From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page

What works best in astrology?
Explore your ideas with 24 charts

Abstract -- In 1979 a group of astrologers in New Zealand decided to explore the merits of different approaches to chart interpretation in a new way. They obtained from reputable textbooks the topics said to be visible in birth charts, arranged them into paired opposites such as X and not X, and gave them to 135 subjects (mostly in New Zealand but also in Australia and Canada) for self-assessment, and also to a close friend of each subject for an independent assessment. This data was then reduced to 24 subjects who, unlike the average person, were definitely one thing or the other on each of 15 paired descriptions. This was the data that the astrologers planned to explore. Unfortunately data collection took much longer than expected and the data was never used. It was retrieved especially for this website to encourage exploration as originally planned. Exploration can be made by any reader who can calculate and interpret birth charts. Their responses are analysed and posted anonymously at the end of the article. What works best in astrology? So far nine responses with an exploration time ranging from 3 to 12 hours. Analysis reveals no consistent variation in correct choices with difficulty, confidence, technique or experience. But the number of responses is still very small. More responses are needed before a proper analysis can be made. Watch this space...

In 1973 the famous US astrologer Dr Zipporah Dobyns complained that "astrology is almost as confused as the earthly choas it is supposed to clarify" (ZP Dobyns and N Roof, The Astrologer's Casebook, TIA Publications, Los Angeles, page 4). Today software programs offer several zodiacs, many house systems, extra planets (real or imagined), almost unlimited aspects and midpoints with your choice of orb, and so on. But there is no agreement on which combination works best for which topic, or even on which topics can or cannot be seen in birth charts. It seems that there is no view by an astrologer of standing that cannot be contradicted by another astrologer of standing. Sun signs are a good example, see the article History, controversies, validity under Sun Signs.

Astrologers attempt an exploration
In 1979 a group of astrologers in New Zealand attempted to resolve the contradictions. Like many other groups before them, they decided to explore the merits of different approaches to chart interpretation, but in a new way. They obtained from reputable textbooks the topics said to be visible in birth charts such as particular traits and events, and arranged them into pairs a and b that were opposite in meaning. Any uncertainties were removed by discussion with working astrologers and counselling psychologists, as were any differences in social desirability between a and b that might bias a subject's response.

The paired descriptions were then given to 135 subjects and close friends recruited by various methods such as ads in bookshops, mostly in New Zealand but also in Australia and Canada. Each subject and close friend had to separately indicate which description definitely applied to the subject. If neither description definitely applied, they indicated "not definitely one or the other". The subjects also completed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. From these 135 subjects were picked those with the largest number of definite descriptions and the best agreement between subject, friend, and (where relevant) the EPQ.

The definite subjects were interviewed to make sure their birth data and their responses had been accurately recorded. The result of this lengthy and painstaking process was 24 subjects who, unlike the average person, were definitely a or b on each of 15 paired descriptions. Mean age was 33 years, half were male, and one-third were born in the Northern hemisphere. This was the data that the astrologers planned to explore.

Unfortunately data collection took much longer than expected. In due course the astrologers went their separtate ways and the data was never used. It was retrieved especially for this website and appears below to encourage its exploration as was originally planned.

Birth data of 24 definite subjects
Birth times and dates are in GMT.
Time is from b Baby Book, h Hospital Record, m Mother's Memory.
Age is when the subject was interviewed in 1980, mean is 33 years.

ID    Age Sex   Time Source Date       Latitude Longitude Place
01     18 f     2230 m 13 Aug 1962     44n15 077w37 Belleville Ont
02     23 m     0915 b 27 Dec 1957     35s45 144e15 Cohuna Vic
03     25 f     1715 m 26 Feb 1955     41s19 174e46 Wellington NZ
04     26 f     1740 h 14 Nov 1954     36s52 174e46 Auckland NZ
05     26 f     1410 h 31 Jan 1954     43n20 079w50 Hamilton Ont
06     27 f     1145 m 17 Aug 1953     33s58 117e59 Gnowangerup WA

07     27 m     1430 m 20 Jul 1953     39s25 175e31 Raetihi NZ
08     28 m     1830 m 06 Apr 1953     31s54 115e59 Midland WA
09     29 m     0000 b 13 Mar 1951     07n40 003e50 Ibadan Nigeria
10     31 f     0350 m 13 Nov 1949     46s24 168e24 Invercargill NZ
11     31 f     0545 m 01 Aug 1949     41s18 173e16 Nelson NZ
12     32 f     1612 m 30 Dec 1948     31s56 115e52 Mt Lawley WA

13     32 f     0500 b 22 Jun 1948     52n13 000e07 Cambridge UK
14     32 m     1220 m 30 May 1948     41s19 174e46 Wellington NZ
15     32 m     1500 m 18 Apr 1948     27s25 153e02 Brisbane Qld
16     33 f     1615 b 19 Jan 1947     44n15 077w37 Belleville Ont
17     35 f     0615 m 28 Oct 1945     34s52 138e30 Adelaide SA
18     38 m     1400 m 25 Sep 1942     39s29 176e55 Napier NZ

19     39 f     1130 m 11 Jan 1941     41s16 174e57 Lower Hutt NZ
20     40 m     0730 m 18 Feb 1940     51n14 003w30 Minehead UK
21     41 m     0100 m 09 Sep 1939     51n54 002w04 Cheltenham UK
22     42 m     1200 m 03 Mar 1939     52n06 005e08 Utrecht Neth
23     46 m     0830 m 13 Mar 1934     45s52 170e15 Mosgiel NZ
24     47 m     2215 m 23 Aug 1933     31s57 115e49 Perth WA

15 paired descriptions for exploration via the above birth charts
The 15 descriptions are variously character traits, physical traits, abilities, and events. Given the right technique, all are said to be visible in the birth chart. Chart indications such as "tends" or "sometimes" or "in between" do not apply here because each subject is known to be definitely a or definitely b.

How to explore this data
Print out the birth data and descriptions. Calculate each of the 24 birth charts in your preferred style. Take each chart in turn and proceed as follows:

A. For each pair of descriptions write down the alternative (a or b) that best fits the chart, and your confidence in that fit (High, Medium, Low). Some items may seem difficult or even impossible, but they have been included to allow the exploration of intuition. Even if you don't believe in intuition, try them anyway, the results may surprise you. At the end your exploration should look something like this:

1. 1aH,2bM,3aL,4bM,5aH,6bM,7aL,8bM,9aH,10bM,11aL,12bM,13aH,14bM,15aL.
2. 1bM,2aH,3bM,4aL,5bM,6aH,7bM,8aL,9bM,10aH,11bM,12aL,13bM,14aH,15bM.
3. 1aM,2bM,3aM,4bM, ... and so on for a total of 24 charts.

Here the first line indicates that, for chart 1, you are highly confident the best fit is with description 1a, moderately confident the best fit is with description 2b, and so on. If you spend half a minute on each description, the total time required is about three hours.

B.Write down your view (easy, medium, difficult, impossible) of how easy it is to see each of the 15 descriptions in charts generally. When finished your view might look something like this:

Ease: 1e,2m,3d,4i,5e,6m,7d,8i,9e,10m,11d,12i,13e,14m,15d.

C. Write down your technique, time taken, and other relevant details. Two examples:
Ebertin, 6 hours, no intuition, German male, 15 years experience.
Tropical Placidus, 2 hours, much intuition, American female, 2 years experience.

D. Copy what you have written into a plaintext email and send it to rudolf.h.smit#hcc.net.nl with # replaced by @. All contributions will be acknowledged. The indications as they come in will be posted anonymously at the end of this article. No personal details such as your name or email address will appear, nor will they be passed to others. You can explore this data and contribute your findings in complete confidentiality.

Results -- what works best in astrology?
Began August 2003. # = response number. As the number of responses increases so should our understanding of what works best in astrology. What you see below is but a hint of the valuable information these explorations should eventually provide.

Method, time taken, intuition used, gender, years of experience
#1 Traditional Placidus, 8 hours, male, unstated intuition, 4-5 years.
#2 Equal House, 4 hours, male, little intuition, 14 years.
#3 Tropical Placidus, 3 hours, male, average intuition, 8 years.
#4 Tropical Placidus, 10 hours, male, much intuition, 8 years.
#5 Ebertin, 9 hours, female, average intuition, 1 year.
#6 Equal House, 12 hours, female, little intuition, 4 years.
#7 Vedic, 11 hours, female, much intuition, 3-4 years.
#8 Tropical Placidus, 8 hours, female, little intuition, 5 years.
#9 Vedic, 5 hours, female, average intuition, 7 years.

How respondents divided the descriptions according to difficulty
#1 Easy 1, medium 6, difficult 6, impossible 2, total 15 descriptions.
#2 Easy 4, medium 5, difficult 2, impossible 4, total 15 descriptions.
#3 Easy 4, medium 6, difficult 3, impossible 2, total 15 descriptions.
#4 Easy 6, medium 6, difficult 3, impossible 0, total 15 descriptions.
#5 Easy 3, medium 7, difficult 2, impossible 3, total 15 descriptions.
#6 Easy 5, medium 5, difficult 4, impossible 1, total 15 descriptions.
#7 Easy 2, medium 8, difficult 5, impossible 0, total 15 descriptions.
#8 Easy 2, medium 7, difficult 6, impossible 0, total 15 descriptions.
#9 Easy 6, medium 5, difficult 2, impossible 2, total 15 descriptions.

Percent correct choices at each level of difficulty
#1 Easy 37, medium 48, difficult 54, impossible not attempted.
#2 Easy 58, medium 53, difficult 44, impossible 45.
#3 Easy 45, medium 54, difficult 48, impossible 51.
#4 Easy 49, medium 48, difficult 64.
#5 Easy 64, medium 58, difficult 51, impossible 48.
#6 Easy 45, medium 45, difficult 40, impossible 45.
#7 Easy 59, medium 56, difficult 51.
#8 Easy 53, medium 50, difficult 52.
#9 Easy 48, medium 49, difficult 47, impossible 39.

How respondents divided their choices according to confidence
#1 High 39, medium 31, low 30, as percent of 312 choices.
#2 High 32, medium 26, low 42, as percent of 360 choices.
#3 High 38, medium 26, low 35, as percent of 360 choices.
#4 High 42, medium 37, low 21, as percent of 360 choices.
#5 High 34, medium 30, low 36, as percent of 360 choices.
#6 High 40, medium 31, low 29, as percent of 360 choices.
#7 High 42, medium 39, low 19, as percent of 360 choices.
#8 High 39, medium 41, low 20, as percent of 360 choices.
#9 High 38, medium 28, low 34, as percent of 360 choices.

Percent correct choices at each level of confidence
#1 High 47, medium 55, low 47.
#2 High 54, medium 53, low 47.
#3 High 51, medium 52, low 48.
#4 High 50, medium 57, low 47.
#5 High 66, medium 47, low 56.
#6 High 40, medium 42, low 48.
#7 High 55, medium 53, low 54.
#8 High 51, medium 56, low 44.
#9 High 51, medium 41, low 46.

The above results show no consistent variation in correct choices with difficulty, confidence, technique or experience. They do not tell us what works best in astrology. But the number of responses is still very small. More responses are needed before a proper analysis can be made. Watch this space...

From www.astrology-and-science.com         Click here to return to home page