I think zodiac signs are more real than people think

You might be right, I'm Leo and I'm a self-centered, narcissistic asshole and I want everyone to think I'm the best and also want all women to love me and I want to be treated like a King.

Zodiac signs are made in a way where they are vague enough to apply to almost everyone.

Western astrology is basically season based rather than star based because the positions dont match the stars like they used to. It starts with the spring equinox. Solar flares are thought to possibly influence people along with the weather and climate.


No. Ophiuchus was never used in astrology of any civilization. Just some clickbait article stuff. There is things some cultures used that isnt as common though like the decans the Egyptians used.

Also the first sign is Aries because that falls on the vernal equinox which happens in the Spring.

The "astrological" explanations behind western signs are so dumb that I just might be more likely to believe in eastern signs. At least I have yet to hear anyone stumble over an explanation of snakes and monkeys, if only because that sort of astrology isn't practiced where I live.

Except there isn't a traditional explanation of astrology like that to begin with, as far as i am aware those all are modern attempts to make it sound more palatable to people who only want to see things in terms of localized causality. Gravity being only one of them.

When people say they believe in zodiac signs, I like to ask them what they think my sign is. Believe it or not, they almost always guess wrong (but usually come up with a reason why they were off that day!)

Think twice. The gravitational force of celestial bodies is so weak that in no way it can influence your character. However, the quantity of light that you receive after birth does have an influence on you...

Astrology is not a discovery but an irrational set of beliefs like augury in ancient Rome.

https://myanimelist.net/forum/?goto=post&topicid=2015031&id=66342592


So you do not really like the new Higurashi and just meme about it? You two-faced Gemini!

@traed Astrology is way less "scientific" than arguments provided by people actively supporting the idea of a flat Earth. But leaving it aside, both concepts are just more like beliefs than the actual concepts that can be proven using the scientific method. Both of them are founded on basic scientific misunderstandings, and in both cases you can find people trying to find arguments that'd fit their narration.

Funnily enough, flat Earthers don't get leeway as much as people believing in astrology. The latter thing seems to be more socially accepted, apparently. You can also find, without sweating much, people who are actively refuting the flat Earth concept, but defend scientific aspects of astrology as if it was any better.

I'm not salty about people believing in various stuff, of course. Everyone can believe in anything they want to. However, it's at the very least weird to claim that pseudoscience is equal to science and its methods.

Nobody despises and denies astrology more than me- it actually makes me incredibly annoyed when ppl believe in that lol.

But there are a lot of coincidences with how zodiac signs describe people that I find very eerie. I think this might be an example of the Barnum Effect, although that is only one layer of it imo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect
I knew this was a thing but I didn't know it had a name and so much wiki on it lol going back to the 1950s even.

Also a second layer of how Zodiac signs seem right and that makes them manipulative: people will sometimes not only believe the general descriptions are accurate, but they will also want zodiac descriptions to describe them, whether they believe in horoscopes or not, and thus they end up validating those descriptions even more so. "Sagittarius is X? I want to be X, so I guess Sagittarius does describe me!" This could be done consciously and/or subconsciously, but almost always the latter.

A third layer is I also dont find Zodiac descriptions leave a lot of room to say they are inaccurate in the first place. "X has a tendency to be critical of yourself!" So many people believe this already. And I can't see people saying "I don't criticize myself enough!" very often if ever. See, the opposite of the description won't come up nearly as much as the description itself. So many examples of this with Zodiac stuff..

A fourth layer I've noticed with Zodiac descriptions and how they manipulate people, is they often describe events that are hypothetical, and the user has to imagine themselves in that situation rather than actually address if they actually do that, or not, in said situation lol. So, the Zodiac sign is supposed to act a certain way, and when the person hears this, they will consider if they would act this way at all and even if it's a little bit possible it confirms the description! Not only that, but it's a suggestion planted in their head, which can make it even more believable, since we often aren't given an alternative hypothetical, and especially if we want to do the suggestion (See layer 2).



A good test would be to find large samples of people and give them accurate Zodiac descriptions then record the feedback results. Then give another large sample more Zodiac descriptions where we switch the descriptions around.



Now given all that, I was also wondering if the time a person is born in the year can actually affect their mindset and personality. Because location and the way you're treated a child does affect a person's personality. Who is to say the time of year you are at your youngest doesn't have some small impact on say, your temperament for the rest of your life, perhaps due to the weather or amount of daylight. And this small impact on individuals might someone be magnified unknowingly by society. However, I'm doubtful of this hypothesis, although I can't be certain..