Join Mind's membership

Join Mind's membership

Astrology has no relevance to understanding ourselves or our place in the cosmos. Advocates of astrology cannot account for the underlying basis of astrological associations with terrestrial affairs, have no plausible explanation for its claims and have not contributed anything of cognitive value to any field of social sciences. The above post therefore is probably going to benefit from the following test;

 

People think it works for two basic reasons:

The Forer Effect: vague and general personality descriptions that people think are uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone, and

Confirmation Bias: which means that people tend to notice and give greater importance what confirms something, rather than what contradicts it.


#1: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 subjects, based on natal data (date, time and place of birth), provided by the subjects. Each subject was given three charts: one chart based on their own natal data, and two charts derived from natal data of other people. Each subject was asked to identify the chart that most correctly described themselves. In 28 of the 83, the subject chose their own chart. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. (The astrologers predicted that the subjects would select their own chart more that 50% of the time.)

#2: 116 subjects completed California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34% of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3 trails producing a correct choice. (The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more than 50 per cent of the trials.)

Conclusion by Carlson:

"We are now able to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to ensure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the "minimum" effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance.


"I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper. The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks. Its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of the experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology."

Source: Shawn Carlson - A Double-blind Test of Astrology, “Nature”, 318, 419, 1985