New Shared links now take you directly to the source!

Learn more

All links shared by fellow members now take you directly to the source. Click on a video, something to do or a yellow comments icon and you’ll stay on GOOD.is. Living well and doing good just got faster!

Questions? help@goodinc.com

Close message

Close message

Jaya Bop

Sugar plum fairy came and hit the streets Lookin for soul food and a

I am good at giving a damn.

Location
Trondheim, Norway

Activity

  • Jaya Bop replied to a comment by guneet narula

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    guneet narulaover 1 year ago

    I did read your comments below. Your point that the author should be more sensitive towards such a topic are quite valid.

    On that note, I'd like to say, that the author has actually been successful with his intentions. Which, I believe, were to get people talking about this.

    In this age of information, to get readers, listeners, viewers discussing and debating things is very crucial and challenging. I think that is the point of art anyways. Throughout history, painters, singers, writers, designers and all the creative artists, have worked solely to bring out the real picture of society for all of us. So that we can discuss it, work on it, learn from it and progress.

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    Yes, well said. I do think, however that it is quite easy (too easy) to stimulate debate by using 'jab tactics' - the title alone should be enough indication of the author's positioning. North American culture does not lack opinion or have a weakness in the ability to express them. The weakness rests in the capacity to share ideas and information in a non-competitive (ego-less), non-offensive way. It is westerncentric to think that there could be a unified 'real picture' of society. I would praise this type of article in a different setting (a classroom debate perhaps?). It will be up to the GOOD editors to clarify the main objectives of GOOD.is and define what strategies support or constrain meeting these objectives (this is not just another community paper). Take care

    Join the discussion

  • Jaya Bop replied to a comment by guneet narula

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    guneet narulaover 1 year ago

    And now that it has been published, mistake or no mistake, it has brought us to a seemingly difficult point. This article encroaches upon notions and beliefs that many of us have become rather comfortable with over time.

    Well I am not sure what or why so many people are defending in these comment threads. From what I have read here, either the popular use of astrology has been wrong all along, or people do not want to change along with time.

    There's a larger issue at hand though.

    I see many of us being very critical and distrusting of science and the scientific method. The word science in itself is becoming heavy, culturally. It's becoming inconvenient for us. I am going to address this in a separate thread here.

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    Hi there, quite agreed. I am not defending or attacking the topic of this article, one way or the other - instead responding to the intentions for writing it and appropriateness of this debate via GOOD (read my initial comment below for my perspective). Good idea to have a separate discussion thread!

    Join the discussion

  • Jaya Bop thinks this is good

    So, Now Is Probably a Good Time to Talk About Climate Change via magazine.good.is

    2

    Tags

  • Jaya Bop thinks this is good

    Intermission: Guy Turns Pumpkin Into a Tetris Game, Plays It via magazine.good.is

    3

    Tags

  • Jaya Bop thinks this is good

    This Land/Your Land: An Artistic Look at Polarizing Politics via magazine.good.is

    Thoughts?

    Tags

  • Jaya Bop replied to a comment by Wylie Overstreet

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    Wylie Overstreetover 1 year ago

    "Say what you will and explain it how you like": I'm relaying fact, not offering opinion or personal ideas.

    "They are right at least 80% of the time." This figure is based on your rock-solid never-selective-or-faulty personal memory. Your claim reminds me of that hapless character from Anchorman, who applies the awful-smelling "Sex Panther" cologne because apparently 50% of the time... it works every time. Here's something you might find interesting, published today.
    http://tinyurl.com/czuld69

    My guess is you don't feel this column belongs on GOOD because you simply don't agree with it, and it upsets a comfortable notion you have about the world with factual evidence that's irrefutable. That's also exactly why GOOD published it, and why it doesn't belong on a personal blog.

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    p.s. be careful! You cannot claim that you article is factually correct -it even includes simple mistakes such as associating the wrong sign with calendar dates and mixing two different styles of reading astrology. You can hardly call 'irrefutable.' I don't agree or disagree with your content, but your article and post responses are quite aggressive and this does not support 'inclusion'. GOOD has made a mistake publishing this.

    Join the discussion

  • Jaya Bop replied to a comment by Wylie Overstreet

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    Wylie Overstreetover 1 year ago

    The intention of writing this was to reveal the human psychology behind Astrology in order to foster critical thinking. That was my intention. Why?

    If this article allows one person to hang up the hat of Astrology and start basing their important decisions on weighing pros and cons, costs and benefits, outcomes and possibilities rather than on heavenly bodies proven to have zero influence or predictive capacity, then the world will be a better place. Simply put, critical thinking makes the best decisions. Period. And this world needs better decisions.

    Now if that rattles your cage, I apologize. But an unpleasant truth is still a truth. Throughout history there have been people who didn't want anyone to "provoke people's sentiments" and "create debate" because they didn't think it it served "a purpose of 'good'." They used phrases like that to maintain a status quo that provided them comfort but in fact did no one any good, and in some cases, did some people a lot of bad. A quick jaunt through the social movements of the 20th century will provide many examples.

    So to answer your question, the article was written to educate with truths so people can live their lives better. To paraphrase the familiar PSA, "The More You Know" [Starrrrrrr]

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    Hi there,
    Thanks for responding. I understand the 'foster critical thinking' argument and agree that society would benefit from further using critical thinking. Sadly, GOOD is not the appropriate vehicle for your article. Nor is it the proper forum to 'convert' people. Until now I have only read GOOD articles that are suggestive or informative. I like how contributors offer perspectives of lifeworlds but do not force their hypotheses on others. You claim this to be an educational piece - it was written in a style that would obviously spark a polarised debate and I struggle to comprehend how intentionally provoking to get a rise out of people is a 'good' tactic.

    I can understand how you could feel defensive after this feedback, I'm hoping that you will find some time to reflect at a later date... can you see that you have written with a tone of authority on the topic and superiority? I work in academia/ research and analyse text and meaning each day. One founding guideline in this field (since the days of Aristotle) is that there is no one universal truth, multiple realities exist and are constantly changing. Science is forever revealing itself in new ways. If you want to influence outlooks and beliefs you need to offer humble perspectives, not assert the 'knowing truth.' I agree with you that critical thinking makes for the best decisions, but not when this process is devoid of empathy and integrity.

    Regarding your crusade to enlighten the masses and change ideology - why target astrology? I'm not a believer myself, but there are so many other wars of ideology in the world that require immediate attention. Take for instance the severe gender-based oppression linked with religious beliefs or hierarchical cast systems. You might be coming from a place of privilege in your perspective. I believe that some people could benefit from astrology (whether it is real or not) --Humans need imaginative outlets and if this offers tips on how to better deal with one another in a peaceful way, bonus!

    Please know that I am not wishing a personal attack on you. It is a funny piece, just misplaced. Despite being super busy I'm taking a moment out and hoping to raise awareness, the circumstances around your article threatens the essence of GOOD. I am disappointed. I wanted to believe that GOOD as a movement, with its writers and readers were above this kind of jabbing.

    Join the discussion

  • Jaya Bop thinks this is good

    Who and What the F***Are We Voting For!? — A Party via magazine.good.is

    7

    Tags

  • Jaya Bop thinks this is good

    The Other Hurricane Sandy: The Storm's Impact in Haiti via theatlantic.com

    Thoughts?

    Tags

  • Jaya Bop is now following…

  • Jaya Bop replied to a comment by Glenn C. Koenig

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    Glenn C. Koenigover 1 year ago

    I was very sad to see this original post from GOOD. I don't consider this within the scope of why I subscribe to GOOD. I'm sorry, but atheism and western 'sciencism' are just other religions as far as I am concerned.

    What we call 'science' is always subjective, simply because it is we human beings who have created it and practice it. Our "point of view" is always involved in whatever we presume to be studying. There is no such thing as objectivity, no such thing as objective truth because we are inherently unable to fully understand the workings of our own minds.

    Sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise. The idea that something called the Forer Effect can be given as a reason that any astrological science is inferior to any other science is nonsense. It presumes that there are no mysteries, no questions to pursue, that all is "known" by western science methods.

    Yet, on a regular basis, western science issues press releases that amount to saying "oops, what we thought was right yesterday turns out to be wrong on account of what we now know today." What rubbish! What about tomorrow? Have you people no memory? Such human hubris! THINK! As ignorant the science of 50 years ago appears to us now, so will today's science seem just as ignorant 50 years from now.

    So, please get off your high horse and step back and give the wonder of the universe with its unanswered questions, a chance to infuse your soul, to give you a proper sense of both our smallness, our insignificance, and yet also our great importance for being a part of it. Call it a paradox, if you will, but this is the natural order of things.

    I occasionally read the daily horoscopes in the newspaper for entertainment purposes only. Anyone who either trusts them implicitly, mistakes them for quality astrological analysis and debate, or on the other hand, anyone who uses them to attempt to debunk astrology implicitly is a fool. I expect much better from GOOD. Please get back to the quality I signed up for! Thank you.

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    Indeed! I completely agree. I am also disappointed.

    Join the discussion

  • Jaya Bop commented on a link

    The Enduring Fallacy of Astrology and Why Your Sign Actually Isn't Your Sign via magazine.good.is

    94

    Tags

    Jaya Bopover 1 year ago

    I do not defend or attack this topic - putting the content and opinions expressed in this article aside, I believe the piece has been inappropriately printed under the banner of GOOD.is and would have been better suited for a daily. I ask the writer Wylie Overstreet: what was your intention for writing this piece and distributing it here?

    This is the first Good.is post that I have read, which clearly prods/ attacks/ attempts to belittle and provoke its audience (and then assert intelligence through scientific justification). Truly sad!

    The overarching ideology behind the 'daily good' is to provide inspiring and motivating examples from modern society and contribute towards community-building. Is that what you are attempting here Wylie? You have unnecessarily provoked people's sentiments and created a debate that serves no purpose of 'good' in the end. I challenge you to reflect upon your underlying motivations and scrutinize your true intentions. You have called this 'healthy skepticism'...what are you trying to help?

    Join the discussion