Skip to content

Why Women Are Right About Astrology

Channel: HealthyGamerGG
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEc1gti61eQ

Dr K argues astrology "works" in ways worth taking seriously - both as a psychological tool and, per a handful of studies, possibly in a narrow predictive sense - and that most people who dismiss it have never studied it, making their skepticism as uninformed as an anti-vaxxer's "research."

Key points

The framing challenge

  • The common answer to "why do women believe in astrology" is that it manufactures certainty from uncertainty. Dr K's counter: it works.
  • Most people who call astrology pseudoscience cannot explain its system, have read no studies on it, and cannot critically appraise such a study - so their dismissal is an a priori conclusion, not a reasoned one. He compares this to anti-vaxxers who "did their research."
  • True open-mindedness means being skeptical of your own beliefs and where they came from, not just of astrology.

Science is fallible too

  • Not all science is scientific: over 50% of studies fail to reproduce. Thalidomide was FDA-approved for nausea, then caused babies to be born without limbs.
  • A trial designed by someone who does not understand what they are studying can produce a false negative. Example: an acupuncture study using "collapsible" (non-piercing) needles as the sham found no difference - but acupressure still activates the meridian points, so the sham was not truly inert.
  • The inverse: understanding a subject deeply lets you design shady trials that manufacture an effect. Early SSRI trials showed strong effects; later meta-analyses suggest up to 70% of SSRI benefit is placebo.
  • A study disproving the null can be wrong; a study showing no effect can also be wrong. Astrology's problem is that good scientists are not expert astrologers and good astrologers are not expert researchers, so high-quality studies are rare.
  • With no quality control regulating who is a "good" astrologer, the field's overall credibility tanks - just as medicine's did 100-200 years ago (bloodletting, cocaine, opiates).

Astrology as a projective tool

  • Like a Rorschach inkblot or Myers-Briggs, astrology can have real psychological value without being literally true: a neutral, ambiguous stimulus surfaces what is dormant in the mind. He puts Ayurveda in this category too.
  • Cited research: a paper found belief in astrology supports self-verification and coping with negative life events (confirming self-concept); belief correlates with intolerance of ambiguity and a need to reduce uncertainty about self and others.
  • A dissertation on millennial women found astrology gave an individualized sense of self-cohesion and, notably, built interpersonal community and shared identity - a source of connection and compassion despite the stigma.
  • He compares this to religion: he has seen no scientific proof of God, but a belief structure (theist or atheist) that helps a patient be resilient is clinically useful. There is a difference between something being technically true and being useful.

The skeptic's argument - the Forer effect

  • The core scientific case against astrology is Bertram Forer's "fallacy of personal validation" (1949): he gave students 13 vague statements ("you have a great need for others to admire you"; "unused capacity") and most agreed they were accurate.
  • Dr K grants the Forer effect is real and replicated, but calls the original experiment methodologically weak (experimenting on your own students, consent issues) and says it wrongly presumes all astrological predictions are vague.
  • Related human biases astrology can exploit: reading meaning into vague statements, the above-average/"you're special" bias, and positivity bias (we agree with predictions of a good future). Crappy astrologers lean on all three.

Why he got worried - specific predictions

  • Twenty years ago he met astrologers making eerily specific, concrete predictions (e.g. a particular body part likely to get infected in a named month) - not Forer-style vagueness.
  • His personal test: give only date, time, location of birth (and sometimes one letter of his name), and ask the astrologer to describe the past five years. Retrospective specificity disables future-oriented biases. Good astrologers named financial vs legal troubles in specific month ranges.
  • Good astrology is highly technical and individualized, not sun-sign horoscopes. An astrologer's analogy: a birth chart is like a 10-digit phone number - change one digit by 10% (date/time/location) and you reach a completely different person. So generic "all Geminis" predictions (8% of humanity sharing one future) are the BS version.
  • What a chart gives is probabilities and tendencies of forces, not fixed predictions.

What the studies show - two very different kinds

  • NEGATIVE (aggregate/averaging studies): Swedish register data found no evidence that astrologically compatible couples marry more or divorce less. An International Journal of Jyotish Research study tested Vedic principles against celebrities vs ordinary people (and cancer vs no-cancer, disabled vs intelligent) and found the principles invalid individually and combined.
  • POSITIVE (studies using actual astrologers reading individual charts): A 2018 prospective, blinded study (150 subjects, 75 with mental illness) had four astrologers read computer-generated charts - moderate inter-rater agreement, and >75% sensitivity/specificity for lifetime mental illness, >80% for current illness. They could NOT predict which illness or time of onset.
  • A dissertation on fertility (27 women, 114 treatments) found beneficial Venus/Jupiter contacts significantly more present at treatments resulting in a live birth, and astrological fertility-problem indicators significantly more present in women with fertility histories (p < .05).
  • Dr K's synthesis: studies that average astrological effects across populations are negative; studies where astrologers make specific individual predictions show "a scary level of predictability" - but the latter are small dissertations with small samples and few publications.

Takeaway

  • He compares astrology to meditation, which was dismissed as pseudoscience until hippie-turned-Berkeley/Stanford researchers designed trials that could detect its effect. Science is still in its infancy; absence of proof is not proof of absence.
  • Advice: don't run your life on astrology, but if curious, only use someone who builds a real birth chart (needs date, time, location, gender). To guard against bias, ask them to describe your past five years - if they get that wrong, it's BS.

Note: The title is deliberately provocative/clickbait (commenters note it was later changed); the talk is a nuanced skeptic's-eye examination, not an endorsement, and it reports the cited studies without independently verifying their quality.

Reception

  • Reactions were mixed-to-surprised; many came in braced for pseudoscience and stayed to reconsider. Several noted the provocative title was changed shortly after posting for engagement, and joked "Reddit will be hearing about this" (Dr K replied "Reddit hears about everything tbh").
  • The inkblot/projective-tool framing landed hardest: a top comment from a self-described "massive astrology hater" said it changed their whole perspective by revealing a positive aspect; another liked reframing astrology and tarot as tools that "generate a pseudo-random perspective" for journaling and self-reflection.
  • Scientist commenters pushed back hardest. An astrophysicist's highly-liked comment argued the core problem is there is no physical mechanism for distant stars to causally influence you. Another argued that "50% of studies don't reproduce" IS the scientific method working, and calling half of science "not science" is an insane take.
  • Recurring critique: the predictive-looking studies had tiny samples and likely publication bias, and the "astrology that works" he describes is not the popular astrology anyone actually uses. One noted a scientist's a priori dismissal is justified precisely because the field has no quality control.
  • Common gripe from moderate believers: astrology is fine for self-understanding and community but bad when strangers use it to stuff you into a box. Several ex-believers described realizing predictions were their own imagination or confirmation bias.
  • A frequently-raised objection: identical twins share birth time and location, so how would their charts and fates differ?