Can Physics Disprove Horoscopes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mephisto
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A conflict arose over horoscopes between a user and their sister, who believes in astrology due to her strong Christian faith. The user argued that the gravitational and electromagnetic effects of distant stars are negligible and cannot influence human characteristics, suggesting that horoscopes are based on vague statements that people interpret to fit their experiences. The discussion highlighted that astrology lacks scientific backing and relies on psychological conditioning, where individuals may conform to traits associated with their zodiac signs. Some participants noted that horoscopes often make generalized predictions that can apply to anyone, reinforcing the idea that belief in astrology is akin to superstition. Overall, the conversation questioned the validity of horoscopes and the psychological factors that contribute to their perceived accuracy.
  • #51
I share my sign with Hitler, says it all really. I'm on the cusp though, so that means I'm sort of a mix between Taurus and Aries, which fits' in with my lifestyle as I'm only a fascist megalomaniac on week days excluding Friday.

Horoscopes are no more reliable than me writing a load of vague and unsubstantiated twaddle that's bound to fit 90% of people 50% of the time. And works on the hit and miss technique in the same way cold reading does.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
perhaps the whole thing is off by 9 months
as I cannot see the birth date being the key
but maybe at the time of conception
there is a small chance of some effect?

A STUDY OF PREMATURE BIRTHS may be interesting
in how far off the astro predictions are vs expected normal birth dates

when I was younger I learned to do birth charts
and found the info in them to be very good
weird people have weird charts
and nice normal people balanced charts
is every thing in a chart true NO
but the whole thing is a big clue to something
but the sun sign is only a part of the chart
and the whole chart is more about balance or lack there of
then the exact signs the bodys are in
 
  • #53
Folks: Maybe I missed something and this is a running joke and I missed the punch line, but I thought this was a science site. An now I am reading about people who are describing their astrological characteristics. Science can't disprove astrology, but it can and has been put it to the test. When astrology's predictions are tested, astrology fails and fails badly. If I missed something and am out of place, I apologize. But to be blunt, astrology is baloney and should have been ditched centuries ago.
Vince
 
  • #54
Pythagorean said:
Apparently I'm a freaking badass supersleuth genius porno star. And I'm twice as passionate as any other sign:

Scorpio:

* Passionate • Powerful • Penetrating
* Intense • Determined • Compelling
* Purposeful • Keenly perceptive • Brave
* Deep • Complex • Analytical
* Inquisitive • Sensual • Mysterious
* Resourceful • Ambitious • Magnetic
* Hypnotic • Creative • Intriguing
* Profound • Loyal • Supportive
* Protective • Generous • Compassionate
* Humble • Quiet • Encompassing.
* Self-critical • Investigative • Passionate
* Caring • Tenacious • Dynamic
* Probing • Emotional • Concerned
* Shock-proof • Intense concentration • Understanding of their failings. [7]

When frustrated or unhappy, Scorpios can be:

* Self-destructive • Ruthless • Overbearing • Suspicious • Obsessive
* Jealous • Possessive • Dangerous • Quick-tempered
* Obstinate • Moody • Sadistic • Insulting • Violent • Hateful
* Secretive • Sensitive • Intolerant • Cunning • Vengeful • Vindictive.
* resentful • Devious • Agressive • Death wish • Gloomy

PM me your first availability to meet.
 
  • #55
Shoshana said:
PM me your first availability to meet.

I know, even my 'frustrated' and 'unhappy' characteristics are hot.

vmaier said:
Folks: Maybe I missed something and this is a running joke and I missed the punch line, but I thought this was a science site. An now I am reading about people who are describing their astrological characteristics. Science can't disprove astrology, but it can and has been put it to the test. When astrology's predictions are tested, astrology fails and fails badly. If I missed something and am out of place, I apologize. But to be blunt, astrology is baloney and should have been ditched centuries ago.
Vince

I don't necessarily believe in horoscopes, but I wouldn't be surprised if fall babies were more susceptible to this behavior or summer babies are more susceptible to that behavior. Up here were I live, people get SAD (seasonal affective disorder) and get all depressed when there's no sunlight for months at a time. There's definitely a biological clock tuned to our sun and it's intensity, and it's intensity is observed by us based on the season, especially Up North (and Down South I'd imagine). So that there's absolutely no effect of birthdate on personality I can't immediately assert. The idea of far-off planetary alignment, however, I'm skeptical of.

_Mayday_ said:
SO many Scorpios in this thread!

I'd like to see a histogram of astrological signs of scientists (and science majors) around the world. It would be interesting if Scorpios were high on that list. I continue to dismiss it as coincidence for now, but I have noticed a lot of people I socialize with are Scorpios.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
I get SAD rather severely in fact, I have to be medicated for six months of the year. That said its a simple chemical imbalance. Exactly what the imbalance is and exactly how it is caused is a mystery, but it seems certain areas of the brain do have unusual physiology, and it appears to be somewhat genetic.

I read a really good debunking of astrology (like anyone needed to) It explained everything in terms of physics, it was quite interesting I'll see if I can fish it out later.
 
  • #57
Schrodinger's Dog said:
I get SAD rather severely in fact, I have to be medicated for six months of the year. That said its a simple chemical imbalance. Exactly what the imbalance is and exactly how it is caused is a mystery, but it seems certain areas of the brain do have unusual physiology, and it appears to be somewhat genetic.

I read a really good debunking of astrology (like anyone needed to) It explained everything in terms of physics, it was quite interesting I'll see if I can fish it out later.

Perhaps it is this one:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
 
  • #58
That's the one, thanks. :smile:
 
  • #59
_Mayday_ said:
I think it would be interesting, to mix up the star signs, but keep the description, or prediction. It would be interesting to see how many people still felt they were accurate. i think it would be quite difficult to set it up though, as people would probably get what the experiment was about, so the results may not prove accurate.

from http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense
To overcome the objections of astrologers who feel that the Sun sign alone is not enough for a reading, physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory carried out an ingenious experiment. Groups of volunteers were asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing! Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.
 
  • #60
I think modern astrology is a hoax, no horoscopes predicted the 9/11 attacks or 2004 tsunami. What fascinates me is the ancient astrologers studied the skies well enough to understand precession and other advanced topics. For more info, see cpakonline.com
 
  • #61
The amazing thing is that even though I don't believe in them, I still read them almost everysingle day!:redface:

Does this apply to anyone else?
 
  • #62
malty said:
The amazing thing is that even though I don't believe in them, I still read them almost everysingle day!:redface:

Does this apply to anyone else?

I haven't read them in a while, but I used to. It is just something fun...I read the comics at the same time as the horoscopes. I also read the fortunes in fortune cookies. To me, there's nothing wrong with enjoying them all for entertainment, it's when you start taking these vague predictions seriously that there's a problem.
 
  • #63
I will never forget the most profound fortune cookie I ever got was at the Happy Buddha Japanese restaurant.

It was blank. I had no future.

You know those series of numbers that are on the back of some fortunes? When my older daughter was about 5, she read her fortune, then flipped it over and said "and the chances of this happening are" then she rattled off the numbers. I just about choked it was so funny.
 
  • #64
Evo said:
I will never forget the most profound fortune cookie I ever got was at the Happy Buddha Japanese restaurant.

It was blank. I had no future.

You know those series of numbers that are on the back of some fortunes? When my older daughter was about 5, she read her fortune, then flipped it over and said "and the chances of this happening are" then she rattled off the numbers. I just about choked it was so funny.

:smile:

I think they have different cookies for different customers though. Often I get very boring ones, but if I go to a Chinese restaurant with a guy, suddenly I get really fun ones. The best one I ever got was the first time I dated my current boyfriend (oh, about 15 years ago...geez, that makes me feel old)...it said, "One who loves you greatly is right in front of your eyes." :biggrin: They HAD to have had ones just for couples (then again, I guess that would work for a kid with their family, or best friends too).
 
  • #65
A blank fortune cookie means death
 
  • #66
himynameismar said:
A blank fortune cookie means death

Actually it doesn't literally mean death but could mean the end of something, or the beginning of a new phase in your life. :wink:
 
  • #67
A blank fortune cookie means someone in Shanghai forgot to put the little slip of paper inside, but to stay on the topic of astrology debunking, here's some info from the Skeptic's Dictionary on how astrologers today aren't smart enough to factor in the Earth's precession:

"...In fact, there should be 13 signs, not 12. Precession of the equinox is caused by the fact that the axis of the Earth's rotation (which causes day and night) and the axis of the Earth's revolution around the sun (which marks the passage of each year) are not parallel. They are 23 l/2 degrees away from lining up; that is, the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted. This tilt also causes our seasons, a fact that Ptolemy did understand but that many people do not understand even today. Ptolemy understood that the rotation axis of the Earth was slowly precessing, or moving in a circle, with an angular radius of 23 1/2 degrees with a period of around 26,000 years. He deduced this from comparisons of data taken by the ancient Sumerians 2,000 years before his time. He did not understand what was pushing the precession, but he did understand the motion. We now realize that the sun is rotating with a period of around 30 days and that this causes the sun to bulge at the equator, which causes a torque to be exerted on the top like motion of the Earth's day and night cycle. There is also a small 18.6-year variation caused by the moon's orbit around the earth, and the moon also has a small effect on precession; however, the sun's equatorial bulge is the main cause of the precession of the equinox, which is why your sign listed in the newspaper, in most cases is removed by one sign from the modern, actual position of the sun at your birth..."
If anyone is interested, look it up online at the Skeptic's Dictionary website.

As for me, I personally have been fascinated by astronomy ever since I got a telescope for my 5th birthday. I'm fortunate to live 2 miles from the Fernbank Science Center near Atlanta. The Fernbank Observatory houses a 0.9 meter Cassegrain reflector beneath a 10 meter dome. This is the largest telescope in the southeastern United States and one of the largest instruments ever dedicated to education and public viewing. Free public observing open houses are offered every Thursday and Friday evening from 8:00 pm (or dark) until 10:30 pm, with an astronomer available to position the telescope and answer questions. If anyone lives relatively close to Atlanta and is interested in astronomy, it's worth the visit(s)!

Lastly, if anyone actually believes in astrology, send me an email, I have several real estate and investment opportunities to sell you, I'll make you a great deal!
 
  • #68
I believe in it
 
  • #69
Engima said:
I believe in it
OK, I'm open minded. Why do you believe in it and what makes astrology work? I mean how does planetary alignment affect your birth and other events?
 
  • #70
We are not interested in theories, only evidence.
 
  • #71
Ivan Seeking said:
We are not interested in theories, only evidence.

Spoken like a true scientist. :wink:

There are no theories in astrology, nothing, not a single thing can explain any of it, there is no evidence either, except the extreme gullibility of some people, and the power of suggestion.
 
  • #72
Theories And Evidence

Damn, now you guys have me playing the other side of the debate!

Actually there are theories of astrology, for example the Indian version of astrology, called "Jyotisa", and it's offshoots:

"Jyotiṣa (Sanskrit jyotiṣa, from jyótis- "light, heavenly body": also spelled Jyotish and Jyotisha in English) is the ancient Indian system of astronomy and astrology (also known as Indian astrology, Hindu astrology, and of late, Vedic astrology). It has three branches:

1. Siddhanta: Indian astronomy.

2. Samhita: Mundane astrology, predicting important events based on analysis of astrological dynamics in a countries horoscope or general transit events such as war, Earth quakes, political events, financial positions, electional astrology; house and construction related matters (Vāstu Shāstra), animals, portents, omens etc.

3. Hora: Predictive astrology based on analysis of natal horoscopes and the moment a query is made.
T
he foundation of Jyotisha is the notion of bandhu of the Vedas or scriptures, which is the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm. The practice of Jyotisha primarily relies on the sidereal zodiac, which is different from the tropical zodiac used in Western astrology in that an ayanamsa adjustment is made for the gradual precession of the vernal equinox. Jyotisha includes several nuanced sub-systems of interpretation and prediction with elements not found in Hellenistic astrology, such as its system of lunar mansions (nakshatras).

Astrology remains an important facet in the lives of many Hindus. In Hindu culture, newborns are traditionally named based on their jyotish charts, and jyotish concepts are pervasive in the organization of the calendar and holidays as well as in many areas of life, such as in making decisions made about marriage, opening a new business, and moving into a new home. To some extent, astrology even manages to retain a position among the sciences in modern India. Following a controversial judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2001, some Indian universities even offer advanced degrees in astrology..."

So, we do have "theories".

Now, using the scientific method, where's the evidence to prove them correct or false?

So the question still stands for the member, Enigma, why does he believe in astrology, and has it actually worked for him? For example, can he use a telescope to read the planets' and stars' positions and then log into Ameritrade and make some successful trades, consistently, based on what he 'read' from the skies?

Sure it sounds ridiculous, but since he says "I believe in it," and leaves off at that, then it's fair to ask him why, and as scientists, we should ask Enigma how his beliefs satisfy at least this informal scientific method:

"1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. "

As for my beliefs, no I don't see any logical connection for how any planetary alignments can affect any births or events on earth, other than the moon affects the tides, and there is anecdotal evidence that the full moon maybe affects mental patients, hence the term "lunatic" is derived from the root word "luna", Latin for "moon."
 
  • #73
Ivan Seeking said:
We are not interested in theories, only evidence.

You are using the word theory in an unscientific way. If there was a scientific theory about horoscopes, we would be very interested in it.
A scientific theory makes predictions that can be tested against observations.
According to Popper a scientific theory must be falsifiable, meaning that experiments must be devised that would prove the theory false. For example, the hypothesis that aliens exist and have visited Earth cannot be falsified. The fact that there is no undeniable evidence for the hypothesis is not evidence that it is false. Aliens may exist and have visited us, but left no evidence. So, the existence of aliens and their visit is not a scientific theory.
In the same way, horoscopes, homeopathy and chi are not scientific theories.
 
  • #74
No, I was using the word theory exactly as was intended. I didn't say anything about a scientific theory.

I know that we have no scientific theory for astrology, so we are only interested in any evidence that might exist to support these beliefs.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Ivan Seeking said:
No, I was using the word theory exactly as was intended. I didn't say anything about a scientific theory.

I know that we have no scientific theory for astrology, so we are only interested in any evidence that might exist to support these beliefs.

You are using theory in the sense creationists use it to disqualify the theory of evolution, meaning speculation or guess. It is OK to use it in informal conversation, but this is a scientific forum and we should use the words in their scientific meaning.
 
  • #76
There is scientific evidence, but there are many other kinds of evidence that we can consider for discussion here in S&D. Likewise, there are theories of science as well as personal theories. If there was a formal scientific theory that sought to explain the claims of astrology, it would be in the physics forum and not S&D, so I could have only been referring to personal theories, which are not allowed because this is a scientific forum.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Well, I jumped in this forum to see why the member, "Enigma", who posted a very quick reply saying, "I believe in it". Assuming he was a scientist or had scientific training, well I was curious as to why he believes in it. Haven't heard from him though since his post. Maybe he reconsidered?

But, to segue out of this topic back to "real physics", I'll post a couple of final thoughts from the scientific community.

First, let's consider Mach's Principle, which was deeply considered by Einstein in formulating "General Relativity." Indeed, Mach apparently did not consider his hypothoses as comprising "Mach's Principle," that was coined by Einstein while workin on General Relativity. Though unproved and perhaps unprovable, Einstein sought with partial success to incorporate Mach's Principle into the general theory of relativity.

Mach's principle can be roughly defined in the following ways:
- The precept that the inertia of objects results not from their relationship to Newtonian absolute space, but to the rest of the mass and energy distributed in the universe.

- A pre-relativity statement to the effect that the local inertial frame is determined by some average of the motion of all the matter in the universe. In essence, it says that space, which is the arena in which matter interacts, is itself an aspect of that matter.

- The hypothesis that the inertia of bodies - that is, their resistance to acceleration by applied forces - is determined not by any absolute properties of space but by the effects of distant matter in the universe. equivalently, Mach's principle proposes that the distinction between accelerated and nonaccelerated frames of reference is determined by the effects of distant matter.

- has definition The hypothesis that the local inertial frame and the inertia of anybody is determined by the distribution of all the matter in the universe.

So, given the above, one can see how today's proponents of "quantum mysticism" can borrow the concepts and say, "Look everyone! Even Einstein and Mach think that the stars influence things here on earth!"

So much for Mach...

Let's move on to Kepler, who discovered his 3 laws of planetary motion. Kepler was also widely regarded in his day as an astrologer.

His belief in astrology is exemplified by his statement, "…almost every motion of the body or soul or its transition to a new state occurs at a moment when the figure of the heavens corresponds to its birth figure ..."
For more on Kepler and astrology see the wikipedia links at the bottom of his wiki.

Well, I think this thread has been a mini-lesson for scientists in two things:

1) We really have to do our research and present our arguments coherently to disprove these unscientific notions which superstitious people cling to; and

2) Superstitious people, including the so-called New Age Quantum Mystics, such as those featured in the movie, "What the Bleep, Down the Rabbit Hole," will grasp on the concepts of science and use them to promote their own version of pseudo-science.

stevemc2
 
  • #78
I'm a Scorpio too. Below, I evaluate the accuracy or the characteristics, as they apply to me, on a scale of 0 (not a grain of similarity) to 10 (dead on accurate).
Shoshana said:
"Article 7 - General.

Astrologers consider Scorpios to be energetic,
7, but I'd like to point out that this word is variously interpretable. Is this referring to physical energy, or mental, emotional, or other kinds of "energy"?
passionate,
9. This word has one dominant meaning but can apply to a wide range of pursuits. I am very passionate about a very small number of things. I think very few people will claim to lack passion for anything.
deep,
2, based on my best interpretation of this term. I know (and care to know) only a very, very small set of things somewhat deeply. I'm a hoarder of trivia. I'm also not at all deeply introspective, if that is the correct interpretation to apply.
intuitive,
?. I'll leave this unanswered because of the large possibility for large errors. I refuse to be "intuitive" in the sense in which that word is typically used by people. On the other hand, I have developed a good scientific intuition for some things. But the organ involved in this process is the brain, not the gut.
and secretive,
2. And this post is evidence.
with a great deal of self-control.
2. Very little.
They also believe that Scorpios can be willful,
?
stubborn,
8. What I call a lack of gullibility others call stubbornness, but I'll grant that interpretation.
and easily made jealous.
1. Nothing much to say.
Scorpios are thought to be keen observers of people,
1. I'm not giving this a zero because I think there a people worse off than me...if I can go by things I've seen on TV!
and potentially calculating and manipulative.
2. There's not desire, but I guess a little bit of potential exists, if this comes down to a question of capability.
Seeing more of people's deepest motivations than others do, they have a tendency to be cynical.
4. Ha ha! If you follow the logic behind this statement, you will deduce that the person writing this is a cynic. I'm somewhat cynical, not because I've seen deeper into people (assuming that their depths are filled with ill-will), but because whatever little I've seen was disappointing, more often than not.
They are sensitive and never forget a hurt or a slight.
1. I don't think I can be easily outdone in forgetting stuff like that, not that I make a careful effort to forget. I'm just incredibly forgetful about who said/did what to me, when, how or for what reason. I can, however, tell you the logarithms and square roots of any integer to better than 3 significant figures.
For the typical Scorpio, forgiveness can be difficult.
5. Too much explanation involved.
Astrologers consider Scorpio perhaps the most extreme of all signs. The intensity and focus of Scorpios gives them great ability to see a project through despite all obstacles.
5. There are only a couple of long term projects that I've stuck with, that took any kind of determination or focus. On the other hand, I've abandoned countless short-term projects that I grew bored of into the third day.
Their strong leadership qualities,
3. Have little experience to judge from.
incisive analytic abilities,
9. Agree.
energy,
7. Repeat.
and desire for financial security
3. Ahem, I chose to do Physics.
can make them motivated career people.
7. I'm motivated, but not for the reason given above.
Many Scorpios also like to flirt with danger and push themselves and those close to them to their limits.
3. Other than choosing a financially risky career and the occasional hike/climb that can get a little hairy, I've not flirted very much with danger. And I certainly haven't pushed anyone into it against their desire.
Professions traditionally associated with Scorpio include forensics, law enforcement or detective work, the military, medicine, psychology, big business, and recycling."
2, and that may be generous (but it makes the average a whole number). Physics

Unweighted average score: 4/10

Thing is, being a scientist, I will be the first to admit that a single, strong counterexample demonstrates almost nothing. On the other hand, I've come across numerous arguments for the goodness of Astrology based entirely on sample sizes that are far from statistically meaningful.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Gokul43201 said:
I'm a Scorpio too. Below, I evaluate the accuracy or the characteristics, as they apply to me, on a scale of 0 (not a grain of similarity) to 10 (dead on accurate).
7, but I'd like to point out that this word is variously interpretable. Is this referring to physical energy, or mental, emotional, or other kinds of "energy"?
9. This word has one dominant meaning but can apply to a wide range of pursuits. I am very passionate about a very small number of things. I think very few people will claim to lack passion for anything.
2, based on my best interpretation of this term. I know (and care to know) only a very, very small set of things somewhat deeply. I'm a hoarder of trivia. I'm also not at all deeply introspective, if that is the correct interpretation to apply.
?. I'll leave this unanswered because of the large possibility for large errors. I refuse to be "intuitive" in the sense in which that word is typically used by people. On the other hand, I have developed a good scientific intuition for some things. But the organ involved in this process is the brain, not the gut.
2. And this post is evidence.
2. Very little.
?
8. What I call a lack of gullibility others call stubbornness, but I'll grant that interpretation.
1. Nothing much to say.
1. I'm not giving this a zero because I think there a people worse off than me...if I can go by things I've seen on TV! 2. There's not desire, but I guess a little bit of potential exists, if this comes down to a question of capability.
4. Ha ha! If you follow the logic behind this statement, you will deduce that the person writing this is a cynic. I'm somewhat cynical, not because I've seen deeper into people (assuming that their depths are filled with ill-will), but because whatever little I've seen was disappointing, more often than not.
1. I don't think I can be easily outdone in forgetting stuff like that, not that I make a careful effort to forget. I'm just incredibly forgetful about who said/did what to me, when, how or for what reason. I can, however, tell you the logarithms and square roots of any integer to better than 3 significant figures.
5. Too much explanation involved.
5. There are only a couple of long term projects that I've stuck with, that took any kind of determination or focus. On the other hand, I've abandoned countless short-term projects that I grew bored of into the third day.
3. Have little experience to judge from. 9. Agree.
7. Repeat.
3. Ahem, I chose to do Physics.
7. I'm motivated, but not for the reason given above.
3. Other than choosing a financially risky career and the occasional hike/climb that can get a little hairy, I've not flirted very much with danger. And I certainly haven't pushed anyone into it against their desire.
2, and that may be generous (but it makes the average a whole number). Physics

Unweighted average score: 4/10

Thing is, being a scientist, I will be the first to admit that a single, strong counterexample demonstrates almost nothing. On the other hand, I've come across numerous arguments for the goodness of Astrology based entirely on sample sizes that are far from statistically meaningful.

Hey, I am a Scorpio and my scores are very similar to yours. Maybe there is something true in astrology. Only the astrologers got it wrong. If they inversed their analysis your score (and mine) would be 6/10.
 
  • #80
Gokul43201 said:
I'm a Scorpio too.
Wow! That really nails me! Except for the self control, vengeful, and working in recycling parts. Another minor problem: I'm not a Scorpio. I am a Capricorn/Acquarius cusper.

The problem with these general is that they nail everyone to some extent. Because they are generally positive descriptions, the true-believers say "yeah, that's me" and ignore the mismatches.

So how do I rank as a Capricorn/Acquarius cusper?

http://www.astrology.com/allaboutyou/cusps/index.html"
Those born on the Capricorn/Aquarius cusp are involved with and interested in social institutions. They want to make them work as they were meant to work. They are humanitarians and philanthropists,
8. Does PF count? In a different volunteer role I had 600 kids and 1000 parents under my belt at one point. This is a nice generalization; most people are "involved with and and interested in social institutions" and like to see themselves as one of the good people.
the visionaries of the Zodiac.
6. I'm an applied Newtonian mechanicist, aka an aerospace engineer. OTOH, ALL rocket scientists are visionaries, aren't they?
Friendship is important to them, and they have many acquaintances, in addition to their close friends.
4. Not so much so now as in my younger days.
These people are also ambitious and disciplined, determined and dedicated to achieving their goals.
9. But this is far too general.
They are practical, realistic and cautious not to get in over their heads.
2. I love getting in over my head. I know this, so I do temper this penchant with a touch of realism. Realism remains a secondary concern. I love untested waters. How else can I learn?

Average: 5.8. With all these generalities about a specific set of days, that's not very good.

Then again there's this: http://www.rainfall.com/horoscop/caaqcusp.htm"
Like all cusps, the Capricorn/Aquarius is attracted to other cusps, especially Cancer/Leo(July 19-25)
10. My wife! She and I have birthdays separated by exactly six months.

As a skeptic (my Scorpio tendencies??), I say lucky guess. A true believer would say otherwise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
Is it just me, or does it seem like they took a thesaurus and just started to blindly list off a bunch of adjectives, and even sometimes throwing in a few antonyms without realizing it?
 
  • #82
Not all all. These people have perfected their art over thousands of years. They know exactly which buttons to push to sway the gullible. If you want to see a group that does take a thesaurus and just blindly starts with a bunch of adjectives, read any "serious" literature on the "postmodern deconstruction of the materialistic culture of science".
 

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
544
Back
Top