StarGirl wrote about making generalizations when it comes to astrology. This is a provocative topic. It triggers a PC alert.
All Virgos are this. All Aries are that.
But signs do have characteristics which are well defined. You can’t read a chart without thinking in stereotypes at least to an extent. What is the use of looking at a chart if you are not going to factor in what you know about “Gemini”?
This means the skill of an astrologer is going to depend on other factors. If I were shopping an astrologer I’d get one who’d had some therapy or the equivalent and I’ll tell you why:
If an astrologer has poor boundaries or needs a therapist themselves, they’re going to take what they know about the Aquarian guy they used to date and equate it to the Aquarian guy you are dating now. This will mess you up, any way you turn it.
A good astrologer has total acceptance of all the signs and has developed an appreciation for each of them. If you hear an astrologer say that they can do without “Aries” or “Pisces”, I would consider that a problem. But if you are going to deny commonality between people with certain planets in certain signs then I see no reason to pick up a chart in the first place.
“Mars in Scorpio” either gives information or it doesn’t. I think it does but nuance is everything. Do you know how many shades of black hair there are?