Why not? A lot of psychology is about personality and traits that are sometimes out of proportion shall we say? Aren't they kind of inter-related when you look at it that way?
str8z, I wasn't referring to the "psychology of astrology", but the two studies viewed separately. Psychology tends to be a general study of people as a whole. It does take into account environments, upbringings, and cultures, and recognizes their effect on the individual, but it often attempts to discredit astrology, dismissing its relevance and classifying it as an example of the "Barnum effect."
And what about the whole nature vs. nurture discussion? Astrology seems to say that the location of planets and asteroids when a person is born will dictate their personality. Can a person who believes in astrology really support the nurture philosophy?
Psychology can be proven wrong by using astrology. Where as astrology cannot be proved wrong by psycholgy and can only be classified as "prejudiced by astrology leading to certain actions.".
Its funny to categorize people as a whole and name every odd behaviour as some syndrome and give them pills and electic shock. Take a stubborn tauren to a pshychologist and try if his stubbornness can be cured. 😉 or may be take me to one and try if my indecisiveness can be sorted out.
So, I was in Psychology class the other day and we were discussing a study by Jane Elliot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott). Basically, what Elliot did was take a bunch of children and tell them that the ones with blue eye