Recently at a music festival at which I was helping the organisers, I got chatting with some people (separately), and the contrast between them was stark.
First, I got chatting to a lovely woman who had (has) a deliciously cheeky sense of humour. An example: when passing by a group of young men she was asked "do you have a match?", to which she replied, easy as "what, do I look like a smoker, a girl guide?". The response: stunned silence. She then soothed, explaining she had a spare packet of matches and they could keep them. The reaction was hilarious to watch -- they thought she was the best thing since sliced bread. They couldn't stop thanking her. Impeccable timing, sure to be sure (the festival did have an Irish contingent).
But ... as much as I was attracted to this lovely woman, she ... unfortunately, was an astrologer. "Oh dear", I thought, "this ain't going to end well". We exchanged ideas, beliefs. Apparently the year I was born makes me a goat. Funny that ... I quite enjoy "acting the goat", but I'm not so sure about being a billy. She apparently was a rabbit. Funny that .. we compared palms, mine showing much more evidence of beta-carotene colouration. So here was a goat evidently more keen on carrots than this lovely rabbit. As I said, I fairly quickly concluded our little flirtation wasn't going anywhere substantial.
Okay, cut to the next scene. Chatting to a young woman (friend of a friend) who had been dancing earlier, very fluid, lovely dance movements. She asks "I hear you're a writer. What do you write about?" I explained that I analyse belief systems, and I work to help people move beyond limiting belief-systems, like, uhm, err, astrology. I explained that astrology, numerology, enneagram et al all do the same thing: they categorise people into various 'boxes' (groups, tribes ... ). "Ah yes, we've done your horoscope, and sorry to say, your box is over there, and yours is labelled 'loser'. Off you go now, be a good loser" (and/or whatever other qualities they ascribe to said box).
I also explained that reality is, deep down, fluid. So says quantum theory. And here's where it got interesting. I explained how the past is fluid, and, according to experimental evidence (delayed choice experiments), we get to choose which past we physically lived. According to quantum theory (e.g. sum-over-histories), all paths (past histories) must in a sense occur, for ours to be realised. I explained heaps more about how we're living in a participatory self-organising holodynamic sentient reality ...
Her overall response was one of amazement, and wonderfully good cheer in accepting that yes, we're far more fluid, capable and free to be whoever we want to be, irrespective of whatever psychological (or astrological) boxes people want to put us in.