(I don't take your intention to be pedantic at all. This is a useful conversation.) Good! I am glad you see it that way, so we do have a lot of agreement then.

"So, there is no contradiction in acknowledging that astrology as conceived two or three millennia ago was pre-scientific and considering the current version to be pseudoscientific. "

I think the distinction here in our views is that you are looking at what is essentially "folk astrology" as a system of belief, where as I am suggesting it emerges naturally from social psychology to serve an purpose that is more intuitive, it is simply giving a language to something that is intuitively happening between people. And that cannot be replaced by "science" per se, it would be like replacing the need for the maternal instinct with a scientific study instead...kind of outside of the boundaries of both.

Can you make a distinction between the current version and the ancient, and from all systems? Is it possible that you could be dismissing something that perhaps should not yet be dismissed?

I'm glad you brought up alchemy. Alchemy as often interpretted by modern day skeptics appeared to be an art form for the seeking the transmutation of chemical substances from lead to gold. This is far from what this old practice and tradition was about, and we find instances of similar practices, and while I am sure there may have been some folks who tried things like that, "alchemy" was also a prescientific psychology, which still has expression today (Vajrayana Buddhism being a strong example)

So I think that where we may have disagreement perhaps is that I believe that skeptics perhaps have been too quick to dismiss things that they simply may have misinterpretted the original intent, natural, or even indigenous application. This I believe may be a bias, a projection of the scientist/skeptic onto the subject matter.

You mention that you don't think that most people use them as a "social game", but what else precisely would they be then? I am not saying people into astrology will identify their interest as a social game, but to say that all views on astrology view astrology as a causal system instead of an intuitive one is simply a mistaken view on that.

Scientists or philosophers may assume people approach paradigms the same way, but I don't think human nature is always looking for causal explanations, rather a story that resolves a scenario they discover themselves in.

You say "Even if it were just a game, I fail to see the point of it. Why not use actual psychology as a basis?"

Well, perhaps I misinterpret, but isnt that a little of a naive position? If I am truly fascinated by psychology (which I happen to be) then I would like to study all systems of psychology so I can understand the human condition. So nothing is wrong with modern psychology if one wants to be a psychologist. But what if someone is a sheep herder on the safari who spends their nights looking at the stars and kissing girls in the nieghboring village? The question is "why do we tell ourselves stories about the stars to understand ourselves?" No?

There are different kinds of minds. I am not saying astrology should become adopted, I am saying that there are different kinds of minds and psychology is probably one of the oldest and most intuitive of all the arts, so to say "whats' wrong with modern psychology?" do you mean as a "replacement"? Because it is not a competition between them, and I worry that perceptions that it is are more ideological.

Modern psychology, for one, is not very scientific where it would like to be, and two; it's not human and intuitive enough for the common individual, requires an education most can't access...so many reaasons why.

The more disturbing question is, why is it in 2022, with mass education, technology, and mass communications that more people today believe in a flat earth than ever before?

Why are more and more people turning away from critical or rational thinking?

I think when we pile "astrology" or any "folk art" in the same camp as literal disinformation, we may wind up creating a resistance to critical thinking instead, and I fear that is exactly what has happened in the past 12 years and sadly I truly believe much of the skeptic movement has been casual to this, unintentionally.

By the way, I really enjoy your writing and pleasant demeanor!