to see that, while the relationship If-Any, as in -???- twixt some exact birth moment and, your Proclivities? need not be Objectively True (as-if we'd recognize an Objective Truth if it bit us on an arse with 3-cheeks.)

Nor (whatever the fate of the above origins, in intellectual-space) - can anyone take very seriously the 'predictions' of future events - as sells all those Tabloids and, if you're Nancy Reagan.. may guide your hubby's decisions about tax breaks as she misses evaluating? the character of certain shady anti-Constitutional Marines.

Noooo - try very hard only to note: that there is very much observational data across the centuries as tends to "group people" / as with Cocker Spaniels re other breeds, according to behavioral frequencies. That the above may have been the postulate is incidental: observations are 'data'. Then we evaluate: how often are these characterizations right-on as opposed to, er No-Way!

(Think about Freud's cowardice in modifying his original, tabulated observations of the %sexual-abuse of girls. Then, on nearly being voted-out of the local Psych Ruling Junta, for daring to promulgate his 'stats': his 'theory' morphed into: "an unnatural [Hah] lusting-after Daddy", etc. Coward.) Then there are the Doctors - laughing at the idea of washing hands; for the Longest time after it was suggested Why / killing lots of pregnant women, etc. But I digress to orthodox 'scientific methods'.

Stripped of the problem of vetting of algorithmic origins? and (all the silly stuff) - I'd aver that 20th century psych is no more agile/accurate in *its* generalizations - depending on which of 100 of those Schools you favor - than is Astrology, even though there remain as many %charlatan 'astrologers' as MDs, politicos, priests and scholars.

ie the 'Something' that there appears to be 'To It' resides only in the method's ability to 'predict' certain behaviours [not events!] - if. it. does. do. that. Alas, as regards every one of (the few) persons each one of us has actually met: are these a fair stat sample of millions, or not? Ergo -

*I Predict*

-- there will never arise The One True Blog which settles definitively, the Yes/No decision on this question of 'accuracy'/ utility via alleged stats yet collected (and by whom?).

(It would be distinctly unFashionable to request a Grant, in '05 for such research, I aver. As in most eras.)
We really don't *know* Shit about the human psyche, now do we? (Even with Astrology's assistance ;-) Remember Freud: that's the stuff of our putative 'knowledge'.


Meanwhile, bon appetit, you Scorpio-or-something ~ with Nintendo in retrograde (?)
:-\ufffd