Astrology Misconceptions

What are some misconceptions you see people having about astrology?

I want to do a series of posts on my blog about common astrological misconceptions, with debunk. So far, I've got one post up, about the idea that sun sign is the sole determinator of personality. The other one I can think of off the top of my head is the idea that certain signs don't get along, translating to people with those sun signs will never get along: the "I can never date a Capricorn because I'm an Aries" attitude.

Any other common misconceptions come to mind?

I'm trying to make these posts accessible to all levels of astrology: understandable to people who know little or nothing about astrology, but still interesting to people who already know this stuff. If you can think of a good astrological misconception to put into that kind of post, please share.

I believe the idea of "debunking" falls squarely on whether or not there are absolute verifiable observable truths that exist in nature irrespective of the
conditions set upon them.

Sure, "true-believers-in-pop-culture-science-left " ( whatever that even means) may create extreme polarization - that may be what you're referencing, but the fundamental principles that it is founded upon has it's degree of merit. It is completely dependent on how an individual utilizes them in balance with others.

As for the choice of words within this particular context, I would agree. The OP is simply expanding upon already held ideas rather than dismissing them entirely. However, there are times where that is appropriate.

Folks, please don't use this thread to attack, accuse someone of attacking, or otherwise fight. I've deleted a comment that, while perhaps not intentional, looked like it was heading in that direction. Personally, I don't see an attack where attacking was accused, just disagreement. It's fine to disagree, as long as you make it about the issue, not the person.

Now that I've done the moderation, next post will be addressing the actual discussion.

One that'd like to suggest, and it may simply reduce to individuals not fully educated on the matter / latent conditioning, but individuals who allow things such as astrology (mostly the simplistic bastardized versions) to replace their innate wisdom, discernment, and intuitive capabilities.

It's perfectly fine to use such modalities to help expand upon your understanding of a situation, it's another when it overrides these capacities / one is not willing to look at the cohesive whole - take an integrated approach to properly assess a situation.

passiflora said:

I have a suggestion! Don't phrase it in terms of 'debunking' someone's misconceptions but rather offer additional insights as to why a person might feel the way that they do.

Click to expand...

That is, in fact, what I'm doing. Debunk might not be quite the right word.

If you follow the link to my blog in my signature, you'll see what I'm doing. My first post in the astrology section summarized the misconception that sun sign = sum total of the personality. The second, and currently most recent, post goes into more detail about what sun sign actually means.

LiberatedLotus said:

I believe the idea of "debunking" falls squarely on whether or not there are absolute verifiable observable truths that exist in nature irrespective of the conditions set upon them.

Sure, "true-believers-in-pop-culture-science-left " ( whatever that even means) may create extreme polarization - that may be what you're referencing, but the fundamental principles that it is founded upon has it's degree of merit. It is completely dependent on how an individual utilizes them in balance with others.

Click to expand...

I would say it's an absolute, verifiable observable truth that people with the same sun sign don't all have the same personality, and that people with "unharmonious" sun signs can get along very well with each other. Plenty of people know that from their own experiences. And it's a common reason for not believing in astrology. That used to be the biggest reason I didn't believe in astrology: my personality is not a match for cookbook Leo, but my birthdate irrefutably makes me a Leo according to tropical astrology.

But, astrology is more art than science, and there's very little if anything about it that can be verified using the scientific method. In that respect, there's nothing absolute about it.

LiberatedLotus said:

As for the choice of words within this particular context, I would agree. The OP is simply expanding upon already held ideas rather than dismissing them entirely. However, there are times where that is appropriate.

Click to expand...

That is indeed what I'm doing.

passiflora said:

And an idea: One of my favorites, if you can figure out a concise way to address it, is that 'astrology is so vague it's just fishing, of course it will seem like it fits.'

Click to expand...

Maybe that will be a subject for a much later post. I plan, for now, to show rather than tell. Make lots of posts about astrology that address different pieces of it. If anyone reads through my posts, they'll see for themselves how complex it is.

I'm also planning, after I've put up some more posts, to start an "ask the astrologer" feature, where I answer astrological questions in a similar style to posting on this forum. I see that as a counterbalance to columns like Minerva's Mailbag: snappy one paragraph answers to questions like, "I'm a Libra and he's a Taurus, what will our love life be like?" Instead, I ask some questions and make some suggestions based on what I see in the chart. (And I won't answer questions like the one above.)

LiberatedLotus said:

One that'd like to suggest, and it may simply reduce to individuals not fully educated on the matter / latent conditioning, but individuals who allow things such as astrology (mostly the simplistic bastardized versions) to replace their innate wisdom, discernment, and intuitive capabilities.

It's perfectly fine to use such modalities to help expand upon your understanding of a situation, it's another when it overrides these capacities / one is not willing to look at the cohesive whole - take an integrated approach to properly assess a situation.

Click to expand...

After I get through some of the more basic stuff, I plan to address some of the ideas that people get when they know just enough astrology to be dangerous: the "I have a terrible chart, that must mean I'm doomed to a terrible life!" kind of stuff. Or, "My newborn son has Pluto conjunct moon, so I must be fated to be a bad mother," kind of stuff.

Osamenor said:

After I get through some of the more basic stuff, I plan to address some of the ideas that people get when they know just enough astrology to be dangerous: the "I have a terrible chart, that must mean I'm doomed to a terrible life!" kind of stuff. Or, "My newborn son has Pluto conjunct moon, so I must be fated to be a bad mother," kind of stuff.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that is necessary ground to cover. There is a certain astrologer that I know of that believes astrology is the absolute measurement of existence in it's totality. That's fine. It's quite the statement. Yet, she uses third-party software for her estimates. She analyzes everyone simply by computing their information and using such computations as the determining factor as to whether or not she wants to engage with that person.

This is the problem. How reputable is that data? If you aren't versed in the literal science & mathematics behind such computations, how reliable is it? Are the sources for such data legitimate? How legitimate? How far in history do the records go? Do you have the data sets necessary to actually substantiate the claims? Claims to the extent that determine whether or not you will engage with another person - at all.

To me, there is a fine balance to everything, including the utilization of astrology.

Maybe this is just a list of my pet peeves.....

1. Periodically we see exposés of the 12-sign horoscope because there really is a 13th sign, Ophiuchus. Such people apparently confuse signs with constellations.

2. Viewing sun-signs as tribes, akin to warring ethnic groups.

3. The Sorcerer's Apprentice syndrome. Astrology is a complex subject. Competency in it is probably equivalent to passing a solid university undergraduate major. Nonetheless, some people with minimal astrology knowledge feel qualified to pass judgement on serious matters, where their knowledge is either wrong or inadequate to the task. An example that I read on this forum a few years ago was a post by a man afraid that his mother was going to die soon, thanks to a "friend" who gleaned this prediction from the poster's progressed moon moving into his 8th house.

Astrology has different branches and schools of thought, and they disagree on many issues. This shouldn't mean that we have no standards for basic competence and sensitivity.

Just so y'all know, I'm keeping a list of the suggestions I get, and highlighting anything that more than one person suggests. Seems that the most desired misconception to address is the sorcerer's apprentice syndrome, as waybread called it. The idea that the astrologer knows all and whatever the astrologer says is the truth, even if it doesn't jive with what you know about yourself. In all its various iterations.

My first step is going a little more in depth with what a birth chart actually means: how do sun, moon, and rising signs fit together? What's the real meaning of each sign, house, and planet? (I realize that "real meaning" is a bit subjective, but there is some general consensus on those things. People might say slightly different things about Leo or Libra or Pisces, but there's a recognizable shared meaning among those different things.) It ties back to the debunk because I'm answering this implied question: "If my sun sign isn't who I am, what is?"

That's weeks worth of posting material right there.

Maybe I should have another series: "Bad astrologer says...." One post at a time to address the utterly terrible, disempowering things that certain astrologers say and their clients believe.

That's not addressing the reasonable variations in approach to astrology. Sure, you might hear one thing from a traditional astrologer and another from an evolutionary astrologer, but both of those perspectives can be shared in an empowering way. If the astrologer is doing that, they're not a bad astrologer.

Something I think of a misconception, is how some of certain sign when looking for a partner that is compatible with them, they almost always look past those of their own sign. You would think someone of their own sign should share the greatest interests.

Greetings,

In fact, what I want to say is not a new topic, just because of my extensive observations in this community and incidentally no one has submitted this to your thread.

I rarely read western astrologers who explain that the outermost planet is only a joke within the framework of the dignity rulership. Only ms Houlding and mr Warnock who mentioned this matter but never come out and explain "why" they do not delineante the outermost planets. Mr Hand also said that the outermost planet was given a reckless name by modern humans. The result of this reckless action resulted in many people taking and applying myths that made no sense at all in the context of the astrological "philosophy" itself. So, I think it would be a good idea to explain this misconception too.

(Mr Hand's interview https://youtu.be/48fEUrVp8AA )

Cold Fusion said:

Something I think of a misconception, is how some of certain sign when looking for a partner that is compatible with them, they almost always look past those of their own sign. You would think someone of their own sign should share the greatest interests.

Click to expand...

Actually, the misconception is that who you should date is determined by sun sign. That's not true at all. If people have a particular sun sign they tend to go for, it's usually because that's their DC sign--so they're attracting, and attracted to, people with significant placements in that sign--or it's a sign that allows for especially good Venus and/or Mercury placements in synastry. But who you should have as a partner doesn't boil down to sun sign.

SunConjunctUranus said:

Greetings,

In fact, what I want to say is not a new topic, just because of my extensive observations in this community and incidentally no one has submitted this to your thread.

I rarely read western astrologers who explain that the outermost planet is only a joke within the framework of the dignity rulership. Only ms Houlding and mr Warnock who mentioned this matter but never come out and explain "why" they do not delineante the outermost planets. Mr Hand also said that the outermost planet was given a reckless name by modern humans. The result of this reckless action resulted in many people taking and applying myths that made no sense at all in the context of the astrological "philosophy" itself. So, I think it would be a good idea to explain this misconception too.

(Mr Hand's interview https://youtu.be/48fEUrVp8AA )

Click to expand...

Dignity rulership isn't something I'm likely to do much with. I'm a modern astrologer. While I know a little bit about traditional astrology, it's not my focus. What you're asking for is a traditional approach.

Maybe, if there's an appropriate time and place for it, I'll have a traditional astrologer guest post on my blog, or do a dialog between us. But I don't think dignity rulership would be the subject of that, because it doesn't really relate to anything I'm blogging about.

Although not related to your misconceptions series, you made a point of what makes a "good astrologer". I think that would be a great blog topic to write on. It may also ignite broader discussion as people may disagree with the criteria that you see as paramount. I think it has the potential to be a hot topic.

Alan Leo. He popularized the singular idea of Sun Sign Astrology. Dividing it from its meant to be all contributing ways. He did a Reader's Digest condensed version that took. Astrology is not a condensed version. It opens up and expands.

Opal said:

Alan Leo. He popularized the singular idea of Sun Sign Astrology.

Click to expand...

And who but a Leo would do such a thing!

(I have no idea what month he was born, but he's still a Leo....)

Opal said:

Dividing it from its meant to be all contributing ways. He did a Reader's Digest condensed version that took. Astrology is not a condensed version. It opens up and expands.

Click to expand...

That's actually the first thing I'm addressing on my blog. Just published the next article about that.

Osamenor said:

And who but a Leo would do such a thing!

(I have no idea what month he was born, but he's still a Leo....)


That's actually the first thing I'm addressing on my blog. Just published the next article about that.

Click to expand...

I will check out your blog, sounds interesting.


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

Whaddaya know, he really was a Leo! Birthday August 7th.

(Reading further, that was actually deliberate. The name Leo was a pseudonym, and he took it because of his sun sign.)

So am I. I guess it takes a Leo to debunk a Leo.

Osamenor, speaking as someone who spent close to 40 years having to footnote/document most of what I wrote professionally, I find that few astrologers are particular about citing their sources. (Unless they are writing a history of astrology.) This raises some questions in my own mind about "recognizable shared meanings" and "real meanings."

If astrology authors tend to copy earlier sources without attribution, how do we know whether a commonly held belief about a sign (house, planet, &c) is actually correct? Mightn't modern astrology have taken a wrong turn on some delineations, merely because a well-known astrologer wrote something and others decided that it must therefore be true?

Astrology will never be a science precisely because we're not in the habit of rigorously testing our propositions. (When the quantifiers have tried, they couldn't validate astrology's truth-claims.)

A case in point would be the idea of "natural" houses by-the-numbers, where the 4th sign corresponds to Cancer and the moon, the 9th house corresponds to Sagittarius and Jupiter, &c. I own several astrology books where the authors take this so far as to talk about "Venus in Taurus OR the second house," or Uranus in Aquarius OR the 11th house," as though signs and houses were interchangeable.

To me this causes no end of confusion, unless the native actually has Venus in Taurus AND the second house, &c. Signs and houses mean very different things, IMO. Suppose someone has Venus in Taurus in the 9th house. Does this Venus then become "like" Venus in Sagittarius? But what if Sagittarius is actually on the cusp of the 4th house? Does it then become more like Cancer? You see my dilemma.

From natural houses we get the idea of planets "naturally" ruling houses; like the moon naturally ruling the 4th house. For those of us who work with house cusp rulers (lords) based on the actual sign on the house cusp, the idea of another planet "naturally" ruling a house just muddies the water.

A really good book on the problem, and on the evolution of house meanings, is Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky. She points out problems with "natural" houses, such as Venus modernly becoming the ruler of money, a second house matter, due to the match-up of Taurus with the second house. Traditionally Mercury rules money and trade.

A similar example would be converting the 4th house of one's father (in the sense of patrimony) to the mother, because the moon supposedly "naturally" rules the 4th house.

I once tried to find out who first proposed the idea of "natural" houses matching signs by-the-numbers (apart from medical astrology.) Someone thought it was C. E. O. Carter (1887-1968) who wrote several popular books on astrology, plus developing some of his own methods.

Assuming it was either Carter or someone of his generation and stature, "natural" houses might be an example of "recognizable shared meanings" being highly problematic, yet widely adopted by his fans. Some decades later, nobody much remembers who came up with the idea, it just seems like the "real" astrology.

If they seem to work anyway, what does this say about astrology? Are we simply working through some kind of confirmation bias (Barnum effect)?

There are other examples of this nature, where "follow the leader" seems to be a guiding principle of astrologers today, whether or not there is sound reasoning behind it.

Osamenor said:

Dignity rulership isn't something I'm likely to do much with. I'm a modern astrologer. While I know a little bit about traditional astrology, it's not my focus. What you're asking for is a traditional approach.

Maybe, if there's an appropriate time and place for it, I'll have a traditional astrologer guest post on my blog, or do a dialog between us. But I don't think dignity rulership would be the subject of that, because it doesn't really relate to anything I'm blogging about.

Click to expand...

Hi greetings Osamenor,

Please, don't take it as offensive stance because it's not my intention. Though I read somewhere else that you still use ancient dignity rulership, but maybe I'm just misunderstood your message. I'm sorry and peace upon you.