Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi all,

I published the following article on the Philosophy and Science forum, but it might be relevant also here.

I made a study comparing the tropical and sidereal Ascendant rulers and the results spoke for a sidereal zodiac, to be more accurate, for the sidereal Lahiri zodiac. The idea of the study was to find out the most frequent Ascendant ruler in a large amount of different groups or samples, and look whether groups gathering under a certain planet show any common themes that would reflect the symbolism of the planet in question. The tropical zodiac gave mixed bags of samples without any clear themes, while the sidereal zodiac gave quite clearly profiled sample collections. The statistical effects are also all the way bigger on the sidereal zodiac.

The PDF of the article can be downloaded in the following link:
http://sdrv.ms/1bUPxgP .
The link and the article can be distributed freely. For those who know my civil name, I would wish the article to remain under my alias ?Papretis?.

Enjoy!

Papretis, the security protection on my computer won't allow a download from that site. The text of your article doesn't come up on the screen. Could you possibly send the article as an e-mail attachment?

Recently my computer was in for repair, and the tech gentlemen added more security to the machine. I'm sending you my preferred email address in a PM.

Therese

Papretis, thank you for sending the PDF file. I am reading your very nicely laid out study, but am not qualified to judge the statistical work. I hope that someone familiar with statistics will reply here. As I understand the study, although you say you are testing ascendant lords, you are actually totalling the ascendant signs in each group. Please correct me if I am not understanding the study correctly.

Eventually I would like to see each professional group tested individually for the various ways a planet can be said to be "prominent" in the birth chart.

Thank you for posting your study, Papretis.

Therese

Papretis wrote:Hi all,

I published the following article on the Philosophy and Science forum, but it might be relevant also here.

I made a study comparing the tropical and sidereal Ascendant rulers and the results spoke for a sidereal zodiac, to be more accurate, for the sidereal Lahiri zodiac. The idea of the study was to find out the most frequent Ascendant ruler in a large amount of different groups or samples, and look whether groups gathering under a certain planet show any common themes that would reflect the symbolism of the planet in question. The tropical zodiac gave mixed bags of samples without any clear themes, while the sidereal zodiac gave quite clearly profiled sample collections. The statistical effects are also all the way bigger on the sidereal zodiac.

The PDF of the article can be downloaded in the following link:
http://sdrv.ms/1bUPxgP .
The link and the article can be distributed freely. For those who know my civil name, I would wish the article to remain under my alias ?Papretis?.

Enjoy!

I am very confused.
you have to explain the p-value to me.

PD

Papretis, anyone who knows me knows that I would be pleased with any study that gives an edge to the sidereal zodiac. However, I'd like to add a few notes of caution to your conclusions.

(1) The Lahiri ayanamsa is so close to the Krishnamurti ayanamsa that it's premature to rate one over the other on the basis of a single study.

(2) It's also premature to provide "distinctive planetary profiles" for each zodiacal sign based on rulership. We know that planets have many different forms of expression, and if a hundred people who have Aries rising were analyzed as to their psychology, each person would be different, or at least there would be a number of different personality profiles. I would suggest that a useful approach might be to study a single planet on the ascendant or M.C. or zenith point (nonagesimal). Are there differences in the expression of Mars in each zodiacal sign, for example?

(3) One study can only suggest further studies that might validate the results of the first study. Science never accepts concrete and unquestionable results on the basis of a single study. Replication with new data is always needed to support previous results. One way to replicate a study (if there are enough cases) is to randomly break the data into two equal samples, and then subject each sample to similar tests.

Nevertheless, I commend you, Prepetis, for the effort and originality of your study!

Therese

Dear pankajdubey,

as lihin pointed out on the Philosophy and Science forum, there is a terminological mistake in the article ? I should have written ?p-value? instead of ?p-score?. That must be corrected.

Here is a Wikipedia article explaining p-value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value , but to put it shortly, it is a statistical tool for evaluating the possibility of a certain statistical result being a random chance. Normally results producing a p-value less than 0.05 (or less than 0.01) are considered statistically significant. I cannot give a detailed explanation of how the value is mathematically calculated, but I got my numbers by calculating the chi square ((observed value ? expected value) ^ 2 / expected value) and let Excel to calculate the p-value from that number by defining the degrees of freedom as 6 (seven planets ? 1; the degrees of freedom are defined by the amount of possible alternatives, in this case seven possible Ascendant rulers, minus 1).

In the study in question the p-values are in general much too high to be considered statistically significant alone. But I found the p-value as a useful tool for comparing the significance of the results from samples or groups of different sizes. If a small sample gives a big difference to the expected random result, that may well be a coincidence, and therefore regardless of a seemingly big difference you?ll get a very moderate (meaning high, very close to the maximum 1) p-value (remember, the smaller, the better). But if a big sample shows even a small difference to the random expected value, you may get a good, small p-value, because the probability for the result for being a mere chance is smaller. So the p-value proved to be good tool to rank results from sizeable very variable samples.

Therese Hamilton wrote:It's also premature to provide "distinctive planetary profiles" for each zodiacal sign based on rulership. We know that planets have many different forms of expression, and if a hundred people who have Aries rising were analyzed as to their psychology, each person would be different, or at least there would be a number of different personality profiles. I would suggest that a useful approach might be to study a single planet on the ascendant or M.C. or zenith point (nonagesimal). Are there differences in the expression of Mars in each zodiacal sign, for example?

Hi Therese,

For verifying the planetary rulership system it would be best to do both this kind of study of people ruled by a certain planet (as we say in astrology about the Ascendant rulers) and a study about planets on the axes. Ideally in both cases the planets should show similar traits.

It?s self-evident that the nature of a planet is modified by the sign it?s in and countless other factors. But before we can define how it is modified, we should know the basic, ?pure? nature of the planet. It?s the same as with cooking for example ? you can create an endless amount of different dishes and a symphony of variable tastes by using ingredients and spices creatively, but for doing that successfully you have to know tastes of single different spices. It would be a bit odd to say ?you cannot say what salt tastes like, because it tastes different with different foods?. Of course it tastes different, but we all still know the basic taste of salt and we are usually able to recognize it in a dish. Or the same with genetics. There are billions of genetic variables and combinations, but still scientists are looking for and finding the effects of single genes.

I digress a bit now, but we cannot be 100% certain of the psychological nature of even the traditional planets, because tropical astrology has confused them. The best example is maybe Jupiter, the classical significator of religion, wisdom and moderation. Yes, moderation. But in modern tropical astrology Jupiter has become just the opposite: the planet of excess, hyperbole, exaggeration, freedom from moral restrictions (represented in turn by Saturn in modern tropical astrology)? and why?s that? Probably this interpretation of Jupiter has been extracted from observing people with tropical Sagittarius prominently represented in the horoscope. And tropical Sagittarius lies for the most part on sidereal Scorpio ruled by Mars, a very different planet. In fact Jupiter and Mars are kind of opposites, the other being exalted where the other is in fall, and vice versa.

Sidereal Scorpio is an extremely interesting rising sign in its clarity. To exaggerate a bit, it?s a significator of rock?n roll rebellion that couldn?t care less about conventionalism or conservative restrictions. Marc Bolan, Eric Burdon, John Fogerty, Bob Geldof, Edith Piaf, Elvis Presley, Nikki Sixx, Patti Smith? Tom Waits has his ascendant on 00.06 of Sagittarius, but I would put him on the Scorpio side too.

Finnish conductor, Leif Segerstam, also has his Ascendant in Scorpio and he is the walking excess by his life style. In the Finnish (tropical) astrological circles there floats a horoscope around that gives him Jupiter exactly on the Ascendant. Recently I read a biography of him that gave a very different birth time (4.30 AM, the complete birth time is 2nd March 1944 at 4.30 AM, Vaasa, Finland, rated B, biography), and this time gives sidereal Scorpio (tropical Sagittarius) as the rising sign. The reason for the Jupiter-on-the-Ascendant chart is probably that someone has observed Segerstam?s excessive, ?let?s hug the world? way of life and concluded that it must become from Jupiter and guessed the birth time!

Sidereal Sagittarius (and therefore also its ruler Jupiter) is of course a very different story.

Papretis wrote:

For verifying the planetary rulership system it would be best to do both this kind of study of people ruled by a certain planet (as we say in astrology about the Ascendant rulers) and a study about planets on the axes. Ideally in both cases the planets should show similar traits.

Actually planets on the angles may not be so helpful because the ascendant represents the body, and we may not see much psychology in those planets. Planets on the angles also tend to represent circumstances in the life and only partially may represent a person's psychology.

It's self-evident that the nature of a planet is modified by the sign it's in and countless other factors. But before we can define how it is modified, we should know the basic, pure nature of the planet.

The Gauquelins have done a fine job of connecting psychological traits to planets. I have extracted planetary lists from Fran?oise Gauquelin's Psychology of the Planets and Michel's Your Personality and the Planets. These are the most scientific and carefully chosen trait lists we have at our disposal.

The Gauquelins also published a very helpful book of birth charts with lists of traits taken from biographies. This is a wonderful research tool for astrologers. The Gauquelin Book of American Charts was published in 1982 and is now out of print. But Amazon sellers have the used book at low prices. It would not be too difficult to extract traits for each chart and note the natal position of the planet. Though statistically the Gauquelins found relevant planets in their plus zones, in the study of charts in their book planets can be found in various other ares of the chart as well.

Papretis, you know as well as I do that all we have to do to study a planet's effect is to ask AstroDatabank for charts with that planet in any position in the birth chart we wish. Unfortunately ADB notes mainly have to do with career and events rather than psychology. But there are some psychological categories that could be studied. I keep an old XP computer so I can still use ADB. It's a crime against astrology that the program is no longer available and cannot be updated for today's computers.

Papretis wrote:Dear pankajdubey,

as lihin pointed out on the Philosophy and Science forum, there is a terminological mistake in the article ? I should have written ?p-value? instead of ?p-score?. That must be corrected.

Here is a Wikipedia article explaining p-value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value , but to put it shortly, it is a statistical tool for evaluating the possibility of a certain statistical result being a random chance. Normally results producing a p-value less than 0.05 (or less than 0.01) are considered statistically significant. I cannot give a detailed explanation of how the value is mathematically calculated, but I got my numbers by calculating the chi square ((observed value ? expected value) ^ 2 / expected value) and let Excel to calculate the p-value from that number by defining the degrees of freedom as 6 (seven planets ? 1; the degrees of freedom are defined by the amount of possible alternatives, in this case seven possible Ascendant rulers, minus 1).

In the study in question the p-values are in general much too high to be considered statistically significant alone. But I found the p-value as a useful tool for comparing the significance of the results from samples or groups of different sizes. If a small sample gives a big difference to the expected random result, that may well be a coincidence, and therefore regardless of a seemingly big difference you?ll get a very moderate (meaning high, very close to the maximum 1) p-value (remember, the smaller, the better). But if a big sample shows even a small difference to the random expected value, you may get a good, small p-value, because the probability for the result for being a mere chance is smaller. So the p-value proved to be good tool to rank results from sizeable very variable samples.

Thanks for your reply.
The p value tells two things(if less than 0.05)

1. The difference between two groups are unlikely to be due to chance and hence real difference.
2.If more than 0.05 then there is no difference between the two groups.

As far as I can understand, if the value is more than 0.05 then the difference could be just due to chance.

pankajdubey wrote: The p value tells two things(if less than 0.05)

1. The difference between two groups are unlikely to be due to chance and hence real difference.
2.If more than 0.05 then there is no difference between the two groups.

As far as I can understand, if the value is more than 0.05 then the difference could be just due to chance.

Sorry, I forgot to mention perhaps the main thing: p-value tells the probability of a certain single statistical result to be a pure chance. So p-value = 1 means, that the probability of the result to be a pure chance is 100 %. P-value = 0.99 means that the probability for the result to be a pure chance is 99 %. P-value = 0.2 means that the probability for the result to be a pure chance is 20 %. And finally P-value = 0.01 means that the probability for the result to be a pure chance is 1 %, and that is small enough to be considered as a real statistical result as such.

In my study most of the results are statistically insignificant as such. But when a certain planet gathers "under its wings" groups with similar themes, that may not be an accident in the greater scheme.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Actually planets on the angles may not be so helpful because the ascendant represents the body, and we may not see much psychology in those planets. Planets on the angles also tend to represent circumstances in the life and only partially may represent a person's psychology.

It would seem to bit hard to see the Ascendant telling about the body, because our bodily traits and appearance are not defined by the stars at the moment of birth, but by the genes we happen to get from our parents at the moment of conception. So in the light of modern science the horoscope couldn't tell about that kind of things.

As we all know, the biggest problem in the Gauquelin studies is that the strong planetary influences were found on the sectors that are generally considered cadent and therefore weak. If adopting fully and without any reservations the Gauquelinian planetary profiles, one should also use a house system where the normal houses have changed places.

I?ve been busy with the house studies for the whole summer and tried everything, including the traditional dynamical systems with a twist: either counting houses clockwise instead the usual counter-clockwise direction, or thinking the cusp as the end (not the beginning) of the house, so that the usual 12th house would be the 1st, the usual 1st house would be the second, etc. Along with explaining the Gauquelin?s strong sectors that system would also explain why the weakest sectors in the Gauquelin diagrams fell into houses normally considered succedent (2-5-8-11), not into the real cadent houses. But these experiments didn?t really work, statistically or otherwise.

Finally it seems that Sripati is the system that really works and feels safe enough to settle with. It would seem to give thematically clearly distinguishable houses, and also the house triangles as well as the angular ? succedent ? cadent schema would seem to work well, with a surprising observation that the traditional cadent houses (3-6-9-12) would seem to be very active and even aggressive by nature, and the traditional succedent houses (2-5-8-11) passive and submissive. The angular houses are then appropriately in the middle, not too aggressive, not too passive, but efficient and beneficial. The "aggressive" cadent houses might partly explain the Gauquelin results, possibly.

But the reason I?m writing this is that I studied the sidereal Ascendant rulers in houses, and the Asc ruler in the first house would seem to indicate among other things intellectual success, the groups having the Asc ruler most often in the 1st house including
- 632 business owners (73, 53.9 ? the first number is the observed result, the second is expected random value);
- 324 highly educated people (39, 27.6);
- 118 researchers (16, 10.1);
- 84 farmers & ranchers (12, 7.2);
- 68 biographers (10, 5.8 );
- 147 conductors (18, 12.5);
- 229 engineers (26, 19.5);
- 66 diplomats (9, 5.6)
- 749 instrumentalists (73, 63.8 ),
- 969 teachers (93, 82.6),
- 622 fiction writers (61, 53); and finally
- 460 publishers / editors (45, 39.2).

So, it seems that the 1st house (along with the Ascendant) has also other themes than only the physical body. The traditional association of the 1st house and the head (in the mental sense) comes to mind.

I keep an old XP computer so I can still use ADB. It's a crime against astrology that the program is no longer available and cannot be updated for today's computers.

Indeed, it is. The Astrosignature feature is priceless. I too have an old XP laptop purely for using ADB. Wondering why they didn?t (want to? succeed to?) make a deal with Jigsaw, that would have made a perfect combination.

Papretis wrote:

It would seem to bit hard to see the Ascendant telling about the body, because our bodily traits and appearance are not defined by the stars at the moment of birth, but by the genes we happen to get from our parents at the moment of conception. So in the light of modern science the horoscope couldn't tell about that kind of things.

Papretis, since both you and I have AstroDatabank, it would be a simple research project to look at planets conjunct or aspecting the ascendant or to look at charts of people who have certain personality traits.

As we all know, the biggest problem in the Gauquelin studies is that the strong planetary influences were found on the sectors that are generally considered cadent and therefore weak.

Statistically the cadent sectors contained more planets, but looking only at the cadent sectors isn't so helpful. In practice a planet can be in many different sectors from the ascendant, and the person displays traits of that planet. Also often a planetary effect is due to the position of a planet in the navamsa chart. As, for example, a planet crosses from the navamsa to the M.C. or ascendant. The greatest value of the Gauquelin research is the list of psychological traits that were discovered for each planet.

As a beginning it would be interesting to post a few charts and biographical notes that describe a planet's influence and let others study the charts with any house system they wish. This is my suggestion, to study individual charts. If a person has a strong Martian personality, then we need to analyze the positon of Mars in the birth chart.

The Astrosignature feature is priceless. I too have an old XP laptop purely for using ADB. Wondering why they didn?t (want to? succeed to?) make a deal with Jigsaw, that would have made a perfect combination.

The new owner has taken ADB apart and separated the more famous people from everyone else. So now many ADB charts are "private" and we can't see them. Also there are no search facilities in the on-line chart database. It's a very sad situation. There should at least be the option of paying a progamamer to update ADB for sale.

Therese