Astrology Readings.

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Really? And you are basing this judgement on what, exactly?

The fact that I demolish anything that I can actually understand with such ridiculous ease of course. I just said it. It's just a load of waffle strung together because it looks impressive.

Incorrect. There are many characteristics of people that occur at rates much higher than chance, such as recovering from uknown diseases. Lethal illnesses are acutally fairly rare. This is why to be statistically significant, it must occur much greater than chance, and it must be reliably repeatable (something that never happened with Sach's results).

It gets even worse when you are talking about personality traits that are self-reported. If I were to ask 100 people selected at random if they consider themselves to be stubborn, do you think the results would be 50% yes/no? Do you think it would be 1 in 12 (matching sun signs)? What happens if you ask them if they consider themselves to be stubborn on occasion?

Repeatable using the same data or different data? Because given the presence of slow moving outer planets known and unknown and the aspect relationships of these planets to the Sun, it is invalid to draw conclusions from test anything except the exact same age-group.

And on certain things, like for instance careers one cannot necceserily expect complete cross-cultural agreement, because the different perceptions of for instance the same career in different cultures could, given the necceserily indirect nature of the connections between planets and concrete results skew the results.

It gets worst when we are talking about crime and suicide, one could expect particular cultures to have become dominated by particular signs and to make the opposite signs rather unhappy and react accordingly.

As for your question I obviously don't know. What one would have to do would be to do a survey to establish what % of random people give what answer to the question. Once you've established the % that says yes and got your average % bit gets trickier.

And then you have to make the following traditional Astrological prediction that seriously needs testing.

Fixed signs should report they are stubborn more than average. These are.

Leo, Tauros, Aquarius and Scorpio.

Mutable signs should report they are stubborn less than average. These are.

Saggitarius, Gemini, Virgo and Pisces.

Each sign would of course be recorded seperately. The average response for people according to their signs would have to be then worked out. And having done that the results would have to be compared to the average.

The trouble is that it isn't cast iron, because people tend to overate or underate their own 'flaws'. The overating and underating may well cancel each other creating a Neutral result that is actually false.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

I had followed this topic for a while and am just jumping back in here. I see SlayerofCliffracers has given some readings and the hits and misses (and partials) are being counted. Just for fun, I read Klimax's reading as if it were my own. I ended up with 10 hits and 5 misses (I didn't break it down further).

I would be curious to see how many hits and misses others would see, and if 90% of the people got 70% hits, wouldn't that tend toward the Forer effect?

Actually the problem is how to eliminate the Forer Effect here. The problem we have here is that perhaps your motives for reading it was because it fitted you are not the reverse. Beyond that there is also the possibility that you may have Astrological similarities with Klimax somewhere in your chart and you are noticing them.

I note in preceeding pages a strong tendancy for people to pop up and tell me how well it fits them. Except that nobody pops up and tells me how it doesn't fit them at all to balance it out.

The most basic problem is that "it doesn't not fit you". Taking Sun Signs for instance unless you are a Tauros Sun, it is likely that to some extent you won't definately contradict Scorpio Sun traits.

This makes that even highly specific claims about Suns that aren't Barnumish, themselves will have an 11-12 chance of not being definately wrong to start with. The base level problem, what is the base level against which one judges the character traits.

Observation beats feedback, but observation is only possible if you know a person really well. And some observations are rather strange. Like.

Cancer Suns like Origenism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origenism

I correctly guessed a womans Sun Sign was Cancer because she claimed to have a deep emotional affinity with what the theology teacher, who is a Origen fan thought.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<SNIP>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origenism
I correctly guessed a womans Sun Sign was Cancer because she claimed to have a deep emotional affinity with what the theology teacher, who is a Origen fan thought.

GUESSED? GUESSED? But anyone can do that. I can guess that you are 18 years old.

Some guesses are correct. Some guesses are wrong.
Just remember all your correct ones and wave away all the incorrect ones and you too can be an Astrologer.

 

[dafydd]

"Astrology is not based upon differences in the quantity of force that each planet exerts on each person. It is based upon the spatial relationship made between the objects in alignment to the Earth of which the observer is a part or directly to the observer (the sidereal/tropical zodiac dispute in a nutshell).

Two objects aligned so that they are paralell or close together tend to merge their energies (or information if you like). In my case, since Jupiter and the Sun are close together (from Earth perspective) Jupiter and Sun tend to be 'confused' so that whatever reminds me of the Sun reminds me of Jupiter and vice versa.

The opposite is the case with Pluto. Because Pluto is on the opposite side of the earth to the Sun and Jupiter, then their energies do not merge much, they remain utterly distinct. As a result things that remind me of the energy of Pluto tend to be concieved of as distinct and oppositional to the Sun and Jupiter.

When we are born, the barrage of sensory distractions maybe or something else mean that our connection to the nexus of planets is broken to a large extent. Thus our internal world fossilizes to a certain degree, but not entirely creating the natal charts. We now percieve the planets influences as 'external' influences, while our own fossilised pre-natal state we percieve as 'internal' influences.

To consider the mechanism which is refered to as the planetery nexus, I mean that everything in the universe transfers information about itself to everything else, regarding it's spatial location and other properties.

The Earth and all the other planets orbit the Sun, a remote object. They do so based upon the mass of the Sun. If their mass were greater than the Sun, the Sun would orbit them. Therefore some sort of mathematical calculation is made using two sets of variables, but 'in' both objects.

The Sun evidently is capable of 'informing' other objects as to it's mass. But why stop there? Can the mass of an object really be seperated from it's other properties? No it can't. So everything about the Sun is known to the Earth and since we are part of the Earth, we would know what the Earth knows."

Gibberish. Known to the Earth?

 

[dafydd]

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd
I'm still waiting to find out how and why Jupiter is connected to clergymen. What was Jupiter's job before there were any clergymen Slayer?
Jupiter has nothing directly to do with clergymen. Instead Jupiter has to do with 'bigger things', that is the bigger questions or reality. The kind of stuff religion claims to answer.

Therefore Jupiter is assosiated with Clergymen, because Clergymen are assosiated with Religion. The reason Jupiter is associated with Religion is because Jupiter is assosiated with the kind of big questions that religion is concerned with.

Dafydd, maybe you missed it in the Wall o'Text, I think this is what Slayer meant as an answer to your question on the clergymen.

Thank you,I missed it,easy to to amongst the other waffle. It begs the question of course,how and why is Jupiter connected with big religious questions? It is mostly hydrogen,so are all the hydrogen atoms on earth connected by with religion too? I predict that Slayer's answer will take us one more step from reality.

 

[Pixel42]

As long as they are repeated using exactly the same age group of people so as to remove statistical artifacts of an Astrological nature (aka outer planets known and unknown) and using similar statistical methods then do that.

And yet you also say:

Fixed signs should report they are stubborn more than average. These are.

Leo, Tauros, Aquarius and Scorpio.

Mutable signs should report they are stubborn less than average. These are.

Saggitarius, Gemini, Virgo and Pisces.

So which is it? Are correlations only visible when "using exactly the same age group of people" or should this difference in stubborness be visible in any group of people?

Testing people even using blinding is inferior to statistical methods because they require that the Astrologer is flawless in his understanding of Astrology (assuming Astrology is true), it is impossable to set a definate chance ratio if you are testing line by line

As I've pointed out before the astrologer does not have to be 100% accurate, only accurate enough that the subject's reading is slightly more accurate than those of total strangers and will hence be picked out more often than would be expected by chance.

and if you are relying on people selecting their own horoscopes, it presumes that people are neutral and objective judges of their own character who won't take the most 'positive' or 'negative' horoscope depending on their own self-esteem.

Astrology is given credence because people perceive their horoscopes to be accurate. Except when they are required to pick them out of a bunch of other peoples and fail - then astrology should be given credence because people do not perceive them to be accurate?

Contradictions aside, this objection is easily countered by having someone who knows the subject well, rather than the subject themselves, pick one out. In the test of this kind that was recently run here which I moderated myself, almost all the subjects told me that - unable to find a reading which seemed more accurate than any other - they enlisted the help of their partner to pick one. The result was still no better than chance.

Obviously. If they had produced such evidence, then it would be obvious that something was wrong with the test.

Let someone produce such evidence first, then we can examine the methodology for flaws.

Maybe Science doesn't, but James Randi and a large number of other Skeptics seem to use exactly this standard when dealing the paranormal.

Examples, please.

What was intelligable within my own limited mathematical ability is generally obviously a load of BS.

A lot of statistics and probability is counter-intuitive. The common sense of a non-mathematician is going to be a very poor guide to what is and is not BS.

All you have to do is compare the total % of each sign that make up the population with the total % number of 'sinners' of each sign and as long as you get a result that is higher than attributable to chance then you have proven there is a correlation. It's so simple that a child could get it.

Indeed. And yet no such correlation has ever been reliably and repeatably shown to exist.

 

[Hokulele]

The fact that I demolish anything that I can actually understand with such ridiculous ease of course. I just said it. It's just a load of waffle strung together because it looks impressive.

Ah, so personal incredulity again. I note that you decry mockery and dismissal when it is on the part of the skeptic, but yours, for some reason, isn't hypocritical...

 

[Klimax]

We Astrologers hate Scorpios. And Leos too.

Good.

And I considered that Astrology may in fact be an Illusion. You would consider that progress correct?

What progress? Astrology is to me illusion and fun and nothing from it should be used in RL.

Oh the wonders of Astrological theory. There is naturally dispute about how close a planet has to be degree wise to the perfect angle of an Aspect (special angle with magical properties basically).

Logically, the closer an aspect is to perfection, the more powerful the aspect would be. 10 degrees is the degree system used by Astrotheme (this is pretty far in the sky actually).

Anything at 9 degrees is therefore weak.

OK.Then lim(x->x₀,astrology(x)) = 0

What sort of answer is 'it might'.

Possibly and no confirmation...

Maths, Physics and Computers? Well that might well be something to do with the Mercury conjunction to Sun, but these are pretty common obviously since Mercury doesn't go very far from the Sun anyway.

Combination of them common???
I would say it is not that much true.(Especially math and computers)
(at least from my observation)

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Quote:
Thank you,I missed it,easy to to amongst the other waffle. It begs the question of course,how and why is Jupiter connected with big religious questions? It is mostly hydrogen,so are all the hydrogen atoms on earth connected by with religion too? I predict that Slayer's answer will take us one more step from reality.

A computer program is ultimately consists entirely of 0s and 1s in binary code. DNA consists of 4 chemicals.

A combination of simple componants can create a result far more complex and precise than the componants themselves.

And yet you also say:

The Astrology in question is rather basic. And not attibutable to Astrological third factors, which may well be at work in the Gunter Sachs study.

As I've pointed out before the astrologer does not have to be 100% accurate, only accurate enough that the subject's reading is slightly more accurate than those of total strangers and will hence be picked out more often than would be expected by chance.

As mentioned earlier, over-estimating and under-estimating traits could easily cancel out any result if even if there was one. There is how we are, then there is how we'd like to be and how we think we are.

People aren't value-neutral judges.

Astrology is given credence because people perceive their horoscopes to be accurate. Except when they are required to pick them out of a bunch of other peoples and fail - then astrology should be given credence because people do not perceive them to be accurate?

Well people here seem to agree more often than chance with my horoscopes and not the reverse. They are as precise as I can make them without making claims that would theoretically only true some of the time.

Contradictions aside, this objection is easily countered by having someone who knows the subject well, rather than the subject themselves, pick one out. In the test of this kind that was recently run here which I moderated myself, almost all the subjects told me that - unable to find a reading which seemed more accurate than any other - they enlisted the help of their partner to pick one. The result was still no better than chance.

Even that doesn't work, because they too are not value neutral judges. They either like or dislike a person and will tend to see traits accordingly.

Let someone produce such evidence first, then we can examine the methodology for flaws.

If there were no flaws you'd just invent some.

Examples, please.

Everything in an example really.

A lot of statistics and probability is counter-intuitive. The common sense of a non-mathematician is going to be a very poor guide to what is and is not BS.

Well I am reffering to what isn't complex mathematics. Objections are made that are irrelavant are worthless. And most of the criticism consists of irrelavant objections.

If it disproven Astrology no such objections would be made by you. You have to object and that is why the objections are so poor normally.

Indeed. And yet no such correlation has ever been reliably and repeatably shown to exist.

Except that it has. Not that you are without objections, but that at least proves that it has been shown to exist. Else you wouldn't be objecting.

Ah, so personal incredulity again. I note that you decry mockery and dismissal when it is on the part of the skeptic, but yours, for some reason, isn't hypocritical...

Okay I take that into account.

Gibberish. Known to the Earth?

Gibberish to you, but perfectly logical to me. Just shows how hopeless it is to try to explain anything to the 'heathen'. You repeatedly cry for a higher level of 'explanation' as to why stuff is and when given it you cry it's gibberish.

I give up really. I cannot see why I waste my time here answering the questions of people who after being given 3 threads at least explaining their objections respond in such a manner.

 

[Pixel42]

The Astrology in question is rather basic. And not attibutable to Astrological third factors, which may well be at work in the Gunter Sachs study.

Then such basic astrology should be easily demonstrable, should it not? So why isn't it?

As mentioned earlier, over-estimating and under-estimating traits could easily cancel out any result if even if there was one. There is how we are, then there is how we'd like to be and how we think we are.

People aren't value-neutral judges.

If there were any truth to astrology whatsoever it would be possible for a significant percentage of people to pick out their readings from a bunch of other peoples' significantly more often than expected by chance. If that were not so then belief in astrology because of its perceived accuracy would never have arisen in the first place. The fact that this perceived accuracy disappears when the subject does not know which reading is supposed to be theirs is the best evidence we have that that perceived accuracy is not genuine accuracy, but is the result of confirmation bias and the Forer Effect.

Well people here seem to agree more often than chance with my horoscopes and not the reverse.

On what do you base that conclusion? They seem to me to agree no more often than chance. Of course the only way to find out which of us to correct is to compare with chance, by doing the kind of blind test you have rejected because of objections whcih are entirely spurious.

Even that doesn't work, because they too are not value neutral judges. They either like or dislike a person and will tend to see traits accordingly.

You have stated that your own belief in astrology is due to your personal experiences of its perceived accuracy. Why are you a value neutral judge, if no-one else can be trusted to be?

If there were no flaws you'd just invent some.

We'll never know, will we?

Everything in an example really.

Pathetic.

Well I am reffering to what isn't complex mathematics. Objections are made that are irrelavant are worthless. And most of the criticism consists of irrelavant objections.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and the criticisms appear perfectly valid to me.

If it disproven Astrology no such objections would be made by you. You have to object and that is why the objections are so poor normally.

If any of the dozens of studies which show none of the correlations predicted by astrology were conducted as poorly as the couple that do, I assure you that I would object to them too. Naturally you won't believe me.

Except that it has. Not that you are without objections, but that at least proves that it has been shown to exist. Else you wouldn't be objecting.

The vast majority of studies into astrology have shown no correlations. The couple that do attract the most objections partly because they contradict the rest and have therefore been scrutinised the most, that's true, but mostly because they were the most carelessly conducted.

I give up really. I cannot see why I waste my time here answering the questions of people who after being given 3 threads at least explaining their objections respond in such a manner.

I give up too. I cannot see why I waste my time patiently explaining what should be obvious when you simply dismiss any rational argument or evidence that contradicts what you are so determined to believe.

 

[dafydd]

As I predicted,yet more babble from the looney bin. I give up.

 

[dafydd]

A computer program is ultimately consists entirely of 0s and 1s in binary code. DNA consists of 4 chemicals.

A combination of simple componants can create a result far more complex and precise than the componants themselves.

And yet you also say:

The Astrology in question is rather basic. And not attibutable to Astrological third factors, which may well be at work in the Gunter Sachs study.

Is that guff supposed to mean something?

 

[dafydd]

''Gibberish to you, but perfectly logical to me. Just shows how hopeless it is to try to explain anything to the 'heathen'. You repeatedly cry for a higher level of 'explanation' as to why stuff is and when given it you cry it's gibberish.

I give up really. I cannot see why I waste my time here answering the questions of people who after being given 3 threads at least explaining their objections respond in such a manner.''

But your ''explanations'' are incoherent ramblings that obviously mean something to you,but not to those of us who live in RealityWorld. Heathen? I have no idea what you mean by that,if indeed you mean anything.If you are not a troll then I feel sorry for you.Now I really do give up.

 

[dafydd]

can't resist one more
quote from Slayerofrationality
''I give up too. I cannot see why I waste my time patiently explaining what should be obvious when you simply dismiss any rational argument or evidence that contradicts what you are so determined to believe.''

Perhaps the connection between Jupiter and clergymen is obvious to you,but not to those of us who live in the real world.Besides.all you have done is described this imaginary connected,you have not explained the how of it.

 

[dafydd]

connection

 

[Pixel42]

But your ''explanations'' are incoherent ramblings

As believers in astrology go, SlayerofCliffracers is actually one of the more coherent examples I've come across - more coherent than you, in some ways (though that may be mostly down to your inability to master the use of the quote button).

But anyone who thinks those who accept the conclusions clearly indicated by 98% of the evidence and question the reliability of the other 2% are the ones being unreasonable is clearly someone in whom the desire to believe exceeds the willingness to be guided by reason.

 

[Hokulele]

Well people here seem to agree more often than chance with my horoscopes and not the reverse. They are as precise as I can make them without making claims that would theoretically only true some of the time.

The biggest problem (and the one that formed the basis of Basler's critique of Sach's study) is that you haven't defined what is meant by "more often than chance". Do you think that simply means a person has a 50/50 chance of demonstrating a particular personality type? This is what the quote regarding medical studies was all about. The very quote you mocked without justification.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Then such basic astrology should be easily demonstrable, should it not? So why isn't it?

Because the nature of the Sachs study itself doesn't rule out the influences of Astrological third-factors. By which I mean slow moving planets influencing the Sun via aspects.

One cannot isolate by such a study what is down to the nature of the Sign itself from the effects of slow-moving outer planets 'known and unknown' at the present date.

If there were any truth to astrology whatsoever it would be possible for a significant percentage of people to pick out their readings from a bunch of other peoples' significantly more often than expected by chance. If that were not so then belief in astrology because of its perceived accuracy would never have arisen in the first place. The fact that this perceived accuracy disappears when the subject does not know which reading is supposed to be theirs is the best evidence we have that that perceived accuracy is not genuine accuracy, but is the result of confirmation bias and the Forer Effect.

As mentioned earlier, people don't choose according to how they are but how they percieve themselves already. They percieve themselves more positively or negatively than is accurate do they not?

And lastly, people are INFLUENCED BY REAL-LIFE ASTROLOGY TOO!

Depending upon the actual time at the moment, particular charts will be more or less accurate in particular points for everyone on earth.

On what do you base that conclusion? They seem to me to agree no more often than chance. Of course the only way to find out which of us to correct is to compare with chance, by doing the kind of blind test you have rejected because of objections whcih are entirely spurious.

No the only way to find out is to do a statistical study and determine if there is anything beyond the rate of chance.

Ideally one would take people from several age ranges and test them all seperately in order to work out what sustains itself between age-range.

You have stated that your own belief in astrology is due to your personal experiences of its perceived accuracy. Why are you a value neutral judge, if no-one else can be trusted to be?

Because I am the Astrologer. I am the person who is engaged in such a study of human beings according to their Astrology.

Relatively speaking, I am the value neutral judge. Because I am studying people against their Astrology to determine how they do and don't fit it.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and the criticisms appear perfectly valid to me.

And are they valid enough to establish complete and total neutrality for all variables? Yes some of the criticisms are valid. But none of them do they kind of damage needed to eliminate the study's results.

If any of the dozens of studies which show none of the correlations predicted by astrology were conducted as poorly as the couple that do, I assure you that I would object to them too. Naturally you won't believe me.

The vast majority of studies into astrology have shown no correlations. The couple that do attract the most objections partly because they contradict the rest and have therefore been scrutinised the most, that's true, but mostly because they were the most carelessly conducted.

I give up too. I cannot see why I waste my time patiently explaining what should be obvious when you simply dismiss any rational argument or evidence that contradicts what you are so determined to believe.

[/QUOTE]

Most of them depend upon the skill of the Astrologer and the accuracy of the self-awareness of the clients, neither of which can be taken for granted.

''Gibberish to you, but perfectly logical to me. Just shows how hopeless it is to try to explain anything to the 'heathen'. You repeatedly cry for a higher level of 'explanation' as to why stuff is and when given it you cry it's gibberish.

I give up really. I cannot see why I waste my time here answering the questions of people who after being given 3 threads at least explaining their objections respond in such a manner.''

But your ''explanations'' are incoherent ramblings that obviously mean something to you,but not to those of us who live in RealityWorld. Heathen? I have no idea what you mean by that,if indeed you mean anything.If you are not a troll then I feel sorry for you.Now I really do give up.

If you are unable to accept the explanation then there is nothing that can be done. You complain about not getting an explanation and when I give you an explanation you complain.

You evidently want an explanation on your own terms. But you aren't getting any since on your terms there is no explanation possible.

As believers in astrology go, SlayerofCliffracers is actually one of the more coherent examples I've come across - more coherent than you, in some ways (though that may be mostly down to your inability to master the use of the quote button).

But anyone who thinks those who accept the conclusions clearly indicated by 98% of the evidence and question the reliability of the other 2% are the ones being unreasonable is clearly someone in whom the desire to believe exceeds the willingness to be guided by reason.

Okay, it's just that I don't see what you are talking about. I see statistical studies for Astrology, human-dependant studies against Astrology and anecdotal evidence for it.

At the end of the day, Statistics trumps everything else.

I see a definate pattern to the studies which support Astrology against those that don't. They are particular TYPES of studies. The higher the human element, the worse it is for Astrology. The higher the statistical element the better it is for Astrology.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

A reading for Marek M from a cohort of mine.

your instinctive response is made with moderation, distance but in an assertive way, no impulsive reaction to wreck relations; in fact, if you are offended, you may not respond right away but may chew on it and plan your revenge. If needed you could be cruel and you definitelly use your sarcastic intelligence a lot; you like to analise ideas, cut them to small pieces, then sort them out and won't accept anything until you feel it has been very well criticised and deeply scrutinised; you don't like superficiality and in spite of your want to have a flattering image you are often very hard on yourself; your mental activity is so intense sometimes it turns into tension that makes your mind scattered and over solicitated; you can have ideas that seem to shock others so in order to keep being liked you stick to the conservative side you have; you may enjoy murder mysteries and getting the dirt on people.

you have a fear of doing things that may make you unpopular, and the chances of you smoking from a popularity and self destruction combined need are high. Since a child you may have appeared older or more serious; you may not be the most outgoing person all the time, and you have a lot of force of endurance and resistance; you often appear enigmatic, magnetic, and view yourself as very passionate, but not frivolous; your relation to women is respectful and in spite of your passionate nature, love seems to take much cooler stages; you like to feel you can serve the one you love; your love is generous, somewhat shy, and flare-ups do not characterise your affairs; you like building a relationship. This makes you feel odd sometimes as you inner wishes long for fun yet intense connections, to satisfy your jealous nature but the seen connections are cooler; you may be very generous and loyal but if you break friendships your grudge can hold forever and you turn cold


you probably have much pride to beg others and keep connections if you feel there is a practical sense to them; in mundane conversations you listen a lot but focus on saying the things to make a reputation as you are not the kind to say "I don't care what others think" at all.

you seem hard to understand at times, mysterious and secretive; you may chase a goal with fanatism; you should like theatrality and that may feed your ego but never quite lose grounding; you may also long to show your creative side but find you have better skill for tangible results.

there is increased importance in your life concerning status and a lot of ambition, you long to shine and may occupy a position where you are in lead, are the boss. However this may happen in later years more; you are also a good executor and hard worker but you like being in charge and on top; through your work you gain and sustain yourself well, and do not like being dependent on others, you dislike that

your finances may suffer from sudden events, such an example being the time you need to help someone and your money vanish; or the need to break from routine, maybe take a trip and suddenly cease work; if your responsible nature prevents this you may show a lot of nervouseness; but soon the wheel turns; you may gain through desk work; you use modern devices a lot for paperwork
your image of your mother is of a colder relation, one that was effective; yet she might have been a little manipulative (or manipulated); you should have a knowledge of medicines and drugs or use them more than the average person and have health/hygene concerns, and at least secretly worry about health

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Marak M's reading from me.

To MarekM (or whoever else it may be).

You are deeply conscious of other people and the feedback they give to your behaviour and presence. You are deeply responsible and take care of others, however this can mean that often meddle too in the affairs of others becoming a control-freak.

You are very ambitious, your life revolves around success and failure first in education and later work. Your qualifications and achievements are crucial to your self-esteem, to receive negative feedback or poor grades is particularly devastating to you.

You are talented as a mathematician and also possess a strong artistic talent as well. Computers seem to be particularly indicated here, you may well be or aim to become a graphics designer for computer software, unifying the computerised and the artistic. This does not rule out a separate artistic or computer related career, but it would combine both into one.

A strong interest either in law or science appears to be indicated, however this appears not to be your main ‘life-path’ which is something related to mathematics, computers or art.

This is a stretch but you tend to pessimism, the glass is usually half-empty. You tend to see the problems with things more readily than you accept them.

Your emotions are fickle, you do not tend to consistently feel the same way over time. Particularly since you are male, I would as a stretch conclude that you have difficulty sustaining a long-term relationship, since the way you feel towards any single woman will fluctuate greatly.

You also likely have difficulty talking about your feelings.

You are prone to fight and/or argue with others, it does not take much to get you to ‘blow your fuse’ so to speak. While your demeanour is quiet and somewhat secretive most of time, you are easily provoked to anger. However, you tend to hide your anger for a long time until it suddenly explodes all at once.

As a stretch I would also say that a strong need for freedom is implicated also in your dealings with others which leads to rebelliousness, which is mainly expressed by voicing controversial or even offensive ideas to people.
You are a capable philosopher and have a strong imagination. This said in you those things are primarily concerned with practical things and the material world, rather than the abstract world of spiritual and metaphysical things.

However something else appears that I cannot really make out so I’ll call it a stretch. It would appear that you face some sort of philosophical or religious crisis or a period of depression in your life. Given other indicators the latter appears most likely.