I have an idea for a method for testing the validity of astrology as a
psychological predictor and would like to see some discussion on the
topic.

Take a standardized test such as the Michigan Multi-Phasic Inventory (did I
get that right?) and sit a group of astrology experts down and have them
walk through each question assigning an answer to the question and a
weighting to determine how strongly the answer would correlate with each
separate astrological trait.

Take such astrological traits as Sun sign, Moon sign, which sign was
rising, which house each planet is in, etc and use it to attach a weighting
to each question.  A typical question might have almost no weighting for
someone with a Sun sign of Capricorn, but a Moon sign of Aries might affect
the way the person would answer the question significantly.

Obviously a lot of preparation must be involved, because some of these
tests have hundreds of questions and there are many possible astrological
traits that could be used.  One astrological system would have to be
chosen.  And the experts would have to agree to the answer and weighting to
each question.

Then test a significant sample of people in the normal way, except that
exact date of birth and location would have to be obtained (birth
certificate?).  Or if this information is available in a database somewhere
and could legally be used then the results could be obtained soon after the
answers and weightings were agreed upon.

Each person's astrological data would be used to generate an expected list
of answers to the questions and would be compared with the actual answers.
A high correlation between expected and actual answers would go far to
establishing the validity of astrology as a scientific field.  

Conversely, the data could be used to look for common answers to questions
based on the astrological traits of the person, whether or not it actually
matched what was expected.  These correlations could then be used to refine
astrology on a scientific basis.

My apologies for the long post.  Comments are welcome.

Paul Rumelhart

 petejanREMOVEt...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote in article <33850c63.4984663@ne
ws.c-zone.net>...

Paul Rumelhart comments: smoke blowing?  anti astro? clone?  Really?  I
don't recall mentioning anything anti-astrology.  I am certainly cloning no
posts.  I don't even know how to address the smoke blowing comment.  What
would I be trying to obscure with this post?

As to your second question: because it deals with astrology.  Seemed like a
pretty good place to post it.  I have read the charter and am not violating
it.  I believe it argumentative posts on the validity of astrology are not
welcome.  I do recall that posts on astrology from a psychological
perspective are on the "good" list.  I don't recall it stating that quoting
entire posts to ask about their legality on the newsgroup was on the "good"
list, however.

Here is the relevant portion of my post to alt.astrology (assuming that the
snipped test has no validity on this newgroup which is just a bit hard to
swallow, but, hey, whatever):

To clarify:  A database of answers to in-depth standard psychological
tests correlated with the relevant astrological charts for the participants
would be useful for both testing the validity of astrology (you may
*believe*, but wouldn't you rather *know*?) as well as serving to enhance
the precision of astrology as it relates to people in the modern world.  It
would be a good tool for answering such questions as "what part do
retrograde planets play in astrology?" and "what is the signifacance of
this chart oddity?".

I am surprised.  I expected astrologers to be more open-minded than most.

Paul Rumelhart

...

Ignore Pete, he's an anomaly among anomalies, but as to astrologers'
general open-mindedness, it generally excludes the option of their being
incorrect.

Jim

        I love this one.  It's quite true.  But then, I've noticed the exact
same trait in most of the people who operate in any kind of science,
be it physics, chemistry, psychology, etc.  Everyone has their pet
theories and will not see their pets mistreated.  No one WANTS to be
made to look like a fool, so the idea seems to be that the more
bluster applied to the theory, the more likely the success of the
theory due to the fact that the wind will keep detractors from
approaching it to tear it apart.  
        This brings out another trait in a minority of people in science - the
ones for whom the wind is a challenge and who take much pleasure in
using it to show that it's just a lot of hot air.  Drives the
blusterers quite mad, it does.  There are those in this number,
however, who will poke pins in anyone's balloon because, since all
they have is a pin, everything looks like a balloon.
        I place myself in both categories.  I will bluster when I feel a need
to be defensive, and I'll poke pins in people's balloons sometimes to
enlighten and sometimes for cruel pleasure.  
        And then sometimes I'm in a third category - that of willing guinea
pig to error and discovery, appearing stupid and not minding it as
long as I or someone else can learn something by it.
        It takes all kinds to make a world.  The astrological world is no
different.  And it sometimes takes the Petes of this world to make us
notice and appreciate the Carols and the Robs and those other gentle
souls who only want to learn, teach, live, and evolve.
        Forgive me for my rambling.  It's Saturday morning, I've just finished
my daughter's paper route (she's ill with the flu), and I'm feeling
philosophical.  I may be full of hot air in 10 more minutes, who can
tell.  In the meantime, I'm going to look at some charts to see what I
can see. :)

I've got a few observations and questions.

1) Most of the time, in sci.physics, alt.physics.new-theories we tend to
welcome questions from those who don't understand physics. When someone
keeps on insisting that a well proven theory or application, say the
electric motor for example, is totally misunderstood by the great
science conspiracy, things might get testy the fourth or fifth time
something simple is explained. However, very few scientists are
defensive about the basic theories because we have overwhelming
confidence in their validity.

2) I'd love to take a challenge like the Randi challenge over the
scientific principals that I understand to be true.  I think that I
could show significant evidence for quantum mechanics or special
relativity with equipment that I could obtain and with the help of
friends who are also experimental physicists. If people who believe that
astrology describes observables in the world, then I don't see why they
aren't eager to have rigorous trials to prove it.

3) I don't understand the way in which people who believe in astrology,
reflexology, and the other alternate viewpoints see their viewpoints to
be true.  Do you think that people born at one date and time will have
observable characteristics that differ from those born at a different
date and time?

4) If the answer to the above question is yes, shouldn't you be able to
match birthdays and times with profiles of people? You may argue that
the profiles that are usually generated don't ask the right question,
but, if allowed to write your own (as long as it doesn't give away the
birthday info), you should be able to do it.  Even if you can only do it
some of the time, that would be fine.  I, and most decent  scientists,
can easily find a signal above a background.

5) If the answer to the above question is no, then in what sense do you
know something about someone by doing a chart for them?  Is it like the
ink blot tests of the psychologists?  That is, the charts themselves
mean nothing, it is only a tool to see how people view themselves.

Anyway, I'd be curious concerning your response.  I'm sorry if mailing
you is considered rude, but the postings of my server are often not well
distributed.

Dan M.

Mornin' All,

PR> To clarify:  A database of answers to in-depth standard
PR> psychological tests correlated with the relevant astrological
PR> charts for the participants would be useful for both testing the
PR> validity of astrology (you may *believe*, but wouldn't you rather
PR> *know*?) as well as serving to enhance the precision of astrology
PR> as it relates to people in the modern world.  It would be a good
PR> tool for answering such questions as "what part do retrograde
PR> planets play in astrology?" and "what is the signifacance of this
PR> chart oddity?".

You may wish to look up the decades long work of French astrologer, Michel
Gauquelin whose books include: "The Scientific Basis of Astrology",
"Zodiac and Personality" and the "Truth About Astrology".  He did pretty
much as you have recommended and his experiments -- so I'm told but don't
know for sure -- has been replicated no less than eight times, each time
successfully.

PR> I am surprised.  I expected astrologers to be more open-minded
PR> than most.

Astrologers are people.  What else can you expect from people?

Regards,

Chris Slee

___________________________________________________________________________
Chris Slee                                            sle...@ozemail.com.au
                     No wife, no horse, no moustache!
___________________________________________________________________________

In article <5m5don$...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Jim Rogers  <jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:

This makes astrology a religion.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pau...@saaf.se     paul.schly...@ausys.se    p...@inorbit.com
WWW:     http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr    --  updated daily!

In article <5m4lb0$du...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,

Most astrologers wouldn't want to know, because then they'd have to face
a, to them, uncomfortable fact:  astrology doesn't work.

As you've just seen, they aren't.  Most astrologers treat astrology as
some kind of religion: to them, astrology is by definition right, and
they don't even want to consider the possibility that it doesn't work.

Please feel free to perform these studies, if you have the time and
resources, however they've already been performed numerous times, as
you can find out from the reference list below:

--------------------------begin inserted file---------------------------------

A while back, somebody was lamenting the fact the scientists just
don't take astrology seriously, so they never do any studies to find
out if it works.

Aside from the fact that nothing is keeping the astrologers from doing
such studies, I posted a reply stating that plenty of research had
been done, and the results were negative.

References were then requested.

Most of these references are "second hand" in that I haven't read the
actual papers, only summaries in other books and magazine articles.
If I have misrepresented either the protocol or results of any of the
following, feel free to correct me.

I have not included references on the Gauquelin mars effect, which has
been covered by other threads in far greater detail.

Here are the references I've collected so far -- in no particular
order:

Gauquelin, M.
Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study
Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57
1982

Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures,
actors, scientists, and writers.  Compared these profiles with
personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and
ascendant according to eight astrology texts.  No correlation was
found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.

Press, N., Michelsen, N.F., Russel, L., Shannon, J., Stark, M.
The New Yourk Suicide Study
Journal of Geocosmic Research, 2, 23-47
1978

Examined records of suicides in NYC from 1969 to 1973.  Selected all
suicides who were born in NYC and for which birth data was available.
This resulted in 311 suicide cases.  For each of these, a control
subject was randomly chosen who was born in the same borough and
year.  The suicides and matching controls were divide into three
groups according to year of suicide.

A computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological
factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between
suicide and control groups.  None of the factors consistently
correlated with the suicide cases.

Culver, R.
Sun Sign Sunset
Pachert
1979

Van Deusen, E.
Astrogenetics
Doubleday
1976

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147
1977

The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign
and over 60 occupations.  The results of all three were negative -- no
correlation was found between occupation and sun sign.

Dean G., Mather, A.
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
p113
The Astrological Association
1977

Silverman, B., Witmer, M.
Astrological Indicators of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 87, 89
1974

Per Dalen,
Season of Birth
American Elsevier Publishing
1975

Pellegrini, R.,
The Astrological Theory of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 85, 21
1973

The above 4 references all found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits as measured by standardized psychological tests,
mostly the California Personality Inventory (CPI). However, Pellegrini
found a slight correlation between the CPI femininity index and season
of birth.

Illingworth, D., Syme, G.
Birthday and Femininity
Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 153
1977

Tyson, G.
Astrology or Season of Birth: A 'Split-Sphere' Test
Journal of Psychology, 95, 285
1977

These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity
index.

Mayes, B.,  Klugh, H.
Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data
Journal of Psychology 99, 27
1978

Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects.
Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the
moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects.  No correlations
were found.

Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H.
An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and
Personality
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229
1979

Jackson, M.
Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere
Study
Journal of Psychology, 101, 197
1979

These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and
the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality
Inventory.

Veno, A., Pammunt, P.
Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere
Replication
Journal of Psychology, 101, 73
1979

Failed to duplicate the correlation found above.

Pawlik, K.,  Buse, L.,
Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable
Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54
1979

Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that
some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their
astrological signs.

Eysenck, H.,
Astrology: Science or Superstition?
Encounter, Dec 1979, p85

Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Introversion-Extroversion and Astrology
Journal of Psychology, 105, 155
1980

Saklofske, D., Kelly, I., McKerracher, D.
An Empirical Study of Personality and Astrological Factors
Journal of Psychology, 110, 275
1982

These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors
(sun and planetary) and personality, including the
introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astrology: True or False, p215
Prometheus
1988

A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the
University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna.  McCall
claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal
horoscope for a subject from three false ones.  Twenty-eight subjects
were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born
caucasians).  McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the
number predicted by chance.

Silverman, Bernie I.,
Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437
W. B. Saunders
1977

Kop, P., Heuts, B.
Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19
1974

The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate
and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of
Amsterdam, respectively.

John McGervey
Physicist
Case Western Reserve University

Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists
were randomly distributed.

Shawn Carlson
A Double-blind Test of Astrology
Nature, 318, 419
1985

116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and
provided natal data.  One set of natal data and the results of three
personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal
data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data
and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same
subject as the natal data.

The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic
Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part.  They approved
the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the
correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.

Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent
of the time.  This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3
trails producing a correct choice.

Horoscopes were prepared by professional astrologers for 83 subjects.
Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the
subject.  In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart.
This is the success rate expected for random chance.

Dean, Geoffrey
(trying to find reference)

Astrological readings were done for a groups of subjects.  The content
of some of the readings were reversed (changed phrases describing the
subject to their opposites).

Subjects reported that both the reversed and normal readings applied
95 per cent of the time.

Gauquelin, M.
L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale
Dauphin Press
1955

Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs
containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the
time of birth.

Gauquelin, M.
The Cosmic Clocks, p84
Henry Regnery Co.
1967

Found random distribution of the house containing Saturn for
successful individuals, and the house containing Mars for murderers.

Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Leonardo 7, 235
1974

Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height,
longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and
Jupiter at the time of birth.

Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 85
1977

Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference. ...

read more »

 Paul Schlyter wrote in article <5mf54b...@electra.saaf.se>...

Thanks for the references.  Any comments from the astrologers?  I still
agree with the idea that an astrological chart can be a useful tool for
examining ones personality.  It may not be correct, but it still causes you
to evaluate those questions.  It might also be true that a signal exists
but is too faint to be heard above the noise or that the art of astrology
has strayed so far from reality over the years that it has no relation to
reality anymore.

From the data, though, I would have to conclude that it doesn't work as
they say it works.

Yes, I know, ANTI-ASTRO SMOKE-BLOWING something-or-other.

Is it possible that astrology might have been correct (having no idea of
what the mechanism would be, of course) when it was first introduced but it
has been lost in inaccuracies of teaching or translation over the
centuries?  How many astrologers learn from texts more that 50 years old?
No idea one way or the other, just wanting to get some interesting
discussion going.

Could it be that sweeping generalizations don't work if they are too
specific because the more specific they are the more they can be turned
around because of the vast variety of mitigating factors in the chart?
Hope that abortion of a sentence made sense.  For example, if you
generalize that the most common sun sign among a group of leaders should be
aries that it might not be true because of those people who are aries, many
have moon signs which lessen the effect or planets in houses which show
that the energy that would have gone into leadership and ambition has been
channeled somewhere else.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to some good discussion.  I don't know what I
believe, so no ad-hominem attacks please.

Paul Rumelhart

        I'm very fond of astrology, and I find your comments here reflect a person who is
fair-minded, and I think you are on the right track...:)

        Whatever astrology is, I don't think there is anyone looking for *it* the way one
usually looks for psychological activity...If the analysis of literature was good enough
for Freud and Jung, why is it that astrologers do not apply themselves to similar
activities?  

        Astrologists, in general, seem to be following the technical/vocational training
model of education.    

Rog
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53pm EDT 26Jul50 Elmira, NY 076W48 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406

Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article
<5mg72o$h9...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>...

A signal implies a receiver which adds to the unknowns.
Most seem to postulate some force from the stars. I've seen gravity
mentioned!
As an astronomer I'm sure you are aware of the amount of energy that comes
from the nearest star and what's needed to receive it..

It is correct, the astrologers are the ones who either are astute or
not. Those who know little of the subject can make little if no
determination about it at all.

Yes, the noise is the inefficiency and colored lenses of the perciever.

EVERY client I have sees the validity and reality of astrological
insight and finds it adds to their understanding of not only themselves,
but the life they lead-because that life is the extension of them.
"Astrology" has strayed nowhere.

Well, when you believe in a negative reinforcing reality thats what you
get-because we always create the reality we believe to be true-it always
works it never doesn't work and no one is exempt.

Certain astrologers do not help astrology because they refuse to
incorporate actual practice, other paradigms and results into their
perspective. This, like science is an ongoing process that any resonable
and intelligent person incorporates into any worthy study. All paradigms
are growing and changing always. It is the nature of the beast and has
little to do with whether it is astrology or nuclear physics.

No, subjects are never "correct" or "incorrect" by themselves. There are
many factors-first and foremost the theory determines what can be seen,
secondly the astuteness of the observer (since observation is the
polarity of the observer and observed) in the "act" of observation. Most
important is the knowledge base of the perciever. If you had thorough
knowledge of astrology you would not be saying what you are saying.
Therefore it is the ignorance of the subject that evokes such questions.

 Have you ever observed the non-artist try to draw an ellipse? Many
times it is rather silly to watch as they percieve the top of a glass as
a circle instead of what it actually-through observation is-an ellipse.
Until they deal with this illusion of perception they have difficulty
drawing things as THEY ARE, but instead because of a lack of knowledge
of self and experience is compensating for that illusion and have to
PRACTICE THE ART until this limitation is overcome. It is ONLY through
practice that the astuteness is developed.

Therefore in this way persons who choose to try to confuse the subject
even further by offering opinions and advice on subjects they have no
experience with, CANNOT be qualified to do so-that is why we learn art
from an art teacher and astrology from those who practice it-to
incorporate this learned perceptual training from one who has labored to
overcome it.

It is quite simple, in my learning art I listened to the teacher, then
tried to apply what I learned. Apply, learn more, apply, learn more.
There is no "magic bullet" and there is no other way to learn ANYTHING.
A word to the wise is sufficient.

 Those who truly wish to learn astrology will do the same. The "smoke
blowing" is from those who know nothing about it but wish to spin it in
a certain direction because they are bigoted against it and fearful the
it MIGHT have some validity, reflect that we are intimately connected to
the universe in a meaningful way, and force them to take responsibility
for a reality more easily "blamed" on chance, chaos, natural forces, or
some physiological mechanism. Therefore their public agenda serves a
personal one that attempts to defend against the fear that it JUST MIGHT
have validity and allow them some keys to change the reality they
experience.
Unlocking from fearful perspectives is not easy, the ego seeks to
reinforce its validity and control-hence cynicism is a very difficult
lock of ego fearfulness to break. It is a weakness-not a strength.
Critical thinkers withhold judgments of things they know nothing
about-because they are self critical as well as critical of other
things. Cynics reject information out of fear and
unreasonableness-intelligent people say-"don't know", cynics say "can't
be".

Everything is mitigating if you don't know what you are doing. No, it is
the belief that effort and comprhensive learning of the subject has
"nothing to do with it" that allows any Tom, Dick, Jane and Harry to
believe they have as good a shot of being good at it as someone who has
made concerted effort to do so. It is not something to believe in it is
something to know-things that can be known must be learned-until they
are learned the person is ignorant of the subject-period. One cannot
"believe" or "disbelieve" in something they know 0 about! Since they do
not believe it a subject of serious study with rules and guidelines that
MUST be learned, they are like the guy down the block with no knowledge
of physics, building a nuclear bomb-highly improbable and very unstable.

Competant astrologers blend these and delineate these "parts" just as
meteorologists blend barometric pressure, temperature, wind speed etc.
to predict weather. It is not astrology anymore than it is "weather"
until this is done.

Get rid of the belief idea and learn it, then you will not have to
guess.

Rog says;

Subjective value judgment to seek social acceptance and reinforcment.
SNIP

Astrology is the study of the psyche and its momentum-a tool that can be
used in conjunction with psychology to understand the self and its
extension-its reality. We are the reality we believe we exist within,
therefore it is no "surprise" that our psyche is reflected
holographically in celestial configurations. The horoscope is the frozen
version of the primal energy reflected through geometric planetary
configurations that is reflective of the consciousness (and rightly so)
of the individual born in the middle of it.

In the same way that there are numerous contributions in the field of
psychology-each helpful in our understanding of the human condition and
its resolutions, so there are numerous contributions in astrology that
are useful and helpful in that endeavor that aid in the understanding
and improvement of the human condition.There is no thats the way it is
for anything. Labling astrologers as this or that is bigoted,
propogandic and irrelevant.
--
"Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself. Being
true to anyone else or anything else is not only impossible, but the
mark of a fake messiah." Richard Bach "Illusions"
--
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster

"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is..."There are good reasons to include theories that do
not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths in the
non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than some
more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.                      
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann

 petejanREMOVEt...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote in article <338abe83.10362447@n
ews.c-zone.net>...

Why the personal insults?

One simple suggestion.  If you don't like it, don't read it.

Paul Rumelhart (Little Amateur Paul What Failed His Doctorate - or did you
mean Paul Schlyter?)

<snipped>

 petejanREMOVEt...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote in article <338abe83.10362447@n
ews.c-zone.net>...

Why the personal insults?

One simple suggestion.  If you don't like it, don't read it.

Paul Rumelhart (Little Amateur Paul What Failed His Doctorate - or did you
mean Paul Schlyter?)

<snipped>

Astrologers tend to try to ignore this question, since there's no
positive evidence for it.

This test has been performed many of times, and the result has always
been negative.  The response from astrologers to this is usually one of
these:

a: these tests are flawed and the wrong questions are asked (these people
usually do not bother to try to define the right questions -- those few
who do do not pursue this all the way through a test).

b: these tests, while not flawed in themselves, are misdirected: the
astrological truths cannot be revealed by tests like these since the
astrological truths are symbolic and intuitive (these people do not want
to draw one very natural conclusions from this, namely that the birth
data then does not matter; one can acheive an equal amount of "symbolic
truth" from a natal chart based on _any_ birth data).

c: astrology is just a language, and since a language merely transfers
information, it's meaningless to ask whether its true or not (the same
remark as for b: applies here: if astrology is "just a language" then
the birth data need not be correct since the "language" itself is there
anyway).

d: the tests disproving astrology are all faked by materialistic
scientists who are afraid of the astrological truth and wants to
discredit astrology (this is the "conspiracy theory" variety --
unfortunately for these people, not only scientists fail to produce
scientific evidence for astrology, but those few astrologers who try
fail too).

e: these tests were performed by people who do not know astrology,
therefore they can be ignored since these people do not know what
they're talking about (this is false, since astrologers also
participated in several tests.  It's also irrelevant, since you
need not know the intricicaties of astrology to judge whether the
astrological predictions matches information from other sources;
somewhat like you need not be an electronics expert to judge whether
a TV set is broken or not).

f: these tests are not interesting since they're done entirely within
the materialistic domain; astrology is spiritual (people arguing like
this have made astrology their religion; they're also apparently
unaware, or they consciously ignore, the fact that astrology also
makes predictions within the "materialistic domain", predictions that
are testable).

Astrologers frequently use additional, non-astrological, sources of
information: during the chart analysis, they talk with their customer
about his/her life, and the customer is usually willing to supply these
additional details.  A while ago, one astrologer here said: "This is
not cheating -- of course we should use all available means to help
the client" -- by this he really did admit the unreliability of
astrology.

Please read the text below.  Yes, it is of course quite ironic, but like
all irony it contaisn much truth.

A good astrologer is really a good illusionist, however (s)he's less
honest than an illusionist since (s)he refuses to admit it's really
just an illusion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 HOW TO BECOME A SUCCESSFUL ASTROLOGER

1. FUNDAMENTALS

1.1 Psychological qualification

The astrologer is assumed to be familiar with the fundamental rules of
astrology.  He must of course be familiar with the most important methods
of casting and interpreting a horoscope - to master this is however the
easier part on the way to become a successful astrologer.  More important,
and not as easy to learn as the books, is the psychological qualification.
*Every* successful astrologer knows how to deal with people.  Success as
quickly as desired cannot be guaranteed.  However, this text will help you
understand why many astrologers are so successful.  

1.2 Accompanying literature

Applicable literature is of course fundamental for the astrologer, but he
should also know the esoteric literature about astrology.  Pseudoscientific
magazines (e.g. P.M.-Magazin) inform about fashionable slogans that are
very important in some discussions (see 5 below).  

2. OUTFIT/EQUIPMENT

2.1  Your office

The outfits in the office is, apart from the personal appearance, very
important.  For every type of customer you want (see 3), the outfits are
different.  A crystal ball, a wide coat, a long beard and dim lights is no
guarantee for success any more.  Many customers are still impressed by
this, but you won't profit much on such customers.

2.2  Your own appearance

More preferable is a modern apperance. A suit (not too gaudy), a clean
haircut, and (if you wear a beard) a short beard, are nowadays
recommended.  The office should be equipped in a modern but not too
unimaginative way.  A PC on your desk with impressing graphics of a
horoscope on the screen supports this impression.  On your walls there
should be NASA pictures of the planets, and perhaps a graphics work by
Escher.  A small library (no paperbacks!) of course also belongs here.  

3. CUSTOMERS

3.1  Economy

Nowadays it's easier to find customers that pay well. In spite of the
general improved knowledge, there are, due to modern social politics, a lot
of people with enough money to spend, but little education.  Don't
look for customers among people with high intelligence, as a well-knowngerman astrologer recommend (those few exceptions confirm the rule).
This argument appears insightful, because intelligence, in spite of
definitions differing in details, is generally ackowledged as an ability
to recognize and understand abstract contexts.  However, half the
population are still potential customers (about 45% has an IQ of 100 or
lower).

3.2  Politics

We will not here further investigate the conicidence that many astrology
followers are also right-wing extremists.  Later (see 6) it will be made
clear that these people are an obvious potential market.  Conspicuous
people, like Zjirinowsky whose journalists are bragging with their
astrological knowledge, or even Adolph Hitler - his astrologer (Krafft)
did have to pay with his life for his forecasts though - act among
neo-nazis as leaders.  

4. PREDICTIONS

4.1  How to cast a horoscope

While casting a horoscope, successful astrologers make little use of the
astrological rules.  The personal image of the customer is more important.
If the horoscope is written when the customer is not personally known,
this is considerably more difficult since not much personal information is
available, but even then a succesful horoscope can be cast.  Many
astrologers do this without even being aware of it.  One can gain
additional information about personal details, by interrogating the
customer.  In most cases the customer will not notice the examination.  

4.2  Making predictions successful

Predictions is the central theme of casting a horoscope - the customer
wants as accurate predictions as possible.  This causes problems though,
since accurate predictions may be too easy to check against reality.  One
very popular question is: "Should I separate from my partner?".  An
astrologer who wants to remain successful will almost always advice the
customer to separate, since otherwise the prediction "You will be happy
with your current partner" may fail to agree with reality.  Usually,
successful predictions cannot be precise.  A clever astrologer can fall
back on psychological predictions, similar to those in Freudian
psychoanalysis.  He will always be safe if his predictions cannot be
checked.  

5. TECHNIQUES OF ARGUMENTATION

5.1  Believers

Usually an astrologer has no need to argue.  Your customer will gladly
hear some explanation, but that is easily obtained from the horoscope.  If
the astrologer has been careless enough to make a false prediction, he can
always blame it on trivial mistake ("When did you say you were born?
5:30?  Oh, that's the mistake, I had used 3:50 instead!").  The astrologer
should never declare: "Astrology cannot make such predictions" - he'll
scare his customer and deprive the customer of his belief in the allmight
of the stars.  

Praise your early successes as often as you can!  The more successful
predictions you have made in the past, the more your customers will trust
your skill and the more they will pay you for your horoscopes.  Many
successful astrologers have shown that these successful predictions need
not necessarily be true.  More important is that they sound plausible and
contain enough detail, but no details that can be checked.  With such
predictions, astrologers have sold not only horoscopes, but also many many
books.  

5.2  Skeptics

When discussing with skeptics, the astrologer must ...

read more »

 Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338C521B.1...@aznet.net>...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there that
is measurable and observable.  There is also an intricate black box called
astrology that is very precise with explicit rules which alleges to be able
to describe the personalities of humans which live in that real, tangible
world.  Astrology <=(allegedly)=> Real World.  Why do I have to be an
expert on the intricacies of that black box to ask what connection it has
to the real world?  Becoming an expert in astrology does nothing to show me
what that connection is in and of itself.  Obviously I need to learn enough
about astrology to be able to know what is claimed and to be able to draw
up a person's chart.  I'm working on it.  

I have seen some sweeping generalizations that appear to be correct about
people I know.  What I don't know is if any other sweeping generalizations
at random would have seem to have fit too. When viewing something as
complex as the human psyche, it is easy to ascribe attributes to it that
aren't always true.  People are complex enough that I can usually think of
at least one example of each sweeping generalization for each sun-sign, at
least for people I know well.  On each one I can say "Yeah, that's true -
like when he/she did this..."  I need something more concrete before I will
invest too much of myself into it.

I think it's wonderful that they see the validity and reality of astrology.
 But as I stated above it doesn't mean that that it is valid or real.

I am not unfamiliar with the ideas of reality creation.  If they are
creating a reality in which astrology is valid, it should be able to be
tested.  The shared reality should be the same for all of us.  Unless
simple casual thoughts can change reality instantly - which doesn't appear
to be the case, I've tried it.

I agree.

I cannot now with authority say that this aspect of a person's chart means
this in terms of their personality.  If an astrologer claims a link between
a given aspect and a given personality trait though, I can test that.  My
knowledge or lack thereof in astrology matters little in that case.  I'm
just the flunky scientist who has been given a theory to test.

I do this not out of fear, but out of curiosity.  I have no agenda.  My
beliefs, whatever they are, about the universe as a whole don't enter into
this.  It's a hobby.  I am interested in astrology.  I just want some firm
footing upon which to stand.  There is either something to it, or there
isn't.  If there isn't, I'll go on to something else.  If there is, I'll
try to determine the mechanism involved.  Who knows where that will lead.

reflect a person who is

Off-the-cuff psychological assessment based upon one casual sentence.  So
what?

<snip>
...

read more »

Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes it
is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon collective
reality that appears fixed but it isn't.

Wrong astrology is an art/science. I have posted a complete definition
of what it is you can access through deja news if you are truly
interested.
Yes it has rules and yes it works-whether it is amenable to empirical
assessment is another story-I have been through this many times.-go find
some current books such as "Black holes and Time Warps" or "Self Aware
Universe" these things are not new you guys are just unread. Learn some
philosophy and ideas about reality.

Wrong, astrology=psyche. There is no one "real world".

Oh and I suppose becoming an expert in Qunatum mechanics doesn't help
you understand why it is the way it is? Give me a break.

Well go buy some books and go to some lectures and take a class-you got
about 25 years until you catch up with me.

How do you read the chart? Answer that-if you cannot answer that you are
jumping the gun-sit down and do some learning. Quit arguing and ask
questions as you read book after book-start with horoscope construction.

I've been counseling for 18 years-I know that. If you are truly serious
and in integrity-TELL us what you DO know. We'll go from there. If you
know nothing these questions are irrelevant.

Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.

Well then you will never see anything-go find something easy-like
science.

I never say an astrological word in my counsel -unless the person wants
to know where I get whatever I am talking about from. If I say "this
characteristic we were talking about seems to be connected to your fears
about not having that quality nurtured by the mother-perhaps when you
were 13 there was a crisis I see regarding your beliefs about how
intelligent you believe yourself to be..." or some such thing I discern
from the horoscope, I say it just like that-in plain English, so they
don't CARE how I get it-the fact is I GET IT. We move on to HOW these
things can be resolved or improved or something. They KNOW what I said
was true cause its THEIR life-what other proof would we need? If its not
true and I'm on the wrong track they say so-and yes many times I am-I
cannot always discern WHAT the person has done with what is
seen-sometimes it is a higher level than I thought and sometimes lower.
But as far as the theme I am never wrong. They have free will to shape
these things-astrology is NOT a science-but that has NOTHING to do with
its validity-neither are many forms of psychological study. Wake up!

Listen, reality is not cut an dried and if you think so go take a stats
class and/or philosophy-NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN. I thought you were
scientific not cynical?

Please read my post on self awareness and free will-there is no
predetermined reality. That is one of the major reasons astrology is not
empirical-would you WANT every little thing in your life predictable? I
doubt it. You have free will-do you know that?

Then you cannot peer review it or critique those who can.

SNIP!

Not possible-everyones beliefs are WHAT their reality consists of. "It
is the theory that determines WHAT we see." A. Einstein-how many times
do I have to post that?

Not possible-you have to study it first. I studied ART, AND FALCONRY as
long as I have studied astrology, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT TOOK JUST AS
LONG TO SEE THE RESULTS OF those practices as well-so don't give me that
crap!
Sit down and sketch a person and make them look exactly like they do if
you think I am being a smart alec-go to my art page, I have photos of
the people I have sketched there and you cannot tell the difference
between the photo and the person-NOW do you think I saw those kind of
results FIRST before I drew them? What kind of idiocy is that? "A, no
Mr. Art instructor I am not going to pursue this unless you can prove to
me I will be able to draw like that when I invest my 10 years-YOU CYNICS
ARE DREAMING!!!!!!

There is something to it-but please go do something else we don't need
you. Anything worth having is worth putting some effort to-this takes
you out of the picture.

It'll lead to a dead end-cause the mechanism is US! We create our
reality TOTALLY AS THE PRODUCT OF OUR BELIEFS AND DEFINITIONS, the chart
reflects these thats all-and I will stand by that for the next 50 years.

That is not true, I have interacted with him and I have his chart-over
and above the obviousness of the intent in his statement.
--
"The senses turn outward; Man therefore looks towards what is outside,
and sees not the inward being. Rare is the wise man who shuts his eyes
to outward things and so beholds the glory of the Atman within." The
Upanishads
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.                      
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann

 Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13C8....@aznet.net>...

This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible.  Doesn't matter if
there are more than one.  It's *this* one I'm concerned about.  This
reality may be the effects of the non-physical world.  Since it is
measurable and observable who cares?  I'm not a philosopher.  I'm not
worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the claims
are real.

How fixed is fixed?  I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as it
has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely).  If you can
demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge.  The
scientific community would love to see it.

Thanks.  I'll look it up.

Very authoritative sounding.  How do you know?

<snip>

Existence first.  We'll figure out the why of it later.

<snip>

The particular chart I looked at had a nice summary written by an
astrologer.  I read that.  Does it differ that much from astrologer to
astrologer?

<snip>

You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
when making a chart?  I'm impressed.

<snip>

But certain laws appear to hold true trial after trial.  If reality is
mutable, scientists are measuring the amount of mutability.  It seems to be
exremely small for certain physical aspects.  If reality (*this* reality)
is too mutable for astrology's validity to be confirmed then how can it be
used as a tool for personal growth?

I have no intention in reviewing or critiquing any charts that you may
produce.  I will take them as expert astrological information.  

Paul Rumelhart

 Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13C8....@aznet.net>...

This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible.  Doesn't matter if
there are more than one.  It's *this* one I'm concerned about.  This
reality may be the effects of the non-physical world.  Since it is
measurable and observable who cares?  I'm not a philosopher.  I'm not
worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the claims
are real.

How fixed is fixed?  I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as it
has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely).  If you can
demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge.  The
scientific community would love to see it.

Thanks.  I'll look it up.

Very authoritative sounding.  How do you know?

<snip>

Existence first.  We'll figure out the why of it later.

<snip>

The particular chart I looked at had a nice summary written by an
astrologer.  I read that.  Does it differ that much from astrologer to
astrologer?

<snip>

You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
when making a chart?  I'm impressed.

<snip>

But certain laws appear to hold true trial after trial.  If reality is
mutable, scientists are measuring the amount of mutability.  It seems to be
exremely small for certain physical aspects.  If reality (*this* reality)
is too mutable for astrology's validity to be confirmed then how can it be
used as a tool for personal growth?

I have no intention in reviewing or critiquing any charts that you may
produce.  I will take them as expert astrological information.  

Paul Rumelhart

Oh yes it does. They are all one under "All That Is" so their
separateness is only an illusion and they are all intertwined like the
web of life described by the native Americans. They are all interacting
with one another-and if you think not we may have to end our
conversation here until your studies are more complete.

You obviously are incapable of understanding how negative you and your
kind are-

Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.

Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.

Philosophy is the foundation of all sciences and of all belief systems
in texistence. A person's philosophical perspective is the
foundation-not the icing on the cake of their entire world. Then you
have no foundation from which to make accurate discernments. Think about
this please-all of you cynics and others so inclined. If the purpose of
living were to perhaps overcome the illusion of what you think is real,
would it not be self defeating to find reasons to NOT do that??
Therefore if you have no inkling of some purpose behind life as we
experience it-then you have no template perception BY WHICH any of what
you wish to promote as "real" can be measured against-it is ALL
RELATIVE.

But I have already told you and it is already known by those with
breadth of vision that THERE IS NO ONE REALITY. So your insistence is
redundant.

Listen I may have studied more science than you! If you continue this
tone with me I will ignore you like all the other narrow minded cynics
on these groups-if you wish to carry on intelligent conversation I
suggest you get off your high horse. You are not more knowing you are
less, and it is your lock of ego on physicality that keeps you and yours
blind.

End of conversation I am killfiling you.
Good cynicking.

If Randi wishes to learn a few things he can come to me. There will be
many proofs and I give them all the time.
--
"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may
see, and those who do see may become blind.
The Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not
blind are we?" And he said to them, "If you were blind, you would have
no sin. But now that you say, 'We see,'your sin remains." John 39-41
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.                      
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann

 Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338E4BE9.6...@aznet.net>...

Any common well-trained household parrakeet can spout dogma if you give it
enough lessons.  Tell me *why* this is.  Also, converse if you want, stop
if you don't.  But don't blame either choice on my level of study.

I go with what I know.  And how did I get to be labelled a cynic?  You
don't have all the answers.  You have only what you've read or learned.
Thousands of pages of guesses in the dark.

Is this "breadth of vision" too complex for mere mortals like myself to
understand if you paraphrased it in a usenet post?

You *may* have studied more science.  You have gone on and on in multiple
posts spouting off on how greatly intelligent you are and how greatly
intelligent I'm not.  You know nothing of me.  You don't know what I
believe, what motivates me, what thoughts pound around in my head or
anything else about me that I have not felt free to disclose in a public
forum.  Think for a moment what that shows of your personality to the world
at large.

I came into this whole conversation a believer in astrology and reality
creation.  You may have reversed both of those convictions.  Congratulations
.

Then why not make a few quick bucks?

Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article < >

  > <snip>

10 ^ 58th is a medium size number. As an exercise in 6th grade math I ask
the following.
100 billion astrologers each have 1 billion computers.
Each computer can process 100 billion factors per second.
Starting with the big bang (15 billion years in round numbers.) would the
astrologers have examined more than 1 percent of the factors to date?

In that time span how many astrologers would it take to complete one chart.

When is any of them going to take the challenge, prove astrology, and win a
million dollars?

 Randi challenge http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html

And as I've said before I'll be happy to match funds with anyone on a side
bet ($1000.00 min) to see if the money is there.
If anything you say is true, you can't loose.

I don't know what proposal this thread started with, but as a former
rather serious student of astrology whose current stance is "I think its
inerestting but I don't actually 'believe in' it.", I like to offer the
following proposal/definition.

(1) I take it an established empirical fact that studying one's own
horoscope leads to a hightened sense of self knowledge and often to
greater self-acceptance.

(2) The key question is whether you'd get exactly the same result from
studying a randomly generated horoscope.  If yes, then astrology is
serving as a "mandala" for meditation rather than a personality
predictor. In my opinion it has great value as a mandala of meditation
and insight even if there is no predictive link between horoscope and
personality.

(3) But "sense of self knowledge" is unmeasurable, so we can't do a
serious experiment with that.  

(4) However, there is a good testable question:  Can experienced
astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
chance  results?  It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
(a) pick a couple hundred subjects  (b) have pscychologists interview
them and write a non-astrological personality profile  (c) computer
generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
profiles match a chart.

(5)  If astrologers can do that with significantly better than chance
accuracy then astrology is a verfiable, useable, science.  If they
can't, then its NOT a science as I define the term, but that doesn't
stop it from being a valuable, useful path to self knowledge, higher
wisdom, actualization or any such real but inherently non-measureable
result.

As you can see, I have a point of view which alienates both rationalists
and anti-rationalists:  that there is an objective reality whose
features can be determined by scientific experiment, but that the
meaning of things very real, very important, and always outside of
objective reality.

Harris Freeman

<snip>

One flaw is that (b) assumes that psychology uses different techniques
than astrology.  I have my doubts.

T

********************************************************************
All opinions expressed are my own.  If they were my company's
you'd have to pay for them.
********************************************************************

 hfreeman wrote in article <338F196A.1...@activesw.com>...

The original proposal was similar to the one described below, except that
it involved using a standard personality test like the MMPI and trying to
correlate individual questions with specific astrological traits.

I agree with this completely.  However, I am afraid of the possibility of
possibly-no-better-than-random information heightening their self knowledge
in a negative way.  It is good to learn about yourself, but is it good to
learn things about yourself that are not true?

Yes, assuming that the person doing that knows that they are doing that.

I would suggest using a test from whatever the "accepted" battery of
personality tests is.

One problem is that it works so well as a mandala (imho) because it has the
authority of being supernaturally, magically, unexplainably correct.
Without that authority it might not work so well (at least for me).
Knowing it's been proven wrong again and again would make me doubt what it
was saying and just sow confusion.

I, too, feel that there is more to reality than what we know.  I have had
psychic experiences and believe that they can be controlled and enhanced
with practice.  That's why I'm looking to validate astrology.  I'm
perfectly willing to believe that there is some paranormal method for it to
use as a mechanism.  I'm just stunned that other astrologers aren't hot on
first proving that it has a correlation with reality.

Paul Rumelhart