I’ve always found that topic quite funny.

I find it very amusing when people make decisions based on the answer to the “What’s your star sign?” question.
I’ve met a lot of people, having a lot of different star signs and I can tell you, the odds of them showing specific zodiacal traits are 50-50. Sometimes sagittariuses can be quite quiet and leos can be little pussycats and not all geminis are screamers.

How could the month you were born in influence they way you are, as a person, more than your upbringing, you gene pool and the bad decisions you’ve made in your life?

What about those all-important forming years? I mean when you’re three to five years old. The stuff you do and is done to you then is far more likely to influence or scar you for life. The way you interact with the opposite sex at that age will probably set the tone for the rest of your existence. The speed with which you can learn will show what kind of person you’ll be: smart or stupid.

I’ve been asking myself these questions for a long time, but never so clearly as I did on Friday night. I really have to thank Alex Iovan for putting things into perspective.

The answer I’ve found might suck for the the ones who believe in this smack. Scott Adams pointed out a technique for achieving goals, some time ago.  I think it could be used to explain the horoscope and trait matching phenomena.

If you keep reading about what people of your star sign are like, you’ll grow to believe it. It’s called wishful thinking. The horoscope helps too. It’s so vague that it’s right — in some sense — half the time. People just choose to ignore the half the time that it’s so, so wrong. The same with the traits. People choose to ignore the specific traits that do not apply to them, and focus on the ones that do. Then they’ll become increasingly proud to be part of that start sign.

Hi, I’m Horia and I’m a leo, and I couldn’t care less!