 skylark

skylark

    A Chief Ufologiist

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,045 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2006 - 11:48 PM

*THE SMOKING THING


*Marty Byrn's CD...after touring ALL the PUBS in Ireland...people against the smoking ban-
Attached File  SMOKERS_LAMENT_MARTYS_CD_COVER.jpg   236.77KB   879 downloads

Sometimes proof is of ‘a self fulfilling prophecy’. It’s made to happen, so all can shout piously again...’We told you so’. Case in point...cigarette smoking. It’s the latest and the greatest hyped hysteria, new caring punitive/prohibitive laws, helpful restrictions for better health, and don’t forget extra tax revenues.

It’s well on the way to becoming the new ‘prohibition era’ followed by the new ‘speak easy’ clubs, where people will have momentary safe ‘internal freedom’ to sneak a cigarette in convivial relaxed company...outside the law.

Cigarettes, after all, are the drug thing. The least that should happen is that they be sold only under medical prescription. The ‘World Health Organization’ thinks so. People should be arrested for smoking without ‘permission’ for ‘the drug’. It’s dangerous to their health...and the health of others. Smokers are not suave or ‘normal’ anymore? They are rude, crude, vulgar, and unattractive.

The real question is…
'Why this Social engineering'? And…the mark up in price...in Western
Countries?. What is the real Game? There are 'closet' investigations going
on right now regarding the 'real' reasons.

It's legitimately being asked...not only
why...but ironically 'they' are actually losing revenue since buying went
down...despite the Huge increase in government tax on tobacco.

Is it really
for our Health benefit? In the pre-conditions cited for increases in heart
attack, stroke, and high blood pressure, cancer, etc....why is smoking
SINGLED out...and the other up to 30 other pre-disposing or risk factors not
weighted in?

And, they are not put in the equation. Studies…IS an over abused
term. Other well done ‘studies’ have shown that people who are outgoing and have a good self image along with a good sense of humor...HAVE NO INCREASE in so called
'smoking related diseases...while those with low esteem, humorless, more depressive &
'inward'/introspective personalities...are much more afflicted with the so called 'smoking
diseases. Interesting huh...our own personality and positive natures protect against disease...etc.

And now...we can get into the 'horrible' mass
negativity/suggestion/broadcast propaganda thrown into all this social
engineering...which actually PROJECTS. guilt and instills FEAR in
people...thus creating the very conditions necessary as high risk
factors...dispositions to developing these 'smoking related' diseases.

Remember, 'Our subconscious TAKES FEAR as a COMMAND' ...In the 'Holographic
Universe' sense...'We create our own Realities'. That's why on 'The Sweeps
Fox Shows'...I keep saying 'What we believe...or is forced on us to
believe...imprisons us'.
*THE FOREGOING...FROM 'Sweeps' Fox in his book 'Trying To Light The Match

**NOW LET'S 'LOOK IN TO DR. HANS EYSENCK...'BLOW YOUR MIND'S...OR OPEN THEM'?

Professor Hans Eysenck is a very awkward and controversial scientist. He must be. He had the audacity to challenge all the common beliefs and scientific pronouncements on cigarette smoking. The problem for the establishment goes beyond that. He’s ‘taking them on’ on their on grounds...proof. He’s calling the ‘reported effects of smoking’...as propaganda. He should be silenced, shot, or outright run off the stage...before being allowed to speak or given his say at the ‘liberal forum’. Anyway, how can ‘anyone’ take him seriously? Well he has many times submitted to the ‘question and answer’ period...after his public talks and seminars.
*CLICK on Dr. Eysenck's Photo:

Attached File  Professor_H_J_EYSENCK_PHOTO.3.jpg   118.84KB   845 downloads

What’s he saying? He does have similar and impressive credentials to others of his anti smoke colleagues. A short paraphrased summing up:

• There are hundreds of risk factors implicated in cancer and heart disease. Smoking has been somehow isolated out as the main contributor and villain. No proof has ever been shown that, outside of cigarettes being just another risk factor, smoking is a CAUSE of these illnesses.

• ‘Imaginary’ data and figures are being disseminated about how many people die due to smoking...globally. Other risk factors are simply ignored by anti-smoking agendas. It provides for false, misleading, and scary statistics. We all know about lying with ‘stats’.

• Introverted people who smoke and those smokers who have difficulty ‘expressing’ themselves, have 6 times the chance of developing lung cancer than outgoing extroverted people who smoke. It has a lot to do with personality...of all things.

Basically Prof. Eysenck is asserting, and attempting to establish, that ‘our minds’ play a big part in how things affect us. Strong stuff, from a recognized scientific professional to try and convince his own ‘fellows’.

He goes on to indict the medical profession for not knowing anything about the effects of pressure and stress, and they don’t seem to want to know...or admit something mental can upset experiments.
*CLICK on Professor Eysenck's books:

Attached File  Professor_Hans_Eysenck_Smoking_personality_and_stress_book.JPG   142.24KB   749 downloads Attached File  Professor_Hans_Eysenck_Dimensions_of_Personality_BOOK.JPG   95.8KB   749 downloads

Strangely, he hasn’t been suggesting anything different here to what those mystically enlightened have been telling us...through all ‘Ages. The ‘Cultural Rebels’ throughout, have been saying ‘lighten up’, hang loose, and then...one can ‘do their own thing’...as well. It’s the free spirited rejection of ‘mental’ oppression and submission to ‘the norm’...whatever that is? Is that where all health, both physical and mental, comes from...mind, spirit, and consciousness?

Smoking, Personality and Stress: Psychosocial Factors in the Prevention of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease
by Hans J. Eysenck (1916 - 1997)

Professor Hans Jurgen Eysenck, arguably the most influential psychologist of his time, died on 4 September 1997 aged 81 after a long illness. He was for more than thirty years Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. He attracted controversy, albeit unwillingly, and called his autobiography Rebel with a Cause (1990). He pointed out that psychotherapy was no better than no psychotherapy in curing neuroses. He argued that smoking did not necessarily cause lung cancer by itself but interacted with other factors such as personality. In many cases…much of his work… he adopted a position that his opponents found outrageous.

About this title: It is often suggested that the incidence of cancer and coronary heart disease could be much reduced or even eliminated if only people would stop smoking cigarettes and eat fewer high-cholesterol foods. The evidence, however, shows that such views are simplistic and unrealistic and that, instead, cancer and CHD are the product of many risk factors acting synergistically. Psychosocial factors (stress, personality) are six times as predictive as smoking, cholesterol level or blood pressure and much more responsive to prophylactic treatment.

Dr. Eysenck, who spent decades as head of the Psychology Department of the
University of London's Institute of Psychiatry, was a pioneer in the
development of "behavior therapy." That is a method of treating patients
by addressing their immediate problems, a process he said could be done in
a limited number of sessions rather than the seemingly unending, indirect
method of psychoanalysis.

He also developed radical and immensely controversial theories on subjects
ranging from tobacco and cancer to crime and the OCCULT to IQ testing and
genetics. He spread his views in more than 75 books and a thousand
technical articles.

His writing gained him a worldwide audience of general readers as well as
scientists. He once explained that his books ranged from "Uses and Abuses
of Psychology," which he wrote in two weeks and which sold millions of
copies, to the scholarly, scientific and academic "Reminiscence,
Motivation, and Personality: A Case Study in Experimental Psychology."

His more popular books included works published by Penguin Books, such as
"Sense and Nonsense in Psychology" and "Check Your Own IQ."

Other controversial works included his 1965 book "Smoking, Health and
Personality," which propounded that smoking does not cause cancer but is a
symptom, along with cancer, of mysterious hereditary and emotional
Illnesses.

Eysenck's interest in astrology
Eysenck's interest in graphology, astrology and parapsychology led to about 5, 19 and 12 publications respectively, not counting any in foreign languages. In each case the result was a confrontation between a learned man of science and areas where convincing evidence is hard to come by. He was, as the astrological editor Terry Dwyer (1986) put it, "a worldwide known critic of insufficiently demonstrated assertions, as well in classical psychology as in borderline science."

Each of these three areas (graphology, astrology, parapsychology) was controversial but each had a solid core of testable ideas. It was this important quality of testability, plus apparently positive results, that first attracted Eysenck's attention. He said "the main attraction of a field such as hypnosis (or parapsychology, or astrology), is the promise it contains of entirely new and extremely important knowledge that might be gained by a study of the (alleged) phenomena in question" (1990:233).

Eysenck (1986) emphasises that he came to his positive conclusions (on the Gauquelin findings, on ESP, on psychokinesis) only after carefully assessing the evidence and failing to find sources of error. He comments "it is said that one should not waste time on topics which are obviously absurd, ... I do not believe myself that a priori judgments of this kind are admissible in science; scientists have been wrong too many times in making explicit statements of this kind to be considered infallible.

Eysenck's positive conclusions arose even though the claims seemed at first unlikely to be true. The result was appreciable cognitive dissonance: "I do not enjoy having to defend empirical findings which go counter to my own instinctive beliefs. I would much rather be in a position to disprove all parapsychological and astrological claims: life would be so much easier if we could cosily go to sleep in the shadow of orthodox science!" But the facts decided the issue: "I certainly did not come to positive conclusions in these matters simply in order to annoy orthodox scientists. ... Perhaps strong innate feelings for the underdog have something to do with it; I believe that these fields have been decried by orthodox scientists without specialist knowledge of what has been done in them, and this I consider to be insupportable" (1986:384).

Eysenck was involved with astrology mostly during 1975-1985, ten years after he became involved with parapsychology. His interest in astrology was aroused by the findings of Michel Gauquelin (1926-1991). Over the years Gauquelin had disconfirmed many of astrology's claims, but one curious finding persisted. At the birth of eminent professionals such as soldiers and painters, certain planets tended to prefer or avoid the areas just past rise and upper culmination, roughly one fifth of the total. The surplus or deficit could not be explained by demographic or astronomic artifacts and was typically 10 to 25 per cent more than expected. (This may seem like a lot but the corresponding effect size, which for thirty years nobody bothered to calculate, was only 0.02 to 0.05.) To add to the puzzle, the effect disappeared if the professionals were not eminent. The usual explanations such as sampling errors did not apply because Gauquelin used large samples with N sometimes exceeding 3000, the results were highly significant with p often below 0.0001, and the effect seemed to replicate. Eysenck was impressed, and gave a favourable review of the Gauquelin results in the now-defunct magazine New Behaviour (1975).

In the same article Eysenck took issue with Karl Popper's argument that astrology, like psychoanalysis, is a pseudoscience because it consists of untestable assertions. Eysenck argued that, on the contrary, astrology does make testable assertions such as those linking planetary positions and personality, hence "there should be no difficulty in arranging an experiment to test the hypothesis quite unambiguously." In giving Gauquelin's research as an example, Eysenck commented "I think it may be said that, as far as objectivity of observation, statistical significance of differences, verification of the hypothesis, and replicability are concerned, there are few sets of data in psychology which could compete with these observations. ... I think we must admit that there is something here that requires explanation." This is a good illustration of Eysenck's insistence on giving priority to facts over mere opinion.

At the time of his New Behaviour article Eysenck was also becoming involved in a test of sun signs. In 1971, the British astrologer Jeff Mayo had sent Eysenck a study of 1795 subjects in which their mean scores on Mayo's extraversion questionnaire were plotted against sun sign. The results showed a zig-zag pattern completely in accordance with astrology. Eysenck was intrigued and made the EPI available to Mayo for further tests. Then in 1973, quite independently of Mayo, the British sociologist Joe Cooper showed Eysenck a study of Bradford University students in which their mean E scores were plotted against sun sign. The results showed the same zig-zag pattern.

The outcome was a paper by Mayo, White & Eysenck (1978) detailing the EPI results for 2324 subjects, followed in the same journal by a paper by Smithers & Cooper (1978) detailing the EPI results for 559 students. In each case the result was a zig-zag pattern in agreement with astrology. However, the difference in mean E score between odd and even signs was only 0.7, which is very small compared to the mean E score of about 13 and SD of about 4, and is much smaller than the claims of sun-sign astrology would suggest. In due course this led to over a dozen replications, most of them positive, the mean effect size being 0.09.

Advance notice of the Eysenck paper was hailed by astrologers as "possibly the most important development for astrology in this century

Just before the Mayo study appeared, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology was published. This was the first critical scientific review of the research basis to astrology. To ensure accuracy it involved a total of fifty-four collaborators, one of whom was Eysenck, who assisted with the sections on personality and psychology. The availability of this review and the encouraging results of the Gauquelin, Mayo and Cooper studies prompted Eysenck to take his interest further. He facilitated the use of the Institute of Psychiatry by astrologers and psychologists for a joint weekend research seminar in May 1979 (Gibson, 1981:209). The seminar was a success and by 1996 nine more had been held

The interest of Eysenck in astrology led to three "Eysenck Research Seminars" being organised by astro-sympathisers at Long Beach, Freiburg and Naples in 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively. The first had a dozen speakers but attracted only 25 people, despite being timed to follow two major US astrology conferences of the traditional kind, each of which attracted about 1000 people. Nevertheless the seminar was significant because it resulted in the formation of the Committee for Objective Research in Astrology (CORA), with Eysenck as Chairman, and twelve others (astrologers and academics) chosen for their expertise. CORA was set up to counter the generally poor quality of astrological research by providing free guidance and advice. It still exists even though few enquiries have been received, most of which did not proceed further.

Astrology: Science or Superstition?
In the late 1970s Eysenck and David Nias began a survey of the scientific evidence for astrology aimed at a more general readership than was Recent Advances. The result was the book Astrology: Science or Superstition? (Eysenck & Nias 1982), which covered astrological principles, sun-signs, marriage, illness, suicide, appearance, time twins, season of birth, terrestrial and solar cycles, radio propagation, earthquakes, lunar effects and the work of the Gauquelins. Despite the availability of Recent Advances, the original literature was accessed wherever possible, resulting in a stack of photocopies half a metre high.

This illustrates the care taken to be independent and to get the facts right. Also new material was discovered resulting in about 40% of the book's 230 references being additional to the 1020 appearing in Recent Advances. In 1986 the book appeared as a Penguin edition, now out of print; it has also been translated into seven languages, the latest being Norwegian.


*...AND 'Sweeps' says:
Smokers whom I know do seem to be happier, more outgoing and less uptight people. They laugh, smile, enjoy ‘kidding’ and joking, and have a spirited disdain for things and agents which would trivialize their lives.

Maybe smoking cigarettes is anti seriousness? Do smokers, and their personalities, posse too much danger to ‘society’? Is it the humor, more relaxed, and free thinking ‘thing’ versus authority? Is this a way to make ‘this sort’ go away or be punished and ostracized? Is it a way to make smokers get ‘mad’ but conform...and become sick but accepting?

Are you in the ‘box’ or out of it? What do you really think is making you sick? Have most of ‘us’ lost our humor over this discussion? It could be telling? Don’t be so intense! What’s your ‘consciousness’ quotient?

We are just beginning to understand...'we don't
know the first thing'. Don't give over your mind/spirit/personality to
agents of prediction and control. Stay free. Just a thought./'Sweeps'
:)


#2 skylark

skylark

    A Chief Ufologiist

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,045 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2006 - 02:16 PM

*THE SMOKING THING


*Marty Byrn's CD...after touring ALL the PUBS in Ireland...people against the smoking ban-
Attached File  SMOKERS_LAMENT_MARTYS_CD_COVER.jpg   236.77KB   879 downloads

Sometimes proof is of ‘a self fulfilling prophecy’. It’s made to happen, so all can shout piously again...’We told you so’. Case in point...cigarette smoking. It’s the latest and the greatest hyped hysteria, new caring punitive/prohibitive laws, helpful restrictions for better health, and don’t forget extra tax revenues.

It’s well on the way to becoming the new ‘prohibition era’ followed by the new ‘speak easy’ clubs, where people will have momentary safe ‘internal freedom’ to sneak a cigarette in convivial relaxed company...outside the law.

Cigarettes, after all, are the drug thing. The least that should happen is that they be sold only under medical prescription. The ‘World Health Organization’ thinks so. People should be arrested for smoking without ‘permission’ for ‘the drug’. It’s dangerous to their health...and the health of others. Smokers are not suave or ‘normal’ anymore? They are rude, crude, vulgar, and unattractive.

The real question is…
'Why this Social engineering'? And…the mark up in price...in Western
Countries?. What is the real Game? There are 'closet' investigations going
on right now regarding the 'real' reasons.

It's legitimately being asked...not only
why...but ironically 'they' are actually losing revenue since buying went
down...despite the Huge increase in government tax on tobacco.

Is it really
for our Health benefit? In the pre-conditions cited for increases in heart
attack, stroke, and high blood pressure, cancer, etc....why is smoking
SINGLED out...and the other up to 30 other pre-disposing or risk factors not
weighted in?

And, they are not put in the equation. Studies…IS an over abused
term. Other well done ‘studies’ have shown that people who are outgoing and have a good self image along with a good sense of humor...HAVE NO INCREASE in so called
'smoking related diseases...while those with low esteem, humorless, more depressive &
'inward'/introspective personalities...are much more afflicted with the so called 'smoking
diseases. Interesting huh...our own personality and positive natures protect against disease...etc.

And now...we can get into the 'horrible' mass
negativity/suggestion/broadcast propaganda thrown into all this social
engineering...which actually PROJECTS. guilt and instills FEAR in
people...thus creating the very conditions necessary as high risk
factors...dispositions to developing these 'smoking related' diseases.

Remember, 'Our subconscious TAKES FEAR as a COMMAND' ...In the 'Holographic
Universe' sense...'We create our own Realities'. That's why on 'The Sweeps
Fox Shows'...I keep saying 'What we believe...or is forced on us to
believe...imprisons us'.
*THE FOREGOING...FROM 'Sweeps' Fox in his book 'Trying To Light The Match

**NOW LET'S 'LOOK IN TO DR. HANS EYSENCK...'BLOW YOUR MIND'S...OR OPEN THEM'?

Professor Hans Eysenck is a very awkward and controversial scientist. He must be. He had the audacity to challenge all the common beliefs and scientific pronouncements on cigarette smoking. The problem for the establishment goes beyond that. He’s ‘taking them on’ on their on grounds...proof. He’s calling the ‘reported effects of smoking’...as propaganda. He should be silenced, shot, or outright run off the stage...before being allowed to speak or given his say at the ‘liberal forum’. Anyway, how can ‘anyone’ take him seriously? Well he has many times submitted to the ‘question and answer’ period...after his public talks and seminars.
*CLICK on Dr. Eysenck's Photo:

Attached File  Professor_H_J_EYSENCK_PHOTO.3.jpg   118.84KB   845 downloads

What’s he saying? He does have similar and impressive credentials to others of his anti smoke colleagues. A short paraphrased summing up:

• There are hundreds of risk factors implicated in cancer and heart disease. Smoking has been somehow isolated out as the main contributor and villain. No proof has ever been shown that, outside of cigarettes being just another risk factor, smoking is a CAUSE of these illnesses.

• ‘Imaginary’ data and figures are being disseminated about how many people die due to smoking...globally. Other risk factors are simply ignored by anti-smoking agendas. It provides for false, misleading, and scary statistics. We all know about lying with ‘stats’.

• Introverted people who smoke and those smokers who have difficulty ‘expressing’ themselves, have 6 times the chance of developing lung cancer than outgoing extroverted people who smoke. It has a lot to do with personality...of all things.

Basically Prof. Eysenck is asserting, and attempting to establish, that ‘our minds’ play a big part in how things affect us. Strong stuff, from a recognized scientific professional to try and convince his own ‘fellows’.

He goes on to indict the medical profession for not knowing anything about the effects of pressure and stress, and they don’t seem to want to know...or admit something mental can upset experiments.
*CLICK on Professor Eysenck's books:

Attached File  Professor_Hans_Eysenck_Smoking_personality_and_stress_book.JPG   142.24KB   749 downloads Attached File  Professor_Hans_Eysenck_Dimensions_of_Personality_BOOK.JPG   95.8KB   749 downloads

Strangely, he hasn’t been suggesting anything different here to what those mystically enlightened have been telling us...through all ‘Ages. The ‘Cultural Rebels’ throughout, have been saying ‘lighten up’, hang loose, and then...one can ‘do their own thing’...as well. It’s the free spirited rejection of ‘mental’ oppression and submission to ‘the norm’...whatever that is? Is that where all health, both physical and mental, comes from...mind, spirit, and consciousness?

Smoking, Personality and Stress: Psychosocial Factors in the Prevention of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease
by Hans J. Eysenck (1916 - 1997)

Professor Hans Jurgen Eysenck, arguably the most influential psychologist of his time, died on 4 September 1997 aged 81 after a long illness. He was for more than thirty years Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. He attracted controversy, albeit unwillingly, and called his autobiography Rebel with a Cause (1990). He pointed out that psychotherapy was no better than no psychotherapy in curing neuroses. He argued that smoking did not necessarily cause lung cancer by itself but interacted with other factors such as personality. In many cases…much of his work… he adopted a position that his opponents found outrageous.

About this title: It is often suggested that the incidence of cancer and coronary heart disease could be much reduced or even eliminated if only people would stop smoking cigarettes and eat fewer high-cholesterol foods. The evidence, however, shows that such views are simplistic and unrealistic and that, instead, cancer and CHD are the product of many risk factors acting synergistically. Psychosocial factors (stress, personality) are six times as predictive as smoking, cholesterol level or blood pressure and much more responsive to prophylactic treatment.

Dr. Eysenck, who spent decades as head of the Psychology Department of the
University of London's Institute of Psychiatry, was a pioneer in the
development of "behavior therapy." That is a method of treating patients
by addressing their immediate problems, a process he said could be done in
a limited number of sessions rather than the seemingly unending, indirect
method of psychoanalysis.

He also developed radical and immensely controversial theories on subjects
ranging from tobacco and cancer to crime and the OCCULT to IQ testing and
genetics. He spread his views in more than 75 books and a thousand
technical articles.

His writing gained him a worldwide audience of general readers as well as
scientists. He once explained that his books ranged from "Uses and Abuses
of Psychology," which he wrote in two weeks and which sold millions of
copies, to the scholarly, scientific and academic "Reminiscence,
Motivation, and Personality: A Case Study in Experimental Psychology."

His more popular books included works published by Penguin Books, such as
"Sense and Nonsense in Psychology" and "Check Your Own IQ."

Other controversial works included his 1965 book "Smoking, Health and
Personality," which propounded that smoking does not cause cancer but is a
symptom, along with cancer, of mysterious hereditary and emotional
Illnesses.

Eysenck's interest in astrology
Eysenck's interest in graphology, astrology and parapsychology led to about 5, 19 and 12 publications respectively, not counting any in foreign languages. In each case the result was a confrontation between a learned man of science and areas where convincing evidence is hard to come by. He was, as the astrological editor Terry Dwyer (1986) put it, "a worldwide known critic of insufficiently demonstrated assertions, as well in classical psychology as in borderline science."

Each of these three areas (graphology, astrology, parapsychology) was controversial but each had a solid core of testable ideas. It was this important quality of testability, plus apparently positive results, that first attracted Eysenck's attention. He said "the main attraction of a field such as hypnosis (or parapsychology, or astrology), is the promise it contains of entirely new and extremely important knowledge that might be gained by a study of the (alleged) phenomena in question" (1990:233).

Eysenck (1986) emphasises that he came to his positive conclusions (on the Gauquelin findings, on ESP, on psychokinesis) only after carefully assessing the evidence and failing to find sources of error. He comments "it is said that one should not waste time on topics which are obviously absurd, ... I do not believe myself that a priori judgments of this kind are admissible in science; scientists have been wrong too many times in making explicit statements of this kind to be considered infallible.

Eysenck's positive conclusions arose even though the claims seemed at first unlikely to be true. The result was appreciable cognitive dissonance: "I do not enjoy having to defend empirical findings which go counter to my own instinctive beliefs. I would much rather be in a position to disprove all parapsychological and astrological claims: life would be so much easier if we could cosily go to sleep in the shadow of orthodox science!" But the facts decided the issue: "I certainly did not come to positive conclusions in these matters simply in order to annoy orthodox scientists. ... Perhaps strong innate feelings for the underdog have something to do with it; I believe that these fields have been decried by orthodox scientists without specialist knowledge of what has been done in them, and this I consider to be insupportable" (1986:384).

Eysenck was involved with astrology mostly during 1975-1985, ten years after he became involved with parapsychology. His interest in astrology was aroused by the findings of Michel Gauquelin (1926-1991). Over the years Gauquelin had disconfirmed many of astrology's claims, but one curious finding persisted. At the birth of eminent professionals such as soldiers and painters, certain planets tended to prefer or avoid the areas just past rise and upper culmination, roughly one fifth of the total. The surplus or deficit could not be explained by demographic or astronomic artifacts and was typically 10 to 25 per cent more than expected. (This may seem like a lot but the corresponding effect size, which for thirty years nobody bothered to calculate, was only 0.02 to 0.05.) To add to the puzzle, the effect disappeared if the professionals were not eminent. The usual explanations such as sampling errors did not apply because Gauquelin used large samples with N sometimes exceeding 3000, the results were highly significant with p often below 0.0001, and the effect seemed to replicate. Eysenck was impressed, and gave a favourable review of the Gauquelin results in the now-defunct magazine New Behaviour (1975).

In the same article Eysenck took issue with Karl Popper's argument that astrology, like psychoanalysis, is a pseudoscience because it consists of untestable assertions. Eysenck argued that, on the contrary, astrology does make testable assertions such as those linking planetary positions and personality, hence "there should be no difficulty in arranging an experiment to test the hypothesis quite unambiguously." In giving Gauquelin's research as an example, Eysenck commented "I think it may be said that, as far as objectivity of observation, statistical significance of differences, verification of the hypothesis, and replicability are concerned, there are few sets of data in psychology which could compete with these observations. ... I think we must admit that there is something here that requires explanation." This is a good illustration of Eysenck's insistence on giving priority to facts over mere opinion.

At the time of his New Behaviour article Eysenck was also becoming involved in a test of sun signs. In 1971, the British astrologer Jeff Mayo had sent Eysenck a study of 1795 subjects in which their mean scores on Mayo's extraversion questionnaire were plotted against sun sign. The results showed a zig-zag pattern completely in accordance with astrology. Eysenck was intrigued and made the EPI available to Mayo for further tests. Then in 1973, quite independently of Mayo, the British sociologist Joe Cooper showed Eysenck a study of Bradford University students in which their mean E scores were plotted against sun sign. The results showed the same zig-zag pattern.

The outcome was a paper by Mayo, White & Eysenck (1978) detailing the EPI results for 2324 subjects, followed in the same journal by a paper by Smithers & Cooper (1978) detailing the EPI results for 559 students. In each case the result was a zig-zag pattern in agreement with astrology. However, the difference in mean E score between odd and even signs was only 0.7, which is very small compared to the mean E score of about 13 and SD of about 4, and is much smaller than the claims of sun-sign astrology would suggest. In due course this led to over a dozen replications, most of them positive, the mean effect size being 0.09.

Advance notice of the Eysenck paper was hailed by astrologers as "possibly the most important development for astrology in this century

Just before the Mayo study appeared, Recent Advances in Natal Astrology was published. This was the first critical scientific review of the research basis to astrology. To ensure accuracy it involved a total of fifty-four collaborators, one of whom was Eysenck, who assisted with the sections on personality and psychology. The availability of this review and the encouraging results of the Gauquelin, Mayo and Cooper studies prompted Eysenck to take his interest further. He facilitated the use of the Institute of Psychiatry by astrologers and psychologists for a joint weekend research seminar in May 1979 (Gibson, 1981:209). The seminar was a success and by 1996 nine more had been held

The interest of Eysenck in astrology led to three "Eysenck Research Seminars" being organised by astro-sympathisers at Long Beach, Freiburg and Naples in 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively. The first had a dozen speakers but attracted only 25 people, despite being timed to follow two major US astrology conferences of the traditional kind, each of which attracted about 1000 people. Nevertheless the seminar was significant because it resulted in the formation of the Committee for Objective Research in Astrology (CORA), with Eysenck as Chairman, and twelve others (astrologers and academics) chosen for their expertise. CORA was set up to counter the generally poor quality of astrological research by providing free guidance and advice. It still exists even though few enquiries have been received, most of which did not proceed further.

Astrology: Science or Superstition?
In the late 1970s Eysenck and David Nias began a survey of the scientific evidence for astrology aimed at a more general readership than was Recent Advances. The result was the book Astrology: Science or Superstition? (Eysenck & Nias 1982), which covered astrological principles, sun-signs, marriage, illness, suicide, appearance, time twins, season of birth, terrestrial and solar cycles, radio propagation, earthquakes, lunar effects and the work of the Gauquelins. Despite the availability of Recent Advances, the original literature was accessed wherever possible, resulting in a stack of photocopies half a metre high.

This illustrates the care taken to be independent and to get the facts right. Also new material was discovered resulting in about 40% of the book's 230 references being additional to the 1020 appearing in Recent Advances. In 1986 the book appeared as a Penguin edition, now out of print; it has also been translated into seven languages, the latest being Norwegian.


*...AND 'Sweeps' says:
Smokers whom I know do seem to be happier, more outgoing and less uptight people. They laugh, smile, enjoy ‘kidding’ and joking, and have a spirited disdain for things and agents which would trivialize their lives.

Maybe smoking cigarettes is anti seriousness? Do smokers, and their personalities, posse too much danger to ‘society’? Is it the humor, more relaxed, and free thinking ‘thing’ versus authority? Is this a way to make ‘this sort’ go away or be punished and ostracized? Is it a way to make smokers get ‘mad’ but conform...and become sick but accepting?

Are you in the ‘box’ or out of it? What do you really think is making you sick? Have most of ‘us’ lost our humor over this discussion? It could be telling? Don’t be so intense! What’s your ‘consciousness’ quotient?

We are just beginning to understand...'we don't
know the first thing'. Don't give over your mind/spirit/personality to
agents of prediction and control. Stay free. Just a thought./'Sweeps'
:)


*Keep this topic in mind...remember 'our subconscious take FEAR as a COMMAND/'S'