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

Horoscope: May 12 2010

... Seems I missed a few days... Well, anyway

Astrology.com: I need to explore my past in some new way. I should look at trends in my life over the long term and determine where I'm headed.

DailyHoroscopes.com: I may feel like trying something new and unusual today. Someone who may not know my practical side may challenge me today. Harsh energies could leave me feeling emotionally blocked. I may be able to make a positive difference by participating in an ecology project in my area. I should consider working in a beautifying environment like a spa or gym.

CafeAstrology.com: A challenging situation is going to arise and I will become defensive and in that unintentionally harm someone else's feelings. I'll feel embarrassed about it later.

Analysis: Interestingly enough I definitely explored my past, but not necessarily in a new way. It did seem to affect my life direction, though. Obviously that means the DailyHoroscopes.com horoscope is null: it was unusual, but not new. I didn't do ecological things nor apply for a job at a spa. I didn't find any challenging situations.

Accuracy: 3 out of 10

Horoscope: May 09 2010

Astrology.com: May head is going to be "in the clouds," and that's a good thing. I will think of big ideas...?

DailyHoroscopes.com: I should be patient and cease exaggeration. I should open myself up to trying new things. My confidence and optimism are strong. I should try learning or teaching. I'm going to garden, apparently.

CafeAstrology.com: Resources of any kind are making themselves available to me. People's opinions of me will be based on my decisions and what I own/display, which should be positive. Accept praise gracefully and take what's offered to me.

Analysis: Astrology.com is pretty much the opposite. I think I was more subtle than anything. My confidence and optimism got me nowhere, I surely didn't teach, and I have nothing to garden. I wasn't praised, straight up.

Accuracy: 0 out of 10

Horoscope: May 08 2010

Astrology.com: Sharing is a big deal today, between anyone and everyone. I will be forced to be part of something "bigger" and it will be good.

DailyHoroscopes.com: I may wonder about the motivations of a friend today. I should avoid misunderstandings by making sure I am communicating effectively. I will create positive results from a negative situation. A friend will make me laugh. Being sympathetic/empathetic will be important to me today. I will be active today, and should consider helping an elderly person do the same, apparently.

CafeAstrology.com: Taking care of business is the focus of the day. Financial obligations are first and foremost. If I am prone to being too generous, I will be more-so today. I should take today cautiously.

Analysis: Well, my friend made me laugh. And I did go to the gym. I also went to an audition, which could be business productive I guess.

Accuracy: 1 out of 10

Natal Charts: Emily

I managed to go through my two natal charts and see how accurate/inaccurate they are. While the charts themselves have more detailed comparisons, you can just skim through and go to the end for an accuracy rating scale and a summary of comparison.

Planetary Chart:

Planet	Sign	Interpretation
Sun	Aquarius	Accurate: Unwillingness to conform and a desire to “travel off of the beaten track.” Interested in progress and the advancement for the betterment of mankind and the furthering of equality. Aim to free oneself of cultural conditioning. Though idealistic, still stubborn and a bit attached to their opinions. Somewhat aloof and disconnected. Relatively well liked. Curious, observant, and tolerant. Not prejudiced or biased. Enjoys being true to oneself. Cannot easily be boxed or trapped in; values freedom. Affinity for fairness. Inaccurate: “Not easily thrown for a loop,” or not gullible.
Moon	Aquarius	Accurate: Observant. Lifelong fascination with human nature, loving to analyze why people do what they do. This often stems from a shy or detached personality in youth. Sociable, but often feel “different” and appreciate their alone time. Progressive and idealistic. Prone to jealousy and emotional bouts, to which they over compensate by being cold and stand-offish. Desire for independence. Adept at understanding others’ behaviors and motivations. Humanitarian. Often seems detached because they assume others are as independent as they. Relatively constant, though sometimes lacking in insignificant events. Make a point to include everyone. Inaccurate: Temper tantrums or messy emotions as a child. Strong intent to stick out from society. Enjoy boasting of their family. Seemingly unaffected in the face of personal confrontation, often reacting with stubborn continuity rather than change or discussion.
Mercury	Aquarius	Accurate: Enjoys taking the opposite side of arguments. Enjoys intellectual debates. Overly observant, with a quirky worldview. Humorous. Enjoys raising eyebrows. Inaccurate: Quick to contradict others. Loves practical jokes.
Venus	Pisces	Accurate: Idealistic and soft hearted. Elusive, moody, and irregular flirting. Does not plan out relationships, rather, “feels them out.” Enjoy attracting the underdog and saving or being saved. Uncompromised by one’s status or material possessions. Has a hard time committing, and when committed often not fully. Inaccurate: Specifically seeks out those to help.
Mars	Gemini	Accurate: Unfocused. Easily bored. Once busy, able to complete tasks quickly, efficiently, and with ease and enjoyment. Can use words well, in both debate and as weapons. Generally overly talkative. Fidgety. Loves debating. Enjoys doing activities that involve the whole body, especially the hands, i.e. musical instruments or video games. Can be nitpicky on edge, and demands to understand details. General disdain for routine. Picks up too many activities at once to handle realistically. Inaccurate: Seeks change often.
Jupiter	Leo	Accurate: Generous. Encourages others. Sincere. Can control their ego. Prideful of accomplishments. Great in fields of creativity, entertainment, and recreation. Inaccurate: Good with children.
Saturn	Aquarius	Accurate: Treats life as a constant learning opportunity. Serious about work and education. Inaccurate: Enjoys speaking with authority figures or the elderly.
Uranus	Capricorn	Accurate: Powerful, both in presence and in abilities. Chosen “mission” in society rules most of their life. Seems invincible.
Neptune	Capricorn	Accurate: Wise and sensible. Inaccurate: Discerning
Pluto	Scorpio	Accurate: Great sexual activity.

Accuracy: 8 out of 10

Summary: This chart is the one my mother always referred to about me, in which my first three houses are Aquarius--apparently a rare occurrence.

Really True: Focus on furthering equality and bettering living conditions for others. True to oneself/"different." Observant and curious about human nature stood out to me, especially because of my choice to be in Psychology and the motivation behind it--uncertainty in others. Independent, prone to debating, and generous. Enjoys working with one's hands in leisure activities such as musical instruments or video games. Creative.

Not So True: Messy, temper tantrum filled childhood--I would say exactly the opposite. Quick to contradict others. Unaffected by confrontation.

Ascendancy Chart:

#	House	Aspect of Life Interpreted	Natal House	Interpretation
1	Aries	Physical appearance, traits, and characteristics. First impressions. General world view. Ego. Beginnings and motivations.	Gemini	Accurate: Concerned with communication, logic, and analyzing. Quick with words or “mentally agile.” Enjoy writing/speaking. Very inquisitive. Talkative. Inaccurate: Interested in social circles
2	Taurus	Materialistic values or non-values. Substance, growth, and self-image.	Cancer	Accurate: Hoarder. Financial fluctuations. Very emotional and physical. Moody.
3	Gemini	Childhood. Mental capacity. Family relationships. Neighborhood relationships.	Cancer	Accurate: Strong sense of nostalgia. Inquisitive. Inaccurate: Not interested in travel. Family very highly valued. Cautious in communication, or thinking before speaking.
4	Cancer	Heritage. Early foundation and environment. Mother or mothers as role model.	Leo	Inaccurate: Treats family life like a business. Organizes and values possessions.
5	Leo	Recreational and leisure activities. Decides what does and does not entertain. Games/gambling, children, love/sex, self-expression.	Virgo	Accurate: Good with hands and crafts. Practical. Quick witted. Modest. Inaccurate: Prudish.
6	Virgo	Routine tasks/daily routine. Jobs, employment, health. Caretaking. Opinion on pets.	Libra	Accurate: Enjoys a pleasant atmosphere for working environments. Ambiguous: Weak in the kidneys?!
7	Libra	Close or romantic relationships. Range from marriage to business relationships. Diplomacy. Determines what we are attracted to.	Sagittarius	Ambiguous: Marriage to a foreigner, or abroad.
8	Scorpio	Cycles of death and rebirth. Sexual relationships and general commitment relationships. Relying on others and how one reacts. Occult, psychic and taboo matters. “Self-transformation.”	Capricorn	Ambiguous: Natural death at an old age.
9	Sagittarius	Travelling. Culture. Religion. Law and ethics. Higher education and the desire or lack thereof for knowledge. Expansion and experience.	Capricorn	Accurate: Strong sense of justice and loyalty. Inaccurate: Respects and still holds belief in the religion brought up into.
10	Capricorn	Ambitions and motivations. Desired career. Status and drive for social prowess. Father or father figure. Public appearance and figure.	Aquarius	Accurate: Likes contact with others. Enjoys speaking, analyzing, and explaining. Ambiguous: Success in teaching?
11	Aquarius	Friends and acquaintances. Social groups and clubs. Benefits and fortunes from career. One’s aspirations and dreams.	Pisces	Accurate: A few CLOSE friends. Sincere and frank in friendships. Inaccurate: Has ONLY a few friends
12	Pisces	Mysticism. Places of seclusion (hospitals, prisons, institutions, or self-created). Things which are not apparent to the self but are clearly apparent to others. Secretive affairs. Reflection and self sacrifice. Subconscious.	Aries	Accurate: Can take initiatives without prodding or consulting

Accuracy: 5 out of 10

Summary: This one seems to focus on some future stuff, rendering a lot of my analysis ambiguous or obsolete. What was there, however, was so loose and multiply applicable I feel I can only give this chart a "so what" out of "who cares" on the accuracy.

Really True: Concerned with communication and logic. Enjoys writing and speaking. Emotional and physical. Good with crafts. Seeks justice.

Not So True: Still faithful to childhood religion. Not interested in travel. Organized. Prudish.