Hi all,

here is my new statistical study about Egyptian bounds. I've used 10 quite big samples for comparing six different sidereal ayanamsas with each others and with the tropical zodiac. One ayanamsa rose up among the others and it was Fagan/Bradley.
http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm

Hi Sari:-)

I was reading your study and I didn?t get a statement, so if you can please explain it again, I?d appreciate it:
"we can check out if our sample size is big enough to justify the effect size we have got with the formula 10 / (effect size x effect size) = required sample size. We can use the formula in a reversed way to look how close to that required level of 10 we get by multiplying the effect size by itself and multiplying the result with the sample size. The resulted value I call "effect power.?

In the first formula I don?t know if it?s suggested that 10 is equal the result of the multiplication of two effect sizes, and in this case, which is the effect size number one and number two? The one I imagine is the result you get in the experimental group. And the second factor, what is it? I need to understand what you meant in order to follow your reasoning!

best wishes

Clelia

Hi Sari:

Following the text I founded out an explanation of what I was asking you:lol:

you wrote for the first group of politicians:
For calculating the effect power ? the value marked in the diagram after the headline ? we take the effect size which is -0.8061 % = 0,008061, multiply that with itself and multiply the result with the sample size which is 7 x 1102 = 7714. We get a rounded value of 0.50 and that is our effect power for the Galactic Center ayanamsa with 1102 politicians. It is statistically not very meaningful a result as such.

How much we are expect to obtain to consider the difference valid? If we are talking of the same thing I imagine a differente of 1.8 is big enough, isnt?it?
Anyway: have you measured in the same way all the other groups as well?

I read your article, and I liked it very much!

Clelia

Hi Clelia!

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

Clelia Romano wrote:How much we are expect to obtain to consider the difference valid? If we are talking of the same thing I imagine a differente of 1.8 is big enough, isnt?it?

Yes, it is quite a good result. In Geoffrey Dean's opinion, only 10 or more will do of course! . But in my studies, if I get something like 2 or 3, I consider it quite a good result. <1 means generally nothing alone.

But the problem is that these values are not fully comparable because we usually get bigger effect sizes (and therefore bigger effect power) when we have lesser options, or a smaller degree of freedom as the statistically correct term goes. For example in the Criminal perpetrators study we were studying planets in angular-succedent-cadent houses, so there was only three possibilities, and when there's a real astrological effect, the effect sizes are easily bigger than in a ?planets in 12 houses? type of study for example.

I looked at your study too, congratulations for that! I second Philip?s opinion that the sample size was too small. Especially when you study the more rare rising signs like Aries, a small deviation in the test group turns easily into a prominent looking percent.

The main problem in how ADB calculates the percents is that it doesn?t take into consideration the sample size at all. If we had a group of 500 something, say dentists, and 250 of them happened to have, say Mars in the 1st house (this is a totally fictional example!), when the expected value would have been 500/12=41,7, that would really be very remarkable and ADB would tell us that the difference is 250/41,7=599%. But if we had instead a group of five dentists and the expected value of having Mars in a certain decanate would be 5/36=0,14, and then one of them would indeed have Mars in that very decanate (which could happen just by accident), ADB would give us an even more impressive percent of 1/0,14=714%. We must have more sophisticated tools for evaluating the real value of a study.

Clelia Romano wrote:Anyway: have you measured in the same way all the other groups as well?

Yes I have. I like this measure because it allows you to add values together. In the last few days I?ve made a similar study with the same 10 samples about 11 different house systems. Guess which house system gave generally the biggest deviations to the random data? Regiomontanus! Maybe Lilly really was onto something when he changed Alcabitius into Regiomontanus!

In that study Regiomonanus beat (in the following order) Campanus, Equal houses, Sripati (Hindu Bhava), Porphyry, Alcabitius, Placidus, sidereal whole signs, Koch, Meridian houses and tropical whole sign houses. Tropical whole signs gave the weakest results meaning their planetary positions differed generally least from the random data groups.

Best, Sari

Hi Sari!

Thanks for your answer!

you said:

" I looked at your study too, congratulations for that! I second Philip?s opinion that the sample size was too small. Especially when you study the more rare rising signs like Aries, a small deviation in the test group turns easily into a prominent looking percent

."

I agree with that. As I?m not a statician and I?m working with ADB, not having more sophisticated softwares( did you use another one as well?), I took only the real bigger results to take into consideration.

Guess which house system gave generally the biggest deviations to the random data? Regiomontanus! Maybe Lilly really was onto something when he changed Alcabitius into Regiomontanus!

This means that you found out that regiomontanus is a best division of houses? Interesting! I?m looking forward to read about that!

By the way, I would like to ask you a question. Maybe I missed something, anyway it?s puzzling me.

In your present study I would like to understand wich procedure have you adopted.
Let?s see if I can explain it well: Since bound is a qualitative characteristic of the planet, it?s supposed that having the planet in the bounds of another one, means something for the several groups, determining some kind of behavior.
In your former study you concluded that Mars appeared in angles more often in the experimental group and we know that Mars is linked with aggressive behavior. So, angularity( a quantitative strengh) as well as delineation( qualitative result) jumped out in front of our eyes.

In the present study I didn?t get exactly how did you get the proves, how did you reached that conclusions.
If I would run that research ( it?s a supposition ) I would compare, for example, the first bound of Aries with the ASC degree for politicians, and control group. The first bound of Aries is Mars?s bound so I would figure out if it appears significantly more in the experimental group. But at that moment I was still using a house system, the tropical, for example.
It would have been necessary to run the study for all the other ayanamsa and ?a priori? to be aware and have in mind that Mars?bound is really significant to politicians. Only then I would be able to compare one and another ayanamsa and see which one is ?better? than another.

When I fist read your article I take for granted that you did something like that, but as you never explained it explicitly, I?d like to check with you what kind of steps did you follow to reach your conclusions.

That is a doubt I have about the study and I hope you don?t mind to clarify it

Thank you in advance

Clelia

Hi Sari!

Only to correct a mistake, where I wrote:

I would compare, for example, the first bound of Aries with the ASC degree for politicians

I meant the fourth bound, the first bound pertains to Jupiter. That didn?t interfered in my reasoning, but I?m correcting only in behalf of the truth:-)
Clelia

Hi Clelia!

Clelia Romano wrote:This means that you found out that regiomontanus is a best division of houses? Interesting! I?m looking forward to read about that!

I would say so. Of course it?s up to the reader to decide if the method is convincing enough.

Clelia Romano wrote:In the present study I didn?t get exactly how did you get the proves, how did you reached that conclusions.
If I would run that research ( it?s a supposition ) I would compare, for example, the first bound of Aries with the ASC degree for politicians, and control group. The first bound of Aries is Mars?s bound so I would figure out if it appears significantly more in the experimental group. But at that moment I was still using a house system, the tropical, for example.
It would have been necessary to run the study for all the other ayanamsa and ?a priori? to be aware and have in mind that Mars?bound is really significant to politicians. Only then I would be able to compare one and another ayanamsa and see which one is ?better? than another.

My approach would be the other way out in that sense that I think it?s best not to have any presuppositions about how the symbolism should behave. I think we should first find the best working zodiac, ayanamsa, house system, etc. and then we could start to study how the symbolism actually manifests. The zodiac issue is a big one in this regard: with bounds the two zodiacs give completely different results. We cannot apply the results we have got with one zodiac straight on the other.

Also I thought that it would be best to try to study as pure concepts as possible. If I had studied the Asc degree in the bound of Aries ruled by Mars, I would have at least three factors already: the Ascendant, Aries and Mars. It might be difficult to know which of those factors actually manifests in the study. I could end up with wrong conclusions, especially if I had a previous idea about what kind of results I should got. Also the plus side of using seven planets is that the sample sizes grow quite big, and that increases the valitidy of the results.

Traditionally Mars is the planet of violence and unsocial behavior; ?ruin, drought, fires, rebellion, bloodshed, killing, war, fighting, blows . . . and in general everything that is not right as it should be? like Ibn Ezra writes in The Beginning of Wisdom. You could be politically successful with those traits maybe in the times of Attila the Hun, but not in today?s democracies! So I would not automatically connect Mars with politics.

Sidereally the bounds ruled by Venus were emphasized in the charts of politicians, and what's interesting is that yesterday I started a study about angularity and cadency with different samples using Regiomontanus, and there was a slight emphasis with angular Venus in politicians's charts as well! That could tentatively point to Venus having a connection with (today's) politics. Think about all that smiling and shaking hands...

The background of the bounds study was a qualitative study that I made last summer about sidereal bounds. I collected charts using ADB that had a big general emphasis on the bounds ruled by a certain planet, and I found out that the different bounds groups clearly showed similar traits and similar themes in life. It?s like when you see a chart with a lot of planets in one sign or one house, you probably cannot ignore that. I would think it?s the same with bounds or with anything ? if a chart has unusually lot of something, we might think that the owner of the chart is quite a pure manifestation of that something. Maybe that idea was the basis of the study.

Best, Sari

PS. There was an error in calculations in the bounds study regarding the Galactic Center ayanamsa. I've fixed it now and it didn't affect the final results. The fixed diagrams are slightly of a different colour.

Hi Sari!

My approach would be the other way out in that sense that I think it?s best not to have any presuppositions about how the symbolism should behave. I think we should first find the best working zodiac, ayanamsa, house system, etc. a

You have a point. But it?s also interesting to ckeck if some statements as for example the usual idea that Pisces is a sign with a tendency to the art, and see if it shows up in our study as an astrosignature.
But departing of zero is a good idea as well.
I?m studying a group of prodigy children and I found out that the fifth house had a real big importance. I couldn?t imagine anything like that! That study supports your assumption that it?s interesting to depart from zero and to observe the data.

Traditionally Mars is the planet of violence and unsocial behavior; ?ruin, drought, fires, rebellion, bloodshed, killing, war, fighting, blows . . . and in general everything that is not right as it should be? like Ibn Ezra writes in The Beginning of Wisdom. You could be politically successful with those traits maybe in the times of Attila the Hun, but not in today?s democracies! So I would not automatically connect Mars with politics

.

I was using Mars and politicians hypothetically, but anyway I think that Mars is important for a politic career because politicians are civilized warriors, and a kind of wolves in sheep?s clothing

Sidereally the bounds ruled by Venus were emphasized in the charts of politicians,

That was my question, how did you get that result!

and what's interesting is that yesterday I started a study about angularity and cadency with different samples using Regiomontanus, and there was a slight emphasis with angular Venus in politicians's charts as well! That could tentatively point to Venus having a connection with (today's) politics. Think about all that smiling and shaking hands...

I know what you means! The "sheeps clothing"!

The background of the bounds study was a qualitative study that I made last summer about sidereal bounds. I collected charts using ADB that had a big general emphasis on the bounds ruled by a certain planet, and I found out that the different bounds groups clearly showed similar traits and similar themes in life

.

Have you been working with another software? I?m asking because I?m not able to collect some charts from ADB and work only with them, discarding the others presented by the software in determined category. May be Jig Saw?I would like very much to select the data to work with!

It?s like when you see a chart with a lot of planets in one sign or one house, you probably cannot ignore that. I would think it?s the same with bounds or with anything ? if a chart has unusually lot of something, we might think that the owner of the chart is quite a pure manifestation of that something. Maybe that idea was the basis of the study.

Agreed! And congratulations for the good job!

best

Clelia[/quote]

Hi Clelia!

Clelia Romano wrote:I?m studying a group of prodigy children and I found out that the fifth house had a real big importance. I couldn?t imagine anything like that! That study supports your assumption that it?s interesting to depart from zero and to observe the data.

That?s interesting, especially because in Vedic astrology a lot of astrologers see the 5th house as the house of education and intelligence (there?s actually some controversy whether the 4th or the 5th pertains to education, but they are using Whole sign houses, so it?s a bit different world anyway). But your finding would support that idea! The Vedic house meanings are quite interesting in that they have many things in common with the Hellenistic house meanings. The tradition has been preserved there in that regard.

Clelia Romano wrote:I was using Mars and politicians hypothetically, but anyway I think that Mars is important for a politic career because politicians are civilized warriors, and a kind of wolves in sheep?s clothing

On the other hand, that?s right. And in one study Mars was clearly angular with ambitious people's charts; there were 134 ambitious people, of whom 57=42,5 % had an angular Mars compared to the expected 45=33,6 % charts. On the other hand, angular Uranus would seem to correlate with ambition even more with 60=44,8 % of those people having an angular Uranus. You have to be ambitious to be a politician.

Clelia Romano wrote:Have you been working with another software? I?m asking because I?m not able to collect some charts from ADB and work only with them, discarding the others presented by the software in determined category. May be Jig Saw?I would like very much to select the data to work with!

Yes, I?ve exported data from ADB to Jigsaw - what a wonderful program! ADB and Jigsaw make an almost perfect tandem. Add Excel there and voil?! You can do almost anything. But I don?t know either how to select data in the way you?re talking about. The only way that comes to my mind is to edit the records you want and add an extra attribute there, like Attributes -> Categories -> Add -> then something, for example Personal -> Misc. -> Unusual Categories and then add something descriptive to the Category Notes. In other words, you have to create a category of your own and then filter records with that. In that way you get out only the records you want.

Hi Sari!

That?s interesting, especially because in Vedic astrology a lot of astrologers see the 5th house as the house of education and intelligence (there?s actually some controversy whether the 4th or the 5th pertains to education, but they are using Whole sign houses, so it?s a bit different world anyway). But your finding would support that idea!

I study with a group interested in Valens?s Anthology and one of the group members is very keen of vedic astrology, and he told that the 5th house has to do with intelligence! But they use the sidereal system and I used the tropical one in the study, so this can bring some difference, even if not always.
I?ll try to write down this study, but my way of seeing is that the 5th represents the funny things and maybe the prodigy children learn with pleasure, or just the opposite, to learn is a funny thing fot them .

Clelia Romano wrote:I was using Mars and politicians hypothetically, but anyway I think that Mars is important for a politic career because politicians are civilized warriors, and a kind of wolves in sheep?s clothing

On the other hand, that?s right. And in one study Mars was clearly angular with ambitious people's charts; there were 134 ambitious people, of whom 57=42,5 % had an angular Mars compared to the expected 45=33,6 % charts. On the other hand, angular Uranus would seem to correlate with ambition even more with 60=44,8 % of those people having an angular Uranus. You have to be ambitious to be a politician

.

Uranus? How did you explain Uranus angular in ambitious people charts?
In modern astrology Uranus is seen as ruptures, unconventional behavior...that is difficult to explain! Do you have some hyphotesis?

Clelia Romano wrote:Have you been working with another software? I?m asking because I?m not able to collect some charts from ADB and work only with them, discarding the others presented by the software in determined category. May be Jig Saw?I would like very much to select the data to work with!

Yes, I?ve exported data from ADB to Jigsaw - what a wonderful program! ADB and Jigsaw make an almost perfect tandem. Add Excel there and voil?! You can do almost anything.

God, I?m still learning the ADB! Congratulations! Well now I know I?ll have some expenses in the next future!

But I don?t know either how to select data in the way you?re talking about.

For example reading the biographies and selecting some aspect of life to work with. The problem is that the group will turn very smaller...and the statistic will be valid only if the event shows up in 100% of the charts.

best

Clelia

Hi Clelia!

Clelia Romano wrote:Uranus? How did you explain Uranus angular in ambitious people charts?
In modern astrology Uranus is seen as ruptures, unconventional behavior...that is difficult to explain! Do you have some hyphotesis?

No, I don't . Only that it might point to some... sharp quality or something like that. I checked out the house positions and the emphasis was especially on the 7th and the 10th houses, but there was a peak in the 1st and 4th as well. It makes a funny figure, a big cross.

But we can be comfortable with that an angular Uranus was quite strongly featured in eccentric's charts as well...

We've made a new, more readable and printable layout for the Egyptian bounds study, and corrected a few errors in calculations that had a minor impact to the end result. I'm really happy for all the positive attention these studies have got on this forum.

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Egyptian_Bounds.htm