More on Dean's Test

[Guest guest]

http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html

 

Please, anyone interested in research, go to the web site above and read

the article from CORRELATION. You'll see how astrologers can't ace even a

test that they fully approve of. (Excerpt below)

 

Therese

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The Astrotest

 

A tough match for astrologers

 

Source: Correlation, Northern Winter 1996/97, 15(2), p. 14-20.

Author: Rob Nanninga

 

 

Introduction

Astrology text books contain many testable statements. To take an example:

it is said that people with the Sun in an Air-sign (Gemini, Libra and

Aquarius) are more thinking types than those with the Sun in a Water-sign

(Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces). Thus we might expect that among skeptics Air

signs are more numerous than Water signs. To my knowledge this hypothesis

has not yet been tested. Nevertheless, it seems likely that it can be

disproved because many similar tests have failed to show any relationship

between given Sun signs and certain personality traits or vocation (e.g.

Bastedo, R.W. 1978; Culver & Ianna, 1988; Gauquelin, 1982, 1988; Hentschel,

1985; McGervey, 1977; Startup, M. 1984; Tyson, 1980, 1984; Van Rooij, 1993).

 

Astrologers strongly object to these kind of tests. They emphasize that one

should always look at the whole chart...

 

Fortunately, we don't have to argue about this issue because there are

tests in which astrologers can use the whole chart. I am referring to the

so-called matching test. One of the best examples was conducted by the

Australian researcher Dr. Geoffrey Dean (1987). Using the Eysenck

Personality Inventory, Dean selected 60 people with a very high

introversion score and 60 people with a very high extraversion score. Next,

he supplied 45 astrologers with the birth charts of these 120 subjects. By

analysing the charts the astrologers tried to identify the extroverts from

the introverts. The results were very disappointing. It was as if the

astrologers had tossed coins to determine their choices. Their average

success rate was only 50.2 percent.

 

As might be expected, astrologers do not like this type of test either.

They argue that they need more information on the subjects so as to

successfully accomplish their matching task. An extreme extraversion score

on the EPI is apparently not enough. Many astrologers doubt the value of

personality tests. How can we overcome this hurdle? The best way to go

about this is to ask astrologers what kind of information they require...

This strategy was used by John McGrew and Richard McFall (1990), two

psychologists of Indiana University. The 'Astrotest' that I am about to

discuss is similar to their approach...(continued on the web site)

[Guest guest]

Careful sleeping with the enemy...

No telling what you'll pick up.

________________________________

 

therese hamilton wrote:

 

> http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html

>

> Please, anyone interested in research, go to the web site above and

> read

> the article from CORRELATION. You'll see how astrologers can't ace

> even a

> test that they fully approve of. (Excerpt below)

>

> Therese

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> The Astrotest

>

> A tough match for astrologers

>

> Source: Correlation, Northern Winter 1996/97, 15(2), p. 14-20.

> Author: Rob Nanninga

>

> Introduction

> Astrology text books contain many testable statements. To take an

> example:

> it is said that people with the Sun in an Air-sign (Gemini, Libra and

> Aquarius) are more thinking types than those with the Sun in a

> Water-sign

> (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces). Thus we might expect that among skeptics

> Air

> signs are more numerous than Water signs. To my knowledge this

> hypothesis

> has not yet been tested. Nevertheless, it seems likely that it can be

> disproved because many similar tests have failed to show any

> relationship

> between given Sun signs and certain personality traits or vocation

> (e.g.

> Bastedo, R.W. 1978; Culver & Ianna, 1988; Gauquelin, 1982, 1988;

> Hentschel,

> 1985; McGervey, 1977; Startup, M. 1984; Tyson, 1980, 1984; Van Rooij,

> 1993).

>

> Astrologers strongly object to these kind of tests. They emphasize

> that one

> should always look at the whole chart...

>

> Fortunately, we don't have to argue about this issue because there are

>

> tests in which astrologers can use the whole chart. I am referring to

> the

> so-called matching test. One of the best examples was conducted by the

>

> Australian researcher Dr. Geoffrey Dean (1987). Using the Eysenck

> Personality Inventory, Dean selected 60 people with a very high

> introversion score and 60 people with a very high extraversion score.

> Next,

> he supplied 45 astrologers with the birth charts of these 120

> subjects. By

> analysing the charts the astrologers tried to identify the extroverts

> from

> the introverts. The results were very disappointing. It was as if the

> astrologers had tossed coins to determine their choices. Their average

>

> success rate was only 50.2 percent.

>

> As might be expected, astrologers do not like this type of test

> either.

> They argue that they need more information on the subjects so as to

> successfully accomplish their matching task. An extreme extraversion

> score

> on the EPI is apparently not enough. Many astrologers doubt the value

> of

> personality tests. How can we overcome this hurdle? The best way to go

>

> about this is to ask astrologers what kind of information they

> require...

> This strategy was used by John McGrew and Richard McFall (1990), two

> psychologists of Indiana University. The 'Astrotest' that I am about

> to

> discuss is similar to their approach...(continued on the web site)

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 04:13 PM 8/21/06 -0700, D*S wrote:

>

>Careful sleeping with the enemy...

>No telling what you'll pick up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I ain't sleeping with nobody--I still think we'll be able to tell the

difference beween extreme extraverts and introverts. If not, what is

astrology?

 

T.

[Guest guest]

Well, you haven't quite lost your sense of humor. Introvert, extrovert

--really that important for you in reading for a client, do you think?

You come from a Psychological background and you still carry an

identification with those funny people. Look at Dean's chart. It's

absolutely split down the center. He used to suck up to ashtrology, now

he opens his legs for Science. Interesting he had to go both ways at

different times to acquire the balance signaled by Nodes rising &

setting...the 2nd of Pentacles marvelously exemplified.

 

D*S

 

 

therese hamilton wrote:

 

> At 04:13 PM 8/21/06 -0700, D*S wrote:

> >

> >Careful sleeping with the enemy...

> >No telling what you'll pick up.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> I ain't sleeping with nobody--I still think we'll be able to tell the

> difference beween extreme extraverts and introverts. If not, what is

> astrology?

>

> T.

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 08:41 PM 8/21/06 -0700, you wrote:

>

>Well, you haven't quite lost your sense of humor. Introvert, extrovert

>--really that important for you in reading for a client, do you think?

 

D*S, it would surely help to advise parents if their child would be more

suited to an occupation working with others or a more autonomous type of

work. Then the parents wouldn't be trying to force the child into an

unsuitable direction in life. This is just one practical example.

 

>You come from a Psychological background and you still carry an

>identification with those funny people. Look at Dean's chart. It's

>absolutely split down the center. He used to suck up to ashtrology...

 

I don't think he ever did that. I knew Geoff, and I think all along he was

playing games with us while gathering data to disprove astrology. He was

never an astrologer. At the very least, he had an intellectual curiosity

about the subject of astrology. His book is an extremely valuable resource

since it lists so many attempted research projects by and for astrologers.

 

I checked Amazon.com: only one copy is available from an Amazon Marketplace

seller for $180 with pages that are turning brown. I'm glad I bought a copy

when it was first published. The book is very interesting, actually, and a

tremendous amount of work went into it. How many astrologers would have the

discipline to put togther such a tome? (596 pages)...not to mention the

Gauquelin research. I have some of the computer printouts for their

research, courtesy of Francoise. Even one page of the many

thousands--astrologers couldn't do it. We don't have either the education

or the mental discipline.

 

P.S. I haven't followed contemporary psychology for eons, except for what

appears in popular magazines and newspapers. But the Gauquelins gave us

very valuable planetary keywords, and I don't see anything wrong with

showing some evidence that certain astrological pictures do indeed

correlate with psychological traits. I have just enough education to know

that discipline and training are both necessary to accomplish anything of

lasting value.

 

Astrologers are not disciplined. And most astrologers haven't been trained

in logical thinking, which (contrary to belief) in no way harms intuition.

Anyhow, so-called intuition hasn't helped astrologers in any test of

astrology.

 

End of rant.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

I'd have to agree that Extraversion/Introversion is a pretty basic

factor in the human psyche, one that ought to be easy to pick out.

Now it may well be that not a single participant of the Dean test was

working from any kind of sidereal ruleset in making a determination.

Vocation would not be the best factor to pick out, as likely the

minority of people are placed in their " ideal " vocations, by whatever

means one would predict that. This would have been more interesting

if the participants were asked by what criteria they were making the

judgment. It's more disturbing that the responses are not showing a

similar pattern.

 

Yes, I " know " on some level that there is something to astrology and

that the sidereal approach feels markedly better. It *may* be the

case that we are effectively stumbling around in the manner of the

Alchemists of a thousand years ago. They discovered real chemical

principles, created useful substances, and made the first

identification of true chemical elements. In effect, they laid the

foundation for the later science ... but progress was slowed

partially by proprietary attitudes and that a methodology didn't even

exist for testing and refining information. They knew they were on to

something and could do interesting things with it.

 

One approach I'd try is to characterize the planets and create trial

rulesets that might be tested. Suppose it were possible to pick out

people at early age with high danger of violent or criminal tendency

and take remedial action? Or actually help people identify career

options objectively and reliably? The value to society would be,

well, astronomical If I didn't sense a potential beyond beautiful

mythic symbology, it wouldn't seem worthwhile to continue exploring

the astrological realm. There do appear to be precious gems of

enormous value here, even if mixed with 95% useless technique.

Perhaps for the first time in history the means exist to sort it out,

not unlike bringing archaeology to the service of sorting out truth

from fiction in the history of religions. Scary and " dangerous " ?

Absolutely! Necessary? Very much so, if one is to venture beyond mere

belief system.

 

 

, therese hamilton

<eastwest wrote:

>

> At 04:13 PM 8/21/06 -0700, D*S wrote:

> >

> >Careful sleeping with the enemy...

> >No telling what you'll pick up.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> I ain't sleeping with nobody--I still think we'll be able to tell

the

> difference beween extreme extraverts and introverts. If not, what is

> astrology?

>

> T.

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:04 AM 8/28/06 -0000, Julia wrote:

 

>I'd have to agree that Extraversion/Introversion is a pretty basic

>factor in the human psyche, one that ought to be easy to pick out.

>Now it may well be that not a single participant of the Dean test was

>working from any kind of sidereal ruleset in making a determination.

 

Hi Julia,

 

I don't remember if I was one of Dean's test astrologers or not. I can't

find any correspondence from Dean. I was a siderealist at the time. But

I'll be looking over some of the charts to see if the zodiac gives any

clues. I tend to believe that it's all in the planets, and we have to

discover the various ways a certain planet can be strong in the horoscope.

 

>Vocation would not be the best factor to pick out, as likely the

>minority of people are placed in their " ideal " vocations, by whatever

>means one would predict that.

 

I'm working on an interesting project now with charts from the

AstroDatabank, and it does seem that particular patterns in the 10th by

zodiac sign point to certain kinds of occupations. There will be certain

occupations under a sign (as fencing for Gemini) that won't show up for the

other signs. There aren't enough charts to make this a scientific study,

but from the anecdotal point of view it's very interesting.

 

>This would have been more interesting

>if the participants were asked by what criteria they were making the

>judgment. It's more disturbing that the responses are not showing a

>similar pattern.

 

This illustrates the lack of standards among astrologers. It's every

astrologer for him/herself as far as theory and technique go.

 

>One approach I'd try is to characterize the planets and create trial

>rulesets that might be tested. Suppose it were possible to pick out

>people at early age with high danger of violent or criminal tendency

>and take remedial action? Or actually help people identify career

>options objectively and reliably?

 

We really should be able to solve both of these questions. We certainly

have enough charts to study in the AstroDatabank.

 

>The value to society would be,

>well, astronomical If I didn't sense a potential beyond beautiful

>mythic symbology, it wouldn't seem worthwhile to continue exploring

>the astrological realm.

 

I agree, yet perhaps the majority of astrologers are quite happy staying in

the realm of myth and symbol--which is why they can't tell an introvert

from an extravert and aren't frustrated enough by their lack of knowledge

to study the problem. They think, " Oh, well, astrology works great in

counseling, and that's all that matters. " But actually it doesn't work

that well since with a little background information we can see anything in

a horoscope that we want to.

 

>There do appear to be precious gems of

>enormous value here, even if mixed with 95% useless technique.

 

That may be the correct percentage too!

 

>Perhaps for the first time in history the means exist to sort it out,

>not unlike bringing archaeology to the service of sorting out truth

>from fiction in the history of religions. Scary and " dangerous " ?

>Absolutely! Necessary? Very much so, if one is to venture beyond mere

>belief system.

 

I am still wondering why astrologers don't seem to want to venture beyond

belief. I know that I personally have been thooughly convinced of one

astrological 'truth' or another only to find through testing that said

truth turns out to be quite false. Well, that's one reason I changed

zodiacs...

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

I have Dean's Recent Advances in fresh copy as not second hand. It is,

as you say, a valuable bibliography and the only reason I have it

--because what it teaches I always knew...that there is precious little

science to astrology. Anyone knowing little beyond the 1* orb of fixed

stars might check out pg. 247 and footnotes which will lead them through

Morinus, Gouchon, Simmonite, G.Antares, Bentley (but not Rigor.)

 

Dark*Star

_________________________________

 

therese hamilton wrote:

 

>

> His book is an extremely valuable resource

> since it lists so many attempted research projects by and for

> astrologers.

>

> I checked Amazon.com: only one copy is available from an Amazon

> Marketplace

> seller for $180 with pages that are turning brown. I'm glad I bought a

> copy

> when it was first published. The book is very interesting, actually,

> and a

> tremendous amount of work went into it.

>