The horoscope can reveal attitudes but not activities, capacities but not achievements. It can show manual dexterity and artistic perceptions but not whether a person is good at painting or sculpture. It can reveal keen physical intelligence but not whether the native will express this acumen through mechanics or sport. Not the least of Gauquelin's contributions, then, is making this unpopular but logical truth glaringly obvious. Those who don't like facts, of course, will not like his book or the search for knowledge that it truly represents, just as those to whom statistics is a dirty word are most apt to uphold perverse magical concepts, and just as those who carp against psychologists are most in need of therapy.
Human beings are strange creatures, indeed.
As for criticisms of Dr. Gauquelin's report, these occur to us in such abundant numbers we hardly know where to begin. A good starter would be to point out the sheer idiocy of his having employed the layout of the sky in an arbitrary fashion. To confuse matters and hence cause himself to miss out on something vital his own research had to tell him, he adopted a silly division of the sky into eighteen sectors. The first sector, for example, covers the first twenty degrees above the eastern horizon, and the numbering runs clockwise from there, toward the Midheaven in twenty-degree stages, around to the Descendant, and so on. This is utterly uncalled-for contrariness, not essentially different from the sillinesses he accuses astrologers of committing.