Marrena's Astrology Test

[Marrena]

Hey, been there. (And probably will be again. And again.)

But it's ok. I mean, when you come thru the other side, it's still the same world, you just have a different outlook on it.


No, it's not the same world at all. It's only half a world. My Venus is in the twelfth house. If astrology is wrong, the twelfth house doesn't exist. I think that's the real reason I came here this time, to convince myself. My imagination is not connected to anyone else's imagination; I am alone there.

Eh, rambling. :rolleyes:

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy!

Some additional comments:

1) I do not consider this in any way a waste of my time. I am very interested in test protocols and this was very interesting. I've played with writing them on this Forum for years but this is the first time I actually got to manage one. Marrena, thanks very much for giving me that opportunity!

2) Marrena, without quoting too much directly from our private conversation, I found it interesting that you expressed a lack of confidence. Here in the Forum, you seem (or seemed) very confident (beforehand) it would work; after you submitted the readings, however, you told me that you wanted to wait to see how badly you'd done (not your exact words; I'm paraphrasing) before working on the women's readings. I find it interesting that once you had submitted your work, you were not confident at all. I submit to you that this was not because you are an inexperienced astrology, or somehow did things incorrectly. Rather, I think it has to do with astrology itself not being a viable method for identifying or predicting information.

3) Also, I strongly suspect that there's a lot of projection in there: would you be willing to read those 10 readings and highlight the phrases that apply to you? I say this because of the frequency of some of the items; for example, you mentioned obsession in four out of the 10 readings; bisexuality in 3 out of the ten, drugs in three out of the ten, and depression in three out of the 10 readings. That's just a quick preliminary count; I haven't actually gone through and picked them apart. It would be interesting to see how much of what you were reading for other people actually applies to you.

Lastly, I'd like to point you to Phil Plait's treatise on astrology (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html). I think you would find his arguments interesting and compelling.

[Marrena]

No, I was never very confident it would work, just very confident that I'm a good astrologer. And I am. I posted publicly in this thread even before I did the readings that I was expecting to get trounced.

But I was a little worried with the readings because the charts were so similar in some cases--if it did work it might be confusing. But THAT wasn't an issue! :D

As for what I have in common--I am unfortunately pretty heterosexual. I don't have the configuration in my chart for that. However I do have a yod, which signifies obsession and a water Saturn in my twelfth house, which signifies depression. I have a history of depression, much lessened of course in the last ten years that I've been taking megadoses of omega-3 fatty acids.

As far as I know there is no configuration predicting bisexuality per se, but having a lot of Aquarian-sex signifiers boosts the fondness for group sex/random kink/same sex attraction. Aquarius is the shocking sign.

So I'm not bisexual and have never taken drugs except for smoking a little pot back in college, and who hasn't done that? Except for damiana tea, I occasionally drink that, but that gives the same amount of buzz as couple bottles of beer, I wouldn't consider that a drug drug.

I will say I am interested in sex, obviously, so I know more about the sex aspects of astrological charts than other parts. But I don't think I was projecting.

[Jackalgirl]

Well, that certainly is interesting...but can you explain why you didn't do very well at all in this test, if you're a good astrologer? I am not implying that you're a bad astrologer, mind you; rather, that there is no difference between a good astrologer and a bad one because astrology doesn't work.

To whit: how would we distinguish a good astrologer from a bad one? If a good astrologer scores 0/10 in a test of this kind, how would you expect a bad one to score?

Now, there might be something else going on: a good "astrologer" might use astrology the way several people here have used tarot cards: both astrology and the cards feature architypical people and situations, so you can sit down and use them as tools for meditation or brain storming. There's no actual predictive power, nor does it tell you who you are -- but you can use it as an aid towards focusing a particular line of thought. So you can end up, as an astrologer, doing cold reading that ends up being pretty beneficial -- because it gets someone to pick out what's applicable and maybe even make some discoveries.

In this case, I would say that a "good astrologer" is one who gets the reading going but who lets the readee figure things out, with perhaps a few careful nudges made because the "astrologer" is good at observing body language (and language use), and who has a good sense of empathy. Where as a "bad astrologer" is someone without these skills.

But there is absolutely nothing -- nothing -- metaphysical about this, any moreso than, say, ink blots are metaphysical. They're just tools.

[Marrena]

I read the link, and I disagree with two things. First, astrology is crazier than he thinks. If it acted as a physical force, then human action would have no effect on astrology. But according to astrologers, it does. Before a planet is discovered, its energy is hidden. Not only does it have to be discovered, it has to be named and recognized as a planet by mankind to have a planetary, sign-ruling energy.

For example, when Ceres was discovered and named as planet, so the astrologers tell, there was a new understanding of healthy ways to eat, an interest in nature and flora and fauna, and an interest in healthy sustainable ways of growing food. Then we demoted Ceres to an asteroid and mostly forgot what we learned.

And Pluto has been an infernal pain ever since being discovered, it's nice that he's been cut down to size now as a dwarf plant, with Eris to balance him out. Pluto rules corporations and trash and waste.

That's why that Asian thing didn't apply. And I know that's the most irrational thing about astrology.

The second thing is I think it does have some benefit, to stretch the mind and allow intuition to be more easily accessed.

[Marrena]

I was using "good astrologer" in the sense that astrologers use it--not as a good cold reader or counselor or anything, but very knowledgeable in all the rules of astrology.

As you say, it's useless. I guess it's like saying someone is a "good" Trekkie if they know everything about the series, doesn't mean Star Trek was real. :)

[Jackalgirl]

I was using "good astrologer" in the sense that astrologers use it--not as a good cold reader or counselor or anything, but very knowledgeable in all the rules of astrology.

As you say, it's useless. I guess it's like saying someone is a "good" Trekkie if they know everything about the series, doesn't mean Star Trek was real. :)

Heh -- that is true. ; )

(Edited to add: I once upbraided my company for being specist by having a Human Relations department. "What about Klingon Relations?"*)

(*Yes, I know, they would probably be very dangerous and would end up with someone getting broken.)

However, I wouldn't necessarily discount astrology in the sense of a tool-for-mediation, as I described. It's just that a person doing so should be up front about if that's what they're doing.

Having said that, tho, I would think that Tarot cards, runes, ink blots, etc., would be a lot less work! : )

[rsaavedra]

I was using "good astrologer" in the sense that astrologers use it--not as a good cold reader or counselor or anything, but very knowledgeable in all the rules of astrology.
For how long did you learn all of those rules? Experts on expertise think that doing something for even ten years - having lots of experience - is not enough to become an expert performer. What is required is "deliberate practice", namely concentrated effort at improvement. (source (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/comments/0703expertise.html))

[Delvo]

I find it interesting that once you had submitted your work, you were not confident at all. I submit to you that this was not because you are an inexperienced astrology, or somehow did things incorrectly. Rather, I think it has to do with astrology itself not being a viable method for identifying or predicting information.This sounds like some stories of gradual religious conversion.

I strongly suspect that there's a lot of projection in there... for example, you mentioned obsession in four out of the 10 readings; bisexuality in 3 out of the ten, drugs in three out of the ten, and depression in three out of the 10 readings.Another running theme was luck, especially bad luck and the need to work harder than most people do because of it. (At first I noticed it because that kind of stuff is one way to write something that an especially wide range of people will think applies to them.)

And sexual stuff, particularly in deviant descriptions such as "kinky", came up in more than just 3, so bisexuality references in those 3 were just a part of that bigger trend (which I think included all 10). In some cases, the ubiquitous sexual stuff even got in the way of statements that would have been accurate enough otherwise, if just left alone and not made into another platform for talking about sex. For example, one contained something that I could interpret as referring to the career change that I currently have underway (having ditched the first career and begun college again for the second)... until it added that the primary reason the readee was doing it was about his love of women or his hatred of women.

I am unfortunately pretty heterosexual.To call that "unfortunate" is another sign of exactly the same kind of fixation that I saw getting projected into the 10 readings.

So I... have never taken drugs except for smoking a little pot back in college, and who hasn't done that?And that part I bolded right there is the clincher in the case for projection. "Well, who hasn't done that" or "but aren't we all" or "of course, everybody does that" or "just like everyone else"... that kind of phrase/sentence came up more than once in the 10 readings despite being tangential commentary rather than on-topic, astrology-based, personal stuff about the individual whose reading was being done. It came from your own mind, not from astrological procedures, but you still felt like throwing it in, in a document where only astrologically-derived information belonged.

And it's the classic mantra of projectors, people who don't imagine others thinking or feeling differently from them. The instant you come up with one of those "everybody must be like me" assertions, you make it pretty clear that nobody who's actually different from you on the given subject would ever be accurately described in your astrological readings, regardless of where the stars & planets were. Somewhere along the way, anything that didn't fit your paradigm, about behaviors that "everyone" or at least "everyone of this gender" must do identically, would somehow fail to make it into your final product.

[Mark Felt]

and have never taken drugs except for smoking a little pot back in college, and who hasn't done that?

Hi, nice to meet you.

[AntiTelharsic]

Before a planet is discovered, its energy is hidden. Not only does it have to be discovered, it has to be named and recognized as a planet by mankind to have a planetary, sign-ruling energy.

:boggled:

How can they believe this? I mean, if astrology is to make any sense whatsoever, it seems to me that it would have to be the case that the celestial bodies are exerting objective forces that we discover and learn how to analyze and interpret. Unexpected outcomes could then be supposed to come from undetected influences, which could later be found and incorporated into the theory; the model would gain some predictive ability, rather like the Standard Model in physics.

But with this... It's not like I ever thought astrology had any credibility in the first place, but with this it can't possibly have even the potential for credibility. Nothing in the universe has ever been seen to work this way; there's no reason whatsoever to assume that anything could work this way; assuming it works this way makes it less plausible than it would have been otherwise.

Surely either the planets are out there objectively affecting our lives, or they're not, whether we're paying attention or not, and the power of the influence of a planet must be independent of its arbitrary classification (Pluto) by a panel of scientists.

Are astrologers trying deliberately to make their model less credible? I can hardly imagine how they could do a better job short of admitting "HAHA WE MADE IT ALL UP LOL".

:boggled:

[AntiTelharsic]

Before a planet is discovered, its energy is hidden. Not only does it have to be discovered, it has to be named and recognized as a planet by mankind to have a planetary, sign-ruling energy.

Does this work with anything? Can we decide that recognizing, say, elephants as having "ruling energy" suddenly means we can do pachylogical readings and that that is meaningful and a sensible thing to do?

This seems to imply that the energy and its effects are a product of our decisions, and are not intrinsic to the planets themselves. Or, if the claim is that these are in fact intrinsic to the planets, it raises the questions "why planets and not elephants?" and "why does an arbitrary classification (analogous to 'big elephant', 'small elephant') affect their power over our lives?"

[Malerin]

Never underestimate the power of denial. If someone has an emotional investment in seeing astrology fail, they WILL see astrology fail, even to the point of denying their own basic psychological impulses.

[MetalPig]

Never underestimate the power of denial. If someone has an emotional investment in seeing astrology fail, they WILL see astrology fail, even to the point of denying their own basic psychological impulses.
Are you saying I may have *deliberately* chosen the wrong reading, just to 'prove' Marrena wrong?

[AntiTelharsic]

Never underestimate the power of denial. If someone has an emotional investment in seeing astrology fail, they WILL see astrology fail, even to the point of denying their own basic psychological impulses.

Are you saying I may have *deliberately* chosen the wrong reading, just to 'prove' Marrena wrong?


Never underestimate the power of denial ;) If someone has an emotional investment in astrology being true, they will never see it fail, even to the point of denying all evidence and reason. Malerin here, for example, thinks it's more reasonable to conclude that an alleged psychic channeled a deceased chess grandmaster (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120669) than that he pulled off a trivial hoax (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3938841&postcount=48). There's not much point in discussing this stuff with someone who will choose the far less likely scenario, in defiance of all logic, simply because he wishes it were true.

[Professor Yaffle]

In order to have a motive to deliberately choose the "wrong" reading - one would have suspect that astrology was true. If you suspected astrology was true why on earth would you want to prove it false???

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy, all --

I got permission from everyone involved, so here are the readings. Starting with 1-5:

#1
You are very moody for a man, have struggled with depression all of your life and possibly drugs, certainly some form of escapism. You brood over things and are very critical of yourself and others, particularly women. You are very emotionally invested in your career, more than most, and were somehow pushed into it by a woman or your love of women or your hatred of women. If I had to guess your profession I’d say doctor or something in the health profession, but I’m probably wrong about that. You definitely have a career rather than a job. You are either famous or notorious, maybe not on the world stage but in your circle, perhaps in your profession. You’ve got a phenomenal sex drive, involving…talking dirty? That’s a new configuration, not sure about that one, educated guess. You have positively the worst luck of anyone you know. Your bad luck is epic, it’s a running joke among your friends. You have never won a game of cards or a lottery ticket, in particular your hot temper gets you into difficult situations. Nothing ever goes right for you by chance, you’ve had to work very hard for everything you’ve gotten (except maybe sex and other people’s money, those are big exceptions). But your career you’ve had to work very hard, college you had difficulties, your home life has been a struggle, big problems with women. The last several years your romantic life may have looked up a bit. You are both attracted and repelled by woo women.

#2
Depression all your life, crippling at times. You may have been hospitalized for depression. Friends come easy to you, although you’ve had problems with them. College was a good time for you, you may still be in academia, you certainly should be. You like to vacation by the water (I know, that’s like saying you like to watch movies, sorry for the cliché). You might be bisexual or you might just like group sex (I know, what man doesn’t like group sex). If you aren’t still in academia, work plays a larger than normal part of your life, but it’s more of a job that pays the bills, and it contributes to your depression. Your job (if you aren’t in academia) is in a conservative field and that grates against your natural rebellious spirit. Your sexuality is bound up more with your feelings than most men. Although your emotions tend to be gloomy, you are very romantic and handy with flowers and loving gestures. You also have bad luck, although your bad luck is hidden and is tied up with your hidden mental state.

#3
Your life has dramatically changed for the better in the last several years. I’m not sure quite how, although it looks like your love life has benefited too. You are now as lucky as the first two are unlucky. There has been a change of circumstance in your life, a righting of things and even your depression has helped contribute to this new change. You are very ambitious, a go-getter. Things are going well for you and will continue to go well. I’m not sure if you are taking down corporations, fighting global warming or finding a soulmate, but your life has received a new focus, and people now instinctively like you and respond to what you are saying—you could even become a con man with this but better to use your new superpowers for good.

Up until recently your focus has been on other people—partners, sex, college, travel, career, society, and now something more on a home interior level has focused you, on your home life, interior life, feelings. You may have a partner now living with you and bringing you this good luck, and this partner is bringing luck to your career too. Your emotional life is flowing well and you are full of vibrant energy.

#4
You are tall and/or fat—larger than life. Seems strange to find you at JREF, this is a wooish chart. If anything, woo comes too easy to you and it would be better to concentrate on the mundane, everyday life. You are extremely imaginative and have problems keeping the real world and imaginary world separate. However, you do have a scientific bent and enjoy the life of the mind, and delight in immersing yourself in fields of studies, learning new systems (you also love to travel). You enjoy discovering the principles behind things and are naturally philosophical.

But there is undeniable woo in this chart—trance, maybe astral travel, hypnosis, and this woo is even in your sexuality, liking hypnosis during sex or drugged sex, maybe enjoying sex after smoking pot. You like woo women and are more than a little obsessed with finding The One, more than most men who would prefer to play the field. You might be on the submissive side.

#5
You are obsessed with something. Unfortunately it’s hard to predict exactly what, but whatever it is, it makes it hard to get through daily life and people tend to think you are a big weirdo for it. Whatever it is or turns out to be, its overriding characteristic is that it is unique. For example, one person with this started a clown college. I have this and ended up writing a book on how women can become spontaneously orgasmic. By its very nature it’s totally bizarre and can’t be predicted. I can describe the general areas where it falls: sexual hurting or healing or perhaps other people’s money, your emotions, particularly vulnerable emotions and/or something involving your home or home life, your ambition and sex drive. There may be a danger of you being violent or it might just be BDSM, a dominant.

If this thing, whatever it is, isn’t expressed, if you try to repress it there is the danger that you will become chronically and incurably ill. Some people with this get Lyme disease, although in this case I think there is the danger of AIDS. Be very careful to always use protection during sex.

[Jackalgirl]

And here are 6-10:

#6
This one is really hard to interpret. On the one hand it says you have good luck with marriage/partnerships. On the other hand there is very bad luck with talking to women, a shyness and reserve that makes you awkward with day-to-day conversations and pleasantries. This is combined with a strong emotional drive to try to flirt. And yet sex comes easy to you, you are talented in bed.

You have a scientific bent and are very inquisitive, you come across as eccentric. You’ve had to work very hard at your career and have earned your success. Money is hard for you to keep, it slips through your hands. You’ve had to fight tooth and nail for respect, people take advantage. Your daily work has brought you a successful career, and you are more emotionally invested in your career than most people. I think your career is somehow involved with real estate or home construction but that is most definitely a guess on my part.

#7
You have the same configuration as #1, that brings you terrible luck. Your luck is even worse than his, also in your home life and especially career. That said, with this influence you can have a successful career but you have to work like crazy to get anywhere. You like your life steady and settled, drama and crisis repel you (although they are actually good for you). Also like #1 you may be famous or notorious, but instead of it just sort of happening, you’ve had to work obsessively hard to get it. Unlike #1, you get along very well with women. Although underneath you have a bull-in-a-china shop nature, you have an instinctive way of nurturing and being sensitive to others’ comfort and emotional needs. You were popular with women in college.

#8
Obsessed with sex, I think you’re a spanker. Certainly the boss in bed. Sexuality tied up with control and loss of control, and definitely with kink. Bisexual.

Career probably a natural product of college major, unlike most people, and in the high-tech field, unless the obsession has crept into your career, in which case you might be involved with the stock market. Your career has come easy to you, although has caused problems. Home life and family neglected or missing. Possible closet writer of poetry. You have lots of female friends and are a very social animal. You particularly like strong athletic women—if you are gay you like them as friends, if straight you seek them out as partners. You are daydreamy in your daily life, particularly about women. In the last several years you’ve been particularly active online, perhaps involved with a social movement, but the female influence is also present in this.

#9
Very interesting chart! All your life you’ve probably thought of yourself as neurotic, maybe borderline OCD. You are a very detail-oriented perfectionist and very hard on yourself. You are an ideal employee. You are a neat freak and hypercritical with possible hypochondria.

At the same time you’ve had a pronounced dreaminess in your daily live, in particular your communications. You may like writing erotica, certainly you like talking about woo things (yes, I know that’s a gimme with this forum). Also may indicate strong love of music and movies or writing poetry, maybe even recreational pot-smoking.

Somehow these two very contradictory traits have co-existed in harmonious balance for most of your life.

But in the past several years this has changed, and both these traits have become activated with a particular sexual focus, perhaps on a particular woman. In the past several years you have developed the same odd thing as #5 and I have, the unpredictable unique thing. Since it’s unpredictable I can’t say what it is, it might be a focus on global transformation or death or personal transformation rather than sex. But I’m guessing sex. Although you are now even more obsessive than before, your compulsive nature has loosened up a bit and become more earthy, perhaps literally, maybe involving gardening or cooking, more tactile and relaxed than you were. But this change has been swept up in this overall obsession, making it hard to get your daily work done or live a normal life.

Or, alternately, in the past several years you may have contracted a chronic incurable disease of some kind.

#10
When you walk into a room you are the center of attention. You are big, although not fat because your main way of interacting with life is a game of combat and you are physically active. You are very aggressive in dealing with others and have a decided self-confidence in yourself and your opinions, and while perhaps not religious you are very principled. You are also very adventurous and playful. You have an exhibitionist kink to you and like to sexually shock, also may be bisexual. You are friendly with woo people and women, particularly intense and passionate women.

In the last several years, your interior live has taken up more of your time and attention—could be home life, buying a new home, witchcraft (although I know that one is very unlikely here!) a new partner moving into your home. I’m not sure what this means, but there’s more emphasis on your private life and less on your public life.

Your main way of being is the explorer, the adventurer, the philosopher and although it comes difficult to you, you are at your best when you give vent to these natural tendencies in yourself by higher study, academia and world travel. You need broad horizons.

[Marrena]

The thing about the pot was being conversational, I am aware that not everybody smokes pot in college.

If you want me to show why I wasn't projecting by going through each chart angle by angle, I will, with my astrological reasons for everything I said. However, I think most readers would find that tedious and arcane. I wasn't projecting. As I said, though, I was trying to do the opposite of cold reading and pick out the obvious and unusual things from a chart.

I suppose one astrological assumption I did make was generally assuming the eighth house referred to sex, particularly if a tight quincunx in it indicated obsession. As I said earlier, eighth house can also be birth, death, transformative experiences, the occult, and other people's money (like inheritances). There was a bias, I figured here it was unlikely that someone would be obsessed with the occult, and being men the odds of sexual obsession would be higher than a group of women. So unless you're all surgeons or detectives, assuming that influence would be sexual is a pretty safe bet.

I have practiced a lot at this, in particular guessing the rising sign (dependent on birth time) if I know the birth date of friends I know very well. Of course I've done lots of charts for people. I also have done extensive reading on the subject, I have a whole book on yods, for example, a book on houses, on Venus, a couple books on the nodal system. Those are advanced astrological topics, not sun sign astrology.

That human influence on the planetary energy is ridiculous, and one of the fundamental beliefs of astrology, so it's a good place to go after astrologers.

[Blue Bubble]

Revealed: I was the number 5 "reading".

Date: 1-June-1953
Time: 05:30
Where: Edinburgh (UK)
Latitude: 55o 55' 47.8" N
Longitude: 3o 16' 43.6" W

Thanks to Jackalgirl for organising. Thanks also to Marrena for her participation.

[rsaavedra]

I have practiced a lot at this, in particular guessing the rising sign (dependent on birth time) if I know the birth date of friends I know very well. Of course I've done lots of charts for people. I also have done extensive reading on the subject, I have a whole book on yods, for example, a book on houses, on Venus, a couple books on the nodal system. Those are advanced astrological topics, not sun sign astrology.
So you didn't really answer my question. How long have you been involved with Astrology? I have more than 20 books on Astrology, some of them advanced level and by major recognized authors within the astrological literature (e.g. Robert Hand, Howard Sasportas, Liz Greene, James Braha, Stephen Arroyo, Dane Rudhyar). And have read a good deal of them, and have known people deeply involved with astrology for more than 20 years. Hey I even once wrote a program that was a mathematical model of planetary movements in the solar system. Yet, I wouldn't dare to consider myself an expert at all in whatever astrologers do.

All I can say is that from what I've seen from "professional" astrologers, the size of your readings (just a few lines), the format, the time it took you to write them, but most importantly, the language and tone you used, are not "professional" compared to what you will find in a typical professional astrologer.

This has no bearing on my thinking that the test was the wrong approach in the first place though. Even with professional readings, this test isn't the right way to debunk astrology.

[Tricky]

Did you know that the time on your birth certificate is quite often not your actual birth time? More likely, it is the time when the doctor got around to filling out the paperwork. And in the case of a particularly long and difficult birth, picking one instant that is the birth time is kind of arbtrary.

Is it when the head comes out? And what about Ceasarians? And what about induced labor? No, I'm afraid that to suggest that birth time is important in astrology is to admit that the vast majority of your data is seriously flawed.

[Marrena]

So you didn't really answer my question. How long have you been involved with Astrology? I have more than 20 books on Astrology, some of them by major recognized authors within the astrological literature (e.g. Robert Hand, Howard Sasportas, Liz Greene, James Braha, Stephen Arroyo, Dane Rudhyar). And have read most of them, and have known people deeply involved with astrology for more than 20 years. Yet, I wouldn't dare to consider myself an expert at all in whatever they do.

All I can say is that from what I've seen from "professional" astrologers, the size of your readings (just a few lines), the format, the time it took you to write them, but most importantly, the language and tone you used, are not "professional" compared to what you will find in a typical professional astrologer.

This has no bearing on my thinking that the test was the wrong approach in the first place though. Even with professional readings, this test isn't the right way to debunk astrology.

This was a test of astrology, not a test of my professionalism. I deliberately wrote the readings focusing on unusual aspects of a person's chart that were the opposite of cold readings. A lot of what astrologers write is general and can apply to anybody. I've got a bigger astrological library than you. I'm not sure how long I've been studying astrology, at least seven years. I've done hundreds of charts, almost did it professionally when I was looking for a job with flexible work hours when my children were younger.

I respect Liz Greene and Robert Hand--I'm a huge astro.com junkie. But frankly a lot of what they write as you say is very professional, reads like cold reading psychological profiles. And according to lots of helpful links posted in this thread, professional 20-year astrologers don't do any better than me in rigorous testing.

If you like I will detail the reasons behind a couple of the readings and you can judge for yourself. But this was also a test for myself, so I cut out the fluff.

[Garrette]

To touch on an earlier point, I think by rsaavedra (but I could be remembering incorrectly): For those proponents of the veracity of astrology who dismiss this test and similar failures because subjects may not or cannot know their own personalities, I suggest that the proper response is to point out that this means there is no validity to those readings which the sitters claim are accurate.

Not that I suspect it will sway anyone, but it is the proper response. Besides a laugh and/or a sigh.

[EHocking]

I guess sometimes they do. Mine clearly says the date, year, location and birth time of 4:20 PM. Well over 5 decades ago in tennessee, but still it is there.
Point taken.

My post was more along the lines of addressing the tenous argument that evidence of post natal tests were proof that birth time is recorded accurately and thence on a birth certificate. Time, at least for UK and Australian birth certificates, is not recorded - but - may vary by state/country even there, as your example demonstrates for the USA.

All rather moot in light of the results, but an interesting thread nonetheless, and thanks to Jackalgirl for conducting the test part.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I read the link, and I disagree with two things. First, astrology is crazier than he thinks. If it acted as a physical force, then human action would have no effect on astrology. But according to astrologers, it does. Before a planet is discovered, its energy is hidden. Not only does it have to be discovered, it has to be named and recognized as a planet by mankind to have a planetary, sign-ruling energy.

For example, when Ceres was discovered and named as planet, so the astrologers tell, there was a new understanding of healthy ways to eat, an interest in nature and flora and fauna, and an interest in healthy sustainable ways of growing food. Then we demoted Ceres to an asteroid and mostly forgot what we learned.

And Pluto has been an infernal pain ever since being discovered, it's nice that he's been cut down to size now as a dwarf plant, with Eris to balance him out. Pluto rules corporations and trash and waste.

That's why that Asian thing didn't apply. And I know that's the most irrational thing about astrology.

The second thing is I think it does have some benefit, to stretch the mind and allow intuition to be more easily accessed.

Surely that is classic post event rationalisation. Having been caught out by the discovery of new, or downgrading of old planets, to avoid having to invalidate all previous readings (or admit it's all nonsense) they have to make the absurd (even relative to the basic absurdity of astrology) claim that whether we know about a planet or not affects whether it exerts an influence on us (question: how does the planet know, we know about it?). Surely they'd have sounded more believable (at least to the woo crowd who fall for this nonsense) if they said 'Well these planets are so small they only account for some fine tuning in the charts so previous readings would have been largely correct (but we never claimed they were perfect) and now we can refine our readings even further'? Hmm, was this explanation ever heard of before we discovered new planets?

Also, as astrologers often used the moon's influence on the tides etc as an indicator of how celestial bodies can exert an influence, surely they were indicating a physical affect? How do they tie that in with this nonsense?

Also (sorry for all the questions but this assertion has absolutely flabbered my gast!) does everyone need to know about the new planet or is it down to each individual being read (ie you have to ask them if they know about each planet's current status before you read them)? If the former, what is the critical mass? Absolutely every inhabitant of earth ('cos I bet there are many people not aware), a majority?

You can surely see how this doesn't hang together even in the fake logic world of astrology....?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I suppose one astrological assumption I did make was generally assuming the eighth house referred to sex, particularly if a tight quincunx in it indicated obsession. As I said earlier, eighth house can also be birth, death, transformative experiences, the occult, and other people's money (like inheritances).

Blimey if one house could mean all those disparate things and presumably the other houses have equally multiple readings then it must be easy to post rationalise readings ('Ah, it must have had that meaning for you then!'). How do you decide what aspect to go with? If it's anything like tarot reading (where each card also has a multitude of meanings*) then knowing the person you're reading probably has a huge influence on the aspects you select and might explain why you'd been successful in the past (including the readee self selecting:'This can mean a, b or c...' 'That's it! b! That's definitely me!').

*Most tarot books will also urge you to ignore the listed meaning if it doesn't fit with what you know of the subject and to substitute your own - which is as good an admission of cold / warm reading as I've ever seen in a woo book. I used to point that out to people if they'd found my readings 'amazingly accurate' and it was a good way of bringing them back to sanity.

[Marrena]

To touch on an earlier point, I think by rsaavedra (but I could be remembering incorrectly): For those proponents of the veracity of astrology who dismiss this test and similar failures because subjects may not or cannot know their own personalities, I suggest that the proper response is to point out that this means there is no validity to those readings which the sitters claim are accurate.

Not that I suspect it will sway anyone, but it is the proper response. Besides a laugh and/or a sigh.


I may not have been an astrologer for twenty years, but I've been one for long enough to see if a tight T-square is the most striking thing on a person's chart. Astrology is just plain wrong if a person can't recognize his own hard work/bad luck in the house the corner falls in.

[Marrena]

Blimey if one house could mean all those disparate things and presumably the other houses have equally multiple readings then it must be easy to post rationalise readings ('Ah, it must have had that meaning for you then!'). How do you decide what aspect to go with? If it's anything like tarot reading (where each card also has a multitude of meanings*) then knowing the person you're reading probably has a huge influence on the aspects you select and might explain why you'd been successful in the past (including the readee self selecting:'This can mean a, b or c...' 'That's it! b! That's definitely me!').


Well the twelve houses contain everything that can be expressed as a noun, so it's not surprising they are full of things. Astrology in its most basic sense is a language. Houses are nouns, planets are verbs, signs are adjectives and angles are adverbs.

[IXP]

That's not what I said. And it's not like that anyhow, there are actual rules in the thing. Water is the woo element, particularly Pisces/Neptune influences, the opposite element is earth. Skeptics are particularly associated with a Capricorn/Saturn flavor. A lot of Saturn influence and Earth-sign moons in that set--astrologers I believe would agree that's a skeptical note. But the chances of an earth moon are obviously one in four, so it hardly proves anything, I wasn't using that as proof. If anything, there absolutely should not be a watery chart in that group and there was, which would prove astrology is useless.

So you attribute it to chance that 9 of the 10 charts from people on the a sceptic's forum were the charts of sceptics? You don't think it is possible that you unconsiously read the charts that way knowning that they were charts from people on a sceptic's forum?

IXP

[Marrena]

No. The reason that nine out of ten of the charts were low on woo was merely chance, because astrology is imaginary. The reason I said the charts were the charts of skeptics is that I was following astrological rules for classifying those sorts of things--strong Saturn, lots of earth in chart, particularly an earth moon would signify someone with very grounded emotions

[Tricky]

Well the twelve houses contain everything that can be expressed as a noun, so it's not surprising they are full of things. Astrology in its most basic sense is a language. Houses are nouns, planets are verbs, signs are adjectives and angles are adverbs.

That is unquestionably one of the most laughably silly things I've ever heard about astrology. Do I have your permission to use it in my sig?

If not, may the Cancerous House of Scorpio Venus you acutely.

[Marrena]

Well since I've given it up, why not quote one of the undisputed astrological experts instead? Why humiliate me?

"Essentially, astrology is a language and does not need scientific proofs to be effective. Therefore I would say that positive results in the scientific study of astrology have to be taken seriously, undeniably, but negative results not so seriously. I don't think that science is yet capable of dealing with the full complexity of the symbolic language as employed by astrologers." - Robert Hand, in "An Interview with Robert Hand" by Francoise Gauguelin, NCGR Research Journal, 1989

[Mark Felt]

Well since I've given it up, why not quote one of the undisputed astrological experts instead? Why humiliate me?

"Essentially, astrology is a language and does not need scientific proofs to be effective. Therefore I would say that positive results in the scientific study of astrology have to be taken seriously, undeniably, but negative results not so seriously. I don't think that science is yet capable of dealing with the full complexity of the symbolic language as employed by astrologers." - Robert Hand, in "An Interview with Robert Hand" by Francoise Gauguelin, NCGR Research Journal, 1989

The urge to throttle the stupid out is nearly overwhelming.

[Cuddles]

The only thing I can see that distinguishes it from purely arbitrary invention are principles of sympathetic magic. If we name that red planet for a war god, then we give it attributes related to that--anger, violence, etc. If that constellation looks like a scale, we attribute ideas of balance and justice to it.

In all fairness, I don't think the origins of astrology are as bad as you seem to think. It was not just made up out of whole cloth, you just have to look at it from the perspective of knowledge of the time. Given that we know the lights in the sky are gods, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the one that travels quickly is a messenger, for example. Given that we know that heroes have their stories told in the heavens, it is perfectly logical to conclude that a group of stars that look a bit like a guy with a sword really are a famous guy with a sword. The point is, while astrology is obviously nonsense when looked at with the benefit of modern knowledge, it was entirely consistent with the knowledge of the times.

It's also important to remember that astrology was not a separate discipline. While we can say these days that astrologers don't do any better than chance or cold reading, when astrology was developed they did get things right. It was astrologers who predicted the seasons, who knew where and when the Sun would rise, who predicted the phases of the Moon, and so on. We know now that these things have nothing to do with the mythological aspects of astrology, but at the time most people didn't, probably including most of the astrologers. In that context, astrologers were people who got things right a lot of the time, and could therefore be forgiven for the occasional mistake or inaccuracy.

To come back to the point about stories in the stars, there is another possible explanation as well. Most history and storytelling was originally passed down orally with virtually no writing. It is entirely possible that the original astrologers did not believe there really were people in the sky, but simply used the patterns as a memory aid. Remembering the details about a hero slaying dragon would be much easier if you can actually see the hero and the dragon. Rather than believing in astrology, the stars could simply have been a very basic form of writing.

Unfortunately the whole reason this explanation is possible, that there were no permanent records at the time, means that it is probably impossible to ever know for sure the exact reasons astrology came about. However, I think it's important not just to dismiss it as nonsense made up by people who knew it was nonsense. We know it's nonsense now, but looked at in context, astrology probably made perfect sense.

[Tricky]

Essentially, astrology is a language and does not need scientific proofs to be effective.

That is true. It is a language composed of key words inserted in certain places. You could write a computer program that could randomly insert these words into sentences and it would read about the same. As for being effective? How do you measure effectiveness, Robert? By how much money you make? By how many people you can get to believe you?

Therefore I would say that positive results in the scientific study of astrology have to be taken seriously, undeniably, but negative results not so seriously.
LOL. So cherry-picking your results is perfectly legit? Okay, I can draw the ace of spades out of the deck every time, provided you allow me to "not take seriously" the times when I don't pick the ace of spades. Robert, you are a joke.

I don't think that science is yet capable of dealing with the full complexity of the symbolic language as employed by astrologers.
LOL. No, science can't do it, but nit-wits like you can. This is the arrogance of such snake-oil salesman. "It's too complicated for science, but I understand it fine. Twenty bucks, please."

[IXP]

I just got through reading the 10 readings. Does anyone else think these are a little bit slanted toward negative characteristics, or is that just my own bias?

IXP

[Marrena]

Also, and please don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong about this, I have heard (although it may have been a false rumor), that in cultures without artificial light, women's menstrual cycles tend to get in sync with the moon, and we do know that women living together tend to get in sync with each other. So if the astrologers were able to predict an influence on half the population's emotional state and fertility, it would hardly be surprising to expect that would extend to more things.

[catbasket]

Hi folks, I was reading #10.

07.05am December 19th 1959
Llanelli, UK
Latitude and Longitude: 51°41′N, 04°09′W (51.68, -4.16)

I incorrectly picked reading #4. Snippets of reading #4 -

If anything, woo comes too easy to you and it would be better to concentrate on the mundane, everyday life. You are extremely imaginative and have problems keeping the real world and imaginary world separate.

But there is undeniable woo in this chart—trance, maybe astral travel, hypnosis, and this woo is even in your sexuality, liking hypnosis during sex or drugged sex, maybe enjoying sex after smoking pot. You like woo women and are more than a little obsessed with finding The One, more than most men who would prefer to play the field. You might be on the submissive side.

From a PM to Jackalgirl -

"Personally I'd have to say that not one of the readings matches me. There are a few readings which have a phrase or sentence which matches ... but they all contain other phrases or sentences which are most definitely not me."

<snip>

"So we pick #4 because it's the only one which made Cath laugh!"



Thanks to Jackalgirl for organising. Thanks also to Marrena for her participation.

Seconded!

[Marrena]

I just got through reading the 10 readings. Does anyone else think these are a little bit slanted toward negative characteristics, or is that just my own bias?

IXP

GAH!!! *deep breath* I was trying to do the opposite of a cold reading by not only picking out only the most unusual, unique aspects of a chart bu also deliberately phrasing them in a repellent way so that the people would not want to pick a random chart, but only the one that fit. Clearly I succeeded in my goal!

[Mark Felt]

Also, and please don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong about this, I have heard (although it may have been a false rumor), that in cultures without artificial light, women's menstrual cycles tend to get in sync with the moon, and we do know that women living together tend to get in sync with each other. So if the astrologers were able to predict an influence on half the population's emotional state and fertility, it would hardly be surprising to expect that would extend to more things.

This is due to to an excess of hormones floating around in close proximity, not the cycle of the moon, so how is it relevant to showing that astrology has any legitimacy?

I'd like a source, if it's at all possible.

Alright, let's assume that the moon has some relevance to menstruation. If the explanation astrology gives for this is completely wrong, it doesn't redeem astrology. Getting the answer right by chance is luck, not skill.

[Marrena]

Man, I am usually better at being understood online. My point was that in ye olden times, if an astrologer were to predict fertility in women and also some psychological influences, of course it would add to the ancients' belief that astrology was legitimate.

I obviously know that the modern getting in sync thing is due to hormones and sense of smell.

I will look for a source on the lunar synching.

[Marrena]

I'm just googling here, but this popped up

http://www.apollolight.com/irregular_menstrual_cycle.html

http://fertility.amuchbetterway.com/lunar-fertility-boost-your-fertility/

There are no reference links, no studies, so not as rigorous as I'd like.

[Garrette]

GAH!!! *deep breath* I was trying to do the opposite of a cold reading by not only picking out only the most unusual, unique aspects of a chart bu also deliberately phrasing them in a repellent way so that the people would not want to pick a random chart, but only the one that fit. Clearly I succeeded in my goal!First, kudos on your willingness to change your mind.

Second, I think it is important to clear this up. I think you are conflating cold reading (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Cold_Reading) with a generalized reading, best characterized by the Forer Effect. (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Forer_Effect)

Cold reading is not defined by either positive or negative statements; it relies on unknowing communication by the sitter to reach an ever-more-specific statement, whether positive or negative.

The Forer Effect characterizes the human tendency to accept vague or even contradictory statements as being self-descriptive, particularly if more positive than negative.

[Professor Yaffle]

This is due to to an excess of hormones floating around in close proximity, not the cycle of the moon, so how is it relevant to showing that astrology has any legitimacy?

I'd like a source, if it's at all possible.

Alright, let's assume that the moon has some relevance to menstruation. If the explanation astrology gives for this is completely wrong, it doesn't redeem astrology. Getting the answer right by chance is luck, not skill.

The synchronising of woment living together is one of those things that is popularly accepted, but actually the evidence supporting it is quite weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClintock_effect

[Marrena]

Hmm...I think that wiki is a little out of date

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-44X014P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=19cc7dbdf9702f2edcf13018ec6a7ac8


First, kudos on your willingness to change your mind.

Second, I think it is important to clear this up. I think you are conflating cold reading (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Cold_Reading) with a generalized reading, best characterized by the Forer Effect. (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Forer_Effect)

Cold reading is not defined by either positive or negative statements; it relies on unknowing communication by the sitter to reach an ever-more-specific statement, whether positive or negative.

The Forer Effect characterizes the human tendency to accept vague or even contradictory statements as being self-descriptive, particularly if more positive than negative.

Yes, thank you, Forer Effect.

[Moochie]

Well, asking why bother is asking from the wrong side. It's not that astrologers bother to give their readings, it's people in general who eagerly seek astrologer's readings.

Astrology might be so appealing precisely because people in general don't really know themselves. So for most, whatever Astrology says fits well the profile of an impartial advising oracle. (In their minds, it's whatever the stars say after all, not what someone thinks.)

In my experience, people seldom see themselves as others see them, so perhaps it would be an interesting exercise to have close friends/partners go through the readings and pick the one that most closely describes the person they're the friend/partner of.


M.

[Ladewig]

Unfortunately the whole reason this explanation is possible, that there were no permanent records at the time, means that it is probably impossible to ever know for sure the exact reasons astrology came about. However, I think it's important not just to dismiss it as nonsense made up by people who knew it was nonsense. We know it's nonsense now, but looked at in context, astrology probably made perfect sense.

Neither Joe the Juggler nor I said that it was made up by people who knew it was nonsense. The topic being discussed was how did early astronomers assign specific characteristics to specific houses. More specifically, the topic was why do modern astrologers continue to use the characteristics assigned by early astrologers when they had nothing more than conjecture and imagination to work with.

To come back to the point about stories in the stars, there is another possible explanation as well. Most history and storytelling was originally passed down orally with virtually no writing. It is entirely possible that the original astrologers did not believe there really were people in the sky, but simply used the patterns as a memory aid. Remembering the details about a hero slaying dragon would be much easier if you can actually see the hero and the dragon. Rather than believing in astrology, the stars could simply have been a very basic form of writing.

That explanation might be fitting if constellations resembled in any way at all the things that are assigned to them. If I took one astrological constellation and eleven constellations not related to astrology, I would be amazed to the point of speechlessness if people could identify the astrological constellation any better than chance. Similarly, if one showed people the entire zodiac and asked people unfamiliar with constellations to divide the zodiac into twelve house; I, again, would be flabbergasted if anyone correctly identified the 12 signs.

[Mark Felt]

The synchronising of woment living together is one of those things that is popularly accepted, but actually the evidence supporting it is quite weak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClintock_effect
Wait a minute, there's already a McClintock Effect?

Why does this always happen to me? Now I can never create a theory and stick my name on it!

[Professor Yaffle]

Hmm...I think that wiki is a little out of date

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBX-44X014P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=19cc7dbdf9702f2edcf13018ec6a7ac8



I will have a read of that later. Personally I would like the science to have a definitive answer on this one, because I was absolutely convinced it was true when I shared a flat with another girl for 2 years. At first she had quite a short cycle (25 days), but it seemed to get longer and start to match with mine (mine 29-30 days- didn't change at all - so I theorised I must have stronger pheromones than her). Several times she worried she was pregnant because her period was later than she was used to expecting it. I wonder if her cycle went back to "normal" after we went our seperate ways...?

[Moochie]

It would make a very interesting thread. There may be some woo, but from what I understand, most of it is well researched patterns of behavior. For instance, the type of killing, overkill, for example is typical of someone who hates the victim. "Zone of comfort", has been shown to be very useful in locating an area where the killer lives. "Inexperienced killers" have certain traits that characterize them. "Organized" vs "disorganized". Off topic but fascinating stuff.

I agree, it is a very fascinating topic to me. My wife and I have built up quite a library of True Crime books, and profiling comes across as part science, part "black art" in some of the cases we've read about.


M.

[Tanstaafl]

Wait a minute, there's already a McClintock Effect?

Why does this always happen to me? Now I can never create a theory and stick my name on it!



Why not just take credit for the one that's already there? :D

[IXP]

GAH!!! *deep breath* I was trying to do the opposite of a cold reading by not only picking out only the most unusual, unique aspects of a chart bu also deliberately phrasing them in a repellent way so that the people would not want to pick a random chart, but only the one that fit. Clearly I succeeded in my goal!
Except that trying not to bias it one way or the other might have resulted a more valid test, one in which 3 people did not answer "none of the above".

IXP

[Amapola]

But I think Marrena's goal here was to see for herself whether astrology really worked or not. If it really did work, then the test would have been successful whether she tried to bias it or not; and I don't think this was an attempt to bias the results, I think this was an attempt to do the test honestly.

I think Marrena made an honest attempt to do the test as correctly as possible. To me, it seems the results are quite valuable, because now she knows that no matter how correctly the readings are done, they don't necessarily reflect the reality of the person they were done for. In other words, astrology is not effective at predicting personalities and lives.

Some people need to verify things for themselves, which I think is a good indication of a clear thinker. It seemed to me that this was actually what this test was all about. Marrena will no doubt correct me if I have it wrong.

[learner]

I picked 7# was read as 4#
born 1962 27/2
I like! Im thinking of adopting some of the 4# traits

Seriously now. Thanks Jackalgirl and Mareena.
Very interesting..ish. Well ok no it wasn't. Thanks anyway.

[RichardR]

Even if Astrology worked, and the astrologer did a good enough job, people in general, even with the best of intents, could still very well have severe limitations to pick the right interpretation of their natal chart among other interpretations, as in this test. Simply because people in general don't necessarily know the true essence of their being (that would be the core of their argument, I'd think: that their true essence is indeed reflected in their chart, and it's possibly appropriately expressed by the astrologer, but people just don't know about their true essence.) Hence, evaluating astrology by this kind of test is absolutely futile, it's simply the wrong approach.

Well OK then, but what reason do we have to suppose astrology works? Most astrology proponents say it works because they think their chart is accurate. But if people don't know themselves well enough to know their true essence or whatever, then this justification goes out the window. Either people know themselves well enough to do this test (which astrology fails, therefore astrology doesn't work), or they don't know themselves well enough (therefore their reasons to think astrology works are not valid, which means we have no reason to suppose astrology works). Either way, we can safely dismiss astrology.

Also, if this test is futile, what is a non-futile way of testing astrology? Either astrology can be tested, and if this test is no good then what method is acceptable? And lets use this non-futile method to test astrology to see if it works. Or it can’t be tested – so astrologers please tell us how its rules were derived and how you know it works. Which is it? Because it can’t be both.

[RichardR]

Of course not! I'm not masochistic! When I did this before a few years ago, I wasn't very good. Now I am. I'm good enough to categorically state that astrology is useless.
Well I have to say my opinion of you just went up enormously. I've nothing else to add.

[Denver]

Of course not! I'm not masochistic! When I did this before a few years ago, I wasn't very good. Now I am. I'm good enough to categorically state that astrology is useless.

I don't think astrology is useless. Otherwise it would not be used.

It's uses are things like:

- It makes money for people who charge for it.
- It makes money for people who write books about it.
- It gives some people a rest from using their minds, so they can rely on something or someone else to tell them what to do.
- It sells newspapers.

And so on.

It might be useless in its claims to hold any kind of accuracy, but it is not useless, as least as generating income goes.

[rsaavedra]

This was a test of astrology, not a test of my professionalism.
People started mentioning the likelyhood of projections of your own life in your readings, and your focus on negativity. There was an ongoing assessment of your professionalism/skill involved then, regardless of the ultimate goal of the test. I was paying attention to that line of exchange within the thread, particularly after I read the text of your interpretations.

I deliberately wrote the readings focusing on unusual aspects of a person's chart that were the opposite of cold readings.
Opposite of cold readings does not warrant leaning towards mostly negative aspects (I agree with IXP on that), or writing the way you wrote things, with loaded phrases suggesting strong stereotypes and biases / prejudices.

I've been read my own birthchart professionally three times; also solar revolutions two times; and friends and a few family members have played tapes of their professional readings for me to hear a few times. Plus what I've read in astrological books. Putting aside from the woo aspect of astrology, your way of writing the interpretations was definitely far from representative of professional level astrological practice that I've seen.

And magazines/newspaper horoscopes, by the way, do have a lot of cold reading and "this could apply to everybody" sort of phrasing. Personalized professional astrological readings that I've been exposed to, to a really large extent do not.

But once again, irrelevant. That just goes to assess your writing of the interpretations. Not to question the validity of the test, given that I think the testing approach was flawed to being with as explained earlier in another post.


I've got a bigger astrological library than you.
Good for you! No need to feel threatened about my books Marrena. My mentioning my library was just to explain in the end that in spite of that, plus years of exposure, I don't consider myself close to professional level astrological practice at all. That was it. I just got exposed to it by circumstances and people I knew, then tried to learn more about it and quickly developed a skeptic/debunking interest.

I've also read charts by the way, to friends, and just for fun. Once they learned that I "sort of knew about the stuff" they wouldn't stop asking for a reading until I budged, no matter what :P After I had started, I couldn't easily deny other friends or people I knew from their readings. In total I've read about 50+ charts. That was mostly quite some few years ago, and never "professionally", never even resembling professionally, and always for free and for fun.

I'm not sure how long I've been studying astrology, at least seven years. I've done hundreds of charts, almost did it professionally when I was looking for a job with flexible work hours when my children were younger.
Ah, that's all I asked, total time of exposure. Well, according to experts on expertise, you are no expert :P
Of course what experts on expertise say doesn't mean much. 7, 10 or 20 years can be spent simply repeating mistakes, or actually learning/improving on something every millisecond.

[Marrena]

I've had my chart done a number of times too. People who get their charts done are looking for a complete look at their personalities, insight into their past, guidance for the future, explanation of personal mysteries, hidden motivations, and if they are really woo, past life influences.

This test wasn't about any of that. This test was about picking the obvious unique things from each chart that would be the most definitively described and unmistakeably self-identifying, things like tight yods, T-squares, grand trines and singletons. If you've studied astrology that long, you know that a tight T-square, particularly if it contains the tightest angle on the chart, is going to dominate the chart. So I don't have to describe the sun moon and rising sign. Now I did in the guy who had a triple Virgo--somebody with Virgo sun, moon and Pluto all in the first house and Virgo rising would be unbearably, get out of my face Virgo. Yet he also had a third house Scorpio Neptune singleton to mellow him out, in sextile. How would you describe that? Triple Virgo. That's not something you can hide or overlook in astrology. That's a serious Virgo.

[rsaavedra]

I've had my chart done a number of times too. People who get their charts done are looking for a complete look at their personalities, insight into their past, guidance for the future, explanation of personal mysteries, hidden motivations, and if they are really woo, past life influences.

This test wasn't about any of that.
I disagree. As I understand, the test was an attempt to test astrology by replicating whatever astrologers do when reading charts, only trying to use as little cold reading type of language as possible. But what astrologers do is very much related to what you mention here, of course taking into account the strength of prominent aspects in the chart. The focusing only on those (according to you) "self-identifying unmistakable aspects" is not what they do or say in their interpretations. So you really didn't replicate at all closely what astrologers do.

[Marrena]

I wasn't testing "what astrologers do." I was testing the rules of astrology. There's a difference.

It seems there have been quite a few tests on "what astrologers do" and they universally failed, at least according to the links provided in this thread.

Why am I arguing this? Why am I even here anymore, I have the answers I was looking for.

[Amapola]

...snip...

Why am I arguing this? Why am I even here anymore, I have the answers I was looking for.

Because this is a cool place to hang out and have interesting conversations that would be difficult to have with anyone else?

Well. That's why *I* am here.

[rsaavedra]

I wasn't testing "what astrologers do." I was testing the rules of astrology. There's a difference.
Aha, then there goes my point again. If you wanted to test the rules of astrology then the suggested test is simply the wrong approach. That's my contention.

You test the rules of astrology with aspects against what they allegedly cause or predict; not through people picking interpretations written way differently from how pro astrologers would write. (Not even through people picking interpretations written the way pro astrologers would write them, actually.)

The rules of astrology are between positions of "planets" and things becoming more or less likely to happen for people under those influences, regardless of whether people know about those influences, or whether astrologers can or can't convey their meaning appropriately. If you want to test those rules, test them directly with the agents involved in the rule: planetary aspects and alleged effects on people's lives. Not astrologers or amateurs writing interpretations of birthcharts and people picking things written by them.

[Jackalgirl]

Aha, then there goes my point again. If you wanted to test the rules of astrology then the suggested test is simply the wrong approach. That's my contention.

You test the rules of astrology with aspects against what they allegedly cause or predict, not through people picking interpretations written way differently fron what pro astrologers would write. (Not even through people picking interpretations written the way pro astrologers would write them, actually.)

Could you give a quick & dirty example of a protocol that would test this? Is it testable to begin with?

[rsaavedra]

Could you give a quick & dirty example of a protocol that would test this? Is it testable to begin with?

It is testable, and I've said it already for one example: the Mars-Saturn hard transits which allegedly increase the likelyhood of accidents and even bone injuries. This could be tested even in a scale substantially larger than just 10 samples from a forum. But it would take verifiable data from medical records from an ER or traumatology department. [Correction after my posts below] This could be compared to a control group consisting of people in general at specific windows of time in their lives when they verifiably had no accident or injuries.

So this test wouldn't just need birthdates; it would also need verifiable information about times during peoples' lives when specific things did happen (test group) or didn't happen (control group).

But see this doesn't involve any cold reading, or language of any kind, or misinterpretations, or unconscious biases or what not. Just verifiable data. It's just a search for correlations between an alleged cause and an alleged effect.

[rsaavedra]

In case it isn't clear, let me explain a comparison of two subjects, one in the test group, one in the control group.

Subjet A was born 01/01/1950 [don't worry about time or place of birth; why? see following post]

Subject B was born 31/12/1970

Let say subject A was verifiably involved in a serious motorbike accident on May 15 2001. He got several fractures, cuts, and other injuries.

Check for any close transit of Saturn opposed to natal Mars of subject A for May 15, 2001 (when the accident happened). Checking for the transit means, check the position of Saturn in the sky that day, on May 15 2001, see if it's in the sky at a position close to 180ª from the position of Mars in Subject A's natal chart. If that's the case, or close enough (let's say <5º) then there was a transit of that kind. This would be a case supporting a positive correlation between said transit and an accident/injury.

Subject B was for sure not involved in any serious accident or cut or bone related injury at any time during a window of time of let's say a full two months around Dec 31 2005.

Check for any close transit of Saturn over natal Mars of subject B for Dec 31 2005.


Saturn opposed Natal Mars and Mars conjuntion natal Saturn both allegedly raise the likelihood of accidents and cuts and injuries. Mars moves faster than Saturn, so checking for Mars conjuntion Natal Saturn transits would be probably more convenient, requiring a smaller window of time to allow for let's say <5 degrees or so for the transit to last.

[rsaavedra]

So this test wouldn't just need birthcharts; it would also need verifiable information about times during peoples' lives when specific things did happen (test group) or didn't happen (control group).
In fact, let me correct that on my posts above.

For these particular transits we don't need much accuracy in people's birthtimes. We don't even need the location where they were born. Because we don't need to find their ascendants or plot their birthcharts with much accuracy. All we need is the day they were born to find out where Mars and Saturn were in the sky that day.

Both Mars and Saturn move slowly enough that even a full day off won't make much difference with respect to their positions in a Natal chart, or in the sky when an accident did or did not occur. So this transit's correlations (or lack of) should be spotted even if the dates of birth are off by let's say one full day, and/or the date of the accident are off by let's say one full day.


On another point, and without entering the detailed statistics for specific transits, I think it would be visually interesting to simply plot full histograms for all ranges of angles, to check in what % of cases specific ranges of angles were observed between those two planets in group A (with accidents), vs. in group B (without). If the histogram for group A (patients with injuries) shows some significant spike(s), while group B's histogram looks flat enough, then there would be some degree of correlation between transit and accidents/injuries, supporting the case of astrology (as far as that transit goes.) If both histograms look similarly flat or similarly uniformly rugged, then there is no correlation, supporting the woo hypothesis.

[devnull]

Marrena: just a quick note to say how impressed I am that although you have obviously invested a great deal of time into astrology, you kept an open mind....

[Pixel42]

rsaavedra: This is a list of 91 studies that have done on astrology:

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-rese2.htm

There are several which look at the association of things like traffic accidents with transits etc. Are these the sort of study you have in mind?

[MetalPig]

Thanks to Marrena and Jackalgirl for taking and organizing the test!

Here's the reading I picked:
#6
This one is really hard to interpret.Yes. I've been told I'm hard to read sometimes.
On the one hand it says you have good luck with marriage/partnerships.Yes. I've been in 2 long term relationship in which I've been very happy. One lasted 7 years, the other 11 years and counting.
On the other hand there is very bad luck with talking to women,No. I find women very easy to talk to. My three best friends (not counting my wife) are women.
a shyness and reserve that makes you awkward with day-to-day conversations and pleasantries.Yes.
This is combined with a strong emotional drive to try to flirt.No. I compliment women, but I wouldn't call it flirting.
And yet sex comes easy to you, you are talented in bed. Undecided. I have no reason to assume I'm not average.
You have a scientific bent and are very inquisitive,Yes. you come across as eccentric.Undecided.
You’ve had to work very hard at your careerNo. I've never worked very hard.
and have earned your success.Yes, I'm good at what I do.
Money is hard for you to keep, it slips through your hands.Yes. This has been a problem in the past, but now that I have a well-paying job I can actually afford the stuff I buy.
You’ve had to fight tooth and nail for respect,No. I don't really care very much what people think. I'm content with a job wll done even if people don't seem grateful for what I've dome for them.
people take advantage.No. I'm quite hard to take advantage of.
Your daily work has brought you a successful career,Yes. I like what I do and it brings me a comfortable life.
and you are more emotionally invested in your career than most people.No. I like what I do now, but I still don´t know what I want to do when I grow up.
I think your career is somehow involved with real estate or home construction but that is most definitely a guess on my part.No. I'm in IT, and the clients I've had over the past 10 years weren involved in natural gas.

And here's the reading that was written for me:

#7
You have the same configuration as #1, that brings you terrible luck. Your luck is even worse than his, also in your home life and especially career. No. I've done some stupid things in my life that could have hurt myself and others, but I got lucky every time.
That said, with this influence you can have a successful career but you have to work like crazy to get anywhere.No. I've never worked hard, let alone like crazy, to get where I am now.
You like your life steady and settled,Undecided. It turned out that way, but I can't say I prefer it over something else.
drama and crisis repel you (although they are actually good for you).No.
Also like #1 you may be famous or notorious,Not on any big scale. Some people at work who I've never dealt with know me because I've done some stuff that saved the company big money, but I wouldn't call that 'being famous'.
but instead of it just sort of happening, you’ve had to work obsessively hard to get it.No. Again, no hard work.
Unlike #1, you get along very well with women.Yes. Although underneath you have a bull-in-a-china shop nature, you have an instinctive way of nurturing and being sensitive to others’ comfort and emotional needs.No. My bull-in-a-chinashop nature isn't hidden underneath anything else; it's very much at the surface.
You were popular with women in college.Undecided.

So even though #6 wasn't very good, it's still way better than #7.

[Marrena]

Thank you.

The problem with the outlined experiment is that there are hundreds of things in astrology that can increase the probability of an accident, pretty much any hard Mars transit can do that, some Pluto transits, some Uranus transits. There are different reasons why people get into accidents.

A more accurate test would be illness, you'd need the house system and Chiron and the sixth house. For example I have Chiron Pisces rising and I have various skin problems. But they already tested for that and it failed.

[Marrena]

Metal Pig, you have a very tight T-square involving Uranus, your sun, and Mars. Sun Aries 10th house, Uranus Libra 4th house, Mars Capricorn 6th house is the corner. So your bad luck/hard work falls into your house of health and daily work. If astrology worked, that should be very pronounced, that a leg of your T-square falls both in daily work (sixth house) and career (tenth house).

Your chart does show luck in love. But astrology doesn't work.

[devnull]

Metal Pig, you have a very tight T-square involving Uranus, your sun, and Mars.

or perhaps you have a very tight anus, and ur son, Mars, is a square.

[rsaavedra]

rsaavedra: This is a list of 91 studies that have done on astrology:

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-rese2.htm

There are several which look at the association of things like traffic accidents with transits etc. Are these the sort of study you have in mind?

There is at least one there that does seem pretty much exactly the kind of test I suggest, the one in section 3 entitled: "Astrologically Predictable Patterns in Work-Related Injuries." At least judging from the brief description they offer.

[Professor Yaffle]

There is at least one there that does seem pretty much exactly the kind of test I suggest, the one entitled: "Astrologically Predictable Patterns in Work-Related Injuries," at least judging from the brief description they offer.

And presumably the Swedish study done to follow this up (mentioned in the description of the study).

[rsaavedra]

And presumably the Swedish study done to follow this up (mentioned in the description of the study).

Certainly. Which suggests verifiable data and good controls are really important.

[rsaavedra]

The problem with the outlined experiment is that there are hundreds of things in astrology that can increase the probability of an accident, pretty much any hard Mars transit can do that, some Pluto transits, some Uranus transits.

Noone has said the suggested aspect is the only one associated to accidents. But it certainly is one of them, according to astrology. That correlation is all we would be testing.

And the fact that it is not the only aspect associated to accidents is not really a problem. Smoking isn't the only factor highly correlated with lung cancer, but the significant correlation can be identified with large enough, properly carried out studies, and with proper statistical analysis.

I wouldn't say there are "hundreds" of transits associated to accidents though. Assuming 11 "planets" (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptunus, Pluto, and Ascendant), then there are 11*12 = 132 possible combinations of planets to make a transit.

And assuming three most important potentially hard aspects in a transit (Opposition=180º, Square=90º, and Conjunction=0º), then there are a total of 132*3 = 396 possible hard transits in total. Actually minus 33, because you can count transits of planets with respect to the ascendant, but not the other way around (as far as I know.) So we could take 33 off, giving a total of 363.

That is the total of all possible "hard" transits. For all hard transit-related alleged effects, not just accidents.

Mostly Mars, Saturn and Uranus are the planets with transits associated to accidents (and a few other special exceptions here and there.) So way less than that total are the ones likely to be associated to accidents according to astrology. I would say easily less than 100.

And among those <100, the ones involving the two "evil" planets (Mars and Saturn) are the ones most commonly linked to accidents; those would just twelve transits.

[rsaavedra]

And the fact that it is not the only aspect associated to accidents is not really a problem. Smoking isn't the only factor highly correlated with lung cancer, but the significant correlation can be identified with large enough, properly carried out studies, and with proper statistical analysis.
Apologies for choosing that analogy trying to explain myself, quite an unfortunate analogy. Because significant correlation between smoking and cancer has been observed consistently over and over. That's not the case at all for any transits and any alleged effects -at least not conclusively at all, as the studies in the link posted by Professor Yaffle show.

But most importantly, the chosen analogy suggests a bias, as if the correlation between transits and alleged effect is expected to be confirmed; but I actually don't think it will be confirmed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd like to add a "me too" to the people thanking Jackalgirl and Marrena for this.

Meanwhile, I'm having a real hard time bringing statements like these:

The problem with the outlined experiment is that there are hundreds of things in astrology that can increase the probability of an accident, pretty much any hard Mars transit can do that, some Pluto transits, some Uranus transits. There are different reasons why people get into accidents.

A more accurate test would be illness, you'd need the house system and Chiron and the sixth house. For example I have Chiron Pisces rising and I have various skin problems. But they already tested for that and it failed.

. . . into any kind of agreement with your repeated assertion:

But astrology doesn't work.

Are you pulling our collective leg? Do you think astrology doesn't work? Do you think the test wasn't a fair test of whether or not astrology works?

You still seem convinced that the planets affect human activity. I don't understand.

I have another suggestion for a test protocol that would remove the fickleness of the subjects' choices.

Have subjects answer a questionnaire detailing major life events. Big stuff--births, deaths, marriages, divorces, auto-accident, life-threatening illness, and so on. Give the results of the questionnaires and a list of the birth date info to the astrologer. Let the astrologer use astrology to try to match up the birth date info with the questionnaires.

Obviously, we'd have to get a big enough and near enough in age pool of subjects that it wouldn't be possible to just figure out who was at a marrying age on a certain date.

Another option is to do a recognized personality profile (like Meyers-Briggs or something), and see if the astrologer could use astrology to match those test results with the birth date info.

[Marrena]

Astrology does not work. When I was talking to rsaavedra, I was speaking from within the astrological system, to devise tests that would be effective. But it is a pointless exercise because astrology does not work. I am quite convinced by the test conducted in this thread. If a tight T-square is undetectable by its owner, astrology does not work.

[rsaavedra]

I am quite convinced by the test conducted in this thread. If a tight T-square is undetectable by its owner, astrology does not work.

It could have been undetectable, OR some other possibilities:

1) Your description of the T-square was inadequately expressed.
2) The owner of the T-square doesn't fully understand your description, or is not fully sure it applies properly to him, despite the aspect being adequately expressed
3) The owner of the T-square doesn't consciously know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/life (your assumption that it should be detectable is wrong.)
4) The owner of the T-square doesn't yet know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/life.
5) The owner of the T-square simply doesn't want to admit having the aspect
6) Astrology doesn't work

This test in no way has proper controls to rule out the first five with full certainty. So in a way, your jumping to the conclusion that Astrology doesn't work, just from this test, isn't really skeptical enough I think.

[Marrena]

If a tight T-square is that subtle, then the effects of the rest of astrology are so miniscule as to be practically useless. If it isn't clearly obvious to the owner of that configuration that they have to work a lot harder in the area of the corner, that bad luck seems to come at them from that direction, that that area is a struggle, then astrology DOES NOT WORK.

[Delvo]

1) Your description of the T-square was inadequately expressed.The concept is too simple & basic for that.

2) The owner of the T-square doesn't fully understand your description, or is not fully sure it applies properly to him
3) The owner of the T-square doesn't consciously know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/lifeThe supposed effects are too big & stark for that.

4) The owner of the T-square doesn't yet know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/life.Irrelevant. If I had, for example, amazingly, spectacularly bad luck, the results in my life would be the same, and too big & drastic to be in question, whether I thought of it as coming from the stars/planets or not.

[rsaavedra]

Irrelevant. If I had, for example, amazingly, spectacularly bad luck, the results in my life would be the same, and too big & drastic to be in question, whether I thought of it as coming from the stars/planets or not.
No my option wasn't about that. Some astrological aspects allegedly might get activated only after certain stages in life (e.g. mid-life, or after being a parent) not earlier.

[rsaavedra]

The concept is too simple & basic for that.

The supposed effects are too big & stark for that.
Neither one applies in all cases necessarily.

[Marrena]

No my option wasn't about that. Some astrological aspects allegedly might get activated only after certain stages in life (e.g. mid-life, or after being a parent) not earlier.

All these people were over 30. And show me where a T-square gets "activated."

[Delvo]

If it takes so long for a reading to become accurate that much of your life has passed first, then it spent all those years still not applicable to the readee yet... and that still means astrology doesn't work. Saying it worked because it finally came true for some fraction of one's life or for one particular event that happened at some time in there, when that doesn't really characterize or represent one's entire life, is just "retrofitting" on a large scale.

[rsaavedra]

All these people were over 30. And show me where a T-square gets "activated."
Activated is not the best word, maybe "manifested". And it would depend on the specific T-square.

People we are going astray. My point was to simply indicate that attempting to debunk astrology by this kind of test is not satisfactory for many possible alternative explanations. We are supposed to be skepticks and be rigurous and apply the scientific method. Then focus on what the true premises of astrology are: planetary aspects affecting people's lives. Check those without intermediate interpretations and language and other sources of noise and/or people admitting or not things about their lives and personalities. Verifiable and reliable facts is what would debunk it. Not this.

[Pixel42]

My point was to simply indicate that attempting to debunk astrology by this kind of test is not satisfactory for many possible alternative explanations.
Most people I've known who believe in astrology do so because of their perception that the people they know are more like their signs say than they expect them to be by chance, or the horoscopes they read are more accurate than they expect them to be by chance. What this kind of test does is demonstrate that such perceptions are false: such people are being misled by confirmation bias and the Forer effect into thinking they see accuracy where none actually exists. That is the value of this kind of testing.

[Mark Felt]

Most people I've known who believe in astrology do so because of their perception that the people they know are more like their signs say than they expect them to be by chance, or the horoscopes they read are more accurate than they expect them to be by chance. What this kind of test does is demonstrate that such perceptions are false: such people are being misled by confirmation bias and the Forer effect into thinking they see accuracy where none actually exists. That is the value of this kind of testing.

"What are you talking about, the test was obviously done incorrectly."

[politas]

From what rsaavedra has said, it is obvious that this test is not going to debunk astrology for some people.

It has done so for Marrena, though, and that it sufficient justification for it in my book. Marrena fronted up and said what it would take to disprove astrology for her. Arguing about whether this test will disprove astrology for everyone seems a complete waste of time. That wasn't the purpose.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Astrology does not work. When I was talking to rsaavedra, I was speaking from within the astrological system, to devise tests that would be effective. But it is a pointless exercise because astrology does not work. I am quite convinced by the test conducted in this thread. If a tight T-square is undetectable by its owner, astrology does not work.

Ah--I see. In that case, I tip my hat to you.

[Drs_Res]

Okay. I'll open a can-o-worms here.

From my past experience of horror scopes (yes, I misspelled that on porpoise) (I misspelled that too), I have never found that astrology has ever gotten myself or my situation correct. I have found that the wrong horoscopes were more accurate though, which leads me to a thought.

Maybe the whole birth thing is incorrect, maybe we should base astrology on your conception date and not your birth date.

Makes the same amount of sense to me.

[MetalPig]

It could have been undetectable, OR some other possibilities:

1) Your description of the T-square was inadequately expressed.
2) The owner of the T-square doesn't fully understand your description, or is not fully sure it applies properly to him, despite the aspect being adequately expressed
3) The owner of the T-square doesn't consciously know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/life (your assumption that it should be detectable is wrong.)
4) The owner of the T-square doesn't yet know that the aspect is affecting his own personality/life.
5) The owner of the T-square simply doesn't want to admit having the aspect
6) Astrology doesn't work

This test in no way has proper controls to rule out the first five with full certainty. So in a way, your jumping to the conclusion that Astrology doesn't work, just from this test, isn't really skeptical enough I think.
As the owner of the aforementioned T-square:
1. Even though I don't know what a T-square actually is, I understand that it should manifest itself in my life as bad luck and hard work.
2. 'Bad luck' and 'hard work' aren't difficult words. Even though English isn't my first language, I know what they mean.
3. I guess it would be possible I haven't noticed the bad luck and hard work because I've had such good luck and never worked hard. Except, no it wouldn't.
4. It would take a lot of bad luck and hard work to cancel out the past 37 years. Maybe my T-square will start to manifest itself by the time I'm 74.
5. No, I'm not lying.
6. Yeah, that's probably it.

[rsaavedra]

1. Even though I don't know what a T-square actually is, I understand that it should manifest itself in my life as bad luck and hard work.
2. 'Bad luck' and 'hard work' aren't difficult words. Even though English isn't my first language, I know what they mean.
English isn't my native language either. The "inadequately expressed" issue that I referred to in point 1 does not take place between the text and the reader, but most importantly, between the aspect in the person's chart, and what the astrologer decides to say about it. That's why I said "inadequatly expressed" ( --> by the astrologer), not inadequately interpreted (which would be by the subject of the reading, as in point 2.) An example would be that possibly "bad luck" and "hard work" might not be the right or best choice of words for what that T-square allegedly meant or caused in your chart according to astrology.

Point 2 (as all points in my list in fact) applies not just to your T-square, but really, to anything in the reading, and not just to you but to any other subject; it is a likely explanation that can't be ruled out by this test. That's all my list indicated.

[Marrena]

Well you are the one with a bookshelf of astrology books--how would anybody else express a tight T-square other than bad luck/hard work?

[rsaavedra]

Well you are the one with a bookshelf of astrology books--how would anybody else express a tight T-square other than bad luck/hard work?

To claim that all T-squares are simply "bad luck/hard work" is such a humongous overgeneralization, even for astrologers. And that is saying something.

I briefly computed the number of possible hard transits in a previous post. Let's consider for a moment something similar to see the number of possible T-squares on a birthchart. Let's assume just one level of tightness, just a perfect T-square.

There are 10 possible planets (not including the ascendant). And we want to know the number of possible combinations of 3 planets out of those 10 that we could create, with no repetitions, and with ordering. Combinatorics tells us that this number is P(10,3) = 10! / 7! = 10*9*8. That's already 720 different possible T-squares:

1) Sun-Moon-Mercury
2) Sun-Mercury-Moon
3) Moon-Sun-Mercury
4) Moon-Mercury-Sun
5) Mercury-Sun-Moon
6) Mercury-Moon-Sun
7) Sun-Moon-Mars...
:
719) Neptune-Uranus-Pluto
720) Uranus-Neptune-Pluto.

Now, there's the issue of where on a specific birthchart a T-square falls.

There are 12 houses, and the 1st house can fall on any of the 360 degrees covered by the 12 signs. So that gives already quite a landscape of possibilities. Let's simplify things and assume that all houses are equally large, covering exactly 30 degrees. With a 1 degree resolution there would be therefore 360 possible placements for houses-over-signs in astrology. Within an accuracy of +/- 0.5 degrees, all possible birthcharts would correspond to one of these 360 house-signs cases.

Now, we have 720 possible T-squares, and one chosen vertex in this T-square can fall in any of the 360 degrees of any of the 360 possible cases of houses-over-signs charts.

How many T-squares are there? In this simplified version of things, there are 720x360x360 = 93,312,000 possible T-squares. More than 93 million.

And a birthchart can have more than one T-square.

Now, you are saying that astrologers and astrological books claim that all of these 93+ million of possible T-squares can be simply interpreted as "bad luck/hard work", regardless of what planets, houses, signs, and degrees are involved ? Sorry, wrong. That's not the case at all.

And remember, here I assumed just one level of tightness for the T-square, a 1 degree resolution, all houses of equal size, and just 10 planets. Play with those numbers and you can make that 93+ million grow quite a bit more.

I hope people might be getting a better idea of why I pointed-out the "aspects inadequately expressed" issue.


PS. If instead of using a 1 degree resolution we consider a 5 degree resolution, then there would be 360/5 = 72 house-over-signs cases, and 72 sectors where the T-square could fall on. Then instead of 93+ million, we would be talking about 720x72x72 = 3.7+ million possible T-squares. Still quite a few.

If you keep the 1 degree resolution, but instead of using 10 planets you use 11, let's say you want to include Lilith or some asteroid in your analysis, then the total would be 7920x360x360 = 1+ billion possible T-squares.

[rsaavedra]

Some astrologers divide the houses and the signs in three sectors each, and interpret planets falling on each sector slightly differently, but within each sector the interpretation "might" not change for a given planet, regardless of angle within the sector. This corresponds to having lowered the resolution to 10 degrees.

We could assume that two specific T-squares could be interpreted pretty much exactly the same way if they are just a few degrees apart, and involve exactly the same planetary arrangement, and the same house and sign *sectors*.

There are 12 signs, hence 36 sign-sectors. The 1st sector of the 1st house can fall on any of those 36 sign sectors. So there are a total of 36 possible house-over-sign kinds of birthcharts to consider. Notice the major reduction: 36 instead of the 360 we got when using a 1 degree resolution.

So one given vertex of the 720 possible planet trios of a T-square could fall on any of the 36 sectors of any of the 36 possible sector-based house-over-sign configurations. That would still yield 720x36x36 = 933,120 different possible T-squares.

If we wanted to shrink that total to a very minimum, let's do a gross generalization and not consider sectors or angles of the house over the sign. Just the combination house over sign, period. This corresponds to lowering the resolution of houses over signs to just 30 degrees; and having just 12 possible ascendant values for all birthcharts. Under this approach, an ascendant (House 1) on 1º Aries would be exactly the same as an ascendant on 29º Aries. No astrologer would consider these two to be the same though, so this is pushing things way past what's acceptable for astrology. But bare with me.

We still have 720 different planet trios for possible T-squares. One given vertex of those three planets can fall on any of the 12 possible "combo areas" of houses over signs. And there are 12 possible baseline charts. So we've reduced the number of possible T-squares to 720x12x12 = 103,680. Still more than a hundred thousand.

This is for sure a lower bound. Remember, this is just assuming one level of tightness in the T-square, using fewer planets than are commonly used, equally sized houses, and lowering the resolution way beyond what's commonly acceptable. So this is way below the actual practical minimum number of different possible T-squares.

According to astrology, each of those T-squares for sure requires its own specific different wording to express what the alleged effects are, depending on the associated constituents. No two of those 100+ K combinations would be interpreted the same way, even if considered in an isolated manner. But the interpretation is never done like that. The T-square never "speaks" on its own, as if regardless of the rest of the chart. All aspects are or can be supposedly affected by the other aspects present in the chart, so the interpretation of one aspect is never given as if from a cookbook catalog.

[Marrena]

I know that, I'm a good astrologer. I interpreted the chart as a whole, and sometimes the T-square is the most important thing, depending on the tightness of the other angles, singletons, etc. I wasn't using some kind of boilerplate software to analyze. And I was incorporating planets and houses in what I said, however crudely I expressed myself.

Again, if astrology is as subtle and complicated as you say, it never would have gotten started. So you have effectively argued to prove it doesn't work.

[rsaavedra]

And we want to know the number of possible combinations of 3 planets out of those 10 that we could create, with no repetitions, and with ordering. Combinatorics tells us that this number is P(10,3) = 10! / 7! = 10*9*8. That's already 720 different possible T-squares:

1) Sun-Moon-Mercury
2) Sun-Mercury-Moon
3) Moon-Sun-Mercury
4) Moon-Mercury-Sun
5) Mercury-Sun-Moon
6) Mercury-Moon-Sun

Interestingly no one here, neither astronomers nor astrologers, have complained about that list. Only now I reread it and realized that it has a minor problem.

Remember that a T-square is formed by three planets, two of them in opossition (180º) forming the base of a right triangle, and the third squaring those two being the vertex with the 90º angle in the triangle.

Because of its small orbit, Mercury never gets too far away from the Sun. In fact, Mercury and the Sun never get more than ~28º apart (seen from Earth.) So they can't form a square or an opposition. Venus also never gets further than about ~48º from the Sun. So they can't form a square or an opposition. And Mercury and Venus cannot form such aspects between them either; seen from Earth, they never get sufficiently far apart.

So among the 10 major "planets" there aren't really 720 valid combinations for T-squares. The actual number would be slightly smaller.

This doesn't change at all the orders of magnitude of the calculations shown in my previous posts though. There are between hundreds of thousands, up to billions of possible T-squares, depending on planets considered and resolution used and other factors.

By the way, an astrological analysis of a birthchart typically not only includes the ten major "planets" (1:Sun, 2:Moon, 3:Mercury, 4:Venus, 5:Mars, 6:Jupiter, 7:Saturn, 8:Uranus, 9:Neptune, 10:Pluto.) It also includes at least a few of the following:

11) North Node
12) Lilith / South Node
13) The so called "Part of Fortune"
14) Chiron
15) Ceres

And some others. So the first multiplier alone in our calculations can easily be larger than 720.

[rsaavedra]

I know that, I'm a good astrologer.
Well really don't worry Marrena. There's no meaning in being a good astrologer if it doesn't work.

[rsaavedra]

If you keep the 1 degree resolution, but instead of using 10 planets you use 11, let's say you want to include Lilith or some asteroid in your analysis, then the total would be 7920x360x360 = 1+ billion possible T-squares.
Another error in my previous posts. With 11 planets, the first multipler would be 11*10*9 = 990 (Don't know where I got that 7920 from; was using excel and most likely made a typo.) 990*360*360 gives us 128+ million; not quite into the billions.

To get into the billions we would need 14 planets, and half a degree accuracy for the house-over-signs configurations, making the calculations 14*13*12*720*720 = 1.13+ Billion possible T-squares.

[Delvo]

What do "house" and "transit" even mean?

[rsaavedra]

What do "house" and "transit" even mean?
Google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(astrology)

http://www.astrology.com/aboutastrology/interpreting/houses/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_transit

[rudeboy]

I know that, I'm a good astrologer. I interpreted the chart as a whole, and sometimes the T-square is the most important thing, depending on the tightness of the other angles, singletons, etc. I wasn't using some kind of boilerplate software to analyze. And I was incorporating planets and houses in what I said, however crudely I expressed myself.

Again, if astrology is as subtle and complicated as you say, it never would have gotten started. So you have effectively argued to prove it doesn't work.

May I take part in the test:)?

[AntiTelharsic]

May I take part in the test:)?

This test concluded last August. Are you wanting to try it yourself?

[rudeboy]

This test concluded last August. Are you wanting to try it yourself?

what am i supposed to do???:rolleyes:

[AntiTelharsic]

I suggest starting a new thread, stating your goals and asking for volunteers. If the protocol agreed upon in this thread is suitable, then reference it there; otherwise, I'm sure a different one could be designed in that thread.

[rudeboy]

I suggest starting a new thread, stating your goals and asking for volunteers. If the protocol agreed upon in this thread is suitable, then reference it there; otherwise, I'm sure a different one could be designed in that thread.

how about starting with rising signs instead sun signs?
I would need date and time of birth and place of course of some members

[AntiTelharsic]

Again I'd like to suggest that you start a new thread.

[Professor Yaffle]

There will be no shortage of volunteers once a decent protocol is agreed to. Starting your own thread would indeed be best.