Don’t pay for fortune-telling, tarot, or horoscopes to make decisions

In a classic classroom experiment, the “personal personality reading” students got was the same for everyone, yet most thought it was accurate. That is why fortune-telling seems to hit. Astrologers pick the right match about as often as chance. The cost is not only a few dozen yuan: a fortune-telling ring in Xixian, Henan, took incense money and “offering packages” up to 3888 yuan; the lead defendant got 11 years.

Cost

No money. The hard part is giving up a shortcut for deciding and having to think for yourself afterward.

Benefit

Classic classroom experiment: after a personality test, students got a “personal analysis” that was identical for everyone, yet most rated it as accurate. The author’s conclusion is that “acceptance by the subject or the analyst does not prove the explanation is correct.” Of 39 students scoring accuracy from 0 to 5, 34 gave 4 or 5. From the table distribution, the mean is about 4.26. That explains why fortune-telling always seems accurate — the Barnum effect. Astrology was also tested double-blind; the result was published in Nature. Astrologers had to pick, from three personality profiles, the one that matched a chart. They picked correctly in 40 of 116. Blind guessing would hit about 38.5; the astrologers had expected to hit 58.5. Official case: the Xixian County procuratorate in Henan reported an online fortune-telling fraud ring that first drew people in with free palm reading, then charged “incense money” and “offering packages” up to 3888 yuan. Over 50 victims; more than 2000000 yuan recovered; the lead defendant got 11 years’ imprisonment and a 100000 yuan fine.

Notes

Both papers are single studies. Forer’s original does not state the mean directly; 4.26 is calculated from the distribution in Table 1. This item only says “it does not predict accurately”; it does not judge any belief. Spending a few dozen yuan as entertainment is not counted here; using it to decide quitting, marriage, or investing is where the money is lost.

Sources · 3

1. Forer BR (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44(1):118-123（表 1 评分分布：2 分 1 人、3 分 4 人、4 分 18 人、5 分 16 人，N=39）. doi.org/10.1037/h0059240
2. Carlson S (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425（表 2：首选 116 份，挑中 40 份，随机期望 38.5，占星师预计 58.5；「The data are consistent with chance, inconsistent with astrological hypothesis」）. doi.org/10.1038/318419a0，第二作者主页全文 muller.lbl.gov/papers/Astrology-Carlson.pdf
3. 最高人民检察院 (2026). 河南息县：历经三年持续追踪打掉一批网络算命诈骗团伙. spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202607/t20260728_732935.shtml