It’s odd that any respectable media would defend astrology these days, since there’s no evidence for a correlation of birth sign with personality (a comprehensive double-blind test published in Nature in 1985 showed that pretty definitively). In many ways astrology is like religion: they’re both based on faith, there’s no evidence for their overweening truth claims, there’s no known mechanism for their operation, both are believed ardently by many adherents, and lots of people make their living pushing both palpably false doctrines.

Astrology resembles religion in another way, too: a higher percentage of women than of men are religious, and a higher percentage of women than men believe in astrology. I’m not sure exactly why that is, but, like religion, astrology might create a sense of community that somehow appeals more to women than men. (I have no idea whether this is a socialized trait, the result of an evolved difference in men’s versus women’s brains, or a combination of both). As VICE notes (see below), studies show that “women are more empathic and men more analytical,” but I’m not sure whether this explains the sex difference in religiosity and astrology-belief.

You can defend the institution of religion, as even some atheists like John Gray do, but it’s harder for people to defend astrology. I suspect it’s because astrology is not such a heavily institutionalized form of delusion, and because people are more open to empirical refutations of astrology than they are of religion. Astrology, for some reason, seems more susceptible to empirical refutation of its claims, though religion’s truth claims are by no means immune to refutation.

Although newspapers often publish astrology columns, which annoys me since it’s really a form of woo rather than pure entertainment (confess: don’t you look at them and look up your birth sign to see if the prognostication matches your life? Even I do that!), they don’t defend it in their articles. But the following piece by Hannah Ewens in VICE does (click on screenshot).

Ewens is Features Editor for VICE UK and describes herself like this: “I write about youth culture, mental health, film and rock/alternative music. Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about female sexuality, fandom and teenage years.”

First, let us note that this is indeed a defense of astrology, as author Ewens confesses at the end:

Personally, a vague interest I’d had in astrology since I was a kid was solidified once I did my birth chart and found it to be eerily accurate. As soon as conflicting deadlines strike in tandem with my rising anxiety levels, and if I’ve not been looking after myself properly, I notice I’m checking astrology apps and podcasts more. But without that initial “in” I’d never have gone down the rabbit hole. It’s just about the entry point and who gets there.

She doesn’t mention that astrology’s claims are totally bogus.

The rest of the article is, as the title implies, an assertion that women and gay males like astrology more than do straight males, and an attempt to find out why. The title, while implying a denigration of maleness and cis-sexuality, is really just a social-justice hook to justify its defense of astrology.

But do straight men really hate astrology more than women, or more than gay men?

Well, the answer to the first question is “sort of”, though we’re talking just about men versus women here, without mention of cis-sexuality. As VICE notes, paralleling other data:

. . . straight men seem to be frequently apathetic or adverse to astrology. In a 2005 Gallup UK poll, just over twice as many women in the UK believed in astrology compared to men (30 percent to 14 percent of a data pool of 1,010 people). A 2017 study by Pew Research Centre found that 20 percent of adult men in the US believed in astrology, compared to 37 percent of women.

Note that this is just men versus women. No mention of gay men vs. straight men. That’s a deliberate journalistic evasion of her thesis.

Ewens gratuitously buttresses the sex difference by giving lots of anecdotes of men who were driven bonkers by their girlfriends’ intense interest in astrology. That adds nothing to the survey data. And note again that these data say nothing about straight men vs. gay men. Indeed, NO data in the entire article show that gay men are less averse to astrology than straight men. That assertion is simply made by two astrologers:

Jessica Lanyadoo, who hosts Ghost Of A Podcast, said, “I know lots of cis straight male astrologers, but not as many cis straight male astrology fans.” Astrologer Randon Rosenbohm agrees, telling me “it’s for girls and gays”. “Astrology is a natural, intuitive way of telling time, and women are more in tune with nature,” Randon continues. “Men, however, are builders who work with the material world. Unless you give a straight man evidence of astrology being real, they’re less likely to find it remotely interesting.”

That’s not very convincing, and represents the totality of the evidence. Perhaps Ewens is right, but she doesn’t support her thesis.

Although the article is more about sex- (and supposed sexual-orientation-) differences in astrology acceptance than about social justice, there is one paragraph implying that straight men’s aversion to astrology rests in some way on a patriarchy that stresses out women and gay men more than it does the cis-sexual men:

To understand your and others’ personalities, to try to predict the future: ultimately, it’s grasping for control, when we have none. Women and queer people are drawn to astrology because it offers community and refuge, something to lean on during a time in which religion has taken a backseat. In a heterosexual patriarchy, cis-het men arguably have less to seek refuge from. It is during times of significant stress that people turn to astrology, after all. In a 1982 study, the psychologist Graham Tyson found that people who consult astrologers did so in response to stressors, writing, “Under conditions of high stress, the individual is prepared to use astrology as a coping device, even though under low-stress conditions he does not believe in it.”

Well, fine, but first support your thesis about homosexuality before you start explaining it.

I’m not as much interested in going after astrology as I am religion, for the latter is far more harmful. But let it be noted that astrology may have a carryover effect on other forms of irrationality, for at bottom it depends on a faith in something that is palpably false. The sad and irresponsible aspect of Ewens’s piece is that it doesn’t address the falsity of astrology, and also makes claims that aren’t supported: namely that gay men, like women, are more sympathetic to astrology than are straight men. Finally, its failure to give the data that astrology is bunk, but rather justifies people’s reliance on the stars, is a gross failure of responsible journalism. Does VICE really want to throw truth under the bus in service of woo, implied sexism, and implied misogyny?

h/t: Grania