Maybe you could tell us why it’s the person’s birth date that is so important and not the day of conception? Or does astrology teach that the mother’s body somehow shields her fetus from the (alleged) effects of the planets until the child is born? If so, how can the planets affect her while she’s pregnant and not her fetus? (Maybe it’s the placenta…?) I mean, astrology does teach that the planets have an effect on us throughout our lives, right?
RJKUgly asked me, what information does a natal chart reveal?
First off, let me say that astrology is not (in my opinion and practice) a mystical, magical system for arriving at information inaccessible by other means. I believe that modern psychology can access the same information and reach the same conclusions, though by rather different means. I’ve often wondered about the overlap between the Myers-Briggs personality types and astrological profiles… but astrology happens to be the system with which I am more familiar and more comfortable.
The natal chart describes the basic, fundamental nature of your psyche and personality. Each planet is connected to a different area of the personality; the placement each of planet in a sign indicates the energy at work in that part of the personality. For instance, Mercury is associated with mental energy, thought patterns and so on. A person with Mercury in Aries is likely to be a quick-witted but hasty thinker, one who jumps to conclusions, and who often does not think an idea through to its logical result; while a person with Mercury in Taurus is likely to be slower but surer than the Aries, more stubborn and tenacious in his/her opinions and ideas… you get the idea. When I say “more likely” I am not being deliberately vague; I am applying well-defined concepts here, but in the interest of saving space I cannot be exhaustive. I would do the same if describing the difference between a Myers-Briggs NT and an NF.
There are other features of the chart to interpret as well. Once you begin to pull all of the information together, what emerges is a fairly detailed picture of a person’s inner self, and how this self interacts with (or on) and responds to the world around it. For instance, you’d find how that person’s Mercury-in-Aries affects his ability to handle money, or have relationships, or do a particular kind of job. The analysis is not a series of “platitudes” (as an earlier poster suggested) or a list of one-word personality traits; it’s not going to tell you things like, “Your eye color is blue” or “your favorite food is chocolate.” The chart provides more significant information: what kind of career you might be suited for; what you look for in a partner (consciously or otherwise); how you make decisions. More complex information can emerge, too. Take romantic relationships, for example: your natal chart might indicate that you have a tendency to get involved in relationships which don’t work out for you. OK fine, you knew that already; but the chart might show you why you get involved in those kind of relationships, what in your psyche drives you to seek them out, deliberately or otherwise – something which you may not have known. It might reveal why you always feel torn between your home life/family responsibilities, and your need to pursue some odd personal goal. It might show you why you drive yourself into the ground trying to perfect at your job, or why you have such an unattainable concept of perfection. It can show the ways in which you work with and against yourself, and offer you clues about how to make changes, if you so desire – because you can’t change the “what” until you know the “why”.
It’s a very personal thing. And it’s not a matter of looking at the chart analysis (i.e. the horoscope) and seeing what you want to see. Some of the stuff that comes up is deep, and challenging, and not necessarily what you want to see in yourself.
I can understand the desire to (dis)prove astrology by putting it “to the test” in a double-blind study, matching people to their charts. As RJKUgly pointed out, if charts can’t be shown to correspond to specific people, then it would seem that they must be worthless. If the pitfalls (which I pointed out in my earlier post) could be avoided, I wouldn’t mind seeing the experiment carried out.
On the other hand, I don’t know whether the distinction matters. As long as a person finds some value in the information, does it really matter how the information came up? It’s like dismissing homeopathy as a “placebo effect”. Maybe it is. But if I take the appropriate homeopathic remedy, and I end up feeling better and did no harm to myself in the process, does it really matter why it worked? To some it does; to others it doesn’t. If you don’t believe homeopathy really works, you don’t have to use it; you can sitck with traditional medicine, or take sugar pills. If you don’t think astrology can be useful to you, then you don’t have to pay it any mind; you can stick with psychology or self-help books. Whatever works for you.
Thank you all for your attention and fair-mindedness.
Well, the obvious answer is that at birth you began to live on your own, separate from your mother’s womb and the umbilical cord.
I understand why you ask the question: if you come into existence as a unique genetic being at conception, then why not as a unique personality as well? I don’t know. Perhaps such an undeveloped collection of cells cannot be imbued with “self”.
We haven’t exactly settled the debate on exactly whether such a collection of cells is imbued with “life” at conception or some later point, either.
Was reading back through this thread and found Phobos’ questions regarding the following:
(1) The precession of the equinoxes. Due to the “wobble” of the earth’s rotational axis, the vernal equinox no longer occurs when the Sun is in the constellation of Aries, as it was in ancient times. These days the equinox occurs when the Sun is on the cusp of Pisces and Aquarius – hence the term “Age of Aquarius”. Likewise, these days when we say a planet is in a certain zodiacal sign, it is no longer in the constellation of the same name, but one or two away. Phobos wants to know how (or even if) astrology copes with this fact.
(2) Phobos observed that there are 13 rather than 12 constellations along the ecliptic (apparent path of the Sun through the heavens). I will take this as given, since I do not have a starchart with me. Therefore, he asks, why are there not 13 zodiac signs?
(3) Phobos also points out that the planets do not all travel on the ecliptic, and pass through even more constellations than those 13 along the ecliptic. Why do these extra constellations count as zodiac signs?
(4) Phobos asks how astrology can make any claim to accuracy, when three planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) were discovered in recent times – and therefore any astrological influences were incorporated long after astrology was in use?
I believe I can answer the first three questions more or less as one: what matters in astrology is the relative positions of the planets to earth, as distributed through 12 equal-sized sections of the heavens, not the constellations behind them. The constellations along the ecliptic are (or were) merely convenient but arbitrary markers for these subdivisions of the sky; after all, the constellations aren’t all the same size, yet the signs of zodiac are all 30 degrees wide. It’s no more arbitrary than the conventions of terrestrial longitude and latitude, and no less accurate of means of describing where one thing is in relation to another.
Question 4: true, astrologers could not incorporate the influence of the outer planets into their system until their discoveries in modern times. Then again, until modern times I’m not sure how accurate their calculations about the motions of the visible planets were to begin with. One hopes that as astronomy and technology have advanced, so has the accuracy of astrology. Such advances do not impugn the overall utility of the existing system. Otherwise, why didn’t Newtonian physics go out the window when relativity came on the scene?
But to answer the question: Uranus, Neptune and Pluto travel around the Sun (and through the zodiac) very slowly – in something like 85, 150 and 250 years, respectively. Their influences are shared by many people born while each occupies a particular sign; and because they are slow-moving, their influences on an individual person tend to be less significant unless the outer planet makes a strong aspect with a faster-moving planet, or is brought into prominence in some other way. The influences are there, but generally less obvious in any one particular person.
Yes, I think it does matter. If these things work as described, then there is something happening here that is not only unknown to science, but violates several well established scientific principles. If this is the case, there is much knowledge to be gained from figuring out what is happening.
If they don’t work, and it’s all just guesswork and BS, then telling people otherwise is of dicey ethics at best, and out & out fraud at worst.
I have no problem with astrology as entertainment. But when people say that it actually works, and is giving real data that is specific to an individual, that’s a claim of fact and can be tested as such. To say it doesn’t matter is not the way things are done on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
Ugly
RJKUgly:
OK, you do have a point: if it does work, then there is, as you say, something to be gained in figuring out how it is happening. Granted I have not read every single post to this thread, but that’s one of the more rational and objective statements that I’ve read. I got the impression everyone was out to disprove it, and not keep an open mind about it.
Because, it seems to me, no one who has posted to this board seems to have any first-hand experience with the subject at hand, either through study, practice or even having their own chart analyses done. (Well, except perhaps for OP, but like the rest of you I’m not sure that a self-described fanatic is capable of much objectivity.) In my opinion, it is hardly objective to dismiss something out of hand before you have any experience or knowledge of it. As Isaac Newton himself said, when questioned by Halley of comet-discovery fame about the basis of astrology: “Sir, I have studied it, you have not!”
I went through this once in graduate school (for chemistry). I was presenting the results of some of research at a meeting, and had a lot of questions about it. “How did you account for this-or-that factor?” And I had to explain: “Yes, we had to make certain assumptions to test this approach. It’s very much an empirical method, but as you can see from the results, there is something there. We can’t explain everything yet; maybe the factors you are asking about make negligible contributions, or maybe the data calibration corrects for them. But clearly it works, at least within the limited scope of our work thus far.” Investigating these factors and trying to measure them was something that was not easily done, if at all. (It’s been a while so I don’t know if any progress has been made in that regard.) Sometimes we can’t measure one part of a system because we can’t isolate that part from the whole. That doesn’t mean that the system is worthless; it just means that the complexity of the system outstrips the means we have to measure it. Every system, scientific or otherwise, has its limitations, if only because the techniques or technology to advance the frontiers don’t yet exist. [I have a very interesting book which examines this aspect of science called “The Golem” (I forget the authors but I could find out if you like.]
I can’t explain, in scientific terms, how or why astrology works; I wish I could. I have theories, but I don’t have the means at my disposal to test my theories. The chart-matching experiment you propose is interesting, and if could be done in truly controlled manner, I would be willing to abide by the results. However, we would first have to demonstrate that the person doing the chart-to-individual matching (whether the individual in question or some impartial observer) has sufficient knowledge to make a correct match, assuming he/she is presented with an accurate chart. Otherwise all we might prove is that people don’t know themselves very well, which doesn’t help us one way or the other. But how do we isolate that part of the system? Since we’re trying to demonstrate whether or not astrology is valid, we can hardly say, “Here is an accurate chart for this person; see if other charts you get match this one.” We could ask the individual to his/her own profile before viewing the chart analysis, but how can we be sure that the individual has thorough self-knowledge? Furthermore, how do we ensure that the individual is not going to say, “Yes, this is an accurate chart analysis” simply because they want to believe it or for some reason convince themselves that it’s correct? I hope you can see my point. I’m not saying that the experiment should not or cannot be done; but I am saying that I don’t know how to do it properly.
Until then, I am not going to stop thinking that astrology is useful, any more than I stopped thinking my chemistry research was useful after that presentation. But likewise, that doesn’t mean I’ll stop asking questions about it, either.
So I can understand skepticism on the part of those who have no experience with it; I share some of it, in that I don’t buy into astrology whole-sale or let astrological predictions guide my life – or other people’s. I have little practice with that brand of astrology, and no first-hand experience. But if I wasn’t sure that what I was doing with it was meaningful and valuable, then that would be unethical and fraudulent. I do not accept money or other compensation for a chart analysis.
Hi, I’m new to this board and just want to make a couple comments.
First, I’m a skeptic on the issue of astrology, and I enjoyed Cecil’s column on the subject. I was previously aware that scientific research had indeed been done on astrology, but I was always too lazy to look around for the actual research. It was nice to see that research briefly summed up in the column. Would it be possible for Cecil Adam’s staff to provide links to some Internet information on the specific studies mentioned in the column, if they have that information at their fingertips? If it’s not at their fingertips, then they shouldn’t bother. I don’t expect them to work harder on this task than I myself would, and I’m pretty lazy. Too lazy to do my own search for the data, in any case.
The reason I ask is that I expect to show the column to one or two believers (including my SO, who is on the fence about the subject), and some additional background information might be useful.
Naturally, I don’t expect the column or even the actual research data to convince any hard-core believers. Believers can always quibble with the data, saying that the horoscopes were done according to the wrong method, the test wasn’t designed to take into account all the necessary factors, etc. But still, I think it’s useful to demonstrate that some serious scientific research has indeed been done on the subject, and I thank Cecil and his staff for pulling together and summarizing some of that research
Second, I think it’s worth mentioning to believers that most reputable scientists would probably love to be able to prove that astrology works. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history involve turning accepted science on its head, and fame awaits the scientist who can prove, using accepted scientific method (an important qualifier), that astrology works. But to my knowledge this hasn’t happened yet.
Despite being a skeptic, I myself would love to see astrology scientifically proven to work. After all, it would have some important applications if it really worked. I’m not a skeptic because I hate astrology; rather, I’m a skeptic simply because astrology hasn’t been proven. Should it be proven, I’ll be perfectly happy to cease being a skeptic.
And it’s important to stress that accepted scientific method must be used. The results must be peer-reviewed, other scientists must be able to replicate the results, etc. Data subject to multiple interpretations are worthless. And any scientist knows how to produce “junk science” if he is so inclined. Hence the need for accepted scientific method.
Third, even if Jabberwalkie or someone else were able to devise a test demonstrating to Cecil Adams that astrology works, and even if Cecil Adams were ultimately convinced that astrology works, it would still mean nothing to me. To successfully pass along a belief or opinion or interpretation of something to Cecil Adams may be an interesting game, but it’s still not the same as showing scientific proof. Hence, Jabberwalkie’s challenge is ultimately meaningless. Cecil’s personal beliefs aren’t the issue. What’s at issue is the state of scientific research on astrology. That’s what Cecil’s column addressed, and that’s what the believers have to address.
Finally, I have one comment on MJH’s polite and reasonable post showing that we often can’t explain how a chemistry experiment works, and therefore the validity of astrology is still open to debate. I believe that MJH is wrong to concentrate on how these things work. As I understand it, the point of a science experiment isn’t necessarily to show how a certain result is obtained. The “how” may ultimately be unknowable, as MJH pointed out. Rather, the point of a scientific experiment is usually to demonstrate that a certain result can be obtained repeatedly under a given set of conditions. The point is to prove that something works. This is the test that astrology fails. Cecil’s column lists studies showing that astrology doesn’t work in the first place. The “how” is largely immaterial. If scientific studies prove that astrology doesn’t work in the first place, then the “how” is pretty much a dead issue.
Okay, I’m done. That’s my two cents.
JTR: Thank you for your interesting and reasonable response.
I, too, wouldn’t mind seeing the studies which Cecil Adams summarized in his column on this topic. As you say, the first issue to address is whether astrology works. If we can demonstrate that it does not work, then it doesn’t really matter how it works. Or rather, there is no “how”.
First, though, we have to make sure our experiments we design will be good measures of whether it works. This means we have to consider all of the things which might happen during the experiment to skew the result (one way or the other) and control for them. So, in looking back over Cecil Adam’s four-point summary of astrological experiments, I would have the following questions (for each of his four points). I have paraphrased from Cecil’s column for the sake of convenience:
(1) Astrologers deducing personality from a chart do no better than chance. Who decided whether the deduction was good, and how do they know better? If you going to assess a method this way, you have to obtain the same information from an independent and absolute source… but I think I addressed this point in previous posts.
(2) Astrologers studying the same chart come to opposite conclusions as often as not. Yes, this could be a serious problem. But this is often true even in hard sciences; you can find bad scientists as easily as bad astrologers. The difference is, I don’t think there are any established, professional standards and proficiencies for astrologers the way there are for engineers, chemists, MDs, etc. I certainly didn’t have to pass any kind of exam before I started doing astrology. So the question here is: how do you know you’ve got someone who really does know what their doing? Maybe none of us do and we need a professional society to weed us out!
(3) There is no strong correlation between birth sign and occupation. I agree with this. Birth sign (“Sun sign”, technically) is not the only important factor in a chart, and certainly not the only one (or even the specific one) which is an indicator of suitable or likely occupations. Anyone who tells you otherwise does not know what they are doing, and should be kicked out of the society. If we had one.
(4) Couples with so-called “incompatible” signs are no more likely to divorce than so-called “compatibly”-signed couples. Refer to (3), same thing applies. Any astrologer who makes sweeping, generalized conclusions about a person (or a couple) based solely on Sun sign does not know what they are doing. Off with their heads.
Sorry – I’m in a punchy mood today. Anyway, I would like to see these studies. Maybe I’d learn something and surprise myself. Maybe, as Cecil Adams points out, I’m just a good listener and something of an amateur shrink, and I use astrology to help me focus my skills in this regard.
Speaking only for myself, I’m not “out to disprove astrology”, but I will chastize anyone who ignores the available evidence and studies, and who claims that astrology has some scientific basis (other than “cold reading” and possibly serving as a thought-focusing technique) without offering new information. I am familiar with the studies that have been done (as, it appears, are several of the other posters). There is a mountain of evidence that astrological techniques do not work (in the sense of deriving information not previously known to one of the participants). There are a very few controversial and (to date) unreplicated studies that appear to show a slight effect. There are many obviously flawed and not-so-obviously flawed (maybe, possibly, not flawed at all) studies which find correlations. There are many anecdotal testimonials that are suspect for various reasons.
Admittedly, many (but not all) of the studies have been done on sun-sign astrology.
I don’t need “first-hand evidence” if by that you mean I should have someone cast my horoscope. Einstein never moved at anything near the sped of light in a vacuum.
Here are a few references that may or may not have anything to do with the references posted in Cecil’s column. Many of them are lists of articles and books that apparently are not available on the Web, some with summaries:
Carlson, Shawn, “A double-blind test of astrology,” Nature, 318:419, Dec. 5, 1985
Richard Dawkins’ Attack on Astrology (followed by “The Real Romance in the Stars”).
READINGS RECOMMENDED BY THE NEW YORK AREA SKEPTICS: ASTROLOGY/HOROSCOPES
(alt.astrology) Papers FAQ - academic papers related to astrology
The Mars Effect in Retrospective
Who Will Survive?. I include this positive study … who can find the fatal flaw without reading more than the first two paragraphs?
Thanks for the links to various studies… I will definitely look through them. Actually, I already glanced at the “Who Will Survive?” article and thought: why would someone even bother with such a study? Innocent people died, who cares whether their charts predicted a violent death! But this is the kind of “predictive” astrology that even I have difficulty accepting.
But let me clear on one thing: a natal chart analysis may tell you things about yourself of which you are not already aware (or which you may not want to admit), but which are true nonetheless. I know that all of you aren’t going to like the sound of that, but that’s part of it. Any experiment designed to test astrology is going to have to control for that feature.
As for first-hand experience: you’re right (JonT), you don’t need to have your chart done to decide what you think, not when there appears to be plenty of information from other sources to bring you to a conclusion. Perhaps I was being too diplomatic earlier; what I was getting at was (to borrow your Einstein analogy): if one didn’t know anything about physics, one wouldn’t try to debate relativity with a physicist.
Well, for now I think I will leave it there. I’ve had my say, and I thank you all for having the patience and forebearance to think and ask intelligent questions – instead of drumming me off the board entirely. And I need time to read the articles you’ve linked us to, and see what I think.
Say, do we have any idea what became of our OP? He seems to have faded anyway when Cecil Adams failed to take the bait. Good job, really: if I were Mr Adams and if I were interested in what a natal chart analysis might tell me, I don’t think I’d want to have such personal information in the hands of a self-described fanatic.
[Exit, stage left]
Great post, JonF! I also just now noticed your link entitled “Skeptical Studies in Astrology” in your 8/14 post. The following three sentences are from that link and show that the scientific researcher, Shawn Carlson, set up the test to give the astrologers every benefit of the doubt:
**"Carlson’s research involved 30 American and European astrologers considered by their peers to be among the best practitioners of their art.
“The study was designed specifically to test astrology as astrologers define it. Astrologers frequently claim that previous test by scientists have been based on scientists’ misconceptions about astrology.”**
It goes on to describe how Carlson educated the astrologers on a psychological test incorporated in the experiment, and how he incorporated many of the astrologers’ suggestions in the makeup of the experiment.
Believers in astrology tend to assume that science is hostile to their cause. But science just wants to make sure things work as claimed. If astrology can’t measure up, then the scientist isn’t to blame.
Thanks again for the links! Very helpful.
**MJH: **
just standing and waiting…
Or things that you are not aware that you know or that you are not aware that the astrologer deduced from your statements or that you are not aware that the astrologer found out from other sources.
Studies that exclude all controllable possibilities for information transfer consistently find that astrology does not tell people new things.
All controllable possibilities. What about uncontrollable possibilities?
At the risk of repeating myself: I have no questions about the experimental aims per se, but I do have questions about how such experiments were conducted. Not because I wish to tear down the experiments (or you personally) as “erroneous”, but rather because, as scientific person, I am genuinely curious as to how these controls were accomplished. And will not be satisfied until I know.
Perhaps this is something which we cannot answer here, but which requires an in-depth look at the original studies. Which is what I propose to do, if I can get my hands on them.
I mean, if astrology has been nothing more than an interesting intellectual exercise for me (which it is – because interpreting a chart, regardless of what you actually think of the result, is a strongly right-brain activity), I’d like to know – so that I can do whatever is I do for people, without relying on astrology for unneeded backing and, along the way, wasting valuable time looking at charts.
If that is the case, I will burn my charts, send my reference materials to the Smithsonian (for inclusion in an exhibit of “Vestigial Appendages of Medieval Thought in the 21st Century”) and set up a website as one of the Convinced. Or would that be De-convinced? Anyway… that’s an attempt at humor and any hint of mockery is directed only at myself, no one else on this thread. (Really.)
I joined this thread not so much to defend the merits of astrology as to convey some factual information on how one goes about it (regardless of how factual one believes the result is), and to offer my own personal experiences in doing it. It’s been interesting and has given me quite a lot to think about.
OK, I’m really going this time.
MJH, I must say that I’m impressed with your rationality on this issue. Most astrologers, when asked the questions we’ve been asking, either change the subject or just fade away, which needless to say, does not encourage belief in astrology. You say that you would be open to an objective, well-controlled test, if such could be devised. I have an idea:
Take a very large random sampling of people, and give them a Briggs-Meyers personailty asessment, or some other standard, generally-accepted personality test. Then, ask them for their time and place of birth. Compute for each person a chart (this could be done fairly easily, with the right computer program), and look for statistical corellations between the results of the personality asessment and the various elements of the chart. No subjective interpretation would be made of either the chart or the personality index, and all corellations would be checked, not just those corresponding to the predictions of astrology. Given a large enough sample, if astrology indeed has any validity, strong correlations should emerge even without interpretation. The major difficulties in such a study would be in obtaining a large enough sample, and in ensuring the randomness of the sample, but these are both common problems in psychological experiments, and there are standard methods for overcoming these difficulties. The major criticism would be that this presupposes the validity of the Briggs-Meyer asessment, or whatever other asessment you use. If such a study were to be performed, would you accept its results?
It was a good debate, MJH. It sounds like you’re basically open-minded. I hope you don’t feel ganged-up-on.
Incidentally, my older sister was heavily into astrology. I’m not an aficianado, so I don’t know all the details, but she was using charts and plotting for herself and all that. One day, when she was in her late thirties, a dirty little family secret arose. It turned out that her birth certificate was wrong and she was born three months earlier than the date on the certificate. It turns out that it was a big deal back in the early fifties to make sure that the marriage and the first birth were 9 months apart, and because my parents jumped the gun a bit my grandfather had to pull a few strings to get local officials to fudge the birth certificate. So my sister was operating under the wrong sign for all the time she was working with astrology. Worse yet, for many years she had been quite satisfied with the readings she had been getting with the wrong birthdate. So, upon learning of her new birthdate, she threw all her astrology gear in the trash and to this day refuses to have anything to do with astrology in general.
It’s a true story. I don’t expect it will sway you one way or the other. But sometime look at astrology from our point of view. Look at how much subjectivity it entails.
Anyway, I wish you all the best, and I hope you find some good answers for your questions.
I know MJH said he was done, but I did want to respond to this one last bit, and say thanks to him for approaching this discussion in a reasonable way.
Well, this is a good point, but I think we look to astrology itself for the answer. One of the other posters touched on this when commenting how some of the studies were done with input from the astrologers.
The question we have to ask is: How is the success of astrology judged in the field?
If it is difficult to tell if someone’s chart actually matches them, then how do the astrologers and their clients know if the readings are correct? If people are confused, or in denial about certain facets of their personalities, or through living experience have drifted rather far from their astrological origins, then how does anyone get meaningful data?
But in all the testimonials for astrology, we find people positively gushing about how correct, specific, and meaningful the information is. It doesn’t seem to be a problem for them.
So the answer for testing may lie in using people for the test who have had good results with astrology in the past. If they feel that astrology has been giving good data, then good data should also be apparent in a test reading, at least to them.
So give them a real chart along with one or two bogus charts and have them choose which is real. With even a moderate sample size, if astrology has any significance, people should be choosing the real charts far more often than the decoys. This can be done double blind, and so should be a pretty good indicator.
If people only pick the real charts at the rate expected by chance, then we can pretty safely say we can make stuff up basically at random, and still get the same quality results that a professional reading gives you. On the other hand, if the right charts are being picked at a high confidence level, we had better start spending some big bucks to find out how.
Ugly
Good morning – I know I said I was bowing out of the arena, but I was intrigued by Chronos’ idea for an experiment, and by RJKUgly’s suggestions as well.
First to RJKUgly: That might work. If a person has some satisfactory experience with astrology in the past, then later experiences with a different astrologer ought to provide the same information, or at least close enough that one can reasonably rule out “guesswork”. Although I wish we could find a different word for it than that; I am willing to recognize that you do not accept (a priori, at least) that a chart analysis is anything better than a random guess, that the results may have nothing to do with the individual. However, in analyzing a chart, I’m not making stuff up as I go along; I am following a fairly well-defined method and set of parameters. Each chart produces an analysis which is quite specific and quite different, so its production is not random – even if any correlations to the individual may seem to be.
And I will grant this possibility: that people who are interested in having their charts analyzed may be pre-disposed to believe anything that they are told – even if it does not match what they think they know about themselves, or never turns out to be true. Additionally, people who are interested in having their charts done may often (but not always) be the kind of people who do not know themselves very well, and need “help” of some kind, any kind. Which again may pre-dispose them to accept what they are told.
To JTR: believe me, I can see it from your point of view. I’m not so “into” it that I do not ask myself these kind of questions periodically. I think you can tell from our conversation that I am capable of stepping out of it and being objective. But you see, from my point of view and personal experience, there is something there. Or, to be rigorous: I am doing something right. I have done a fair number of charts, and received a lot of feedback. Many times I have been told, in regard to some very specific and detailed point or entire area analysis, “How did you know that? I never told you!”, regarding things that I didn’t know at all from other sources. And have not been told, “This is way off, complete bollock.” Granted, this is a highly qualitative assessment; but for what (I think) is a relatively small “sample set”, it seems to be better-than-random accuracy which, in my estimation, cannot be explained away by prior knowledge or personal intuition. (I could give some examples, but in the interest of space I won’t do so here.) OK, maybe it’s not the astrology that’s responsible, but you see my point: I observe what is, a priori, a correlation. Lacking a better explanation at this point, I theorize that astrology is the reason. If somehow you could travel at light speed (forgetting for the moment that nothing as large as a human being could achieve, let alone survive, that) and experience relativistic effects, you’d be somewhat less than willing to accept arguments against relativity, wouldn’t you? At least to the point of saying: “I experienced something, and so far relativity seems the best explanation.”
And by the way: no, I don’t feel “ganged-up on”. But as you might imagine, in the past I have had to deal with a lot of people who knew absolutely nothing about the subject, were unwilling even to listen (which is the part that really gets me, no matter the subject) but still felt qualified to make a judgement. So I really do appreciate the opportunity to air my point of view and have a rational discussion here.
So, Chronos: I like your idea for an experiment designed to find correlations between Myers-Briggs profiles and features of astrological charts. Personally, I find that both my Myers-Briggs and astrological profiles agree reasonably well, so a priori I can accept the M-B profile as the “standard” measure of personality. Now, you’d have to use a large enough number of astrological elements to allow yourself to find rather complex correlations, if they exist. I say this for several related reasons. Given the large number of possible astrological “combinations” vs. the relatively smaller number for four-letter M-B profiles, it is unlikely that the correlation will be as simple as, say, “All NT people are Leos”. It could be, but if you don’t allow for a higher level of complexity in the correlation, then you can’t possibly find one. I think you’re more likely to find that a better-than-random number of NT people fall into several (perhaps related) astrological categories. Of course, one would have to apply statistical analysis to determine whether any apparent correlations really are significant. Additionally, you need to allow for a certain level of complexity because, a priori, you don’t know which astrological features are likely to correlate with which M-B features. For instance, in the links provided to us yesterday, I came across a summary of one study which found no correlation between Sun-sign and occupation in a sample set of 2000 (?) people. This doesn’t surprise me, since I would not use Sun-sign as the most significant indicator of a suitable occupation. Think about it: in your job or profession, do you rely on just one personality trait or skill to get by? Probably not. The “best” occupation for you is probably one which matches several areas of skill and personality. No one feature of the chart will point to that; but a combination of several features, repeated at better-than-random frequency throughout people in the same occupation, might do so. The experiment would have to be designed to allow for that, and be rigorous enough to observe any statistically significant correlation without “stretching” the idea of a correlation to the point of incredulity. Because as that one study called “Who Will Survive?” demonstrates: you can find anything if you twist your data enough.
This brings us to the issue of sample size – and forgive me for being qualitative, since I am not a statistician. I think we’d have to use an enormous number of people. Say we looked for correlations to only the three most important features in a person’s chart: Sun sign/house; Moon sign/house; and Rising Sign. The total number of unique combinations of these is roughly 6,900 (possibly more, depending on how you calculate it), and that does not allow for aspects (significant angular separations) between any two of them. I assume that, for statistical purposes, you’d need to have several people of each possible combination. I mean, suppose one subject is an INTJ, with a particular combination of these three astrological features. Not only would you want to know whether other INTJs share some of these features (simple correlations) – but you’d definitely want to know whether another person with all of those features is an INTJ as well (complex correlation). If not, then you can’t say that there’s a correlation. Does this make sense? Throw in other important features of the chart – positions of the “ruling planets”; positions of Mercury, Venus, Mars; aspects/angular relationships between all features – and you have an extremely complex system to break down and model for the experiment. And you need a huge sample population.
Mind you, I’m not saying it can’t be done, only that it seems an enormous undertaking. None of the studies we were linked to yesterday appear to have been anywhere near as large as what (I think) we are proposing here. Maybe that’s why there’s still ambiguity.
Anyway, I wouldn’t mind seeing it done, or helping to do it, for that matter. You’d want someone familiar enough with the “rules” of astrology to set up the model, yet objective enough not to be tempted to “fudge” or hand-wave the results in favor of astrology.
I’ll hang around for a bit, though today I really do have to get some work done! Let me know what y’all think.
I find this all very intriguing.
MJH, you said that it’s possible that the people who do not know themselves well may be predisposed to believe anything about themselves. That’s a component of it. Psychology tests have been conducted to test people’s acceptance of statements about them. These tests show that people have a strong tendency to accept certain generalities that seem specific without as much questioning. One test tried to determine the best types of comments to put in a “horoscope”. (I mean a fake set of statements to be passed off as a horoscope, not anything trying to use the principles of astrology, thus the quotes.) They found that if you mix about 75% of general statements (applicable to most people) that sound somewhat specific (sound like they apply to only a few people) that are positive, and 25% of statements that sound general (apply to many people) that are negative, you can get most people to accept the statements as an accurate reflection of their personality. Another factor that feeds belief is how much effort is put into the demonstration, to make it seem applicable to the person as an individual. Telling people it’s a generic horoscope from their sun sign gives mild confidence level. Telling them it’s a detailed, cross-correlated in depth analysis including various factors of natal birth chart, lunar and solar influences, etc, and they have a much higher confidence level in the applicability of the general fake horoscope to them specifically. The more “hand waving” you give them, the better they accept the outcome.
Still, I’m interested to see this idea for testing developed further.
And I want to compliment you for your remaining calm and reasonable throughout this discussion, while still making your points about the need to understand astrology as the astrologers claim it, rather than misconceptions.
One of the links is to a discussion of the “Mars Effect”. Gauquelin’s “Mars Effect” test involved 1,066 French “champion athletes” compared to 85,280 “non-athletes”. The Belgian Para Comittee replication involved 62 Belgian soccer players and 473 French athletes (chosen by Gauquelin; some of them were part of Gauquelin’s original sample). The Skeptical Enquirer replication involved 408 athletes. The Comité Français pour l’Etude des Phénomènes Paranormaux replication involved 1,120 athletes.
The latter two replications showed no effect. Gauquelin’s original test and the first replication showed a statistically significant effect, but Gauquelin’s methods have been strongly criticized. Note that the sample in the first replication attempt was largely chosen by Gauuquelin.
The sample sizes have been reviewed by professional statisticians and deemed sufficiently large.