The Age of Ophiuchus

Last week there was a kerfuffle about a news item from last week from a college in Minnesota. Because of a wobble in the Earth's axis, the signs of the zodiac don't correspond with the same dates as they did 5,000 years ago, when the zodiac was established. Thus, you may not have been born in the sign you thought you were. For example, under the new chart, I am not a Taurus, but an Aries.

Astrologers are quick to point out that this doesn't change the way they forecast. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that, but it raises a more important question--are there people who actually take astrology seriously? Faithful readers of this blog know I don't have much tolerance for belief in the supernatural, but at least the major religions of the world, while based on fantastical myths, teach their practitioners (in theory) about how to get along with one's fellow man. What good, exactly, does astrology do, other than providing a momentary distraction while reading the paper in the morning?

I will admit that I have spent money on astrology materials, especially when I was younger. During my lonely moments I sought out anything to figure out who would be right for me--the consensus seemed to be Virgos and Pisceans (but that may have all changed). For those who use astrology as an amusement, I see no harm in it, as long as one realizes it's a large dose of hokum, no more accurate than Tarot cards or crystal balls.

But there are people, normally intelligent people, who believe in this stuff. I used to have a boss who would chalk up weird things to "Mercury's in retrograde," as if a tiny rock millions of miles away could possibly effect human behavior. Others say that their horoscopes are so accurate, or that the description of their sign is spot-on. This, of course, is a trick, and was exposed as such in 1947 by a scientist named Forer. He conducted an experiment, giving subjects a description of themselves that he told them was specifically crafted for them. Only he gave every subject the same description:

"You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life."

Of course all the subjects said that this described them (a 4.26 rating out of 5). But everyone from the Dalai Lama to Jared Lee Loughner would probably say this fit them to a T. It's a trick used by fortune tellers to convince their dupes that they know what they are talking about--generalizing when they appear to be specific. It can work well--I've also thought the general description of Taurus fit me: stubborn, appreciates food and sex. This has gotten me to overlook that Taureans are supposed to be good with money, which I am certainly not.

On its face, astrology should be laughed at. The notion that all of humanity can be divided into twelve personality groups, based on birthday, is foolish. If astrology were true, wouldn't identical twins have the same personalities? They are born at the same time and same place. And furthermore, personality traits based on the constellations themselves are really stupid. Geminis have split personalities, because Gemini is the Twins, right? Well, that the constellation is named Gemini because of how early astronomers viewed those particular stars. It's a purely abstract concept, and has no basis in any reality.

The new chart has restored a lost, thirteenth constellation, Ophiucus (the snake bearer) to the zodiac, while shortening Scorpio to seven days. If this new chart were adopted, Scorpios would become rare indeed, like left-handed redheads.

For those who actually base their life choices on astrology, I hope this news has a confrontational effect, and gets them to wake up. Everyone knows the only real way to forecast the future--Chinese fortune cookies.