Sun partners
4 views
Skip to first unread message
xl...@sympatico.ca
Aug 15, 2008, 9:28:52 PM8/15/08
to Tropical Astrology Research
Hi Ray!
Deeply sorry to have been neglecting your group. I guess we don't yet
have the critical mass that keeps things going.
Could you explain the SUN PARTNERS.gif file you last posted? I presume
it's something like male columns vs female rows, but I can't quite
believe what I think I'm seeing.
Axel
Deeply sorry to have been neglecting your group. I guess we don't yet
have the critical mass that keeps things going.
Could you explain the SUN PARTNERS.gif file you last posted? I presume
it's something like male columns vs female rows, but I can't quite
believe what I think I'm seeing.
Axel
Ray Murphy
Aug 15, 2008, 10:20:04 PM8/15/08
to Tropical Astrology Research
On Aug 16, 10:28 am, "x...@sympatico.ca" <x...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi Ray!
> Could you explain the SUN PARTNERS.gif file you last posted? I presume
> it's something like male columns vs female rows, but I can't quite
> believe what I think I'm seeing.
Yes, that's what it is. It was something I did about 2 years ago with
about 7,000 married people. I cannot recall all the details at the
moment, but I think I normalized the scores to show the relative
strength of each.
After doing it I decided not to pursue it further until I had devised
a much quicker way of gathering and processing couples' data. I've
since done that, but due to a general lack of interest in the topic I
haven't followed up on it.
I was also a bit slow to do anything more after reading that G. Sachs
had found a similar result in a huge study years earlier and that the
general consensus amongst the prominent skeptics was that it was
caused by people erroneously writing down their partners' birth dates
as their own on their marriage applications (or something like that).
My data came from an entirely different source - from genealogy files
covering 3 centuries I think, so the same sort of 'error' should not
have occurred.
Rudolph Smit's website has an article on Sachs' work (and book), but
parts of it are extremely biased and unfair, although there was some
valid criticism. I don't have time at the moment to look it up. One of
the criticisms was that the percentage of variation was too small, but
that seems to be quite normal when we use an immense amount of data.
Ray
> Hi Ray!
> Could you explain the SUN PARTNERS.gif file you last posted? I presume
> it's something like male columns vs female rows, but I can't quite
> believe what I think I'm seeing.
about 7,000 married people. I cannot recall all the details at the
moment, but I think I normalized the scores to show the relative
strength of each.
After doing it I decided not to pursue it further until I had devised
a much quicker way of gathering and processing couples' data. I've
since done that, but due to a general lack of interest in the topic I
haven't followed up on it.
I was also a bit slow to do anything more after reading that G. Sachs
had found a similar result in a huge study years earlier and that the
general consensus amongst the prominent skeptics was that it was
caused by people erroneously writing down their partners' birth dates
as their own on their marriage applications (or something like that).
My data came from an entirely different source - from genealogy files
covering 3 centuries I think, so the same sort of 'error' should not
have occurred.
Rudolph Smit's website has an article on Sachs' work (and book), but
parts of it are extremely biased and unfair, although there was some
valid criticism. I don't have time at the moment to look it up. One of
the criticisms was that the percentage of variation was too small, but
that seems to be quite normal when we use an immense amount of data.
Ray
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages