Criticism of Astrology

I found this in my psychology textbook... of course, all psychologists are neurotic skeptics but it has some validity.

In an experiment done in 1983..."French psychologist Gauguelin placed an ad in a paris newspaper offering a free personal horoscope. 94 per cent of those recieving the horoscope praised the description as accurate. Whose horoscope had they all actually recieved? That of France's Dr. Petiot, a nortorious mass murderer."

I bet he was a pisces 😛

and their example horoscope that nearl everyone again agreed described themselves was:
"You have a strong need for other people to like and to admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself... You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept other opinions without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extraverted, affable and social; at other times you are introverted, wary and reserved. Some of your asperations tend to be pretty unrealistic.

so what do you all think?

I've discussed this topic to a few skeptic friends. That free personal horoscope describing Dr. Petoit is overgeneralized. Not everyone will agree with what it says. The people who read it and believed it to be accurate are either A. Really as described or B. They want to be what the reading says.

Often people warp their horoscope readings to fit into their life. For instance, today (23rd) my daily reading at astrology.com mentioned "knowing the opponent." My day has been completely care-free (so far), so therefore I don't agree with it. I believe it all has to do with whether the reader is easily influenced by others.

I also think the reading is too general. It's so general that of course almost everyone will see themselves in it. I do think it's a very interesting study though. I agree with scorp guy that a lot of people would identify with it just because they want to be how the reading describes them.

Yeah...far to general but people need to realsie astrology is not an exact science...not many sciences are exact infact.

A reading is a persons interpretation of the planets so you have to expect that reading to have a spin on it according to that astrologers experiance, outlook, views and take on the situation...heck even their own stars of that day may affect them to think differantly on that day.

Astrology is a slow process and the affects of the planets often take as long as the planets do to move...we are so conditioned to expect results here and now in the world we live in today...24/7 service...1 hour photo's...same day delivery...etc.

Always also remember we are human beings. We all have the exact same potential as each other we don't have to act like x,y or z yet being born in differant stages of the cycles of the planets which are "CONSTANT" makes us more likeley to enjoy certain activities because we are piscean, scops or libran etc. We have all got our mates that act out of character but then what does that mean.....—

Does it disprove astrology as everyone automatically thinks

or....

Does it prove human will is stronger than astrology...?

My sister's a psychologist and she did an experiment like this once - everyone was given an exact same paragraph and told that it was specifically written about them and had something to do with gauging people's perceptive/interpretive techniques (I can't remember the point of the experiment or what it was sposed to highlight)

anyway......

...this one girl read her identical paragraph and stood up in front of the lecture saying 'oh my god. This is so accurate! It's amazing - it's me exactly etc..etc..' She was terribly embarrassed of course...

...however... i don't think the astrology aspect is neccessarily the issue, rather a person's need to identify with labels. I should actually ask my sister what the point of it was.