Talk:Blood type personality theory/Archive 2

Gender
I've heard the traits for blood types (particularly B) differ between men and women and that there are subcategories within some types. Can this be verified? Might be worth a mention--Jeff79 (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann changes
Dbachmann, what are you doing to this article, and why? Guidod (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the parts suggesting this is anything other than a topic of Japanese popular culture. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you suggest to rename Astrology into Zodiac signs in the western popular culture ? Guidod (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Famous
The false information of bloodtype of famous people is written by Beigeytarian, so deleated it.PRESENTROYALITY1 (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Popularity based on Memorization.
Now once read that one of the major reasons behind the Popularity of Blood Type Zodiac is because it helps people remember their blood type for important things. how true is this, and should it be mentioned some way in the article? Arkkeeper (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

title
i think we should change the title ~ 76.17.149.95 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) ~

Needs rewriting
This article needs to be rewritten in idiomatic English. 173.16.252.154 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ecessny5 removed personality descriptions
the user Ecessny5 removed the blood type to good/bad traits information, claiming that it was "not necessary information at all". It was the only reason that I read this article and world like for somone to put somthing similar back into this page. The Wikipedia should be a place for people to find knoledge and learn, and they should not have to leave this website to search for the information that they want on google. Miutsu (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a resouce to base this information on it is at "http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art22988.asp" --Miutsu (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This content has been blanked multiple times by editors who's only edit consists of removing the table. I'd prefer to assume goodwill, but this seems like the work of a persistent vandal. Maybe a protection is in order? --129.11.12.201 (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: pretty clear at this point this is the work of a blanking vandal/troll trying to disrupt things; they claim that a consensus was reached on the issue but the talk archives show no such discussion. Protection needed! --129.11.12.201 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been protected due to an ongoing edit war. The involved editors are requested to solve the issue through discussion. Please note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current article version. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No discussion whatsoever for one week? Well, fine, I suppose no one is interested in having discussion. I unprotected the article; I will block anyone who dares to start the edit war all over again. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This article seems biased against the theory. It claims that "The scientific community dismisses such beliefs as superstition or pseudoscience." Yet it only provides reference to a single AP article that states "its unscientific basis became evident". The referenced article doesn't provide any evidence to support that the world-wide (let alone western) scientific community dismisses the theory. Hence sentences like this should be rewritten. I suggest something like "Some people in the scientific community dismiss such beliefs as superstition or pseudoscience." Or what would be even better is to have references to actual scientific studies that argue this point. HitoriTabi (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not biased against the theory. The theory exists, it is self evidently not true, these are the facts. Same for astrology, or any other similar bullshit theories. This isn't bias. --81.158.147.209 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement about what entire scientific community believes is not quantifiable. If it stated that many in the western scientific community dismiss the theory it would be more believable although still lacking citation. Regardless of whether the writer thinks the theory is self-evidently false, the writer does not represent the entire scientific community as a whole (nor does the AP). Statements like this should be supported by quantifiable evidence or rewritten. HitoriTabi (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source given is legitimate, and your implications that this is some kind of cultural bias show your own biases - Japanese scientists are just as smart as western scientists, and just as able to see what bullshit this theory is. --81.158.147.209 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Logical Absurdity
"Based on the finding that 41.2% of a Taiwanese sample had type O blood, he assumed that their rebelliousness was genetically determined. The reasoning was supported by the fact that among the Ainu, whose temperament was characterized as submissive, only 23.8% had type O. In conclusion, Furukawa suggested that the Taiwanese should intermarry more with the Japanese in order to reduce the number of individuals with type O blood."

This statement is false because it assumes the individuals affected would be Japanese. More Taiwanese have O type blood than Ainu. Thus, if Taiwanese intermarry with Japanese then it would increase the number of Japanese with O blood. Unless, of course, if there Japanese were to intermarry with Taiwanese then fewer Taiwanese would have O blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.13.184 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This page has the obvious problems cited above. More important, it needs to include the Japanese word bura-hara or burahara, supposedly meaning "discrimination based on blood type" - with of course the kanji. It would appear that bura-hara does not appear in Wikipedia at all - it isn't in the German Wikipedia article on this topic. The Japanese have created a significant social problem for themselves here. Blood groups and types aren't correlated with much of anything - not with specific diseases (with a handful of exceptions for that). But discrimination based on blood type is quite as evil as discrimination based on race or ethnicity or astrological sign or whatever. I'm a pathologist with subspecialty board certification in blood banking / transfusion medicine, so I actually know something about this topic. I'm a beginner at Wikipedia. Bob Richmond (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, this article was about *surprise!* Blood Types in Japanese culture, not whether the theory/superstition is agreeable with your own beliefs or views. I would much rather read about information completely related to this aspect of Japanese culture, but instead the article is mostly filled with bullshit from non-Japanese sources trying to discredit it as "junk science", etc. Who cares? I just wanted some simple cultural information, not a debate. I think it is fairly obvious that it is not legitimate science, no more than Astrology is. To the posters above: Whether or not some of these statements are false or not is irrelevant. If it is the basis of the culture, then it is completely relevant to the article. As far as the culture being discriminatory/evil, that is your opinion and has no relevance to the focus of the article. And what does being a pathologist have to do with this article? Unless your field of expertise is in cultural studies, any input you give that stems from your career will be quite out of place. I don't mean to be rude, but I just don't understand the misunderstandings people have with the topic of this article. Some of you people are college educated, while all I'm working with is a GED and even I am able to grasp the concept. I guess book smarts don't always equate to common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.148.162 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that this is not a simple superstition. And it's not really a cultural heritage from the middle-age period. It's, according to this article, a pseudo-scientific analysis supposed to prove that behaviour is determined by your blood type, which a lot of people believed. The problem with this article is that you have : So, IMHO, there's only two choices : Note that this is clearly a way to categorize or stigmatize people in Japan. Some interviewers will ask you your blood type during work interviews, in order to know if you're fitted for the task. And good luck trying to discuss this as being irrelevant if you only have sources trying to prove this right. TL;DR: This is pushed as a "science" in Japan. It needs a scientific approach proving it right or wrong.
 * Reference to the Nazi's research without any source. Be it debunked or not. If it was debunked, can we see the analysis proving it ? Plus, how do you know that was researched by the Nazi ? The only reference mentioning this is an article of the Associated Press in AOL News. Not really a reliable source of information;
 * Parts of the analysis done by Takeji Furukawa and Masahiko Nomi which are, again, according to this article, proven wrong but there's no proof of it. Can we have the name of a reliable scientist or, at least, the title of an article supposed to prove that the analysis done by the Takeji Furukawa and Masahiko Nomi are wrong ? The only "proof" here is "its unscientific basis became evident"... But, really, don't take your time proving it wrong.
 * You can prove that those research were wrong. In that case, put references to the documents proving it.
 * You can't, then write something like "those theories haven't been proven yet".

Bura-Hara
Apparently there are forms of discrimination based on blood groups now. Wow. Anyways, I might be able to find some more information once I can allocate some free time. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5 March 2009, Bura-Hara, NYTimes

Similarity to Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory
Is it just a coincidence that Blood Type B is an exact match with Type A personalities in the Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory? -- Azemocram (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, half of the traits of personality type A are blood type A and half are type B. Mayumashu (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Something to this
As wacky as I'm sure it sounds to non-East Asians, there's something in this. I have a knack of predicting the blood type of someone correctly (especially if I am told the person sun sign beforehand, as traits of course can run counter to each), and it can't be self-fulfilling prophesy at work, because I do my guessing with Canadians. (I lived in Japan from age 24 to 36.) I think someone in the know who is sensitive and smart can "prove" this social-scientifically, by beating 50/50 odds with a sample of over, what, 300 attempted guesses. Mayumashu (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See Confirmation Bias. If you can prove it, contact James Randi, he has a million dollars for you. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Stomach Cancer
We were learning about stomach cancers in class, and various types of stomach cancers have a larger incidence in people with certain blood types. We also learned that Japanese people tend to have much higher rates of certain types of stomach cancer. Odd connection, but I was immediately struck by it given their focus on blood type. 89.167.86.7 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)