(I've been studying astrology for many years.) I remember when this researcher was trying to recruit participants for this study off of social media, which was

(I've been studying astrology for many years.) I remember when this researcher was trying to recruit participants for this study off of social media, which was widely met with skepticism in the serious astrological community. It is nearly impossible to find truly skilled astrologers who would agree to participate in a study like this off of Twitter, those who have studied the decade(s) or more required to be proficient. Real Astrology requires an uncommon mix of character; one must be both scholarly and intuitive, while also recognizing the symbolic nature of things. These qualities, in the proper balance to succeed at the craft, are rare. Further, only astrologers who study traditional techniques can yield accurate results, and these "accurate results" are archetypal in nature [1]. Modern astrology is a free-for-all with a very high woo quotient, and mostly caters to the young. (My personal take is that Astrology is a divinatory, participatory "science", and can't be statistically analyzed [2], though the Gauquelins did just this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect) [1]: By archetypal I mean: astrologer sees Jupiter transiting the 5th house and predicts a child born in the coming year; no human child is born, but given the general signification of the 5th ("children"), the native did publish a book, which they labored over, and loved. Statistically it was a miss, though archetypally it was a hit; this must be understood by all in order for it to be meaningfully true. [2] This is where the impossibility of accurate statistical analysis lives.