Fw: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin ...

November 21, 2002

Friends,

This article may be of interest, especially to those who are more familiar with

western astrology. The Gauquelin research is a central pillar in western

astrology that lends it some scientific credence.

Chris

----------

> Mailer-Daemon

> christopher.kevill

> Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin

....

> Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:05 PM

>

> InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

>

> Source: Skeptical Inquirer, May 2002 v26 i3 p33(6).

>

> Title: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin

> data suggests that hitherto baffling planetary effects may be

> simple social effects in disguise.

> Author: Geoffrey Dean

>

> Subjects: Astrology - Evaluation

> Planets - Influence

> Horoscopes - Evaluation

> Personality - Social aspects

> Locations: United States

>

> Electronic Collection: A85932618

> RN: A85932618

>

> of the Paranormal

>

> For almost half a century, supporters and critics of the Gauquelins'

> astrology-like Mars effect have been locked in dispute. The effect is hard to

> study, but it involves a staggering array of puzzles, all seemingly

> inexplicable. To outsiders the dispute has ignored the puzzles and become lost

> in obscure technicalities. It needs a new approach. In what follows we adopt a

> social viewpoint and discover that, contrary to what critics thought,

> planetary effects are to be expected, so their absence would be more

> surprising than their presence. Along the way the dispute, puzzles, and

> support for astrology disappear. For sociologists the massive Gauquelin

> database emerges as a valuable new resource. Readers who would like more

> detail than is possible here will find it in Dean (2000).

>

> Background

>

> After forty years of skeptical investigations, the most famous in astrology,

> the late Michel Gauquelin (1991) concluded: "Having collected half a million

> dates of birth from the most diverse people, I have been able to observe that

> the majority of the elements in a horoscope seem not to possess any of the

> influences which have been attributed to them." This understandably upset

> astrologers and pleased critics.

>

> But two of his findings pleased astrologers, upset critics, and puzzled

> everyone else. (1) Professional people such as scientists tended to be born

> with a surplus or deficit of certain planets in the areas just past rise or

> culmination, but only if the people were eminent and born naturally. (2)

> Ordinary people with such features tended to pass them on to their children.

> Both tendencies were very weak and required large samples for their detection.

> They had no obvious explanation.

>

> The effect had nothing to do with sun signs or other zodiacal signs. What

> mattered was the planet's diurnal (daily) position relative to the

> horizon--whether it was rising in the east or culminating overhead.

>

> The effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars was the significant

> planet for sports champions, who were then the focus of attention. But

> depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could have been called

> the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect. For more background see Ertel

> (1992). Here I will be considering all five effects for both eminent

> professionals and ordinary people.

>

> But haven't independent studies shown that the Mars effect is merely the

> result of biased statistics and data selection? So why should anyone bother

> with it? If you can bear with me, the answer should be apparent in due course.

>

> Puzzles for Astrology and Science

>

> Ironically the Gauquelin planetary effects are as puzzling for astrology as

> they are for science. For science the puzzles include: Why no link with

> physical variables such as distance, why no link with the Sun, why is eminence

> important, why an effect only at birth, why contrary to all expectation is the

> effect larger for rounded birth times, and why does it disappear when the

> birth is induced or surgically assisted?

>

> For astrology (don't worry if the jargon is beyond you) the puzzles include:

> Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why traditionally weak

> positions (cadent houses) and not strong ones, why occupation and not

> character (a claimed link with character was in fact an artifact, see Ertel

> 1993), and why only five planets? After all, astrologers do not claim that

> astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, for

> character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the

> population who are not eminent.

>

> The above puzzles seem utterly baffling. What could be happening? Why are

> these planetary effects so inconsistent with both science and astrology? As is

> usual with puzzles, the key lies in asking the right question.

>

> Could Planetary Effects be Man-Made?

>

> Look at the Gauquelin births in their social context. Most of the births

> occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Western

> Europe, when living conditions were very different from those today, and when

> early world views still survived (figure 1). It was a time when births were

> reported verbally to the registry office by the parents, (1) when occupations

> and eminence tended to run in families, (2,3) when serious astrology had been

> dead since the 1700s, and when popular almanacs gave diurnal information for

> the visible planets (figure 2), that is, rising, setting and sometimes

> culminating times. Notice how this planetary information immediately matches

> the Gauquelin findings. (4)

>

> In short, what made the Gauquelin period different from today was the

> availability of diurnal planetary information, the opportunity to adjust birth

> data without detection, and the motivation to do so from family traditions and

> world views. So perhaps fake planetary effects could arise due to: (1)

> Role-playing. We know what our planetary positions mean and adjust our

> behavior to suit. (2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant planet in

> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time before

> reporting it to the registry office. (3) Perinatal control. The same but via

> control of the birth process by mothers and midwives.

>

> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly little faking

> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is enough.

> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth planning by

> modern Asians (Goodkind 1991, Kaku 1975), and considerably less than the one

> in thirteen observed for Sun sign role-playing (Dean, Mather, and Kelly 1996).

> So it should not seem implausible that Gauquelin's subjects might role-play

> their planets or adjust their children's birth data. But could such effects be

> detected in the Gauquelin data?

>

> Re-analysis of Gauquelin Data

>

> To find out, I re-analyzed two important Gauquelin data sets. (1) The original

> 15,942 eminent professionals spread over ten occupations (actors, journalists,

> military men, musicians, painters, physicians, politicians, scientists, sports

> champions, and writers), whose results were published in 1960. (2) The 24,948

> ordinary people (parents and children) from the Gauquelins' first heredity

> study published in 1966. The eminent professionals were born in Western Europe

> mostly in 1820-1940, and are mostly male. The ordinary people were born

> somewhat later near Paris and are 51 percent female. (1) and (2) led to the

> Gauquelins' most successful results, so they are the data to look at. I began

> by counting births on days said to be significant by European encyclopedias of

> superstition.

>

> [Graphic omitted]For eminent professionals the results were revealing. Days

> were preferred if desirable, such as Christian feast days, and avoided if

> undesirable, such as witching days, showing that parents were faking birth

> data to suit prevailing beliefs (figure 3).

>

> The avoidance of witching days is understandable given the massive witch hunts

> that for three centuries had terrorized Western Europe. The amount of faking

> varied with the kind of day, but on average it involved about one in

> twenty-five births. So already the faking of days is more than the one in

> thirty faking of hours needed to explain planetary effects. Note that had I

> looked only at sports champions, the sample size might have been too small,

> and such faking might have been missed.

>

> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of births

> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of historic data

> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from midnight to

> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I plotted planetary

> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each professional group,

> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to prefer

> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies that faking is

> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are proverbially active, so

> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight hours as well.

> (5)

>

> The same implication appeared when I compared high and low levels of faking.

> The mean planetary effect on desirable days (whose births have maximum faking)

> was more than twice that on undesirable days (whose births have minimum

> faking). The point is, none of these things should happen if planetary effects

> were unrelated to social effects. Nor should they happen if planetary effects

> did not exist.

>

> But why fake? If we really believe that certain times are auspicious, we can

> hardly believe that faking will change anything. On the other hand, if we do

> not believe, why bother? We might of course see faking as merely helping an

> imperfect world unfold as it should. But look at why we might want to avoid

> witching days or midnight hours. Even if we saw nothing wrong with a witching

> time, other people (and the child) might disagree, which could have dire

> consequences. So we fake. Similarly, if we can fake an auspicious birth date,

> or a planetary indication of greatness in a chosen occupation, it could have

> useful consequences. Being suitably destined in the eyes of the child and

> others has advantages. The same motivation exists today when hotels omit 13

> from floor and room numbers lest their occupancy be affected, and when

> psychologists control for the expectations of experimenters.

>

> Gender Rules

>

> The results for families showed much the same faking as for professionals, but

> this time the preferred days were family-related with a distinct gender

> influence. For example children tended to be born on the same date or weekday

> as their same-sex parent, showing that parents wanted more uniformity than was

> allowed by nature. This may reflect the sort of traditions that led to

> particular weekdays being chosen for events such as weddings (Imhof 1996,

> 125).

>

> [Graphic omitted]Gender influences also emerged in the planetary effects

> passed on by parents to their children. Regardless of planet, the passing on

> for same-sex parents was roughly twice that for opposite-sex parents. That is,

> sons were more like their fathers and daughters were more like their mothers,

> which makes sense. Or as Lady Catherine de Bourgh says in Jane Austen's Pride

> and Prejudice (1813), "daughters are never of much consequence to a father."

> But it did not end there.

>

> Gauquelin had seen parent-child effects as confirming the reality of planetary

> effects. He had found that fathers and mothers contributed roughly equal

> amounts of planetary effect to their children, which suggested a link with

> genetics. But he did not make same-sex and opposite-sex comparisons, and

> although he was aware of superstitious beliefs such as those favoring even

> hours over odd hours, he felt they were unlikely to simulate planetary

> effects. Blur, yes, simulate, no. However, genetics predicts equal

> contributions regardless of sex whereas social effects predict unequal

> contributions. So we have the classic situation of two rival hypotheses. In

> this case the winner is social effects.

>

> Solving the Puzzles

>

> The hitherto baffling puzzles can now be solved. Why do the Gauquelin findings

> conflict with astrology? Because astrology had been effectively dead since the

> 1700s, and all that remained was a debased remnant limited to planets that

> could be seen in the sky or read in almanacs. To be seen, planets had to be

> visibly above the horizon, even though this was traditionally a weak position

> due to the planetary beams being "impaired by the thick and dark exhalations

> arising from the earth's vapours" (Ashmand 1917). In other words the conflict

> is between astrology and its debased remnant. There is no conflict between its

> remnant and the Gauquelin findings.

>

> Similarly the planetary link is with occupation and not character because that

> was the belief in those days. (6) There is no effect for signs or aspects

> because in almanacs the link was with seasons or weather, and in any case the

> required adjustment (days or weeks) is too great to be feasible.

>

> The puzzles for science are solved just as easily. There is no link with

> physical variables such as distance or gravity because they were not part of

> popular belief. There is no effect for the Sun because its position was

> relevant only to the seasons and to seasonal work on the farm. There is an

> effect only at birth because that was the popular belief. Occupation effects

> are strongest where family traditions are strongest, where the match between

> planets and occupation is closest, and where there is most need to be suitably

> destined, as in eminent families. Hence the importance of eminence.

>

> But why is the planetary effect for precise birth times half that for birth

> times rounded to the hour? This is like saying the more we tune our radio the

> worse the reception. It is not at all what we expect. No astrologer, no

> skeptic, not even Gauquelin would have predicted such a result. But faked

> times do not need to be precise. What matters is the planet's general diurnal

> position, not its exact diurnal position, so the precision to which clocks

> would normally be read is not needed. Rounded times are good enough, and as a

> bonus they do not raise town hall suspicions like a precise birth time might.

> In other words faking increases rounding and also increases planetary effects.

> In hindsight it seems so simple, so obvious.

>

> Solving the Disappearing Act

>

> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the birth is induced

> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars effect in

> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary effects also

> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge sample of

> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin suggested, arose

> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject to medical

> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and therefore (in

> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early births,

> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital or midwife,

> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the decline in

> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented is more

> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are intervening

> medically in all births. Also, the reestablishment of astrology in the 1930s

> meant a gradual end to the debased remnant and i ts match with the Gauquelin

> findings. Ironically his 1984 study has told us more by its failure than it

> would have by its success.

>

> Conclusion

>

> The dispute between Gauquelin supporters and critics is easily resolved. Most,

> perhaps all, of the Mars and other planetary effects are merely social effects

> in disguise. They have been in the data all along. The Gauquelins had found a

> real effect but, contrary to what everyone thought, there was no conflict with

> science and no need for disbelief. Both sides can now retire with honor. (7)

>

> Some supporters have attributed planetary effects to divine forces, or

> magnetospheric resonance, or the pineal gland, or genetic imprinting (see

> Ertel 1992). But such explanations are clearly premature. Data selection and

> fraud can be rejected because Gauquelin could hardly be selective or

> fraudulent about social effects he was unaware of. Claims by astrologers of

> support for astrology, where for example planetary effects are "primary truths

> about man's relationship to the cosmos" (Addey 1996), whose explanation "will

> strain the possibilities of mechanism" (Hand 1987), can also be rejected.

>

> The existence of social effects in the Gauquelin data makes it a valuable new

> resource for sociologists studying the nineteenth century. It seems unlikely

> that this data, which took such heroic effort to collect, will ever be

> equaled. Examples of how quite complex beliefs and family relationships can be

> explored are given by me in Dean (2000, 33-37).

>

> Of course the existence of social effects does not deny the existence of

> inadvertent Gauquelin bias (8) or of genuine planetary effects. But unless

> planetary effects can be found under conditions where social effects are

> absent, as when parents are excluded from the birth reporting process and the

> child is ignorant of its birth planets, we might now reasonably suspend

> belief. Indeed, it could be argued that Gauquelin's failure to find planetary

> effects in births recorded after 1950 has already put this point to the test.

> [Figure 3 omitted]

>

> [FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

>

> [FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

>

> Acknowledgments

>

> I thank Christopher French, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, David Nias, and Rudolf

> Smit for helpful comments, and Suitbert Ertel for help with data and reference

> material. I am most grateful to the late Michel Gauquelin for many discussions

> and unfailing assistance during the fifteen years of our acquaintance. It was

> during our discussions in January 1991 that the idea of a new look at social

> context was born. He died four months later, tragically without knowing how it

> would turn out.

>

> Notes

>

> (1.) In France after the French Revolution of 1792, and subsequently in the

> other Gauquelin countries, the father of each new child became legally

> responsible for registering its birth date and time at the nearest town hall.

> The father had to be accompanied by two friends to confirm that the child was

> his, and by the child itself. There was no medical certificate as is routine

> today, and most likely the two friends would not have witnessed the actual

> birth, so the father could easily adjust his report without detection.

>

> (2.) The European family group was more important than the individual, and the

> inheritance of the family (whether real, as occupation, or symbolic, as names)

> had to be passed to succeeding generations (Gelis 1991). For example Imhof

> (1996, 116) cites a German farm where from the 1550s to the present day all

> the heads of the household were named Johannes Hooss, made possible by every

> family having one or more sons named Johannes so that one was always available

> to take over when the time came. What endured was the name. What mattered was

> not the individual life but the collective life, which among other things

> allowed death to be faced more calmly regardless of when or where it came.

>

> (3.) In his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, Francis Galton found that great men

> produce more great sons than do average men. Based on the work of others,

> Gauquelin (1976) concluded the same: "In general terms, two-thirds of famous

> people originate from five percent of the population comprised primarily of

> the wealthiest and most intellectual people. A professional proclivity is

> transmitted from generation to generation."

>

> (4.) People did not need astrology to prompt their interest in rising and

> culmination. Rising echoed the rising of the Sun, hence earthly and heavenly

> greatness (light is a frequent biblical metaphor for Jesus). Culmination

> signified something at its highest power, just as "the culmination of our

> efforts" does today. A planet exactly on the horizon was generally invisible

> and therefore without power, despite what astrology said. Just as moving past

> the rising point brought planets into prominence, so did moving past the

> culminating point. Conflicts of analogy would be out.

>

> (5.) The midnight hour was universally the witching hour. For example in

> France it was "the great hour of marvels and terrors" (Sebillot 1904), and in

> Germany "the child that is born, or gives its first cry, in the evil hour [of

> midnight] becomes a witch" Bachtold-Staubli 1927). More famously in

> Shakespeare's Hamlet (1601) it was "the very witching time of night, when

> churchyards yawn and bell itself breathes out contagion to this world." It

> seems that people avoided reporting a midnight birth not merely because it was

> ambiguous but also because it was connected with witches.

>

> (6.) Planetary themes today tend to focus on character traits. But in those

> days the focus was on occupation. First, it was a dominant part of family

> tradition. Thus a military family would want their new son to be a great

> soldier rather than, say, a stable extrovert. Second, only occupation could

> feasibly be shown in woodcuts. So we might expect socially-based planetary

> effects to be so terms of occupation-and they are.

>

> (7.) Ironically Ertel (2000) disagrees. Since the 1980s he has championed the

> reality of planetary effects, so the present findings should be welcome. But

> Ertel dismisses social effects as implausible, so "the challenge of the

> Gauquelin anomaly is as alive as ever" (p. 82).

>

> (8.) Gauquelin himself recognized the possibility of bias, which is why he

> later checked by computer his many tens of thousands of hand calculations (the

> indications were unchanged but were somewhat less significant, see Gauquelin

> 1984). He published all his data and invited anyone to check his records, all

> of which were meticulously organized and freely accessible. In terms of

> openness beset standards well above those of his opponents.

>

> References

>

> Addey, J.M. 1996. A New Study of Astrology. London: Urania Trust, page 69.

> Written around 1980.

>

> Ashmand, J.M. 1917. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. London: Foulsham, page 131.

>

> Bachtold-staubli, H. (ed.). 1927. Handworterbuch des Dentschen Aberglaubens.

> Berlin: De Gruyter. Volume 7, page 564.

>

> Dean, G. 2000. Attribution: A pervasive new artifact in the Gauquelin data.

> Astrology under Scrutiny 13: 1-72. Nearly 300 references. An extended abstract

> and information on how to obtain copies are available on the Web at

> www.astrology-and-science.com.

>

> Dean, G., A. Mather, and I.W Kelly. 1996. Astrology. In G. Stein (ed.), The

> Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 47-99, page 75.

>

> Ertel, S. 1992. Update on the "Mars Effect." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 16: 150-160.

> Includes a survey of possible physical explanations. 43 references.

>

> -----. 1993. Why the character trait hypothesis still fails. Correlation

> 12(1): 2-9.

>

> -----. 2000. On Geoffrey Dean's erroneous grand notion. Astrology under

> Scrutiny 13: 73-84. Followed by my reply on pages 85-87.

>

> Gauquelin, M. 1976. Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. London: Futura, page

> 60.

>

> -----. 1983. The Truth about Astrology. Oxford: Blackwell, page 176.

>

> -----. 1984. Profession and heredity experiments: Computer re-analysis and new

> investigations on the same material. Correlation 4(1): 8-24.

>

> -----. 1991. Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. Penguin Arkana, p. 20.

> Gauquelin, M., and F. Gauquelin. 1972. Profession-Heredity. Results of Series

> A & B. Series C, Volume 1. Paris: LERRCP.

>

> Gelis, J. 1991. History of Childbirth: Fertility. Pregnancy and Birth in Early

> Modern Europe. Boston: Northeastern University Press, page 200. First

> published 1984 in French.

>

> Goodkind, D.M. 1991. Creating new traditions in modern Chinese populations:

> Aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and Development Review

> 17: 663-686.

>

> Hand, R. 1987. Astrology ass revolutionary science. In A.T Mann (ed.), The

> Future of Astrology. London: Unwin, page 37.

>

> Imhof, A.E. 1996. Lost Worlds: How our European ancestors coped with everyday

> life and why life is so hard today. Charlotteville V.I.: University Press of

> Virginia. First published 1984 in German.

>

> Kaku, K. 1975. Increased induced abortion rate in 1966: An aspect of Japanese

> folk superstition. Annals of Human Biology 2: 111-115.

>

> Saintyves, P. 1937. L'Astrologic Populaire. Paris: Emile Nourry, page 346. A

> scholarly study of lunar beliefs. Reprinted in 1989 by Rocher, Paris.

>

> Sebillor, P. 1904. Le Folk-Lore de France. Paris: Guilmoto. Volume 1, page

> 144.

>

> Geoffrey Dean is technical editor in Perth, Western Australia (Box 466,

> Subiaco 6008, Western Australia). He has been investigating astrological

> claims since 1974.

>

> -- End --

November 21, 2002

Chris,

As an admirer of Dean ( great book his 'Recent advances in Natal

Astrology) I am bemused by this report. It seems to indicate a

population who are very concerned about the position of planets

at the time of their children's birth, and adjusting them to suit

their own inclination to create some type of one-upmanship which

nobody else is going to consider anyway.

>From my own (English) background I doubt whether anyone would

have been even remotely interested in this. In fact I doubt

whether many would have even know where to get planetary

information, never mind knowing if or when planets would be

considered favorable by their peers.

It strikes me as so outlandish, that I think I must either be

misreading the report or missing something else.

Ron Gaunt

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:14:01 -0500, you wrote:

>Friends,

>

>This article may be of interest, especially to those who are more familiar with

western astrology. The Gauquelin research is a central pillar in western

astrology that lends it some scientific credence.

>

>Chris

>

>----------

>> Mailer-Daemon

>> christopher.kevill

>> Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin

....

>> Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:05 PM

>>

>> InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

>>

>> Source: Skeptical Inquirer, May 2002 v26 i3 p33(6).

>>

>> Title: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin

>> data suggests that hitherto baffling planetary effects may be

>> simple social effects in disguise.

>> Author: Geoffrey Dean

>>

>> Subjects: Astrology - Evaluation

>> Planets - Influence

>> Horoscopes - Evaluation

>> Personality - Social aspects

>> Locations: United States

>>

>> Electronic Collection: A85932618

>> RN: A85932618

>>

>> of the Paranormal

>>

>> For almost half a century, supporters and critics of the Gauquelins'

>> astrology-like Mars effect have been locked in dispute. The effect is hard to

>> study, but it involves a staggering array of puzzles, all seemingly

>> inexplicable. To outsiders the dispute has ignored the puzzles and become

lost

>> in obscure technicalities. It needs a new approach. In what follows we adopt

a

>> social viewpoint and discover that, contrary to what critics thought,

>> planetary effects are to be expected, so their absence would be more

>> surprising than their presence. Along the way the dispute, puzzles, and

>> support for astrology disappear. For sociologists the massive Gauquelin

>> database emerges as a valuable new resource. Readers who would like more

>> detail than is possible here will find it in Dean (2000).

>>

>> Background

>>

>> After forty years of skeptical investigations, the most famous in astrology,

>> the late Michel Gauquelin (1991) concluded: "Having collected half a million

>> dates of birth from the most diverse people, I have been able to observe that

>> the majority of the elements in a horoscope seem not to possess any of the

>> influences which have been attributed to them." This understandably upset

>> astrologers and pleased critics.

>>

>> But two of his findings pleased astrologers, upset critics, and puzzled

>> everyone else. (1) Professional people such as scientists tended to be born

>> with a surplus or deficit of certain planets in the areas just past rise or

>> culmination, but only if the people were eminent and born naturally. (2)

>> Ordinary people with such features tended to pass them on to their children.

>> Both tendencies were very weak and required large samples for their

detection.

>> They had no obvious explanation.

>>

>> The effect had nothing to do with sun signs or other zodiacal signs. What

>> mattered was the planet's diurnal (daily) position relative to the

>> horizon--whether it was rising in the east or culminating overhead.

>>

>> The effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars was the significant

>> planet for sports champions, who were then the focus of attention. But

>> depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could have been

called

>> the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect. For more background see Ertel

>> (1992). Here I will be considering all five effects for both eminent

>> professionals and ordinary people.

>>

>> But haven't independent studies shown that the Mars effect is merely the

>> result of biased statistics and data selection? So why should anyone bother

>> with it? If you can bear with me, the answer should be apparent in due

course.

>>

>> Puzzles for Astrology and Science

>>

>> Ironically the Gauquelin planetary effects are as puzzling for astrology as

>> they are for science. For science the puzzles include: Why no link with

>> physical variables such as distance, why no link with the Sun, why is

eminence

>> important, why an effect only at birth, why contrary to all expectation is

the

>> effect larger for rounded birth times, and why does it disappear when the

>> birth is induced or surgically assisted?

>>

>> For astrology (don't worry if the jargon is beyond you) the puzzles include:

>> Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why traditionally weak

>> positions (cadent houses) and not strong ones, why occupation and not

>> character (a claimed link with character was in fact an artifact, see Ertel

>> 1993), and why only five planets? After all, astrologers do not claim that

>> astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, for

>> character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the

>> population who are not eminent.

>>

>> The above puzzles seem utterly baffling. What could be happening? Why are

>> these planetary effects so inconsistent with both science and astrology? As

is

>> usual with puzzles, the key lies in asking the right question.

>>

>> Could Planetary Effects be Man-Made?

>>

>> Look at the Gauquelin births in their social context. Most of the births

>> occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Western

>> Europe, when living conditions were very different from those today, and when

>> early world views still survived (figure 1). It was a time when births were

>> reported verbally to the registry office by the parents, (1) when occupations

>> and eminence tended to run in families, (2,3) when serious astrology had been

>> dead since the 1700s, and when popular almanacs gave diurnal information for

>> the visible planets (figure 2), that is, rising, setting and sometimes

>> culminating times. Notice how this planetary information immediately matches

>> the Gauquelin findings. (4)

>>

>> In short, what made the Gauquelin period different from today was the

>> availability of diurnal planetary information, the opportunity to adjust

birth

>> data without detection, and the motivation to do so from family traditions

and

>> world views. So perhaps fake planetary effects could arise due to: (1)

>> Role-playing. We know what our planetary positions mean and adjust our

>> behavior to suit. (2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant planet in

>> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time before

>> reporting it to the registry office. (3) Perinatal control. The same but via

>> control of the birth process by mothers and midwives.

>>

>> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly little

faking

>> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is enough.

>> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth planning by

>> modern Asians (Goodkind 1991, Kaku 1975), and considerably less than the one

>> in thirteen observed for Sun sign role-playing (Dean, Mather, and Kelly

1996).

>> So it should not seem implausible that Gauquelin's subjects might role-play

>> their planets or adjust their children's birth data. But could such effects

be

>> detected in the Gauquelin data?

>>

>> Re-analysis of Gauquelin Data

>>

>> To find out, I re-analyzed two important Gauquelin data sets. (1) The

original

>> 15,942 eminent professionals spread over ten occupations (actors,

journalists,

>> military men, musicians, painters, physicians, politicians, scientists,

sports

>> champions, and writers), whose results were published in 1960. (2) The 24,948

>> ordinary people (parents and children) from the Gauquelins' first heredity

>> study published in 1966. The eminent professionals were born in Western

Europe

>> mostly in 1820-1940, and are mostly male. The ordinary people were born

>> somewhat later near Paris and are 51 percent female. (1) and (2) led to the

>> Gauquelins' most successful results, so they are the data to look at. I began

>> by counting births on days said to be significant by European encyclopedias

of

>> superstition.

>>

>> [Graphic omitted]For eminent professionals the results were revealing. Days

>> were preferred if desirable, such as Christian feast days, and avoided if

>> undesirable, such as witching days, showing that parents were faking birth

>> data to suit prevailing beliefs (figure 3).

>>

>> The avoidance of witching days is understandable given the massive witch

hunts

>> that for three centuries had terrorized Western Europe. The amount of faking

>> varied with the kind of day, but on average it involved about one in

>> twenty-five births. So already the faking of days is more than the one in

>> thirty faking of hours needed to explain planetary effects. Note that had I

>> looked only at sports champions, the sample size might have been too small,

>> and such faking might have been missed.

>>

>> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of births

>> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of historic

data

>> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from midnight to

>> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I plotted planetary

>> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each professional group,

>> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to prefer

>> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies that faking

is

>> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are proverbially active,

so

>> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight hours as well.

>> (5)

>>

>> The same implication appeared when I compared high and low levels of faking.

>> The mean planetary effect on desirable days (whose births have maximum

faking)

>> was more than twice that on undesirable days (whose births have minimum

>> faking). The point is, none of these things should happen if planetary

effects

>> were unrelated to social effects. Nor should they happen if planetary effects

>> did not exist.

>>

>> But why fake? If we really believe that certain times are auspicious, we can

>> hardly believe that faking will change anything. On the other hand, if we do

>> not believe, why bother? We might of course see faking as merely helping an

>> imperfect world unfold as it should. But look at why we might want to avoid

>> witching days or midnight hours. Even if we saw nothing wrong with a witching

>> time, other people (and the child) might disagree, which could have dire

>> consequences. So we fake. Similarly, if we can fake an auspicious birth date,

>> or a planetary indication of greatness in a chosen occupation, it could have

>> useful consequences. Being suitably destined in the eyes of the child and

>> others has advantages. The same motivation exists today when hotels omit 13

>> from floor and room numbers lest their occupancy be affected, and when

>> psychologists control for the expectations of experimenters.

>>

>> Gender Rules

>>

>> The results for families showed much the same faking as for professionals,

but

>> this time the preferred days were family-related with a distinct gender

>> influence. For example children tended to be born on the same date or weekday

>> as their same-sex parent, showing that parents wanted more uniformity than

was

>> allowed by nature. This may reflect the sort of traditions that led to

>> particular weekdays being chosen for events such as weddings (Imhof 1996,

>> 125).

>>

>> [Graphic omitted]Gender influences also emerged in the planetary effects

>> passed on by parents to their children. Regardless of planet, the passing on

>> for same-sex parents was roughly twice that for opposite-sex parents. That

is,

>> sons were more like their fathers and daughters were more like their mothers,

>> which makes sense. Or as Lady Catherine de Bourgh says in Jane Austen's Pride

>> and Prejudice (1813), "daughters are never of much consequence to a father."

>> But it did not end there.

>>

>> Gauquelin had seen parent-child effects as confirming the reality of

planetary

>> effects. He had found that fathers and mothers contributed roughly equal

>> amounts of planetary effect to their children, which suggested a link with

>> genetics. But he did not make same-sex and opposite-sex comparisons, and

>> although he was aware of superstitious beliefs such as those favoring even

>> hours over odd hours, he felt they were unlikely to simulate planetary

>> effects. Blur, yes, simulate, no. However, genetics predicts equal

>> contributions regardless of sex whereas social effects predict unequal

>> contributions. So we have the classic situation of two rival hypotheses. In

>> this case the winner is social effects.

>>

>> Solving the Puzzles

>>

>> The hitherto baffling puzzles can now be solved. Why do the Gauquelin

findings

>> conflict with astrology? Because astrology had been effectively dead since

the

>> 1700s, and all that remained was a debased remnant limited to planets that

>> could be seen in the sky or read in almanacs. To be seen, planets had to be

>> visibly above the horizon, even though this was traditionally a weak position

>> due to the planetary beams being "impaired by the thick and dark exhalations

>> arising from the earth's vapours" (Ashmand 1917). In other words the conflict

>> is between astrology and its debased remnant. There is no conflict between

its

>> remnant and the Gauquelin findings.

>>

>> Similarly the planetary link is with occupation and not character because

that

>> was the belief in those days. (6) There is no effect for signs or aspects

>> because in almanacs the link was with seasons or weather, and in any case the

>> required adjustment (days or weeks) is too great to be feasible.

>>

>> The puzzles for science are solved just as easily. There is no link with

>> physical variables such as distance or gravity because they were not part of

>> popular belief. There is no effect for the Sun because its position was

>> relevant only to the seasons and to seasonal work on the farm. There is an

>> effect only at birth because that was the popular belief. Occupation effects

>> are strongest where family traditions are strongest, where the match between

>> planets and occupation is closest, and where there is most need to be

suitably

>> destined, as in eminent families. Hence the importance of eminence.

>>

>> But why is the planetary effect for precise birth times half that for birth

>> times rounded to the hour? This is like saying the more we tune our radio the

>> worse the reception. It is not at all what we expect. No astrologer, no

>> skeptic, not even Gauquelin would have predicted such a result. But faked

>> times do not need to be precise. What matters is the planet's general diurnal

>> position, not its exact diurnal position, so the precision to which clocks

>> would normally be read is not needed. Rounded times are good enough, and as a

>> bonus they do not raise town hall suspicions like a precise birth time might.

>> In other words faking increases rounding and also increases planetary

effects.

>> In hindsight it seems so simple, so obvious.

>>

>> Solving the Disappearing Act

>>

>> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the birth is induced

>> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars effect in

>> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary effects also

>> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge sample of

>> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin suggested, arose

>> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject to medical

>> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and therefore (in

>> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early

births,

>> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital or midwife,

>> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the decline in

>> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented is more

>> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are intervening

>> medically in all births. Also, the reestablishment of astrology in the 1930s

>> meant a gradual end to the debased remnant and i ts match with the Gauquelin

>> findings. Ironically his 1984 study has told us more by its failure than it

>> would have by its success.

>>

>> Conclusion

>>

>> The dispute between Gauquelin supporters and critics is easily resolved.

Most,

>> perhaps all, of the Mars and other planetary effects are merely social

effects

>> in disguise. They have been in the data all along. The Gauquelins had found a

>> real effect but, contrary to what everyone thought, there was no conflict

with

>> science and no need for disbelief. Both sides can now retire with honor. (7)

>>

>> Some supporters have attributed planetary effects to divine forces, or

>> magnetospheric resonance, or the pineal gland, or genetic imprinting (see

>> Ertel 1992). But such explanations are clearly premature. Data selection and

>> fraud can be rejected because Gauquelin could hardly be selective or

>> fraudulent about social effects he was unaware of. Claims by astrologers of

>> support for astrology, where for example planetary effects are "primary

truths

>> about man's relationship to the cosmos" (Addey 1996), whose explanation "will

>> strain the possibilities of mechanism" (Hand 1987), can also be rejected.

>>

>> The existence of social effects in the Gauquelin data makes it a valuable new

>> resource for sociologists studying the nineteenth century. It seems unlikely

>> that this data, which took such heroic effort to collect, will ever be

>> equaled. Examples of how quite complex beliefs and family relationships can

be

>> explored are given by me in Dean (2000, 33-37).

>>

>> Of course the existence of social effects does not deny the existence of

>> inadvertent Gauquelin bias (8) or of genuine planetary effects. But unless

>> planetary effects can be found under conditions where social effects are

>> absent, as when parents are excluded from the birth reporting process and the

>> child is ignorant of its birth planets, we might now reasonably suspend

>> belief. Indeed, it could be argued that Gauquelin's failure to find planetary

>> effects in births recorded after 1950 has already put this point to the test.

>> [Figure 3 omitted]

>>

>> [FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

>>

>> [FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

>>

>> Acknowledgments

>>

>> I thank Christopher French, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, David Nias, and Rudolf

>> Smit for helpful comments, and Suitbert Ertel for help with data and

reference

>> material. I am most grateful to the late Michel Gauquelin for many

discussions

>> and unfailing assistance during the fifteen years of our acquaintance. It was

>> during our discussions in January 1991 that the idea of a new look at social

>> context was born. He died four months later, tragically without knowing how

it

>> would turn out.

>>

>> Notes

>>

>> (1.) In France after the French Revolution of 1792, and subsequently in the

>> other Gauquelin countries, the father of each new child became legally

>> responsible for registering its birth date and time at the nearest town hall.

>> The father had to be accompanied by two friends to confirm that the child was

>> his, and by the child itself. There was no medical certificate as is routine

>> today, and most likely the two friends would not have witnessed the actual

>> birth, so the father could easily adjust his report without detection.

>>

>> (2.) The European family group was more important than the individual, and

the

>> inheritance of the family (whether real, as occupation, or symbolic, as

names)

>> had to be passed to succeeding generations (Gelis 1991). For example Imhof

>> (1996, 116) cites a German farm where from the 1550s to the present day all

>> the heads of the household were named Johannes Hooss, made possible by every

>> family having one or more sons named Johannes so that one was always

available

>> to take over when the time came. What endured was the name. What mattered was

>> not the individual life but the collective life, which among other things

>> allowed death to be faced more calmly regardless of when or where it came.

>>

>> (3.) In his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, Francis Galton found that great men

>> produce more great sons than do average men. Based on the work of others,

>> Gauquelin (1976) concluded the same: "In general terms, two-thirds of famous

>> people originate from five percent of the population comprised primarily of

>> the wealthiest and most intellectual people. A professional proclivity is

>> transmitted from generation to generation."

>>

>> (4.) People did not need astrology to prompt their interest in rising and

>> culmination. Rising echoed the rising of the Sun, hence earthly and heavenly

>> greatness (light is a frequent biblical metaphor for Jesus). Culmination

>> signified something at its highest power, just as "the culmination of our

>> efforts" does today. A planet exactly on the horizon was generally invisible

>> and therefore without power, despite what astrology said. Just as moving past

>> the rising point brought planets into prominence, so did moving past the

>> culminating point. Conflicts of analogy would be out.

>>

>> (5.) The midnight hour was universally the witching hour. For example in

>> France it was "the great hour of marvels and terrors" (Sebillot 1904), and in

>> Germany "the child that is born, or gives its first cry, in the evil hour [of

>> midnight] becomes a witch" Bachtold-Staubli 1927). More famously in

>> Shakespeare's Hamlet (1601) it was "the very witching time of night, when

>> churchyards yawn and bell itself breathes out contagion to this world." It

>> seems that people avoided reporting a midnight birth not merely because it

was

>> ambiguous but also because it was connected with witches.

>>

>> (6.) Planetary themes today tend to focus on character traits. But in those

>> days the focus was on occupation. First, it was a dominant part of family

>> tradition. Thus a military family would want their new son to be a great

>> soldier rather than, say, a stable extrovert. Second, only occupation could

>> feasibly be shown in woodcuts. So we might expect socially-based planetary

>> effects to be so terms of occupation-and they are.

>>

>> (7.) Ironically Ertel (2000) disagrees. Since the 1980s he has championed the

>> reality of planetary effects, so the present findings should be welcome. But

>> Ertel dismisses social effects as implausible, so "the challenge of the

>> Gauquelin anomaly is as alive as ever" (p. 82).

>>

>> (8.) Gauquelin himself recognized the possibility of bias, which is why he

>> later checked by computer his many tens of thousands of hand calculations

(the

>> indications were unchanged but were somewhat less significant, see Gauquelin

>> 1984). He published all his data and invited anyone to check his records, all

>> of which were meticulously organized and freely accessible. In terms of

>> openness beset standards well above those of his opponents.

>>

>> References

>>

>> Addey, J.M. 1996. A New Study of Astrology. London: Urania Trust, page 69.

>> Written around 1980.

>>

>> Ashmand, J.M. 1917. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. London: Foulsham, page 131.

>>

>> Bachtold-staubli, H. (ed.). 1927. Handworterbuch des Dentschen Aberglaubens.

>> Berlin: De Gruyter. Volume 7, page 564.

>>

>> Dean, G. 2000. Attribution: A pervasive new artifact in the Gauquelin data.

>> Astrology under Scrutiny 13: 1-72. Nearly 300 references. An extended

abstract

>> and information on how to obtain copies are available on the Web at

>> www.astrology-and-science.com.

>>

>> Dean, G., A. Mather, and I.W Kelly. 1996. Astrology. In G. Stein (ed.), The

>> Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 47-99, page

75.

>>

>> Ertel, S. 1992. Update on the "Mars Effect." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 16: 150-160.

>> Includes a survey of possible physical explanations. 43 references.

>>

>> -----. 1993. Why the character trait hypothesis still fails. Correlation

>> 12(1): 2-9.

>>

>> -----. 2000. On Geoffrey Dean's erroneous grand notion. Astrology under

>> Scrutiny 13: 73-84. Followed by my reply on pages 85-87.

>>

>> Gauquelin, M. 1976. Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. London: Futura, page

>> 60.

>>

>> -----. 1983. The Truth about Astrology. Oxford: Blackwell, page 176.

>>

>> -----. 1984. Profession and heredity experiments: Computer re-analysis and

new

>> investigations on the same material. Correlation 4(1): 8-24.

>>

>> -----. 1991. Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. Penguin Arkana, p. 20.

>> Gauquelin, M., and F. Gauquelin. 1972. Profession-Heredity. Results of Series

>> A & B. Series C, Volume 1. Paris: LERRCP.

>>

>> Gelis, J. 1991. History of Childbirth: Fertility. Pregnancy and Birth in

Early

>> Modern Europe. Boston: Northeastern University Press, page 200. First

>> published 1984 in French.

>>

>> Goodkind, D.M. 1991. Creating new traditions in modern Chinese populations:

>> Aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and Development Review

>> 17: 663-686.

>>

>> Hand, R. 1987. Astrology ass revolutionary science. In A.T Mann (ed.), The

>> Future of Astrology. London: Unwin, page 37.

>>

>> Imhof, A.E. 1996. Lost Worlds: How our European ancestors coped with everyday

>> life and why life is so hard today. Charlotteville V.I.: University Press of

>> Virginia. First published 1984 in German.

>>

>> Kaku, K. 1975. Increased induced abortion rate in 1966: An aspect of Japanese

>> folk superstition. Annals of Human Biology 2: 111-115.

>>

>> Saintyves, P. 1937. L'Astrologic Populaire. Paris: Emile Nourry, page 346. A

>> scholarly study of lunar beliefs. Reprinted in 1989 by Rocher, Paris.

>>

>> Sebillor, P. 1904. Le Folk-Lore de France. Paris: Guilmoto. Volume 1, page

>> 144.

>>

>> Geoffrey Dean is technical editor in Perth, Western Australia (Box 466,

>> Subiaco 6008, Western Australia). He has been investigating astrological

>> claims since 1974.

>>

>> -- End --

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

November 22, 2002

Ron,

Good to hear your thoughts on this. I share your views; it has a touch of

disingenuousness about it. And yet, what to make of the fact (apparently) that

once rounded hourly times are removed, the mars effect is substantially reduced.

He does have something there. People do fake their birthtimes and birthdates. I

have a friend born in rural Thailand who confessed that actually she did'nt know

what day she was really born on since her father registered her as Jan 1 1964.

She found out from her mother than she was born a day or two before then (she

couldn't remember). He wanted his new daughter to be a new year baby. This is

in fact one of the arguments Dean is making. And if they can fake the day, then

it's possible that they can fake the hour as well. I agree with you that this

is less likely on a systemic level but it's possible. It's a hypothetical

argument and thus completely unprovable but probably enough to satisfy the

skeptics.

I'm a fan of Dean's book as well. A curious title though given that the number

of "advances" could be counted on one hand and none of them were particularly

earth-shaking. I wonder what happened to him, a former western astrologer, to

pursue this opposite course. I guess he woke up one day, looked in the mirror

and asked himself, "why am I playing around with all these goofy planets giving

readings to people who only want some self-absorbed entertainment"? He's in

touch with some Europeans who are equal opportunity debunkers: they dont' think

much of vedic astrology either.

Chris

----------

> RonGaunt <rongaunt

> gjlist

> Re: [GJ] Fw: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin ...

> Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:10 PM

>

> Chris,

>

> As an admirer of Dean ( great book his 'Recent advances in Natal

> Astrology) I am bemused by this report. It seems to indicate a

> population who are very concerned about the position of planets

> at the time of their children's birth, and adjusting them to suit

> their own inclination to create some type of one-upmanship which

> nobody else is going to consider anyway.

>

> From my own (English) background I doubt whether anyone would

> have been even remotely interested in this. In fact I doubt

> whether many would have even know where to get planetary

> information, never mind knowing if or when planets would be

> considered favorable by their peers.

>

> It strikes me as so outlandish, that I think I must either be

> misreading the report or missing something else.

>

> Ron Gaunt

>

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:14:01 -0500, you wrote:

>

> >Friends,

> >

> >This article may be of interest, especially to those who are more familiar

with western astrology. The Gauquelin research is a central pillar in western

astrology that lends it some scientific credence.

> >

> >Chris

> >

> >----------

> >> Mailer-Daemon

> >> christopher.kevill

> >> Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin

....

> >> Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:05 PM

> >>

> >> InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

> >>

> >> Source: Skeptical Inquirer, May 2002 v26 i3 p33(6).

> >>

> >> Title: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin

> >> data suggests that hitherto baffling planetary effects may be

> >> simple social effects in disguise.

> >> Author: Geoffrey Dean

> >>

> >> Subjects: Astrology - Evaluation

> >> Planets - Influence

> >> Horoscopes - Evaluation

> >> Personality - Social aspects

> >> Locations: United States

> >>

> >> Electronic Collection: A85932618

> >> RN: A85932618

> >>

Claims

> >> of the Paranormal

> >>

> >> For almost half a century, supporters and critics of the Gauquelins'

> >> astrology-like Mars effect have been locked in dispute. The effect is hard

to

> >> study, but it involves a staggering array of puzzles, all seemingly

> >> inexplicable. To outsiders the dispute has ignored the puzzles and become

lost

> >> in obscure technicalities. It needs a new approach. In what follows we

adopt a

> >> social viewpoint and discover that, contrary to what critics thought,

> >> planetary effects are to be expected, so their absence would be more

> >> surprising than their presence. Along the way the dispute, puzzles, and

> >> support for astrology disappear. For sociologists the massive Gauquelin

> >> database emerges as a valuable new resource. Readers who would like more

> >> detail than is possible here will find it in Dean (2000).

> >>

> >> Background

> >>

> >> After forty years of skeptical investigations, the most famous in

astrology,

> >> the late Michel Gauquelin (1991) concluded: "Having collected half a

million

> >> dates of birth from the most diverse people, I have been able to observe

that

> >> the majority of the elements in a horoscope seem not to possess any of the

> >> influences which have been attributed to them." This understandably upset

> >> astrologers and pleased critics.

> >>

> >> But two of his findings pleased astrologers, upset critics, and puzzled

> >> everyone else. (1) Professional people such as scientists tended to be born

> >> with a surplus or deficit of certain planets in the areas just past rise or

> >> culmination, but only if the people were eminent and born naturally. (2)

> >> Ordinary people with such features tended to pass them on to their

children.

> >> Both tendencies were very weak and required large samples for their

detection.

> >> They had no obvious explanation.

> >>

> >> The effect had nothing to do with sun signs or other zodiacal signs. What

> >> mattered was the planet's diurnal (daily) position relative to the

> >> horizon--whether it was rising in the east or culminating overhead.

> >>

> >> The effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars was the

significant

> >> planet for sports champions, who were then the focus of attention. But

> >> depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could have been

called

> >> the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect. For more background see Ertel

> >> (1992). Here I will be considering all five effects for both eminent

> >> professionals and ordinary people.

> >>

> >> But haven't independent studies shown that the Mars effect is merely the

> >> result of biased statistics and data selection? So why should anyone bother

> >> with it? If you can bear with me, the answer should be apparent in due

course.

> >>

> >> Puzzles for Astrology and Science

> >>

> >> Ironically the Gauquelin planetary effects are as puzzling for astrology as

> >> they are for science. For science the puzzles include: Why no link with

> >> physical variables such as distance, why no link with the Sun, why is

eminence

> >> important, why an effect only at birth, why contrary to all expectation is

the

> >> effect larger for rounded birth times, and why does it disappear when the

> >> birth is induced or surgically assisted?

> >>

> >> For astrology (don't worry if the jargon is beyond you) the puzzles

include:

> >> Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why traditionally weak

> >> positions (cadent houses) and not strong ones, why occupation and not

> >> character (a claimed link with character was in fact an artifact, see Ertel

> >> 1993), and why only five planets? After all, astrologers do not claim that

> >> astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, for

> >> character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the

> >> population who are not eminent.

> >>

> >> The above puzzles seem utterly baffling. What could be happening? Why are

> >> these planetary effects so inconsistent with both science and astrology? As

is

> >> usual with puzzles, the key lies in asking the right question.

> >>

> >> Could Planetary Effects be Man-Made?

> >>

> >> Look at the Gauquelin births in their social context. Most of the births

> >> occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Western

> >> Europe, when living conditions were very different from those today, and

when

> >> early world views still survived (figure 1). It was a time when births were

> >> reported verbally to the registry office by the parents, (1) when

occupations

> >> and eminence tended to run in families, (2,3) when serious astrology had

been

> >> dead since the 1700s, and when popular almanacs gave diurnal information

for

> >> the visible planets (figure 2), that is, rising, setting and sometimes

> >> culminating times. Notice how this planetary information immediately

matches

> >> the Gauquelin findings. (4)

> >>

> >> In short, what made the Gauquelin period different from today was the

> >> availability of diurnal planetary information, the opportunity to adjust

birth

> >> data without detection, and the motivation to do so from family traditions

and

> >> world views. So perhaps fake planetary effects could arise due to: (1)

> >> Role-playing. We know what our planetary positions mean and adjust our

> >> behavior to suit. (2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant planet

in

> >> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time

before

> >> reporting it to the registry office. (3) Perinatal control. The same but

via

> >> control of the birth process by mothers and midwives.

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly little

faking

> >> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is enough.

> >> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth planning

by

> >> modern Asians (Goodkind 1991, Kaku 1975), and considerably less than the

one

> >> in thirteen observed for Sun sign role-playing (Dean, Mather, and Kelly

1996).

> >> So it should not seem implausible that Gauquelin's subjects might role-play

> >> their planets or adjust their children's birth data. But could such effects

be

> >> detected in the Gauquelin data?

> >>

> >> Re-analysis of Gauquelin Data

> >>

> >> To find out, I re-analyzed two important Gauquelin data sets. (1) The

original

> >> 15,942 eminent professionals spread over ten occupations (actors,

journalists,

> >> military men, musicians, painters, physicians, politicians, scientists,

sports

> >> champions, and writers), whose results were published in 1960. (2) The

24,948

> >> ordinary people (parents and children) from the Gauquelins' first heredity

> >> study published in 1966. The eminent professionals were born in Western

Europe

> >> mostly in 1820-1940, and are mostly male. The ordinary people were born

> >> somewhat later near Paris and are 51 percent female. (1) and (2) led to the

> >> Gauquelins' most successful results, so they are the data to look at. I

began

> >> by counting births on days said to be significant by European encyclopedias

of

> >> superstition.

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]For eminent professionals the results were revealing. Days

> >> were preferred if desirable, such as Christian feast days, and avoided if

> >> undesirable, such as witching days, showing that parents were faking birth

> >> data to suit prevailing beliefs (figure 3).

> >>

> >> The avoidance of witching days is understandable given the massive witch

hunts

> >> that for three centuries had terrorized Western Europe. The amount of

faking

> >> varied with the kind of day, but on average it involved about one in

> >> twenty-five births. So already the faking of days is more than the one in

> >> thirty faking of hours needed to explain planetary effects. Note that had I

> >> looked only at sports champions, the sample size might have been too small,

> >> and such faking might have been missed.

> >>

> >> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of births

> >> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of historic

data

> >> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from midnight

to

> >> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I plotted planetary

> >> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each professional

group,

> >> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to prefer

> >> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies that faking

is

> >> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are proverbially active,

so

> >> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight hours as

well.

> >> (5)

> >>

> >> The same implication appeared when I compared high and low levels of

faking.

> >> The mean planetary effect on desirable days (whose births have maximum

faking)

> >> was more than twice that on undesirable days (whose births have minimum

> >> faking). The point is, none of these things should happen if planetary

effects

> >> were unrelated to social effects. Nor should they happen if planetary

effects

> >> did not exist.

> >>

> >> But why fake? If we really believe that certain times are auspicious, we

can

> >> hardly believe that faking will change anything. On the other hand, if we

do

> >> not believe, why bother? We might of course see faking as merely helping an

> >> imperfect world unfold as it should. But look at why we might want to avoid

> >> witching days or midnight hours. Even if we saw nothing wrong with a

witching

> >> time, other people (and the child) might disagree, which could have dire

> >> consequences. So we fake. Similarly, if we can fake an auspicious birth

date,

> >> or a planetary indication of greatness in a chosen occupation, it could

have

> >> useful consequences. Being suitably destined in the eyes of the child and

> >> others has advantages. The same motivation exists today when hotels omit 13

> >> from floor and room numbers lest their occupancy be affected, and when

> >> psychologists control for the expectations of experimenters.

> >>

> >> Gender Rules

> >>

> >> The results for families showed much the same faking as for professionals,

but

> >> this time the preferred days were family-related with a distinct gender

> >> influence. For example children tended to be born on the same date or

weekday

> >> as their same-sex parent, showing that parents wanted more uniformity than

was

> >> allowed by nature. This may reflect the sort of traditions that led to

> >> particular weekdays being chosen for events such as weddings (Imhof 1996,

> >> 125).

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Gender influences also emerged in the planetary effects

> >> passed on by parents to their children. Regardless of planet, the passing

on

> >> for same-sex parents was roughly twice that for opposite-sex parents. That

is,

> >> sons were more like their fathers and daughters were more like their

mothers,

> >> which makes sense. Or as Lady Catherine de Bourgh says in Jane Austen's

Pride

> >> and Prejudice (1813), "daughters are never of much consequence to a

father."

> >> But it did not end there.

> >>

> >> Gauquelin had seen parent-child effects as confirming the reality of

planetary

> >> effects. He had found that fathers and mothers contributed roughly equal

> >> amounts of planetary effect to their children, which suggested a link with

> >> genetics. But he did not make same-sex and opposite-sex comparisons, and

> >> although he was aware of superstitious beliefs such as those favoring even

> >> hours over odd hours, he felt they were unlikely to simulate planetary

> >> effects. Blur, yes, simulate, no. However, genetics predicts equal

> >> contributions regardless of sex whereas social effects predict unequal

> >> contributions. So we have the classic situation of two rival hypotheses. In

> >> this case the winner is social effects.

> >>

> >> Solving the Puzzles

> >>

> >> The hitherto baffling puzzles can now be solved. Why do the Gauquelin

findings

> >> conflict with astrology? Because astrology had been effectively dead since

the

> >> 1700s, and all that remained was a debased remnant limited to planets that

> >> could be seen in the sky or read in almanacs. To be seen, planets had to be

> >> visibly above the horizon, even though this was traditionally a weak

position

> >> due to the planetary beams being "impaired by the thick and dark

exhalations

> >> arising from the earth's vapours" (Ashmand 1917). In other words the

conflict

> >> is between astrology and its debased remnant. There is no conflict between

its

> >> remnant and the Gauquelin findings.

> >>

> >> Similarly the planetary link is with occupation and not character because

that

> >> was the belief in those days. (6) There is no effect for signs or aspects

> >> because in almanacs the link was with seasons or weather, and in any case

the

> >> required adjustment (days or weeks) is too great to be feasible.

> >>

> >> The puzzles for science are solved just as easily. There is no link with

> >> physical variables such as distance or gravity because they were not part

of

> >> popular belief. There is no effect for the Sun because its position was

> >> relevant only to the seasons and to seasonal work on the farm. There is an

> >> effect only at birth because that was the popular belief. Occupation

effects

> >> are strongest where family traditions are strongest, where the match

between

> >> planets and occupation is closest, and where there is most need to be

suitably

> >> destined, as in eminent families. Hence the importance of eminence.

> >>

> >> But why is the planetary effect for precise birth times half that for birth

> >> times rounded to the hour? This is like saying the more we tune our radio

the

> >> worse the reception. It is not at all what we expect. No astrologer, no

> >> skeptic, not even Gauquelin would have predicted such a result. But faked

> >> times do not need to be precise. What matters is the planet's general

diurnal

> >> position, not its exact diurnal position, so the precision to which clocks

> >> would normally be read is not needed. Rounded times are good enough, and as

a

> >> bonus they do not raise town hall suspicions like a precise birth time

might.

> >> In other words faking increases rounding and also increases planetary

effects.

> >> In hindsight it seems so simple, so obvious.

> >>

> >> Solving the Disappearing Act

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the birth is

induced

> >> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars effect in

> >> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary effects

also

> >> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge sample of

> >> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin suggested, arose

> >> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject to medical

> >> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and therefore (in

> >> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early

births,

> >> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital or

midwife,

> >> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the decline in

> >> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented is

more

> >> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are intervening

> >> medically in all births. Also, the reestablishment of astrology in the

1930s

> >> meant a gradual end to the debased remnant and i ts match with the

Gauquelin

> >> findings. Ironically his 1984 study has told us more by its failure than it

> >> would have by its success.

> >>

> >> Conclusion

> >>

> >> The dispute between Gauquelin supporters and critics is easily resolved.

Most,

> >> perhaps all, of the Mars and other planetary effects are merely social

effects

> >> in disguise. They have been in the data all along. The Gauquelins had found

a

> >> real effect but, contrary to what everyone thought, there was no conflict

with

> >> science and no need for disbelief. Both sides can now retire with honor.

(7)

> >>

> >> Some supporters have attributed planetary effects to divine forces, or

> >> magnetospheric resonance, or the pineal gland, or genetic imprinting (see

> >> Ertel 1992). But such explanations are clearly premature. Data selection

and

> >> fraud can be rejected because Gauquelin could hardly be selective or

> >> fraudulent about social effects he was unaware of. Claims by astrologers of

> >> support for astrology, where for example planetary effects are "primary

truths

> >> about man's relationship to the cosmos" (Addey 1996), whose explanation

"will

> >> strain the possibilities of mechanism" (Hand 1987), can also be rejected.

> >>

> >> The existence of social effects in the Gauquelin data makes it a valuable

new

> >> resource for sociologists studying the nineteenth century. It seems

unlikely

> >> that this data, which took such heroic effort to collect, will ever be

> >> equaled. Examples of how quite complex beliefs and family relationships can

be

> >> explored are given by me in Dean (2000, 33-37).

> >>

> >> Of course the existence of social effects does not deny the existence of

> >> inadvertent Gauquelin bias (8) or of genuine planetary effects. But unless

> >> planetary effects can be found under conditions where social effects are

> >> absent, as when parents are excluded from the birth reporting process and

the

> >> child is ignorant of its birth planets, we might now reasonably suspend

> >> belief. Indeed, it could be argued that Gauquelin's failure to find

planetary

> >> effects in births recorded after 1950 has already put this point to the

test.

> >> [Figure 3 omitted]

> >>

> >> [FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

> >>

> >> [FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

> >>

> >> Acknowledgments

> >>

> >> I thank Christopher French, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, David Nias, and

Rudolf

> >> Smit for helpful comments, and Suitbert Ertel for help with data and

reference

> >> material. I am most grateful to the late Michel Gauquelin for many

discussions

> >> and unfailing assistance during the fifteen years of our acquaintance. It

was

> >> during our discussions in January 1991 that the idea of a new look at

social

> >> context was born. He died four months later, tragically without knowing how

it

> >> would turn out.

> >>

> >> Notes

> >>

> >> (1.) In France after the French Revolution of 1792, and subsequently in the

> >> other Gauquelin countries, the father of each new child became legally

> >> responsible for registering its birth date and time at the nearest town

hall.

> >> The father had to be accompanied by two friends to confirm that the child

was

> >> his, and by the child itself. There was no medical certificate as is

routine

> >> today, and most likely the two friends would not have witnessed the actual

> >> birth, so the father could easily adjust his report without detection.

> >>

> >> (2.) The European family group was more important than the individual, and

the

> >> inheritance of the family (whether real, as occupation, or symbolic, as

names)

> >> had to be passed to succeeding generations (Gelis 1991). For example Imhof

> >> (1996, 116) cites a German farm where from the 1550s to the present day all

> >> the heads of the household were named Johannes Hooss, made possible by

every

> >> family having one or more sons named Johannes so that one was always

available

> >> to take over when the time came. What endured was the name. What mattered

was

> >> not the individual life but the collective life, which among other things

> >> allowed death to be faced more calmly regardless of when or where it came.

> >>

> >> (3.) In his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, Francis Galton found that great

men

> >> produce more great sons than do average men. Based on the work of others,

> >> Gauquelin (1976) concluded the same: "In general terms, two-thirds of

famous

> >> people originate from five percent of the population comprised primarily of

> >> the wealthiest and most intellectual people. A professional proclivity is

> >> transmitted from generation to generation."

> >>

> >> (4.) People did not need astrology to prompt their interest in rising and

> >> culmination. Rising echoed the rising of the Sun, hence earthly and

heavenly

> >> greatness (light is a frequent biblical metaphor for Jesus). Culmination

> >> signified something at its highest power, just as "the culmination of our

> >> efforts" does today. A planet exactly on the horizon was generally

invisible

> >> and therefore without power, despite what astrology said. Just as moving

past

> >> the rising point brought planets into prominence, so did moving past the

> >> culminating point. Conflicts of analogy would be out.

> >>

> >> (5.) The midnight hour was universally the witching hour. For example in

> >> France it was "the great hour of marvels and terrors" (Sebillot 1904), and

in

> >> Germany "the child that is born, or gives its first cry, in the evil hour

[of

> >> midnight] becomes a witch" Bachtold-Staubli 1927). More famously in

> >> Shakespeare's Hamlet (1601) it was "the very witching time of night, when

> >> churchyards yawn and bell itself breathes out contagion to this world." It

> >> seems that people avoided reporting a midnight birth not merely because it

was

> >> ambiguous but also because it was connected with witches.

> >>

> >> (6.) Planetary themes today tend to focus on character traits. But in those

> >> days the focus was on occupation. First, it was a dominant part of family

> >> tradition. Thus a military family would want their new son to be a great

> >> soldier rather than, say, a stable extrovert. Second, only occupation could

> >> feasibly be shown in woodcuts. So we might expect socially-based planetary

> >> effects to be so terms of occupation-and they are.

> >>

> >> (7.) Ironically Ertel (2000) disagrees. Since the 1980s he has championed

the

> >> reality of planetary effects, so the present findings should be welcome.

But

> >> Ertel dismisses social effects as implausible, so "the challenge of the

> >> Gauquelin anomaly is as alive as ever" (p. 82).

> >>

> >> (8.) Gauquelin himself recognized the possibility of bias, which is why he

> >> later checked by computer his many tens of thousands of hand calculations

(the

> >> indications were unchanged but were somewhat less significant, see

Gauquelin

> >> 1984). He published all his data and invited anyone to check his records,

all

> >> of which were meticulously organized and freely accessible. In terms of

> >> openness beset standards well above those of his opponents.

> >>

> >> References

> >>

> >> Addey, J.M. 1996. A New Study of Astrology. London: Urania Trust, page 69.

> >> Written around 1980.

> >>

> >> Ashmand, J.M. 1917. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. London: Foulsham, page 131.

> >>

> >> Bachtold-staubli, H. (ed.). 1927. Handworterbuch des Dentschen

Aberglaubens.

> >> Berlin: De Gruyter. Volume 7, page 564.

> >>

> >> Dean, G. 2000. Attribution: A pervasive new artifact in the Gauquelin data.

> >> Astrology under Scrutiny 13: 1-72. Nearly 300 references. An extended

abstract

> >> and information on how to obtain copies are available on the Web at

> >> www.astrology-and-science.com.

> >>

> >> Dean, G., A. Mather, and I.W Kelly. 1996. Astrology. In G. Stein (ed.), The

> >> Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 47-99, page

75.

> >>

> >> Ertel, S. 1992. Update on the "Mars Effect." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 16:

150-160.

> >> Includes a survey of possible physical explanations. 43 references.

> >>

> >> -----. 1993. Why the character trait hypothesis still fails. Correlation

> >> 12(1): 2-9.

> >>

> >> -----. 2000. On Geoffrey Dean's erroneous grand notion. Astrology under

> >> Scrutiny 13: 73-84. Followed by my reply on pages 85-87.

> >>

> >> Gauquelin, M. 1976. Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. London: Futura,

page

> >> 60.

> >>

> >> -----. 1983. The Truth about Astrology. Oxford: Blackwell, page 176.

> >>

> >> -----. 1984. Profession and heredity experiments: Computer re-analysis and

new

> >> investigations on the same material. Correlation 4(1): 8-24.

> >>

> >> -----. 1991. Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. Penguin Arkana, p. 20.

> >> Gauquelin, M., and F. Gauquelin. 1972. Profession-Heredity. Results of

Series

> >> A & B. Series C, Volume 1. Paris: LERRCP.

> >>

> >> Gelis, J. 1991. History of Childbirth: Fertility. Pregnancy and Birth in

Early

> >> Modern Europe. Boston: Northeastern University Press, page 200. First

> >> published 1984 in French.

> >>

> >> Goodkind, D.M. 1991. Creating new traditions in modern Chinese populations:

> >> Aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and Development

Review

> >> 17: 663-686.

> >>

> >> Hand, R. 1987. Astrology ass revolutionary science. In A.T Mann (ed.), The

> >> Future of Astrology. London: Unwin, page 37.

> >>

> >> Imhof, A.E. 1996. Lost Worlds: How our European ancestors coped with

everyday

> >> life and why life is so hard today. Charlotteville V.I.: University Press

of

> >> Virginia. First published 1984 in German.

> >>

> >> Kaku, K. 1975. Increased induced abortion rate in 1966: An aspect of

Japanese

> >> folk superstition. Annals of Human Biology 2: 111-115.

> >>

> >> Saintyves, P. 1937. L'Astrologic Populaire. Paris: Emile Nourry, page 346.

A

> >> scholarly study of lunar beliefs. Reprinted in 1989 by Rocher, Paris.

> >>

> >> Sebillor, P. 1904. Le Folk-Lore de France. Paris: Guilmoto. Volume 1, page

> >> 144.

> >>

> >> Geoffrey Dean is technical editor in Perth, Western Australia (Box 466,

> >> Subiaco 6008, Western Australia). He has been investigating astrological

> >> claims since 1974.

> >>

> >> -- End --

> >

> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> >: gjlist-

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

> >

>

> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> : gjlist-

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

November 22, 2002

Chris,

Please see comments ** ........ **

Ron Gaunt

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:47:51 -0500, you wrote:

>Ron,

>

>Good to hear your thoughts on this. I share your views; it has a touch of

disingenuousness about it. And yet, what to make of the fact (apparently) that

once rounded hourly times are removed, the mars effect is substantially reduced.

He does have something there.

** Doesn't make sense to me. The Mars effect is Mars situated

some degrees past the Ascendant and Midheaven. One assumes

that rounding of birthtime is say within 10 minutes of real

birth time, as hospital staff are likely to quote the nearest

quarter of an hour. Mars would move very little in 10

minutes; and even an hour or more it would still be in the

position which creates the Mars effect. **

>People do fake their birthtimes and birthdates. I have a friend born in rural

Thailand who confessed that actually she did'nt know what day she was really

born on since her father registered her as Jan 1 1964. She found out from her

mother than she was born a day or two before then (she couldn't remember). He

wanted his new daughter to be a new year baby. This is in fact one of the

arguments Dean is making. And if they can fake the day, then it's possible that

they can fake the hour as well. I agree with you that this is less likely on a

systemic level but it's possible. It's a hypothetical argument and thus

completely unprovable but probably enough to satisfy the skeptics.

>

>I'm a fan of Dean's book as well. A curious title though given that the

number of "advances" could be counted on one hand and none of them were

particularly earth-shaking. I wonder what happened to him, a former western

astrologer, to pursue this opposite course. I guess he woke up one day, looked

in the mirror and asked himself, "why am I playing around with all these goofy

planets giving readings to people who only want some self-absorbed

entertainment"? He's in touch with some Europeans who are equal opportunity

debunkers: they dont' think much of vedic astrology either.

>

>Chris

>----------

>> RonGaunt <rongaunt

>> gjlist

>> Re: [GJ] Fw: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of

the Gauquelin ...

>> Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:10 PM

>>

>> Chris,

>>

>> As an admirer of Dean ( great book his 'Recent advances in Natal

>> Astrology) I am bemused by this report. It seems to indicate a

>> population who are very concerned about the position of planets

>> at the time of their children's birth, and adjusting them to suit

>> their own inclination to create some type of one-upmanship which

>> nobody else is going to consider anyway.

>>

>> From my own (English) background I doubt whether anyone would

>> have been even remotely interested in this. In fact I doubt

>> whether many would have even know where to get planetary

>> information, never mind knowing if or when planets would be

>> considered favorable by their peers.

>>

>> It strikes me as so outlandish, that I think I must either be

>> misreading the report or missing something else.

>>

>> Ron Gaunt

>>

>> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:14:01 -0500, you wrote:

>>

>> >Friends,

>> >

>> >This article may be of interest, especially to those who are more familiar

with western astrology. The Gauquelin research is a central pillar in western

astrology that lends it some scientific credence.

>> >

>> >Chris

>> >

>> >----------

>> >> Mailer-Daemon

>> >> christopher.kevill

>> >> Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin ...

>> >> Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:05 PM

>> >>

>> >> InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

>> >>

>> >> Source: Skeptical Inquirer, May 2002 v26 i3 p33(6).

>> >>

>> >> Title: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin

>> >> data suggests that hitherto baffling planetary effects may be

>> >> simple social effects in disguise.

>> >> Author: Geoffrey Dean

>> >>

>> >> Subjects: Astrology - Evaluation

>> >> Planets - Influence

>> >> Horoscopes - Evaluation

>> >> Personality - Social aspects

>> >> Locations: United States

>> >>

>> >> Electronic Collection: A85932618

>> >> RN: A85932618

>> >>

Claims

>> >> of the Paranormal

>> >>

>> >> For almost half a century, supporters and critics of the Gauquelins'

>> >> astrology-like Mars effect have been locked in dispute. The effect is hard

to

>> >> study, but it involves a staggering array of puzzles, all seemingly

>> >> inexplicable. To outsiders the dispute has ignored the puzzles and become

lost

>> >> in obscure technicalities. It needs a new approach. In what follows we

adopt a

>> >> social viewpoint and discover that, contrary to what critics thought,

>> >> planetary effects are to be expected, so their absence would be more

>> >> surprising than their presence. Along the way the dispute, puzzles, and

>> >> support for astrology disappear. For sociologists the massive Gauquelin

>> >> database emerges as a valuable new resource. Readers who would like more

>> >> detail than is possible here will find it in Dean (2000).

>> >>

>> >> Background

>> >>

>> >> After forty years of skeptical investigations, the most famous in

astrology,

>> >> the late Michel Gauquelin (1991) concluded: "Having collected half a

million

>> >> dates of birth from the most diverse people, I have been able to observe

that

>> >> the majority of the elements in a horoscope seem not to possess any of the

>> >> influences which have been attributed to them." This understandably upset

>> >> astrologers and pleased critics.

>> >>

>> >> But two of his findings pleased astrologers, upset critics, and puzzled

>> >> everyone else. (1) Professional people such as scientists tended to be

born

>> >> with a surplus or deficit of certain planets in the areas just past rise

or

>> >> culmination, but only if the people were eminent and born naturally. (2)

>> >> Ordinary people with such features tended to pass them on to their

children.

>> >> Both tendencies were very weak and required large samples for their

detection.

>> >> They had no obvious explanation.

>> >>

>> >> The effect had nothing to do with sun signs or other zodiacal signs. What

>> >> mattered was the planet's diurnal (daily) position relative to the

>> >> horizon--whether it was rising in the east or culminating overhead.

>> >>

>> >> The effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars was the

significant

>> >> planet for sports champions, who were then the focus of attention. But

>> >> depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could have been

called

>> >> the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect. For more background see Ertel

>> >> (1992). Here I will be considering all five effects for both eminent

>> >> professionals and ordinary people.

>> >>

>> >> But haven't independent studies shown that the Mars effect is merely the

>> >> result of biased statistics and data selection? So why should anyone

bother

>> >> with it? If you can bear with me, the answer should be apparent in due

course.

>> >>

>> >> Puzzles for Astrology and Science

>> >>

>> >> Ironically the Gauquelin planetary effects are as puzzling for astrology

as

>> >> they are for science. For science the puzzles include: Why no link with

>> >> physical variables such as distance, why no link with the Sun, why is

eminence

>> >> important, why an effect only at birth, why contrary to all expectation is

the

>> >> effect larger for rounded birth times, and why does it disappear when the

>> >> birth is induced or surgically assisted?

>> >>

>> >> For astrology (don't worry if the jargon is beyond you) the puzzles

include:

>> >> Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why traditionally weak

>> >> positions (cadent houses) and not strong ones, why occupation and not

>> >> character (a claimed link with character was in fact an artifact, see

Ertel

>> >> 1993), and why only five planets? After all, astrologers do not claim that

>> >> astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, for

>> >> character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the

>> >> population who are not eminent.

>> >>

>> >> The above puzzles seem utterly baffling. What could be happening? Why are

>> >> these planetary effects so inconsistent with both science and astrology?

As is

>> >> usual with puzzles, the key lies in asking the right question.

>> >>

>> >> Could Planetary Effects be Man-Made?

>> >>

>> >> Look at the Gauquelin births in their social context. Most of the births

>> >> occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Western

>> >> Europe, when living conditions were very different from those today, and

when

>> >> early world views still survived (figure 1). It was a time when births

were

>> >> reported verbally to the registry office by the parents, (1) when

occupations

>> >> and eminence tended to run in families, (2,3) when serious astrology had

been

>> >> dead since the 1700s, and when popular almanacs gave diurnal information

for

>> >> the visible planets (figure 2), that is, rising, setting and sometimes

>> >> culminating times. Notice how this planetary information immediately

matches

>> >> the Gauquelin findings. (4)

>> >>

>> >> In short, what made the Gauquelin period different from today was the

>> >> availability of diurnal planetary information, the opportunity to adjust

birth

>> >> data without detection, and the motivation to do so from family traditions

and

>> >> world views. So perhaps fake planetary effects could arise due to: (1)

>> >> Role-playing. We know what our planetary positions mean and adjust our

>> >> behavior to suit. (2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant planet

in

>> >> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time

before

>> >> reporting it to the registry office. (3) Perinatal control. The same but

via

>> >> control of the birth process by mothers and midwives.

>> >>

>> >> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly little

faking

>> >> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is enough.

>> >> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth planning

by

>> >> modern Asians (Goodkind 1991, Kaku 1975), and considerably less than the

one

>> >> in thirteen observed for Sun sign role-playing (Dean, Mather, and Kelly

1996).

>> >> So it should not seem implausible that Gauquelin's subjects might

role-play

>> >> their planets or adjust their children's birth data. But could such

effects be

>> >> detected in the Gauquelin data?

>> >>

>> >> Re-analysis of Gauquelin Data

>> >>

>> >> To find out, I re-analyzed two important Gauquelin data sets. (1) The

original

>> >> 15,942 eminent professionals spread over ten occupations (actors,

journalists,

>> >> military men, musicians, painters, physicians, politicians, scientists,

sports

>> >> champions, and writers), whose results were published in 1960. (2) The

24,948

>> >> ordinary people (parents and children) from the Gauquelins' first heredity

>> >> study published in 1966. The eminent professionals were born in Western

Europe

>> >> mostly in 1820-1940, and are mostly male. The ordinary people were born

>> >> somewhat later near Paris and are 51 percent female. (1) and (2) led to

the

>> >> Gauquelins' most successful results, so they are the data to look at. I

began

>> >> by counting births on days said to be significant by European

encyclopedias of

>> >> superstition.

>> >>

>> >> [Graphic omitted]For eminent professionals the results were revealing.

Days

>> >> were preferred if desirable, such as Christian feast days, and avoided if

>> >> undesirable, such as witching days, showing that parents were faking birth

>> >> data to suit prevailing beliefs (figure 3).

>> >>

>> >> The avoidance of witching days is understandable given the massive witch

hunts

>> >> that for three centuries had terrorized Western Europe. The amount of

faking

>> >> varied with the kind of day, but on average it involved about one in

>> >> twenty-five births. So already the faking of days is more than the one in

>> >> thirty faking of hours needed to explain planetary effects. Note that had

I

>> >> looked only at sports champions, the sample size might have been too

small,

>> >> and such faking might have been missed.

>> >>

>> >> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of births

>> >> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of historic

data

>> >> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from midnight

to

>> >> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I plotted

planetary

>> >> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each professional

group,

>> >> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to prefer

>> >> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies that

faking is

>> >> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are proverbially

active, so

>> >> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight hours as

well.

>> >> (5)

>> >>

>> >> The same implication appeared when I compared high and low levels of

faking.

>> >> The mean planetary effect on desirable days (whose births have maximum

faking)

>> >> was more than twice that on undesirable days (whose births have minimum

>> >> faking). The point is, none of these things should happen if planetary

effects

>> >> were unrelated to social effects. Nor should they happen if planetary

effects

>> >> did not exist.

>> >>

>> >> But why fake? If we really believe that certain times are auspicious, we

can

>> >> hardly believe that faking will change anything. On the other hand, if we

do

>> >> not believe, why bother? We might of course see faking as merely helping

an

>> >> imperfect world unfold as it should. But look at why we might want to

avoid

>> >> witching days or midnight hours. Even if we saw nothing wrong with a

witching

>> >> time, other people (and the child) might disagree, which could have dire

>> >> consequences. So we fake. Similarly, if we can fake an auspicious birth

date,

>> >> or a planetary indication of greatness in a chosen occupation, it could

have

>> >> useful consequences. Being suitably destined in the eyes of the child and

>> >> others has advantages. The same motivation exists today when hotels omit

13

>> >> from floor and room numbers lest their occupancy be affected, and when

>> >> psychologists control for the expectations of experimenters.

>> >>

>> >> Gender Rules

>> >>

>> >> The results for families showed much the same faking as for professionals,

but

>> >> this time the preferred days were family-related with a distinct gender

>> >> influence. For example children tended to be born on the same date or

weekday

>> >> as their same-sex parent, showing that parents wanted more uniformity than

was

>> >> allowed by nature. This may reflect the sort of traditions that led to

>> >> particular weekdays being chosen for events such as weddings (Imhof 1996,

>> >> 125).

>> >>

>> >> [Graphic omitted]Gender influences also emerged in the planetary effects

>> >> passed on by parents to their children. Regardless of planet, the passing

on

>> >> for same-sex parents was roughly twice that for opposite-sex parents. That

is,

>> >> sons were more like their fathers and daughters were more like their

mothers,

>> >> which makes sense. Or as Lady Catherine de Bourgh says in Jane Austen's

Pride

>> >> and Prejudice (1813), "daughters are never of much consequence to a

father."

>> >> But it did not end there.

>> >>

>> >> Gauquelin had seen parent-child effects as confirming the reality of

planetary

>> >> effects. He had found that fathers and mothers contributed roughly equal

>> >> amounts of planetary effect to their children, which suggested a link with

>> >> genetics. But he did not make same-sex and opposite-sex comparisons, and

>> >> although he was aware of superstitious beliefs such as those favoring even

>> >> hours over odd hours, he felt they were unlikely to simulate planetary

>> >> effects. Blur, yes, simulate, no. However, genetics predicts equal

>> >> contributions regardless of sex whereas social effects predict unequal

>> >> contributions. So we have the classic situation of two rival hypotheses.

In

>> >> this case the winner is social effects.

>> >>

>> >> Solving the Puzzles

>> >>

>> >> The hitherto baffling puzzles can now be solved. Why do the Gauquelin

findings

>> >> conflict with astrology? Because astrology had been effectively dead since

the

>> >> 1700s, and all that remained was a debased remnant limited to planets that

>> >> could be seen in the sky or read in almanacs. To be seen, planets had to

be

>> >> visibly above the horizon, even though this was traditionally a weak

position

>> >> due to the planetary beams being "impaired by the thick and dark

exhalations

>> >> arising from the earth's vapours" (Ashmand 1917). In other words the

conflict

>> >> is between astrology and its debased remnant. There is no conflict between

its

>> >> remnant and the Gauquelin findings.

>> >>

>> >> Similarly the planetary link is with occupation and not character because

that

>> >> was the belief in those days. (6) There is no effect for signs or aspects

>> >> because in almanacs the link was with seasons or weather, and in any case

the

>> >> required adjustment (days or weeks) is too great to be feasible.

>> >>

>> >> The puzzles for science are solved just as easily. There is no link with

>> >> physical variables such as distance or gravity because they were not part

of

>> >> popular belief. There is no effect for the Sun because its position was

>> >> relevant only to the seasons and to seasonal work on the farm. There is an

>> >> effect only at birth because that was the popular belief. Occupation

effects

>> >> are strongest where family traditions are strongest, where the match

between

>> >> planets and occupation is closest, and where there is most need to be

suitably

>> >> destined, as in eminent families. Hence the importance of eminence.

>> >>

>> >> But why is the planetary effect for precise birth times half that for

birth

>> >> times rounded to the hour? This is like saying the more we tune our radio

the

>> >> worse the reception. It is not at all what we expect. No astrologer, no

>> >> skeptic, not even Gauquelin would have predicted such a result. But faked

>> >> times do not need to be precise. What matters is the planet's general

diurnal

>> >> position, not its exact diurnal position, so the precision to which clocks

>> >> would normally be read is not needed. Rounded times are good enough, and

as a

>> >> bonus they do not raise town hall suspicions like a precise birth time

might.

>> >> In other words faking increases rounding and also increases planetary

effects.

>> >> In hindsight it seems so simple, so obvious.

>> >>

>> >> Solving the Disappearing Act

>> >>

>> >> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the birth is

induced

>> >> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars effect in

>> >> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary effects

also

>> >> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge sample of

>> >> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin suggested,

arose

>> >> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject to medical

>> >> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and therefore

(in

>> >> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early

births,

>> >> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital or

midwife,

>> >> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the decline in

>> >> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented is

more

>> >> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are

intervening

>> >> medically in all births. Also, the reestablishment of astrology in the

1930s

>> >> meant a gradual end to the debased remnant and i ts match with the

Gauquelin

>> >> findings. Ironically his 1984 study has told us more by its failure than

it

>> >> would have by its success.

>> >>

>> >> Conclusion

>> >>

>> >> The dispute between Gauquelin supporters and critics is easily resolved.

Most,

>> >> perhaps all, of the Mars and other planetary effects are merely social

effects

>> >> in disguise. They have been in the data all along. The Gauquelins had

found a

>> >> real effect but, contrary to what everyone thought, there was no conflict

with

>> >> science and no need for disbelief. Both sides can now retire with honor.

(7)

>> >>

>> >> Some supporters have attributed planetary effects to divine forces, or

>> >> magnetospheric resonance, or the pineal gland, or genetic imprinting (see

>> >> Ertel 1992). But such explanations are clearly premature. Data selection

and

>> >> fraud can be rejected because Gauquelin could hardly be selective or

>> >> fraudulent about social effects he was unaware of. Claims by astrologers

of

>> >> support for astrology, where for example planetary effects are "primary

truths

>> >> about man's relationship to the cosmos" (Addey 1996), whose explanation

"will

>> >> strain the possibilities of mechanism" (Hand 1987), can also be rejected.

>> >>

>> >> The existence of social effects in the Gauquelin data makes it a valuable

new

>> >> resource for sociologists studying the nineteenth century. It seems

unlikely

>> >> that this data, which took such heroic effort to collect, will ever be

>> >> equaled. Examples of how quite complex beliefs and family relationships

can be

>> >> explored are given by me in Dean (2000, 33-37).

>> >>

>> >> Of course the existence of social effects does not deny the existence of

>> >> inadvertent Gauquelin bias (8) or of genuine planetary effects. But unless

>> >> planetary effects can be found under conditions where social effects are

>> >> absent, as when parents are excluded from the birth reporting process and

the

>> >> child is ignorant of its birth planets, we might now reasonably suspend

>> >> belief. Indeed, it could be argued that Gauquelin's failure to find

planetary

>> >> effects in births recorded after 1950 has already put this point to the

test.

>> >> [Figure 3 omitted]

>> >>

>> >> [FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

>> >>

>> >> [FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

>> >>

>> >> Acknowledgments

>> >>

>> >> I thank Christopher French, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, David Nias, and

Rudolf

>> >> Smit for helpful comments, and Suitbert Ertel for help with data and

reference

>> >> material. I am most grateful to the late Michel Gauquelin for many

discussions

>> >> and unfailing assistance during the fifteen years of our acquaintance. It

was

>> >> during our discussions in January 1991 that the idea of a new look at

social

>> >> context was born. He died four months later, tragically without knowing

how it

>> >> would turn out.

>> >>

>> >> Notes

>> >>

>> >> (1.) In France after the French Revolution of 1792, and subsequently in

the

>> >> other Gauquelin countries, the father of each new child became legally

>> >> responsible for registering its birth date and time at the nearest town

hall.

>> >> The father had to be accompanied by two friends to confirm that the child

was

>> >> his, and by the child itself. There was no medical certificate as is

routine

>> >> today, and most likely the two friends would not have witnessed the actual

>> >> birth, so the father could easily adjust his report without detection.

>> >>

>> >> (2.) The European family group was more important than the individual, and

the

>> >> inheritance of the family (whether real, as occupation, or symbolic, as

names)

>> >> had to be passed to succeeding generations (Gelis 1991). For example Imhof

>> >> (1996, 116) cites a German farm where from the 1550s to the present day

all

>> >> the heads of the household were named Johannes Hooss, made possible by

every

>> >> family having one or more sons named Johannes so that one was always

available

>> >> to take over when the time came. What endured was the name. What mattered

was

>> >> not the individual life but the collective life, which among other things

>> >> allowed death to be faced more calmly regardless of when or where it came.

>> >>

>> >> (3.) In his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, Francis Galton found that great

men

>> >> produce more great sons than do average men. Based on the work of others,

>> >> Gauquelin (1976) concluded the same: "In general terms, two-thirds of

famous

>> >> people originate from five percent of the population comprised primarily

of

>> >> the wealthiest and most intellectual people. A professional proclivity is

>> >> transmitted from generation to generation."

>> >>

>> >> (4.) People did not need astrology to prompt their interest in rising and

>> >> culmination. Rising echoed the rising of the Sun, hence earthly and

heavenly

>> >> greatness (light is a frequent biblical metaphor for Jesus). Culmination

>> >> signified something at its highest power, just as "the culmination of our

>> >> efforts" does today. A planet exactly on the horizon was generally

invisible

>> >> and therefore without power, despite what astrology said. Just as moving

past

>> >> the rising point brought planets into prominence, so did moving past the

>> >> culminating point. Conflicts of analogy would be out.

>> >>

>> >> (5.) The midnight hour was universally the witching hour. For example in

>> >> France it was "the great hour of marvels and terrors" (Sebillot 1904), and

in

>> >> Germany "the child that is born, or gives its first cry, in the evil hour

[of

>> >> midnight] becomes a witch" Bachtold-Staubli 1927). More famously in

>> >> Shakespeare's Hamlet (1601) it was "the very witching time of night, when

>> >> churchyards yawn and bell itself breathes out contagion to this world." It

>> >> seems that people avoided reporting a midnight birth not merely because it

was

>> >> ambiguous but also because it was connected with witches.

>> >>

>> >> (6.) Planetary themes today tend to focus on character traits. But in

those

>> >> days the focus was on occupation. First, it was a dominant part of family

>> >> tradition. Thus a military family would want their new son to be a great

>> >> soldier rather than, say, a stable extrovert. Second, only occupation

could

>> >> feasibly be shown in woodcuts. So we might expect socially-based planetary

>> >> effects to be so terms of occupation-and they are.

>> >>

>> >> (7.) Ironically Ertel (2000) disagrees. Since the 1980s he has championed

the

>> >> reality of planetary effects, so the present findings should be welcome.

But

>> >> Ertel dismisses social effects as implausible, so "the challenge of the

>> >> Gauquelin anomaly is as alive as ever" (p. 82).

>> >>

>> >> (8.) Gauquelin himself recognized the possibility of bias, which is why he

>> >> later checked by computer his many tens of thousands of hand calculations

(the

>> >> indications were unchanged but were somewhat less significant, see

Gauquelin

>> >> 1984). He published all his data and invited anyone to check his records,

all

>> >> of which were meticulously organized and freely accessible. In terms of

>> >> openness beset standards well above those of his opponents.

>> >>

>> >> References

>> >>

>> >> Addey, J.M. 1996. A New Study of Astrology. London: Urania Trust, page 69.

>> >> Written around 1980.

>> >>

>> >> Ashmand, J.M. 1917. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. London: Foulsham, page 131.

>> >>

>> >> Bachtold-staubli, H. (ed.). 1927. Handworterbuch des Dentschen

Aberglaubens.

>> >> Berlin: De Gruyter. Volume 7, page 564.

>> >>

>> >> Dean, G. 2000. Attribution: A pervasive new artifact in the Gauquelin

data.

>> >> Astrology under Scrutiny 13: 1-72. Nearly 300 references. An extended

abstract

>> >> and information on how to obtain copies are available on the Web at

>> >> www.astrology-and-science.com.

>> >>

>> >> Dean, G., A. Mather, and I.W Kelly. 1996. Astrology. In G. Stein (ed.),

The

>> >> Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 47-99, page

75.

>> >>

>> >> Ertel, S. 1992. Update on the "Mars Effect." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 16:

150-160.

>> >> Includes a survey of possible physical explanations. 43 references.

>> >>

>> >> -----. 1993. Why the character trait hypothesis still fails. Correlation

>> >> 12(1): 2-9.

>> >>

>> >> -----. 2000. On Geoffrey Dean's erroneous grand notion. Astrology under

>> >> Scrutiny 13: 73-84. Followed by my reply on pages 85-87.

>> >>

>> >> Gauquelin, M. 1976. Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. London: Futura,

page

>> >> 60.

>> >>

>> >> -----. 1983. The Truth about Astrology. Oxford: Blackwell, page 176.

>> >>

>> >> -----. 1984. Profession and heredity experiments: Computer re-analysis and

new

>> >> investigations on the same material. Correlation 4(1): 8-24.

>> >>

>> >> -----. 1991. Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. Penguin Arkana, p.

20.

>> >> Gauquelin, M., and F. Gauquelin. 1972. Profession-Heredity. Results of

Series

>> >> A & B. Series C, Volume 1. Paris: LERRCP.

>> >>

>> >> Gelis, J. 1991. History of Childbirth: Fertility. Pregnancy and Birth in

Early

>> >> Modern Europe. Boston: Northeastern University Press, page 200. First

>> >> published 1984 in French.

>> >>

>> >> Goodkind, D.M. 1991. Creating new traditions in modern Chinese

populations:

>> >> Aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and Development

Review

>> >> 17: 663-686.

>> >>

>> >> Hand, R. 1987. Astrology ass revolutionary science. In A.T Mann (ed.), The

>> >> Future of Astrology. London: Unwin, page 37.

>> >>

>> >> Imhof, A.E. 1996. Lost Worlds: How our European ancestors coped with

everyday

>> >> life and why life is so hard today. Charlotteville V.I.: University Press

of

>> >> Virginia. First published 1984 in German.

>> >>

>> >> Kaku, K. 1975. Increased induced abortion rate in 1966: An aspect of

Japanese

>> >> folk superstition. Annals of Human Biology 2: 111-115.

>> >>

>> >> Saintyves, P. 1937. L'Astrologic Populaire. Paris: Emile Nourry, page 346.

A

>> >> scholarly study of lunar beliefs. Reprinted in 1989 by Rocher, Paris.

>> >>

>> >> Sebillor, P. 1904. Le Folk-Lore de France. Paris: Guilmoto. Volume 1, page

>> >> 144.

>> >>

>> >> Geoffrey Dean is technical editor in Perth, Western Australia (Box 466,

>> >> Subiaco 6008, Western Australia). He has been investigating astrological

>> >> claims since 1974.

>> >>

>> >> -- End --

>> >

>> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>> >: gjlist-

>> >

>> >Your use of is subject to

>> >

>>

>> Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>> : gjlist-

>>

>> Your use of is subject to

>>

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

November 22, 2002

Ron,

>

> ** Doesn't make sense to me. The Mars effect is Mars situated

> some degrees past the Ascendant and Midheaven. One assumes

> that rounding of birthtime is say within 10 minutes of real

> birth time, as hospital staff are likely to quote the nearest

> quarter of an hour. Mars would move very little in 10

> minutes; and even an hour or more it would still be in the

> position which creates the Mars effect. **

>

I don't think that is what Dean is arguing. The rounded times would have been

faked on the basis of the parent's reading of the almanac in accordance with the

planetary information about rising and setting times of certain planets. This

is his basic idea:

(2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant planet in

> >> >> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time

before

> >> >> reporting it to the registry office.

This is the basic idea laid out here. And the reason why it would only take the

occasional conscientious star-gazing parent is because the Mars effect is quite

small, as he says below.

> >> >>

> >> >> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly little

faking

> >> >> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is

enough.

> >> >> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth

planning by

> >> >> modern Asians

> >> >> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of

births

> >> >> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of

historic data

> >> >> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from

midnight to

> >> >> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I plotted

planetary

> >> >> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each professional

group,

> >> >> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to

prefer

> >> >> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies that

faking is

> >> >> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are proverbially

active, so

> >> >> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight hours as

well.

> >> >> (5)

This is the negative case. Few parents would want to record their children born

at the "witching hour" and thus is is statisitically underrepresented. The fact

that the effect tended to disappear in births after 1950 may well reflect the

end to faked birth times as more births were subject to medical intervention and

the tyranny of the nurse's watch, as Dean suggests below:

> >> >>

> >> >> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the birth is

induced

> >> >> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars effect

in

> >> >> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary effects

also

> >> >> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge sample

of

> >> >> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin suggested,

arose

> >> >> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject to

medical

> >> >> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and therefore

(in

> >> >> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early

births,

> >> >> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital or

midwife,

> >> >> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the decline

in

> >> >> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented is

more

> >> >> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are

intervening

> >> >> medically in all births.

cheers,

Chris

November 25, 2002

Hi Ron,

Although Dean seems to be a supporter of Gauquelins's Mars effect,

viewed from Gauquelins himself as stated in one of his books, The truth

about astrology:

And it was an Englishman living in Australia, Geoffrey Dean, with the

help of his fellow countryman, the astrologer Arthur Mather, who

brought out a study of Recent Advance in Natal Astrology….Reaction to

the book has been wide and varied, the skeptics regarding it as too

favorable to astrology,…..

John Anthony West, in a very interesting and serious book about

astrology, The Case for Astrology , state a different point of view over

Dean's idea in Gauquelins's work.

John stated:

Several books wholly devoted to discrediting astrology have appeared

…..The Gemini Sydrome…..Objections to astrology… and … Recent

advance in Natal Astrology by Dr Geoffrey Dean and Arthur Mather, is,

despite it's title, more of an attack on astrology than a defense yet

comes from within the astrological camp itself…….

And:

So if Dean and Mather are willing to acknowledge that ` astrologers

work' on the basis of successful tests carried out by Clark and others,

it's hard to see how can they avoid concluding that astrology also

works….

We all are indebted to Gauquelins `s lifetime devotion to prove

scientifically that the Mars effect really exist but, from my humble

experience, to delineate a chart (and personality trait) need an overall

inspection of interactions between planets, houses, the lords of the

houses, the significators, their strength, afflictions and so on..a more

complex matter than a force of a single planet upon the ascendant or

any other object.

Nowadays in Thailand, some parents started to fix an auspicious date

and time of birth for their progeny. To me, this is very dangerous.

First of all, the astrologers who fix the ` what they think' auspicious

periods, apply different systems of judgments depending on their own

guru and may be at great variance from one another. I have checked

some of them by applying SA and found that many dates and times

selected by some well known astrologers are found to be wrong and

have caused lots of problems to the poor children.

I am not sure which system is 100 % correct and accurate. To me, this

is not an ordinary human's obligation and I prefer not to suggest any

ideas to anyone who ask me to do so.

Harit Kashemsanta.

-------------------------------

gjlist, RonGaunt <rongaunt@o...> wrote:

>

> Chris,

>

> As an admirer of Dean ( great book his 'Recent advances in Natal

> Astrology) I am bemused by this report. It seems to indicate a

> population who are very concerned about the position of planets

> at the time of their children's birth, and adjusting them to suit

> their own inclination to create some type of one-upmanship which

> nobody else is going to consider anyway.

>

> From my own (English) background I doubt whether anyone would

> have been even remotely interested in this. In fact I doubt

> whether many would have even know where to get planetary

> information, never mind knowing if or when planets would be

> considered favorable by their peers.

>

> It strikes me as so outlandish, that I think I must either be

> misreading the report or missing something else.

>

> Ron Gaunt

>

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:14:01 -0500, you wrote:

>

> >Friends,

> >

> >This article may be of interest, especially to those who are more

familiar with western astrology. The Gauquelin research is a central

pillar in western astrology that lends it some scientific credence.

> >

> >Chris

> >

> >----------

> >> Mailer-Daemon@e...

> >> christopher.kevill@s...

> >> Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin ...

> >> Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:05 PM

> >>

> >> InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

> >>

> >> =

> >> Source: Skeptical Inquirer, May 2002 v26 i3 p33(6).

> >> =

> >> Title: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the

Gauquelin

> >> data suggests that hitherto baffling planetary effects may=

be

> >> simple social effects in disguise.

> >> Author: Geoffrey Dean

> >> =

> >> Subjects: Astrology - Evaluation

> >> Planets - Influence

> >> Horoscopes - Evaluation

> >> Personality - Social aspects

> >> Locations: United States

> >> =

> >> Electronic Collection: A85932618

> >> RN: A85932618

> >> =

> >>

Investigation of Claims

> >> of the Paranormal

> >>

> >> For almost half a century, supporters and critics of the Gauquelins'

> >> astrology-like Mars effect have been locked in dispute. The effect

is hard to

> >> study, but it involves a staggering array of puzzles, all seemingly

> >> inexplicable. To outsiders the dispute has ignored the puzzles and

become lost

> >> in obscure technicalities. It needs a new approach. In what follows

we adopt a

> >> social viewpoint and discover that, contrary to what critics thought,

> >> planetary effects are to be expected, so their absence would be

more

> >> surprising than their presence. Along the way the dispute, puzzles,

and

> >> support for astrology disappear. For sociologists the massive

Gauquelin

> >> database emerges as a valuable new resource. Readers who

would like more

> >> detail than is possible here will find it in Dean (2000).

> >>

> >> Background

> >>

> >> After forty years of skeptical investigations, the most famous in

astrology,

> >> the late Michel Gauquelin (1991) concluded: "Having collected half

a million

> >> dates of birth from the most diverse people, I have been able to

observe that

> >> the majority of the elements in a horoscope seem not to possess

any of the

> >> influences which have been attributed to them." This

understandably upset

> >> astrologers and pleased critics.

> >>

> >> But two of his findings pleased astrologers, upset critics, and

puzzled

> >> everyone else. (1) Professional people such as scientists tended to

be born

> >> with a surplus or deficit of certain planets in the areas just past

rise or

> >> culmination, but only if the people were eminent and born

naturally. (2)

> >> Ordinary people with such features tended to pass them on to

their children.

> >> Both tendencies were very weak and required large samples for

their detection.

> >> They had no obvious explanation.

> >>

> >> The effect had nothing to do with sun signs or other zodiacal

signs. What

> >> mattered was the planet's diurnal (daily) position relative to the

> >> horizon--whether it was rising in the east or culminating overhead.

> >>

> >> The effect was later called the Mars effect because Mars was the

significant

> >> planet for sports champions, who were then the focus of

attention. But

> >> depending on the occupation (there were nine others) it could

have been called

> >> the Moon, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn effect. For more background

see Ertel

> >> (1992). Here I will be considering all five effects for both eminent

> >> professionals and ordinary people.

> >>

> >> But haven't independent studies shown that the Mars effect is

merely the

> >> result of biased statistics and data selection? So why should

anyone bother

> >> with it? If you can bear with me, the answer should be apparent in

due course.

> >>

> >> Puzzles for Astrology and Science

> >>

> >> Ironically the Gauquelin planetary effects are as puzzling for

astrology as

> >> they are for science. For science the puzzles include: Why no link

with

> >> physical variables such as distance, why no link with the Sun, why

is eminence

> >> important, why an effect only at birth, why contrary to all

expectation is the

> >> effect larger for rounded birth times, and why does it disappear

when the

> >> birth is induced or surgically assisted?

> >>

> >> For astrology (don't worry if the jargon is beyond you) the puzzles

include:

> >> Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why

traditionally weak

> >> positions (cadent houses) and not strong ones, why occupation

and not

> >> character (a claimed link with character was in fact an artifact,

see Ertel

> >> 1993), and why only five planets? After all, astrologers do not

claim that

> >> astrology fails to work for half the planets, for signs, for aspects, =

for

> >> character, or (on Gauquelin's figures) for the 99.994 percent of the

> >> population who are not eminent.

> >>

> >> The above puzzles seem utterly baffling. What could be

happening? Why are

> >> these planetary effects so inconsistent with both science and

astrology? As is

> >> usual with puzzles, the key lies in asking the right question.

> >>

> >> Could Planetary Effects be Man-Made?

> >>

> >> Look at the Gauquelin births in their social context. Most of the

births

> >> occurred during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in

Western

> >> Europe, when living conditions were very different from those

today, and when

> >> early world views still survived (figure 1). It was a time when

births were

> >> reported verbally to the registry office by the parents, (1) when

occupations

> >> and eminence tended to run in families, (2,3) when serious

astrology had been

> >> dead since the 1700s, and when popular almanacs gave diurnal

information for

> >> the visible planets (figure 2), that is, rising, setting and sometimes=

> >> culminating times. Notice how this planetary information

immediately matches

> >> the Gauquelin findings. (4)

> >>

> >> In short, what made the Gauquelin period different from today

was the

> >> availability of diurnal planetary information, the opportunity to

adjust birth

> >> data without detection, and the motivation to do so from family

traditions and

> >> world views. So perhaps fake planetary effects could arise due to:

(1)

> >> Role-playing. We know what our planetary positions mean and

adjust our

> >> behavior to suit. (2) Parental tampering. Parents want the relevant

planet in

> >> a position that fits family traditions, so they adjust our birth time =

before

> >> reporting it to the registry office. (3) Perinatal control. The same

but via

> >> control of the birth process by mothers and midwives.

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Planetary effects are so tiny that surprisingly

little faking

> >> is needed to explain them--on average just one in thirty births is

enough.

> >> This is similar to the influence of astrological beliefs on birth

planning by

> >> modern Asians (Goodkind 1991, Kaku 1975), and considerably less

than the one

> >> in thirteen observed for Sun sign role-playing (Dean, Mather, and

Kelly 1996).

> >> So it should not seem implausible that Gauquelin's subjects might

role-play

> >> their planets or adjust their children's birth data. But could such

effects be

> >> detected in the Gauquelin data?

> >>

> >> Re-analysis of Gauquelin Data

> >>

> >> To find out, I re-analyzed two important Gauquelin data sets. (1)

The original

> >> 15,942 eminent professionals spread over ten occupations (actors,

journalists,

> >> military men, musicians, painters, physicians, politicians,

scientists, sports

> >> champions, and writers), whose results were published in 1960.

(2) The 24,948

> >> ordinary people (parents and children) from the Gauquelins' first

heredity

> >> study published in 1966. The eminent professionals were born in

Western Europe

> >> mostly in 1820-1940, and are mostly male. The ordinary people

were born

> >> somewhat later near Paris and are 51 percent female. (1) and (2)

led to the

> >> Gauquelins' most successful results, so they are the data to look

at. I began

> >> by counting births on days said to be significant by European

encyclopedias of

> >> superstition.

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]For eminent professionals the results were

revealing. Days

> >> were preferred if desirable, such as Christian feast days, and

avoided if

> >> undesirable, such as witching days, showing that parents were

faking birth

> >> data to suit prevailing beliefs (figure 3).

> >>

> >> The avoidance of witching days is understandable given the

massive witch hunts

> >> that for three centuries had terrorized Western Europe. The

amount of faking

> >> varied with the kind of day, but on average it involved about one in

> >> twenty-five births. So already the faking of days is more than the

one in

> >> thirty faking of hours needed to explain planetary effects. Note

that had I

> >> looked only at sports champions, the sample size might have been

too small,

> >> and such faking might have been missed.

> >>

> >> Now hours. Interestingly, there is a huge drop in the proportion of

births

> >> reported during the midnight hour, but it occurs in most sets of

historic data

> >> and is normally attributed to registrars rounding times away from

midnight to

> >> make it clear which day they belonged to. However, when I

plotted planetary

> >> effect against the proportion of midnight births for each

professional group,

> >> there is a strong negative correlation (figure 4). The tendency to

prefer

> >> planets goes with the tendency to avoid midnight, which implies

that faking is

> >> common to both. Midnight is of course when witches are

proverbially active, so

> >> parents who avoided witching days would want to avoid midnight

hours as well.

> >> (5)

> >>

> >> The same implication appeared when I compared high and low

levels of faking.

> >> The mean planetary effect on desirable days (whose births have

maximum faking)

> >> was more than twice that on undesirable days (whose births have

minimum

> >> faking). The point is, none of these things should happen if

planetary effects

> >> were unrelated to social effects. Nor should they happen if

planetary effects

> >> did not exist.

> >>

> >> But why fake? If we really believe that certain times are

auspicious, we can

> >> hardly believe that faking will change anything. On the other hand,

if we do

> >> not believe, why bother? We might of course see faking as merely

helping an

> >> imperfect world unfold as it should. But look at why we might

want to avoid

> >> witching days or midnight hours. Even if we saw nothing wrong

with a witching

> >> time, other people (and the child) might disagree, which could

have dire

> >> consequences. So we fake. Similarly, if we can fake an auspicious

birth date,

> >> or a planetary indication of greatness in a chosen occupation, it

could have

> >> useful consequences. Being suitably destined in the eyes of the

child and

> >> others has advantages. The same motivation exists today when

hotels omit 13

> >> from floor and room numbers lest their occupancy be affected,

and when

> >> psychologists control for the expectations of experimenters.

> >>

> >> Gender Rules

> >>

> >> The results for families showed much the same faking as for

professionals, but

> >> this time the preferred days were family-related with a distinct

gender

> >> influence. For example children tended to be born on the same

date or weekday

> >> as their same-sex parent, showing that parents wanted more

uniformity than was

> >> allowed by nature. This may reflect the sort of traditions that led to=

> >> particular weekdays being chosen for events such as weddings

(Imhof 1996,

> >> 125).

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Gender influences also emerged in the planetary

effects

> >> passed on by parents to their children. Regardless of planet, the

passing on

> >> for same-sex parents was roughly twice that for opposite-sex

parents. That is,

> >> sons were more like their fathers and daughters were more like

their mothers,

> >> which makes sense. Or as Lady Catherine de Bourgh says in Jane

Austen's Pride

> >> and Prejudice (1813), "daughters are never of much consequence

to a father."

> >> But it did not end there.

> >>

> >> Gauquelin had seen parent-child effects as confirming the reality

of planetary

> >> effects. He had found that fathers and mothers contributed

roughly equal

> >> amounts of planetary effect to their children, which suggested a

link with

> >> genetics. But he did not make same-sex and opposite-sex

comparisons, and

> >> although he was aware of superstitious beliefs such as those

favoring even

> >> hours over odd hours, he felt they were unlikely to simulate

planetary

> >> effects. Blur, yes, simulate, no. However, genetics predicts equal

> >> contributions regardless of sex whereas social effects predict

unequal

> >> contributions. So we have the classic situation of two rival

hypotheses. In

> >> this case the winner is social effects.

> >>

> >> Solving the Puzzles

> >>

> >> The hitherto baffling puzzles can now be solved. Why do the

Gauquelin findings

> >> conflict with astrology? Because astrology had been effectively

dead since the

> >> 1700s, and all that remained was a debased remnant limited to

planets that

> >> could be seen in the sky or read in almanacs. To be seen, planets

had to be

> >> visibly above the horizon, even though this was traditionally a

weak position

> >> due to the planetary beams being "impaired by the thick and dark

exhalations

> >> arising from the earth's vapours" (Ashmand 1917). In other words

the conflict

> >> is between astrology and its debased remnant. There is no conflict

between its

> >> remnant and the Gauquelin findings.

> >>

> >> Similarly the planetary link is with occupation and not character

because that

> >> was the belief in those days. (6) There is no effect for signs or

aspects

> >> because in almanacs the link was with seasons or weather, and in

any case the

> >> required adjustment (days or weeks) is too great to be feasible.

> >>

> >> The puzzles for science are solved just as easily. There is no link

with

> >> physical variables such as distance or gravity because they were

not part of

> >> popular belief. There is no effect for the Sun because its position

was

> >> relevant only to the seasons and to seasonal work on the farm.

There is an

> >> effect only at birth because that was the popular belief.

Occupation effects

> >> are strongest where family traditions are strongest, where the

match between

> >> planets and occupation is closest, and where there is most need

to be suitably

> >> destined, as in eminent families. Hence the importance of

eminence.

> >>

> >> But why is the planetary effect for precise birth times half that for =

birth

> >> times rounded to the hour? This is like saying the more we tune

our radio the

> >> worse the reception. It is not at all what we expect. No astrologer,

no

> >> skeptic, not even Gauquelin would have predicted such a result.

But faked

> >> times do not need to be precise. What matters is the planet's

general diurnal

> >> position, not its exact diurnal position, so the precision to which

clocks

> >> would normally be read is not needed. Rounded times are good

enough, and as a

> >> bonus they do not raise town hall suspicions like a precise birth

time might.

> >> In other words faking increases rounding and also increases

planetary effects.

> >> In hindsight it seems so simple, so obvious.

> >>

> >> Solving the Disappearing Act

> >>

> >> [Graphic omitted]Why do planetary effects disappear when the

birth is induced

> >> or surgically assisted? Gauquelin (1983) had noted how "the Mars

effect in

> >> sports champions born after 1950 tends to disappear." Planetary

effects also

> >> disappeared for Gauquelin's 1984 heredity study despite its huge

sample of

> >> nearly 51,000 parents and children. The problem, Gauquelin

suggested, arose

> >> because the births were more recent and were therefore subject

to medical

> >> intervention, which had upset the natural timing of birth and

therefore (in

> >> his view) the natural planetary links. But recent births, unlike early=

births,

> >> needed to be officially documented with a note from the hospital

or midwife,

> >> which meant an end to faking other than role-playing. Hence the

decline in

> >> planetary effects. After all, the idea that faking is being prevented =

is more

> >> plausible than the idea that all hospitals and all midwives are

intervening

> >> medically in all births. Also, the reestablishment of astrology in the=

1930s

> >> meant a gradual end to the debased remnant and i ts match with

the Gauquelin

> >> findings. Ironically his 1984 study has told us more by its failure

than it

> >> would have by its success.

> >>

> >> Conclusion

> >>

> >> The dispute between Gauquelin supporters and critics is easily

resolved. Most,

> >> perhaps all, of the Mars and other planetary effects are merely

social effects

> >> in disguise. They have been in the data all along. The Gauquelins

had found a

> >> real effect but, contrary to what everyone thought, there was no

conflict with

> >> science and no need for disbelief. Both sides can now retire with

honor. (7)

> >>

> >> Some supporters have attributed planetary effects to divine

forces, or

> >> magnetospheric resonance, or the pineal gland, or genetic

imprinting (see

> >> Ertel 1992). But such explanations are clearly premature. Data

selection and

> >> fraud can be rejected because Gauquelin could hardly be selective

or

> >> fraudulent about social effects he was unaware of. Claims by

astrologers of

> >> support for astrology, where for example planetary effects

are "primary truths

> >> about man's relationship to the cosmos" (Addey 1996), whose

explanation "will

> >> strain the possibilities of mechanism" (Hand 1987), can also be

rejected.

> >>

> >> The existence of social effects in the Gauquelin data makes it a

valuable new

> >> resource for sociologists studying the nineteenth century. It seems

unlikely

> >> that this data, which took such heroic effort to collect, will ever be=

> >> equaled. Examples of how quite complex beliefs and family

relationships can be

> >> explored are given by me in Dean (2000, 33-37).

> >>

> >> Of course the existence of social effects does not deny the

existence of

> >> inadvertent Gauquelin bias (8) or of genuine planetary effects. But

unless

> >> planetary effects can be found under conditions where social

effects are

> >> absent, as when parents are excluded from the birth reporting

process and the

> >> child is ignorant of its birth planets, we might now reasonably

suspend

> >> belief. Indeed, it could be argued that Gauquelin's failure to find

planetary

> >> effects in births recorded after 1950 has already put this point to

the test.

> >> [Figure 3 omitted]

> >>

> >> [FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

> >>

> >> [FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

> >>

> >> Acknowledgments

> >>

> >> I thank Christopher French, Ivan Kelly, Arthur Mather, David Nias,

and Rudolf

> >> Smit for helpful comments, and Suitbert Ertel for help with data

and reference

> >> material. I am most grateful to the late Michel Gauquelin for many

discussions

> >> and unfailing assistance during the fifteen years of our

acquaintance. It was

> >> during our discussions in January 1991 that the idea of a new look

at social

> >> context was born. He died four months later, tragically without

knowing how it

> >> would turn out.

> >>

> >> Notes

> >>

> >> (1.) In France after the French Revolution of 1792, and

subsequently in the

> >> other Gauquelin countries, the father of each new child became

legally

> >> responsible for registering its birth date and time at the nearest

town hall.

> >> The father had to be accompanied by two friends to confirm that

the child was

> >> his, and by the child itself. There was no medical certificate as is

routine

> >> today, and most likely the two friends would not have witnessed

the actual

> >> birth, so the father could easily adjust his report without detection.=

> >>

> >> (2.) The European family group was more important than the

individual, and the

> >> inheritance of the family (whether real, as occupation, or

symbolic, as names)

> >> had to be passed to succeeding generations (Gelis 1991). For

example Imhof

> >> (1996, 116) cites a German farm where from the 1550s to the

present day all

> >> the heads of the household were named Johannes Hooss, made

possible by every

> >> family having one or more sons named Johannes so that one was

always available

> >> to take over when the time came. What endured was the name.

What mattered was

> >> not the individual life but the collective life, which among other

things

> >> allowed death to be faced more calmly regardless of when or

where it came.

> >>

> >> (3.) In his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, Francis Galton found that

great men

> >> produce more great sons than do average men. Based on the

work of others,

> >> Gauquelin (1976) concluded the same: "In general terms, two-

thirds of famous

> >> people originate from five percent of the population comprised

primarily of

> >> the wealthiest and most intellectual people. A professional

proclivity is

> >> transmitted from generation to generation."

> >>

> >> (4.) People did not need astrology to prompt their interest in rising =

and

> >> culmination. Rising echoed the rising of the Sun, hence earthly

and heavenly

> >> greatness (light is a frequent biblical metaphor for Jesus).

Culmination

> >> signified something at its highest power, just as "the culmination

of our

> >> efforts" does today. A planet exactly on the horizon was generally

invisible

> >> and therefore without power, despite what astrology said. Just as

moving past

> >> the rising point brought planets into prominence, so did moving

past the

> >> culminating point. Conflicts of analogy would be out.

> >>

> >> (5.) The midnight hour was universally the witching hour. For

example in

> >> France it was "the great hour of marvels and terrors" (Sebillot

1904), and in

> >> Germany "the child that is born, or gives its first cry, in the evil

hour [of

> >> midnight] becomes a witch" Bachtold-Staubli 1927). More

famously in

> >> Shakespeare's Hamlet (1601) it was "the very witching time of

night, when

> >> churchyards yawn and bell itself breathes out contagion to this

world." It

> >> seems that people avoided reporting a midnight birth not merely

because it was

> >> ambiguous but also because it was connected with witches.

> >>

> >> (6.) Planetary themes today tend to focus on character traits. But

in those

> >> days the focus was on occupation. First, it was a dominant part of

family

> >> tradition. Thus a military family would want their new son to be a

great

> >> soldier rather than, say, a stable extrovert. Second, only

occupation could

> >> feasibly be shown in woodcuts. So we might expect socially-based

planetary

> >> effects to be so terms of occupation-and they are.

> >>

> >> (7.) Ironically Ertel (2000) disagrees. Since the 1980s he has

championed the

> >> reality of planetary effects, so the present findings should be

welcome. But

> >> Ertel dismisses social effects as implausible, so "the challenge of

the

> >> Gauquelin anomaly is as alive as ever" (p. 82).

> >>

> >> (8.) Gauquelin himself recognized the possibility of bias, which is

why he

> >> later checked by computer his many tens of thousands of hand

calculations (the

> >> indications were unchanged but were somewhat less significant,

see Gauquelin

> >> 1984). He published all his data and invited anyone to check his

records, all

> >> of which were meticulously organized and freely accessible. In

terms of

> >> openness beset standards well above those of his opponents.

> >>

> >> References

> >>

> >> Addey, J.M. 1996. A New Study of Astrology. London: Urania

Trust, page 69.

> >> Written around 1980.

> >>

> >> Ashmand, J.M. 1917. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. London: Foulsham,

page 131.

> >>

> >> Bachtold-staubli, H. (ed.). 1927. Handworterbuch des Dentschen

Aberglaubens.

> >> Berlin: De Gruyter. Volume 7, page 564.

> >>

> >> Dean, G. 2000. Attribution: A pervasive new artifact in the

Gauquelin data.

> >> Astrology under Scrutiny 13: 1-72. Nearly 300 references. An

extended abstract

> >> and information on how to obtain copies are available on the Web

at

> >> www.astrology-and-science.com.

> >>

> >> Dean, G., A. Mather, and I.W Kelly. 1996. Astrology. In G. Stein

(ed.), The

> >> Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books,

47-99, page 75.

> >>

> >> Ertel, S. 1992. Update on the "Mars Effect." SKEPTICAL INQUIRER

16: 150-160.

> >> Includes a survey of possible physical explanations. 43 references.

> >>

> >> -----. 1993. Why the character trait hypothesis still fails.

Correlation

> >> 12(1): 2-9.

> >>

> >> -----. 2000. On Geoffrey Dean's erroneous grand notion. Astrology

under

> >> Scrutiny 13: 73-84. Followed by my reply on pages 85-87.

> >>

> >> Gauquelin, M. 1976. Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior.

London: Futura, page

> >> 60.

> >>

> >> -----. 1983. The Truth about Astrology. Oxford: Blackwell, page

176.

> >>

> >> -----. 1984. Profession and heredity experiments: Computer re-

analysis and new

> >> investigations on the same material. Correlation 4(1): 8-24.

> >>

> >> -----. 1991. Neo-Astrology: A Copernican Revolution. Penguin

Arkana, p. 20.

> >> Gauquelin, M., and F. Gauquelin. 1972. Profession-Heredity.

Results of Series

> >> A & B. Series C, Volume 1. Paris: LERRCP.

> >>

> >> Gelis, J. 1991. History of Childbirth: Fertility. Pregnancy and Birth =

in Early

> >> Modern Europe. Boston: Northeastern University Press, page 200.

First

> >> published 1984 in French.

> >>

> >> Goodkind, D.M. 1991. Creating new traditions in modern Chinese

populations:

> >> Aiming for birth in the year of the dragon. Population and

Development Review

> >> 17: 663-686.

> >>

> >> Hand, R. 1987. Astrology ass revolutionary science. In A.T Mann

(ed.), The

> >> Future of Astrology. London: Unwin, page 37.

> >>

> >> Imhof, A.E. 1996. Lost Worlds: How our European ancestors

coped with everyday

> >> life and why life is so hard today. Charlotteville V.I.: University

Press of

> >> Virginia. First published 1984 in German.

> >>

> >> Kaku, K. 1975. Increased induced abortion rate in 1966: An aspect

of Japanese

> >> folk superstition. Annals of Human Biology 2: 111-115.

> >>

> >> Saintyves, P. 1937. L'Astrologic Populaire. Paris: Emile Nourry,

page 346. A

> >> scholarly study of lunar beliefs. Reprinted in 1989 by Rocher, Paris.

> >>

> >> Sebillor, P. 1904. Le Folk-Lore de France. Paris: Guilmoto. Volume

1, page

> >> 144.

> >>

> >> Geoffrey Dean is technical editor in Perth, Western Australia (Box

466,

> >> Subiaco 6008, Western Australia). He has been investigating

astrological

> >> claims since 1974.

> >> =

> >> -- End --

> >

> >Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

> >: gjlist-@e...

> >

> >Your use of is subject to

> >

Sign In

Fw: Is the mars effect a social effect? A re-analysis of the Gauquelin ...

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads