Obviously astrology does no better than random guessing, that's no surprise. But the fact that astrology had such low levels of agreement is a little interesting to me -- I guess I assumed there was some kind of underlying system to astrology, but I guess not!
> Much to my surprise, astrologers had very low agreement with each other on the chart for each person. If astrologers picked charts at random, they would agree with each other 20% of the time. In our study, even the most experienced astrologers only agreed 28% of the time.
> Obviously astrology does no better than random guessing
Not necessarily. It is entirely plausible that babies born during the Summer months share something in common, and babies born during Winter months share something else. Since astrological signs are 100% correlated with the seasons, one could "guess" with a higher probability than random chance these traits. The causality would obviously not be from stars to babies, but from seasons to babies, but an observational study could end up "proving" that astrology works by identifying these "predictions".
This study was a followup to one that just used signs [1], which yielded performance no better than chance. If the summer/winter correlation held, then that study would have shown positive results, which it did not.
There's nothing to say that these star charts or seasons of birth cannot correlate with personality traits or life outcomes. But Astrology, as a practice, is not useful for unwinding those correlations. If you have some alternate system, feel free to propose it -- pump the star charts and personality charts from this study into some AI and see if it can come up with some kind of super-astrology, and then try to replicate it.
I doubt you'd find anything stronger than predicting the answer to the question "were you born in the summer or the winter".
Also, summer in one half of the world is winter in the other, so the signs do not correlate 100% with seasons, and you'd have to study across geographies.
But whether astrology actually settled on these features would depend on the feedback systems in place, and the granularity of those systems/how predictions were made in reference to a specific person.
> It is entirely plausible that babies born during the Summer months share something in common, and babies born during Winter months share something else.
This would not account for reversal of the seasons in opposite hemispheres...
... or do the northern and southern hemispheres practice a different "western" astrology (!).
Or ever more local differences like when school age cut off is. I would expect some small differences be found due to these impacts, but they would not be universally applicable without generalization.
If schools roll over to the next grade at the start of October, babies born in October will perform better due to being the oldest in their class, but this would not be universal. What I would expect to be universal, is given a school system that does grade division in this way, students right after the division would do better than the ones born right before, as the first group is the oldest in their class and the second group is the youngest.
The extent this pairs with astrology would probably depend purely on population densities between different cultures. If things were fully uniform it would average out, but given they aren't, some residual bias existing wouldn't surprise me.
There are several different astrology systems in use that draw on various world spiritual/astrological traditions, make different astronomical assumptions and adjustments, etc.
There are also lots of different things that could factor into a birth chart reading, so different astrologers might put more emphasis on different aspects.
Fun stuff, and not entirely valueless as an exercise in self-reflection.
The low agreement may be accounted for by the degree to which each astrologer adjusts for changes in planetary alignments (or whatever) since astrology was first established as a discipline. In other words, birth month for a particular astrological sign is different now than it would have been 2000 years ago.
Modern Astrology was established by Ptolemy who standardized on the Tropical Zodiac in the 2nd Century AD. In that system, the Sun always moves from Pisces to Aires on the Vernal Equinox. This was a more precise definition of what the ancient Babylonians did (defining the Zodiac based on 30 degree divisions of the Ecliptic).
I'm not arguing that Astrology is scientific, but I am saying it's precise, to the limits of the measurement technology of the time period in which it was defined.
It depends on which "modern" astrology you have in mind. For example the "Shamanic Astrology" system by Daniel Giamario is the product of a lot of thought, effort, and research.
It is my understanding that ancient astrology was basically proto-astronomy, similar to how alchemy was the forerunner of chemistry/advanced metallurgy. A lot of woo, but the ‘art’ still had enough systematized concepts and early discoveries that it offered some limited scientific scaffolding.
The sophisticated system I'm speaking of however is not the astronomical science (though indeed they were responsible for this development, and it was of course sophisticated) but rather a methodical, extensive, rules-based study of fate, as related to platonic (archetypal) forms.
Kind of you to link the Wiki page as the full sentence that mentions Mullis' astrology belief is: "Mullis professed a belief in astrology and wrote about an encounter with a fluorescent, talking raccoon that he suggested might have been an extraterrestrial alien."
Maybe it is just too early in the morning for me, but Kary Mullis disagrees with what in particular? That astrologers disagree with each other? That astrology does no better than random guessing?
The wiki link has a single line, saying that he believed in astrology, but that's it. I'm struggling to see what point you intended with your comment.
This is the kind of statement that the Appeal to Authority fallacy was made for. Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't mean their opinions matter in every field.
All this points to is the danger of believing someone based on reputation rather than evidence.
Empirical evidence is the basis of science, not reputation. No one, no matter what they've done before, gets to present their hypotheses as fact without evidence.
One problem that outsiders to a field have is that we may lack the background knowledge to evaluate the evidence for a hypothesis. In that case, I try to rely on consensus rather than one expert opinion.
I did a similar experiment with my sister a few years ago and got nearly identical results.
We'd gotten into a discussion about how neither of us believe the explanation that astrology gives for how it works (that the position of the planets at the time of your birth influence your personality) but my sister thought a person's star sign might be a proxy for being born in a particular season which could reasonably affect someone's personality (ex: perhaps babies born in the winter share personality traits distinct from babies born in the summer).
She also thought that given a list of people and descriptions of personality traits of star signs she could match them with better-than-chance accuracy.
We made a list of ~10 people that she knew personally. I looked up their star signs and found a description of all 12 signs from an authoritative-looking astrology site. For each of the 10 people I gave her a choice of their actual star sign and two randomly picked star signs (determined and shuffled by an RNG). Random guessing would predict she'd have a 1/3rd chance of getting any individual person correct. She predicted she'd get ~7/10 correct.
In the mid-to-late 1800s, many prominent astronomers were pretty sure there was another planet inside the orbit of Mercury, because Mercury's orbit has a peculiar irregularity. They called this yet-to-be-properly-seen planet 'Vulcan', and it became a fixture in astrologers' horoscopes.
In the early 20th century, Einstein came along with his Theory of General Relativity, and with these equations he demonstrated that the sun's gravity was bending spacetime in a way that perfectly accounted for Mercury's wobble. Vulcan was therefore found to be a myth, nonexistent.[1]
Nevertheless, many astrologers still feature Vulcan in their horoscopes even today, over a century later.[2] The inclusion of an entirely fictional heavenly body seems to undermine any other conclusions drawn from planetary positions.
I think you are right. Sometimes fictitious planets are included in horoscopes, and this is one of the reasons why; some people continue to use it because some people included it in horoscopes in the past. There are others as well, such as the fictitious planets in the Hamburg astrology.
I have also read that apparently some astrologers decided to exclude Pluto from horoscopes because the IAU no longer considers Pluto to be a planet. That isn't a valid reason; Pluto still has coordinates and therefore can still be plotted on a horoscope (fictitious planets (such as Vulcan) also have coordinates although in that case the coordinates are made up rather than being real coordinates). Sun and Moon are not considered planets by IAU but are included on a horoscope too. You might decide to remove Pluto in case you think there are too many planets in the horoscope, but what the IAU says is irrelevant to horoscopes. (The Earth is usually the centre of measurement of a horoscope (although sometimes the Sun is used instead, but this is less common), so it is implicitly included in a horoscope but cannot be one of the objects plotted on it (since the plotting uses angular coordinates, and the object at the centre obviously has no angular coordinates).)
The story of Vulcan's hypothesized existence, and disproof by Einstein, was the title essay in a collection by Isaac Asimov, The Planet that Wasn't (1976):
There's a famous study that found that hockey players are statistically more likely to be born in certain months, due to them being the biggest in their year-groups, which created a self-fulfilling cycles of attention from coaches.
Reinterpreted, if you're an Aquarius, you're 50% more likely than an Aries to get into the NHL[1]. So, I guess I do sometimes believe in astrology, it's just very rarely better than random.
I know you are being ironic, but for those that don't, this is completely unrelated to Astrology and more to how we break kids/teens in age categories (sorry, I don't know the proper terms for this in English). Which, by the way, may be different from country to country due to terms/calendars, etc.
I had a thought that astrology may have had some merits in older societies in climates where weather and daylight patters have distinct variations throughout the year (i.e tropical excluded zones), with effect on agriculture and daily activities, and so how and what small child were exposed in specific several months of their life (diet, activity, temperatures, daylight, ...) have had noticable effect on their behaviour and growth. I.e. if mothers' breastmilk composition varies based on the availability of fresh and nutritious food, or if nutritious food was available at the time of weining, or at their growth spurts, how much outside activity they had after learning to walk or run, what they seen mostly while learning to see, and so on, so the variations in the weeks and months when specific bodily and neurological development occur, that may have been noticable. Winter childs are so, spring childs are different so, and so on. Modern societies equal these yearly variations a lot, even if astrology hocuspocus had some foundation due to such underlying real resons, it likely disappeared in past several decades.
This is the thing. Astrology can more accurately be described as _earthstrology_. The qualities are reflected from the fixed perspective of the equinox and solstices, per the northern hemisphere. There's no relationship to the constellations as is commonly understood; it's planetary positions interfacing with the seasons, and the symbols generated from such.
Yeah, I wrote my post as a joke, but I think that before modern medicine it would have been measurably better to be born in the autumn, so that your mother would have fresh produce in the most important months of fetal development.
The USAH ADM coach training now addresses this directly. They require all youth hockey coaches to take self-paced and live workshop training, and require annual continuing education.
One example here that explains the thought process:
"Birthday bias: Understanding relative age effect in youth hockey"
Well, I don't think that table is sufficient to show your point.
Trivially if more individuals were born in Feb/Jan then you should expect more players to be born then. This is not the case, Feb/Jan are the 12th lowest and 10 lowest birth months (for 2023 [1]; I suspect things stay fairly in line across years).
So, while comparing apples-to-oranges, if you divide the number of players by live births you see it start at 0.3% in Jan and pretty linearly drop down to 0.18% in December.
This study tested sun-sign (which is basically birth month I think) against personality tests for predicting life outcomes and found that sun sign did very poorly compared to the personality tests. I'd have thought there would be a small chance of birth month predicting some things, and then adding in other astrological facts (the position of Jupiter or whatever) would make things worse, but both methods appear to be equally bad.
Is that astrology or just the time of year? I.e., is the cause the position of a planet projected onto the plane perpendicular to your position at birth or some process with a strong 1/year frequency component?
Arguably, birth date and astrology are only tangentially related. Iirc I looked into it and there was little empirical evidence for 12 groups, it is more like 4 groups spring/summer/fall/winter.
I think it was a joke. The statistical factor is actually age: the older kids perform better because they're more grown up (physically bigger, mentally more developed).
So if you set a cut off point at September, for example, kids born just after September: October, November, December, will be the biggest ones.
For example for an age group covering up to 11 years old in September 2024, the kids that are 10 years and 9/10/11 months old (so born in October, November, December 2013) will statistically be the best players of their group.
My personal astrological projection is that none of the astrologers who criticised the original study, designed the new survey, or participated in the experiment will accept the validity of its results.
It doesn't really, at least not to a great extent. Most people seeking advice from astrologers didn't start because of science nor will they stop because of science.
I flip a coin during periods of indecisiveness and have built a silly lore around a God named Gamblor (yes, from the Simpsons) that punishes people that ask him to choose their fate through a coin toss and then don't follow through on his decree.
As long as I am reasonable in what decisions I give to the altar of Gamblor, I find belief in him a net good for my life even though I realize no study would prove he has actual predictive abilities, it doesn't mean belief in him isn't a net positive.
What's wrong with superstitions, belief in Santa Claus, or finding wisdom in the beauty of the stars? We are all just trying to get through life in a way that works for us.
When I was a teen interested in amateur astronomy I actually considered learning astrology in order to learn how to calculate the positions of the planets. My thought was that material written for astronomers assumed a level of math and physics sophistication that I did not yet have, whereas material written for astrologers would be written for people who didn't an astronomer-level understanding of math and physics and thus take a more "blindly follow this algorithm" approach.
This was in the mid '70s and I was not able to find anything in my county library that actually told how astrologers find planetary positions, so nothing ever came of it.
I had a similar idea 20 years later when I took a break from programming to go to law school. Some thing in a couple of my tax law classes were unclear to me and I really wanted to see how they were actually applied. I went to the university bookstore and found the section with textbooks for the university's business school and bought the textbook for their taxes for accountants class. After reading the examples and explanations there I then found the corresponding material in my law texts much more approachable.
Astrology works on people who really believe in astrology, because they internally reinforce behavior patterns to conform to their astrological predications.
To be fair though, most doctors don't perform much better than these astrologers in my experience, and that's with billions of dollars in research, a quarter of a million dollar education and years of rigorous training. It turns out most people are incompetent and our science is worse than we think in a lot of cases.
Citation needed. Even agreement between the astrologers was low, which is a strong argument that it doesn't work even if you believe in it. That is, the patterns "predicted" by astrology simply do not exist; individuals cannot reliably reinforce their behavior based on expected behavior because there is no agreement on what the expected behavior is.
> most doctors don't perform much better than these astrologers in my experience
I mean, we've all had bad experiences with doctors, but this is comparing apples to wooden spheres painted red. I have had doctors successfully treat patients many times, including such things as prescribing antibiotics and succesfully delivering children.
Dr. Barry Marshall intentionally drank a culture of bacteria to give himself a peptic ulcer and then cured himself, as part of his study. And had to do this because he was ostracized by academic orthodoxy and funding machinations. They wouldn't publish his papers and tried to RIF him...Everybody that's at risk for developing an ulcer (or had one) owes their quality of life to the wild risks he took. Doctors aren't superstitious woo-woo and have had to fight uphill battles against academic orthodoxy that's only gotten progressively worse and more ruthless from what I can tell(see alzheimer's research fraud).
“There was interest and support from a few but most of my work was rejected for publication and even accepted papers were significantly delayed. I was met with constant criticism that my conclusions were premature and not well supported. When the work was presented, my results were disputed and disbelieved, not on the basis of science but because they simply could not be true. It was often said that no one was able to replicate my results. This was untrue but became part of the folklore of the period. I was told that the bacteria were either contaminants or harmless commensals”.
Yes, this is just like astrology, where controversial trailblazing astrologers upset the status quo by dramatic demonstrations in violation of the status quo!
In a different thread we could have a nuanced discussion of both the theory and practice of medicine. But the very worst view of modern medicine is so far ahead of astrology that it isn't even a meaningful comparison.
People who are really into astrology absolutely make an effort to conform to their sign, choose who to have significant relationships because of it and decide to do things based on how well it conforms to their belief about their astrological nature. That will become patently obvious to you if you spend a decent amount of time around people who are really into astrology. That's different from astrologers failing to make more nuanced predictions based on a complex chart.
Doctors throw shit at the walls pretty hard, the difference is that when they get lucky it's obvious, and when they don't, they have malpractice insurance.
My male friend once left the room with two girls I didn’t know very well; one of whom he was dating. We were all around 20 years old.
In the ten minutes he was gone, they looked up his sign and his girlfriend decided they were not compatible and literally dumped him when he got back. I guess with the lens of time, maybe there was more going on, but at the time it seemed like this was solely based on the advice of the astrology website. I was flabbergasted and have had a very negative opinion on astrology ever since.
That's key here though -- even experts disagree on what conformance to a sign means. So someone who makes life decisions like "I'm not going to go on a second date with this person; as an Aquarius there's no way I can ever love someone born in the second house of Cancer" or some shit is creating a rationalization -- presented with the same facts another astrologer might reach completely different conclusions.
So they're not really "conforming" to anything at all -- they're just "making decisions" like the rest of us.
EDIT: to further clarify, the claim that "astrology works on people who believe in it" is really saying "people who believe in astrology and conform their actions to it are predictable in their reactions using astrology". The inter-expert agreement is low enough that even true believers in astrology are not predictable using astrology because two experts would predict different behavior.
Doctors are guessing with as much accuracy as astrologers. The difference is that when the doctor guesses right, the patient recovers and we praise the doctor as some sort of low grade messiah, and when an astrologer guesses right, we go "oh, lucky guess, cool."
Nothing new or surprising was learned, the skeptics say 'see!' the 'believers' will disregard. And it's fine.
Most people don't believe tarot cards are really some magical thing, it's just an interactive and creative way to get some random inspirational qoutes or text. It's either fitting and viewed a true, or not fitting and simply disregarded. I know it's all bs, but that doesn't mean it cannot be entertaining.
The most insightful tarot draw I've had (out of maybe five in my life) was one where I forgot to shuffle a brand new pack of cards, so I got four of the same.
I don't even recall which card it was, but it inspired careful examination of the archetype and how it fits with my life and decision-masking, lasting several days.
> Most people don't believe tarot cards are really some magical thing
I think a lot of people have trouble with the idea that despite astrology not being accurate or grounded in science, it can still be useful for some of the people some of the time.
> despite astrology not being accurate or grounded in science, it can still be useful for some of the people some of the time.
That's what an art form does.
The problem with astrology is that it's framed as a science giving answers to questions, not as an artistic performance giving insight into life patterns. It as painful as seeing people watch wrestling believing it is a real competitive sport.
Astrologers can definitely cross the line from being performers to being fraudsters. I wouldn't compare it with wrestling though.
Nobody above the age of 12 really believes wrestling is an unscripted sport. It's just kayfabe.
Did The Undertaker really bury people alive? He absolutely did. Did Mark Calaway (the wrestler's actual name) bury people alive? Of course not. Nobody called 911 to report a murder after watching The Undertaker perform.
I am one of those people that have trouble with this idea.
Can you elaborate the ways that it is useful for some people?
The best I can steelman is the general idea that human minds have a "religion-shaped hole" in our understanding of our environment, and astrology fills that hole in a mostly-harmless way. I don't love this perspective, though, and I'm wondering if you have something else in mind.
Well, putting aside for now whether it is religion-shaped, let's assume that there is a hole and that filling the hole is like writing an essay. When I'm writing an essay. I can stare at the blank screen and start writing, or I can generate a draft essay with ChatGPT and start from there. For me I've found ChatGPT is a better starting point. It is kind of the same thing with astrology - let's say the prompt is defining your personality when you're making a dating profile. You might start from scratch, but a lot of people don't know their personality. Whereas, you start from an astrological sign, you can say "I'm a Capricorn but feisty" or whatever. Now obviously based on this study and the previous, the signs are meaningless. But the personality descriptions people build around them are not - even if you think Capricorn or whatever is meaningless, you can ask someone who says they're such a sign what they think the traits of a Capricorn are, and they will most likely be giving you true descriptions of themselves. There is actually a known effect in psychology where if you ask someone (A) to fill out a personality quiz as though they were a friend (B) filling out the survey while they (B) answer as though they were the person (A), sort of a double-remove perspective thing, then the answers more accurately reflect one's true personality and perceptions. I wonder if perhaps astrology fills a similar role here of allowing one to look at oneself from the outside.
I don’t believe in astrology , tarot or anything of the sort one bit, but I still appreciate that it’s useful in the same way that an inspiring movie is useful. It presents a facet of human experience, which you can reflect upon. It invites you to think about things like “what is currently changing in my life, do I want challenge or stability, etc etc”. Maybe it doesn’t surface anything, maybe it tickles something you hadn’t realised until then.
In a way, I think it can lead to more profound realisations than if you just believe it “just” predicts the future
It doesn't predict the future, but it has totally a use for select-reflection. The same as if you ask ChatGPT "ask me a random question", and then you iterate your thoughts on top of this question.
Here, the randomness is provided by cards, and that's pretty much it.
> Most people don't believe tarot cards are really some magical thing, it's just an interactive and creative way to get some random inspirational qoutes or text
I think most people believe tarot cards are not a magical thing and they also don't think it's an interactive and creative way to get some random inspirational quotes or text.
The number of people who practice tarot for entertainment of any kind is vanishingly small; and of that population, I'm not convinced that there are fewer true believers than for-fun-only folks.
There are some ill efects in coining busslshit stories to matters, especially when it becomes a dogma and is expected to be believed. Basically a lie, at least to the self, distorting understanding and collaborations with others on real (non-imaginery) matters.
If it remains on the entertainment level that is absolutely all right, I like that, enjoy that actually! Good play or relaxation for the brain.
Astrology is just calendar. People born a certain time of the year have been exposed to similar conditions when developing, therefore have similar traits. Large scale epigenome analysis could quantify this, but there is no money in this research.
I think that's working on a lot of assumptions. The null hypothesis would be that there are no trait differences between people born at different times of the year and that would need to be disproven.
However it would be interesting to see if there are real manifestations of trait change from the bias of believing this.
I find these studies a waste of time. If you disbelieve in astrology and believe in science, then this is or course what it will show you.
If you believe in astrology, you probably also believe in some unfalsifiable statements about it and have reasons to not trust studies like this.
It's like trying to convince flat earthers using General Relativity. If you believe the earth is round, you don't need GR, and if you don't, it doesn't help.
So it goes back to what you believe, and the statistics is clever decoration.
The purpose of scientific research is to establish novel facts. I'm saying this hinges on belief, both for scientists and for astrology believers, and thus cannot really establish any novel facts.
"Does astrology work?" depends a bit on what you mean by "work".
In terms of predicting the future, no. But probably most people do it to feel better about their lives. It may work from that point of view. You could compare it to finding a religion or seeing a shrink.
There's a further means by which random selection methods can be useful (and the fact that the computing device you're reading this on all but certainly has a robust random-sequence generating capability speaks to this): random decisionmaking can avoid biases of rational or deterministic methods. There's a great essay discussing this posted a decade ago in Aeon, "How to choose? If you can’t choose wisely, choose randomly":
Of course, if this is the true function of astrology, then random predictions would be working as designed. Though that's not what most people, astrology practitioners included, who take astrology seriously seem to believe.
Astrology is a method of divination that does not involve random selection. If you want to choose randomly, there are other methods of divination, that do involve random selection (e.g. cartomancy).
Sometimes it does not matter that much if the method of divination involves random selection or not. And, sometimes it does not matter much if a pseudo random number generation is actually deterministic anyways. Sometimes these features are beneficial but sometimes not.
That is, any given astrological methodology has a fixed set of inputs (e.g., birth signs, ascribed qualities). Arbitrariness (I'm leaning away from "randomness") is introduced both by the subjects seeking an astronomical prediction, and by the application of signs, charts, and divinations by a given practitioner. If the results of TFA are to be believed, the results of this are randomness.
Contrast with, say, the I Ching in which straws are used to create hexagrams which are then consulted from the I Ching itself, or Tarot in which cards are drawn (at random) and interpreted.
I'm reminded of Suzanne Vega's song "Predictions", which is a compilation of divination methods:
Let's tell the future
Let's see how it's been done
By numbers, by mirrors, by water
By dots made at random on paper
By salt, by dice
By meal, by mice
By dough of cakes
By sacrificial fire
By fountains, by fishes
Writings in ashes
Birds, herbs
Smoke from the altar
(etc.)
As to how astrology came to be associated with predictions, my suspicion (somewhat informed by reading though I can't find specific sources presently) is that astrology emerged from early astronomy which was principally associated with timekeeping and navigation, and could make predictions about regularly occurring events, such as the coming of floods on the Nile, or monsoon rains elsewhere, critical for early agricultural empires. A combination of factors probably made it useful for both astronomers/astrologers and rulers/priests to presume that other sorts of predictions could also be made: of military conquest, personal actions, and the like. The motives might have been comfort in making decisions, as a propaganda tool, or other tools of control. Belief in this may have been sincere (see the "Clever Hans" case), or hypocritical (practitioners / users were aware of the bogus nature but saw the pragmatic political use). Eventually the idea that the heavens influenced personal affairs on Earth came to be commonplace. Researching this response, I'm learning Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos is apparently the basis for much modern astrological divination practice.
"Astrology is the mother of science" is a great quote and more or less historically accurate too. We should not be ashamed of the origins of science being in astrology and alchemy, they were important steps on the way.
I'm afraid that several modern social "sciences" are not distinguished from astrology or alchemy by their epistemic rigor. Shame seems appropriate there.
Yes but sort of what I was getting at is that individual astrologers and alchemists accomplished impressive, and usefully true, feats despite the faultiness of their tools. And their tools were eventually refined into our tools, which are much more reliable though of course still not perfect.
So who knows what we can get out of those easily disparaged modern sciences, or where they may eventually lead us. If those early pioneers had this view of their methods, had felt this sense of shame around them, where would we be?
I'm impressed, as other commenters have noted, by the specific way that astrology fails, rather than just by the fact of it's failure.
The inter-astrologer agreement being low strongly indicates that there's not even a systematic basis for how conclusions are reached. I would have expected more bland agreement -- this person does X, which is something that Leos do, so they are a Leo. And they're just fooled by confirmation bias and base rate fallacies. "Yes they are a Leo!" -> I'm a genius, "No, they're a Taurus" -> Oh, it is so unusual to see a Taurus act that way!
But this failure feels deeper; people have adapted to the fact that astrology doesn't work by adding ever more complex epicycles to their personal theory of astrology until it has completely diverged from their peers.
Relates to that, I've always been interested in the comparison of astrology to the various different personality tests.
I always find myself coming across a new (to me) personality test with a heavy dose of skepticism. More often than not I get to the results and am surprised with how well the results seem to describe me in great detail. I never know whether to shake my skepticism or if I just got taken by a way more clever slight of hand than astrology offers.
Astrology feels like a show from the early 00s that I can't remember the name of. It was setup as a live audience show with the host claiming to talk to dead people. The problem was he was so insanely generic that it was just basic statistics combined with basic skills at reading people's responses. He's often point to half the room of a few hundred people and say "I'm feeling someone...the letter S? ..."
The more effective mechanism for steering the conversation is to make the top-level comment you'd prefer to see.
You might also email mods about off-topic or HN-guidelines-violating comments at hn@ycombinator.com. Dang's adopted a practice of sweeping off-topicness into a buried thread which is quite effective.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I think this would fall under "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", even though most of us think it's bunk.
The methodology to show it's bunk is ... intellectually gratifying, IMO. Specifically, how does one "prove a negative", at least to the sense of prediction no better than random?
Moderators would gave an extremely difficult task trying to sift through (a) what most of think is hunk and (b) the cases where most of us are actually wrong.
That seems like an ironically anti-scientific stance to take, not to mention a slippery slope to start moderating what people find interesting would introduce some serious bias.
So frame astrology type things as a randomization tool, that allows you to randomly navigate a set of questions and assessments to see how you're doing and feeling.
Remember when we learned about how bone divination helped hunter gathers search random areas and not be stuck with the bias of hunting where you previously hunted too much?
Kind of related. But, anyway, what I'm trying to say. I also feel like it's a snake oil scam and impossibly hard to avoid dishonesty at a random sample of astrologists.
My random card reader really flipped my head around when they promised me my reading without knowing my question or answers. They asked me how I felt about my questions and some considerations I could take about the answer and outcome, based on my cards. They said it was a process to navigate your thoughts, not for future telling. And I was impressed enough at this reframing to want to try and convince a few other HN nerds to consider this point as well. Be upset about the scammers but don't miss the possibility there can be a nugget of value and process outside of what you're expecting. There tend to be reasons why people continue doing things across cultures and time (there's something they get value out of in it, usually)
If one knows enough of about sign systems it is totally possibly to discern a variety of generalized traits and behaviors. The correct study of complex meaning making is semiotics not astrology however semiotic analysis could be performed on astrology to dig deeper into its structure.
my take is that astrology works because as kids growing up under the current offset between regular year and school years have a statistically similar experience given the time of the year they were born
so I’m blaming the homogenity of school experience as a way to explain away the personality similarities between people sharing a “zodiac sign” i.e. born around the same time of the year
It doesn't say where the 152 astrologers were sourced, does it? Or how they were qualified? Should astrology be a field with very many impostors, these results would not be unusual.
Generally speaking I suspect it will be difficult to falsify astrology, but more importantly the onus is on the astrologer to prove their ability rather than for others to disprove it.
Read up on cold reading and you'll find that it explains much of astrology, psychics, fortune tellers and others. Once you know the techniques you'll be able to recognise them pretty easily and you won't look at horoscopes the same way again (that is, if you ever believed them to begin with)
Can we pinpoint a specific decade this happened or is it a slow process? Because if we count CS as a science, I’m seeing it become just like the worst of the sciences in this regard. AI has really gotten me pessimistic. There’s so much borrowing from other subjects since there are now models for every subject and every grade level, which ultimately will become products for large corporations. Like maybe we should hire at least one full time linguist, mathematician, chemist, logician, etc to sit high in the chain behind each of the respective models. I’m seeing a lot of faux rigor because it’s moving lightning speed.
I've only had an inside view of academia since the mid aughts, but it was already a well established issue then with departments trying to institute p-hacking controls and citation rings being a known thing. I think a big part of why it's exploding so hard is the scarcity of academic jobs combined with the big push to increase STEM PhD production leaving people to a cutthroat competition, where you have to either cheat or be absolutely brilliant to have a real shot at a tenured position.
Sociology, psychology, biology, political science, economics oh man does the list go on... If you spend time supporting scientists in doing statistics and research methodology for any amount of time you will see the emperor has absolutely no clothes.
Now I want to run test if they are internally consistent. Give them all needed personal details and ask them to make prediction from that date to future. And then year later come back and ask them to do prediction from same point to future. Will these be the same or will they be different?
I studied astrology independently for 3-4 years and concluded that while it can lead to astonishingly accurate predictions at times, the current literature is far from reliable or accurate. It needs to be studied scientifically to gain credibility. Currently, conclusions are often drawn from small sample sizes (sometimes just 1-2 charts), and it’s presented more as an art than a science.
I was drawn to astrology because, in India, it’s deeply embedded in the culture. Personal predictions and predictions about my family members that came true piqued my interest. For example, an astrologer told my father when I was in 10th grade that I would never complete my graduation, which was revealed to me only after I dropped out of college. Despite being a top student with scholarships, this prediction came true, sparking my curiosity.
There are many similar stories, particularly related to Agastya Nadi Jyotish. For instance, in my Agastya Nadi prediction, 10-12 sentences described my wife. Individually, each sentence was generic, like "she will be a middle child" or "she will not be tall," but the probability of all being correct is quite low. Except for one detail (she was predicted to have a master’s degree, but she only has a bachelor’s), all were accurate. Such experiences can lead one to believe in astrology.
However, I’ve also noticed that people who believe in astrology tend to remember the accurate predictions and forget or dismiss the inaccurate ones. For example, many people for whom I’ve done chart readings (as a hobbyist, for free) often recall the predictions that came true when they meet me after many years.
I keep up with astrology personally since I do find that my beliefs, practices, and actions line up fairly closely with my sign (Cancer). But, I know it's basically just a bunch of hand waving and guesses.
I use it more as a tool to ask myself questions, or thinking of things from a new point of view. For example, my horoscope today says "Practice expressing yourself without seeking affirmation." And, yeah, that should be something I work on, my feelings don't need to be validated to be true.
Yes. My current girlfriend told me that her father forbade her to marry before a given age, because this was a recommandation of the astrologer who chose her current name. I met her at that current age.
Another prediction was done 6 years before, that said she will meet an exceptional man by 2024 but also that she will have to go back in her country on that year. Since we met this year and she considers me an exceptional man, she believes I'm the guy of the prophecy. However, because the first part of the prediction is true, she's quite stressed about the second part.
Based on those two data points, Taiwanese fortune tellers seems to be quite on point. I'll revise my judgement in the future based on if she had to go back or not (I'll follow her anyway).
>Another prediction was done 6 years before, that said she will meet an exceptional man by 2024 but also that she will have to go back in her country on that year.
They said “by 2024”, not “in 2024”. A young adult woman in her prime meeting a good guy sometime in 6 years is not exactly a pinpoint prediction. Also, I assume a lot of her family still lives in Taiwan. I would think that having someone you are serious with meet your family would be a common and expected thing. So again, this doesn’t seem like as much a pinpoint prediction than just a reasonable assumption.
“In the next 6 years, you’ll probably meet a guy you like and probably take him back to Taiwan to meet your family”
I remember when this researcher was trying to recruit participants for this study off of social media, which was widely met with skepticism in the serious astrological community.
It is nearly impossible to find truly skilled astrologers who would agree to participate in a study like this off of Twitter, those who have studied the decade(s) or more required to be proficient. Real Astrology requires an uncommon mix of character; one must be both scholarly and intuitive, while also recognizing the symbolic nature of things. These qualities, in the proper balance to succeed at the craft, are rare.
Further, only astrologers who study traditional techniques can yield accurate results, and these "accurate results" are archetypal in nature [1]. Modern astrology is a free-for-all with a very high woo quotient, and mostly caters to the young.
(My personal take is that Astrology is a divinatory, participatory "science", and can't be statistically analyzed [2], though the Gauquelins did just this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect)
[1]: By archetypal I mean: astrologer sees Jupiter transiting the 5th house and predicts a child born in the coming year; no human child is born, but given the general signification of the 5th ("children"), the native did publish a book, which they labored over, and loved. Statistically it was a miss, though archetypally it was a hit; this must be understood by all in order for it to be meaningfully true. [2] This is where the impossibility of accurate statistical analysis lives.
A relevant historical fact here is that the reason the snake oil salesman is a fraud isn't because snake oil is ineffective, but that what he's selling isn't snake oil.
Not sure about that. If people are convinced they are not getting along with another person because they are "lion" and then never do a real analysis of their communication failures, then I see a lot of harm for all the people around them, usually children.
If someone, even the ones who believe in astrology, believe it works that way, that's a problem with the person, not with astrology. Astrology doesn't state that x and y alone don't go well together. It points the struggles and harmonies between two sets of highly complex birth charts. Disclaimer: I don't believe in astrology, but I know a little about its ground rules.
Except that 3 actual studies about it, turned out to have a different result:
"A 2016 study of a sample of academic journals (not news publications) that set out to test Betteridge's law and Hinchliffe's rule (see below) found that few titles were posed as questions and of those, few were yes/no questions and they were more often answered "yes" in the body of the article rather than "no".[12]
A 2018 study of 2,585 articles in four academic journals in the field of ecology similarly found that very few titles were posed as questions at all, with 1.82 percent being wh-questions and 2.15 percent being yes/no questions. Of the yes/no questions, 44 percent were answered "yes", 34 percent "maybe", and only 22 percent were answered "no".[13]
In 2015, a study of 26,000 articles from 13 news sites on the World Wide Web, conducted by a data scientist and published on his blog, found that the majority (54 percent) were yes/no questions, which divided into 20 percent "yes" answers, 17 percent "no" answers and 16 percent whose answers he could not determine."
I've updated Wikipedia, on a different subject, where I was personally involved in something that was being described completely incorrectly and with significant misconclusion, with no sourcing. It was reverted within minutes. Twice.
My wife likes astrology. I just put it as one of those quirks in people. This is especially curious because of just how intelligent she is. She has several degrees, including a PHD. Then, she pointed out something to me: something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.
She uses astrology not in any predictive manor but as a qualitative evaluation. All of the signs have descriptions and ways to think about the character. For instance, Cancers tend to keep people out because the only thing that protects them from their soft, emotional insides is their shell. This makes them also tend to avoid direct conflict, which makes them move in sideways directions. However, if they interact, they don't have much more than claws, so they may pinch without knowing it. They also tend to find their place to bury and if kept happy will tend to stay where they are. If not, they tend to move on without creating a huge issue out it.
I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this. What I am saying is: if you see someone acting with these traits, you can decide that maybe the reason why is because they're concerned about being hurt. I've learned to have a bit less judgement and a bit more grace in people now. Maybe people just have a difference view of priorities and not all motivations are spoken:
* Aries - Brash, bold, and like taking the lead in situations. Also tend to be naïve and more morally black-and-white.
* Taurus - Stubborn but reliable. Tend to value only what they find for themselves, ie "you can't lead a horse to water..".
* Gemini - Appear as twins, because something is definitely _the best way_ until the next thing is _best way_. They're not flighty, just not that concerned with opportunity costs.
* Cancer - Emotional and nurturing, doesn't want to be crushed. Tend stay where they are unless moved by discomfort, but won't tell you.
* Leo - Confident, charismatic, and is concerned about accomplishments and family. Very loud more than anything else and can be pacified by stroking their mane.
* Virgo - Detail-oriented and practical. Often perfectionists because they are comfortable with repeated process. Get uncomfortable unknowns, which makes them not want to complete projects.
* Libra - Diplomatic and charming, value balance and harmony, but judge everything even if inappropriate.
* Scorpio - Intense, passionate, but reserved. Often so reserved that people wonder if they are going to get stabbed when all the Scorpio is doing is being quiet on their rock in the sun and ignoring everyone.
* Sagittarius - Adventurous and optimistic, they love exploring and new ideas. Shares stores and thoughts, often without considering if it is appropriate or not.
* Capricorn - Ambitious and disciplined, focused on long-term goals, even if it is at the cost of ramming something through. Doesn't mean to be mean, but a challenge is hard to resist.
* Aquarius - Independent and innovative, they march to the beat of their own drum. Big things can tank because "it seemed like a good idea at the time."
* Pisces - Compassionate and dreamy, enjoys the ideas. Can be frustratingly non-concrete, but also have have spontaneously amazing insights. The one who points out "you know you could just..?"
This is now stuff I think about before assigning malice to someone's actions or just brushing someone off who isn't thinking like me.
Your text is not formatted consistently; Aries to Scorpio is preformatted text while Sagittarius to Pisces is formatted differently.
> something doesn't necessarily have to be true to have value.
I think this is correct. Many things have value even if they are not true.
However, I will give another point. Astrology can be called a form of divination (although, unlike cartomancy or dice, it is not one of the forms of divination that involves random selection). Divination can use artificial magical correspondences to represent things like you describe. Sometimes divination can make you to have some ideas about something, like you can do with cards (or computers) with words to make up an idea, etc. Of course, divination cannot be used to predict things scientifically or anything like that, and you should ensure you are aware of this when you attempt divination, so that you do not misuse it.
Specifically, astrology is a form of divination using astronomy (rather than cards or something else), and using some older conventions which are not used much in astronomy (such as naming the 30 degree arcs of ecliptic longitude after constellations which do not quite match them; this is kind of similar than how every 28-31 days in a year is given a month name; there are other conventions as well which are not used in modern astronomy because they are not useful in modern astronomy, but are commonly used in astrology). Astrology also involves astronomy and mathematics in other ways too; the house systems use geometry to map the horizon and midheaven at a specific location on the Earth, to the ecliptic; and modality/triplicities is like a residue number system (but with magic instead of numbers).
> I'm not going to suggest in any shape or form that A) all people born Cancers behave this way or B) planets have anything to do with causing this.
I mostly agree with you. However, anything can influence anything else, directly or indirectly. This does not mean that planets will cause you to behave this way, but if someone notices the movement of the planets and then writes about it, someone will read it, and writing about and reading about it is indirectly something that causes another; so you are indirectly influenced to write about this, and I am indirectly influenced to write this reply. Sometimes such influences may result in the behaviours described (like self-fulfilling prophecy), but many times it won't.
And, people might have multiple motivations and might sometimes do different things at different times, and of course you can do things independently of what was the ecliptic longitude of the Sun or planets at the time you were born.
Astrology is not bad, but it is often misused (although many things are misused). It is not scientific, but it does not have to be scientific in order to be meaningful. (However, science can also be misused, too.)
Nice study! My conjecture on why astrology persists despite not working: it is the refinement of two very human traits, ambiguous statements and confirmation bias.
Astrologers can leave just enough ambiguity in their statements so it seems definite but could be interpreted either way, and when actual events happen later on, confirmation bias (often accompanied with a desire to believe and be proven right) kicks in and "confirms" the result. Rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.
To the degree it seems to provide a benefit by giving people the feeling that the chaotic world is explainable, perhaps it is a good thing, far less good than science and far better than flat-earth/Qanon style conspiracy theory worldviews.
Science is a positive good, astrology somewhat harmless (aside from being wasteful & distracting from real science), and the flat-earth/Qanon conspiracy worldviews actively harmful. So, perhaps if astrology can be leveraged to pull people away from the conspiracy worldviews, it could be good? Although, if anything, the motion seems to be in the other direction.
Astrology continues to exist because people like to have a cognitive frameworks that give them comfort and a feeling of control over the randomness in the world around them. That is why we still have religion, which is just as bullshit as astrology and way more toxic for society.
I'll admit, I have a fascination with Greco Roman antiquities and Hellenic /Roman astrology is one of them. To be able to enjoy the literature and culture of the era and the archetypes expressed, understanding how this all works helps a great deal.
As such, I know a fair amount of astrology from a Greco Roman perspective and by extension all the way up to medieval astrology. Yeah plz I find it fascinating.
With that said, the vast majority of western astrology is done using new age psychological nonsense that was literally made up by hippies during the 60s. It is completely divorced from the tradition that was developed and refined from the Chaldeans (aka Babylonians), Greeks, Arabs, and Europeans and as such doesn't make any sense against the system that was developed and refined over at least a thousand years.
A good astrologer won't say with precision that X is going to happen (like you will meet the love of your life or pass the test), they'll give their predictions in archetypes and give a range of outcomes that fall under those archetypes.
Take for example the meaning of the 9th house, the 9th house represents far away travel, religion, higher education, and publishing. These are all desperate subjects from one another and need to be considered in a predictoon against the backdrop of your life.
Does it work? It's a bit like the weather, I can say this range of things under this archetype will happen on X date at X time. That's pretty much it.
If you're interested in the subject, the best primer book I can recommend is the study office and fortune by Chris Brennan which can be found on Amazon in print and ebook format. It's written as a college level text with citations and will give you the historical background and practical foundations to understand the classical philosophy that underpins the basis of the tradition.
Anywho, I expect a good roasting and some down d00ts for my interest in t is subject.
> A good astrologer won't say with precision that X is going to happen
> Does it work? It's a bit like the weather, I can say this range of things under this archetype will happen on X date at X time. That's pretty much it.
If it was like the weather, then it would predict the odds of specific things.
Sitting on an archetype is like saying "it's summer" when you want to know if it's going to rain.
> Anywho, I expect a good roasting and some down d00ts for my interest in t is subject.
This is a misunderstanding of astrology. Astrological signs are not the same as constellations, even though they are named the same as or similar than twelve of the thirteen constellations which cross the ecliptic.
Astrological signs are measurement of ecliptic longitude, each one thirty degrees, starting with Aries. There are two intersection points between ecliptic and equator, so one of them will be called zero; specifically, it is the spring equinox in the north hemisphere. You will then usually specify the degrees past the sign, e.g. "0 Aries" is 0 degrees, and "3 Cancer" is 93 degrees.
"Tropic of Cancer" and "Tropic of Capricorn" are not having to do with constellations; they have to do with the astrological signs of those names. When the ecliptic longitude of the Sun is at 0 Cancer then the Sun is over the Tropic of Cancer.
(This assumes you are using the "tropical zodiac" which is based on the equinox of date. If you are using a "sidereal zodiac" with a specific ayanamsha (the word "ayanamsha" is a Sanskrit word denoting the amount of precession of equinoxes) then it is instead relative to a specific angle at a specific date.)
So, their signs are not wrong, although you still cannot predict facts about people's lives and other stuff like most astrologers try to do, by the use of the astrological signs, and using the correct ones is no better than using the wrong ones. There are good arguments that can be made against astrology, but "the signs are all wrong" is not a valid one.
Astrology does get the positions of objects correct as astronomy does, although to understand them you would have to understand the conventions in use, which are different than the conventions commonly used in modern astronomy.
The dates commonly given for Sun signs in newspapers are approximately correct but are not exact. The exact dates (and times of day; not only the date) varies by year, and this is related to the reason why we have leap years.
I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth. I know nothing about astrology, but according to the article I posted your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born. I'm not clear how one would determine astronomically what sign the sun is in, given that the stars aren't visible when the sun is and it cross half the sky. Maybe it's the constellation just before sun up or just after sun down? Anyway, the earth's axis certainly precesses, so if you just take some ancient astrological information and apply it to modern dating, you're going to get the wrong sign.
> I'm not sure how the Tropics of Cancer/Capricorn got in this discussion, they are latitudes of the earth.
They are latitudes of the Earth (although the obliquity of the ecliptic can change over time, so they are not always the same latitudes of the Earth). Specifically, they are the latitudes of the Earth that the Sun will be directly above if the ecliptic longitude of the Sun is 0 Cancer and 0 Capricorn (when the Sun is at 0 Aries and 0 Libra, it is directly above the equator).
> your sign is the constellation the sun was "in" when you were born
It is not. "Your sign" usually means your Sun sign (at the time you were born; this can be any time of day or night), and it is not the same as a constellation, even if it has the same name as that sign. If your Sun sign is Aries, that means that the ecliptic longitude of the Sun at the time you were born was greater than or equal to zero degrees and less than thirty degrees, counting from the spring equinox as zero. That is what it means. It does not have to do with the constellation named Aries, although people who are not familiar with astrology often confuse it with that.
Astrological signs are a measurement of ecliptic longitude. One sign = 30 degrees, therefore 12 signs = 360 degrees.
You can also determine the sign of the Moon and planets, which would be their ecliptic longitude, like you would with the Sun. For example, if Moon is in the sign Libra then the ecliptic longitude of the Moon is greater than or equal to 180 degrees and less than 210 degrees. Libra is the opposite direction from Aries, so if Sun is Aries during a full moon, then the Moon will be Libra, since the opposite directions are 180 degrees apart. This is not having to do with the constellations named Aries and Libra, which is different.
> If you were born between March 21 and April 19, your astrological sign is said to be Aries. But this was only true for a while, back when the system was set up in 600 BC.
Actually, it is still approximately true, although the equinox does not occur exactly on March 21 every year. The beginning of the astrological sign Aries is at the time when the equinox does occur, which is not always the same time of day.
> From March 11 to April 18, the Sun is actually in the constellation of Pisces!
This is irrelevant. The Sun may be in that constellation, but the constellation of Pisces is not the same as the astrological sign named Pisces. Astrological signs are a measurement of ecliptic longitude.
> The science behind astrology may have its roots in astronomy but don't confuse these two disciplines.
This is correct, but it does not mean that astrologers use an incorrect position of the Sun.
> The ecliptic, or the path of the sun as it's perceived from the revolving Earth, passes through the constellations that formed the Zodiac: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. Astrologers skip a 13th constellation that also resides on the ecliptic: Ophiuchus.
Again, astrological signs are not the same as constellations. (Also, there are no constellations named "Scorpio" and "Capricorn"; their names are "Scorpius" and "Capricornus".) Astrologers do not "skip" Ophiuchus; but there is not an astrological sign by that name.
There are good mathematical reasons to have twelve astrological signs and not thirteen. They named them after twelve of the thirteen constellations which cross the ecliptic (there are also constellations which do not cross the ecliptic), but astrological signs are not and never were the same things as constellations; they are a unit of measurement of ecliptic longitude.
> Ancient astrologers grouped the 12 signs according to the classical elements.
Yes, and modern astrologers still do. Additionally, there are also the three modes (cardinal, fixed, mutable). Together, these are like a residue number system, but with elements/modes instead of numbers.
> The first day of spring in the Northern Hemisphere was once marked by the zero point of the Zodiac.
It still is, if you are using the equinox of date (which is common; it isn't wrong, although it is not the only way to do it). The first astrological sign is named "Aries", therefore the zero point is called "0 Aries" (like how the first day of the year is called "January 1", because the first month is called "January").
> The constellation Aries encompassed the first 30 degrees of the ecliptic; from 30 to 60 degrees was Taurus; from 60 to 90 degrees was Gemini; and so on for all 12 constellations of the Zodiac.
This was never true; they were never all encompassing exactly thirty degrees of the ecliptic. Astrological signs did and still do.
They also link to Astrodienst. At the time I am writing this, the Sun's ecliptic longitude is 20 Leo 50'21". This is the same as 140 degrees, and fifty arcminutes and twenty-one arcseconds.
Is it equal to random guessing (which isn't fully random) or closer to true randomness? If the latter, can we use it as a PRNG? "Now powered by Astrology" branding, for markets where it would increase sales.
Damn, you beat me to it. I was already picturing something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand but with astrologers in cages instead of lava lamps.
> Randonautica (a portmanteau of "random" + "nautica") is an app launched on February 22, 2020 founded by Auburn Salcedo and Joshua Lengfelder. It randomly generates coordinates that enable the user to explore their local area and report on their findings. According to its creators, the app is "an attractor of strange things," letting one choose specific coordinates based on a certain theme. It gained controversy after a report of two teenagers coincidentally finding a corpse while using the app.
I don't think they have enough data to tell, but that seems like a logical next step - determine just how random it is and perform all of the statistical tests of randomness.
I don't think they examined true randomness, but they did look at inter-astrologer consistency, and that was also no better than chance, which strongly suggests their answers were uniformly distributed (rather than being wrong, but everyone being wrong in the same way).
Astrology is one of those techniques where the uninitiated ran away with the metaphors and turned it into a big LARP. Give it a thousand years and much of our science will look much the same.
> Much to my surprise, astrologers had very low agreement with each other on the chart for each person. If astrologers picked charts at random, they would agree with each other 20% of the time. In our study, even the most experienced astrologers only agreed 28% of the time.