I've been going through my chart at astro and most of it seem like a very good description of me.
But it might be that it's just very general and true for all, I don't know.
What do you think?

Ps. can't be good that all my lines, planets and stuff is at the bottom, can it?

Hi Airmid-silverstar, I have often wondered this too. I am a Sagittarius and find that the majority of the things assiciated with this sign are Me. I think that it is also sometimes possible to tell which sign a person is form their character so I suppose there must be something in it .

eh...that link is broke methinks

Now repaired!

Yes to a point i believe in it,but not the write ups you normally get in books on the market.They seem to be just a rough guide line,for example: you could have 2 geminis(help us ) as they share the sign they have similar aspects of the sign but if you go further and look at the time they were both born they can be very much different.Their rising sign and sun sign could be different.I am very lucky i normally can know what sign a person is just by being in their company for a day..k i'm mumbling now

Don't believe in the newspaper astrology, but I do have an open mind over full blown personal charts.

If all/majority your planets are in the lower half of the chart then it shows that you are a very grounded and practical person. If the majority are in the upper half, it shows a person who is the opposite.

With a split on the left and right, if the majority are on the left it's someone logical. If the majority are on the right, the person is more creative.

I believe that there is something to astrology, I don't think that it would have been around for so long. The nonsense they publish in newspapers and magazines is fun to read, but I take it all with a large quantity of salt. Individual astro reports I feel have a lot to them. I had mine done ages ago and it's definately close to perfect a deescription of me.

There's a lot of cr*p around, that's for sure . I too keep an open mind regarding the personal chart stuff (never actually had one done for me, as I don't know my time of birth)... however, I read an interesting book once (I forget the title & author - ???marconi guilivani or something???), which was a demographic study of other 150,000 people, trying to link profession to astrology. A well-over significant difference of people who had Saturn rising(I think) were doctors/scientists, and there was a similar grouping in other professions for the other planets too.

Still, there's always the counter argument that it's not a causal link - we get these stereotypes about star signs drilled into us from birth, so it's not unreasonable to argue that we subconsciously affect out behaviour, depending on which star-sign we are.

Either way - if it works, does it really matter how?

xF,

...Nick

I've used astrology at times but bloody hate the media astrology you find. Just adding your rising sign and moon sign makes it a lot more personal and accurate.

A lot of my friends who said they were into astrology just used the Sun sign to work out someones personality. Crap. We're more complex than that.

oh, sorry about the broken link..

hm, so I'm a veeery practical and logical person then

but if I find a person that is born at the exact same time and place, will that person be a mirror of me?

I'm also a Sagittarian, and I find that a lot of the things said about them fits on me, the foot-in-mouth-syndrome ( I know, I try not to ), restlessness, affinity to traveling and liking to experience, see and learn new things, but does the astrology decide this, or is it genes or perhaps circumstances and environment?

I think it's a very interesting subject, think I'll have to read more about this

In theory, yes. Anyone born in the exact same location at the exact same time would have the same personality aspects on their chart as you, but the chances of that are incredibly slim.

The other thing to factor into astrology is the 'nature vs nuture' arguement. Are you born a particular way, with a specific personality etc; or is it a product of your environment? Indentical twins are used as a perfect case study in this. How many times have we heard of identical twins adopted by two different families who ended up having lives that almost erfectly mirrored each other?

Does anyone know what the average time difference is between twins being born? If it's a couple of minutes, no large changes would be visable on the twins birth charts. But if it's a matter of hours, then the twins could have very different charts and be very different as a result.

Obviously, it depends on the exact circumstances. Caesarian babies - 5, 6 seconds maybe (twins have a higher incidence of this)... but I seem to remember something about caesarians/induced childbirth makes the astrology less accurate? (again in that REALLY elusive book!).

Apart from that, there's no real rule as to times... sometimes they pop out, one after another, other times there can be hours... even days.. in between.


One interesting thing to look at would be the personality similarities between both identical & non-identical twins, born by caesarian... that'd give us some idfea of concordance (as an aside, concordance for schizophrenia for MZ twins is 30%. DZ is 11%. Population 'normal' is 1% - interesting figures, although obviously not definitive)

xF,

...Nick

Humour me, it's been a long time since I did biology. MZ and DZ are identical and non-identical twins, right, or am I getting really confused?

Sorry, yeah - MonoZygotic(ie. identical) and DiZygotic(non-identical) twins.

xF,

...Nick

(note to self: stop abbreviating stuff )