Don’t spend money on fortune‑telling, tarot, or astrology to make decisions

15. Don’t spend money on fortune‑telling, tarot, or astrology to make decisions

Cost: It costs nothing. The hard part is giving up a quick shortcut for making choices and having to think for yourself afterward.

In plain terms: There’s a classic classroom experiment: students receive a “personality analysis” that is identical for everyone, yet most find it very accurate. This is exactly why fortune‑telling seems reliable. Astrologers perform no better than random guesses. The price isn’t just a few dollars: in Xixian County, Henan Province, a fortune‑telling ring collected “offering fees” and “donation packages” priced up to 3,888 yuan; the ringleader was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Benefit: In that same experiment, students rated the generic personality analysis they received after a test; 34 out of 39 gave it a score of 4 or 5 on a 0‑to‑5 scale, yielding an average of roughly 4.26. This illustrates the Barnum effect, which explains why such analyses always seem spot‑on. A double‑blind test of astrology was also published in Nature: astrologers were asked to match a client’s horoscope to one of three personality profiles; they succeeded 40 times out of 116, whereas chance alone would have yielded about 38.5 matches — far below their own expectation of 58.5. Official records show a similar pattern: prosecutors in Xixian County uncovered an online fortune‑telling scam that lured victims with free palm‑reading services, then demanded “offering fees” and “donation packages” up to 3,888 yuan. Over 50 victims lost more than 2 million yuan; the ringleader received an 11‑year sentence plus a 100,000‑yuan fine.

Evidence grade: B

Sources: Forer BR (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44(1):118-123 (Table 1 Score distribution: 1 person with 2 points, 4 people with 3 points, 18 people with 4 points, 16 people with 5 points, N=39). <https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240>; Carlson S (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425 (Table 2: 116 first choice, 40 picks, random expectation 38.5, astrologer prediction 58.5; "The data are consistent with chance, inconsistent with astrological hypothesis"). <https://doi.org/10.1038/318419a0>, full text of the second author's homepage <https://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf>; Supreme People's Procuratorate of China (2026). Xixian County, Henan: After three years of continuous tracking and elimination of a group of online fortune-telling fraud gangs. <https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202607/t20260728_732935.shtml>

Notes: Both studies cited here are single‑experiment investigations. The average score of 4.26 for the Forer test wasn’t stated outright in the original paper; it was calculated from the distribution shown in Table 1. This note merely points out that such predictions lack accuracy; it makes no judgment about any belief system. Spending a few dollars for entertainment is fine, but using these services to decide on career moves, marriage, or investments is a costly mistake.