Relatable Astrology

When I post a write-up about getting a horary chart wrong, I get a bunch of replies expressing gratitude that I’m normalizing it being okay for astrologers to get things wrong.

People feel intense pressure to demonstrate the power of astrology in the face of skepticism, an immature marketplace, so on and so forth. They’re relieved that I’m out here showing that astrologers can get things wrong and keep going without caving to this pressure.

I agree this pressure is out there, but my aim is not to rehabilitate astrology but to rehabilitate trust in the spiritual marketplace.

I’m cute about the stats because I like sports, but I’m trying to communicate humanness, not precision.

I’m using statistical accuracy as a more tangible proxy for “good astrologer” because I want to invite widespread reflection on what a good astrologer is and suggest that a good astrologer is not one who appears to be an infallible prophet but rather one who is relatable.

After all, arguably an astrologer’s only job is to relate things.