Zodiac signs influence our personality

The argument

Proponents of this position hold that studies have proven that people who were born at similar times in the year have similar traits or habits. The link to astrology is indirect but, on this argument, decisive: the zodiac signs are organized by birth dates, so if birth date tracks personality at all, then the categories the signs use are tracking something real. Even without the formal labeling of zodiac signs, studies have illustrated correlations within the signs. Several findings are cited in support. A Japanese study found that people born December through February have lower agreeableness (this term has a precise definition to personality psychologists rather than an everyday one). A Swedish study found that (at least in women), February, March and April birthdays led to increased novelty-seeking behavior. Another study reported that summer-born males are less conscientious (another term with a formal meaning). Taken together, proponents argue, these are measurements of the very thing astrology has always claimed to describe. The fit between the research and the tradition is not exact, and the argument concedes as much. Adjacent signs often have opposing, or at least unrelated, personalities, while science says that adjacent birth months are similar. The claim being made is therefore narrower than a defence of horoscopes: conversely, when someone says there's no possible way the month you are born could have any influence on your personality, they aren't exactly correct. Schizotypal personality has been correlated with certain birth months, which may be associated with many personality traits and habits — which is why, on this view, the birth-date framework the zodiac rests on is not empty.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Shawn Carlson, a physicist at the University of California, conducted a double blind test to prove that zodiac signs do not reflect our personalities. He recruited 30 well known astrologers and asked them to match the personalities of 116 people with their zodiac signs. As a result, they were only right about a third of the time. Carlson states that “their predicted connection between the positions of the planets and other astronomical objects at the time of birth and the personalities of test subjects did not exist. The experiment clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis.”

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This has been scientifically disproved.