Astrology Readings.

[EHocking]

Yes and no. Hard-working at work, not so much at home.
Miss. I don't have a family to support.
Hit.
Hit.
Hit.
BIG miss.
Hit. You could have easily gotten that from reading my posts on this forum.
Miss.
The first part of the sentence is true, the second one not so much.
Mostly a miss. I keep my rebellious troublemaker side well hidden.
Mostly a miss. I don't actively seek them out.
The latter three careers would certainly fit my personality and intellect, but I don't have plans to engage in any of them.
Miss.

Well "accuracy" improved on that series of guesses.
6/14 - 42%

Still only a 32% average and, 0 for 2 on the customer satisfaction ranking, though.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Astrology was about the last thing that still resisted being entirely dismissed from my thinking as illogical, but from which I prised myself away. There are still times when I have to pull myself back from thinking irrationally about some of the things I was told (personally) in the summer of 1961. I can however say with complete conviction that decisions I made were never made because of what was said; I just thought occasionally, 'Hmm, interesting, that coincides with what he said.' (Peter Clark who died some years later at fairly young age.)

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

This is my only post until probably next weekend except Starthinkers reading. First I've got History Books to read and then I've got University to attend and read more History Books.

Such as the knowledge that Astrology doesn't freaking work.

Whose Astrology are we talking about? Given the wide disagreements about theory and methods, it is Astrologically neccesery that a considerably large proportion of what they write and even entire Astrological forms (like either Vedic or Western Astrology) be wrong.

This is also why Rudolf Smit became a professional astrologer. After assuming for years that it was all nonsense he finally read about his sun sign and was astonished to discover how accurate it was. Have you read his life story?:

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/a-pass2.htm

You really should.

I read it all. Basically Rudolf Smit should have learned to rely upon himself rather than upon other people.

But given that 'other people' are the principle concern of the Leo, it is quite confirmative that realisation of the weaknesses of other people, both that of Astrologers and of the 'victims' should have been crucial to making him sceptical of Astrology.

Just as it was 'other people' that got him into it, it is 'other people' that got him out of it.

What are you referring to with the word "theory"?

The claim that a particular factor or combination of factors has a particular effect.

Not familiar with Gunter Sachs, or his study. Certainly, everyone has a bias, but the great thing about science is that biases don't matter; the results speak for themselves. If a theory predicts certain results, those results can be independently verified. So no subjective analysis is necessary.

Gunter Sachs is an idle millionare that decided one day to do something remotely constructive before he died and funded a study to test Astrology itself.

When I say Astrology itself, I mean that he didn't test any Astrological hypothesis, nor did test any Astrologers at all. Indeed Astrologers were barred from all participation in the study.

What he tested was the core theory of Natal Astrology, which is that the position of the planets when one is born has some form of effect upon your life.

The first thing he did was determine what percentage of the population are of each Star Sign. It turned out that Gemini is the most common Star Sign and Saggitarius the rarest.

What he did then was look at various you could say activities in order to determine if the Sun Sign was a Neutral factor (that is to say there were no statistically significant different depending upon what Star Sign there was.

He basically found that there was just such an effect. For instance if you are a Tauros (like me) you have a.

13.72% higher change of having a car accident.

This is based upon first having determined the total % of the population which are Tauros and then seeing what % of the people having car accidents were Tauros. If there isn't sufficiant difference in the %, the result is dismissed as being insignificant and not constituting proof of Astrology.

For instance, only Tauros and Virgo were determined to have an increased risk and only Leo and Scorpio were determined to have a reduced risk. All others were dismissed as being not beyond the realm of chance fluctuations.

Sorry, no. I promise you that if you guess correctly, I'll tell you. Since I think that personality is determined mainly by environmental influences, combined with genetic predispositions, of course I don't think that sun signs have anything to do with my personality, and if that is true then you have an exactly 1 in 12 chance of guessing, same as everyone.

If your not a Libra Sun, you might just have Mercury there. I say you are a Virgo Sun.

I see. Let me ask you a question... at the time that you started, did it ever occur to you that the reason your Sun Sign seemed fit you so well was because of the Forer effect?

I don't think it did.

Most people tends to exaggerate, in one way or another. It's human nature. Do you really think that "Jupiter exaggerates things"? Then let me ask you, what does that mean to you, in other words how do you think that Jupiter relates to exaggeration? Is this something you just take on faith because in your mind, "it seems to work for me"?

Everyone exaggerates something, since everyone *has* a Jupiter somewhere.

What I mean is that the characteristics assosiated with the Sun ITSELF, not with any particular Sun Sign are exaggerated in my case. The Self represents Self and Self-Identity.

This is why in practice I tend to immediately consider everyone beneath me even if they are actually better qualified than I am and more powerful than I am in reality.

I will respectfully disagree. I think the reason most people decide that it is bunk is because it seems to predict the same kinds of things you can find on fortune cookies. In other words, many people grasp the fact that vague predictions can be true for many people, and therefore aren't meaningful. This is also true for other things like psychics, but I think that in the case of horoscopes it's just slightly more obvious, and only slightly less obvious than fortune cookies.

Most people's practical understanding of Astrology is limited to Sun Signs. Sun Signs ought not to work if the Sun is weak in the chart overall.

Well that's a good point. I guess it's hard to think of very specific claims about personality that are also timeless.

Well then, if astrological predictions about personality have to be very general, I suppose that in order for them to seem real, they'd have to have a noticeably high accuracy rate. The problem with the readings you have given so far is that despite the fact that all of your predictions have been very general, there's still been a noticeable amount of misses. That seems odd to me, if astrology is truly real.

That's because sometimes I make mistakes and use theories that I got from others (and thus questionable) or are essentially experimental. But I fail to see what is vague about my predictions by Astrological standards. Compared to most they are ultra-precise.

But nothing I was particularly certain about when I wrote it has thus far been torn down.

The first time I failed to make claims that I should have made because I had already *disproved* them with 'negative Cold Reading'. I actually missed a key factor that is in there. I am unhappy with that reading generally.

But I am happy with the second reading, because in that reading I didn't Cold Read because I kept reminding myself that it was someone else and in particular the 'skelaton' of the predictions held, even if I lost a few predictions on the surface.

Well, I guess I have to disagree with you here. I think the subject is generally going to know themselves better than an outside observer. While it's true that sometimes people don't see themselves the way the world sees them, the outsider also has their own biases, and are always working with incomplete information.

So in general I think you should just go along with what a person says about their personality, over what your perception is. Unless you know that person *really* well.

I disagree. The basic problem is that everyone naturally assumes everyone else in the world is pretty much the same as themselves in their core motivates. People tend to think they are normal even when they are not.

Observation of someone else is generally better than letting them answer for themselves experimentally.

Since they will fail to recognise things they don't see as noteworthy because they naturally presume that everyone else is the same as they are.

The aim of the Astrologer is to notice how people are different from other people. If you simply rely on what they tell you, you will get just how they are not different from other people.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

To Star thinker (or whoever might be hiding behind him)

You are a deeply honest person. What you say is usually what you mean and you are not one for concealing what you are actually saying behind clever words even if this does not always go down well with other and can be considered tactless.

However despite the honesty of your words, you are strongly driven to change yourself and it must be yourself because you essential honesty would allow no other, in order to be more original, more ‘different’ than those around you.

You are rather solitary by nature and tend to avoid too much social interaction. However despite this you are generally well-liked by those who know you.

Your energy governs you and not the other way around. You are given to rash actions, often in response to minute details, actions that threaten both your own health and safety and in particular your relationship with authority figures.

However when making decisions of a long-term nature as to your path in life you do not rely upon your gut instinct, but tend to spend considerable amounts of time in indecision as you consider various options.

You tend to seek inspiration and spirituality outside of any established religion or philosophy. On one hand this means that your ‘kind’ are ‘freer’ in a sense, however on the other hand without any overall religion or philosophy governing your explorations, the ability to actually reach definite conclusions that expand our knowledge of the ‘beyond’ is limited.

You tend to believe things based upon their apparent beauty and harmony, this is very important to your religious/spiritual life. You also tend to rely overly upon your gut feelings in dealing with spiritual/paranormal/occult phenomena, often at the expense of logic.

The exploration of the paranormal, the occult and the world of religious mysticism seems to be crucial to your destiny in life. Even given the addition of all the largest experimental TNOS (Trans-Neptunian objects) this still stands.

One contradiction however is this. While your destiny in life indicates the above, it also shows a far more positive relation to systems, structures, science and scepticism than it does to religion and philosophy.

Another contradiction is that it also appears that Religion and Philosophy actually enjoys an easier relation to other elements of your chart than Neptune does, even though there seems you find Philosophical and Religious debate rather stressful.

 

[Pixel42]

I read it all. Basically Rudolf Smit should have learned to rely upon himself rather than upon other people.

It was relying on the accuracy of his perceptions that led him astray, and understanding how to compensate for their inaccuracy that helped him develop the critical thinking skills which enabled him to see the world as it really is, rather than the way he wanted it to be.

But given that 'other people' are the principle concern of the Leo...

I'm a Leo. This is so far from true for me as to be utterly laughable.

 

[Belz...]

Whose Astrology are we talking about? Given the wide disagreements about theory and methods, it is Astrologically neccesery that a considerably large proportion of what they write and even entire Astrological forms (like either Vedic or Western Astrology) be wrong.

Slayer, do you realize that every supporter of nonsense uses this line of thinking ? What sort of failure, exactly, would be needed for you to understand that Astrology is bunk ?

 

[Rodibidably]

Gunter Sachs is an idle millionare that decided one day to do something remotely constructive before he died and funded a study to test Astrology itself.

When I say Astrology itself, I mean that he didn't test any Astrological hypothesis, nor did test any Astrologers at all. Indeed Astrologers were barred from all participation in the study.

What he tested was the core theory of Natal Astrology, which is that the position of the planets when one is born has some form of effect upon your life.

The first thing he did was determine what percentage of the population are of each Star Sign. It turned out that Gemini is the most common Star Sign and Saggitarius the rarest.

What he did then was look at various you could say activities in order to determine if the Sun Sign was a Neutral factor (that is to say there were no statistically significant different depending upon what Star Sign there was.

He basically found that there was just such an effect. For instance if you are a Tauros (like me) you have a.

13.72% higher change of having a car accident.

This is based upon first having determined the total % of the population which are Tauros and then seeing what % of the people having car accidents were Tauros. If there isn't sufficiant difference in the %, the result is dismissed as being insignificant and not constituting proof of Astrology.

For instance, only Tauros and Virgo were determined to have an increased risk and only Leo and Scorpio were determined to have a reduced risk. All others were dismissed as being not beyond the realm of chance fluctuations.

I've heard this claim before, and it's meaningless.

If you take any large group of people and assign them to arbitrary groups, you will find differences in those groups.

For instance, if we took 10,000 people, and grouped them into 26 groups ,where the group is based on the 2nd letter of their first name (so somebody named "Adam" is in the "d" group, etc).
We then look at those groups for differences, and suppose we find that the "u" group is in some percentage more accidents than other groups. Does this mean that giving somebody a name that has the second letter of "u" CAUSED the accidents? Of course not, it's just statistical noise.

Now if BEFORE looking at the data, I said I think the "c" group is going to be more likely to be "drinkers" and it turned out to be true there MAY be some link between the name and the condition, but to make the connection AFTER looking at the data and claim it is the cause is complete nonsense and most certainly not evidence of anything.

In any arbitrary groups of people, you're going to find differences between the groups. This is expected, and not evidence those the groups themselves are meaningful.

 

[dafydd]

originally posted by slayerofwhateveritwas

'I say yes. The reason is that Jupiter has a traditional assosiation with clergymen and religion whilst the 10th House is fairly securely career and life-path.'

In the name of reason,why?Jupiter is a gas giant,mostly hydrogen with a small proportion of helium.It is 370 million miles away from Earth.It has bugger all to do with clergymen.Where did you get that insane idea from? If you are not a troll,and you want a serious hearing here then stop spouting nonsense like that.

 

[paximperium]

I say yes. The reason is that Jupiter has a traditional assosiation with clergymen and religion whilst the 10th House is fairly securely career and life-path.

The trouble is that obviously everyone cannot become a clergymen. Also if someone is highly philosophical/religious in the concerns, they might simply stop believing in religion.

You are wrong. He is involved in fund raising and management of his church. His career is not religious.

The Astrology was contradictory. I betted on Tauros frugality being stronger than 5th House extravagance. And I got the predictable contradictary result.

However if I had simply told you it was contradictory, then what do think you would have done?

Ah, so you guessed instead of telling the "truth"?
If you told me, "I don't know," it would have at least have been honest.

That isn't a valid response to what I said.

Neither was yours.

Do you think I can just on google and type in forms of Science ruled by Libra?
But if I have to I would predict Social Sciences. Again not because I know but because it goes along with the Libra theme.

Wrong. It is a hard science.

Your brothers horoscope is unusually simple. That's why it doesn't say much.

Define a "simple" or "complex" horoscope.

It still counts as a miss. I just I have to explain the misses away.

Yes, yes you do.

Again I had to bet.

So instead of saying "I don't know", you decide to just bet? Screw the consequence to the person taking your readings seriously huh?

If I had to predict, I would predict that he is attracted primerily to people with a strong presence of Pisces in their charts.

What does this even mean?

The problem here is that everything I know points to big, important and grand careers, not the kind of pushing around shelves in supermarkets.

Scorpio supposadly rules all the following.

QUOTE]
Scorpio Careers: Chemistry, colon therapist, pharmacists, insurance, mysticism, spirituality, psychiatrists, locksmiths, mortuaries, doctor's offices, apothecaries, autospies, bathrooms, butchers, cabinet of the President or Prime Minister, cemetary association, tax or bill collectors, crematories, places where death is prominent, detectives, investigators, druggist, drugstores, pharmacists, pharmacy, insurance, life insurance, first aid, embalmers, executioners, mobs, laboratories, medicine, morticians, morgues, surgery, reproduction, scientists.

Tough job career predicting. So many jobs and so few signs.

So many jobs, so many ways to get a random hit.

 

[L The Detective]

I read it all. Basically Rudolf Smit should have learned to rely upon himself rather than upon other people.

Well, at least you read it. I'm glad you read this because I found it to be informative.

The claim that a particular factor or combination of factors has a particular effect.

Right. Please stick to the word "factors," then. Using the word "theory" for them is very confusing. But if you want to use the word theory for the overall idea of astrology, that makes more sense.

Gunter Sachs is an idle millionare that decided one day to do something remotely constructive before he died and funded a study to test Astrology itself.

When I say Astrology itself, I mean that he didn't test any Astrological hypothesis, nor did test any Astrologers at all. Indeed Astrologers were barred from all participation in the study.

What he tested was the core theory of Natal Astrology, which is that the position of the planets when one is born has some form of effect upon your life.

The first thing he did was determine what percentage of the population are of each Star Sign. It turned out that Gemini is the most common Star Sign and Saggitarius the rarest.

What he did then was look at various you could say activities in order to determine if the Sun Sign was a Neutral factor (that is to say there were no statistically significant different depending upon what Star Sign there was.

He basically found that there was just such an effect. For instance if you are a Tauros (like me) you have a.

13.72% higher change of having a car accident.

This is based upon first having determined the total % of the population which are Tauros and then seeing what % of the people having car accidents were Tauros. If there isn't sufficiant difference in the %, the result is dismissed as being insignificant and not constituting proof of Astrology.

For instance, only Tauros and Virgo were determined to have an increased risk and only Leo and Scorpio were determined to have a reduced risk. All others were dismissed as being not beyond the realm of chance fluctuations.

I see. Well, I'm not quite sure of the relevance of increased risk of having a car accident. Also, 13% is a fairly small difference. How did he get those stats again, exactly? (Anyone besides Slayer, please feel free to weigh in about this.)

If your not a Libra Sun, you might just have Mercury there. I say you are a Virgo Sun.

Nope. What are you talking about in regards to the planets, anyway? What does it mean, "have Mercury there"? Just curious.

I don't think it did.

Well, I would think not, because if you had known about it at the time, you may have dismissed all of it. Then let me ask you another question... I assume you know and understand what the Forer effect is now, correct? How do you know that what you seem to experience through astrology can't all be explained by this effect?

Everyone exaggerates something, since everyone *has* a Jupiter somewhere.

Well I would say it's just human nature, because everyone ultimately wants to be liked by other people, and therefore they will exaggerate various things that make them look more interesting. Can you understand why you saying it's because "everyone has a Jupiter" seems a bit silly to me, when there's already a natural explanation that makes more sense?

Also, if everyone has a "Jupiter" somewhere, doesn't this make predictions somewhat useless? What's the point if astrology says the same thing about everyone?

What I mean is that the characteristics assosiated with the Sun ITSELF, not with any particular Sun Sign are exaggerated in my case. The Self represents Self and Self-Identity.

Tell me again how astrology predicts that your characteristics associated with your "sun sign" are supposed to be exaggerated, and what that means. Does that mean your characteristics with that sun sign should be very close to 100% accurate? Is there any way for you to identify ahead of time which people should have "exaggerated" characteristics?

This is why in practice I tend to immediately consider everyone beneath me even if they are actually better qualified than I am and more powerful than I am in reality.

Lots of people have that tendency, though.

Most people's practical understanding of Astrology is limited to Sun Signs. Sun Signs ought not to work if the Sun is weak in the chart overall.

I see. Do you know ahead of time if someone's Sun is "weak", before you read them? If so, then can you explain a bit about how astrology is useful for whom people the Sun is "weak?"

 

[L The Detective]

That's because sometimes I make mistakes and use theories that I got from others (and thus questionable) or are essentially experimental. But I fail to see what is vague about my predictions by Astrological standards. Compared to most they are ultra-precise.

Well, maybe "Astrological standards" are just too weak. If the predictions astrology makes have to be vague, then they had better be very accurate, because otherwise it's virtually identical to astrology not working. Do that make sense to you?

But nothing I was particularly certain about when I wrote it has thus far been torn down.

The first time I failed to make claims that I should have made because I had already *disproved* them with 'negative Cold Reading'. I actually missed a key factor that is in there. I am unhappy with that reading generally.

But I am happy with the second reading, because in that reading I didn't Cold Read because I kept reminding myself that it was someone else and in particular the 'skelaton' of the predictions held, even if I lost a few predictions on the surface.

You're really happy with it? Because it seems unsatisfactory to me. Let's go over the results of your second reading with Godless Dave again.

Hits: 5
Misses: 4
Partial: 5

Now, that doesn't seem very impressive. I noticed that you rationalized some of the misses, like so:

If you have no family then no miss at all.

That's not necessarily true. You're saying that if he had a family, he might be protective of them just like the reading says. But you have no way of knowing that for sure, so this at best would have to count as an "unknown," not a hit. But personally, I think the prediction "You work particularly hard for the wellbeing of your family." tends to indicate someone to whom family is important, and since he doesn't have family, I would qualify this as more of a miss.

Are you sure? Or have you just never been interested in singing. I just noted that successful people with Mercury/Saturn conjunctions tend to be singers.

Because Saturn is control and regulation and Mercury is voice you see.

If he specifically says "BIG MISS," I take that to mean he is pretty sure, and I'm surprised you don't also.

Again it's a stretch to derive from Venus in Cancer good relations with mother. I like your misses Godless Dave.

Then you should have said that before, during his reading. Otherwise, you could simply be interpreting his chart in such a way to explain away your mistakes. Next time you make a reading, say things like this during the actual reading, or there's no way we can count them. So this still has to be counted as a definite miss.

Well that would be for other people to judge. Given your name and ahem* avatar I don't see that at all.

You shouldn't judge someone based on their avatar. I don't know Godless Dave all that well, but if you asked me if he was a rebellious troublemaker simply based on his activity here, I would certainly say no. The best I can say based on his avatar is that he has a sense of humor. And besides that, you really can't judge a person's personality based on how they act on the internet at all.

So, even not counting the ones for which he said "mostly a miss," and the guess about his family, it seems your reading still has 3 very solid misses, and only 5 very solid hits. That seems fairly poor for a reading in which most of the guesses are vague generalities that apply to most people. But you disagree, you were impressed with this reading. Then let me ask you: 1. can you understand why I am not impressed? 2. can you see why I think your standard of accuracy for astrology is much too low?

 

[L The Detective]

It gets even worse than simple subjectivity. There are many times people will give an answer they think the questioner wants, regardless of whether or not it's true. Another problem with testing astrology is that certain traits have been proclaimed as being representative of one sun sign or another, for example, Taurus and stubborness. How many people who consider themselves Taurus also consider themselves stubborn, even if it isn't objectively true?

or in other words, self fulfilling prophecy. I see what you mean, thanks... those are good points I should keep in mind.

Yes and no. The problem with associated traits crops up again. You are definitely on the right track, though. It is better to not only prepare a number of different horoscopes, but to have another person proof-read for give away hints. The cleaned-up horoscopes would then go back to the astrologer for approval of the edits. Then they would be passed onto the people. For something as informal as this forum, this type of test would work pretty well, and has been tried several times in the past. No astrologer who has attempted this here has been successful as of yet.

The other type of study that keeps getting dragged into this is the type where a very large number of people are examined for personality traits, and this is then compared to astrological events (which is basically the methodology of Gunter Sachs' study). This type has a number of problems, including possible statistical analysis errors. The main problem is that any correlation will be seen as significant, even when it may not be. For example, if you do a study of babies and which direction they were moving when they were born (assuming natural birth and not C-section), you might be able to find a correlation between something as obscure as birth direction and musical ability. Are the two correlated? Who knows?

Ah, I see the flaws behind this type of study, now. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Klimax]

Hm.I see several attempts at astrology reading.
I had never been read by any "paranormalist".(Be it astrologer or somebody else)

Could you please try me?
My date of birth is 30.10.1987,male IIRC it should be enough for astrology.However be as specific as possible,no vague statements!

I look forward to your reply with reading.

 

[paximperium]

Hm.I see several attempts at astrology reading.
I had never been read by any "paranormalist".(Be it astrologer or somebody else)

Could you please try me?
My date of birth is 30.10.1987,male IIRC it should be enough for astrology.However be as specific as possible,no vague statements!

I look forward to your reply with reading.

He also needs your place of birth, time of birth and current location.

 

[Klimax]

Hm.I see several attempts at astrology reading.
I had never been read by any "paranormalist".(Be it astrologer or somebody else)

Could you please try me?
My date of birth is 30.10.1987,male IIRC it should be enough for astrology.However be as specific as possible,no vague statements!

I look forward to your reply with reading.

He also needs your place of birth, time of birth and current location.

Missed that and news to me...Well good luck finding it.
Opocno Czeck Republic 5:05
I will give nearest bigger town as current village is lets say very small.
Hradec Kralove(I stay there for significant part of week anyway!)

 

[L The Detective]

Could you please try me?
My date of birth is 30.10.1987,male IIRC it should be enough for astrology.However be as specific as possible,no vague statements!

Well, I think he would probably say that astrology readings have to be vague, since what he is doing with astrology is essentially just describing different personality traits. And it's hard to think of personality traits that don't apply to a lot of people.

 

[Belz...]

Slayer, I'd like to know the answer to this: how can astrology work, exactly ? I mean, Jupiter, for instance, and for all intents and purposes, exerts the same amount of force on every human being. Same for all the stars and planets. I'm trying to understand how it would work.

 

[quarky]

I wonder if you stay the same sign, for eternity, if you believe in an afterlife?
I was never that happy with my sign, even though I briefly tried to emmulate its suggestions.

One thing that troubles me is the expanding universe. And the deal with individual stars changing drasticly, on occasion, could spell trouble down the line for the constellations.

At some point, won't we need an upgrade? Possibly a 13th sign? For the expansion problem?
And what to do about pre-planned c-sections, where a women might choose the time with enough flexibility to optimize the astrological benefits? Is that cheating?

last night, I saw the 'average size dipper' in the northern sky. And a toaster.
I don't know what to believe anymore.
What if my mom lied about my birth time? Or the hospital made a clerical error?

It would really suck to find out you're actually a Capricorn, after decades of believing better news.

 

[Klimax]

Well, I think he would probably say that astrology readings have to be vague, since what he is doing with astrology is essentially just describing different personality traits. And it's hard to think of personality traits that don't apply to a lot of people.

Ok,let's see what respons will be.(But in that case he can get even bigger failure)

Oh,and I would advise against cold reading posts here or elsewhere because they would paint very different and untrue picture,possibly contradicting and surly incomplete.

 

[Hokulele]

or in other words, self fulfilling prophecy. I see what you mean, thanks... those are good points I should keep in mind.

Ah, I see the flaws behind this type of study, now. Thanks for pointing that out.

My pleasure.

The best types of studies would focus on one specific aspect of astrology and attempt to show whether or not a correlation between that one aspect and real life is true. For example, if astrological readings can predict compatibility between people, take the charts of five pairs of people and see which of those should or should not have had successful relationships with each other. Compare that to the actual relationship history (divorce, separation, marital stability, or at least the equivalent for same-sex couples, etc.). This gives an objective and theoretically reproducible avenue for study. Anything else leads to the vague waffle problem we have seen here.

And yes, studies of this type have never reliably shown any real correlation.