Gen Z is obsessed with astrology. How to get out of it if you want to?

Why Astrology Feels Irresistible

Astrology appeals to something deeply human, the need for meaning, patterns, and guidance. Psychologists note that people are natural pattern seekers, prone to apophenia, the tendency to see connections where none exist. Horoscopes and birth charts offer just that. Seemingly personal messages drawn from the stars. Studies also show that vague predictions, “you will face challenges in relationships this year” feel accurate because they apply to almost everyone, a phenomenon called the Barnum effect (or Forer effect). This makes astrology feel tailored to the individual, even when it is not.

Sociologically, astrology thrives in times of uncertainty. In India, economic transitions, exam pressures, job competition, political turmoils and shifting social roles push people toward systems that promise clarity and control. Astrological advice offers the comfort of order in a chaotic world. As Andersson and colleagues observed, belief in astrology correlates with narcissism and lower levels of analytical thinking, but it also reflects a desire for self-affirmation and identity. In short, astrology speaks to both our anxieties and our egos.

Culturally, astrology’s ancient origins give it legitimacy. Because Vedic astrology (jyotish shastra) has been practiced for centuries, many Indians assume it must carry timeless truth. The same logic defends Ayurvedic rituals, rituals around eclipses, or certain dietary restrictions. But tradition alone cannot serve as evidence; claims must be tested by logic and experience. Still, the cultural power of “ancestral knowledge” explains why astrology feels irresistible even to educated, modern people.

Why You Might Want to Step Back

Despite its allure, astrology consistently fails when tested against modern standards of truth. Scientific inquiry requires evidence, replicability, and falsifiability. When astrologers are tested, their predictions fare no better than chance. In 2008, astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar and rationalist Narendra Dabholkar gave astrologers 100 horoscopes and asked them to distinguish between children with intellectual disabilities and those without. The astrologers scored just 46 percent, worse than random guessing. Similar controlled experiments in other countries echo the same result. A 2024 global study summarized in ZME Science found no correlation between astrologers’ predictions and real outcomes.

Astrology also suffers from internal inconsistency. Western, Vedic, and Chinese astrologies all assign different meanings to celestial positions. Even within Vedic astrology, interpretations vary by school, with no unified framework. Florian Freistetter, in his paper “A Critical Look at Astrology”, argues that astrology lacks coherent, falsifiable rules; practitioners can always shift interpretations post-hoc to fit outcomes, which makes the system unfalsifiable. This is not a mark of depth but of arbitrariness.

Furthermore, belief in astrology can carry hidden harms. When families refuse marriages because horoscopes “don’t match,” lives are disrupted. When patients delay medical treatment in favor of “auspicious dates,” health outcomes worsen. And when national leaders consult astrologers for policy decisions, governance risks being swayed by superstition rather than rational planning. For these reasons, skeptics argue that astrology is not just harmless fun but can be fatal and obstruct progress.

How to Get Out of It (If You Want To)

Escaping astrology, if you wish to, requires both intellectual and practical steps. First, recognize the appeal to antiquity fallacy. The idea that something is true simply because it is old. History shows otherwise. Ancient medicine relied on the balance of four bodily humors; ancient cosmology placed Earth at the center of the universe; both were logical within their cultural contexts, but neither withstood scientific scrutiny. Age alone cannot be proof.

Second, familiarize yourself with India’s own critical traditions. The Nyāya school formalized rules of logic and inference, setting standards for valid reasoning. The Charvaka (or Lokāyata) school rejected supernatural claims outright, accepting only perception and inference as sources of knowledg. In other words, skepticism and rational inquiry are as authentically Indian as astrology itself. By reclaiming these intellectual traditions, one can question astrology without feeling “anti-Indian.”

Third, practice small experiments of your own. Write down daily horoscope predictions and compare them honestly with your life over a month. Or invite an astrologer to make specific, testable predictions (not vague advice), and track accuracy. When confronted with actual data, most people find astrology’s accuracy collapses. This experiential approach can be more persuasive than abstract arguments.

Finally, build alternative sources of meaning and control. Meditation, philosophy, therapy, or even journaling can provide guidance without resorting to astrology. Skepticism is easier when you have other frameworks to handle uncertainty and anxiety.

📚 Recommended Reads

• The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves
  Matt Ridley

  
  🔗 Amazon |
  Amazon India
  

• The Better Angels of Our Nature
  
  Stephen Pinker
  
  🔗 Amazon |
  Amazon India
  

You Can Choose Middle Ground but Middle Ground Can Be Misleading

Many people attempt a compromise: “I don’t take astrology literally, but it’s useful culturally,” or “Astrology has some wisdom, though maybe not scientifically proven.” This middle ground can feel safe, but it carries risks. First, it grants astrology more legitimacy than it deserves, keeping the door open for harmful decisions. If astrology is used casually, like checking a lucky color, it may seem harmless. But the same system also underpins practices that decide marriages, careers, or even medical treatments. Accepting the “fun” side makes it harder to reject the harmful side.

Second, the middle ground often disguises confirmation bias. When an astrological prediction “works,” we remember it; when it fails, we forget it. This selective recall strengthens the illusion that astrology has some power. Psychologists warn that such half-belief still reinforces irrational thinking patterns, which can spill over into other domains.

Third, even partial acceptance blurs the line between evidence-based knowledge and superstition. Imagine if we applied the same standard to medicine: “I know humoral theory is wrong, but I’ll still bleed patients occasionally because it’s cultural.” This would be absurd. By analogy, treating astrology as “half-true” undermines the principle of rational inquiry. While cultural traditions deserve respect, conflating them with truth claims is misleading.

Conclusion

Astrology in India is powerful not because it is true but because it is old, culturally embedded, and psychologically comforting. Yet age is no guarantee of logic. From failed predictions to internal inconsistencies, astrology collapses under scrutiny. Belief in it persists because humans crave meaning, and cultural traditions sanctify what has been passed down. But to respect tradition does not require uncritically accepting every claim. Indeed, India’s own intellectual heritage, Nyāya logic, Charvaka skepticism, and centuries of debate shows that questioning superstition is itself part of the tradition. For those who wish to step away, small experiments, critical thinking, and alternative sources of guidance can ease the transition. While it is tempting to find a middle ground, partial belief risks reinforcing the same logical flaws that make astrology problematic. The real middle path lies not between belief and disbelief, but between blind tradition and thoughtful respect, honoring culture while insisting that truth must rest on reason and evidence.