Skyscript Astrology Forum

Eddy, might I ask whether you do a lot of chart readings for people?

I do a fair number on two other Internet astrology forums, and sometimes things just pop out at me that make me feel there indeed is something to astrology. Oftentimes this work really involves blind chart readings. Or sometimes a person will describe herself in a certain way, and either you see it in the chart, or else you see something that throws her chart into perspective but coming from a different angle. Then I don't always have "hits" but I learn from my misses--as in Bill's point above about what Mars might really mean in a chart within a certain configuration.

I studied astrology for around 17 years before I really began reading charts for people, and it made just a huge difference to my understanding of it.

So, Mike--eek! Yes, sometimes you can see a difficult marriage in people's horoscopes. It is pretty basic synastry. Since I don't take any payment for chart readings, my ethical sense is in good shape. On an Internet forum, people should understand that they are apt to get what they pay for. I personally find death prediction to be unethical. On the other hand, since death certificates often include the manner, date, and time of death, it would be one way to test traditional astrology's death-clock predictions.

I am starting to think that open-ended interviews with experienced astrologers with a high success rate based on client (or "native") satisfaction is probably the way to begin a serious research project on astrology's truth claims. If we think astrology doesn't work, there is always the possibility that our skills weren't up to the task at hand. For one thing, a more quantitative study design should recognize that the "native" is a moving target, affected by transits and progressions (read, real life) that hit him after the birth moment. Oftentimes the natal chart tells only part of the person's story.

Hi Waybread,
In the 16 years I did astrology I didn't do a lot of chart reading. Just occasionally for friends and looking at charts of family members. In the beginning years I already had read about negative test results and psychological effects that convince people of the effectiveness of astrology. This made me reluctant to get actively involved in chart reading for others.

I have the feeling that very few people have read the articles in http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ to which I often have referred to. Not only statistical tests are discussed but also the psychological effects which convince people of the effectivity of astrology. Chart reading also works with the wrong chart so it's not the chart that gives the information but the client.

For one thing, a more quantitative study design should recognize that the "native" is a moving target, affected by transits and progressions (read, real life) that hit him after the birth moment.

Although I used to see this in a similar way, when one thinks deeply on these words, it appears that the native is nothing more than a passive object with now free will, subject to the cycles of the planets. Did anyone read Oakley Ray's article I mentioned or the study about Chinese astrology mentioned in the article? Quotes from the article:

Chinese-Americans, but not Whites, die significantly earlier than
normal (1.3 to 4.9 yr) if they have a combination of disease and
birthyear which Chinese astrology and medicine consider illfated.
The more strongly a group is attached to Chinese traditions,
the more years of life are lost. Our results hold for nearly all major
causes of death studied. (Phillips et al., 1993, p. 1142)

Believing that control is out of
one?s hands leads to bad health consequences.

Now I realise that this is what belief in astrology does to humans, I not only lose my belief in astrology but also my desire to believe in it. The more you study your transits, directions or whatever the more you will see in it and live up to it. What actually happens are psychological effects. If you google "clustering illusion" you will see that this applies to prediction techniques. Or the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy", this clearly is applicable to explain birth time correction.

Although I'm sure that you have the good ethics Waybread, astrology without payment doesn't necessarily means that it can't be harmful. There's a biblical saying: "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Matthew 15:14. I think astrologers should be required to have psychological training and learn counselling techniques. Dispite my waning belief I therefore believe that psychologists like Richard do good work with their astrology combined with psychology. Furthermore I believe that most astrologers have a clean conscience, however one should be careful that good intentions don't automatically imply that the results are good. This is especially the case with medical astrology. Medical advice based upon astrology for example can and must be tested otherwise false hope is given to the clients. Same is for all those war predictions and deaths of kings etc. The more I come to my senses after my first careful retreat from astrology, the more I realise that such issues are harmful to mankind.

Sometimes there are simple explanations. I remember a topic on an other forum a few years ago in which it was argued that if you have planets very high above or deep below the horizon in a horizon chart then you are a highly evolved soul. There were people with charts with not so high or deep planets. They were worried about these 'flat charts'. When I showed that these 'flat charts' are due to the facts that at higher latitudes on earth and when Sagittarius and Capricorn are in Midheaven, the ecliptic is low above the horizon. I gor reactions and even received pm's in which people told how worried they were of being unevolved because of their charts and now seeing that it's just because an astronomical feature. This is how common sense can be a very good thing. The original poster never posted again in his thread. When there was a solar eclipse someone predicted disaster for people with the Sun in the first decanate of the fixed signs. When I posted that this meant that 1 in 9 people would expect disaster the original poster pm'ed me several posts. It's unbelievable how furious and unreasonable some people can get when you demystify their crap. They're worse than Rumpelstiltskin. Fortunately most astrology people are reasonable.

My change of views probably will sound hard and displeasing to many and some may hate my guts for it but I nevertheless say it. It seems better to me to say it clearly than not saying it and making remarks here and there which might have a cynical undertone. I don't intend to torment people in the forum saying that everything they do is wrong, I wouldn't have the time and energy and I don't see what's the point of annoying people. If anyone has doubts about astrology or don't believes in it anymore I think it's better to speak openly about it rather than keeping it hidden and annoying people with their mistakes. Only when things occur like the examples I gave (flat charts etc.) or things that might harm people, I might feel urged to say that there might be another explanation.

Probably there's hardly anyone here who will agree with me and maintain that astrology works because of the good experiences. This discussion could go on and on, with me citing whole websites on psychological effects but I doubt if it will be of any use. I still believe an open debate is possible and necessary and I'm glad there's room for such discussion on this forum. Disbelief in astrology doesn't mean that there's no spirituality. Another reason why I decided to always be open about my doubts. The discussion that takes place actually can also be found in oneself in your inner doubts.

Like I said in my post before, I don't reject the use of (planetary) symbols to express ones feelings or situations. As in the 'creative astrology' without natal chars these could be of great help in therapies etc. Astrologers should experiment more with this.

waybread wrote: So, Mike--eek! Yes, sometimes you can see a difficult marriage in people's horoscopes. It is pretty basic synastry. Since I don't take any payment for chart readings, my ethical sense is in good shape. On an Internet forum, people should understand that they are apt to get what they pay for. I personally find death prediction to be unethical. On the other hand, since death certificates often include the manner, date, and time of death, it would be one way to test traditional astrology's death-clock predictions.

Were I to give you 10 sets of charts and ask you to tell me which marriage was difficult are you saying you would be confident of doing so ?

By difficult lets say both parties are deeply unhappy and want a divorce, or something like this. Further, on 3 of these 10 sets of charts the people are not married to each other. But you don't know which charts!

waybread wrote:but I think a traditional or horary astrologer would disagree

Do you dare to operationalize the rules of horary so that they can be tested statistically? I guess in horary astrology we also have "too many exceptions" and a lot of intuition going on...

Hi Eddy--While each of us needs to make up our own minds about astrology in general and re: its particular forms, I would just like to suggest some alternative perspectives. I should say that I am a sceptic about most things in life, astrology included. I frequently question it, but it is a hobby I am passionate about, so I am one of these people who would probably continue to do astrology even if I saw uncontrovertible proof that it was bogus.

I have that astrology-and-science site bookmarked!! I am especially impressed by the articles on that site by Geoffrey Dean, about research "artefacts" in astrology. I am also familiar with the "Barnum Effect", which is basically about the power of suggestion in getting people to believe that hoaxes are true. It also seems that people's emotional state has some effect on the timing of their deaths, such that if people believe they are going to die at a certain point, they are more likely to do so. There may be a medical explanation for this. Happy people live longer, because there are biochemical changes in the body when people are feeling either happy or stressed, and the happy ones are more conducive to health.

This is why I wouldn't get into death prediction, although it was a stock-in-trade of traditional astrology in the past.

But to postulate that astrology never works, is also an untested hypothesis. I am not saying you have done this, but this is really an extention of the astrology-basher's position. I prefer to keep an open mind, which I think is, in its ideal state (vs. less-ideal reality), more of the position of the scientist than the true-believer or the opponent of astrology.

I also disagree that astrology should be restricted to psychologists or people with counseling credentials. There's a lot of bad psychology and counseling out there, for one thing. Remember Sigmund Freud, who just couldn't believe that his patients who were incest survivors and neurotic on that account were actually telling the truth? Throughout the ages, there have been wise men and women with funds of common sense, dispensing kitchen-table advice. Also, I worked for over 30 years for large employers, and they had protocols about advice-giving in various contexts for employees who needed to give advice as part of their jobs.

It is hard to protect gullible people from themselves, and it is hard to do away with all scam-artists. I would rather see practicing astrologers get bona fide astrology credentials before they charge for their services.

Geoffrey Dean, in The Moment of Astrology, talks about "wrong" charts giving useful information with many examples; usually arguing that there was actually something radical (in the astro, not political sense!) about a chart not for the moment in question having something useful to say. But then, if "wrong" charts do give "right" information, then what is the argument here? That some sloppy astrologers are actually psychic?

I have never believed in a deterministic or fatalistic type of astrology!!! I don't know which astrologer said this, but I think it's correct: "The planets impel, but they do not compel." I believe in a choice-centered astrology, in which there are certain energies and probabilities afoot, but in which I also have choices to make about how I function within them.

Eddy, so far as I can make out, life is full of "blind men" leading one another about. This isn't a problem restricted to astrology. Political leaders? Members of the clergy? Health care professionals who make mistakes? Teachers? the justice system? I don't think astrology has to be held to a lower standard than other areas of knowledge, but I don't think it has to be held to a higher standard, either.

If I am going to worry about my planets above or below the horizon and being "unevolved", then I am also going to worry about going to hell because I am not Catholic (or fill in the blank with another faith), getting abducted by UFOs, or getting run over by a bus. An astrologer can also give people good advice and indicate the positives in their horoscopes.

Eddy, I will say that I always enjoy your posts--they are so informed, thoughtful, and non-confrontational.

Eddy wrote:

If astrology is immaterial, why relate it to physical things that obey the law of physics?

Ever heard of analogy? It's manifold, "multi-potential"; this principle of connectedness doesn't mean a strict, linear tie between the Above and the Below.

Wouldn't soul matters be better of without the mathematical/phyisics part of astrology, ephemerides etc.

The fact that astrology has an astronomical basis (its system of reference) doesn't imply any kind of causality or materialism ("rays from the stars", etc.). Essentially it's not a natural science. It's more close to the arts, to literature, poetry (to the humanities), to religion, to philosophy - and can disclose similar (not measurable, metrical, though valid and effective) truths.

However there must be some basis otherwise nobody can tell if there's a difference between Venus and Saturn.

The common ground of the different concrete manifestations is the archetypal (abstract) image, i.e. the planetary symbol and its connotations. Venus and Saturn both are connected to the skin; yet, there is a big difference between shutting yourself off from others and opening yourself to someone.

Can astrology tell the sense of life and happiness?

It can help a lot - because it's dealing with their source, the psyche.

If yes, can an astrologer distinguish the happy person from a series of anonymous charts.

Astrology is a teleological system or philosophy. It can show to every individual the necessary and best way to reach their goal (Self).

The degree of happiness has been researched. Good health, enough to eat, a place to live in, friends increases the sense of happines..

Do you need everything quantified? (That's boring.)

Edit: An article of mine just published:
"The subjective and projective character of astrology" -
http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/ ... /11-01.pdf

Hi Mike N--

If an astrologer got 10 pairs of charts in a totally "blind fashion", s/he couldn't distinguish married couples or long-term partners from randomly matched charts. You can't tell whether two people's paths crossed in life from their horoscopes. You could make some intelligent guesses from their birth locations and ages, but no more than that.

I think Carl Jung claimed to be able to correctly match charts from amongst his clients, but I doubt that he had the birth times and I don't think his results were duplicated.

The modern astrology techniques of assessing compatibility for couples that I know about are: (a) doing a decent reading of the individual charts to see what the people are like as marriage/partner material; (2) synastry, where you compare inter-aspects between charts; and (3) composite charts. (I prefer mid-point composites, but there are other types.)

So if these techniques work, then a knowledgeable astrologer should be able to distinguish happily and unhappily married couples.

However, you would need some kind of standardized procedure to get the couples to evaluate their marriages in the same way, and the astrologer would have to know what was the interview procedure or questionnaire used, so that s/he works with the same criteria as the couples.

You would have to decide if you are willing to work with a sliding "happiness scale" or you only want to work with couples who seem more entirely black-or-white happy or miserable. Once in a while, too, you could get a marriage where one spouse thinks everything is fine, but the other spouse is secretly nursing bitterness. A good astrologer should be able to pick up on the specific types of internal problems a couple is likely to face, but these wrinkles indicate why you would need to be nuanced about such research.

waybread wrote:Hi Mike N--

If an astrologer got 10 pairs of charts in a totally "blind fashion", s/he couldn't distinguish married couples or long-term partners from randomly matched charts. You can't tell whether two people's paths crossed in life from their horoscopes. You could make some intelligent guesses from their birth locations and ages, but no more than that.

I think Carl Jung claimed to be able to correctly match charts from amongst his clients, but I doubt that he had the birth times and I don't think his results were duplicated.

The modern astrology techniques of assessing compatibility for couples that I know about are: (a) doing a decent reading of the individual charts to see what the people are like as marriage/partner material; (2) synastry, where you compare inter-aspects between charts; and (3) composite charts. (I prefer mid-point composites, but there are other types.)

So if these techniques work, then a knowledgeable astrologer should be able to distinguish happily and unhappily married couples.

However, you would need some kind of standardized procedure to get the couples to evaluate their marriages in the same way, and the astrologer would have to know what was the interview procedure or questionnaire used, so that s/he works with the same criteria as the couples.

You would have to decide if you are willing to work with a sliding "happiness scale" or you only want to work with couples who seem more entirely black-or-white happy or miserable. Once in a while, too, you could get a marriage where one spouse thinks everything is fine, but the other spouse is secretly nursing bitterness. A good astrologer should be able to pick up on the specific types of internal problems a couple is likely to face, but these wrinkles indicate why you would need to be nuanced about such research.

The scenario I presented you with would be quite a standard challenge set an astrologer who made a claim of this type. I informed you 7 of the 10 couples were married. You are now informing me, I think, that you could not tell which of the 7 pairs from the 10 were married / romantic couples, and which 1 of these 7 were unhappy?

Are you not as such going back on your claim that you can tell if a couple are compatible from the 2 blind charts?

Further I also stated 1 of these couples were very unhappy, to the point they were seeking a divorce. To be fair to the astrologer the other 6 couples would need to be quite content in the marriage, and this would all require rigorous Psychological Assessment beforehand. Just because one couple are getting divored does not mean they are less happy than those who stay married but it is often a more objective way of assessing the quality of a relationship. In any event there woud need to be a marked difference between the 1 and the 6. Also to be fair to the astrologer the 3 non married couples ought not to be randomly sampled in case they had more of the classical compatability arrangements along the lines Jung sought to assess. He used Ptolemy's 3 sun/moon/asc claims I seem to recall. All of this background as you suggest could be shared with the astrologers, no reason not to.

You did say 'sometimes' you felt an astrologer could. But surely if they can do this sometimes then this would need to be better than chance?. So if an astrologer was given 20 sets of 10 charts with this arrangement are you still maintaining they would, or should, do better than chance?

Jung's study was replicated a few times, even by him. I could be wrong but my recollection was the stats were mixed from the various attempts. My feeling was his particular series of experiments did provide some lukewarm support for astrology. Jung, as you might know, felt an experiment of this type would not be able to provide support in a scientific sense for astrology after his deliberations on the curious outcomes.

Do you have these ?
http://www.astrology-research.net/rgcsa ... 1=1&ID=116

http://www.astrology-research.net/rgcsa ... r1=1&ID=46

Mike, I think this is an "apples and oranges" discussion. I simply gave your hypothetical the kind of clarity that made sense to me.

I understood you to posit that 3 sets of paired charts out of the sample of 10 would not be for married couples. As I assume common law or partner relationships are be similar to marriage, I assumed you meant that these people would be paired randomly. Or did you think that the 3 pairs might have some other relationship? Of course you could get two highly compatible people who had never met one another, so my point was that a guessing game about who is married and who is not is unlikely to be worthwhile.

Did I misunderstand you here?

By "blind charts", one would first need confirmation that the couple were married, not the guessing game as to whether or not they had even met.

Once you know that two people are married, then following the procedures I outlined above should tell you whether or not they are compatible--subject to the caveats I mentioned above. As someone who has been married (2x) for about 34 years and been through marriage counseling, I don't think it helps to over-simplify whether people are totally "happy" or "unhappy" in their marriages--life is not so simple, and neither is the horoscope. Oftentimes, one or both spouses in a divorce proceeding would have been willing to stay in the marriage had the other person agreed to change specific behaviours--or simply to issue genuine apologies. Oftentimes one or both parties to a divorce still love each other.

But yes, following the procedures I outlined above should indicate basic compatibility, as well as specific points of conflict.

I qualify statements about astrology because there are so many mitigating or confounding factors in real life that astrology does not address. A horoscope in a blind reading doesn't tell you whether people are born rich or poor, members of a majority or minority ethnic or religious group, or even male or female without supplementary information; yet we know that such things have a big impact on people's lives. Also, I do not take a fatalistic or deterministic view of marriage or anything else. To me it is only common sense not to claim more for astrology than it can deliver, even in the hands of an expert.

I've done a lot of synastry, and find Jung's simple match-up to be too simplistic, but hey--if you think it works, then what are we discussing, actually?

I've not seen the references--thanks for them.

waybread wrote:Mike, I think this is an "apples and oranges" discussion. I simply gave your hypothetical the kind of clarity that made sense to me.

I understood you to posit that 3 sets of paired charts out of the sample of 10 would not be for married couples. As I assume common law or partner relationships are be similar to marriage, I assumed you meant that these people would be paired randomly. Or did you think that the 3 pairs might have some other relationship? Of course you could get two highly compatible people who had never met one another, so my point was that a guessing game about who is married and who is not is unlikely to be worthwhile.

Did I misunderstand you here?

By "blind charts", one would first need confirmation that the couple were married, not the guessing game as to whether or not they had even met.

Once you know that two people are married, then following the procedures I outlined above should tell you whether or not they are compatible--subject to the caveats I mentioned above. As someone who has been married (2x) for about 34 years and been through marriage counselling, I don't think it helps to over-simplify whether people are totally "happy" or "unhappy" in their marriages--life is not so simple, and neither is the horoscope. Oftentimes, one or both spouses in a divorce proceeding would have been willing to stay in the marriage had the other person agreed to change specific behaviours--or simply to issue genuine apologies. Oftentimes one or both parties to a divorce still love each other.

But yes, following the procedures I outlined above should indicate basic compatibility, as well as specific points of conflict.

I qualify statements about astrology because there are so many mitigating or confounding factors in real life that astrology does not address. A horoscope in a blind reading doesn't tell you whether people are born rich or poor, members of a majority or minority ethnic or religious group, or even male or female without supplementary information; yet we know that such things have a big impact on people's lives. Also, I do not take a fatalistic or deterministic view of marriage or anything else. To me it is only common sense not to claim more for astrology than it can deliver, even in the hands of an expert.

I've done a lot of synastry, and find Jung's simple match-up to be too simplistic, but hey--if you think it works, then what are we discussing, actually?

I've not seen the references--thanks for them.

I could have been clearer. Having been in this experimental world on and off for so many years I may assume certain things are just taken for granted in these types of discussions. Such as the need to clearly identify which couple was unhappier, and why.

With the 3 randomly sampled couples they would simply need to be of similar age and to have been born near enough to one another creating the stronger possibility that they could be married.

The discussion started after me pointing out to Eddy if an astrologer responded to a client saying the marriage was difficult by saying this is clear from the chart then this type of astrology was not only poor but hopefully very uncommon.

You came in and said you felt if the couple?s charts were in front of the astrologer, not with the couple, s/he could say if the marriage was 'difficult'. You described this as basic synastry.

This led to my question out of 10 charts could an astrologer identify the marriage that was in trouble. In reality the astrologer would need to avoid picking 1 of the 6 happily married ones as if they selected from the 3 random couples they could argue the toss about their astral incompatibilities more effectively.

I don?t think an astrologer could do this and am pretty sure to date they haven?t demonstrated, in controlled conditions, a capacity to do so. (Not that most or even the majority would claim they could). I think you are being quite clear here in suggesting an astrologer, who you feel has these skills, would avoid picking one of these 6 happily married couples more often than a sceptic would anticipate.

As to Jung you are misrepresenting his study here. Jung may have been the most sophisticated synastry astrologer of the 20th century for all I know. However in this study he was simply interested in whether this idea of Ptolemy?s? was supported by various samples of married couples.

Mike N wrote:... if an astrologer responded to a client saying the marriage was difficult by saying this is clear from the chart then this type of astrology was not only poor but hopefully very uncommon.

Hi Mike N,

You ... don't read these forums very often, do you?

Hi Mike--we seem to have crossed some wires here.

I would not venture to say out of 10 "mystery couples" in blind chart readings which 3 couples were not married and were randomly paired. Was this some kind of red herring you tossed my way?

As I said earlier, you could have 2 people who would be highly compatible if they met, but they didn't. Even being the same age and being born in the same place is no guarantee that these two people would find each other. As I like to joke, "Hey, I'm an astrologer, not a mind-reader."

But once you controlled for a bunch of this-and-that, as per my suggestions a couple of posts ago, basic astrological techniques should allow an experienced astrologer (another control here!) to say something about a married couple's compatibility and incompatibility.

I believe in India, where some marriages are still arranged between strangers on the basis of astrology, it would be really interesting to follow up and see how things worked out!

Mike, I don't see a problem with an astrologer saying that a marriage looks difficult. As you are probably aware, there are professional astrology associations that publish codes of ethics. I looked through these once and didn't find any that prohibited their members from discussing marital difficulties with their clients. The goal of a well-intended astrologer would be to help couples in difficulties.

I don't know how many charts you read re: marriage questions, either as a pro, or as an amateur like myself on Internet astrology forums. Most times, you find women in a serious (or would-be serious) relationship with someone, wondering if it looks solid enough for marriage; or a wife who is upset about her marriage. The latter type already knows her marriage is in trouble. These women are asking for honest advice, and most of them handle it very well so long as the advice is thoughtful and well-intended.

Mike, at this point, all I can do is point you to the synastry books published by senior astrologers who have counseled thousands of clients and received feedback from many of them. One example would be Robert Hand, Planets in Composite. These go well beyond Jung's study. If you are familiar with them, we might continue the discussion on that level.

If your underlying belief is that astrology as a whole is bogus, well, I entertain that possibility and that's why I have argued above for more carefully crafted and comprehensive statistical studies.