Despite being a man deeply rooted in science and logic, I’ve always had a strong affinity for the Zodiac and it’s profound accuracy.
So, what Zodiac Sign are you?
As for me? A stubborn, creative, slow and methodical Taurus.
I’m a Scorpio, but I have no beliefs in this kind of thing whatsoever.
I am a Cancer. I have never held much stock in the Zodiac per say … but I do find it very entertaining at times and by everything I’ve read over the years, I seem to fit the description of a Cancer perfectly. I was also born on the Gemini/Cancer cusp and have a few similar traits of the Gemini as well 
My mother always called me her dreamy Moon child 
Leo is strong in this one.
Just-B may be an anomaly here. I would have never guessed scorpio. If anything I would have placed PD as the scorpio. but I can also see Leo.
Red is a formidable Cancer for sure. My lovely wife is a Cancer also, and Taurus is of the sun, but ruled by the moon. Together the crab and bull walk slowly to their future, with the crab ever so subtly nudging taurus in the right direction.
1 Like
Sorry, but astrology is the original Fake News. Mumbo-Jumbo designed to give the wicked power over the gullible. No offence.
2 Likes
Eh, I wouldn’t call a soothsayer wicked.
At least, not any more than I would call PT Barnum wicked.
1 Like
I am Taurus
The circus is entertainment — no one mistakes it for anything else.
But quoting what P.T. Barnum supposedly (but likely never) said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
I think Biggs was just trying to have a little fun.
Much like the random personality tests that used to pop up in the old forum on occasion (another realm of pseudoscience.)
Though it would be an interesting little experiment to take the most conventional of zodiac defined traits and pair them up with a properly blind-administered Big 5 personality test (one of the more scientifically rigorous personality tests.) The subjects can’t know the reason for taking the test, for like zodiac traits, the end result can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The reading of demographics is something like a personality test, and the designer who is responsible for pigeonholing a client’s customers into certain demographic groups with certain anticipated responses really isn’t too far removed from that soothsayer. When things turn out “right” both are heroes. When wrong? Well, the crystal ball was a little murky that day. But something was learned for next mark…er…client, and so it goes.
It’s odd for me to be the one to say it, but the forum needs to lighten up. Just a little. Especially in Off Topic.
2 Likes
Indeed
It was a fun topic then folks started getting all serious. Everyone seems to choose one form or another of “mumbo jumbo” to believe in, dabble in or have some sort of interest in. Because it’s fun or meeting some need. For me it’s a bit of fun and I find that I am pretty much in line with all the characteristics. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to cross a street on the 25th because there is a shadow on the horizon 
But, I may think about it for a minute
1 Like
My bad lol I should have put a smiley face on the end of that. Of course its a bit of fun for some people and nothing wrong with that. No-one really believes that one twelfth of the population will meet a tall dark stranger and no-one goes to war anymore on guidance from their astrologer. Besides, we Leos aren’t so easily taken in.
1 Like
I’m a Cancer. I’ve never really bought into the Zodiac or anything, but it has been tough at times because in an unfortunate coincidence- the descriptions of the sign Cancer are pretty much 100% accurate for me
Libra here. I’m not really sure what that means to students of the Zodiac. When I Google it, the first description I see is “…peaceful, fair, and hates being alone.” So peaceful: okay mostly; fair: always try to be; hates to be alone: wait, what? I freakin’ love to be alone, especially left alone.
So in the end, I always believed the Zodiac is a study of types, and I do see some value in that, although I doubt there are only 12, and obviously no one trait or fate applies to all of 1/12th of everyone. I’d have to admit that there were times I also saw some therapeutic value in reading horoscopes. The comfort of reassurance is often a good thing for the human psyche. Other times it can serve as harmless entertainment, especially when coincidence seems to lend credibility. Side note: The Chinese Zodiac is also kind of interesting. Maybe someday I’ll have the time and headroom to learn more about it.
I have a theory that if there is any coincidence, it has to do with changes in general societal attitudes at different times of the year in conjunction with a heightened awareness around the time of your birthday. That means that if you were born at a more festive time of the year, you are slightly more likely to be a more festive person. If you are born at a more serious busier time of the year, you might be a more serious person. By that theory, being a Sagittarius has made me a bit less serious.
I feel sorry for you lot , I was born on one of the astrological cusp dates , so can take my pick of 2 signs!
I can’t find it right now, but I remember reading a Japanese study that found a small but statistically relevant correlation between various psychological disorders and the time of year in which people were born. The study showed that the correlation was reversed between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, suggesting that seasons/weather during critical phases of early childhood development sometimes have permanent effects on personality development.
Edit: Found links to the studies:
Me too
again … me too lol Like I said I don’t really hold much stock in any of it … but it’s always fascinated me that it’s so dead on. Kinda scary
Back in college, I took a psychology class where the professor asked everyone to write their names and birthdays on a piece of paper before handing it in. He said he was planning to have an astrologer provide readings over the weekend on each student based on only the students’ names and birthdays. He billed it as a test, of sorts, of supernatural phenomena.
The next week, he handed out the results to each student and asked how many students thought the results were accurate descriptions of themselves. About 40 percent of the class described the results in words like uncannily accurate, amazing or tailored just for them. Then after a few minutes of discussing it all, the professor told us that every single person in the class was handed the exact same reading.
That was my introduction to the Forer Effect or, as it’s more popularly called, the Barnum Effect? It’s a well-documented cognitive bias that results in people accepting vague and/or generic personality descriptions as unique to themselves when in reality they’re totally generic and common to most people. There’s been lots of research into this and much of it just a quick Google search away.
1 Like
Thanks for the links B.
I feel somewhat validated for something I’ve suspected for a long time, but never had any science to back it until now.