# Do astrologers actually believe what they preach? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636 "2008-01-15T18:48:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/161 "2008-01-19T23:17:22Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Bring 'em. [/QUOTE] First, we would need to know if you would accept evidence short of that preposterous test you proposed earlier in this thread. It does no good to present tests that you are just going to dismiss out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/162 "2008-01-19T23:29:36Z")
I won’t make you pick and choose from the hundreds at your fingertips, just the top ten will do nicely. I suppose it would be too much to ask that somebody involved with the study actually knows something about astrology? Or is sharing your contempt sufficient proof of expertise? ---
**Author:** ![SparrowHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@SparrowHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SparrowHawk)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2008, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/163 "2008-01-19T23:33:22Z")
[QUOTE=Garula] How much of astrology of interpretive and how much is objective? As I understand it, the rules are all written down somewhere, right? Hypothetically, couldn’t someone just write a computer program and completely eliminate the need for humans in the field? It doesn’t seem like it would be very hard to program, either. All you would would need to do is enter your data and beep, out comes your charts. If that’s not the case, could someone please explain to me what it is that astrologers interpret? [/QUOTE] As **WhyNot** already said, there is a [computer program](http://www.astro.com/people/in_about_e.htm) developed to do this kind of interpretation. Thing is, “the rules” aren’t all set in stone to begin with. What house system do you use, what “orb of influence” do you allow? Different interpreters would give different weight to relationships between various planets. Does your 12th House stellium outrank your Grand Air Trine or vice versa? Plus, as I mentioned, there are different expressions of any trait - do you use it for good or (mwahaha!) evil, is it confined to particular situations that trigger it, and so forth. Kind of like in medicine, where a certain test result has a definite number, but your doctor will take into account your other health issues and medications to determine just what that number means to you. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/164 "2008-01-19T23:36:00Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I won’t make you pick and choose from the hundreds at your fingertips, just the top ten will do nicely. I suppose it would be too much to ask that somebody involved with the study actually knows something about astrology? Or is sharing your contempt sufficient proof of expertise? [/QUOTE] Answer the question, please. Will you accept evidence that falls short of the standard you yourself set forth earlier in this thread? From people that certainly know about astrology, but don’t believe in it? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2008, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/165 "2008-01-19T23:44:39Z")
Hey, I asked you first. Who says you get to make the rules? You said “all those studies”, not me, I didn’t make any such claim. The only studies I recall offhand were some years back these French guys (Gauqelien?) did one that purported to prove the validity of planetary aspects. Problem was, it was rubbish. Gee, thanks, guys, next time, go help somebody else. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/166 "2008-01-20T00:24:05Z")
[This link](http://www.beyondweird.com/occult/astrolog.html) gives a summary of numerous studies that don’t support astrology - it gives citations of where the studies were published and summarizes the findings, but doesn’t link directly to the studies in question. Some of the studies only used the sun sign, but others used several different signs. Examples: > [@](#): > > Gauquelin, M. > Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study > Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57 > 1982 > > Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures, > actors, scientists, and writers. Compared these profiles with > personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and > ascendant according to eight astrology texts. No correlation was > found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac. > [@](#): > > Culver, R. > Sun Sign Sunset > Pachert > 1979 > > Van Deusen, E. > Astrogenetics > Doubleday > 1976 > > Culver, R., Ianna, P. > Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147 > 1977 > > The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign > and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative – no > correlation was found between occupation and sun sign. > [@](#): > > Mayes, B., Klugh, H. > Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data > Journal of Psychology 99, 27 > 1978 > > Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality > Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects. > Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the > moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects. No correlations > were found. > [@](#): > > Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H. > An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and > Personality > Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229 > 1979 > > Jackson, M. > Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere > Study > Journal of Psychology, 101, 197 > 1979 > > These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and > the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality > Inventory. > > Veno, A., Pammunt, P. > Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere > Replication > Journal of Psychology, 101, 73 > 1979 > > Failed to duplicate the correlation found above. > Pawlik, K., Buse, L., > Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable > Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54 > 1979 > > Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that > some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their > astrological signs. > [@](#): > > Culver, R., Ianna, P. > Astrology: True or False, p215 > Prometheus > 1988 > > A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the > University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna. McCall > claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal > horoscope for a subject from three false ones. Twenty-eight subjects > were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born > caucasians). McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the > number predicted by chance. > [@](#): > > Silverman, Bernie I., > Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437 > W. B. Saunders > 1977 > > Kop, P., Heuts, B. > Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19 > 1974 > > The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate > and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of > Amsterdam, respectively. > [@](#): > > John McGervey > Physicist > Case Western Reserve University > > Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists > were randomly distributed. > [@](#): > > Shawn Carlson > A Double-blind Test of Astrology > Nature, 318, 419 > 1985 > > 116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and > provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three > personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal > data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data > and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same > subject as the natal data. > > The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic > Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part. They approved > the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the > correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials. > > Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent > of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3 > trails producing a correct choice. > > Horoscopes were prepared by professional astronomers for 83 subjects. > Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the > subject. In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart. > This is the success rate expected for random chance. > [@](#): > > Dean, G. > Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing > Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166 > 1987 > > Astrologers prepared horoscopes for subjects correct natal data. > Reversed charts were then constructed from the correct charts by > retaining the sun sign, but reversing all of the planetary aspects. > Half of the subjects were given correct charts, the other half were > given reversed charts. There was no correlation between the perceived > accuracy of the charts and whether the subject was given a correct or > reversed chart. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/167 "2008-01-20T01:37:44Z")
Gee, I dunno. Beyond [Weird.com](http://Weird.com)? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/168 "2008-01-20T01:44:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Gee, I dunno. Beyond [Weird.com](http://Weird.com)? Does it matter what website the articles are cited on, if they actually exist? I’m not an expert in this area or anything, I was just reading the thread and was curious, and that was the first website I found that gave sources for their cites. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/169 "2008-01-20T01:49:41Z")
For instance, the last article I quoted was in _Skeptical Inquirer_ - Dean, G.; Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing; Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166 (1987). Checking the Skeptical Inquirer’s website index of past articles confirms that this article was published ([http://csicop.org/si/index/a.html](http://csicop.org/si/index/a.html)) - scroll down to articles under the subject of “Astrology”. The second-last article I quoted was in \*Nature[/i[ - Shawn Carlson; A Double-blind Test of Astrology; Nature, 318, 419 (1985) _Nature_’s website confirms that this article was published ([http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v318/n6045/pdf/318419a0.pdf](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v318/n6045/pdf/318419a0.pdf)) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/170 "2008-01-20T01:59:01Z")
Well, I suppose. Haven’t heard of any of this but the Gauqelin studies, which I recall as being favorable to astrology, but flawed to the point of uselessness. I suppose anybody who wants to track them down is surely free to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/171 "2008-01-20T02:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, I suppose. Haven’t heard of any of this but the Gauqelin studies, which I recall as being favorable to astrology, but flawed to the point of uselessness. I suppose anybody who wants to track them down is surely free to do so. [/QUOTE] And your opinion of what’s been given you so far is…? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/172 "2008-01-20T02:17:59Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] And your opinion of what’s been given you so far is…? [/QUOTE] Exactly the same question I was going to ask **elucidator**. After all, when asked about research that disproves astrology, he just said to “bring 'em”. He also said “I won’t make you pick and choose from the hundreds at your fingertips, just the top ten will do nicely. I suppose it would be too much to ask that somebody involved with the study actually knows something about astrology? Or is sharing your contempt sufficient proof of expertise?” Several of the studies I cited _did_ involve actual astrologists both in designing the study and in carrying it out. Still had negative results though. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/173 "2008-01-20T02:22:20Z")
Oh, no, I don’t think so. I’ll reserve judgement until you bring all of those studies which you have right at your fingertips. Unless, by an extraordinary coincidence, these are they? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/174 "2008-01-20T02:24:50Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Oh, no, I don’t think so. I’ll reserve judgement until you bring all of those studies which you have right at your fingertips. Unless, by an extraordinary coincidence, these are they? [/QUOTE] Nice dodging. Well, you didn’t direct a request for studies at me, I was just reading the thread and responded. And you specifically said that “just the top ten will do nicely.” I don’t know if these are the _top_ ten (unlikely), but they are ten. Would you like to start with responding to those and maybe someone else will provide more later. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/175 "2008-01-20T02:29:24Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Oh, no, I don’t think so. I’ll reserve judgement until you bring all of those studies which you have right at your fingertips. Unless, by an extraordinary coincidence, these are they? [/QUOTE] The only person who has used the phrase “right at your fingertips” is _you_. Now you are saying that you won’t comment on any of it until _all_ of it is presented to you? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/176 "2008-01-20T02:58:43Z")
I’m kinda hinting that I think you were bluffing. Probably unconciously, you naturally assumed there must be tons of studies proving that you’re right, and didn’t bother to check that thought. Can’t prove it, of course. But if you had gone all in, I would have called. We have already a given that all “sun sign” stuff is right out, yes? You don’t get to make all the rules, right? I mean, thats fair, isn’t it? OK, first impressions… The suicide study. Interesting, I’d like to look at that myself, just to look. But I don’t think I’d be looking for suicide in a chart, I’ve seen nothing whatever that would lead me to believe there is an astrological significator for type of death. Now, maybe _depression._ Malign aspects between Mercury and Saturn, or Venus and Saturn. (Depressed mentality and depressed emotive capacity, respectively…) And this part: > [@](#): > > …computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between suicide and control groups… A hundred thousand? Where did this figure come from? Did they consult with astrologers about significators for suicide, and were given a hundred thousand of them? Or did they just load them up with whatever? Garbage in, proof out? And the Journal of Geo Cosmic Research? Well, tell you what, you Google it, if I tell you you’ll probably think I’m making shit up. All for now, stuff to do. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/177 "2008-01-20T03:21:29Z")
This [1996 Dutch test](http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html) was designed by astrologers. Half of them predicted they would have complete success-they actually did worse than chance. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/178 "2008-01-20T03:30:16Z")
I’m curious. Why is the side that is making the extraordinary claim also the side demanding the extraordinary evidence? **elucidator** has already admitted to having no evidence supporting his belief, therefore _any_ evidence to the contrary is more than enough as far as this is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/179 "2008-01-20T03:38:43Z")
Hey, you’re distracting me! I’m still back slogging through the other stack. But now that you mention it…Seems to be a lot of references here to magazines devoted to enthusiastic skeptics, porno for Randi wannabes. Is that entirely kosher, in your estimation? So if I bring some articles in magazines for astrology enthusiasts, you will treat them with equal gravity? And can I insist that you plow through them? I mean, fairs fair, right? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636/180 "2008-01-20T03:51:00Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] I’m curious. Why is the side that is making the extraordinary claim also the side demanding the extraordinary evidence? **elucidator** has already admitted to having no evidence supporting his belief, therefore _any_ evidence to the contrary is more than enough as far as this is concerned. [/QUOTE] Sure! Said so all along, not here to convince anyone. My testimony is 100% anecdotal, never said otherwise. The OP asked for honest answers from someone willing to admit such a dark pathology, and I obliged. Would it help if I type it more slowly? I’m not here to convince you. Not that I don’t care what you think, but that its such an extravagant investment of energy. Here’s where I walked, here’s what I saw. Take it for what you will, or don’t. All I can say for myself is I’ve got a lot of faults, a long list, but stupid ain’t on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-astrologers-actually-believe-what-they-preach/433636.md?page=10)