This is a report on a study undertaken in the Southern Hemisphere which looked at personality in relation to date of birth in a predominantly female sample population. The findings are consistent with those of similar studies carried out in the Northern Hemisphere. The author states that prior knowledge of astrology could account for most but not all of the findings of these studies and suggests that media exposure to astrology could be a significant and as yet unexplored area of self-perception.

The need for change in the approach to astrological research is urged and the value of considering astrology as based on the harmonics of cosmic periods is suggested as the key to clearer scientific results. Michel Gauquelin’s much discussed study of Mars in the nativities of sports champions is used as an example. This study has now been successfully replicated at least twice, but the “content” of the results has never been fully explained. It is shown that the distribution of Mars in that study is determined by two distinct factors, each with its own meaning. These two factors are explained and their meanings illustrated via the “character trait” method. The same principles and the same methods of harmonic analysis have already been shown to produce good results in terms of ecliptic positions and aspects and, in the author’s view, they offer the best avenue of advance for astrological research.

This article presents a re-analysis of some recently published data from a study of astrologers’ keywords. The study was by Francoise Gauquelin who, it is argued, seriously underestimated the significance of some of her results. It is shown that chi-squared analyses of the agreement between 14 astrologers and the Gauquelins’ independently derived lists of planetary traits for four of the planets, yield extremely significant results for all of the astrologers, both ancient and modern. In addition, the data are analysed by means of Cohen’s kappa to give measures of agreement which are appropriately corrected for chance expected agreement. Finally, kappa is used to make a comparison between the reliability of astrological diagnosis of the planets’ effects and a related field, psychiatric diagnosis of clinical syndromes. See also Letters, “Statistical significance tests” Vergo Correlation Vol, 2 Issue 2 pages 38 – 40 and Letters Statistical significance tests” Startup Correlation Vol.3 Issue 1 1983 page 51.

The Gauquelin effect (G%) should increase with increased birth time precision. The data, however, do not bear this out, on the contrary, G% even tends to diminish with better birth time recordings, at least from AD 1880 onwards. The expected positive effect might have been overridden by psychological/sociological variables depressing G% and enhancing birth record precision at the same time. Until now, however, such intervening variables remain enigmatic.

Gauquelin & Tracz (1991) rejected Ertel’s (1990) and Rodenbeck’s (1990) conclusion that the Gauquelin character trait hypothesis (CTH) does not hold. They repeated our former biographical trait counts and reported results supporting CTH. The contradiction was explained in terms of sloppy vs. careful trait extraction: our students’ extractions were deemed poor, whereas their students’ extractions were taken as reliable. A close look at procedures and output of extractions, however, indicates that our students had worked at least as carefully as theirs. Evidence shows, instead, that Gauquelin’s own care left something to be desired in that he selected duplicates of traits extracted by his helpers excluding from analysis all non-duplicates. Since he was generally aware of planetary positions he was liable to biased selections and deletions. Our conclusion is backed by results from three statistical comparison on Fresno/Gottingen data. Gauquelin & Tracz’s study therefore does not invalidate our contention that the character trait hypothesis is wrong. Since Gauquelin’s basic planetary effect has continuously gained support, failures with CTH are a challenge to find an explanation for the persistent main effect in entirely different terms.

If the stars incline but do not compel, then astrological outcomes are innately probabilistic. Therefore only probabilistic models are appropriate but hitherto their use has been neglected. This is unfortunate because they promise to revolutionise the everyday practice of working astrologers regardless of whether astrology is used as a language or as an information source. Probabilistic models examine each chart factor (without limit on number or complexity) using modern computer techniques of item response theory, and then produce the best synthesis by maximum likelihood estimation. They do what an astrologer does but include what no astrologer can do, namely address astrology’s inherent uncertainty directly. In effect, they allow astrologers and techniques to be separated from clients, thus delivering astrology freed from the quirks of a particular approach and armed with an objective evaluation of predictive reliability, meaning an end to hedging bets with ifs and buts. Probabilistic models require the use of a computer but are otherwise easy to apply. They are perhaps the most obvious way of improving the application of astrology to individuals.

Theoretically expected frequencies for specific harmonic aspects were calculated. The values show a strong tendency to lie on an apparently smooth curve. Attempts at deriving a linear relationship between harmonic number and expected aspect frequency allowed derivation of a formula involving two constants and the natural logarithm of the harmonic number. Results when using the formula in deriving expected harmonic aspect frequencies are in very good agreement with previously published empirically derived studies when the harmonic number is greater than seven. Derived harmonic aspects frequencies when the harmonic number is less than seven show considerable deviation from theoretical values due to the effect of “Solar clustering”. A short computer program allows workers a rapid check on whether observed values differ significantly.

We tested the astrological assumption that the position of the Sun at birth in astrological Elements is related to the psychological functions in Jung’s typology. Specifically, it was tested whether people who are born with the Sun in a Fire sign have a dominant intuition function and in the same way whether Earth corresponds to Sensing, Air to Thinking and water to Feeling. The Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI): Myers and McCaulley, 1985) was used to assess indices for Sensing, Intuition, Thinking and Feeling. MBTI-scores and birthrates were available for 370 subjects. Both the dominant psychological function and continuous MBTI-scores were analysed. Apart from a weak relationship between Water and Feeling, no analysis was statistically significant. The relationship between Jungian typology and astrological Elements, as postulated by astrologers, was not found.

Ever since times immemorial astrology has been a determining factor in the decisions and actions of men of all ranks and stations. At the beginning of the 17th century, great scientists as Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepelr – now best remembered for their roles in the development of modern physics and astronomy – all held astrology in high esteem. At the end of the 17th century, however, the scientific community had completely turned away from astrology. For some it was the subject of derision, others preferred to ignore it completely – so, hardly a single word on astrology, either pro or contra, is to be found in the works of scientists as Christian Huygens (1629-1695) OR Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727). However, in the case of Newton, the astrological literature presents a different view and even claims that in secret Newton was an ardent student of astrology. As evidence the following anecdote is often quoted: when the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), famed for his comet, once spoke with derision on the subject of astrology Newton is said to have rebuked him with the remark: “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!” How much significance may awe attach to such a testimony? The first questions that should be answered are: what is the source of this statement and what evidence is there that Newton ever “studied the matter”?

Six astrologers matched 23 birth charts to comprehensive case files, including photographs, as specified by them. The charts were of native Americans (4 men, 19 women) aged 30-32 years. Birth times were verified by birth records and in most cases were recorded with a precision of five minutes or better. The mean accuracy (i.e.., agreement with the case files), expressed as Cohen’s kappa, was 0.02. The mean agreement between astrologers was 0.03. Accuracy was unrelated to confidence or to birth time precision. In a follow-up study, five groups of 5-6 astrologers each matched a subset of 5 charts, so that collectively all 23 charts were matched. The mean accuracy was -0.15, or worse than chance. Although the astrologers had collaborated to make the experiment as fair as possible, the negative findings had no effect on their belief in the validity of astrology.