In this study I tested the astrological claim that synastry aspects between two natal charts play a role in human relationships. The sample used contained the birth data of 5648 parents who were non-celebrities born in France around the turn of the century. These birth data had originally been collected and published by M & F Gauquelin. To test this synastry claim I counted and analysed the mutual major aspects between partners (angular separation along the ecliptic) of 0, 60, 90 120 and 180 degrees (orb 5 degrees) of nine natal horoscope factors (Sun, Moon, Mercury,Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Asc. And MC). I derived the theoretically expected aspect frequencies from the sample by comining all male subjects with all female subjects, each gender belonging to specific age groups. To test the significance of the deviation between observed and expected aspect frequencies, I used the synasstry aspects in 500 samples of each 2824 randomly composed couples, and fitted probability-density functions to the frequency histograms of these data. The frequency of the grand total of aspects appeared to be significantly large. A genuinely significant high aspect frequency to the Sun in the charts of the wives took a heavy share in the surplus of the grand total. Hwever, the number of significant aspects as well as the magnitude of the overall deviation from chance level were not genuinely significant. Nevertheless, a significant majority of factor pairing showed a surplus of aspect frequency. In addtion, several combinations of aspects as well as their frequency orb dependencies did not falfify astrological doctrines on synastry. But since th effect sizes were very small the conclusion was that synastry aspects may play only a trivial role in partner selection.

I conducted a refinement of the synastry control experiment (1) in which the birth dates of married partners were shifted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days The surplus of aspect frequency gradually decreased with increasing shift magnitude. The maximum frequency appears at the zero shift. These findings reinforce the conclusion that the previously reported synastry effect is not due to methodological errors.

The Mars effect discovered by Michel Gauquelin in the charts of sports
champions is discussed and the controversy this engendered from other scientific quarters is briefly summarised. A summary of the work of Ertel in replicating the Gauquelin study is presented and the author asserts that the Mars effect holds good for people at the top of other professions. The Fourier method of analysing the Mars effect is presented as a more effective way of understanding this phenomenon.

The hypothesis that ordinary (I.e., unexceptional) people should show a planetary effect in personality similar to that shown by famous people was tested by three studies involving, respectively, vocational interest (300 subjects), planetary psychology self-reports (846 subjects), and scorers on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (561 subjects). Only the last showed (marginally) significant results: Mars correlated in the expected direction with E+ and P+, and the Moon with L+. Results for the other planets, and for N+, were either inconsistent or not significant. The deficiencies of some existing personality questionaires are discussed and alternate approaches are suggested. The best approach seems to be the same as for famous people, namely the generation of biographical data followed by the character-traits method

Opposite extremes of the E and N dimensions of the EPI differ in personality as basically as it is possible to differ. To test the hypothesis that such extremes should differ in their planetary positioins at birth, subjects with the most extreme scores on the EPI (108 for each of E+, E-, N+, N-) were selected from a sample of 1145 subjects mostly from the southern hemisphere. The frequencies of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon and Venus in the Gauquelin “plus zones” was determined for E+ vs E- and N+ vs N-. Half of the results were in the expected direction but no result wwas significant either individually or in combination.

After outlining briefly a control study for the analysis presented in Part 1, this article discusses four theories fo the posssible origins of the planetary types. The first three theories are often upheld by astrologers, by their critics, or by both, but all of them, it is argued, are unsatisfactory as they stand. The fourth theory, which is new in some respects, is based partly on widely accepted historical data and partly upon speculations derived from scientific methodology. It is claimed that this theory makes it possible to construe the astrological enterprise, from its beginnings to the present, as far more rational than is usually supposed by astrologers and their critics alike.

John Nelson has claimed that heliocentric planetary aspects are an important factor in predicting short-wave radio disturbance. But a correlation analysis of his predictions and observed radio quality showed that the claim was not substantiated. In assessing his own predictions, Nelson used a method of anlaysis that gave an accuracy of around 90%. This is shown to be an artifact arising from the high proportion of undisturbed days. A valid system of predicting must do better than both chance and baseline conditions, but on the basis of conventional statistical tests Nelson’s planetary system does not.

Modern scientific research and astrology are different kinds of activity. Astrology is derived from given Principles, research from theory and empirical data. The author argues that the two activities come from different world-views and one cannot validly be regarded in the light of the other. Questions about the direction of astrological research are posed.

A study of the accuracy of “ancient” astrologers’ keywords on planetary temperaments is reported, using astrological material different from that used by Francoise Gauquelin in her study (Traditional Symbolism in Astrology and the Character traits method, LERRCP, Paris, 1980). The astrology of “ancient” authors who lived in Elizabethan times or before was tested. Its accuracy was evaluated using 50,000 character traits systematically collected from the biographies of 2000 successful subjects. Results strongly suggest that “ancient” astrologers are doing as well as the modern ones. The results seem to vinidicate the idea that the origin of the astrological planetary temperaments is very old and probably far more ancient than the “ancient” astrological keywords investigated.

Previous attempts to quantify the agreement between astrologers’ keywords for the planets and the Gauquelins’ independently derived lists of planetary traits have been marred by the use of less than ideal data. A fresh analysis, with new data and a different method, is presented here. The results show quite high, non-random agreement, especially for Mars, Saturn and Moon though arguments are also presented for regarding the measurements as only rough estimates. Improvement in astrologers’ accuracy over time was anticipated but the evidence supporting it was slight.