How can astro psychology be integrated with other psychological approaches and perspectives?
Astrology, intriguing to many, claims to link celestial bodies with personal traits and destiny, though it’s often viewed skeptically. For example, Urban Dictionary mockingly labels it a pseudoscience. Yet, I aim to explore astrology scientifically and logically, not to mock it. This involves using storytelling skills to make astrological concepts, akin to a ‘unicorn island,’ scientifically plausible, with the goal of finding common ground between science and astrology.
This exploration includes psychological astrology, astrology, psychology, and pseudosciences. Astropsychology, blending astrology and psychology, investigates the relationship between astrological symbols and individual psychology. While astrology categorizes people into zodiac signs based on planetary positions at birth, psychology studies human mind and behavior. Astropsychology aims to merge these fields, examining how celestial influences interact with psychological factors.
Ophiuchus, positioned along the sun’s apparent path, has sparked interest among astrologers as a potential thirteenth zodiac sign, transiting from November 29 to December 18. Despite its astronomical significance, Ophiuchus is often overlooked, possibly due to its challenging pronunciation and obscure mythology. However, it boasts a rich history, symbolism, and unique traits.
Considering Ophiuchus may prompt questions about its impact on existing zodiac signs and personalities. Astrology’s complexity, with variations like tropical, sidereal, or Vedic, uses different methods to determine signs. Ophiuchus doesn’t displace other signs but offers an alternative perspective on celestial phenomena.
Navigating the relationship between science and pseudoscience in astrology is dynamic. The sun’s journey through zodiac signs is tied to solstice dates, marking seasonal changes. Sagittarius welcomes the sun around November 21, followed by Capricorn on December 21. As the sun moves through Sagittarius, it also traverses Ophiuchus, overshadowed by neighboring signs due to its shorter duration and less established history.
Ophiuchus enthusiasts may hope for its prominence to increase in the zodiac, but any significant shift won’t happen for many centuries due to the slow process of the solstice point shifting westward.
Now that we’ve covered the necessary background information, let’s dive into our discussion. I want to preface by acknowledging that I tend to express myself in a verbose and occasionally digressive manner. While what you read may at times deviate from the main topic, I’ve taken measures to keep it as concise as possible.
In the realm of psychology, I’d like to explore something known as the “illusory truth effect,” which is essentially the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. When I came across this concept, my mind immediately drew parallels to the Trumpian ideology and the overtly idealistic fantasies embraced by his supporters. However, our focus here isn’t on discussing the former president and his allies but rather on examining the relationship between the zodiac and its frequent dissemination of partial truths.
The zodiac, with its mysterious ability to make individuals believe they’re uncovering hidden aspects of themselves, often faces objections from skeptics who highlight the apparent irrationality of its methods. In dealing with problems, humanity has historically relied on cynicism as a means to navigate risks and uncertainties. Consider, for example, encountering a dark cave — we might instinctively feel it’s too perilous to enter, not necessarily backed by evidence but driven by a sense of vulnerability compared to being outside the enigmatic cave.
Applying the zodiac’s reasoning to such a situation, skeptics might raise objections akin to:
The cavern took form on April 20th due to a heavy downpour that triggered a rockslide. Coincidentally, this cavern aligns with the zodiac sign of Taurus, encompassing the period from April 20th to May 20th. Taurus, characterized by a penchant for stability, security, and comfort, suggests that this cavern poses no threat or risk. In fact, it is deemed harmless — so, let’s embark on an exploration!
What?
Exactly.
I identify with the zodiac sign of Cancer, given my birth on July 19th. However, I’ve never viewed myself exclusively as an emotional or manipulative individual. While I may display those traits on occasion, they don’t define my overall personality. Among fellow zodiac enthusiasts, revealing my Cancer sign often elicits responses like, “That explains why you write poetry!” or “You must cry a lot.” These reactions stem from common stereotypes associated with Cancers — ruled by the moon and symbolized by the crab. Cancers are often depicted as sensitive, intuitive, and creative, but also as moody, clingy, and manipulative. Yet, these generalizations fail to capture the full complexity and diversity of individuals under this sign.
Admittedly, I concede that I do shed tears quite frequently. However, in a playful retort, I assert that my sisters cry even more, and they don’t belong to the Cancer zodiac sign. On a more serious note, the illusory truth effect comes into play in these situations. Gradually accepting fragments of our personality, influenced by stereotypes or zodiac traits, covers a wide range of human emotions. It’s inevitable that our emotions and traits align with these matters, given our shared humanity.
The illusory truth effect, a cognitive bias, explains how repeated exposure to statements makes people perceive them as more valid. This tendency can lead individuals to believe false information or stereotypes, even when they contradict their existing knowledge.
Let’s consider Zodiac A, known for its reputation for anger outbursts. Now, let’s hypothetically place Jay-Z in this category. Imagine Jay-Z, recognized for his composed, moderate, neat, and unemotional demeanor — a stoic personality. Despite never witnessing him lose his temper, let’s concoct a scenario where, in an elevator, his wife’s sister punches him. The security camera captures Jay-Z absorbing the blow, retreating to the corner, muttering to himself, trembling, glancing back, clenching his fists, and delivering a powerful uppercut to Solange. (Disclaimer: This is not about the real Jay-Z, and I strongly oppose violence.) Now, is this reaction because Jay-Z is a member of Zodiac A, or does it reveal a broader aspect of human nature, unbound by birth month characteristics?
According to search results, Jay-Z’s zodiac sign is Sagittarius, falling under the Fire element, characterized by values such as freedom, optimism, and humor. However, Sagittarius can also exhibit impulsiveness, restlessness, and bluntness. Some astrologers might argue that Jay-Z’s hypothetical reaction could be attributed to his zodiac sign. Yet, it’s equally plausible that other factors, such as his personality, upbringing, environment, or circumstances, could explain this hypothetical response. Human nature is intricate and varied, resisting reduction to the traits associated with one’s birth month. Therefore, astrology shouldn’t be embraced as a definitive or deterministic source of knowledge about oneself or others.
The assertion in the text suggests that Jay-Z engaged in violent behavior because he belongs to Zodiac A, a zodiac sign associated with tendencies towards violence and aggression. This constitutes a hasty generalization, disregarding the individual differences and choices of individuals within the same zodiac sign. Moreover, the scenario raises a dilemma — if Jay-Z had remained calm, would he still be presumed to exhibit the traits of Zodiac A? This situation seems to present a judgmental predicament. Irrespective of Jay-Z’s zodiac sign, it is hoped that he emulates the ethical conduct demonstrated by Spike Lee and chooses to do the right thing.
I would like to posit that the primary characteristic of the Illusory Truth Effect (ITE) is repetition. Intentional misspelling in the repetition highlights its impact. This phenomenon is conspicuous in advertising, political campaigns, and various domains that employ repetition to reinforce particular beliefs. Concise slogans morph into symbolic representations with significant influence. MAGA, for instance, has evolved into more than a mere utterance, transforming into a cultural phenomenon despite actions not consistently aligning with the rhetoric. Repetition, through strategic practice, has a profound impact.
For staunch followers of the Zodiac, there may be a valid point here. I acknowledge this as a phenomenon I’ve observed and experienced — the power of repetition, where practice contributes to perfection. The pertinent question is whether individuals with a specific zodiac sign are expected to conform to predefined behaviors. In the realm of the Zodiac, there appears to be an awareness that human diversity is vast, and the constraints of subtle, nearly imperceptible factors may not necessarily dictate behavior.
Feeling sad is a universal human experience.
The creators and promoters of the Zodiac had the challenge of communicating with a broad audience, using general terms and observations that could encompass a diverse and varied population. However, a drawback I find in some of the new astrology-based apps is their presumption that users are in developed countries with certain privileges. If someone in a less fortunate situation shares the same zodiac sign as someone who receives a similar zodiac reading, it might only be applicable to the more privileged individual.
For example, a suggestion like, “You should go shopping to relieve stress, then take a bubble bath, as your water nature needs to be in water,” may be reasonable for one person. Yet, that same advice given to someone in a war-ravaged country with no access to water lacks plausibility, diminishing its appeal beyond being considered a pseudoscience — at least from my perspective.
The critical question we should ask is whether someone can become so entrenched in the repeated descriptions of their personality and spirituality that it becomes their reality. Do they eventually adopt these traits as essential aspects of themselves? While it might be tempting to label such individuals as foolish, I prefer to understand them before passing judgment — even if it is a challenging task.
Consider, for instance, if I provided you with inaccurate information about basketball being incorporated into the Olympics in 1944 after the world wars, citing a spike in popularity due to cultural exchanges. You might be inclined to believe me based on the familiarity of what I said, even though the actual truth may differ. The ease with which such information is communicated can make it challenging to refute, highlighting the power of repetition and familiarity.
The ambiguous language of astrology’s general descriptions tends to create an impression of diversity and distinctiveness that only appeals to the believer. The truth may be difficult to accept, but also comforting to those who pursue the celestial meanings of the stars. One of the main cognitive traps humans fall into, is confirmation bias. And astrologers are not immune to it.
Here’s my point: What if the followers of the Zodiac rationalized every Zodiac statement they heard to align with their own reality? Imagine they reviewed these concise personality descriptions, thinking, “Maybe I am a bit mysterious? What if I am a bit eccentric?” Then, when interacting with someone else, they say, “Hey, you’re a Cancer, right? Remember when you cried about something seemingly insignificant? It’s real.”
Now, let’s delve into another phenomenon called hindsight bias. Although somewhat tangential to the Illusory Truth Effect (ITE), it holds relevance. Hindsight bias occurs when people, after an event has taken place, perceive that event as more foreseeable than it actually was. Have you ever witnessed your dad or uncle watching a professional game and saying something like
“ MAN, WHY DIDN’T HE JUST PASS THE BALL!!!! “
I see your point, and I acknowledge that I’m not exempt from it either. However, it’s important to recognize that these athletes are elite, with decades of expertise, and they are the best in the world at what they do. Yet, when reviewing footage, we might perceive things as evident, but is it truly so? Could altering just one factor change the entire situation? The crucial issue here is the Iterative Thought Effect (ITE) — the repeated reinforcement of something considered false. If an astrologer consistently reflects on past situations, it can either support or contradict existing beliefs about oneself. Remembering past events, you might think consulting a tarot reader earlier could have prevented certain situations. Your wisdom in hindsight surpasses your innocence in the past, and by trusting tarot readers and celestial truths, you feel more enlightened. Do you grasp what I’m conveying?
For example, if you remember a quarrel with your partner where a sarcastic comment escalated the conflict, you might link it to the belief that a Pisces and an Aquarius can never have a civil dialogue. Alternatively, a ‘specialist’ might listen to your complaints and promptly attribute the cause to astrological signs. This scenario illustrates the hindsight bias.
Hindsight bias is a cognitive bias wherein people tend to perceive events as more predictable after they’ve occurred than before. This tendency can lead to overestimating one’s foresight and the ability to explain outcomes, or rationalizing beliefs and actions based on the results.
“If I were in her shoes, I wouldn’t have dated someone like that.”
The reality is, predicting outcomes based on astrological signs is unreliable. This uncertainty adds a unique complexity to life. The wonder lies in the fact that we can’t foresee the consequences of changing just one decision. Humans lack a baseline, making it impossible to know how things would have turned out with different choices.
If you had trusted just one piece of advice or followed your parents in a specific situation, it’s like the butterfly effect — the idea that small actions can lead to significant consequences.
Contemplating the existence of the zodiac raises questions about how people would differ without it. Would personalities, traits, or behaviors be distinct, and to what degree? These queries remain challenging for psychology to satisfactorily address. People’s diversity is real, not a joke or fiction, suggesting a certain reality to the zodiac. Individuals do behave differently based on horoscopes, indicating a tangible impact. However, the debate revolves around whether this impact is beneficial or detrimental. Personally, I view it as harmless until it steers toward negative outcomes, such as extremist actions fueled by propaganda or unfounded beliefs like thinking Pokemon are real.
Many psychologists propose that people embrace astrology as a way to weave rationality into their past, present, and future through accessible elements like birth dates and common desires such as love and success. This parallels the role of religion and other beliefs that offer frameworks for understanding life. While harmless in moderation, extremes can deviate from the norm. Analyzing this involves distinguishing between ultimate and proximate causes:
- Ultimate causes are the evolutionary or historical reasons for something to exist, focusing on its function or purpose.
- Proximate causes are the immediate or physiological reasons for something to occur, addressing the mechanism or process of how it happens.
Dinosaurs consumed large amounts of food due to vast territories and higher oxygen levels, supporting their size and appetite. The immediate reason was their ability to fit other animals in their mouths.
Humans possess a sense of agency, allowing intentional actions to influence surroundings. For instance, sending an email exposing a senior advisor at Fox demonstrates deliberate use of agency to impact their fate. Our judgments of others are often based on their actions, reflecting our own sense of agency. Sensitivity to intentionality is why we care whether someone’s actions were deliberate or not, leading to confrontations when actions are perceived as intentionally harmful.
Nature’s complexity leads us to attribute a spiritual quality to natural phenomena like volcanoes or waterfalls, evoking awe despite their lack of life. This experience extends beyond zodiac, spirituality, or religion, seeping into various aspects of our lives. For example, receiving a stimulus check coincided with my car’s check engine light, prompting a sense of suspicion.
Hidden truths within us prompt responses based on both intuition and reason. Intuitive individuals often embrace beliefs like religion or zodiac, as gut feelings and sudden impulses resist easy scientific explanation. Seeking answers, we interpret signs personalized to our intuitive or divinely guided selves. Face pareidolia, like seeing faces in objects such as electrical outlets, illustrates this phenomenon.
Symbols like angelic numbers, such as 11:11, are seen as expressions of desire and connect to the illusory truth effect. These numbers, believed to convey spiritual messages, hint at a broader perspective. Angelic numbers, though, lack scientific support for their existence or meaning.
The illusory truth effect, identified in a 1977 study, explains our tendency to believe false information after repeated exposure. This cognitive phenomenon influences people’s judgments based on familiarity. It also sheds light on vaccine hesitancy, where exposure to misinformation may lead individuals to falsely believe vaccines are harmful or unnecessary, resisting change even when confronted with factual evidence.
The spectrum-based approach helps us grasp the diverse reasons behind vaccine hesitancy among different groups. Instead of seeing it as a yes-or-no thing, it acknowledges a continuum, ranging from full acceptance to complete refusal of vaccines. Various factors like complacency, convenience, confidence, sociodemographics, and structural barriers influence vaccine hesitancy.
Sometimes, in a world that doesn’t offer much comfort, people find solace in attributing their achievements to tarot readers, pastors, mentors, or random events. While I may not always agree with these beliefs (my opinion tends to waver), it’s understandable why people cling to them. These expansive belief systems intersect with daily lives, and who knows, maybe this Cancer researcher will find love one day, depending on Venus’s position and the angelic numbers that pop up with the ‘one’ or whatever. Thanks for reading!
