# What is your view on astrology?



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

have you ever been curious about it? Have you tried understanding it? If so, have you found it useful or a waste of time? 
I'm just curious, because I've always felt drawn to esoteric knowledge, and have had a major interest in astrology for 5 years(from 15 to 20), but after that I've discoered some inadequacies, and have been plagued with doubt. 
Ever since that I feel "blocked", because I cannot deny the fact that it's so darn insightful in some ways.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

What evidence is there that astrology is true?

Oh, there is none. That means it's bullshit!


----------



## Siggy (May 25, 2009)

I think its a bunch of garbage. Check out this article from Livescience. It says that your astrological sign may not be what you think it is. 


Your Astrological Sign May Not Be What You Think It Is | LiveScience


----------



## jdmn (Feb 5, 2010)

I don't believe too much about astrology as a way to describe your personality, traits and predict your future. I'm a saggitarius, and my behavior is much different from the one described in the horoscope. As a personal belief, I think you make your destiny, but there are also external circumstances that can modify your destiny and it's out of your hands to control it such as money, family, genetics, etc...


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

lol. my dad is an ENTJ and he's been telling me to quit this crap for ages-one of the reasons why I've went on with it for so long..LOL

I know about Ophiuccus and shit-just crap. There is the Tropical Zodiac which uses the Sun-Earth relations to define the signs of the zodiac, and there's Sidereal Zodiac, which is based on the Constellations.
That's the "inadequacy" I've been talking about. 

Most people only know about the Tropical Zodiac, but the fact that the original signs had to do with seasons rather than the constellations was pure assumption. Ancient astrologers based their signs on the constellations.
However, since the Tropical is most commonly used, most people who get into astrology learn to wrongly identify certain types of energies as belonging to a certain sign, when they belong to another.

But, despite that, there is a bedrock to astrology-which are planetary aspects. Those don't depend on the zodiac signs, and they always tell the truth.

I am not talking about personality analysis-although that works as well, but mostly synastry- meaning relationship-oriented astrology.


----------



## Mantis (Feb 7, 2010)

so, jdmn,
maybe Scorpio sounds more like you? Astrology Zodiac Sign: Scorpio

Besides, appart from the Sun's position in the Zodiac, you also have to look at 6 other planets, plus the Ascendant.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

It's a fine example of the Barnum effect.


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

I think it's all bunk.

I am supposed to be a Capricorn. That works for my personality.
However...my husband's birthday is the day after mine...he is an ISFP. There's no way that he is a "Capricorn." 

When I taught Romeo & Juliet (star-cross'd lovers) to freshmen, I made them check their horoscopes from the previous day for the entire unit (Elizabethans were notoriously superstitious). They were checking for accuracy and applicability. They also analyzed the language (ever notice that there is one "higher-level" word in each horoscope? Lends "credibility"). 

Anyway, I believe I did my part to dissuade my students from believing in it. Most had an accuracy level under 20%.


----------



## very bored (Jul 6, 2009)

Azrael said:


> It's a fine example of the Barnum effect.


Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree, but I just wanted to give a link since I had to look that up. I'm surprised so many people think that the calendar day on which a person is born determines their personality.


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

JHBowden said:


> What evidence is there that astrology is true?
> 
> Oh, there is none. That means it's bullshit!


Something only exists if there is empirical evidence proving that it does exist?
I had a similar discussion. He said (via CreateDebate) that he can only be sure of it if it has gone through the peer-review process. I asked, 'I have not gone through the peer-review process, does that mean that I do not exist?', I got some backing - a reference to chatterbots, mainly. The person (an atheist, no less) said something along the lines that they had faith in my existence.
Do I exist? You cannot be certain, I could be a computer...?


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

Of course astrology is not true. The planets aligning in a certain manner means nothing more than that they are aligning in a certain manner.


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

HannibalLecter said:


> Something only exists if there is empirical evidence proving that it does exist?
> I had a similar discussion. He said (via CreateDebate) that he can only be sure of it if it has gone through the peer-review process. I asked, 'I have not gone through the peer-review process, does that mean that I do not exist?', I got some backing - a reference to chatterbots, mainly. The person (an atheist, no less) said something along the lines that they had faith in my existence.
> Do I exist? You cannot be certain, I could be a computer...?


Back when I was a self-proclaimed atheist, I once joked with my brother, a fellow NT, that I would believe in God if someone could prove he existed. "Bring me his droppings!" I proclaimed.
I don't know about the peer-review process, but you do have droppings.:wink:
Horoscopes also generate waste, in the form of newsprint and wasted time.


----------



## jdmn (Feb 5, 2010)

Mantis said:


> so, jdmn,
> maybe Scorpio sounds more like you? Astrology Zodiac Sign: Scorpio
> 
> Besides, appart from the Sun's position in the Zodiac, you also have to look at 6 other planets, plus the Ascendant.


Umm.. what makes you think the scorpio description fits with me? True,I've read the link and there are several traits that fits with me but, have you read my posts? My birthdate? What?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

HannibalLecter said:


> Something only exists if there is empirical evidence proving that it does exist?


If there is no evidence suggesting that it exists, then there is no reason to think it exists.


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

Slkmcphee said:


> Back when I was a self-proclaimed atheist, I once joked with my brother, a fellow NT, that I would believe in God if someone could prove he existed. "Bring me his droppings!" I proclaimed.
> I don't know about the peer-review process, but you do have droppings.:wink:
> Horoscopes also generate waste, in the form of newsprint and wasted time.


How do you know?
How do you know that I am not am AI mastermind chatterbot?


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

Azrael said:


> If there is no evidence suggesting that it exists, then there is no reason to think it exists.


Not even 100,000,000s of witnesses and 10,000s of pictures?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

HannibalLecter said:


> Not even 100,000,000s of witnesses and 10,000s of pictures?


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

The claim "I saw a friend on Saturday" is natural and commonplace; thus it requires little (or no) evidence to be credible.
The claim "I saw a ghost on Saturday" is supernatural and unusual; thus it requires very significant evidence.

The second claim posits an alternate spiritual dimension with a connection to our own, and assumes a lot about the human survival of death.
In spite of all these claims, no legitimate scientific evidence has been presented.

I've had my own brushes with "the supernatural," and can now analyze my biases retroactively.
What is more likely: that the laws of nature were suspended? ...or that I made a mistake?

Consider your own standards of evidence if your friend said he won $12 bucks from the lottery, compared to 12 million.


----------



## HannibalLecter (Apr 18, 2010)

Azrael said:


> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
> 
> The claim "I saw a friend on Saturday" is natural and commonplace; thus it requires little (or no) evidence to be credible.
> The claim "I saw a ghost on Saturday" is supernatural and unusual; thus it requires very significant evidence.
> ...


*The claim "I saw a ghost on Saturday" is supernatural and unusual; thus it requires very significant evidence.*
That's why most people don't believe it: it's supernatural and thus would completely alter one's worldview.
*The second claim posits an alternate spiritual dimension with a connection to our own, and assumes a lot about the human survival of death.*
I didn't mean ghosts, I meant aliens!
*I've had my own brushes with "the supernatural," and can now analyze my biases retroactively.
What is more likely: that the laws of nature were suspended? ...or that a made a mistake?*
People believe the laws of nature, thus they do not believe in such phenomena. What if, perchance, the laws of nature are mistaken?
*Consider your own standards of evidence if your friend said he won $12 bucks from the lottery, compared to 12 million.*
...and what if thousands, or millions, of people substantiated that claim?


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

HannibalLecter said:


> That's why most people don't believe it: it's supernatural and thus would completely alter one's worldview.


I'm ready to change my mind as soon as strong scientific evidence is presented.


HannibalLecter said:


> I didn't mean ghosts, I meant aliens!


Aliens might exist, but I doubt they have been here. Again, no evidence.


HannibalLecter said:


> People believe the laws of nature, thus they do not believe in such phenomena. What if, perchance, the laws of nature are mistaken?


Entertaining unlikely "what ifs" is a poor use of my time.


HannibalLecter said:


> ...and what if thousands, or millions, of people substantiated that claim?


Well, that was a poor example, since it was not "supernatural." 
It is hard to cognitively misinterpret something in a way that makes you believe someone won the lottery.
It is quite easy, however, to see faces or forms where there are none - since our brains are wired to do this.


----------



## Slkmcphee (Oct 19, 2009)

HannibalLecter said:


> *The claim "I saw a ghost on Saturday" is supernatural and unusual; thus it requires very significant evidence.*
> That's why most people don't believe it: it's supernatural and thus would completely alter one's worldview.
> *The second claim posits an alternate spiritual dimension with a connection to our own, and assumes a lot about the human survival of death.*
> I didn't mean ghosts, I meant aliens!
> ...


Battle of the INTX. I'm left in the dust.:blushed:


----------



## Joe Friendly (May 17, 2015)

The Zodiac sun signs are useful because birthday traits are there to be seen. Birthday amounts to a fundamental dimension, phase, on the annual sine cycle of solar energy flow to our Temperate Zones to which humans have evolved to respond with systematic differences in neural networking parameters. But better we rescue birthday from the Zodiac and astrology and begin to study birthday traits in terms of seasonal differences in the infant's environment. We can learn all manner of traits beyond the teaching of astrology. The business with the planets, moon, and rising sign we should abandon as nonsense. One additional useful variable that astrology ignores is birthdays of parents.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

A great distraction.

Not to mention that.. "system" itself's been revised a lot. iirc there's a 13th sign, but nope.

Not to mention the implications that somebody born outside of our planet would then have a different personality compared to blah blah blah blah blah space blah blah blahbored.


----------



## SoulScream (Sep 17, 2012)




----------



## dracula (Apr 5, 2015)

I've never been into astrology. I could almost say that I'm not even indifferent but deeply dislike it. I'm supposedly a Capricorn and it doesn't go with my personality at all, I'm actually almost the exact opposite of it. I don't trust people who take horoscopes as The Truth. 

Sometimes I like to annoy people by reading a horoscope and bullshitting how excellently it goes with my day/week/month/whatever. My today's horoscope from a Finnish tablet claims that I have to find a new path and despite the road being a bit rocky I have to go forward. Love is present too, according to it. How vague can you get?


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

It's cute and fun. But I don't take it seriously.

I also do my own tarot cards, but not because I want to "know my future".

Horoscopes and tarot, for me, are about how I interpret my interpretations of their meanings. It gives me insight into how I perceived my situation and gives me time for personal reflection. I never claim that it's accurate or inaccurate because that would be assuming that it has some scientific merit, which it does not.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Huh, we had a thread like this on the INTP forum too :happy:



Simpson17866 said:


> Astrology is a fictional construct.
> 
> Just because it's not _real_ doesn't mean that it can't be fun to play with when you're bored :wink:


----------



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

It's fun, sometimes.
Expecially when they get your personality all wrong.


----------



## Laze (Feb 19, 2015)

Something like this:


----------



## NoShxtSherlock (May 31, 2015)

I was curious about astrology when I was a child, when I found a couple of astrology pages in a children's magazine that I used get, but I quickly discounted it as rubbish.

I don't understand how anyone can possibly believe in astrology, or how the movement and alignment of the planets could have any effect on a persons personality, decisions or happenings in their lives. I personally feel it's a waste of time, and place it in the same bag I do with alternative medicines, and people who 'talk to the dead'.


----------



## orihara (Nov 23, 2014)

two words: star magic


----------



## dwelfusius (Feb 16, 2015)

mumbo jumbo


----------



## dwelfusius (Feb 16, 2015)

Mantis said:


> wow, wow.
> 
> have you people actually read what I said?
> 
> ...


it was very interesting.No I'm lying, sorry,it was mildly interesting.But still BS.And tbh I do not understand why you would want to spend 5 yrs of your life trying to study it.A year maybe if you found it really intriguing. Just stating my thoughts, and if you still find it interesting fine and dandy but since you asked our opinions you're getting them ^^


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

I don't believe in it, however, there are those that do and advantages to be had from being a cusp of Aries and Taurus. People are fond of the idea of birthrights.


----------



## Alpha_Orionis (Jan 18, 2015)

I think that the sun's apparent position related to constellation at the time of someone's birth has no relation to the personality.


----------



## Ultr4 (Feb 11, 2015)

Alpha_Orionis said:


> I think that the sun's apparent position related to constellation at the time of someone's birth has no relation to the personality.


Reverse the burden of proof. Russel Thea Pot.

Why would the planets and the stars predict the human personality or behavior??????????


----------



## Littleleicesterfox (Mar 9, 2015)

I think it's bullcrap but like all things that people believe that has no real evidence or basis for functioning very interesting to research.


----------



## Tyrant (Mar 8, 2012)

Let me just say that according to my astrological sign, I am supposed to be incredibly smooth and charming.

This past year I accidentally set a pop tart on fire in the microwave and woke up my entire floor. I tripped on my own pants while trying to take them off. I told my girlfriend she reminded me of an elephant (because she has great memory). I've responded to the majority of compliments I've received with blank stares and twitches of the mouth.

I think my view on astrology is pretty clear.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

No not at all - but I do find it odd that I act more like a stereotypical libra even more than those who are really Libras ( I'm a Capricorn ) - found out about this bc my libra friend was reading her horoscope and it somehow described my exact personality instead . Oh and if we're talking eastern astrology - my personality is the opposite of what is described of me - 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

Astrology's popularity amazes me, as does the popularity of a great many other things such as religion and life after death. We now have a good understanding of the universe and it's workings, yet people persist in believing in the mystical and improbable. 
People don't think, people just want to believe. Why are people so foolish?


----------



## Notus Asphodelus (Jan 20, 2015)

Something I use as an inspiration for writing metaphorical stories and basically designing artistic objects. I used to be an avid fan of astrology as a kid; not the one about future predictions that we see in some magazines. I like to read about the significance of each planet and their respective houses which relate to the ancient Greek Mythology. Nowadays I rarely read about them. It's not something I would use as a guideline to propel me towards a certain lifestyle.


----------



## ChkChkBoom (Nov 10, 2013)

It's interesting. But unsubstantial. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

Supa hot science


----------



## TimeIsExpensive (Dec 22, 2014)

Astrology is way more complex than just what your Sun sign is. 

Keeping my high disregard towards the mainstream disinfo tabloids about it because of this simple fact, I have used many of its various systems (geocentric, heliocentric, sidereal, draconic, etc.) to spot the nature of many events, as well as the characteristics behind one's psychological patterns. Plus the causal impacts on both the mind and the psyche during transits and progressions.

It's important to note that you have an entire 2D natal chart that reveals the exact location of all planets and fixed stars within our system by degrees, arcminutes and the angular distances between these celestial bodies. Midpoints are also included in most applications to serve as coordinating points for more effective calculations. 

Despite being so symbolically abstract, astrology is also a very practical instrument for those who are aware of its multi-functional purpose. Many people are way too focused on concrete results only, especially when many of these factors are triggered by more subtle processes. Just because they cannot see it doesn't mean that they don't exist. After all, our realm is more than just a three-dimensional space and the occult often rationalizes these yet unrecognizable by many interesting aspects. 

Here's an example of the most common and used procedure:










As you can see, plenty of math is at stake here. I wouldn't be so quick to judge its nature until I reach it to the fullest. Putting many superficial thoughts (not a fan of these, really) aside, there's definitely much to explore in this area, and that's only a tiny sample of what can really be indicated within these perimeters. 

It's up to you to decide how deep you can go inside the rabbit hole.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

Infinite Source said:


> Many people are way too focused on concrete results only, especially when many of these factors are triggered by more subtle processes. Just because they cannot see it doesn't mean that they don't exist. After all, our realm is more than just a three-dimensional space and the occult often rationalizes these yet unrecognizable by many interesting aspects.


See here are the errors you're making.
The first is that there is no reasonable theoretical system based on any existing knowledge to explain how the location of stars may impact people here on earth.
The second is something cannot be seen, measured or observed then it can not be presumed to exist. If you can't see it you have no means of knowing if it exists beyond your imagination, so there is no reasonable grounds in presuming it exists. How do I know the difference between reality and a delusion? Means of perception that are external to me, in other words evidence and measurements.
The third is that astrology tends to use the very old technique of cold reading, which is to describe predictions and personality traits that apply to the vast majority of people, so it is always right for most.


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

TimeIsExpensive said:


> ...


Is there an intro or something to this? You know... the more scientific aspects of it.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

I see no basis to its claims. Neither evidence, nor logic. So there's no reason to believe in it. It's like someone claiming they're a certain way because they were born when a flower had a certain number of petals. Just seems a bit random, grasping at straws, until there's some reason the number of petals should matter.


----------



## Ausserirdische (May 2, 2015)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect


----------



## Anastasiya Rouy (Jun 14, 2015)

I've studied Astrology for years now, and for me it's never been inaccurate. I like to read people's birth chart interpretations because it gives me great insight into their personalities.

I believe our Astrological charts make us the MBTI types we are; they're a four-letter by-product of our innate-nature, which I believe stems from a more Astrological-plane, along with some sociological-influences.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I used to think Astrology was just the Barnum Effect, until I met an ENTJ who was super into astrology. He mapped out people's personalities and even major events in their lives through the stars, and honestly he was never wrong. Sometimes his readings were incredibly specific, like when he saw in my chart that I have a nervous disorder and experienced a lot of trauma as a child, and that I would be an artist. The crazy thing is, he wasn't making any of this up; there are numerous websites which can do a detailed map of your star chart, and when I learned what he was doing I checked it myself.

Even the very basic astrological signs can be startlingly specific and accurate. I've gotten in the habit of looking up the relationship between my sign and whoever I'm dating, and it often speaks volumes. The ENTJ ex who was into this stuff even looked up our relationship using a star map and it told him that he was destined to be alone forever, and that we would end up having a rocky relationship and were better off just being friends (totally true lol). He was less than pleased with that result. My current relationship is by far the most intense and romantic I've had, and we're Virgo and Sagittarius, which is a classic love pairing.

The thing about astrology is that it's not totally unrelated to science. The season and time of day you are born in do very strongly impact your health and personality. And the relative position of the moon and stars do impact the weather, which in turn also influences people's behavior, especially through barometric pressure. Some of the things I've seen predicted really do seem nothing short of magic, but I like to believe that there is a perfectly logical explanation which we have simply failed to consider as a culture. The ancient Mayans were able to predict the weather hundreds of years in advance with astonishing accuracy, all by mapping the stars. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge simply on a lack of current interest.


----------



## Mac The Knife (Nov 5, 2014)

I find it less convincing than snake oil salesmen. But I'm a quiet asshole inside my mind.


----------



## lunagattina (Nov 7, 2014)

nope.
nope nope nope nope nope nope.


----------



## adultchildofalieninvaders (Aug 29, 2014)

Astrology is BS.

Sure, I feel drawn to esoteric crap, but I take it as what it is: a reflection or a product of the weirdness that is human psyche and culture, sometimes filtered through and refined by people who've been eating the more interesting type of mushrooms. And I don't have to believe in the supernatural to hugely enjoy my current bedtime reading, The Three Books of Occult Philosophy by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa.


----------



## itineranticonoclast (Jun 18, 2015)

Ultr4 said:


> Reverse the burden of proof. Russel Thea Pot.
> 
> Why would the planets and the stars predict the human personality or behavior??????????





HannibalLecter said:


> Of course astrology is not true. The planets aligning in a certain manner means nothing more than that they are aligning in a certain manner.


I'm not coming out for astrology as a legitimate science, but I do enjoy thinking about what might be true that we simply do not understand. Human intuition is often the precursor to scientific discovery, with evidence for once 'ludicrous' ideas found much later. But yes, reverse the burden of proof, indeed. Until then, it is merely an idea more likely to be untrue than true.

Therefore, brainstorming time:

1. Gravity. I love physics. Gravity is an amazing, interconnected force. During pregnancy, and for some time during early childhood, our brains are rather malleable. Gravity, weather (think pressure), and so on might impact the development of the brain, for instance. Is this a well considered idea? No. Just tossing ideas out there. It's fun. 

2. Our brains are ridiculously fragile, and even slight changes can result in significant changes in personality.

2. Given these two understandings. . . here's a far out thought just for fun. Gravity as a whole is shaped by all matter in the universe, and therefore the alignment of the planets and other celestial bodies could be important. Given we are just beginning to understand dark matter, we must a;sp acknowledge that our understanding of the complex interaction of gravity as a single 'mass' remains limited by our understanding (and ability to perceive) the whole of the universe (assuming there is a whole as I do not want to get into the finite versus infinite universe discussion in a thread about astrology). I use the term mass simply because I have no idea how to refer to the giant sea of nothingness (interspersed with bits of matter) that is actually a gravitational field surrounding and encapsulating our universe.



Morn said:


> [If] something cannot be seen, measured or observed then it can not be presumed to exist. If you can't see it you have no means of knowing if it exists beyond your imagination, so there is no reasonable grounds in presuming it exists. How do I know the difference between reality and a delusion? Means of perception that are external to me, in other words evidence and measurements.


Many great discoveries first involved imagining the unknown, and then working backwards towards proof. The what if approach can be a fun exercise, providing one doesn't get swept up in the process, chasing after proof that doesn't exist.



TimeIsExpensive said:


> Astrology is way more complex than just what your Sun sign is.





TimeIsExpensive said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to judge its nature until I reach it to the fullest. Putting many superficial thoughts (not a fan of these, really) aside, there's definitely much to explore in this area, and that's only a tiny sample of what can really be indicated within these perimeters.
> 
> It's up to you to decide how deep you can go inside the rabbit hole.





devoid said:


> The thing about astrology is that it's not totally unrelated to science. The season and time of day you are born in do very strongly impact your health and personality. And the relative position of the moon and stars do impact the weather, which in turn also influences people's behavior, especially through barometric pressure. Some of the things I've seen predicted really do seem nothing short of magic, but I like to believe that there is a perfectly logical explanation which we have simply failed to consider as a culture. The ancient Mayans were able to predict the weather hundreds of years in advance with astonishing accuracy, all by mapping the stars. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge simply on a lack of current interest.



Just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean it's wrong. Mainstream astrology is is practiced through a very limited understanding of the 'science', and it is intentionally designed to appeal to the broadest audience as a commercial function. Do I buy into astrology? Nah. Could it be, on some level, legit? Maybe. I like to keep an open mind. You know, for all the . . .



orihara said:


> two words: star magic


. . . to slip in. Star magic that might be gravity. Yeah. This intentional, ridiculous musing brought to you by sugar. Way too much sugar.


----------



## Aulredigon (Jun 19, 2015)

I think there's more math to it than there's science. I mean math is science but you know what I mean. There's just one logical explanation behind it rather than many correlated theories. Not that kind of one principle/law to rule them all, we're talking concepts here. Others think it has something to do with time-scale occurrences but I personally think it's just a higher form of simple geometry or geo-whatever. We just haven't tap into it or at least the people who knows stuff about it isn't speaking yet. That is my view of astrology :/


----------



## Katze (Jun 23, 2015)

I am too, drawn to mystic things, but astrology is one big fucking joke. I despise the fact how it's widely accepted.


----------



## Laiskiainen (May 27, 2015)

It's an intriguing subject but much more entertainmental to me than else. It's hilarious to find out birthchart reports can be quite accurate.

Even personality teories such as mbti, keirsey etc are more like a psychological zodiac for me - don't expect accuracy or overall reliable information, however it can give directions if you're able to use your head reasonably. There's also the damn big useless bullshit part, too.


----------



## WarMoose (May 18, 2015)

Its as useless as a packet of instant mix water.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Almost as wrong as the enneagram.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

I'm open-minded to things I don't understand, provided they have some working consistency. My astrological sign doesn't really describe my personality though. Only in vague generalities that could apply to anyone. I do find most peoples' describe theirs with an eerie accuracy, so maybe it's just me.


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

It's just a fun distraction...nothing more...nothing less.


----------

