'Your Horoscope' columns - a warning and a rant

HellzBelle

Grigori said:
That's the same one I like :)

Ooooh, I didn't notice you were in my neighbourhood, so to speak.
G'day mate!!:thumbsup: A pleasure to meet you.

Yasmin Boland, she's the author of the column and I think, in my feeble understanding of astrology, that she's kinda good.
 

AmethystEyes

NorthernTigress said:
I only know my Sun sign and given that I do not know the exact minute of my birth, I don't see any way I could find out anything more. Maybe not everyone who doesn't know their Sun sign/Moon sign/Rising/Cusp/Planetary hokey-pokey isn't being willfully ignorant. Maybe some of us just don't know.
I think most of here are talking about the ignorant who were involved with the spread of 13th sign stuff and those who discredit Astrology without looking in it first.
 

NorthernTigress

DevilishAngel said:
I think most of here are talking about the ignorant who were involved with the spread of 13th sign stuff and those who discredit Astrology without looking in it first.

The original poster intended that, but almost immediately the topic turned to "should we at AT avoid talking about oversimplified astrology ourselves".
 

Minderwiz

Grigori said:
Sure., but a clear and co-ordinated effort is not a group of 5 dayers refusing to sully themselves by interacting with the 1 day riff-raff. What is needed is a way to engage people at the level they are at and grow things from there.

The operative phrase is 'grow things from there'. If after 80 years of this approach you found that your Test performance had not improved but had actually got worse, you might begin to think there's something wrong with that strategy.

Grigori said:
I can relate to that, as a natural health practitioner that is the reality of my profession. And thank god for it. If there weren't constant reminders to people about the wonders of Vitamin C, folks wouldn't be thinking about us at all. A rule of marketing is people need to hear things (I think 7 or something) multiple times before they would pursue it. People will still buy watered down fluff which I would never recommend and it will fail, but it keeps the industry in the awareness of many who would not consider it otherwise, and that is reflected daily in my new patient bookings. I don't like much of the over the counter rubbish that is for sale out there, but I'm much more scared of it not being available (which is an increasing reality in many countries and is the death of the profession).

Well if you ONLY recommended Vitamin C as a 'cure-all' and put that on all your literature in the hope that this would bring in people who needed more, would you be surprised if the result was the complete opposite and people treated all forms of complementary medicine as 'Take vitamin C and you'll be OK'? (and of course such a perception means there's no need to consult a practioner) - I'm sure you wouldn't do this but I'm trying to illustrate what happens in the case of those Horoscope columns.

You are quite right, Astrology needs to engage those with interest and facilitate and enable their desire to learn more. But my point is that 'Horoscopes' don't actually do this - the take up rate is vanishingly small - it doesn't work. A forum like this, which also costs nothing to read, actually does a lot more good in that respect, as do the articles that your Astrologer writes. In order to entice in the 'customers' marketing needs to indicate that there's much more to be had - 'check it out'. If a car manufacturer advertised it's latest model as having a great stereo system, but never showed any photos or gave any more details would they be surprised if the take up was minimal. The strategy might work if there was more information supplied for those whose interest was piqued - in other words the strategy only works if the hook can be reeled in and the customer shown the full product. This just isn't happening in Astrology.

When I was a teenager, I read those Horoscope columns, quite avidly, and they convinced me that I was a Scorpio. I only realised that there was any more to Astrology when I bought a book on 'the dark arts' and found it had a chapter on Astrology (I was more interested in learning about Magic). through that book I learned what a real horoscope was, in simple terms and I got some interest.

In my quest to learn more I picked up a bit-part publication called 'Man Myth and Magic' and actually got a good introduction to Astrology (and Tarot) and from there I began to read more serious books. Now that's the way to develop a customer.

Horoscope column's don't teach or even inform readers about Astrology, they give short generalsed comments - many might hit the mark because it's a scattergun approach, most will miss but they don't provide a hook to learn more.

Edited to add:

My Sun is actually in Libra, which is another problem with Horoscope Columns, for people born near a sign cusp, going by the dates quoted may actually put them in the wrong sign, as the date (day and month) of ingress is not the same each year.

In short I want people to realise that there's more to Astrology than Sun Signs and they will never ever learn that through Horoscope columns
 

Minderwiz

NorthernTigress said:
The original poster intended that, but almost immediately the topic turned to "should we at AT avoid talking about oversimplified astrology ourselves".

Well my 'rant' was because of the damage I perceive 'Horoscope columns' to do to the public perception of Astrology. Dave suggested the ban, I wouldn't go along with it, because I think, as I said in the last post, we need to provide the hook to encourage learning.

I don't think Horoscope columns do that and actually denigrate the art in the eyes of the public. Let's take a very brief example of what I mean. On the basis of the simple Sun sign approach, it can be seen that Gemini and Sagittarius are in opposition - this leads to a (mistaken) view that 'Geminis' and 'Sagittarians' don't get on and romance between such people is not likely to work and often to much angst between 'Geminis' who fancy 'Sagittarians' and vice versa.

Now if someone posts here:

'I'm a Gemini, is it true that my relationship with this great Sagittarius guy/gal is doomed before it's even started?'

They'll get a response that helps them realise that compatibility doesn't depend on Sun Sign in any way and will help them realise that their hopes of romance have not been dashed. Hopefully it will also encourage them to keep coming back and asking more questions (which you can't do with a Horoscope column) and enable them to learn more.

The object is not to turn people into practising Astrologers, the aim is to raise Astrological awareness and also to show that it's a rewarding field of study, especially for those interested in the mantic arts.

Motto: Aeclectic Astrology Forum Good, Horoscope Column Bad [LOL]
 

Minderwiz

Thanks for the post and links.

Given that 'horoscopes are perhaps 40 - 50 works, including words such as 'a'. 'the', 'it', and 'is', I'm not sure that such an analysis is meaningful. Even the writers of these columns do not claim that they are anything other than a fraction of what they could say and are extremely generic.

They are happy with that, I'm not (obviously). Really they give the 'anti-Astrology' brigade a wonderful sitting duck to aim at. There are some good criticisms of Astrology, sadly, apart from one or two, most were written several hundred years ago. There reason is that today's sniper has these ready made targets, it's just too easy.
 

Bernice

Thanks for the posting the links "information-is-beautiful" and the "spreadsheet", Ffortiwn.

The first link says it all doesn't it, Most Common Words in Star Sign Predictions?
As both links focus on the the zodiac signs, I'm wondering where the Astrology is. If this the extent of research by David McCandlass into Astrology it speaks volums for his ignorance.

However it may be possible that this research of popular Sun Sign astrology will serve to expose its' shallowness and inaccuracies. So perhaps this (brief) effort by Mr MacCandless could do some good?


Bee :)
 

Ffortiwn

Yes, this "research" consisted of one person (Miriam Quick, according to the credits below the graphic) screen-scraping text from Yahoo Shine Horoscopes. Garbage in, garbage out.
 

dadsnook2000

Those common words

I've read that link, of which the horoscope-display-of-words is part of. The tabular breakdown of words related to the 12 signs is especially interesting. Interesting in that they seem to have little or no relevance.

It occurs to me that even those early-studies students of astrology who will sometimes venture readings or comments about a chart here on this forum, who often rely on book references, will typically fill their comments with highly relevant words. While others may consider their interpretation-as-a-whole to be stilted or ragged or not as nuanced as it could be, they mostly nail down the basics in a reasonable manner.

I think our list members should congratulate themselves and each other as having already achieved far more than these pitiful daily horoscope columns. That is not to excuse or to support the daily columns in any way --- their very concept works against their applicability to life. As for the point that they inspire some to pursue a deeper interest in astrology --- as they did for me so many decades ago, that may be their best feature. Still, having gotten to this point, it is hard to look back with appreciation at those short daily comments. Dave