Welcome to Gaia! ::

I was thinking about astrology the other day, and attempting to be objective about it, to see if there really was anything to it, and I decided to try an experiment.

I thought about each sign, and thought "If I read this description and believed it to be the sign I was born under, would I believe there was significant truth in it?" I did this to test the idea that astrology is so vague that give a person any description, and they'll agree it suits them.

I came to the conclusion that if I were told I was an Aquarius, a Pisces, a Taurus, a Cancer, or a Gemini, I would be able to see truth in it.

To start with aquarius and pisces - these two can kind of be ruled out because they both so heavily feature in my chart, so if I feel that way, it isn't evidence against astrology.

The others are more problematic.

Taurus is supposed to be very different to aquarius. I'm not taurean at all in interests or basic mode of existence, and the taureans I've met are very different from me, but there are key features there, such as a need for stability (very unaquarian) and a love of creature comforts like food (though maybe that's just human?).

For the same reason I identify with cancer - home and family are very important to me.

I can relate to gemini well enough to probably accept it if I was told I was one, even though they arent characterised by the aquarian eccentricity (which I suffer from). However, this may simply be explained by the fact that aquarius and gemini are both air signs and very much focused in the mind.

Aries, sag, leo, capricorn, virgo, libra and scorpio were all way out.

All up, though, I think if I was classified as any sign other than what I am, I'd think aquarius were a better fit, particularly the aquarius/pisces combination. Also, while individual features of other signs fitted, no other sign taken as a whole did. Some features, such as increased sentimentality, can probably also be explained by the large water influence from pisces, perhaps making cancer also irrelevant.

So, what about the rest of you? Have you ever tried this, and if so, what results do you come up with? If you read a leo description, would you accept it? A virgo? A cancer? does your experiment invalidate or confirm your belief in astrology? Personally, I found it a little inconclusive, leaning towards confirmation.

I can't really see myself as *any* earth sign. They are so practical and I so suck with $--lol. My moon is in Gem, so I can identify with them. I have lots of Libra in my chart so I can definitely see me being a scale. I would have to rule out Taurus, but I bet sometimes I suffer from the Leo ego, although I grew up with a Leo so maybe she was a heavy influence on me. blaugh Pretty much, I think I'm as Aquarius as you can get. 3nodding cool

Atemus - of course there is a blend. That's why I ruled out both Aquarius and Pisces, because even though I relate to them (strongly), they constitute my sun, moon, mercury, jupiter, venus and ascendant between them. However, some of the signs I can relate to are not ones that feature strongly in my chart, and are even signs that are generally considered radically different from the signs that do feature strongly.

It's just an interesting experiment to try - think about every sign, about which ones you relate well to, and be objective about it. Then have a look at whether they match up with what's in your chart or not.