by Mr_Grue » Jun 18th, '10, 08:53
Goodman was probably in the main encountering believers, and believers tend to have personalities that match their signs. I think the idea here is that people either intuitively believe in astrology and so embrace their sign's personality (I've seen people do this with their MBTI types, which is really just astrology for business people), or they believe in astrology because on looking into it they found that their personality matches their birth sign.
It's not universal, but it would probably give her enough hits for the purposes of establishing the story, and from a pragmatic point of view gives you reason enough to at least explore what the different signs ought to be like. And "do you believe in astrology" here becomes a pumping question, but doesn't sound like one at all.
Picking signs at random, you have a one in four chance of hitting or being off by one. Higher if you associate the summer signs with outgoing people and the winter signs with more reserved people. Proper science this; there is a genuine personality bias depending on when you were born in the year; just make sure you remember which hemisphere the person was likely to have been born in, because it is literally summer and winter that have the effect.
In terms of downright cunning, progressive anagrams are good, as has been said. You might want to try "dream signs" which doesn't use progressive anagrams, but is a similar system. I didn't get far with it, partly because it needs a bit of tailoring for the UK, and partly because somehow I found myself always trying it on Cancerians. Spookeh!
Simon Scott
If the spectator doesn't engage in the effect,
then the only thing left is the method.
tiny.cc/Grue