A few decades ago, when astrology was last really popular, I was in a high school class and a few kids knew that I could actually cast a full natal horoscope. So they asked me to guess their (Sun) sign. I stopped when I was ahead, but had gotten four out of four right on the first guess and had a legitimate (?) reason for each. Don’t know how my reputation changed as a result…I was way more pocket-protector nerd than goth/warlock (which wasn’t a thing yet).
As far as archetypes go for human psychology, astrological signs themselves have a lot going for them: simple, vague, engaging, nice emojis, deep historical roots. Could be something going on in terms of seasonality, birth month, school entrance date and childhood development for Sun signs, but mostly natal astrology is a cute neutral way to get people to talk about themselves. Pretty certain the stars don’t impel much less compel but I’d prefer a frivolous discussion over what a Leo is really like over any given random political argument where no side has a clear enough understanding of the whole picture to justify their own rage.
As far as archetypes go for human psychology, astrological signs themselves have a lot going for them: simple, vague, engaging, nice emojis, deep historical roots. Could be something going on in terms of seasonality, birth month, school entrance date and childhood development for Sun signs, but mostly natal astrology is a cute neutral way to get people to talk about themselves. Pretty certain the stars don’t impel much less compel but I’d prefer a frivolous discussion over what a Leo is really like over any given random political argument where no side has a clear enough understanding of the whole picture to justify their own rage.