• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Astrology test protocol in progress..

PROTOCOL START

I will collect 10 volunteers and their birth details and number them from 1-10.

I will send 3 random birth details to the astrologer.

From these birth details the astrologer will write 3 personality profiles and differentiates them with letters X, Y and Z.

He will then send the personality profiles to me.

I will check the profiles for clear claims and will surround them as follows START CLAIM you have divorced 3 times END CLAIM.

I will also check the profiles for any unnecessary clues.

I will then send them back to the astrologer for approval and discussion.

When we are both happy I will send the profiles forward to the 10 volunteers.

The 10 volunteers will grade each of the 3 personality profiles and mark the claims as either a "hit" or a "miss".

The profile that has most "hits" is the one that the volunteer will choose as his or her personality profile and sends it to me.

I will then identify the best score for X, Y and Z profiles from all the volunteers and connect them to the birth details.

For example, if volunteers number 1 (3 hits), 4 (2 hits) and 9 (5 hits) chose profile X as their own, I will connect number 9 with the profile X.

The test is considered a success if:

1) All three of the original volunteers choose the profile that the astrologer did for them.

2) All three of the original volunteers have the most hits in the chosen profile.

PROTOCOL END

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I guess something like this would be good to include as well, for example:

The profile that I had most hits in described my life and personality accurately [ ]

The profile I had most hits in did NOT describe my life and personality accurately [ ]
 
Thanks for all the PM's keep them coming, I just had a talk with "the astrologer" and we agreed 25 to be the minimum age of the volunteers.

We also discussed whether it's a problem if he says things like: "on September 1985, you got fired from your working place..."

I don't think he should mention years, or ages at all, this would be a bit unfortunate though. I think the only way to get around this is to limit the minimum age to 50.

What he should NOT include in the profiles:

Ages, dates, countries.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterFox said:
What if there is a tie in the number of hits on a profile?
Click to expand...


Then it would depend on the answer to the question whether they thought it described them accurately or not. If it's anything other than yes from the right person, I guess it's a fail. If it's a yes from both of them, hmmm, I guess that's still a fail, unless they are born very close to each other.

This leads me to another question, wouldn't it be better overall if "the astrologer" could see all the dates and choose 3 dates that would produce 3 very different profiles on purpose? Or that I could somehow choose the dates for him that way. This would at least help with the issue that GMF raised above (EDIT: or would it? I think I need a break, this stuff is confusing :boggled:)
 
Last edited:
Well, call me crazzy, but assuming you picked people off the internet which neither you nor the Astrologer knows in person, I think it would be safe to assume in a friendly debate (no million dollar on the table) that the Astrologer isn't like to uncover the real identity of the people and make a specially crafted chart for them. So personally I see no risk in giving him all dates and let him pick the ones he wants to do provided he tells you which ones they were.

Also, what is the problem of him mentioning years? If you are afraid of him saying something about 1985 that will hint to the person in question, why not simply change it to an age?

"When you were 18 you did..."

Assuming you don't include anything before the age of 25 (the minimum you agreed) then I see no problem with that.

You should, however, agree that no remarks will include anything culturaly revealing due to the country of origin. Let's say for example that a subject is from Israel. That already tells you that it is extremely likely that the guy is jewish and that he served in the army at 18 (it's mandatory here).
 
Kuko 4000 said:
Then it would depend on the answer to the question whether they thought it described them accurately or not. If it's anything other than yes from the right person, I guess it's a fail. If it's a yes from both of them, hmmm, I guess that's still a fail, unless they are born very close to each other.

This leads me to another question, wouldn't it be better overall if "the astrologer" could see all the dates and choose 3 dates that would produce 3 very different profiles on purpose? Or that I could somehow choose the dates for him that way. This would at least help with the issue that GMF raised above (EDIT: or would it? I think I need a break, this stuff is confusing :boggled:)
Click to expand...


Although it would probably be safe, I would recommend sticking with some form of randomization. A tie would only be problematic if there were a large percentage of the volunteers tying (which would imply a demonstration of Forer effect), or if the two people who tie had hits on the exact same claims. It is possible to tie, and yet have completely different claims be the hits and misses, which just shows basic chance at work.

I agree with GrandMasterFox in that ages would be appropriate rather than dates, but I would disagree and suggest that you only include things that happen before age 25, as that is the minimum age, and all participants would have an equal chance that it could apply to them.

For example, if the astrologer lists something as happening at age 50, it may disqualify a number of volunteers who are under the age of 40.

I also agree that you should watch out for cultural issues such as the required military service.
 
Hokulele said:
I agree with GrandMasterFox in that ages would be appropriate rather than dates, but I would disagree and suggest that you only include things that happen before age 25, as that is the minimum age, and all participants would have an equal chance that it could apply to them.
Click to expand...


I guess that was what GMF meant as well, it's so easy to get mixed up in a hurry or whatever, and yeah, that would be the way to do it.

The problem (well, it's not really a problem, I'm just trying to find the optimal solution by getting my thoughts out in the open) is that it would artificially limit much of what he could say about the person in such great detail (if age variation is, say, from 25 to 75). I'm starting to lean towards raising the minimum age to 50 or if that proves too problematic maybe to a five year sweet spot from all the volunteers so far. This would allow him to make all kinds of age and year related "guesses" without compromising the test. It would be better for both the astrologer and the accuracy of the test.

The good thing is, that he has agreed that I can read the profiles, mark them for claims and also correct the text if there is something I think is not necessary. We will then send them back and forward until we are both happy.

What he should NOT include in the profiles:

Ages, dates, countries, cultural references.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
I agree with GrandMasterFox in that ages would be appropriate rather than dates, but I would disagree and suggest that you only include things that happen before age 25, as that is the minimum age, and all participants would have an equal chance that it could apply to them.
Click to expand...

That is what I ment. It was an unfortunate typo.

My apologies.
 
Garrette said:
I understand what she is saying in respect to a test, but does she understand what she is saying in regard to practice?

When astrologers give readings for believers, do the astrologers discount the believers' agreements and tell them not to take it seriously until they have had friends conduct double-blind assessments first?

This is another version of what we see in so many proposed tests--the claimant describes or implies abilities that are incredibly obvious and irrefutable but in protocol discussions makes it clear that such obviousness won't be apparent in the test.
Click to expand...

I asked her something similar and her explanation was that it took many meetings with her astrologer to understand what he was saying about her, as well as understand herself. She didn't think his horoscope was accurate, now she understands (or believes) that it was.
 
vIQleS said:
I don't understand what you're saying here...

If the astologer was accurate, then each 'profile' should relate to only one person (maybe with a few overlaps here and there - e.g. "you work with children").

So we would expect that the people who are not chosen as the 4 profiles will hand back all 4 having given them a very low score for accuracy. And the 4 that are chosen will be able to rate 1 of the 4 much higher than the rest.
Click to expand...

Her point is that the 4 chosen will not rate higher because they will not recognized themselves in the descriptions, even if they are accurate.

Personally I predict (should I apply?) that the profiles will not have explict claims like "you work with children".
 
I received a couple of PM's from the volunteers wondering about the current situation, etc. I will keep everyone posted and I'm pretty sure I'll get everything sorted out during this week, thanks for the interest and there is still time to send your details to me via PM. The more volunteers I have available to choose from, the better it is for the test. Thanks once again :)
 
icerat said:
Her point is that the 4 chosen will not rate higher because they will not recognized themselves in the descriptions, even if they are accurate.
Click to expand...

That can't be her point, because that's the test.

If the profiles aren't matched correctly (or rejected) then the test = fail.

If the profiles are matched correctly, then test = pass

If the tests are accurate, then why won't people rate themselves higher? that's the bit i don't get...
 
vIQleS said:
That can't be her point, because that's the test.

If the profiles aren't matched correctly (or rejected) then the test = fail.

If the profiles are matched correctly, then test = pass

If the tests are accurate, then why won't people rate themselves higher? that's the bit i don't get...
Click to expand...


Her point is that what we think of as being our personality (stubborn, creative, etc.) isn't really our personality. We apparently have a super-secret astrological personality that can only be revealed by an astrologer. Until we learn to accept these super-secret astrological personalities as our own, regardless of what personal experience has taught us about ourselves, astrologers will always fail at these types of test.

Or something.
 
Hokulele said:
Her point is that what we think of as being our personality (stubborn, creative, etc.) isn't really our personality. We apparently have a super-secret astrological personality that can only be revealed by an astrologer. Until we learn to accept these super-secret astrological personalities as our own, regardless of what personal experience has taught us about ourselves, astrologers will always fail at these types of test.

Or something.
Click to expand...

Oh, well - when you put it like that it makes lots of sense...

:xrolleyes

(Thanks for the translation...)

Suggest we not mention this to the testee...
 
Hokulele said:
Her point is that what we think of as being our personality (stubborn, creative, etc.) isn't really our personality. We apparently have a super-secret astrological personality that can only be revealed by an astrologer. Until we learn to accept these super-secret astrological personalities as our own, regardless of what personal experience has taught us about ourselves, astrologers will always fail at these types of test.
Click to expand...

A truly fair test of astrology also requires an accurate assessment of personality by some other mechanism, which can itself be problematic.
A similar problem has plagued some well-known astrology tests regarding the capability for self-identification. For instance, in the Carlson test, astrologers were expected to match people's CPI result with their horoscope. They failed.
What most people don't know is that the subjects themselves also failed to successfully identify their own CPI result.
 
AvalonXQ said:
A truly fair test of astrology also requires an accurate assessment of personality by some other mechanism, which can itself be problematic.
A similar problem has plagued some well-known astrology tests regarding the capability for self-identification. For instance, in the Carlson test, astrologers were expected to match people's CPI result with their horoscope. They failed.
What most people don't know is that the subjects themselves also failed to successfully identify their own CPI result.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to overcome this by marking the exact claims in the profile, and asking the volunteers to rate the claims as either a hit or a miss.
 
We're moving along nicely, I think I'll get the dates forward by saturday or sunday and the profiles should be ready by monday or tuesday. Once again, thanks for the help everyone!
 
Kuko 4000 said:
PROTOCOL START

I will collect 10 volunteers and their birth details and number them from 1-10.

I will send 3 random birth details to the astrologer.

From these birth details the astrologer will write 3 personality profiles and differentiates them with letters X, Y and Z.

He will then send the personality profiles to me.

I will check the profiles for clear claims and will surround them as follows START CLAIM you have divorced 3 times END CLAIM.

I will also check the profiles for any unnecessary clues.

I will then send them back to the astrologer for approval and discussion.

When we are both happy I will send the profiles forward to the 10 volunteers.

The 10 volunteers will grade each of the 3 personality profiles and mark the claims as either a "hit" or a "miss".

The profile that has most "hits" is the one that the volunteer will choose as his or her personality profile and sends it to me.

I will then identify the best score for X, Y and Z profiles from all the volunteers and connect them to the birth details.

For example, if volunteers number 1 (3 hits), 4 (2 hits) and 9 (5 hits) chose profile X as their own, I will connect number 9 with the profile X.

The test is considered a success if:

1) All three of the original volunteers choose the profile that the astrologer did for them.

2) All three of the original volunteers have the most hits in the chosen profile.

PROTOCOL END

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this could pave the way for a more stringent test, these are not very steep odds.

As someone pointed out, if the volunteers were knowledgeable about astrology, or simply has had their chart run before, it would void the test, they could recognize the appropriate response for the data they have given.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom