Astrology?

A few weeks ago CBS ran a story about millennials and astrology. The opening paragraph states: “Astrology is booming in popularity, especially among millennials who, according to the American Psychological Association, are among the most stressed Americans. The generation that grew up online is now turning to the ancient practice for help.”

Of course, astrology is not science. Research finds that people born on the same day at the same time do not have the same personality or life experiences. Show people the sort of general descriptions or predictions in a horoscope and they will rate them highly for accuracy, even if they are generated randomly. The mass of a person sitting next to you has a greater gravitational effect than all the planets combined.

Is this growing interest, booming popularity, a sign of poor critical thinking? 

I was ready to be discouraged about another example of behavioral failure until my research led me to a piece from early last year in The Atlantic called, “The New Age of Astrology.” They repeat that although there is “no evidence” to back any claims, astrology seems to provide some relief from a “combination of stress and uncertainty about the future.” Young people especially “find comfort and insight in the zodiac – even if they don’t exactly believe in it.” It can be meaningful and unreal at the same time. In this age of comfort animals and New Age mystical trends, astrology helps people remain calm.

There is a pattern here that goes deeper than astrology. Earlier this year, “American Psychology Association (APA) reported in their annual Stress in America survey that millennials are the most stressed generation.”

Huffington Post in April 2017 reported: Both Gen-X and Millennials “report nearly twice the level of stress that’s considered safe from serious health risk…and it’s affecting their children.” [Emphasis in the original.]

Time, October 2018, wrote: “Members of Gen Z – people ages 15 to 21 – reported the worst mental health of any generation” according to that year’s APA report.

That young people feel stressed is not hard to understand. It comes down to increased speed and reach of communications and the commoditization of audience, not to actual facts. Fifty years ago there were hurricanes, fires, the cold war and political scandals. There were drills in schools (for nuclear attacks), drugs, crime, poverty, bullying and social pressures. In the seventies there was even talk of climate change – another ice age – and don’t forget the oil crisis.

One reason the Boomer generation made it through was the absence of hyperbole and hysteria today delivered 24/7 on handheld devices with the express purpose of keeping the audience intensely engaged. Since then the standard of living has soared, the crime rate is down, there is less war and poverty in the world, families are smaller and houses are bigger. Modern conveniences – dish washers, microwaves, home air conditioning, cell phones, more reliable vehicles and many more – are both taken for granted and allow more time to worry. 

Favorable violent crime and murder trends, longer life expectancies, and diseases cured or prevented by vaccines are not emphasized, leaving the false impression that conditions are growing worse. Reporters give breathless accounts of tragedies and disasters all over the world, as they show graphic pictures and interviews with crying survivors. Thoughtful reporting has been replaced by each new and exciting item of “breaking news” to accommodate a short, Sesame-Street-fostered, attention span. Rumors and opinions from single unverified sources are treated as facts. Exceedingly rare incidents, child abductions and school shootings, are blown out of proportion. Constantly exposing a young captive audience to dire predictions of climate disasters, eyewitness accounts of shootings, pictures of terrorist attacks is bound to drive a sense of insecurity. 

Words are considered weapons. Incidental touching is assault. Every stranger is a potential abuser or abductor. Being offended has become the national pastime sometimes resulting in death threats against the offender. Ordinary life has become a legal mine field leading to the need for more insurance, warning labels, permission slips, hold harmless agreements and institutional overreaction to minor infractions. 

All this naturally leads to an atmosphere of safety paranoia where anxious parents overprotect frightened children.

Politicians have driven the country into opposing camps, painting the other party as a stupid or evil enemy, stressing dire consequences if they come to power. The press then promotes worst-case interpretations to further their interests. Thus everything has become political, and the best way to manipulate people is to use children as pawns by showing them as the ultimate victims and by terrifying them into carrying forth the message. 

Calm voices are ignored. Is it any wonder that a younger generation feels stressed, with constant messages of anxiety exacerbated by the misuse of increasingly powerful technology? The panicky voices, heart wrenching stories, the warnings of overblown dangers and threats expressed by the government, parents, teachers, advertisers and advocates were not something they could adapt to. They were brought up on this dystopian garbage and expected, even encouraged, to participate.

Interest in astrology by Millennials is not something to be mocked as lack of critical thinking by them. It’s their refuge from a world of unjustified panic resulting from a pattern of abandoning critical thinking and insistence on the truth.

Is Astrology Science?

Here is a story from the Washington Post from one year ago today.  According to the National Science Foundation belief in astrology increased “from 32 percent in 2006 and 35 percent in 2010 to 45 percent in 2012.”  It is interesting that they use the word belief, usually associated with religion where no proof is required or expected.  Is there any basis at all for this belief or is it more evidence that science education in America is falling behind?

From December 1985 this article in the journal Nature describes two double-blind tests designed to validate the thesis that astrological 'natal charts' can be used to accurately describe personality traits.  The researcher chose 30 astrologers from American and Europe based on peer reviews of their accuracy.  He gave them three charts assigned to each of 116 unseen clients and asked them to choose the one that best described their personality based on the times and dates of their birth.  The clients were real people, and one of the charts was the result from a reputable personality profile, California Personality Inventory(CPI), they had taken earlier.  The other two charts were results of the CPI for other people not included in the test.  Using their skills the astrologers tried to match the birth information with the corresponding personality profile.  They made a correct match one in three times, exactly the same percentage as would be expected from guessing.  The tests were double blind, meaning neither the astrologers nor the testers knew the correct answer at the time of testing.

In another instance at Case Western Reserve University, a researcher tested an astrological prediction that scientist and politicians tended to be born under two particular signs.  He looked up birth dates for over 16,000 scientist and 6,475 politicians and found that their birth dates were distributed throughout the year as randomly as the general public.

Many other such tests have been done as recorded in this Wikipedia page.  Despite no proof of the accuracy of astrology and no reasonable scientific explanation as to how the position of the planets could in any way affect the personality or future of anyone, why would this belief persist, and even grow?  The answer lies more in the mind of the public than in the skill of the astrologers.

As expected people believe what they want to believe.  It’s a phenomenon unflatteringly called the Barnum Effect, named for the showman PT Barnum, “whose formula for success was 'A little something for everybody.'”  Much research over the past 40 years found that people will “take the generalized, trite, bogus descriptions, which are true of nearly everybody, to be specifically true of themselves.”  It works best if the feedback is positive and believed to come from a reliable source.

A professor at the University of Kansas did a related test.  He put together three groups of people and gave them each exactly the same personality description and asked each person to rate it on a scale from 1 to 5 (5 meaning very accurate), as to how well it described him or her.  The first group was told that it was a general personality sketch and rated it 3.2 – approximately neutral.  The second group had been asked for their birth month prior to receiving the profile and was told that the profile was based on a horoscope for their sign.  They rated it 3.76.  The third had been asked for date of birth and were told that it was a personal horoscope reading.  The average rating for the identical personality profile from the third group was 4.38!  This outcome has been replicated many times under similar circumstances.

The conclusion is frightening.  In the face of overwhelming evidence and strong scientific arguments to the contrary, nearly half the population persists in believing that astrology is very scientific or sort of scientific.  (What does “sort of scientific” even mean?)  If America’s science teachers aren’t weeping at this news, they should be.  If America is going to be strong in critical thinking, we have a long way to go.

Note:  I have heard that people tend increase the use of horoscopes and such when they feel under stress or out of control.  Perhaps this indirectly reinforces the polls showing that Americans feel their country is headed in the wrong direction.  Remember, the behavioral model is intended to demonstrate how we are in control, how changes in behavior in the key dimensions will lead to better outcomes, and how looking to the government or other supposed saviors is futile.

(Thanks to Ed for the original link.)