I’m a typical Gemini

That’s what my sister told me in response to my astrology fails tests piece - “I’m a typical Gemini”. Well, of course you are. So am I. I’m a typical Gemini too. So I’m told. 

People try to guess your star sign, and with me they often start with Gemini, because I have two or more distinct “sides” to my personality, or something. If I was Gemini, people would say, there, that shows astrology works, because you’re a typical Gemini. But I’m not Gemini, so they don’t say that.

The next guess is usually Virgo, because my place is pretty clean and tidy, well organized etc. If I was Virgo, people would say, there, that shows astrology works, because you’re a typical Virgo. But I’m not Virgo, so they don’t say that.

People have guessed Leo, because I can be a bit arrogant occasionally. (I know, hard to believe reading this blog, but that’s what some say). Or it might be Sagittarius, because I can be blunt to the point of upsetting someone (ditto). Sagittarius upset people without realizing it, but Scorpio upset people and they know they are doing it – they just don’t care or even want to have that effect. Either of these can describe me on occasion, and I have had both Sagittarius and Scorpio guesses. Of course, if I were a Leo (or Sagittarius or Scorpio), people would say, there, that shows astrology works, because you’re a typical Leo (or Sagittarius or Scorpio). But I’m not any of these either, so they don’t say that.

Eventually they give up and I tell them I’m Libra. They always say, of course! You’re artistic, intelligent, good at business etc etc – a typical Libra. This always comes after I have told them which sign I am.

Someone who believed in astrology would take that as confirmation that astrology works – I have Libra characteristics, I’m a Libra, so astrology works. They selectively remember the hits (Libra characteristics I have), and ignore the misses (characteristics of Gemini, Leo etc etc that I have). They also ignore other misses – characteristics of Libra I don’t have. Easy to do when the rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation. 

And if the sun sign doesn’t fit they can bring in the position of the Moon and any number of planets at the time of birth. If you can’t make something fit with all those variables you’re really not trying.

Comments

[JC]

How could you dispute such fine forecasting??
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/horoscopes/57560?sign=libra

[wheels]

If Virgos are neat, tidy, and organized people, my parents must have lied to me about my birthday.

Whenever someone asks what sign you are, I've found the best response is: "You tell me." I've never had someone guess it in a reasonable number of guesses, and if they give up, I never tell them--let them suffer.

[Jutka]

Hi,

Just some ideas:

We have known that gravity "works" much before it was defined as a curvature in space-time....

Much in psychoanalysis accepted today (e.g.children of domestic abuse will OFTEN become abusers themselves)is based on observation and clearly doesn't work every time. Yet no one discrads these observations as blatently untrue...

Experimental results in physics often depend on the observing subject...I have no difficuty accepting that openness of the subject helps astrology working efficiently (just like in medicine for that matter)

Lots of new discoveries (e.g.instanteneous communication between electrons) we cannot yet explain. We describe them as having fuzzy logic, right? yet no one claims that those phenomena don't exist

Finally, with all due respect why attack something that you evidently know so little about? Not that there is anything wrong with skepsis but you don't even seem to be familiar with the relative importance or meaning of your Gemini sun sign in your horoscope.

BTW Have you read anything by Rob Hand ? A remarkably well-prepared, intelligent and educated man with a brilliant mind...I hate to see him dismissed so superficially and unfairly.

[Skeptico]

Jutka

We have known that gravity "works" much before it was defined as a curvature in space-time....

Precisely. We knew it worked. We knew this because it could be observed and the results were consistent. Unlike astrology – we know astrology does NOT work. See the difference?

Much in psychoanalysis accepted today (e.g.children of domestic abuse will OFTEN become abusers themselves)is based on observation and clearly doesn't work every time. Yet no one discrads these observations as blatently untrue...

Yes but it does work some of the time, with a greater probability than chance. astrology performs no better than chance. See the difference?

Experimental results in physics often depend on the observing subject...I have no difficuty accepting that openness of the subject helps astrology working efficiently (just like in medicine for that matter)

That sentence is incoherent. But astrology doesn’t work, efficiently or otherwise.

Lots of new discoveries (e.g.instanteneous communication between electrons) we cannot yet explain. We describe them as having fuzzy logic, right? yet no one claims that those phenomena don't exist

No, because they have been observed to exist. Astrology has been not been observed to work. In fact, astrology has been observed not to work. See the difference?

Finally, with all due respect why attack something that you evidently know so little about?

Please present evidence that I know little about astrology.

Not that there is anything wrong with skepsis but you don't even seem to be familiar with the relative importance or meaning of your Gemini sun sign in your horoscope.

Not that there is anything wrong with you but you don't even seem to be familiar with the post you are commenting on. My sun sign is Libra, not Gemini.

BTW Have you read anything by Rob Hand ? A remarkably well-prepared, intelligent and educated man with a brilliant mind...I hate to see him dismissed so superficially and unfairly.

">http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/the_astrology_c.html"> I exchanged emails with Rob Hand. He was unable to provide any evidence astrology is anything more than made up garbage. In fact, he stated that the

“rules (of astrology) were probably not derived in a manner that we would regard as scientific. The problem is that it is not clear to many of us that the scientific method is the only source of truth.”

That indicated the mind of someone delusional, not brilliant. And I hardly think I dismissed him superficially: I went into some detail. Not unfairly either: I gave him plenty of opportunity to defend astrology. He was unable to.

Go back and look at those tests of astrology. It doesn’t work. Period.