Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: biorhythms, part the 2nd
Message-ID: <410@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-May-86 13:42:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.410
Posted: Fri May  9 13:42:04 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 05:13:30 EDT
References: <8024@watrose.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 115
Summary: You want referrences?

In article <8024@watrose.UUCP> rpjday@watrose.UUCP (rpjday) writes:
>from rb@ccird2.UUCP.
My intent in the first posting was to point out that the "popular"
biorythms have little, if any sound basis.  At the same time there
are extrapulations on "biorythms" which *could* be used in the same
way that "popular" biorythms are now used.
>
>> Actually, there is more to it than is described in the "popular
>> books".  There are several very small rythms involving such things
>> as digestive system, circulatory, and glandular activity which 
>> form the basis for biorythms.
>
>> For example, there's appearantly a 3 hour "sleep cycle", a 4 hour
>> digestive cycle, a 12 hour neuron cycle, and about 20+ others,
>> some as short as 1/60th of a second, some "sum of the cycles" run
>> as high as 7 years.  In fact, life itself is much like the "hump"
>> of a sine wave.
>
>  Again, this has nothing to do with the publicized notion of biorhythms,
>and just what do you get from summing various cycles, anyway?  It has
>already been pointed out that, given two cycles whose durations, in days,
>are relatively prime, you can solve a Diophantine equation, and come
>up with cycles of any length whatsoever.

Exactly, of course there might be several rythms might be harmonics
of each other, several of these non-prime values *could* form more
significant cycles.

>
>> Of course, not everybody's "Emotional cycle" is exactly 28 days,
>> nor are any other of the "major cycles".
>
>  Great.  Then why did you bring up the point?
>
>> The one good thing about following a "biorythm" or even astrology,
>> is that it helps you to "pace yourself".  If you consistantly
>> push yourself to the limit all the time, you can overstress your
>> system.  If on the other hand you work extra hard for a while,
>> then work a lighter schedule, you can plan time for things like
>> extra long days, followed by some shorter days for resting up.
>
>  This is a perfectly reasonable idea, which has nothing whatsoever to
>do with biorhythms.  (And how does astrology help you pace yourself?)
>
>> Furthermore, during the full
>> moon, many people get very emotional in a bad way, therefore
>> police, fire, mental health centers, and hospitals often increase
>> staff starting the friday night of the full moon.
>
>  (Again, which hospitals, which mental health centers, etc??)
>Studies have shown that there is little correlation between
>the full moon and violent crimes.  One of the reasons for this myth
>is that people tend to remember bizarre events when there is a full moon,
>and they don't notice them when it isn't a full moon.  

This tidbit came from my mother, who while working at Bethesda mental
health center in Denver Colorado, and Arapaho Mental health center
in Aurora over a period of 10 years, often noticed by the number of
incoming "crisis calls", that she when she joked "must be a full moon"
that it almost always was.


>  It's also possible that there may be some correlation, but not the
>way that you think.  If people believe that the full moon inspires
>lunacy, they may be more prone to do stupid things when there is a
>full moon (this is known as a "self-fulfilling prophecy").

There might be another factor as well.  The tharapists, along with
many of the clients, were paid bi-weekly.  More importantly, during
the full and new moons.  Perhaps they were eating leftovers those last
few days, and not as "well fed", worrying about their budjet.  Clients
who were paid during the full moon often got drunk or high with their
paychecks.  This peculiar economic pattern may have a great deal to do
with "biorythms".  Perhaps over an N year period of time, this pattern
would shift to some other period of the moon?

I also noticed a pattern in the family spending.  During the weekend
of the full moon, we would go on a "spending spree".  The fact that
dad just got is check was an important factor.

Of course, based on this observation, a 14 day cycle should be strictly
symmetrical, for some reason, it was not.  Perhaps biological factors
such as menstrual cycle for mom, lack of sex for dad,... could have
accentuated these patterns.

>> Lunacy is
>> a "Statistical Reality" even if there is no obvious scientific
>> reason for it.
>
>  See above explanation.  One of the most frightening statements I see
>in any newsgroup is of the form "I believe in XYZ, even though I know
>there's no scientific basis for it".  If there's a correlation, there
>must be a reason for it.  The reason, however, might surprise you.
>

If the statistics differ significantly from the mathmatical probability
over a sufficiently large sample, there is more than "pure coincidence"
involved.  There ARE perfectly logical explanations for such anomolies,
but frequently they are buried because they don't "address the specific
topic".  There ARE perfectly logical explanations for things like
astrology and biorythms.  Basicly, they are "closest fits" of other
observed phenomena.  Yes, "following the pattern", will tend to smooth
out the "cycles" to something more "predictable", but even if the pattern
is ignored, the pattern described will be a rough approximation of the
actual pattern.

One of the interesting studies I remember hearing about on one of the
electronic media (Lifetime I think), pointed out that smokers, were not
major cancer risks solely for because of their consumption of tobacco
(though it was a factor).  Smokers also seem to eat more, excercise less,
use more salt, use stronger spices, eat more colestoral, and in general
abuse their body more than "reformed" smokers.  In other words, statistically,
you could live longer if you smoked for two or three years and then quit :-).
In reality, you would live longer yet if you ate right, excercised, used
less salt, and in general took better care of your body.