From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Mars Effect, part 2 of 2
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 26 Sep 92  17:42:52

Tally time! For each "sports champion" chart, the planets and sectors
were tallied. Mars showed up in Sectors 01, 02, 09, and 10 "Plus Zones"
with greater frequency that their expected frequency.
 
Several issues here, of course. First, how did they determine what the
expected was? Their observed frequency was (and is) so well documented
and clear, it is, in my mind, unreproachable. However, the expected
frequency is the point of contention. How did the Gauquelins resolve
this problem (some say they have not, please note)? M. Gauquelins'
solution, which got her the small award from Mr. Dean, was to use the
50,000 character trait database she and her spouse had collected,
"randomly" selecting non-sports champion charts from the closest date
match and geographic area as possible, as a reference.
 
In roughly her own words: "To establish the expected statistical
frequencies in thirty-six sectors," a "reference distribution list" was
calculated. "The expected frequencies for a tested traits list were
then calculated proportionally to the number of individuals described
by the tested traits and the number of planetary positions in each
sector of the reference distribution." (see Gauquelin SERIES "C", page
33).
 
In other words (my words that is): The character traits that denote
"sports champions," based on published biographies, we tallied by Sun
position, Moon position, Venus position, etc., ("position" here meaning
the 36 sectors) for all planets and lumanaries. It was found that when
the charts of "sports champions" were tallied, Mars fell within the
"plus zones," while OTHER PLANETS =AVOIDED= the plus zones. When charts
of people with biographically described character traits opposite the
"sports champions" character traits were tallied, Mars =avoided= the
plus zones.
 
-MY- interpretation of =THEIR= interpretation of the data is, a planet
that falls within a "plus zone" denotes character traits, while a
planet which avoids a "plus zone" also denotes character traits.
 
For this to hold true, other planets should denote character traits.
That is, if scientists' charts were tallied, what planet would fall
into the "plus zones" more often than chance, and which planets would
"avoid" the plus zones more often than chance? It was found that the
charts of scientists had Saturn in the "plus zones," and Mars avoided
the "plus zones." Military "leaders" and politicians had Jupiter fall
within the "plus zones." Those with character traits of "caring,"
"loving," and "compassionate" in their biographies had Moon in the
"plus zones."
 
Venus, Mars, and Saturn yielded results significant, at the oh-five
level, with one degree of freedom, after all -known- (understood)
demographics had been considered.
 
I took the Mars data and calculated "risk factor." The "risk factor"
means, if a person is born with Mars in a "plus zone," what is the risk
of that person becoming a "sports champion" in relation to those
without Mars in a "plus zone?" The results stated that one is only
about three or four percent more likely to have character traits of
sports champions, or be a sports champion, than otherwise.
 
I have Mars in a plus zone, Sector 10. Yet I am not a sports champion
(I am, however, hyperactive. Does that count?). In other words, even if
astrology is valid (a claim I have not made, by the way), and even if
the Mars Effect were valid (which I believe has -some- merit), the odds
of my being a sports champion is only very slightly greater than
otherwise. Since I have Venus in a plus zone, Sector 01, I consider
myself "Mars Effect Nulled," as two very opposite planets are in "plus
zones---" I energetically -kick- doors open for women, and then dimple
at them, flashing my blue eyes flirtingly (Mars and Venus, that is).
 
Specific points I wish to stress:
 
1) The Mars Effect doesn't exclude all the other planets. Moon, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn yield results in the "plus zones," and also
in the "minus zones" (the "minus zones" being where a planet AVOIDS a
sector).
 
2) The Gauquelins have not, to my knowledge, present their data as
proof of astrology. Many, many independent studies must reproduce their
results, and this M. Gauquelin knows very well--- she is aware of the
negative results with the North American data.
 
3) Michel did not kill himself because he was despondent over his
studies being "proven invalid," contrary to a few rumors I've heard.
His spouse divorced him (it has been said that he wasn't a very
agreeable fellow).
 
4) Whether you consider astrology silly rubbish or not, the studies
still make damn interesting reading!
 
5) I.S.A.R. stands for "International Society for Astrological
Research."

--- Maximus 2.00