Mars Effect for TV personalities

[Ray Murphy]

Hi All,

I don't know what to make of some of the Gauquelin observations after
processing a lot more data recently, but for those who have any
interest in the 'Mars Effect' (in its original sense as it related to
the category of Sportsmen) there is something new to keep an eye on,
and it doesn't require any searching for famous sportsmen or women or
deciding if they are famous enough.

I found yesterday in Astrodatabank data that TV personalities are much
more likely to have Mars in Sector 1 than sportsmen - 42% more when
the same amount of data (327 in birth sequence) was compared. The
trend has been consistent all along - apart from the volatility that
is always present with small amounts of data for the earliest scores.

Ray

[Graham Douglas]

Hi Ray,                I notice you say sector 1, what about sector 4 ? Maybe when you've done all of them you can show us the figures for the whole distribution. Bear in mind that Astrodatabank is well known for errors in the data.                How does jupiter turn out, and the other planets ? Gauquelin found a strong mars effect in businessmen too.             Regards,                Graham. PS: in case you are interested in the current situation with Correlation you can hav e a look at http://cura.free.fr , and also my notes on the Forum under the coldbaby thread.                        --- On Sat, 13/6/09, Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

[Ray Murphy]

On Jun 13, 7:02 pm, Graham Douglas <ondastropic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>                I notice you say sector 1, what about sector 4 ? Maybe when you've done all of them you can show us the figures for the whole distribution. Bear in mind that Astrodatabank is well known for errors in the data.
>                How does jupiter turn out, and the other planets ? Gauquelin found a strong mars effect in businessmen too.
>             Regards,
>                Graham.
   

Hi Graham,
My use of the 'Mars Effect' term was really just a rough way to the
message across quickly. The TV personalities have the increase only in
Sector 1, with Sector 4 having a normal looking distribution.

Yes, Astrodatabank data has errors, and like the Gauquelin data, it
also has a high percentage of rounded birth times, but it wouldn't
affect the results much because of the automatic averaging of errors
and the width of sectors.

I'll post some graphs in the Files section to make it easy to follow.

I wasn't focusing on TV personalities - they just happened to score
considerably better than sportsmen and many other categories for Mars
in Sector 1. Now that you ask, I can see that Jupiter is not doing
anything special, but some people might think Mercury is because of
the increase in Sectors 1 and 4.

I'm not pushing for any recognition of this minor TV personalities
observation. I'm more interested in using it as a starting point for
either showing Gauquelin was right or showing what I think has
actually been happening for SOME observations all these years - we
have been talking unknowingly about what have been *transitory* trends
for occupations or activities - and getting into endless arguments
with skeptics and colleagues about them instead of doing research to
see how long the various trends hold up.

There's no question that impressive looking trends come and go, but
in astrological research we have a history of not even looking for
them. We have been mostly looking at static graphs that sometimes
don't even have a trend in them. Often we are only looking at a short-
term spike that raised the overall score for a particular factor.

If anyone had been seriously looking for trends they would have
noticed that the Mars Effect for Sportsmen didn't even exist after the
first 73 years of the data. It came and it completely fizzled out by
16th Feb 1890.

There was however a more reliable (but less-strong) trend that was
fairly constant throughout that 128 year period - it was that men
*wouldn't* become famous sportsmen if they had Mars in the 5th or 6th
Sectors.

> PS: in case you are interested in the current situation with Correlation you can hav e a look athttp://cura.free.fr, and >also my notes on the Forum under the coldbaby thread.

I haven't been able to get in to have a look yet.

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

> There's no question that impressive looking  trends come and go, but
> in astrological research we have a history of not even looking for
> them. We have been mostly looking at static graphs that sometimes
> don't even have a trend in them. Often we are only looking at a short-
> term spike that raised the overall score for a particular factor.
>
> If anyone had been seriously looking for trends they would have
> noticed that the Mars Effect for Sportsmen didn't even exist after the
> first 73 years of the data. It came and it completely fizzled out by
> 16th Feb 1890.

[Extra]

I've just now had a look at the Scientists data and noticed that
Saturn in Sectors 1 and 4 had fizzled out after 33 years (and 405
samples) by 15th May 1828 and then the trend built up and stayed for
the next 90 years to 1918, when the data finished.

Ray

[Graham Douglas]

Hi Ray,            I think you're on to something importrant here, likewise you might look at how it varies with geographic latitude. I think it'd be worth looking at this date effect in more detail, especially in relation to the various activity cycles of the sun.              Best wishes,                Graham.

--- On Sat, 13/6/09, Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

From: Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> Subject: Re: Mars Effect for TV personalities To: "Tropical Astrology Research" <tropical-astr...@googlegroups.com>

[Ray Murphy]

On Jun 15, 2:03 am, Graham Douglas <ondastropic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>            I think you're on to something importrant here, likewise you might look at how it varies with geographic latitude. I think it'd be worth looking at this date effect in more detail, especially in relation to the various activity cycles of the sun.
>              Best wishes,
>                Graham.

RM: Here's an example of the type of graphs I've been making to see if
reliable-looking trends exist in data.

This pair of graphs shows (with 2174 ADB data for a few centuries)
that SUN in AQU people have been consistently gravitating towards
tropical astrology more than the non-AQU average. It is currently
sitting at around 27% but was much higher a few decades ago.

This type of "progressive graph" (of all birth dates of the subjects
in sequential order) usually has some wild fluctuation at the
beginning because there is so little data being used, but in my
opinion this one leveled-out after a reasonable number of scores were
processed for AQU and non-AQU astrologers.

I think after we start to appreciate the value of this type of graph
for astrological research, we should collectively try to put a figure
on what is considered a reasonable amount of time (or data) for the
wild fluctuation to dissipate and for a trend to be considered worthy
of serious observation. Perhaps rules for that sort of thing already
exist in statistics?

http://tropical-astrology-research.googlegroups.com/web/AQU+and+non-AQU+astrologers.gif?hl=en&gda=Q_sI1FQAAAB_h6vVGsPk-j8dQ6aSG9ycpQLK5xJdAOZS_-qDj26vC2vV7dPfBYzMzPB59WoEWpvaS8wq4TEaD7jYSLM-pYp7Uwk_6Qi3BU8HCN0q6OYwM6JXPqrFQS5SIfKND7QsaYY&gsc=RtyY2gsAAAD-TNXWvNmh1P_2yk_zZV7Z

Ray

[Graham Douglas]

Hi Ray,             I think Geoffrey Dean can answer your question about statistics and trends, have you got his email address ?                Best wishes,                    Graham.

--- On Sun, 14/6/09, Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

From: Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> Subject: Re: Mars Effect for TV personalities To: "Tropical Astrology Research" <tropical-astr...@googlegroups.com>

[Ray Murphy]

On 15 June, 05:20, Graham Douglas <ondastropic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Ray,

>             I think Geoffrey Dean can answer your question about statistics and trends, have you got his email address ?
>                Best wishes,
>                    Graham.

RM: I was aware he could help with most things, but I've always had it
it mind not to contact him until after I'd found something compelling
and replicated it at least once at better than 0.001

Here is a progressive graph I made for the Gauquelin Sportsmens' data
for Mars in Sectors 1 and 4, when compared with the "non-Sector 1 and
4 average". In view of the credibility given to the Mars Effect data
for Sportsmen, I think this graph would make a good template for
assessing the value of others.

http://tropical-astrology-research.googlegroups.com/web/GAU+SPORTS+MARS+1+and+4.gif?hl=en-GB&gda=jVAuP1AAAAB_h6vVGsPk-j8dQ6aSG9ycBwm-YV67oIxXuLnN2ee3mo-4_Kc3IdAret7ewCI1-8mA1WwdtkS_a-T8DtbW7zSMH7gn6WsyoqjUw1ju0Hv54w&gsc=sj43awsAAADjOJuzUP2092TA_jP2OoR0

Ray

[Graham Douglas]

Hi Ray,            Thanks for the graphs but I can't see what is being plotted on the vertical scales in the 2 graphs.           As to the effect disappearing after 79 years, this may be just the oscillation before the data settles down as you suggested. You could try entering the data in reverse date order and see if the dip is still at the same date.            Cheers,

Graham. --- On Sun, 14/6/09, Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

From: Ray Murphy <raym...@tpg.com.au> Subject: Re: Mars Effect for TV personalities To: "Tropical Astrology Research" <tropical-astr...@googlegroups.com>

[Ray Murphy]

On Jun 16, 1:28 am, Graham Douglas <ondastropic...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Ray,

> Thanks for the graphs but I can't see what is being plotted on the
> vertical scales in the 2 graphs.
> As to the effect disappearing after 79 years, this may be just the
> oscillation before the data settles down as you suggested. You could try
> entering the data in reverse date order and see if the dip is still at the
> same date.
> Cheers,
> Graham.

RM: Yes, the graphs are a bit bare compared to the ones I've made
previously.
The blue line in the upper graph is always the accumulating score of
the
factor being studied.
The magenta line is always the accumulating average on the "non-
factor".

The reason for using the average of the non-factor is to make it easy
to see
the trend. If we were looking at the actual score of the non-factor,
the
contrast between the 2 progressive scores would be less visible
because
they would be so far apart.

In the bottom graph the blue line is the progressive percentage above
the
non-factor score at any given date. This is a slightly higher than the
percentage above the Expected score or the Average score, but the
basic 'message' is always the same.

> As to the effect disappearing after 79 years, this may be just the
> oscillation before the data settles down as you suggested. You could try
> entering the data in reverse date order and see if the dip is still at the
> same date.

RM: Well, the oscillation is usually there, because when we're looking
at tiny amounts of data at the beginning of a progressive graph, a few
extra
hits for the factor or the non-factor can be big in percentage terms,
so I
suppose for now we'd just have to look at the actual figures and
figure
out what looks reasonable. For now (after looking at lot of graphs)
I'd
say that 100 is a good number of samples for settling down to occur,
but
that is dependent on the ratio between the factor and non-factor.

For example, if we were looking at planets above/below the horizon, we
would expect a quick settling down, but if we were working with an
aspect that occupied 10 degs out of 360 it would take a lot longer.

I'll do as you suggested and reverse the order to see what it looks
like,
but I'm quite confident that the graphs are being plotted ok.

Just a short time ago I tried a few more methods to see if the
continuity
of trends could be detected more realistically, and noticed that if we
simply draw graphs for the progressive HITS as percentages of the
progressive Overall score, we can see if our trend is consistent or
not.

For example, if we expected to find 8.33% of astrologers with Sun in
Tropical Aquarius, and we found we were had accumulated scores of
10% in the years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 etc we would think we were
onto
something. I'll make some graphs and post them to show what it looks
like.

Ray