I first got wind of BioRhythms during the 1970s - I purchased via mail order a plastic "mechanical" biorhythm calculator. I don't know what happened to it. I don't think I really ever fully understood or "got into" biorhythms.
I was re-introduced to the method by a gentleman whom I interviewed several times on my Dave Lucas WorldWide radio program, which was one of the first live interactive radio broadcasts on the internet. It originated on am 590 WROW in Albany, New York and went out on Friday and Saturday nights from 11pm-4am Eastern Time. Our associated internet chatroom was usually maxed out by 12:30am.
The late Ken Dickkerson offered lively conversations about numerolgy, biorhythms and picking lottery numbers. Ken gave me an autographed copy of his book (which I treasure to this very day and appears in pictures accompanying this post) in which he delves into the "pseudoscience" of BioRhythms.
As Ken explained it, there are 3 main cycles – the physical cycle (23 days), the emotional cycle (28 days), and the intellectual cycle (33 days).
His book doesn't take in what is known as the 4th cycle - the intuitive cycle (38 days). That particular cycle appears on a biorhythm software package I have on my computer. The 4 taken as a whole seem to correspond with the 4 psychological functions identified by Carl Jung as sensation, feeling, thinking and intuition.
The belief in biorhythms is based more on numerology, testimonials and the Forer effect, mass media hype, and intuition than on scientific study. The belief originated in the nineteenth century with Wilhelm Fliess, a Berlin physician, numerologist and good friend and patient of Sigmund Freud.
1 Fleiss was fascinated by the fact that no matter what number he picked he could figure out a way to express it in a formula with relation to either 23, 28 or both.
2 The latter number he associated with menstruation and thus when he was convinced that all the world is governed by 23 and 28, he called the 28-day period "female" and the 23-day period "male." In 1904, several years after Fliess's discovery, Dr. Hermann Swoboda of the University of Vienna, claimed he discovered these same periods on his own. In the 1920s, Alfred Teltscher, an Austrian engineering teacher, added the 'mind' period of 33 days, based upon his observation that his students' work followed a 33-day pattern. The belief was popularized in the 1970s by George Thommen (Is This Your Day? How Biorhythm Helps You Determine Your Life Cycles) and Bernard Gittleson (Biorhythm--A Personal Science). Neither book provides scientific evidence for biorhythms. They consist of little more than speculation and anecdotes. [Source: The Skeptic's Dictionary]
My interest in BioRhythms resurfaced in February when I won $40 playing a New York State number.
I checked my biorhythm software and found the "intuitive" line to be riding at a high point. What better time than now to "test" the bioR theory?
I usually spend anywhere from $1 to $3 on numbers (when I remember to play them), and I have a two specific favorites. I played those, along with a couple I made up based on the numbers that appeared in the two previous drawings. (Those who watch the lottery numbers will tell you how patterns develop where 2 or 3 of the numbers picked in the previous draw will "drop down" into the next, almost, but not quite matrix-like.
I didn't examine the actual probability or statistics involved. Just going with my gut. I also tried to send out some "good vibes" by expressing my thanks and gratitude to God and the greater sphere of influence, "affirmation" style!
Not much has happened since February. The NY Lottery is about $50 richer and I'm $50 poorer. Although individual numbers may "drop down," the whole thing is still too hard to accurately predict. At least for ME!
I haven't given up - I'm EMBRACING POSSIBILITY - thinking of my friend Cynthia's good advice: "The decision to embrace possibility throws the floodgates of life wide open. Often we fall into regular mental patterns, assume we know all there is to know about a situation, and are able to predict every outcome. The truth is there are countless perspectives to view a situation from, we never know all there is to know and there are solutions we haven't thought of. Believing otherwise is naïve and arrogant."