When I had a brief interest in astrology many years ago, here is what I found out. First of all a well-written horoscope will leave about 70% of people convinced that it is fairly specific and applies well to them. This makes anecdotal evidence easy to find and makes studying it in a precise way difficult. I also found that attempts have been made to find correlations between personality and sun signs with a general lack of success.

Note that when I say general, I do not mean absolute. There was at least one study that found a significant correlation between personality and sun signs. However upon re-examination of the data, the study sample fell into 3 groups. Those who had little knowledge of astrology had no correlation. Those who had some knowledge of astrology had significant correlation. Those who had a lot of knowledge of astrology had no correlation. The explanation appears to be that people who had some knowledge of astrology tailored their answers to what they thought right based on a limited understanding of astrology. Those with little or a lot of knowledge answered more accurately for who they were. (When you know enough astrology, you can justify virtually any personality by stressing the influences of the moon, various planets, etc just right.)

Anyways now there are much more efficient research tools to skim what's known about any particular topic. Lemme visit Google, notice that the first link seems irrelevant, and then links number two, three and four show lots of studies that looked hard for a correlation and didn't find one.

As for the rest of what you say, it was all conditional on a correlation being found to exist. But that correlation remains unproven (in fact it has been demonstrated that, if it exists, it must be pretty small), and so we have no need to rush out and figure out how we're going to rewrite the science books just yet.

I have a hypothesis I'd love to see tested about this. I don't know whether the hypothesis is even sound enough to bother testing it and I don't have the training to test it properly anyway.

It goes something like this:

The designation of people into personality type groups by zodiac sign are somewhat accurate due to the seasons and the social systems into which children are born. Children who are born in and are raised in the most temperate zones with the most rigid annual calender will be the most easily grouped into a class by birth date.

The reasoning is that, on average, children tend to reach certain points of development at certain ages. This of course varies per person, but there are certain accepted normal and average age ranges during which to learn to speak, grasp, walk, stand, et cetera. Different environmental factors can have effects upon these items. For example, children learning to walk, climb, run, and tumble outside any formal training regimen will tend to have more practice in these things during times of moderate temperature and precipitation. Likewise, even at the age of 5 years, a few months age difference can make large differences in height, weight, social development, et cetera. Placing an entire age range of children centered around 4 years, 5 years, or 6 years of age into a school situation for the first time can further influence skill development and personality development. Children who reach a certain point in weather or social activity at a certain point in development react according to their developmental stage, and further growth and development is based on that experience. So sun signs would be descriptive, not conscriptive. Also, it'd be interesting to see about sun signs on the Northern hemishepere's zodiac wheel applying to people in temperate zones in the Southern hemisphere. My bet is the personality type groups would be rotated up to six months askew.

Someone better trained in developmental psychology may see further reasoning behind this hypothesis or realize right away that it is utterly and totally flawed and why. If anyone knows their stuff, please feel free to let me know how and where I'm wrong and if I'm just totally off the mark altogether.



Christopher E. Stith

Before this hypothesis can be tested you'd need to find a personality test with a demonstrable positive correlation to sun signs.

Nobody has succeeded in demonstrating such a correlation. Which doesn't mean that it isn't there. Or that your theory is not true. But it means that any possible effect likely is very small, and we lack the data we'd need to study it directly.

Incidentally other correlations are known between personality and "soft factors". Some are believed to come from similar mechanisms to what you theorize. For instance birth order and body type have correlations to personality.