I was an astrologer - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/nov/06/i-was-an-astrologer-how-it-works-psychics <comment><USER2> After all the help she gave all those people, she quit because someone called her a fraud and refused her help?

I think this woman needs to stop and revisit what she was doing. She wasn't a fraud. She was exactly what those people were paying for. For many, it was someone to talk to. For some, it was someone who could look past their biases and clear their minds. For some, it was a magic trick.

Her mistake wasn't the advice, but in not giving it in the accepted way: As mysticism. Tell him to go to the doctor, but have an in-character way of doing it instead of using logic. If they were willing to listen to logic, they wouldn't be there.

I'm sure it's stressful to "lie" to people all the time in this way, but all jobs are stressful in their own ways. And I see nothing in this article to indicate the author has any other options open to them at the moment.

Edited: Replaced "he" with "she". I was mislead by the image at the top and actually had to search for the author's name.

<comment><USER3> Interestingly, Penn and Teller (although I've never heard Teller talk about it [har har] they seem to be in agreement) look at and talk about this sort of moral quandary a lot in the context of the tradition of magicians. For them, it's not enough to think think that "of course the audience knows" but to be honest from the get go.

Darren Brown did a stage show called "Miracle" (which was fantastic, but a different discussion) where he talks about his experience with faith healers and the like and says at the beginning that, which he doesn't like people getting suckered or lying, the experience is one that people should have, and goes on to spend the rest of the show "in character" as a faith healer.

The movie Leap of Faith also explores this moral dilemma.

I've never been upset at people doing whatever it takes to survive, but I don't think that it excuses you from the ethics of what you do. I definitely wouldn't consider what he did 100% ethical and it's OK to question what you do.

Do address something else:

> I think this guy needs to stop and revisit what he was doing. He wasn't a > fraud. He was exactly what those people were paying for.

The cursed man didn't come in to see a magic trick or to be lied to, he came to have his curse lifted. There are many many people, whether ignorant or ill, who do not see this as some sort of entertainment or escapism, but actually how the world works. This is where the morally questionable part comes in. It's like casinos or the lottery: plenty of people go in expecting to "throw their money away" on entertainment, but nothing is done to tell people that it's not wise to expect anything to actually happen, and over-correlation can lead to addiction (and yes, addiction to psychics can and does happen)

It's far more grey than you think.

<comment><USER4> I don't like Derren Brown.

I feel he is happy with people leaving his shows believing in psuedo- scientific nonsense, it's just a different brand of nonsense.

I'd be interested in a poll of people leaving his shows being asked if they thought it was a) mostly traditional magic / sleight of hand or b) Psychology, influence, whatever nonsense Brown calls his stuff nowadays.

I might be wrong, but I think most would go with with b)

<comment><USER5> To me NLP always felt more like mysticism than science.

<comment><USER3> It's absolutely considered pseudoscience by most people, including Derren Brown himself [0].

[0]: [http://derrenbrown.co.uk/claim-claim-2/](http://derrenbrown.co.uk/claim- claim-2/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is an discussion I've had plenty of times with my wife (who is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist). It's hard to articulate in words, but I will try.

What gets me about astrologists and psychics, is they are preying on peoples innocent stupidity. At best they are reading their clients semi-accurately, at worst they are swindling them.

But in both cases they are not actually helping the client understand what is making them feel this way, and helping down on a path that leads to a healthier self-awareness.

We have a friend who doesn't not believe in psychology, but believes in psychics. She refuses to go back to a psychologist because the psychologist wanted her to actually think on and feel her past traumas, to discover why she has some self destructive tendencies. The psychic she eventually went with and still uses today (costing just as much as the psychologist -- more if you have mental health coverage on your insurance) just told her she sees why she is doing certain things, and to call her if she felt these tendencies coming back (charging her of course).

My wife thinks that so long as it is helping, it isn't necessarily bad. She feels that people shouldn't see psychics or read too much into the movement of planets and stars, but that whats the harm if it makes you feel better.

I feel that the amount of good they could do is way less than the harm they could do. And that the dangers of allowing another person to give you untrained/regulated advise is a terrible path to go down instead of understanding yourself.

<comment><USER7> > _My wife thinks that so long as it is helping, it isn 't necessarily bad._

I'd say that's absolutely the scientific, empirical approach!

Sounds like these psychics serve as a low key religion for these people. As a pretty hardline atheists, I have over the years had to admit that religion really works at giving many people hope and sanity.

We may even, as humans, be hardwired to require religion in our lives. I sometimes miss that I can't have that in my life, because I can see reality as it is...

<comment><USER8> The placebo effect is amazing. It even works if you know it's a placebo! That's why I still take a ton of vitamin C when I feel a cold coming on and it seems to prevent it most of the time. While I haven't tried it, I'm sure something like prayer could have beneficial effects in Atheists as well for that reason.

<comment><USER9> Not sure what to make of this statement. Believe what you want (good for you if it seems to work), but it sounds a bit like you're overstating the impact of the placebo effect.

a) It works best, when doctors take their time to prescribe it, even if you know it's a placebo. There are studies about two groups where one receives a placebo and the other a placebo and a 10 minute talk. The latter had better outcomes.

b) The placebo effect works best, if used with symptoms of pain. This is the most-studied use-case for placebos. With a virus infection like a cold, not so much. See c)

c) Supplements like vitamin C generally speaking don't seem to really help when a cold is coming. As long as you have a healthy diet, supplements aren't required and don't really have a positive effect on your health. Maybe some stuff makes you feel slightly better, but it doesn't make the infection go away.

d) Not every cold breaks out. Sleeping helps a lot.

<comment><USER10> @tstrimple, that's not what that study says at all. Vitamin C supplementation _doesn't_ help. From the "Main Results" section of [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440782](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440782):

 _No consistent effect of vitamin C was seen on the duration or severity of colds in the therapeutic trials._

<comment><USER8> Followed by: _Nevertheless, given the consistent effect of vitamin C on the duration and severity of colds in the regular supplementation studies, and the low cost and safety, it may be worthwhile for common cold patients to test on an individual basis whether therapeutic vitamin C is beneficial for them._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One shouldn't forget that some practices that appear pseudo-scientific from today's point of view made sense historically:

"It made perfect sense for ancient man to believe in astrology. The influence of sun and moon on earthly affairs is obvious. Likewise the stars can be seen as influential by their association with the seasons. Heavenly bodies are the prototype of self-motion, which is a property also possessed by beings with a soul as opposed to inanimate objects. This leads to the idea of the soul being a "piece of the heavens" and thereby to personal horoscope astrology. The heavenly bodies are associated with personality traits in a manner that have a straightforward justification in terms of objective astronomical properties of these bodies."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCFvtiAig7I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCFvtiAig7I)

<comment><USER12> I disagree. You're not an ocean, so looking at the tides and assuming that the moon has a similar influence on you is an unjustified jump of logic. Then, when you start inventing _specific effects_ for the moon to have, you're clearly in the realm of fiction because you know full well you didn't get the ideas you're writing down from observation.

I have heard before the argument that "being rational wasn't invented until the 1930s, so you can't call anyone before then irrational," but everybody knows intuitively that the truth is something they see or something they infer from what they see, and a lie is something they make up in their own heads.

<comment><USER13> They knew for a fact, without any shadow of a doubt that certain activities on earth are synchronised with activity in the heavens. This does include human, animals and plants. Human women have periods roughly synchronised with the movements of the moon, animals and plants have reproductive cycles synchronised with the seasons and movements of the sun and stars. These are facts. Priests and philosophers used astronomical knowledge to predict changes in the seasons, weather, the flooding of the Nile, to navigate at sea, so they had an extensive skills set in this area.

Given that there are known synchronisations, it therefore follows there are likely to be unknown synchronisations, so the logical step is to start looking for them. Unfortunately we know that if you start looking for patterns in phenomena that aren't correlated, human beings have a proclivity to find them anyway. People back then did not know this, and did not have the conceptual tools to critically analyse evidence to the extent that we do.

<comment><USER12> One example of such an inference is, "heart = courage, courage = lion, lion = yellow, yellow = sun, sun = sunflower, therefore heart medicine = sunflower seeds." However, even by the standards of the day, that last link could just as well have been "heart-stopping poison = sunflower seeds." Alchemical tomes were not all consistent with each other, they disagreed which is what you would expect if there was a large fictional component to their makeup. People of all cultures knew better than to make up fiction and tell it to people as if it were true, however in those times it was not as easy to stop that from happening as it is today. (And it is not easy even today!)

<comment><USER14> All it takes is _plausibility_ to make the leap palatable to a large number of people. In the modern day, an equivalent would be economics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation

I think this is a key point that rational people and skeptics don't get. Pseudosciences and pseudotherapies don't work because they produce accurate results, they work because of the tremendous effort that believers put in them to make them work.

IMHO, skeptics could help believers much more if they instilled in them some common sense and safeguards to avoid the worst crooks and dangerous therapies ("buy as many Bach flowers as you wish, it's your money - just don't abandon your chemotherapy") rather than try to appeal to their rational sense ("don't you realize how ridiculous it is? It could never work!"). At least in personal interactions, it is more likely that the former will gradually succeed in educating them than the latter.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention that since the placebo effect is so real, it can be unethical to explain that to someone. When my mother was going through chemo and radiation and started buying healing crystals as well, I supported her beliefs in that (she was also doing all the doc recommended stuff).

<comment><USER15> It has occurred to me that pseudo-scientific beliefs "work" for believers, just not in the way that scientists think of a system that works ("I can make repeatable predictions") but in a social and emotional way ("it makes me feel good"). That's a reason why it's so hard to get people away from them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Former fortune teller here. I used to sit on the sidewalk and read the I Ching to anyone who asked me to, pay-what-you-want. No one ever called me a fraud, but I still quit. A couple folks were just trying to have fun tossing pennies at a smelly book, but the vast supermajority of them were feeling highly anxious because they needed reassurance that their future plans would work out. What if my kids come to America to live with me? What if I divorce my husband? What if I quit my job? I feel sad and guilty about answering those questions by tossing coins around because I think I could have helped them more if we had cut the magic and just talked honestly about what was going on with them.

<comment><USER17> But they almost surely wouldn't have liked you to do that (to cut the magic and talk honestly). That's why people go to clairvoyants. We're all embarrassingly expert at self-delusion.

<comment><USER18> It's easier to believe something as the truth when you think you're hearing it from 'the universe' rather than a random stranger.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > I heard these stories so often I could often guess what the problem was the > moment someone walked in.

> "You sounded happier when you said 'photography'," I said. My psychic > teacher was right – the signals we pick up before conscious awareness kicks > in can be accurate and valuable.

These are valuable skills.

<comment><USER20> > A student there mentioned she wasn't sure what to specialize in – > photography, graphic design or maybe industrial design?

It was also the first element in the list. Humans tend to sort by preference, often subconsciously.

<comment><USER21> That's how they make you believe, by using basic human patterns/behaviours, they don't read stars/cards/palms, they read you and make you believe they know more about you than yourself, which can be helpful in some ways if you never self reflect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's called "cold reading"[0] and the "Barnum effect."[1]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect)

</comment><comment><USER23> Being an Indian citizen and especially from the southern state of Kerala, it's tough to not believe in astrology. It's considered a science in ancient times and a significant energy was spent on perfecting the art/science. For e.g. refer to Kerala school of mathematics, which had done some pretty significant work before Calculus was discovered in Europe and that period most of the mathematicians were also astronomers as well as astrologers. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School_of_Astronomy_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School_of_Astronomy_and_Mathematics).

My own uncle is an Astrologer and sometimes he makes pretty accurate predictions. He is a retired professor and he does it for a hobby and not for monetary reasons. I don't have a scientific explanation for how it works, but would love to apply some statistics/ML learning with reliable public data available on well known persons whose time and date of birth is published and find a scientific correlation, if at all it exists.

<comment><USER24> Well, speaking strictly logically: If they were both astronomers and astrologers, and their astronomy was sound, it does not mean that their astrology was, too. Many great scientists of the past were religious, and yet that is no proof of god.

It's just hard for me to see how astrology could work. Either the movement of the stars affects the fate of individual humans everywhere, in a weird semantic connection ("Mars, the bringer of war" and so on), or people seek out astrologers to confirm whatever they need confirmed (Confirmation bias). This just seems massively more likely and doesn't clash with anything in the scientific framework. Astrology simply plays into all the biases everyone is affected by, so I don't mean to belittle anyone who believes or practices it, but it can't be called a science in any sense of the word.

<comment><USER25> Speaking logically you also can't discredit any logic behind it as well, just like one wouldn't be able to discredit a religion. To know that human behavior is not affected by the stars requires an understanding of the human mind not yet attained

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I dressed up as a fortune-teller at a Halloween party in a house I shared with a few people. It was a fairly big party, 40-50 people. As a joke, I set up a little booth under a sheet and started telling fortunes.

People went wild for it. Many of them knew it was me (slightly drunk) and they still sort of believed me. People waited in line for 15-20 minutes. I told people mostly jokey things that were positive. I started getting adventurous and told people random things - if they didn't like what I said they were genuinely sad. What surprised me the most was that people would take anything seriously from a tipsy fortune-teller beneath a sheet.

<comment><USER27> It seems like Terry Pratchett was on to something with "headology"

<comment><AUTHOR> Pratchett was on to something with the entire Discworld and other stuff besides.

Every time I hear of a new, promising cure for Alzheimer's I go a little happy and a little sad, because I think that, if he had held a bit longer, maybe...

But then, none of those cures ever work out in the end so I'm just left with the sad. Sad that I never got the chance to see him up close and shake him by the hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That's a great article.

I read astrology charts for a hobby, though I am skilled enough to do it professionally. I rarely read in person, and tend to read it from just the chart, via the internet (so very little telegraphing from voice tone and body language). One of the things that turn me off to reading for people in general are some of those things that the author brought up:

\- People have a limited range of issues: relationships, career advice. They need counseling, not an astrology reading.

\- The kind of readings I do or would like to do have little to do with what the person wants

\- There are actually multiple ways to read charts. For example, two popular house systems, Placidus, and Whole Sign House can give different apparent results. Some people get really mad when charts are read with a different house systems.

\- There was at least once when I used the wrong chart for someone's reading, and they seemed to relate to that reading.

Having said that, there are enough unusual things that came out of the experience. I don't think it is completely worthless.

I don't use the method the person described -- sympathetic magic, or word association. Nor do I base my astrology on the popular notion, that astrology is a science. It most certainly is not a science. I don't see it as a celestial clockwork that mechanistically produces results that are predictable (I have pissed off astrology enthusiasts who think that way).

Instead, my view of astrology is a map for Consciousness (the idea that mind did not emerge from the mind, but rather, matter solidified from mind), and it is something I think many (but not not all) psychonauts can relate to. For those who are exploring things that way, it can be valuable map.

</comment><comment><USER29> Co-creation isn't a bug. It's a feature.

Astrology has stuck around for 2,500 years is because it is a robust language developed over millennia to capture the complexity of being human. Your ego, your communication style, your love language, your instinct for action – each have their own, often contradictory, flavor.

You can use this language to walk into a room and say, 'I'm going through my Saturn return. I'm reckoning with restrictions and limits and boundaries right now." It's humanizing, and tender. You can start a conversation, "Why did we get into that insane fight and why did you shut down? Is it because you're a Capricorn Mars?"

People don't use astrology to predict the future. People use it to explain and create the present.

BTW ---> We're probably who she's subtweeting. And we're hiring. [https://www.costarastrology.com/jobs](https://www.costarastrology.com/jobs)

<comment><USER30> > _You can use this language to walk into a room and say, 'I'm going through > my Saturn return. I'm reckoning with restrictions and limits and boundaries > right now."_

I wouldn't recommend doing that as anyone who is logic and science based will immediately cease to take you seriously. We have so much more information on how the universe works now than we did 2,500 years ago and there's nothing to suggest that astrology is anything other completely false.

People used to believe that leeches could bleed out toxins, thankfully we've evolved our knowledge models since then. Let's not go back.

<comment><USER31> > anyone who is logic and science based will immediately cease ...

Why be so rigid ? I am a scientist. I would be happy to listen to someone talk about their "saturn return", etc. etc. if that helps them convey meaning.

<comment><USER32> True, but this is more of a socializing thing, isn't it? If someone I care at least a bit about says something dumb, I listen to them to figure out if they have a real concern they're not expressing correctly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Astrology is a means of emotional regulation and the reestablishment of a sense of control over an otherwise chaotic world. All worldviews, whether they celebrate themselves for their rigor or not, serves this function in addition to whatever other outputs they do or do not produce. In my personal experience women are more often the ones utilizing astrology, which means not that they are being duped as many of the comments here patronizingly say, but rather that astrology is solving a particular problem that women have adapted it to solve.

That there are scams that make use of the symbols of astrology hardly separates it from the company of any other worldview.

</comment><comment><USER34> > My friend's imagination had done all the work.

Sounds a lot like how professional economics or entrepreneurship works

<comment><USER35> An activity based on intuition or heuristics is going to get fuzzy on the edges. The saving grace of entrepreneurship is that truly good ideas will succeed in a market and the ones based on faulty logic will not. There isn't a similar market function for peoples' internal psychology.

<comment><USER36> If by "truly good" you mean makes money, that's a tautology. If by "truly good" you mean materially improves lives entrepreneurship hasn't panned out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The town where I went to primary school in somewhat rural South Africa had, for quite a few years, a stand/shack smack in the middle of the town and on the side of the main road (if it can be called that). The shack had a big sign: "ANASTROLOGER HEALER". [1]

I am not sure whether the anastrologer healer misjudged the space on the sign or what, but kudos to them for remembering the a/an rule for English.

[1] It could also have been "ANASTROGIST HEALER" but I forget now.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have heard of a bias where people will try to justify paying a lot of money for something by thinking that it's better. The $50 price tag probably made the spooky predictions appear to work better.

<comment><USER38> The price tag probably also helps to discourage repeating too soon. Few things puncture the illusion of meaningfulness around a tarot reading, I Ching divination, etc. like rerolling until you get the answer you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> For a more contemporary – and informed – view of Astrology, please read "The Passion of the Western Mind" and "Cosmos and Psyche" (important: you must read in that order), by Richard Tarnas.

</comment><comment><USER40> >The range of problems faced by people who can afford $50 for fortune telling turned out to be limited: troubles with romance, troubles at work, trouble mustering the courage for a much-needed change.

I'm not ready to say fortune telling is good, but I'm not ready to say it's bad if it's helping people make changes they need to make.

Source: me, who's working on making some big changes in my life. (No fortune tellers involved.)

</comment><comment><USER41> This is just a story for entertainment purposes. It's all true though.

I seriously practiced astrology between the ages of 12 to 16. Specifically from this book [1].

How did I start believing in it?

My dad believed in it and went to an Indian astrologer and the guy gave me a reading and got my character spot on. Because of that, I became really enthusiastic. However, since I knew that my family let me down before when it came to matters of knowledge, I decided to do my best to quickly debunk it as fast as possible.

I got into palmistry and numerology. It took me 4 years to debunk.

The reason it took 4 years: well with palmistry, it's tough to know where to start. Furthermore, life events play out on a life scale, so the instant feedback is zero. At the time, I eventually ruled it out by association, a very weak argument indeed. Nowadays, I rule it out by logic, but I still can't empirically rule it out (not that I care).

Numerology was actually doable and that took me 4 years. It took so long because there's an insidiuous effect going on. With most numbers (check the source [1]), the descriptions are relatively positive and when you're capable of always giving quite a positive reading, then people tend to agree with you! In fact, a psychologist tested this on a 100 college students. He wrote the same positive personality description for all of them and got 4 out of 5 stars! While I couldn't find the source of that, I could find the source on something very similar [2].

Eventually I noticed that numerology had an accuracy of 50%, I reasoned that's basically a coin flip's worth of chance (remember, I was 16, I didn't understand what base rate meant) and if numerology would be true, I'd expect a 95% accuracy. Also, in hindsight there were some very strong indicators of it being bullshit. I used the system to pick my friends this way for a while and that didn't go too well (not too bad either).

I've wasted a lot of time on it and I'm sad that this is the stuff I spent my time on, and that this is the stuff my dad found important. When I'll be a dad, I'll teach my kids about math, music and the world. I'll teach them about numerology and palmistry as a cautionary tail and how to distinguish true knowledge (math) from nonsense such as astrology (in a scientific sense, I agree that it's useful for simply talking, etc.).

The irony is, whenever I give readings to people (once per year on average), they tend to become almost immediate converts despite me saying it's bullshit. That's something to think about. Even more ironic is that ever since that period in my life, I behave as my birth date would stipulate. Since whatever you believe in -- between the ages of 12 and 16 -- stays forever with you.

(Obviously, there's a good explanation for that and it doesn't involve planets. It definitely involves the effects of a self-fulfilling prophecy)

[1] [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70770](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70770)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect)

<comment><USER42> I'll teach them about the true, true nature of truth, about logic and evidence, and about facts and information. I'll also teach them that they should be skeptical, and that they need to learn to differentiate truth from falsehood. I don't know exactly what I'll teach my kids. I'll probably teach them to trust, and to not believe everything they are told or do. I'm just not sure which lessons I will teach.

What I do know

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> What happened to the man who yelled fraud? Don't leave us hanging! :-)

<comment><USER44> Passed away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I feel 100% sure that the movement/patterns of the planets, the sun, moon and other celestial objects have a significant effect on who we are and how we feel. BUT, I am also pretty sure that most people claiming to understand what is going on are lying.

"Astrology" is real, "astrologists" are charlatans.

<comment><USER46> "Third variable problem"

That is, the movement of the stars is predictable...as are a number of other things in life. That's not to say the stars are in control. This is classic correlation != causation.

For instance, we know that the amount of natural light a person has has a pronounced effect on how they feel. So it's fair to say that when (insert astrological statement here, somethingorother is ascendant, referencing winter, when there is less daylight), you will be prone to being more depressed.

This, obviously, has an effect, but to just shrug and say "it's the heavens!" is both unscientific, and unhelpful (since you can treat it by getting increased light of a given wavelength. You can't treat "state of the universe")

<comment><USER45> I think your point about 'Third variable problem' is a steelman interpretation of my statements, and a better path to explore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Freud would say that people enjoy having their problems. A dysfunctional replacement for therapy or a reasonable world-view would let you have the twin enjoyments of pouring endless effort into a perceived solution (astrological charts, tarot readings) while doing effectively nothing to resolve the actual cause.

</comment><comment><USER47> If we had to remove all bullshit businesses in the world - not just astrologers - 99% of stuff we buy and sell could be removed of as well. Astrology already has a bad rap, but how many beliefs and legit businesses out there are just scamming people too? I would say many...

<comment><USER48> Myers Briggs, Enneagram, Strength Finders, it goes on and on. It's big money and most of it isn't any better than astrology, tarot cards, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > modern astrologers still use Earth-centred charts, as if Copernicus had > never existed.

That's because it's not about causation but about correlation. Obviously the stars can not influence our individual lives, nevertheless I can not be equally sure there is no rhythm driving our personal histories and it can't correlate with that present in the geocentric model. Perhaps, if that's the case, a more relevant model could (or could not) be derived given modern understanding of astronomy but nobody bothers to invent it as long as the traditional model produces predictions sufficient to satisfy the overwhelming majority of the target audience.

</comment><comment><USER49> Not taking it too seriously, I still feel like atrology still is a fun thing to learn. Can anybody suggest a good reading which won't take too much time but would still give all the essential knowledge and understanding an astrologer is supposed to have? I mean the model, the formulae to calculate the deterministic part, basic clues on interpreting it etc.

Isn't it fun to study magical arts which have deterministic models as important parts of them?

I'm also curious about how does the rectification thing work. Astrologers say they can figure out your exact birth time given information about some events in your life.

<comment><USER50> This is a good one:

[https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Stargazers-Notebook-Debbi- Kem...](https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Stargazers-Notebook-Debbi- Kempton/dp/1892881268)

Astrodeinst / Astro.com has for a long time been a good resource for doing people's natal charts.

[https://www.astro.com/](https://www.astro.com/)

<comment><USER50> You might also find this to be of some use:

[https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm](https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> > "Astrology is one big word association game."

This is essentially the point Sontag makes in her essay Under the Sign of Saturn, while adding that word games can be fun, and tell even you a lot about someone.

</comment><comment><USER52> >because if you sprinkle magic on top, you can sell people anything.

WeWork?

<comment><USER53> What we need is for someone to apply deep neural networks to astrology. Sure, star-signs never worked in the past, but do you realize how powerful GPUs are these days? Now please give me a $500mil seed round

<comment><USER49> Some stock market traders actually use astrology and attract investors. Some even manage to make money this way. Perhaps you'd like to read about W. D. Gann.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I've "read" tarot cards for most of my life and have 0 belief in the supernatural. But, the cards are prompts for discussions with people, who need to believe in "magic" to look inside themselves and talk it out with someone. I don't do it for money anymore, but, I think sitting down with someone who has empathy for you, tarot reader with cards or priest with a book, can have some therapeutic value

</comment><comment><USER49> By the way, I'd like to introduce another astrology-like thing to those who haven't heard of it so I could find out what smart guys here might say about it: it's "human design".

It takes your exact birth date+time (+place unless you can specify the timestamp in UTC) as its only input an produces a very detailed an precise review of your personality (well, what it actually produces is a bizarre looking chart with lots of digits and weird words but it's very deterministic and straightforward to interpret given the knowledge on what do these digits mean which can be obtained from a book or a paid course, no "sympathetic magic" or anything like that has to be used).

I have done some research to find out the meaning of the details depicted on the chart and found out the personality profiling it provides mind-bogglingly precise. It fits me exactly, while it doesn't fit me at all if I change the date. I have also tested it against some other people I know well.

It's orders of magnitude more precise than Meyers-Briggs or anything like that. It absolutely does not feel like cold reading or random stuff which would more-or-less fit everyone.

How can this possibly work?

The official explanation says it has something to do with neutrinos and CMBR but this obviously sounds bullshit. Nevertheless it's impossible for me to deny it works.

This seems so curious I would even conduct a study involving a reasonable number of subjects to verify the predictions against if I had enough spare time an money.

</comment><comment><USER55> When I was a teenager (boy), girls were into astrology and one way to be around them was to indulge them on this. But I told them I had investigated the existing sign and didn't really identify with any of them; and that I was looking into maybe creating my own sign once I got to a chart of the constellations etc. (This was pre-internet.)

<comment><USER53> Possible plot twist: the girls were into astrology because it gave boys an easy way to approach and initiate conversation with them ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I used to do Tarot card demonstrations for friends, explaining exactly what the psychology was, that it was just arbitrary noise and they were projecting on to random open ended ink blot like designs and assigning meaning to it.

Didn't work. All my friends believe now I am psychic. Because how could I know these things that I showed them?

</comment><comment><USER57> It's my duty to post all relevant and recent NYer articles, so here you go:

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/28/astrology- in-t...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/28/astrology-in-the-age- of-uncertainty)

</comment><comment><USER58> Uh, that's not how any of that works. Rather, that's how it worked for the article writer.

</comment><comment><USER59> I do not disagree with astrology but its application. In fact, stuff like cellular automata got me curious about astrology (obviously I did not find any relation).

My point of view: astrology is a way of "evaluating the environment/universe and its effect on us" and determining a probabilistic outcome, not a perfect outcome. It is more like an ancient equation passed on to astrologers, that gives us the probability of success for a person trying to cross a river with a strong current. The intuition about these equations is either long lost and not yet discovered in science.

I have been told by some astrologers (quite a few) that I could not do certain things. But I stood determined, and did those successfully. If I had not tried, I had already failed. But both of us were right. I could not do those things in a traditional manner, I had to achieve those differently. Retrospectively, after learning a bit of astrology myself, I can see why they said so.

</comment><comment><USER60> > The clairvoyant had said none of the things my friend claimed. Not a single > one. My friend's imagination had done all the work.

This reminds me of people recounting things that they believe happened at a party in high school 30 years ago, to members of Congress.

</comment><comment><USER61> There is an approach of modern astrology that is not predictive and mystical, and that appeals to many because it is non-judgemental and makes no scientific claim for itself. It's not a scam or a swindle, it's only claim is being a guide or tool for creativity.

It works in the same way the I Ching does, simply by presenting connections and ideas to people and allowing them to draw conclusions, resolve issues and work on their healing.

Without the I Ching we would not have the best of Philip K Dick, so dismissing all forms of astrology disempowers those for whom it is genuinely useful and inspirational.

This is an unfashionable and unscientific view, but that does not decrease the value for humans who - it turns out - are never 100% rational beings, and that's a wonderful thing.

<comment><USER62> And without amphetamines and his suicide attempt we wouldn't have A Scanner Darkly.

That doesn't make either of those things good.

So I really wouldn't template my life off of things Philip K Dick did.

<comment><USER61> My point is he used an artform to inspire his art, and we all should be afforded that privilege.

Yes I believe art is a good thing, whether it turns you into a murderer or a saint is a different topic.

<comment><USER62> My point is that Philip K Dick was Philip K Dick. The I Ching didn't make him a brilliant artist. Neither did amphetamines. Neither did attempting suicide. He did all of those things _and_ was a brilliant artist.

Yes, he used aspects of his life to influence his art, but everyone does. Whether they realize it or not.

So even had Philip K Dick not heard of the I Ching, he would have still produced brilliant work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> While listening to an NPR radio interview on astrology, I got increasingly impatient with the nonsense, and it just occurred to me that astrology is nothing but quasi-random assertions acted upon by confirmation bias.

Nicely confirmed by this key passage in the article: "Some repeat customers claimed I'd made very specific predictions, of a kind I never made. It dawned on me that my readings were a co-creation – I would weave a story and, later, the customer's memory would add new elements. "

This whole practice has endured for millenia, is built on the foundation of one of the most common of human mental error conditions.

Makes me wonder about the likelihood of other massive fundamental erroneous practices we haven't yet learned to question.

</comment><comment><USER64> I believe what was going on was some Spiritual Warfare.

It's interesting that she was working with the two different sides. And they were actively pulling against one another. This isn't uncommon.

God was showing her what true love and compassion looks like at the Catholic hospital.

The devil didn't like that. He wanted to deceive her into thinking she could be a psychic, and that she can control the universe with her own free will. She was also actively deceiving her clients, who were turning to her instead of God.

</comment><comment><USER65> Guilty click. Immediately ran away after the site blocked 90% of the screen with curtains

</comment><comment><USER66> I have worked for and with them. One word, charlatans.

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm surprised by the many positive/understanding comments on this thread. Personally I find this kind of behavior despicable. Giving people what they ask for doesn't make it morally justifiable. Even if helps then in the short term.

Astrologers, psychics, tarot readers and the likes are mis-educating people. Pushing the population back towards the dark ages. The real danger of this is specifically when it seems to work, in that it strengthens people's belief in "something" "beyond understanding" "magic" etc. Adults living in a fairy-tale world is dangerous. There is no moral dilemma. People who want their curse lifted should not have anyone to go to that isn't a doctor.

Personally I also add "mentalists" and the likes to the list. I find Darren Brown, Lior Suchard and the such just as despicable as Uri Geller or any other con-man. The small yet crucial difference between a "mentalist" and a magician is the back story, and more importantly the effect of the back story on the viewer's world view: A magician leaves the viewer with the (very important) realization that they too can be fooled and they are not smart enough to understand and explain everything they experience. This is a very uncomfortable feeling for most people but honest magicians leave you with it. "Mentalists" ease your pain by throwing in an pseudo scientific "explanation": NLP, body reading, etc. But with that they rob the viewer of a valuable life lesson about their own shortcomings, and replace it with a wrong understanding of how the world works.

<comment><USER68> The problem is the doctors can't lift the curse. At best, they can only treat it, and sometimes you treat it by bargaining other aspects of your life for it (the side effects medicine and treatment may give.) There are no "shortcomings" to learn a life lesson from.

Or perhaps they are. Cinderella is told there are no fairy godmothers, so pull your self up by your bootstraps and go get your prince! Until she realizes what this mean is that unless she is incredibly lucky, she will be a scully maid forever.

Be careful when you wish for this. The reality is that a secular and scientific culture cannot solve or help as much as you think, and by driving out people's illusions about their chances you might end up driving any sense of hope from them at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> > I watched nuns offer compassionate care to the dying...I became > uncomfortably aware that New Agers do not build hospitals or feed alcoholics > – they buy self-actualisation at the cash register.

> Half the time, though, I couldn't get a word in. It turned out what most > people want is the chance to unload for an hour.

> "Get to a doctor," I told him. "Now."

I grew up in an evangelical, southern-baptist church. I indeed saw many mission trips, community events, charitable efforts. But there was always a catch: it was _always_ a veiled effort to convert people. You didn't _have_ to convert of course, but that's what the whole thing was about. Every greeting, every friendly conversation, every volunteer effort. They were all just spoonfuls of sugar. None of it was without ulterior motives. It was like one of those business "seminars" that really just wants you to buy something. Every interaction with another human was steeped in this mentality. Of course, when asked, they would argue that converting people is the most compassionate thing you can possibly do. I have to disagree.

What I never got, even as a convert, was a real chance to unload to someone who would actually, truly listen. As someone with deep anxiety and depression, nobody ever told me to go to a therapist. Not once. They would always nod, and smile sympathetically, and say "have faith and leave it up to God".

Every religion - even every religious body - is different. I just felt the need to provide a counterexample to the rosy light that traditional religion was left in by the author. For me, Christianity was astrology: something that made me feel superficially better sometimes, but was really just pushing me further and further away from any actual healing or personal development.

<comment><USER70> > For me, Christianity was astrology: something that made me feel > superficially better sometimes, but was really just pushing me further and > further away from any actual healing or personal development.

> I grew up in an evangelical, southern-baptist church.

 _Well there 's your problem._ Not all denominations are created equal.

> None of it was without ulterior motives.

Yes, this is what you get when you take away the real heart of Christianity, all you have left is a useless shadow of the real thing that can't produce its proper effects in a soul.

I really have to write a book about this. There are too many people who have absolutely no idea what Christianity is, and because of that, they all keep abandoning it and refuse to even consider it. Or they hold fast to an emasculated, false version of it, and spread this counterfeit religion believing it to be the real thing, despite it not producing the fruits of it within their own lives.

But in the meantime, check out:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHr17i6CU5FgiHD3hI0k0...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHr17i6CU5FgiHD3hI0k0PnCjrxdphNSG)

and

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6znY3VjqN25fNvGKVRLU...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6znY3VjqN25fNvGKVRLU0tLZ- TC8aM_3)

<comment><USER71> Okay, I listed to it for 20 minutes (I was going to stop after 5 ;-)). That guy was a good speaker. His church has had some great philosophical thinkers and done a lot for charity and helping people.

How do you reconcile that with the terrible things that have been part of it. That church has itself had some serious problems, including being part of destroying the culture of people in the new world, oppressing women, went through periods of multiple competing leaders who demonized each other, suppressed and basically enabled continuing abuse of children by religious leaders in the current era.

I find it very difficult to reconcile these two competing facts, which seems to be pretty common in other christian denominations also (such as the endlessly depressing stories in Dan Savage's old columns on church leaders abusing their congregations).

<comment><USER72> I can try to answer that, even though I'm not actively catholic. You must evaluate an entity (person, organization, company) by what it is, not what it was. What it was can be a hint about what it is, but you must be available to reevaluate. You must be available to _forgive_, which happens to be a central tenet of Christianity.

<comment><USER73> The covering up of modern pedophile practices inside the catholic church is part of what it is not what it was. Also they have enormous amounts of money, in other words practice none of the material detachment they claim to follow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't understand how HN algorithm works. Sometimes, submissions like this link seem to magically pop from nowhere?

<comment><USER74> right now at 12p UTC there's a different set of top stories. I call these Euro top stories. Within the next 2-4 hours USA will wake up and the top stories will change.

<comment><USER75> Having moved continents last year, I think this is very apparent. European morning stores are the day/evenings of the US, and then like you say, between 2 and 4pm the active stories are more highly variable, as the US wakes up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> The most complete definition for our reality that I've seen is that everything is One. Everything in the Universe is connected, part of a whole; Everything is made of the same basic components, only vibrating, at different frequencies; As we are all made of the same basic components and everything is interconnected, we can affect the Universe , just as the Universe affects us. That for me explains and validates most of these concepts that most people think are fantasy: Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc; Once you start seeing the big picture you start to glimpse reality; Science is just starting to grasp these concepts. There will come a time when mysticism and science will be one and the same, and religion won't exist; Because we won't be needing it anymore; We'd have transcended it;

<comment><USER21> > There will come a time when mysticism and science will be one and the same

Mysticism stop being mysticism when it becomes science. Magnets were magic until we figured out how they work, &c.

> Clairvoyance, Telekinesis, Mind Reading, Telepathy etc;

I'm as open as can be but as long as there is literally nothing that back that up I won't buy it. There is no difference between a psychic and a 8 years old kid trying to throw energy balls out of his hands by concentrating very hard after watching one too many dragon balls episode.

<comment><USER77> Here's a book chock full of the results of numerous studies and meta-analyses that backs it up. [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real- magic](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35805860-real-magic)

Here's another book with the results of a few studies and first-hand accounts of the experience of how saying "so actually um there seems to be something going on here" is career poison because it's going against the currently- accepted dogma: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy- cure](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8025803-the-energy-cure)

<comment><USER78> Where can I find these studies, outside of someone's for-profit book? Preferably in a peer reviewed form.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Most trading strategies are not tested rigorously enough - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21644202-most-trading-strategies-are-not-tested-rigorously-enough-false-hope?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/falsehope <comment><USER2> "Most trading strategies are not tested rigorously enough"

After having spent many-many years in the financial sector, I don't even know whether I should laugh or cry. :) The industry is not based on science, well, 99% of it isn't. Traders can be considered being the master of the universe just because pure luck. Well-researched, tested strategies are thrown out because they're not profitable enough to the senior management. If a model seems to bring in high profits then even the very makers of the model do not want to let it into production, the management will just use it because nobody cares of tail risk. And so on.

Great industry. :)

<comment><USER3> My experience across industries is that people don't know basic statistics or the value of statistics. I even came across a manager of a data science team at a major company who did not know anything about statistical testing.

<comment><USER4> ... what

Data science is a buzzword substitution for statistics.

How you could possibly have someone in a "data science" role without a statistics education is baffling.

<comment><USER5> It's really not. Statisticians usually receive only minimal training in statistical programming, data cleaning, data gathering and warehousing and so on – yet those are all essential to data science. On top of that, when dealing with bigger data sets, many common statistical tests become irrelevant, as their main purpose is to make it possible to reason about small sample sizes.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that a data scientist shouldn't have at least a basic statistical grounding: they do. But there's roles in data science for people with varying skills in programming, ops, statistics, ML, visualization and so on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And I'd say that this situation is an advance. 20 years ago when I was a naive techie working in trading, most of the trading strategies I saw were tested by some young, high-testosterone guy wading into a pit, shouting a lot at people, and feeling vindicated if he made some money. (Or, in a pinch, feeling vindicated by whatever positive signal he received before getting creamed.)

For those interested in this, I strongly recommend Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness", which gives the reader a feel for how much supposedly mathematical and rational finance runs on intuition, survivorship bias, and plain bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER7> A lot of the comments here seem to be from people with institutional experience or wannabe retail traders. As a retail trader (who used to phone my broker to make trades) that has progressed to an algorithmic retail trader (I do all my own development with some mentoring help from professionals) I can say that it is possible to make a good return on risk.

This did not happen overnight. I've spent thousands on my education and by that I mean I've been scammed, gone to useless seminars, read nearly 100 books on the subject and made terrible trading errors and trading losses.

I only started getting serious traction after a confluence of events that led to being tutored by an ex-JP Morgan quant and a software developer friend who has been developing trading software for the big Bank trading desks in London.

Moral of the story? Persistence.

How does this relate to the article? Persistance eventually overcomes a lack of testing to eventually lead to a robust testing methodology.

So yeah I do agree that most (retail) trading strategies are not tested rigorously but that's due to the difficulties around acquisition of inter- disciplinary knowledge and the balls to get real experience my putting money on the line.

<comment><USER8> I guess you wouldn't be interested in going into more detail?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know anybody that uses anything as weak as 2-sigma results in HFT, at least. Most of our valid signals have 20-50+ sigma.

<comment><USER10> Since you seem pretty well acquainted with HFT, I'm curious about how much of a constraint capacity is? From what I understand the amount earned per trade is very small (this paper[1] suggests $1.45 per $10,000 traded). And since HFT is already a large fraction of the daily volume it seems that the natural way to increase profit (i.e. just trade more) isn't an option in most cases.

[1]: [http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hender/hft- pd.pdf](http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hender/hft-pd.pdf)

<comment><USER9> $1.45 per 10k traded seems really high. A good S&P futures strategy (one of the biggest products in the world) is typically going to make 60-80 cents per contract traded. Since each contract is approximately 100k, thats closer to .06-.08 cents per $10k traded? Even for equities (I don't touch US equities, so I'm not entirely sure how good the best strategies perform), making a full price tick per contract is still < $1earned/$10k traded... and good HFT strategies are more on the order of 5-10% of a tick per contract traded.

In any case, capacity is probably the first constraint you hit. Most firms have reasonably accurate simulations, so most HFT strategies are scaled up to as large as they can possibly trade (ie. quote the largest amount passively or aggress with the largest amount you possibly can) within a few days of being released -- once you can confirm that your live trading is at least mostly matching simulation, you usually try to simulate the maximum possible size it can trade and just start live trading that. Since you're typically scalping a tick at a time, your maximum size is typically some fraction of the zero level bid/offer -- relatively small. Typically the way you scale up is either have better execution (know when to size up/size down appropriately) or better prediction quality -- since you're adversely selected, your bad trades get filled at a much higher percentage than your good trades, so as your have better prediction quality, a smaller percentage of your volume is bad and you can start to fire larger and larger.

<comment><USER10> Thanks, that's really interesting. I hadn't even thought of the adverse selection problem. And you're right the $1.45 was high. I looked at the paper again and that number was before adding in costs. With trading costs the number was much lower, but still profitable (can't remember the exact number off the top of my head), and that paper was just US equities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From Wikipedia: "Some people claim that by recognizing chart patterns they are able to predict future stock prices and profit by this prediction; other people respond by quoting 'past performance is no guarantee of future results' and argue that chart patterns are merely illusions created by people's subconscious."

<comment><USER12> In my experience, the patterns are not illusions, they are very much real, but they don't have predicative power.

<comment><USER13> [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/high- frequ...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/high-frequency- trader-virtu-extends-nearly-unblemished-streak)

Predictive enough that when combined with money management strategies you can make money every single day of the year.

<comment><USER14> What Virtu does to make money (market making and latency arbitrage on a milli- and microsecond timescale) is very, _very_ far away from recognizing chart patterns and trading on them!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> All types of trading, no matter what system, is theoretical until it hits the market. The market is the only test.

</comment><comment><USER16> To what extent does the industry use Bayesian methods? It seems to me that, for a given trading strategy, trading companies are really interested in the mean profit impact of the strategy and its distribution (e.g. "there is a 10% change we will lose more than $20M"). Bayesian methods will naturally produce such an answer.

Bayesian methods won't magically solve all problems (e.g. fitting to historical data) but could make the assumptions more clear.

<comment><USER14> I can't speak for other teams, obviously. But almost everything we do would fall under the heading of "Bayesian methods". It's such a broad term that it would be hard to write a trading algorithm that couldn't be described as Bayesian.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results;

</comment><comment><USER18> When trading real money in a real market, predictions based on historical data go out the window.

Historical data will never be able to truly simulate manipulation or sympathetic, symbiotic or parasitic relationships. Ever back-test a trading system that simulates a Market Maker letting low block go under the bid or dialing down the sensitivity of the bid vs. the ask? Speaking from experience.

That's why I'm developing an algorithmic trading system based on sympathetic, symbiotic and parasitic hidden connections.

Also Ref: Contagious Speculation and a Cure for Cancer: A Non-Event that Made Stock Prices Soar - [http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/whoswho/getpub.cfm?pub=1555](http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/whoswho/getpub.cfm?pub=1555)

<comment><USER19> > That's why I'm developing an algorithmic trading system based on > sympathetic, symbiotic and parasitic hidden connections.

That sounds fascinating. Do keep us informed!

<comment><USER18> [http://www.cymetica.com/recommend/app/hidden_connections?que...](http://www.cymetica.com/recommend/app/hidden_connections?query=linux&db=all)</comment></comment></comment>


Tips For Tech Recruiters, From an Engineer - <AUTHOR> http://danrodriguez.me/blog/tips-for-tech-recruiters-from-an-engineer <comment><USER3> I've talked to experienced recruiters and hiring managers about this. The interesting thing is that the content of the email actually doesn't matter much at all. Personalization, mentioning mutual contacts, etc helps but not a lot.

The single biggest determinant of a successful recruit is (drumroll, please) whether the candidate is currently looking for a job.

I just went back to read the recruiting email that kicked off my current job. And I quote:

"I came across your profile online and would like to chat with you about the exciting career opportunities that we have available at Facebook."

Wow. That sure sounded a lot more exciting at the time, because I was looking. And that's my point. Timing is nearly everything. Maybe you could find ways to predict when or if someone is looking, say, close to anniversaries of their current job (ie vesting cliffs) right before or after performance review time, etc.

But when the cost of a mis-timed email is essentially zero, there's no point. In a tight market like we have now, there will be a lot of smarmy, cut-n-paste junk in your inbox. Because it works.

<comment><USER4> As a recruiter my data supports this. I stopped being spammy and more thoughtful in my communication with candidates. The result? More replies thanking me for being thoughtful and no increase in candidates expressing interest. I've decided that recruiting is about being in the right place at the right time and offering amazing career opportunities.

Other things that make recruiting more effective:

* getting out of the office and meeting candidates in person

* building relationships with recruiters over time

* being educated about your target audience and making conversations about meaningful content

<comment><USER5> Totally agree with the personal relationships - recruiters whom I have met in person, shared coffee and they still bother keeping in touch - well I have got good opportunities from them, they have got recommendations from me. The faceless emails - nah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think we need to be as adversary towards recruiters as we sometimes are as a profession.

Good recruiters are basically your sales force. They'll be out there building connections and holding a very wide book of open opportunities for you the moment you need them.

The good ones will also be respected on the other side, by the employer. If they think you are a particularly good fit for a good role, they can have both you and the employer walking into a very warm lead before you even start your search.

I have two or three recruiters who have kept me busy for a decade. I tend to think of them as partners as much as anything. They know I won't make them look stupid in front of their clients, and I know they will do the right thing by me by being frank & honest.

As with all professions, some are better than others. However, if you treat all recruiters with disdain you are also damaging your own prospects in terms of building some potentially mutually rewarding relationships.

<comment><USER7> I agree that an adversarial tone is not advisable for multiple reasons. I have seen a couple of articles on this topic where the engineer comes across as downright rude. I think this particular article (mostly) avoided this trap and recognized that while there are legitimate issues with the way recruiters approach engineers, this is still ultimately a good problem to have. Being in demand is great, but the tides can turn quickly in any profession (see: lawyers). I think it's perfectly appropriate to be able to point out issues with recruiting, but ideally with a sense of humility and appreciation for the opportunities that one has -- this article does that for the most part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can totally relate to the things the author wrote on the post, and my personal experience is not much different. However, I can't help but feeling a little bit uncomfortable with the tone.

As developers / engineers we are privileged to be in a position to choose our employer more than they choose us, to be "chased" by recruiters and flattered about our much desired skills. It's important to maintain some humility and not forget how hard it is for other people (recruiters included).

I have no doubts that the author didn't intend to patronize and that his advise to recruiters is ultimately a positive one, (yes - it would save both the recruiter and the engineer time, if the recruiter wouldn't call about a java job when the CV says javascript). I just wish it was coming across a little less arrogant.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right. I really didn't mean to come off like that. But looking back I should've known better and should've worded things more professionally. I think I may edit the post based on what you guys have said about my tone. I was sincerely trying to help.

<comment><USER8> I know you did. My criticism was purely about the style, not the substance.

<comment><AUTHOR> I edited it a bunch. Hopefully it's better now. Thank you for the feedback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _If I hear anything about you looking for "ninjas", "pirates", "hackers", "samurais", or anything of the like, I'm just going to assume you're looking for a new saturday morning cartoon character and not an engineer. Grow up._

This needs to be on a billboard.

<comment><USER10> Quite, also "rockstars". I did think "hackers" was an odd choice. It may be misused or overused, but it's also an insiders term, e.g. Hacker News. I'm ok with a recruiter using it the appropriate context. I wonder how much a bay area billboard runs. If it gets a bit of news coverage it'll probably make waves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Most experienced engineers get several solicitations a day

As an engineer who's just starting out, I get no solicitations at all. I've heard about people being constantly contacted about work, but that's just not happening to me. If I lost my job, I'd have no idea what to do. How do you get on these people's radar? I'd love to feel more in control of my career instead of like my whole life depends on the good graces of my current boss.

<comment><USER12> The reason why this happens to a lot of developers is because:

1) They have a LinkedIn or Stack Overflow account.

2) They have dealt with a recruiter before, either looking for work or from cold calls.

I've had the (mis)fortune of both. The only people that ever look at my LinkedIn profile are recruiters, so I regularly get emails about crappy jobs. Hell, it's not unusual for a recruiter to offer me the same-level job at the company I already work at, sometimes even by phone...

It'll happen, so I won't worry too much about it. It's largely a talent market out there, and if you've spent enough time at a company that gets hounded by recruiters or a recruiter finds an online profile of yours you'll be on a "list" too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I asked this on reddit. How much of a proliferation do recruiters have on the job market?

For example, in major cities, recruiters can find out information about every real job in the city and essentially build a relationship with every major company out there. In theory, they can own the job market.

The HR recruiters don't have the time to scan over all the resumes they get. And the new job seeker doesn't have a relationship with the company, so he is just sending out email blind. Oh yea, I see recruiters from all over the country connecting with companies and trying to fill those positions. So it isn't even local anymore. Pretty much any shady recruiter can see an open position and try fill it.

So the third-party recruiter has a gold mine on their hands. They upsell on finding good candidates because they are the only people that have the time/resources to actually do that kind of scanning. It is pretty shady but apparently lucrative. So the job seeker almost has to contact at least one recruiter.

My question, what percentage of open jobs out there get filled by third-party recruiters?

</comment><comment><USER13> I wanted to say something else. Recruiters aren't necessarily good or bad. They are just a natural phenomenon of the technical landscape.

Like I said earlier, a HR person at a big company normally deals with the HR things. They aren't pouring over technical resumes. The technical recruiter, their sole purpose is to match candidates with job openings. So they have the time and resources to match candidates. This is bad for the lone job seeker that is just trying to find a job and he sees an opening out there.

On the recruiters themselves, you want to look for big company technical recruiters of high-rated firms. E.g. ignore all the random emails from sys- inc-ez-find.com. You can search for the four or five top recruiter firms in your area.

You don't have to talk to the 20-something recruiter. Normally, there is an account manager or manager that may even have a technical background. He/she is the person that typically seals the deal and knows his stuff.

</comment><comment><USER14> At the top of my resume/CV, I have a prominent "Note to recruiters" link which includes details on which kinds of companies I'd be a good fit for (and vice versa), as well as other details (eg I'm not maintaining an entry in your database).

This has proven very useful since you can immediately tell which recruiters have actually made an effort to qualify me, versus the ones indistinguishable from spam. I even go so far as to block the more egregious ones at my mail server which keeps the nuisance emails down.

</comment><comment><USER15> One of my main gripes with external recruiters are the in-person meeting.

One external recruiter contacted me on Linkedin and said they knew of open positions I might be a fit for, but insisted, like most of them do, that I come in and meet them. So I wasted an afternoon meeting them. Then I hear nothing for months. Then I get an e-mail from the same firm. The last guy I met moved on from the company, a new person is now handling me there. They know of some positions I might be a fit for. But since this was a new person handling my account, they wanted me to come in for another meeting before they referred me to any of these clients they theoretically had. Of course I didn't go.

Once when I was on the other side of things, when we were dealing with recruiting firms for a hire, my boss said he wanted to phone screen interviews before bringing them in. One of the recruiting firms was unhappy with this, and was insisting its interviews come in without a phone screen. Luckily I had a good boss, he insisted on the phone screen and they gave in.

Who benefits from no phone screen? As an interviewee, I don't want to a waste an afternoon, maybe a whole day going in to interview for a position which I am unqualified for, or which has some requirements (50% travel, whatever) that I do not want to go along with. As an interviewer, why waste my time, and my co-workers time, and their time bringing in someone who can't answer the most basic technical questions I can ask? I wonder how many people who gave those recruiters their resumes knew the recruiter was pushing against phone screens and for in-person interviews only.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have to say, I struggle to see the benefit technical recruiters bring. They rarely know enough about the tech to do any sort of reasonable matching. They don't give me as much information that I could find about the job as if I went to the website. Obviously exclude the company, but if you aren't going to give me a vague impression of salary or reqs, why would I roll the dice?

</comment><comment><USER17> You will never get technical recruiters to abandon calling candidates whenever they feel like it. They are competing against many other recruiters at their own firm, not to mention recruiting agencies, to place candidates in front of managers. Sure, you can demand that they not call you, but most would rather drop you from their database than miss closing a deal.

<comment><USER18> I've dramatically reduced the number of annoying calls I get simply by writing "please send me an email, I ignore unsolicited calls" on my linkedin/website.

<comment><USER19> I dramatically reduced it by simply removing my phone number from LinkedIn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Unless we've explicitly set up a time to talk, DO NOT CALL ME."

I have yet to put out my phone number when applying for any job. Somehow recruiters found my number from a few interviews I did from 10 years ago.

When ever it suits them, they still call.

Thanks to google voice I have a pretty good setup I don't have to respond

</comment><comment><USER20> > If it says Javascript on my resume and you send me a job regarding Java, I'm > not going to reply, and I might even mark it as spam.

I see that often from recruiters, but usually the other way around. They say Java, but really mean JavaScript.

</comment><comment><USER21> There is an upside to getting occasional calls from recruiters at work - <USER2> boss knows you're in demand. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER22> The worst is when they attempt to recruit you for a job you're clearly overqualified for.

</comment><comment><USER23> Don't work with recruiters, period. Why? From the hiring side of the table, here's why.

1) they misrepresent you and lie. "Kevin has 10+ years of experience with Ruby on Rails". I go "huh, Kevin's a lying shit. Bin."

2) 40% of your goddamned salary finders fee?! Fuck that shit I'll find someone else.

3) why would I be interested in employing you if you're not interested in us? The fact that you've gone to a recruiter just says "I have no idea what I'm doing or where I want to go, and I can't be bothered with research"

4) why would I hire someone that's already on myriad recruiter databases and therefore likely to be poached by the same shyster that placed you?

So, yeah, don't use recruiters. As an employer, I get 20+ emails per day from these animated coproliths, and they all get deleted. I don't have time to read 30 CVs for "javas php rubo on rales" developers.

I'll just hire the smart cookie who wants to work for us and approaches us directly.

Edit: also, the only reason recruiters exist is because they exist. They introduce artificial scarcity in the labour market and then exploit the deficit they created.

No better than ambulance-chasers.

Double edit: just to ram home how useless these people are, in the last seven years I've had recruiters try to sell me myself, no fewer than three times. Not a single thought between their immaculately preened ears.

<comment><USER13> True,

But how much of your time or HR's time goes to scanning through resumes. If you only spend time reading 30 resumes. And it possible a recruiter database has 100's, possibly with good candidates, then you must missed a good set of candidates.

And then there is a timing issue. How long is your job post out there? 2 weeks, 2 months? So in the window of time that your post is out there, candidates have to find your site and your job post.

Recruiters, that is what they do. Everyday, they are scanning for candidates, filling positions.

I don't like it but at least it makes sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Here's the thing that weeds out recruiters for me: If you get far enough to get me to respond, I'm going to ask a couple specific questions in my response. Answer them.

Just yesterday I responded to a recruiter, explained my situation and asked a couple specific questions. The response was a totally generic email that made it clear he didn't bother to read what I wrote, and just was eager to get me on the phone.

One thing I've learned is they want to get you on the phone ASAP so that they can waste your time, because somehow in their minds, the more time they waste on the phone with you, the more likely your'e going to be interested in them sending you jobs. (If I'd ever had a productive, business like conversation with a recruiter that wasn't full of weasely words and them evading questions, I might feel differently.)

I think this must be a Sales 101 tactic.

Well, I'm in a position to be picky. That makes me the kind of person you probably are really desperate to hire.... so why not take the time to read my reply and respond to it?

I mean, I expressed interest. Now I know I'm going to get follow up mails along the lines of "you expressed interest in blah... lets set up a call" for weeks... he'll never go back and actually read my response, I'm almost certain.</comment>


Ask HN: Any good places to find early adopters/testers in addition to HN? - <AUTHOR>

I'm simply looking for that magical garden where there are slews of open-minded folk that are excited to play with your MVP and willing to offer helpful feedback.<p>No seriously, I know HN is probably the closest thing to this magic garden, but I was wondering if anyone else found any good resources for early exposure and feedback. <comment><USER2> In testing a MVP I submitted to several of the startup websites (1). The quality of traffic was bad. Their audience were people who were interested in kicking the tires on startups and not people in the industry I was targeting who needed a solution.

Having people try the site and give feedback on Mechanical Turk also doesn't work.

I like the suggestion of others on this thread to post to a focused subreddit. Another good idea is to find a blog through AllTop for your industry. I've found most bloggers will accept a direct ad for less than $100 a week.

What worked the best for me was good old AdSense, monitoring, and a/b testing. It is pretty easy to get a $100 coupon for new AdSense accounts and you can find out much about your site for that amount. Good luck.

(1) Fyi traffic figures indexed to highest: KillerStartups 1. FeedMyApp 0.85. NetWebApp 0.10. Cloudomatic 0.04. GreatWebApps 0.01.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know how on-topic it is over there, but you might want to try <http://techstartu.ps> and also perhaps <http://startups.reddit.com>

</comment><comment><USER4> You can post at Startup Digest <http://thestartupdigest.com/classifieds/>

Edit: I haven't tried this, just gotten to know from the emails they have sent me.

<comment><USER5> You can post for free, no harm in trying.

We have case studies on founders hiring people from the classifieds site [http://thestartupdigest.com/2010/09/08/hiring-startup- case-s...](http://thestartupdigest.com/2010/09/08/hiring-startup-case-study- yackr/) but if anyone has feedback on the "feedback section" would be great to hear from you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That could be an idea for a webapp. Anybody who volunteers for beta-testing MVP, receives a notification when a new project matches at least of of his criteria. Feedback would be integrated as well. Who's in for this?

<comment><USER7> Here's a post from 2 months ago for an MVP that aims to do just that - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1511591>

I'm not sure what their plans are (right now its basically classifieds for testers), but I'd love to see something far more robust. I envision the tester selecting an app to test, and then being redirected to the side within a stumbleUpon style navigation bar. This bar would provide tools to mark up the app, leave notes, etc etc. Clixpy style tracking would be great as well.

I'd definitely be game for working on this--it has "something people want" written all over it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You can try reddit -- not the main reddit, but a technical subreddit will usually get you some constructive feedback. For example, if I wrote an app in Python, I could post to the python subreddit to get some better feedback than any of the other ones. You'll have to weed out some of the trolls, but it's still worth the time.

I have also seen some good feedback come from posting a link on Twitter. Usually just the people I know will actually try it out, so the feedback is honest and straightforward.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. This is pretty much where I am at. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Check out this article on using Amazon's Mechanical Turk [http://harperlindsey.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/how-i-used- ama...](http://harperlindsey.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/how-i-used-amazons- mechanical-turk-to-validate-my-startup-idea/)

</comment><comment><USER10> ok - sorry if this is a stupid newbie question and an RTFM issue in a FAQ somewhere, but what is the proper procedure for posting something to HN to get feedback on a new app from HN readers? This is probably not even the right thread to post this, so feel free to flame...but seemed relevant.

<comment><USER11> It is usually an Ask HN post. see samples

[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...](http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:news.ycombinator.com+test+my#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+ask+hn+my+app&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=3c6a194fccb80a58)

<comment><USER10> Great! I just posted it using submit. I did notice that it appears in the New section, but not in the Ask section -- again, sorry for my newbie-ness, but how do you get your submitted post to appear in "Ask"? I used the Ask HN: prefix.

Tnx!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Depends on the app but I've had luck with SitePoint.com, DigitalPoint.com forums - lots of entrepreneurs, techies roll there.

Never discount SlashDot as another - with any of those suggestions helps to build up credibility, plant seeds by sharing pieces of your start-up story, building excitement for a pre-launch , etc

<comment><USER10> I've had trouble with Sitepoint as they instantly ban you if you post anything that remotely looks like spam. Many forums are the same way - what's the right approach to posting onto a forum? Do you have a good example of what's accepted? I got the ban-hammer pretty quick on Sitepoint for what I thought was a pretty innocent post asking for feedback on an MVP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> if u have a following on twitter...

<comment><USER13> for an mvp it may be tough... but i have beta tested for companies that i follow on twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> ditto. If anybody is aware of any, please advise.</comment>


Ask HN: How to help Hong Kong - <AUTHOR> I'm pretty livid about the situation in Hong Kong. I would love to help but I'm not sure how. Would organizing protests at the Chinese embassies in the US & Europe help? It would make most sense to coordinate with people in Hong Kong for maximum impact. Does anyone know someone who might be close to the organizers in Hong Kong? <comment><USER2> I suspect that however well informed and intentioned, protests organized by Americans in America would be unhelpful, since the Chinese angle is that the protests are driven by US attempts to destabilise them rather than by the Hong Kong public being concerned about threats to their civil rights

<comment><USER3> Would it be useful to protest about Xinjiang instead? After all if unsuccessful many of the protesters may end up in the same kind of reeducation camps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a Hongkonger. You are already helping by asking here on HN. Keep raising the awareness. Make sure people know the proximate and root cause of the protest. People needs to know Hong Kong is not China. People need to know the violence exerted by the police force. People need to know we are the most peaceful protestors in the world. And all conflicts, literally all, are elicited not by the protestors, but by the police.

There are so much more people need to know

<comment><USER5> > People needs to know Hong Kong is not China.

Hong Kong is not China the same way Hawaii is not US (hint: they both are).

<comment><USER6> Maybe Fiji or Puerto Rico would be better examples?

<comment><USER5> I thought the same after replying, but I think Hawaii is still a good example, as China treats Hong Kong the same way US treats Hawaii: as an inalienable part of itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you are livid about situation in Hong Kong, try to launch an education campaign in Hong Kong to not accept living in prison size cell apartment and pay astronomical prices for it. This results in staying hostage to developers for life and then blame someone for falling standards of living.

Ask people in HK to study and spend more money on science and innovation not on property speculation and get rich quick scheme.

Singapore learning from Hong Kong in early years already surpassed it by miles by doing just that focusing on basic health, education and house and avoid letting it's people stay hostage to rich billionaires.

Protests are just symptoms of that simmering discontent with underlying house, education and healthcare problems. This cannot be resolved by relying on old ways in which Hong Kong got rich due to closed mainland China.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm more interested in direct actions.

<comment><USER7> This is direct action don't need any intermediary. You can just start by launching a good website explaining these 3 fundamental issues of house, education and health. People conflate this issues with unnecessary issues to vent their anger, you would have helped such people to see clearly with your content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some concrete actions that could help Hong Kong:

1\. For governments worldwide:

1a. Freeze the assets of senior officials of the Chinese and Hong Kong governments who violated human rights, in the style of Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019.

1b. Stop exporting crowd-control equipment to Hong Kong which could be used by the Police Force.

2\. For citizens worldwide:

2a. Urge your governments to do the above.

2b. Stop collaborating with China in the research and development of surveillance technology, which is being used also in Xinjiang.

2c. Purchase goods and services not from Chinese sources.

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably running a tor relay or exit node. I guess they'll need a way to access the outside world when things get really messy -- if they haven't yet.

Or you could do the unwise thing and go there and just walk around. When you'll get beaten up because the chinese government is letting the local mob go and beat random people, that should make a case. Maybe journalists could pick that up.

<comment><USER10> >>>"Or you could do the unwise thing and go there and just walk around."

I would really discourage that. There are strong signs that the People's Armed Police might intervene (they are already staging/exercising in Shenzhen). It could turn into another Tienanmen Square situation.

[https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-12/global-times- shows...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-12/global-times-shows- dramatic-video-chinese-army-preparing-hong-kong-invasion)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think we will see a Tiananmen Square style end to this protest soon. Technology has put too much power in the hands of a few unscrupulous dictators. I think we will see even Western countries fall this time around.

</comment><comment><USER12> The big thing is getting coverage. Especially coverage that isn't just matter- of-fact style reporting. If you can help with the press this is always a high- impact activity.

</comment><comment><USER13> Help them buy goggles and stuff.</comment>


Silicon Valley billionaires skirt charity rules each holiday season - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/18/21010108/larry-page-philanthropy-foundation-donor-advised-fund-christmas <comment><USER2> His _foundation_ contributed to a DAF? To _his_ DAF?

That's shameful. Even in the context of minimizing his tax liability. He must have a really aggressive tax team.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, Santa's red suit charity rules the holiday season!

Oh wait, I guess there wasn't an apostrophe in the original sentence.</comment>