I have a hypothesis I'd love to see tested about this. I don't know whether the hypothesis is even sound enough to bother testing it and I don't have the training to test it properly anyway.

It goes something like this:

The designation of people into personality type groups by zodiac sign are somewhat accurate due to the seasons and the social systems into which children are born. Children who are born in and are raised in the most temperate zones with the most rigid annual calender will be the most easily grouped into a class by birth date.

The reasoning is that, on average, children tend to reach certain points of development at certain ages. This of course varies per person, but there are certain accepted normal and average age ranges during which to learn to speak, grasp, walk, stand, et cetera. Different environmental factors can have effects upon these items. For example, children learning to walk, climb, run, and tumble outside any formal training regimen will tend to have more practice in these things during times of moderate temperature and precipitation. Likewise, even at the age of 5 years, a few months age difference can make large differences in height, weight, social development, et cetera. Placing an entire age range of children centered around 4 years, 5 years, or 6 years of age into a school situation for the first time can further influence skill development and personality development. Children who reach a certain point in weather or social activity at a certain point in development react according to their developmental stage, and further growth and development is based on that experience. So sun signs would be descriptive, not conscriptive. Also, it'd be interesting to see about sun signs on the Northern hemishepere's zodiac wheel applying to people in temperate zones in the Southern hemisphere. My bet is the personality type groups would be rotated up to six months askew.

Someone better trained in developmental psychology may see further reasoning behind this hypothesis or realize right away that it is utterly and totally flawed and why. If anyone knows their stuff, please feel free to let me know how and where I'm wrong and if I'm just totally off the mark altogether.



Christopher E. Stith

In reply to Re^2: Astrology? (was: departing programming, what is the next best step?) by mr_mischief
in thread departing programming, what is the next best step? by thaigrrl

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.