It is suggested that conventional statistical significance tests are inappropriate for research in astrology and that Bayesian methods are better. Bayes’ theorem is explained using probability tree notation and examples from everyday life. It is argued that Michel Gauquelin could have inadvertently biased his work on planets and character traits – but still have been right. Examples are offered from the history of science to show that prominent scientists have often embellished results to make them more convincing. Finally, a Bayesian analysis of the Astro-Questionnaire results taken in conjunction with Gauquelin’s character trait work indicates that a prior probability of 1/5 develops to a post probability of nearly 2/3. It is proposed that this analysis gives support to the contention that further experimental work on the character trait hypothesis is needed.

Previouisly unpublished data has aided the analysis of Bradley’s Jupiter-rainfall study. It is shown that Bradley’s results are spurious, due to the astronomical artifact of the Moon’s sidereal period being nearly commensurable with the Earth’s rotation.

Data provided by 3,480 respondents were used to test various hypotheses relating personality to date and time of birth. As predicted by astroogy, an alternating pattern with sun sign was found for extraversion. The water signs were found to be more emotional than the other elements but the distribution of neuroticism scores throughout the year was not random. It is suggested that if self-descriptions are influenced by knowledge of astrology this effect is not trivial. In the present study the sun sign connection could not have been picked up from hints given by the circumstance of testing. Gauquelin’s finding that associations between personality and planetary positions do not appear among ordinary people is supported, and presents something of a puzzle.

In Correlation 1, 1, I was accused by Michael Startup of having under-estimated the results of several astrologers’ description of the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn’s psychological meaning. He contests one expected value of 50% and estimates it at 20%. The statistical reasons for my estimation of the expected value are described here, together with the diffiuclties of working statistically with psychological trait words, which explains the somewhat complicated method used to measure the accuracy of astrologers’ keyqords adopted in the second test in my booklet.

Gauquelin maintains that the correlation between birth frequencies of eminent people and the position of planets at the time of their births arre due to some hereditary readiness. According to this view specific responsiveness of professions to the planets is associated with character dispositions, in support of which M and F Gauquellin provided empirical evidence by extracting trait expressions from biographies. Using more rigorous controls, the author, with help from a research student, tested for trait variation in biographies among groups of professionals having different planets in sensitive zones. Trait extractors did not know the planetary positions of the perosnalities to which the biographies were devoted. The character trait hypothesis was not supported. Previous positive rsults reported by M and F Gauquelin might be explained by not having excluded extraction bias arising from astrological knowledge and expectancies.

In this article the author points to an unmet requirement in any theory of inheritance of astrological planetary placings in diurnal space. For any characteristic to be heritable it must confer a selective advantage on the organism carrying it. While it seems difficult to understand why children should acquire greater survival ability from inheriting personality traits from their parents the picture is very different when the modern concept of inclusive fitness is used in combination with a systemic view of the family group. With these more advanced concepts a new hypothesis is derived relating astro-inheritance to the new parameter of birth order of each sibling in a family. Some preliminary testing with a small data sample provides some confirming results, and unusually for astro-research the hypothesis can be tested without a null hypothesis. Contribution of further data samples are invited.

A critical examination and replication of an experiment by Ertel on Gauquelin’s character trait hypothesis (CTH) is reported. Ertel and co-workers re-analysed the same US birth data used by Gauquelin in a previous report of positive results to test for bias by Michel Gauquelin in extracting the traits from biographies. Ertel reported negative results, concluding that CTH positive findings were due only to Gauquelin bias. The present study closely followed Ertel’s procedure, using the same material once again, but the extractions were made by two students at the University of California at Fresno under the authors’ supervision. The results confirm Gauquelin’s former positive results, contradicting Ertel’s conclusions, and suggest a Gauquelin bias insufficient to affect the main results significantly in favour of CTH. Possible reasons for the differences between the results of the present study and Ertel’s are discussed.

This paper is the result of research conducted on a database of the horoscopes of Australian parents and their children. The work was stimulated by Michel Gauquelin’s hereditary work, which I judged had not really considered the traditional horoscopic associations that can link one chart to another. These associations, such as rulership of a planet over a sign, exaltation and angularity, are additional ways in which an astrological influence can be represented from one generation to another. This research paper explores these types of relationships. The results indicate that the astrological concepts of old rulership seem to be more influential than new rulerships when establishing a correlation between the charts of parents and their children. This holds true over a range of different experiments. However, the most interesting result in the entire project came from the ancient Greek disused technique called the noddings of the Moon. This gives surprisingly strong results when the mother’s chart is considered. The data can also be examined via sorting by the gender of the child, as well as their order of birth. This proves to be quite important, with a consistent emphasis over most of the projects showing that the first-born child’s chart contains a greater frequency of correlations.
Keywords: Gauquelin, old rulership, noddings, first-born child.

In part 1 of this article I reported a significantly high frequency of synastry aspects in married couples. In this article I present the results of a control experiment in which the birth dates of the couples have been shifted in time. I produced 16 control samples consisting of couples whose birth dates were shifted with a constant number of days backwards and forward in time. I found that the shifts rendered aspect totals which were not significant. Only small shifts (two days) produced results that were close or even slightly larger than the aspect total connected to the unshifted birth dates. So my conclusion was that the previously reported finding is not due to an artefact associated with the age differences between married partners.

According to Dean’s parental tampering hypothesis (PTH) Gauquelin planetary effects of AD 1800 – 1950 are due mainly or entirely to the reporting of wrong birth hours by superstitious parents. Parental superstition is also deemed manifest in various other ways of tampering with birth dates and birth times such as midnight avoidance, or full Moon, lucky number, Christian feast adjustment etc. It is well-known that due to increased population, education, and urbanization, superstition declined in European countries from AD1800 to 1950. I calculated Dean’s eight purported indicators of superstition individually for successive birth cohorts of Gauquelin professionals. If Dean’s hypothesis holds, his indicators of superstition should decline accordingly. An analysis of successive birth cohorts, however, showed that Dean’s purported superstition variables did not decline. Hence they do not indicate superstition. Dean’s parental tampering hypothesis, devoid of validity of its key variables, cannot possibly be right.