Women: A Target Audience or a Victim?

In a few of the Astrology-related journals, articles, and sources I read, the authors commented on the focus of Astrology on women. It's true. Horoscopes may be in the daily newspapers, but beyond that they are most commonly found in women's magazines. Honestly, most followers of Astrology seem to be women. Is this because of a trait of women, or because of how Astrology is marketed?

I think it's both, and here's why;

Targeting: If only a specific audience is targeted by this information, it is only reasonable they will be more vulnerable. Without the necessary information, other groups of people are less likely to be interested in Astrology let alone know about it. The very narrow focus on women makes it unlikely that other parties will consider Astrology.

Women: Women are, in general, more emotional. They attempt to understand the relationships they have with others. There is no better way to understand the relationship you have with others than understanding yourself, your traits, and how you affect those around you. Since it is difficult to step back and take an objective look at one's own actions and beliefs, it is much easier to have an external force inform you about yourself. That way, information that seems off can be disregarded: they don't know you. Information that seems relevant and truthful, on the other hand, can explain a lot about oneself.

So ladies, watch out! They want YOU!

The Biggest Misunderstanding

When people are talking about Astrology, the most prevalent misconception is that Astrology is a legitimated science. The fact that it has objective, measurable elements does not constitute validity. People are unaware that Astrology has mystic roots, and relies entirely on relative interpretations of the "solid" information it "calculates".

While there is definitely evidence of some accuracy in the natal chart division of Astrology, it cannot be proven past chance and persuasive language! There are multiple variables as to why someone could find a birth chart more accurate than it really is: 1) the chart is very generally applicable, 2) coincidence, or 3) they are egotistical and generally accept a wide array of traits (especially positive ones, the most prevalent in Astrology).

The people in question take the accurate findings too seriously, and assume that there is something beyond psychological trickery at hand here. I'm not attempting to dismiss the art of Astrologers--they've certainly gotten something right, and I'm still intrigued by Astrology.

That is a far leap from saying Astrology is FACTUAL.

It is an entertainment, and an insight. The biggest misunderstanding is applying Astrology as if it was real!

There's not much to do to stop people from falling into this trap: People believe what they want to, even in the face of common sense. However, belief in Astrology is not necessarily harmful. So as long as people have a healthy understanding of the applications and purposes of Astrology, no one should be the lesser!

Mind Traps!

There are a few predominant, definable reasoning errors as to why people fall for the "validity" of Astrology in any aspect.

Confirmation Bias:

Definition; Only taking into account information that verifies a pre-existing belief.

One of the most obvious "mind traps" one can fall into with Astrology is only considering the information that does seem true. When browsing horoscopes or analyzing one's natal chart, it is much easier and more interesting to find the information or predictions which strike us as accurate. Even if the information is overgeneralized, people can take it and interpret it to be personal and applicable. It's very easy to get lost in the few startling coincidences and ignore the larger portion of ambiguity! However, without taking into account all of the misses (or too general of statements to be striking) you are not getting the whole picture of Astrology. The entire point is to attempt to be as overarching and inclusive as possible, to fool you into finding "accuracy"! So watch out!

Availability Heuristic:

Definition; If it is easier to remember, it is more likely true/prevalent.

This may seem a bit of a stretch but reason with me here. Have you ever been asked to describe yourself? It's hard! Turning back to Astrological "truisms" that define one's personality it's a lot easier to define oneself. You can just reach into the prepackaged box of adjectives and slap one on, no qualifications or thought needed, simply by the laundry list given to you by the stars. It's pretty handy dandy in moment's of need to recall "information" about yourself.

Self-Serving Bias:

Definition; Using only information selected because it benefits oneself, at a personal level or otherwise.

Not a lot of Astrological descriptions are framed negatively. Why? Because that way less people would enjoy them! Nobody wants to hear bad things about themselves. Take me, for example. Being the triple-primary-planetary Aquarius I am (just go with me here) I am creative, popular, aloof, flowing, well-spoken, etc etc. Who doesn't want to hear that? Even if it's not necessarily true it's flattering. Even the negatives are put gently--rather than being callous or insensitive, Aquarius is described as "detached" and "individualistic". They mean the same thing, but the connotations are different. Astrology is a form of flattery and self indulgence. It is likely a lot of followers of Astrology believe in it partially for the ego-boost it gives them. This is not to say using Astrology as an ego-boost is bad, only that it doesn't validate Astrology at all.

How should I consider Astrology?

The point of this blog isn't to sully the face of Astrology or render it useless. It is only to discover the misconceptions surrounding it.

While Astrology shouldn't be labeled as is a "science." While it has objective, measurable elements i.e. the literal location of the different constellations compared to time and place of birth, the conclusions drawn from these figures hold no bearing to either personality or fortune. It should be common knowledge that all factors of personality come from genetics and environment, not some cosmic benevolence. And for predicting future events: well, no one can ever quite do that.

Can we still use Astrology then? I think so. As long as we don't take it seriously.

Horoscopes can help us cope with the unknown. We may be nervous about an upcoming job interview, and a reassuring (albeit vague) suggestion from a horoscope may be just what we need to boost our confidence. As long as we are not revolving our actions around the horoscope, they can be used as tools of self assurance.

As for the birth and natal charts, there's nothing wrong with trying to discover oneself. They are a tool of conversation and intrigue. Perhaps there will be some coincidence that strikes a chord with you, maybe even leading you to consider changing yourself... There are many potential introspective uses for these charts.

In summary: Astrology should be used as a novel form of entertainment, not a valid reference!

Emily, Why Do You Care?

Perhaps I should explain exactly why I'm exploring the validity of Astrology in predicting either life events or personality traits.

My mum has always been really into Astrology. She'd constantly remind me of my "super Aquarius"-ness, as if it was some quality of my being. I always knew that my first three houses in one of my natal charts were Aquarius, apparently a bizarre phenomenon.

The strange thing was that the things she were saying about my personality, resulted from this Astrological research were bizarrely accurate. "How could this be?" I thought. "Astrology is bogus!" I had read horoscopes, I had seen the multiple discrepancies and determined Astrology to be only guesswork.

So why did the personality analysis always hit so close to home?

I decided I should research if this phenomenon just pertained to me, and further, if there was some solid explanation to this bizarre happening.

Even through this, I will always hold true that I am an "Aquarius." A lot of it simply fits me. I'm creative, flowing, detached, talkative, perhaps influential... all things attributed to my natal charts.

Perhaps, though, I'd fit another natal chart just as well. That's where research comes in.

Lets see if we can figure out the power behind Astrology's uncanny ability to appear accurate!

What Do You Mean, "Astrology"?

At this point you're probably wondering:

What in the world are you talking about?

Well, let’s hope that’s not what you’re wondering. But there’s no harm in clarifying what I mean by “Astrology.” So here goes, a “definition” of what I mean, people mean, you mean, he mean:

Astrology is the practice of determining aspects of one’s life by interpreting the position(s) of 12 determined constellations at the moment of birth.

Each constellation has certain months where it is most prevalent. This is your “sun sign,” rather, your main zodiac sign—this is the general sign to determine horoscopes and basic information.

The natal charts I’ve been doing go past this and analyze the position of both the 12 main Astrologically-concerned constellations and the planets. Since these constellations and planets truly exist, the relative distance can be calculated (now often by computer technology, but back in the day by estimation) to determine the most “accurate” Astrological readings.

When people refer to Astrology, they are 100% referring to this assumed “science” (unless they have unfortunately confused the term with Astronomy…both deal with the stars, at least). Most people don’t refer to Astrology as a legitimate science but rather a topic of conversation and intrigue.

Horoscope: May 23 2010

Astrology.com: My intellect is well respected, and for good reason. Now I should reinforce people's beliefs about me by creating an original insight.

DailyHoroscopes.com: Relationships are the biggest subject of concern today, but I should just put that on hold for now. Late today I will approach sensitive subjects in a new light...? The afternoon is a good time to enjoy friends. Friendly conversation I shall enjoy. My career and or basic life may be changing!

CafeAstrology.com: Today I should establish good relationships with a family member or elder. I shouldn't continue to handle my difficult tasks alone. I should let others help me shoulder the responsibilities.

Analysis: I would hope my intellect is respected every day, even if I don’t come up with new ideas. Anyway, I have to deal with relationship problems of all sorts every day. I didn’t approach anything in a new light though I did enjoy the afternoon with friends. But when don’t I? My career and basic life are certainly not changing to what I know, and or don’t exist, in the case of the former. I didn’t talk to anyone particularly older than me or related to me today. Yikes.

Accuracy: 1 out of 10

Astrology In YOUR LIFE (Yes, you!) and the Media

So where does astrology come about in everyday existence?

Besides newspapers and women's magazines, it really doesn’t. More often it is sought out than presented; that is, the information is readily available but not pushed. Horoscopes can be looked up online at any moment in the day, and books on one's personal sign can be bought from almost any bookstore (I've even seen them at grocery store checkouts, heck).

Astrology is often used in today’s society as a scapegoat. It is a way of justifying actions based on an unchangeable external influence; it’s a way of getting rid of liability for oneself. If your horoscope said you were due for some ~serious changes~ in your life (note the lack of specification), you may apply this to “why you lost your job” or, who knows, “how you met your future wife.”

The aim of Astrology is to appeal to those who are already interested in it, not to invest others. It presents itself as an unobtrusive avenue into one’s own attributes that apparently could not be revealed to one otherwise. Its market is its niche. Nobody has ever rallied in the interest of raising awareness about Astrology; like Feng Shui and other self-help mystifications, it remains solely available to those who seek it.

This is not to say Astrology isn’t referenced! It’s certainly prevalent in pop culture. If the song “Age of Aquarius” isn’t enough to remind you of some instances of Astrology in the media, I don’t know what will. It’s less often overtly referred to.

Have you seen any recent references to Astrology in your media? Most likely they are glancing, and insignificant. It’s difficult to track the references to it because it is often introduced unexplained—that is, the knowledge of Astrology is already assumed, so it is presented seamlessly within context. Astrology is a “solid” science; that is, no “new innovations” have been introduced to the practice. Why elaborate on something that is already “tried and true”? The public isn’t going to learn anything they didn’t already know about Astrology from the media.

So What? Show Me Some Evidence...

And so, if you are subsequently questioning the validity of Astrology, and want to research further, here are some places to look, and some not to look…

Thorough, Primary Study:

Three of the best sources I read were actual data results from conducted tests, all of which were executed in respectable scientific matter. “Popular Horoscopes and the ‘Barnum Effect’” by Catherine Fichten, “Science Versus the Stars: A Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the Neo Five-Facto Inventory and Computer-Generated Astrological Natal Charts” by Alyssa Wyman, and “A Statistical Test of Astrology” by Jayant Narlikar are all individual studies that produce individual results. I have scrutinized the studies and determined their method was valid; their use of sophisticated, independent analysis helps validate their conclusions. Note: all were peer reviewed as well!

Two of the items I read—one peer reviewed, one not—became lacking by the same value. “Is There an Association Between Astrological Data and Personality?” by Gerald Goldstein is simply too short of an analysis to really develop any worthwhile information. The information he does “discover” is both common sense and unoriginal; it brings no new perspectives. “Astrology: Fact or Fiction?” by Michael Bakich is nullified by its lack of focus in fact (ironically enough). He instead chooses to focus on the history of Astrology and other random tangents.

Relevance to Modern Society:

This brings me into another overlying quality of these articles to look for; how or if they address the question of how my myth applies to everyday life! Bakich’s study, as I just mentioned, is rooted almost entirely in how Astrology, the “science,” came about. While it’s somewhat interesting (and his writing style is certainly more entertaining than the average peer reviewed journal) it really has no relevance to supporting or debunking this myth.

An article titled Starry Messengers: Recent Work in the History of Western Astrology by Anthony Grafton takes the opposite approach. Grafton manages to see how Astrology is applied in modern cultures around the globe, examining both their use of it, the weight of it as a science, and how its current standing came about. It puts Astrology into real, tangible terms: how it is affecting how we live right now. Also, the Barnum Effect by Fichten and the Statistical Analysis by Narlikar both do an excellent job of introducing ideas of how the prevalence of a belief in Astrology has affected current society. Fichten introduces her journal by saying that in the U.S. “an estimated 90% of daily newspapers carry horoscopes.” If newspapers are associated with relative truisms, what are the use of horoscopes saying about the validity of astrology? Narlikar’s article, on the other hand, seems to have a grudge against common confusion of the distinction between astrology and astronomy—perhaps a personal grudge, but all confusions should be alleviated!

Refers to Possible Relevant Studies/Inquiries

The second best thing to the quality of a study is the quantity of relevant studies to it. Both Fichten and Wyman bring up the hypothesis of the Barnum Effect (as could perhaps be inferred by Fichten’s title) in their works. P.T. Barnum was a Circus ring owner who was famously quotes as saying “There’s a sucker born every minute.” The Barnum theory, then, is that people will assume the most general, umbrella personality statements are most accurate to themselves. This could definitely help explain the inability to prove astrological descriptors as less than chance accuracy. Wyman even includes the psychological Five-Factor personality test, a supposedly proven accurate test based on five “elements”: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. In fact, in the study, a significant majority did pick their Five-Factor personality test as most accurate to themselves; this study not only backs up the original question of Astrology birth charts’ validity, but supports the connection to the Barnum Effect previously proposed. Another article I read, The Prophecy That Never Fails: On the Uses and Gratifications of Horoscope Reading by Gabriel Weimann takes a theory most often applied to mass communication and media—uses and gratifications—to the purpose and benefit of horoscopes. The definition of uses and gratifications theory is to “utilize the information/media to the users benefit.” People who read horoscopes may alter their decisions based on the predictions made by their zodiac horoscope.

An article called “Season of Birth and Personality: Another Instance of Noncorrespondence” by Uwe Hentschel, alternately, decides to compare her study to an incomprehensible theory she calls “chronobiological theory.” If Hentschel attempts to explain it, it’s not discernible. The inclusion of this theory serves only to confuse the subject. I wouldn’t be surprised if they made it up themselves.

References:

Bakich, M. (2004). Astrology: FACT or FICTION?. Astronomy, 32(12), 50-56. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Fichten, C., & Sunerton, B. (1983). POPULAR HOROSCOPES AND THE 'BARNUM EFFECT.'. Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 123. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Grafton, A. (2000). Starry Messengers: Recent Work in the History if Western Astrology. Perspectives on Science, 8(1), 70. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database

Hentschel, U., & Kiessling, M. (1985). Season of Birth and Personality: Another Instance of Noncorrespondence. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(5), 577. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Hume, N., & Goldstein, G. (1977). IS THERE AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ASTROLOGICAL DATA AND PERSONALITY?. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 711-713. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Narlikar, J., Kunte, S., Dabholkar, N., & Ghatpande, P. (2009). A statistical test of astrology. Current Science (00113891),96(5), 641-643. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Weimann, G. (1982). The Prophecy that Never Fails: On the Uses and Gratifications of Horoscope Reading. Sociological Inquiry, 52(4), 274-290. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database

Wyman, A., & Vyse, S. (2008). Science Versus the Stars: A Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and Computer-Generated Astrological Natal Charts. Journal of General Psychology, 135(3), 287-300. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Horoscope: May 14 2010

Astrology.com: My brain is one of my hottest features. My mental abilities may attract the romantic attention I want.

DailyHoroscopes.com: My attitude and energies work towards positive results today. Don't become preoccupied with one idea. My urge to "wipe the slate clean" may leave me feeling empty. I may become more organized. I should pay attention to my dreams--but they're not literal.

CafeAstrology.com: Details can wait until later. Communications should be well thought out.

Analysis: I legitimately think ALL of these horoscopes fit under the category "too broad to determine relevance." Yikes.

Accuracy: 0 out of 10