Astrology in the Age of Polycrisis: Why the Market is Booming

Nia: Hey everyone! I was just scrolling through my feed this morning and it felt like every third post was about "Big Leo Energy" or how Mercury being in retrograde is the reason everyone is acting so chaotic lately. It's everywhere, right? But here’s the thing—today is June 25, 2020, and despite all our technological leaps, we are still looking at the same stars people were watching thousands of years ago to figure out our lives. It’s a total paradox! Why are we so obsessed with this?

Jackson: It really is a fascinating contradiction, Nia. We live in an era defined by scientific rigor, yet astrology is seeing this massive resurgence. To give you an idea of the scale, some industry reports actually project that the global astrology market is going to top 22 billion dollars by 2031 . That is a staggering amount of money being spent on something that science—quite frankly—completely dismisses.

Nia: Twenty-two billion? That’s wild! I mean, I get why people like it—it’s fun, it feels personal—but I didn't realize it was that big of a business. It makes me wonder what we're actually looking for. Are we searching for truth, or just a really good story about ourselves?

Jackson: That’s exactly the tension we’re going to explore today. We’re diving into the "age of polycrisis" we find ourselves in and why that drives us toward the stars . We’ll look at the hard data—like the fact that about a third of Americans actually consider astrology to be "very" or "sort of scientific" .

Nia: Wait, a third? That’s way higher than I would have guessed. I thought most people just read it for a laugh while they’re drinking their coffee.

Jackson: It’s definitely shifting. In 2012, a survey found that the fraction of people who consider astrology "not at all scientific" had actually dropped from two-thirds down to about a half . So, the skepticism is softening, even as the scientific community stands firm that there is no evidence—none whatsoever—to back it up .

Nia: Wow. So we’ve got this massive gap between what people feel is true and what the labs are telling us. I’m so ready to dig into this. Where do we even start to bridge that gap?

Jackson: Let’s start by defining the battlefield. We need to distinguish between the study of the stars and the belief in their influence. Because once you understand the history of how these two paths diverged, you start to see why we’re so conflicted today.

Nia: It’s funny because I feel like people use the words "astronomy" and "astrology" interchangeably sometimes, but they are definitely not the same thing, right? One involves giant telescopes and the other involves... well, my birth chart.

Jackson: Spot on. It’s crucial to draw that line. Astronomy is the scientific study of celestial objects, space, and the physics of our universe . Astrology, on the other hand, is the belief that those astronomical phenomena—where the stars were when you were born or the movement of planets—actually have the power to influence your personality and your daily life .

Nia: But they weren't always enemies, were they? I feel like I've heard they used to be roommates or something.

Jackson: More like twin siblings. For centuries, they were deeply intertwined. Early astronomers were almost always astrologers too. They were charting the stars to measure time, but also to interpret what those movements meant for human affairs . We’re talking about a tradition where the familiar twelve-sign zodiac actually dates back all the way to the fifth century B.C.E. . It was even taught in medieval universities!

Nia: So it had a seat at the table. It wasn't just some fringe thing in the back of a magazine.

Jackson: Not at all. It was mainstream "science" for a long time. But then the 17th century happened—the Scientific Revolution. That’s when the "great divorce" began. Astronomy started leaning heavily into mathematics and empirical observation . Astrology couldn't keep up with that level of proof, so it lost its scholarly legitimacy and was pushed to the margins.

Nia: I guess that makes sense. If you can’t measure the "vibe" of a planet with a math equation, the scientists are going to lose interest pretty fast.

Jackson: Precisely. By the 19th century, as science became professionalized with formal research careers and standards of evidence, astrology was officially relegated to the realm of "pseudoscience" or the occult . It moved from the university classroom to the newspaper column.

Nia: And that’s where most of us find it today—at least until social media took over. It’s interesting how it’s survived all that time in the "doghouse" of science. It’s like it refused to go away just because the professors said it wasn't real.

Jackson: It’s incredibly resilient. Even after being dismissed, it keeps adapting. It entered mainstream pop culture in the 1930s with daily horoscopes and then had a huge boom in the 60s and 70s during the New Age movement . And now, here we are, seeing it explode again on digital platforms.

Nia: So it’s not just a trend; it’s like this recurring human urge. But if science says there's "no evidence," what exactly are they testing? How do you even put a "zodiac sign" in a test tube?

Jackson: That is the perfect question. Because while it might seem impossible to test, researchers have actually spent decades trying to see if there’s any statistical truth to these claims. And the results? Well, they’re pretty devastating for the believers.

Nia: Okay, Jackson, lay it on me. If science has "tested" astrology, how did they do it? Did they follow a bunch of Scorpios around to see if they were actually mysterious and intense?

Jackson: It’s actually more rigorous than that. One of the most famous ways to test this is through "matching" studies. Researchers have taken professional astrologers—people who do this for a living—and asked them to match a person's birth chart to information about their actual personality.

Nia: That seems fair. If the chart is a "map" of the person, the expert should be able to read it, right?

Jackson: You would think so. But the reality is that they were no more accurate than pure chance . It was essentially a coin flip. And it goes both ways—when regular people were asked to pick their own astrological interpretation out of a random selection of other people’s charts, they couldn't do it accurately either .

Nia: Ouch. That’s a bit of a reality check. But what about the "Big Five" personality traits? You know, extraversion, agreeableness, all that. Surely there’s some overlap there?

Jackson: That’s where the "statistical sledgehammer" really comes in. There was a massive study done in China with over 170,000 participants. They looked at the Big Five—extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—and compared them against birth signs .

Nia: 170,000 people? That’s a huge sample size! If there was even a tiny bit of truth to it, they would have found it.

Jackson: Exactly. With a sample that large, you can detect even the smallest statistical effects. And the results were clear: none of the twelve astrological signs were significantly associated with any of those personality traits . Not only that, but the four elements—fire, earth, air, water—and the "positive" or "negative" signs had zero effect on personality either .

Nia: So, a Leo isn't naturally more extraverted than a Capricorn? My whole life is a lie!

Jackson: According to the data, no . They even checked to see if Scorpios were more "venomous"—their words, not mine—and found that they weren't rated any differently than the other eleven signs . The only tiny thing they found was that people born in summer tended to be slightly more extraverted, but that’s likely a "season of birth" effect, not a "star sign" effect .

Nia: It’s so interesting because so many people—including me sometimes—read a description and think, "Oh my god, that is so me!" If the science is this definitive, why does it feel so accurate when we read our horoscopes?

Jackson: That’s the psychological trap. It’s called "self-stereotyping." There was a study that showed if people know their sun sign and the traits associated with it, they are actually more likely to apply those traits to themselves .

Nia: So we’re basically "acting out" our signs because we think we’re supposed to?

Jackson: In a way, yes. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Among people born under "positive" signs—like the fire and air signs—those who believed in astrology actually scored higher in extraversion . But for those who didn't believe, there was no difference. Our belief in the system actually shapes how we perceive ourselves, even if the system itself has no objective reality .

Nia: That is such a fascinating twist. It’s not that the stars change us; it’s that our belief in the stars changes how we see ourselves. But I guess that leads to a darker question—if we’re using these "stereotypes" to understand ourselves, are we also using them to judge other people?

Jackson: This is where the "for fun" aspect of astrology starts to get a bit more serious—and potentially harmful. Because when we start categorizing people based on their birth dates, we’re essentially engaging in a form of "paranormal determinism" .

Nia: "Paranormal determinism." That sounds like a heavy term. What does that actually mean in plain English?

Jackson: It’s the idea that a person’s characteristics are fixed by destiny—that they are born a certain way and can’t change it . And while that might sound harmless when you’re joking about not dating a Scorpio, it can lead to some really unsympathetic attitudes toward others.

Nia: I can see that. If you think someone is "just born lazy" because of their sign, you’re probably not going to have much empathy for them.

Jackson: Exactly. Research in France actually found that a belief in astrology was associated with prejudice against certain groups, including Arabs and overweight people . It was also linked to more sexist attitudes . The logic seems to be that if you believe "poverty is the result of laziness" or that people are just "stuck" with their traits, you’re more likely to hold onto these biases .

Nia: That is a side of astrology I never hear about. Usually, it’s all about self-care and "finding your tribe." But you’re saying it can actually make us less tolerant?

Jackson: It can. And it’s not just a Western phenomenon. In China, there’s a massive negative stereotype around the sign Virgo . Because the word is associated with being critical or fussy, people are actually reluctant to date Virgos . Even worse, some managers admitted they actually discriminate against Virgos in hiring decisions .

Nia: No way! People are losing out on jobs because of their birthday? That’s heartbreaking.

Jackson: It’s completely unfair, especially since another study of over 32,000 employees found that no astrological sign had any relationship to actual job performance . It’s pure discrimination based on a myth.

Nia: It makes me think about how we use these labels. It’s one thing to say "I’m a Taurus, so I love snacks," but it’s another thing entirely to say "I’m not hiring you because you’re a Virgo." It’s like we’re taking these ancient archetypes and using them as weapons.

Jackson: There’s also an interesting link to authority. One study in Europe found that people who think it’s very important for a child to learn obedience are more likely to believe that astrology is scientific . It suggests that there might be a connection between astrology and more authoritarian attitudes .

Nia: So, it’s not just "mystical and airy." For some, it’s about a rigid way of seeing the world where everyone has a "place" they can’t escape.

Jackson: Right. It’s that tradeoff between comfort and control. On one hand, astrology gives you a sense of order. On the other, it can trap you—and others—in these boxes that have no basis in reality. But despite these potential "dark sides," millions of people are still flocking to it. So we have to ask: what is it giving people that science and traditional religion aren't?

Nia: So, if the science is a "no" and there are these real-world risks, why are we currently in what people are calling an "astrology renaissance"? I mean, we’re seeing apps like Co-Star and Sanctuary getting massive funding, and everyone on TikTok is talking about their birth chart . Why now?

Jackson: It’s a "perfect storm" of factors, really. Sociologists often point to the fact that we’re living in an "age of polycrisis"—we’ve got economic instability, political upheaval, and environmental challenges all hitting at once . When the world feels out of control, humans instinctively look for a higher power or a framework to make sense of the chaos .

Nia: That makes so much sense. I remember during the pandemic, everyone was so anxious and suddenly my whole timeline was just astrology memes. It was like we were all looking for some kind of "map" because the real world didn't make sense anymore.

Jackson: Exactly! In 2020, searches for "birth chart" and "astrology" hit five-year peaks . When the "earthly" comforts—like hugs, jobs, and security—were stripped away, people turned to the stars . It provides a sense of "precedent." Like one writer mentioned, astrology follows planetary cycles, so it gives people comfort to think that "similar patterns have happened in the past" and we aren't just stuck in a unique, never-ending moment .

Nia: It’s like a cosmic "this too shall pass." But why astrology specifically? Why not go back to traditional religion?

Jackson: Well, for many millennials and Gen Zers, traditional religion feels too dogmatic or restrictive. Over 60% of American millennials believe in New Age spirituality, even though they’re less likely to believe in a traditional God . Astrology offers a "middle ground." It’s not quite science, but it uses technical-looking charts and math, and it’s not quite religion, but it offers spiritual guidance .

Nia: I love how one person described it as a "language to understand your own truth," rather than a "book" of absolute truth . It feels more like a DIY spirituality. You can take what works for you and leave the rest.

Jackson: And it’s very "individual-focused," which fits our modern culture. We’re in an era that values self-care and self-awareness above almost everything else. As one expert noted, knowing yourself is "arguably the most important social currency we have today" . Astrology gives you a "story about you" that feels incredibly personalized .

Nia: It’s like a personality test but with more "vibes." I’ve heard people compare it to the Myers-Briggs or the Enneagram . It’s just another tool in the toolbox for figuring out who the heck we are.

Jackson: Right. And it’s particularly resonant for groups who might feel marginalized by traditional structures. We see much higher engagement from women, younger adults, and the LGBTQ+ community . For the queer community especially, astrology can be a way to cope with everyday struggles and imagine "alternatives to mainstream forms of care and healing" .

Nia: So it’s building community and providing a sense of identity when the "old ways" don't feel like they fit. But I wonder... does it actually help people make better decisions? Or is it just a way to feel better while things are going wrong?

Nia: You mentioned that the astrology market is booming, and I can definitely see that in my own life. It seems like there’s an app for everything now. You’ve got AI-powered ones like Co-Star and Sanctuary, and then there are the "celebrity" astrologers like Chani Nicholas or Susan Miller . It’s not just a horoscope in the back of a paper anymore—it’s like a 24/7 personal consultant in your pocket.

Jackson: It’s a total technological overhaul of an ancient practice. These apps have made astrology "immediate and modern" . For example, Sanctuary was built specifically for people looking for "answers to connect with" in a way that feels like a conversation . They even offer live birth-chart readings through the app .

Nia: I’ve seen those! And people are paying real money for this. I read that Chani Nicholas’s book sold over 14,000 copies in its first week back in 2020, and her company was hiring for six-figure positions . This is a serious industry.

Jackson: It really is. And the "new vanguard" of astrologers is very different from what we used to see. They’re younger, more diverse, and they’re using platforms like TikTok to reach millions. Take Maren Altman, for instance—she went from a few dozen views on YouTube to over a million followers on TikTok in just ten months .

Nia: I’ve seen her! She does those videos about Bitcoin and the stock market, right? "Financial astrology." That feels like such a weird mix of "cold hard cash" and "mystical stars."

Jackson: It’s a huge niche. People are genuinely looking to the stars to predict market movements . But for most users, it’s less about the stock market and more about "self-discovery" . The apps provide a way to "contextualize their feelings and struggles as part of something larger than themselves" .

Nia: It’s interesting how "scientific" some of these apps look, though. They use these precise-looking charts and talk about "transits" and "houses." It reminds me of what that philosopher Theodor Adorno said back in the 50s—that by presenting this stuff in "empirical rather than supernatural terms," it gains a kind of "apparent fact" status .

Jackson: That’s a very sharp observation. When you see a high-tech interface with precise determinations of planetary movement, it feels like science, even if the underlying logic isn't . It bridges that gap between our desire for "facts" and our need for "meaning" .

Nia: And let’s be honest, those notifications can be spooky! Sometimes I’ll get a push notification saying "Don't overthink your relationships today" right when I’m in the middle of a text-argument with my partner. It feels like the app is reading my mind.

Jackson: Psychologists would call that "causal uncertainty." When big, global events are happening, we try to make sense of them by finding patterns anywhere we can . We find relief in "abstract messaging" and "unquantifiable ideas" because the "cold scientific facts" don't offer much emotional comfort .

Nia: So the apps are basically providing a "user interface" for our own introspection. But it’s not just about us as individuals, is it? It’s also about how we connect with other people. I mean, "What’s your sign?" has to be the most common icebreaker in history.

Jackson: You're right, Nia. Beyond the individual "self-help" aspect, astrology has become this incredibly powerful "social shorthand" . It gives us a language to describe ourselves and others in a way that feels quick and relatable.

Nia: It’s so true! If I say, "Sorry, I’m being such a Taurus right now," people immediately know I mean I’m being stubborn or maybe I just really want a snack and a nap. It’s like a "shortcut" for explaining a complex mood.

Jackson: Precisely. It provides a "language for identity" in a world where identity categories are becoming more fluid . It’s a way for people to "imagine and apply ideas in their own reality" . And social media—especially meme accounts—has played a huge role in this.

Nia: Oh, the memes are the best part! Accounts like @NotAllGeminis or @Trashbag_Astrology. They take these heavy "celestial" concepts and turn them into these witty, bite-sized jokes about dating and work-life balance . It makes it feel so much more accessible and "fun" rather than "occult."

Jackson: And that "fun" factor is key. Surveys suggest that astrology is popular even among people who don't fully "believe" in it . They use it for "levity" or as an "interesting talking point" during these weird, uncertain times . It’s a way to relate to each other through shared elements, as one astrologer put it, while still feeling "incomprehensibly unique" .

Nia: I love that idea—that we’re all made of the same "stuff" but in different combinations. It’s like a cosmic puzzle. But I’ve also noticed that it can sometimes be a bit of a "filter" in dating. I’ve seen so many profiles that say "No Scorpios" or "Looking for a Fire sign to match my energy."

Jackson: It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it creates community, particularly for marginalized groups like the LGBTQ+ community . On the other hand, it can become a tool for "pre-judging" people before you even meet them. It’s that tension between using it as a "window into personality" versus using it as a "label" that limits people .

Nia: It’s like we’re trying to find a balance. We want the connection and the "shorthand," but we don't want to be "boxed in" by a stereotype. One of the professional astrologers interviewed said it’s "not deterministic, but a source of guidance and assurance" . It’s more like a weather report than a destined path.

Jackson: That’s a helpful way to look at it. If you treat it like a "weather report" for your internal state, it can be a tool for reflection. But if you treat it as an "unchangeable destiny," that’s where the science—and the ethics—start to push back.

Nia: So, if we’re going to live in a world where astrology is everywhere, how do we use it responsibly? How do we take the "fun" and the "meaning" without falling into the "pseudoscience" or "prejudice" traps?

Nia: Okay, Jackson, we’ve covered the science, the history, the apps, and the social impact. Now, let’s get practical. For someone listening who likes reading their horoscope but also values science, how do they navigate this? Is there a way to have your stars and your logic too?

Jackson: I think it’s all about how you "frame" the experience. The first step is to treat astrology as a "tool for introspection" rather than a "source of factual truth" . When you read a horoscope that says "you might feel a bit sensitive today," don't take it as a literal prediction. Use it as a prompt to check in with yourself. "Am I feeling sensitive? Why might that be?"

Nia: So it’s more like a journal prompt than a news report. I like that. It’s like using a "random" piece of advice to spark a real thought about your life.

Jackson: Exactly. One psychologist suggested that if it "provides comfort and helps someone make sense of what’s happening," it’s not necessarily a bad thing—as long as you aren't "depending on any one source of information for guidance" . Don't let a "Mercury retrograde" stop you from signing a contract if the "earthly" facts say it’s a good deal.

Nia: Right! Use your brain for the big stuff. And what about those "social boxes" we talked about? How do we avoid "astrology-shaming" our friends?

Jackson: That’s a big one. We should be very careful about "paranormal determinism" . Remember that massive study—173,709 people—that found zero link between signs and personality . If you find yourself judging someone because they’re a Virgo or a Gemini, remind yourself that the science simply doesn't back that up. Every person is an individual, not a stereotype.

Nia: So, use it for "self-insight" but not for "other-judgment." That feels like a solid rule. What about the "uncertainty" side of things? If we’re feeling anxious, is looking at our birth chart actually helpful?

Jackson: It can be, if it helps you see "the light at the end of the tunnel" . Many people use astrology to "time major choices" or "gain confidence" . If a reading gives you the nudge you need to finally apply for that job or have that tough conversation, then it’s served a psychological purpose. Just don't forget that you are the one making the choice, not the planets.

Nia: It’s like the "Dumbo’s feather" of the 21st century! The magic isn't in the feather; it’s in the person who believes they can fly.

Jackson: That’s a perfect analogy. And lastly, I’d say: embrace the "fun." There’s nothing wrong with enjoying a meme or a "Big Leo Energy" joke. Just maintain that "respectful but critical" stance . You can enjoy the "mysticism" while still "following the science" when it comes to the real world.

Nia: I feel like I have a much healthier relationship with my star sign now. It’s a "language," not a "law." It’s a "story," not a "sentence."

Jackson: That is a great way to put it. It’s about taking back your agency. The stars might be beautiful to look at, but you’re the one steering the ship.

Nia: This has been such a wild ride through the cosmos, Jackson. I’m looking at those "daily horoscope" notifications in a whole new light now. It’s fascinating how something so "unscientific" can have such a deep psychological and social impact.

Jackson: It really highlights that "human" side of us that craves meaning and connection, especially when the world feels like it’s falling apart. Whether it’s 1660 or 2026, we’re still looking up and asking, "Where do I fit in all of this?" .

Nia: And even if the answer isn't written in the stars, the fact that we’re looking for it says so much about us. It reminds us that we’re all connected by these same "big questions," even if we disagree on the answers.

Jackson: Well said. Astrology might not be a science, but its popularity is a "fascinating sociological phenomenon" that tells us a lot about how we’re navigating the present . It teaches us that we’re all made of the same elements, even if our individual paths are "incomprehensibly unique" .

Nia: To everyone listening, I hope this gave you some "cosmic clarity" today—whether you’re a skeptic, a believer, or somewhere in the middle like me. Maybe next time you see your horoscope, you can ask yourself: "What is this really telling me about myself, and what am I just projecting onto the stars?"

Jackson: It’s a great exercise in self-awareness. Thank you for joining us on this exploration today. It’s always a pleasure to dive deep into these contradictions with you.

Nia: Same here, Jackson! Thanks for being the "logical anchor" to my "curious explorer." And thanks to all of you for listening. Take a moment today to look at the stars—not for answers, maybe, but just to appreciate how vast and beautiful the universe really is. Reflect on what gives you meaning in these "uncertain times," and we’ll see you soon.