To test whether astrology can predict E (extraversion) and N (emotionality) in ordinary people, subjects with extreme scores on the EPI were selected from 1198 subjects mostly from the southern hemisphere, all of whom had known birth times. The result was two replicate sets each with 54 extreme subjects for each of E+, E-, N+ and N-. The average pair of opposite extremes was roughly equivalent to the two most extreme persons in a random sample of 15 adults. The following factors were tested: tropical signs, decans, elements, sidereal signs, aspects, harmonics, hemisphere, Gauquelin plus zones and angularity, both individually and in combination. The latter excluded sidereal signs but included midpoints and Placidus houses. If astrology predicts that factor X indicates, say, E+, then the frequency of X should be higher in extreme E+ subjects than in extreme E- subjects. The results of 132 such tests, and a multiple discriminant analysis, showed that no factor performed consistently above chance level.

The validity of E (extraversion) and N (emotionality) for testing astrology is reviewed in detail (60 references) and is found to be adequate in every respect. The conclusions of Parts 1 and 2 are confirmed after the most critical scrutiny, comparison with other studies, and investigation of issues raised by readers. Much previously unpublished work is presented including a survey of the perceived discernibility of human characteristics in birth charts, Pierce’s factor analysis of astrological symbolism, a meta-analysis of 14 studies of astrologer agreement, the distribution of variance between astrologers and charts, a meta-analysis of 31 Vernon Clark results, a new Vernon Clark test of everyday topics, a comparison of the reliability and validity of astrology with that of other diagnostic tests, and an extension of Startup’s power analysis of astrological effects. The picture that emerges consistently from all of this work is that astrology as applied by astrologers using the whole chart has negligible reliability and validity. Aggregating astrologers improved the reliability as expected but had no effect on the hit rate, which remained close to chance level. The upper bound to the variance accounted for by astrological effects is orders of magnitude smaller than that required to meet the claims of astrologers.

Harmonic analysis of the Gauquelin planetary distributions for professional groups is used to show that the phase angles of individual harmonics for each planet are closely clustered. This is used to demonstrate that any planetary “influence” is travel ling at the velocity of light. Other supporting evidence is offered and the supposition advance that the observed associations occur because of awareness by the developing embryo or fetus

This is the second study of a series dealing with the so-called eminence hypothesis first put forward by Michel Gauquelin. Planetary effects, it was hypothesised, co-vary in extent with fame/success within samples of professions. A previous study relating degrees of sporting eminence, determined by citation frequencies, to percentages of births with Mars in key sectors had revealed a steady increase of deviation from chance for critical birth percentages with increasing eminence of sportsmen. In the present study the eminence slope hypothesis is tested with Gauquelin musicians (n=866), painters (n=1381) and writers (n=813). Increases in deviations from chance level with eminence were expected for those planet/profession combinations which had show, as a whole, in previous Gauquelin studies, significant key sector deviation. The results supported the hypotheses for Mars as well as for Saturn, in general. Overall consistent trends were also found for the Moon and for Venus. Surprisingly, however, the directions of the Venus trends were reversed for the three professions tested. This exceptional observation notwithstanding, the results remove final tenacious suspicion that planetary effects, as reported by the Gauquelins, could perhaps be due to data selection bias and/or fraud.

Further analyses of Dwyer’s data, using aggregation to improve reliability, confirmed the conclusions of Part 1. No evidence was found that Pluto by aspect or angularity means power, suppression or transformation. The sensitivity was more than adequate to detect a worthwhile effect.

A sample of 175 mixed adults completed a 36-item questionnaire addressed to likely Pluto meanings, namely intensification, exaggeration, social power, transformation, and suppression. A comparison with Pluto aspects in the natal charts found no evidence to support any of these meanings.

Each of 122 subjects, married or in an intimate living-together relationship, ranked five descriptions, based on planetary inter-aspects only, of partners, one of which was his/her own, from “most” to “least true” of his/her actual experience. Half the sample were sent control descriptions of relationships randomly selected from the whole sample of relationships; the other half were sent control descriptions of contrived relationships between the subject and four hypothetical partners to him or her, all of whom shared the Sun-sign of the subject’s actual partner. Subjects chose the correct astrological description of their experience of their partner among the five possible positions at significantly better than chance (p<.5). Discrimination of actual partners was clearly found to be easier from random controls than from among same Sun-sign controls, though this was not statistically evaluated.

A “time-switching” control applied to Hill and Thompson’s original 500 redheads’ birth data supported the separate significance levels claimed for their “Mars-Redhead Link” results and revealed that if a single hypothesis had been employed the significance would have been p<10-8.