Yesterday I posted a fun test of astrology. I went to a popular astrology site and looked up the horoscope for 14th July.….
“Your heart may be fully engaged in something sweet and romantic, but you know you’ve got more going on than that. It’s a good day for you to check in with your people all over the map.”
I then asked everyone to rate how accurate it was between 1 (not at all accurate) and 10 (very accurate) and give their star sign. Here are the results….
The mean accuracy ratings for each of the star signs are as follows….
Aries: 2.7
Taurus: 2.1
Gemini: 2.3
Cancer: 3.8
Leo: 3.6
Virgo: 2.4
Libra: 2.7
Scorpio: 2.1
Sagittarius: 2.4
Capricorn: 4.1
Aquarius: 2.0
Pisces: 1.9
So, those born under Capricorn clearly thought it was the most accurate. Unfortunately, the reading was actually for LIBRA (which came in fourth place).
So, what does it all mean? Well, if the the reading was accurate, those born under Libra should have assigned the highest ratings, so it didn’t support the notion that the reading was accurate.
Also, given that those born under Capricorn gave it the highest ratings, some might argue that the findings suggest that they might be the most gullible star sign….what do you think? Do give your star sign when making a comment!
Love it! Great test!
Good one. I think these readings are specifically vague so that most people can associate with at least one aspect of it.
YES! Aquarians are 2nd “least gullible”!
The thing is Richard, the people who follow you on Twitter and read your blog are more sceptical than society as a whole.
I’m not coming to any conclusions without standard deviations, at least.
er, Gemini
It amuses me that Pisces are quite low. Aren’t we meant to have “gullible” as one of our negative traits?
Then again, maybe that explains it.
I have had it happen on several occasions that someone who only just met me minutes ago correctly guesses that I’m Sagittarius.
1 in 12 times?
Actually, I already know how much BS astrology is (I’m one of the Capricorns), but you asked us to rate how accurate the reading was to our own lives, not how much we believed this reading was specifically for our Star Signs.
So I don’t think this means we’re “gullible”, given the parameters of the test. Just like that recent JREF challenge, where all the women were told to pick *something*, that doesn’t mean that they all actually believed it was totally accurate or don’t understand the concept of coincidence.
With 12 star signs to choose from, and dozens of people rating the horoscope, you’re bound to get *some* people for whom the horoscope actually applies.
This says nothing about the gullibility of those whose lives happen to coincidentally resemble the rather vague description given. It says only that some people do happen to have experienced a day that could be described by the horoscope.
This test is better proof of the fact that horoscopes are BS because the Libras did *not* actually match the description, rather than making any statement of the beliefs of those who took the test.
Good points Joreth..agree.
I am Aquarius.
Agreed, the conclusion about gullibility is incorrect, probably statistically insignificant and most likely a joke.
I would also like to see the statistics of the results: are they significantly different from the situation where each group would have given exactly the average score?
(Capricorn, but I’d still like to maintain that it doesn’t matter).
Agreed Joreth
Shame on you Wiseman for twisting your conclusions in this sensationalist way!
Oh dear, does that mean capricorns are the least likely to appreciate irony?
Oops
My star sign is Michelin (from Cancer in the last transfer season)
Awesome. Pisceans take no crap… or have no friends. Hmmm…
Here’s the link to Dave Gorman’s experiment in this area
http://www.davegorman.com/projects_astrology_experiment.html
I agree with what Joreth said, as they are mainly very general statements it’s interesting that no star sign reached 5, I think that the respondents may have had a strong bias in their replies.
I’ve always thought astrology was a load of bollocks. But then we scorpoios are a sceptical lot.
..who can’t type.
Most gullible? That’s a big generalisation.
Most romantic sounds more likely
-Capricorn
@Joreth. Some good points.
I’d like to see the same thing done but with the personality atributted to each sign. I’m a Virgo.
I’m a Scorpio and I put 8 for mine….no real surprise, according to the internets I’m ‘extremely passionate’
With only a 1 in 365 chance it was my granddaughter’s 9th birthday that day, so the bit “Your heart may be fully engaged in something sweet and romantic, but you know you’ve got more going on than that.” was fairly much on the mark. I also had a lot of work to complete before a deadline prior to her arrival at the house.
And my star sign is Libra.
It does not, however, change my mind that it’s all a load of tosh!
We can’t draw any conclusions unless you reveal the sample size.
The variation could be significant, or just noise.
Gemini
The previous blog entry reveals over 300 responses. Sample size is not a problem.
Oops.
Libra.
It’s not just the sample size we need, it’s a full analysis of these values, taking account of the standard deviations in the scores. This is somewhat complicated math, but psychologists are trained in it. It may very well reveal that nothing extraordinary happened here, i.e. that no gullibility was proven.
I think you are searching for meaning after the fact there, even in a completely randomised system one number/selection will come up more than any others, as you will see if you look at the regularity of certain lottery numbers.
If you had predicted that Capricorn’s were going to be the most gullible before the test and then confirmed it then you might be on to something but you didn’t!
I am not an aquarius.
I notice RW still uses terms like ‘born under Capricorn.’
Western astrology is based on seasons, not constellations. Many tabloid astrologers still don’t realise that this is the case. And Richard clearly hasn’t gone beyond Linda Goodman-esque sun-signs in his reasearch. It seems he was gullible enough to believe that sun-signs equal astrology.
Your attacks on sun-signs are warranted. I’ve debunked them on my own site. But to call sun-signs astrology is a mistake.
Best wishes,
Drew
Problems with your thesis:
1. newspaper ‘astrologers’ call sun sign stuff astrology.
2. 80% of the population calls it astrology.
It seems you’re suffering from the ‘no true Scotsman fallacy’, a logical reasoning/debating error. “All Scotsmen wear kilts.” -”But this guy is from Edinburgh and he’s wearing trousers.” -”Sure, but he’s no real Scotsman.”
Or: “Astrology works.”
-”But this test has just proven it doesn’t.”
-”Yes, but that’s not real astrology.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Hi Jim.
’1. newspaper ‘astrologers’ call sun sign stuff astrology.
2. 80% of the population calls it astrology.’
And? I’m familiar with the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy, but it doesn’t stand up here.
Astrology has been around for thousands of years. Tabloid/sun-sign astrology was invented in the 1930s to fulfil a demand. I’m just trying to point out that sun-sign astrology and astrology and two separate subjects.
But hey… Far be it for an astrologer to know his subject.
Best wishes, Jim.
OK, but the point is: when you complain “It seems he was gullible enough to believe that sun-signs equal astrology” you’re forgetting the possibility that Richard knows all about your brand of astrology, but prefers to test the variety that most people know and consider to represent astrology.
Hi Jim.
If he’s familiar with my brand of astrology, great. If not, maybe teaming up with an astrologer who knows his subject would be beneficial for the next test though.
I’m more than happy for sun-sign astrology to laughed at. But it can have a knock-on effect for astrology in general. All I’m trying to do is educate people.
Drew
I think the only knock-on effect from sun sign astrology to ‘real’ astrology has been beneficial for the ‘real’ astrologers. If it weren’t for the newspaper/pop culture variety, astrologers wouldn’t have much business at all. It is because of their belief in the sun sign variety that people are interested in astrology.
For the record I’d like to state that ANY brand of astrology has been thoroughly debunked. See http://www.astrology-and-science.com/ . So if you could please not “educate”people, the world would be better off.
Jim,
It was a pleasure.
You see what you went and did there Jim, you went and scared him off with evidence. How dare you!
You don’t play fair, you and your reason and controlled studies.
[...] http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/most-gullible-star-sign/ [...]
My fellow Aquarius-ans came in second for the most skeptical. Woo?
Aha! Pisces wins.
Flawless victory.
Hey, maybe we Capricorns are just passionate people who are not afraid of commitment AND know we have to keep in good touch with our friends, too?
No, not gullible. The reading is so vague that it is bound to sound sensical to many people. In fact I suspect the reason you got so many low scores is precisely because many readers of this blog are aware of how astrology works so they compensated for it by giving low marks. I myself thought that on a scale of 1-10 it was a 6 on my case. I mean how can any day not be a good day to “check in with your people all over the map”?
I agree that any day could be good to check in with people, but I thought we were marking on how accurate the description was for the day in hindsight.
I didn’t check in with any people ‘all over the map’ and my heart wasn’t engaged in something sweet and romantic. Hence my score of 1.
***sensible***
Gemini, I rated it 1.
At first I was inclined to agree with Joreth but now I’m not so sure. I think a confirmation bias has impact even if something did happen in your day that was like the description.
For instance on that day I did make contact with people from all over the world (on an Internet forum). This is not something I do everyday but it did not feel exceptional to other times I have done this. On this consideration alone, I can imagine I could have rated the description higher than I actually did. It would, however, require me to be more prone to the confirmation bias than I actually am. Also, do I consider people that barely know but have common interests with to be “my people”? Some people do, but feeling overly connected with people is another bias in itself, especially when the Internet is concerned.
@Dionysian Friesian:
If you had the chance to read my original comments in the test, however, my comments here still stand. I do not believe in Astrology at all, whether of the Sun Sign variety or the “True Astrology” (whichever version that might be – and yes, I did study it). As I pointed out in my comments *at the time*, I was amused at the coincidence of the description vs. how I spent the day in question. So that, by itself, defies the proclamation that capricorns are more gullible than any other sign.
I am particularly unique in that I am polyamorous, with multiple romantic partners, several of whom are long distance, whom I did happen to extend special effort on that day to keep in touch. Because of that unusual circumstance, I rated the accuracy of the description highly, but that doesn’t mean I believed that Astrology accurately predicted my day.
So, had I been a gullible type, I would have read this description and thought that it must be a description *for me*. Instead, I did not assume it was a reading for capricorns and I did assume it was mere coincidence, particularly because of its vague wording.
I also recognize that, given a large enough sample population and a vague enough description, it is inevitable that the description would sound accurate to *some people*, and I recognize all this prior to participating in the test and prior to reading the results, so this is also not post hoc rationalization.
The question was only to answer how accurate that description was for the day in question, which happened to be in hindsight. The question did not ask anything about how we each believed that this description was actually a description of our own sign nor whether we believed it was “uncanny” or more than “coincidence” or a “sign of a higher power” or any other question about our beliefs regarding the accuracy.
It only asked about the accuracy of the description, not our beliefs about said accuracy.
Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn from this test is whether the people born under the sign in question had a higher than average high accuracy rating or not. There was nothing set up to test the participants gullibility or beliefs about the accuracy.
Since the people born under the sign the description was written for did not have a higher-than-average accuracy rating, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the method used to predict a person’s daily activities is flawed, which doesn’t surprise me in the least.
@Joreth
I can’t see anything I really disagree with in your post and in your case there appears to be a good reason why you rated the description as you did. In the post I originally commented on, I latched onto the first two paragraphs and much less so the rest. I should have been clearer about this.
I also didn’t declare that I assumed that the “gullibility” of a specific star sign was an ironic joke-like remark written for sceptics who appreciate that this is how some believers might view it. If taken literally, this would be a ludicrous “strawman” type reasoning, so you are correct that this kind of remark is quite reckless. You are also correct that people were voting on similarity, and not on belief in some sort of mystical synchronicity between life and the description. My point was that (with the exception of overwhelming flukes such as your own) it is still possible to be gullible when accessing similarities because of a number of other biases. This was of course, not an attempt to justify an ironic strawman remark about the gullibility of certain incidental groupings of people, but merely to suggest that rating highly can entail a confirmation bias even if we don’t deem the correlation to be mystical.
Oh, and the reason why I’m being such a stickler for this point is because I like Richard Wiseman, so I don’t want there to be such obvious errors in his conclusions to give the opposition a foothold in an argument against him. Tighter controls and better conclusions make for conclusions that are more easily accepted – or at least more difficult to dismiss.
Go Sagitarius! We were the 4th least gullible. Bwahahahaha. Wish I had of seen this so I could have been part of the statistics.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
(cancer)
Eh, aren’t Capricorns supposed to make the best politicians? XD
Anyways, I’m not obsessed with Astrology anymore. XD I never really cared about horoscopes (or believed in this stuff), it was the personality thing that I thought was cool.
It proves nothing.
A single survey spontaneously generated for amusement using a random statement from a source of entertainment and placing it in a public forum where anyone from a grade school student to a doctor or burger jockey could randomly come upon that forum on that day and give any answer, proves only one thing. Everyone involved can communicate in a common language, nothing more.
The discussion that followed is far more telling. There is an obvious bias toward a particular belief, namely a disbelief in the validity of the subjects veraciity to begin with, making the crowds conclusion, a foregone one and still proving nothing!
Aquarius wizard
Come on everybody,the burden of proof is clearly on the astrologer’s side. The Astrology Websites would be doing that kind of test, with positive results, if there only was such thing as astrology.
So let’s not waste time and focus on the important issues here: what’s with Joreth’s polyamorous relationship? How does it work? Does it work? How would I go about setting one up (or more than one)? Answers! The people have the right to know!
I love astrology. I love the way you feel your mind wanting to find some clues that this information is really about yourself, trying to find ways in which this pattern fits yourself, even when you consciously know that it’s all bullocks. It is funny, it tickles. Why not enjoy that?
Yes, but it becomes less funny when people start making decisions based on it. Can you say in all honesty that no-one around you might be taking it a little more serious than you are, partially due to your tongue-in-cheek indulgence?
Well, no one around me has ever said such a thing to me. And I honestly don’t think anyone around me (or too many people who are not around me) would base their decisions on important matters on astrology and in doing so would go against their own gut feelings. I do think that some people use their horoscope to strengthen their own gut feelings about what to do, which would actually be a scientifically sound way to make a big decision: not by thinking too hard about it, but by followig your gut feelings.
Happy to hear that.
Unfortunately I’ve seen situations where gullible people were influenced in unintended ways by the better-informed. And I know some folks holding academic degrees whose first question about people’s love interests is, what’s their sun sign?…
If you even think of asking a potential romantic interest their sun sign, it wasn’t meant to be anyway.
I’m a medical editor, which is to say: my office is where fun comes to die. And even I don’t think anyone is “condoning” a serious adherence to astrology simply by being amused by horoscopes as found art or an amusing exercise in pattern recognition.
Many years ago Viz “magazine” published a satirical article “Tomorrow’s weather by the stars”. Where the weather prediction was considerably different based upon your star sign. That was, I thought, a very good bit of satire which said a lot about astrology.
Oh snap, I want to see it. XD
[...] (na verdade já faz quase um mês, estou atrasado) ele fez uma outra experiência, agora sobre [...]
Isn’t the 14th of July a Cancer sign???
Are Cancer & Capricorn not closely “realated” as far as personalities are concerned??
Curious…
As usual the fools that discredit astrology don’t know what they are talking about and make up stupid examples to show how smart they are and how gulable astrologers and their followers are. What a bunch of crap. Allow me to set the record straight. Ralph Waldo Emerson got right to the point when he defined astrology as, “Astronomy brought to Earth and applied to the affairs of man.” The word astrology comes to us from two Greek words, Astra, which means Star and Logos meaning Logic or Reason. Astrology is most simply and accurately defined as Star Logic. Now, what kind of logical and reasonable things can you do with astrology? It will vividly describe ones basic character and personality, the state of their physical and mental health, their best career choices and when, where and how they will make and spend their money. It will also tell you the type of home they will make for themselves and will speak of relationships with brothers and sisters, the friends we will choose, the kinds of people we are attracted to and the most private and intimate details of our love and sex lives. All this and more, more than you could possibly imagine can be read from the stars which makes astrology the most all-encompassing subject you will ever encounter.
Astrology is mankind’s oldest science and as such has been embraced by many of the world’s greatest minds. In fact, virtually every ancient society on earth practiced Star Logic. Early astrologers of note included both Hippocrates, the learned father of medicine and Pythagoras, the absolutely brilliant father of mathematics. It was Pythagoras who told us, “The wise individual should strive for perfection by attuning himself with the music of the spheres” while Hippocrates mused, “The doctor without a working knowledge of astrology has no right to call himself a physician ” But they weren’t alone. Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and even the eminent Sir Roger Bacon, the father of modern science himself, were all astrologers. The honor and esteem of these towering intellects which include the founding fathers of medicine, mathematics and science itself, is overwhelming evidence of both the wisdom and integrity of our timeless art. Those who would take issue with star logic would have to dismiss the talents, motivations and insights of these gifted individuals and that, I believe, would be a rather formidable task.
Even the great Isaac Newton appears to have expressed a genuine interest in my favorite subject. He is often credited with curtly ending a rather heated discussion with an astrological skeptic with the completely unassailable statement, “Sir, I have studied the subject and you have not.” While there is some question as to whether this debate with Edmund Halley, the discoverer of Halley’s comet and a man who believed that the earth was hollow to his dying day, ever really happened, I still love the quote. It would seem to be a most appropriate response to those who would attempt to debunk a subject they know absolutely nothing about. Now let’s be honest. In comparison to the towering intellects of Isaac Newton and the other gentlemen mentioned above, the mental gyrations of those who would dismiss astrology with a simple wave of their hand would more closely resemble the comical antics of Larry, Moe and Curly. Keep in mind that in Sir Isaac we have a man who learned everything there was to know about mathematics in one year and, needing more, invented calculus. He tells us he entered Cambridge to study mathematics specifically because, “I wish to test judicial astrology”. Today’s scientific sages would be honored to sit at his feet and bask in his presence as here was a man acknowledged by all to be one of the greatest minds to ever walk the planet.
For most of the recorded history of mankind astrology was a revered and noble science practiced by the most astute minds on the planet. Today the image of astrology among those with a scholastic background is considerably different. With the relatively recent growth of science the academic community has blindly turned a cold shoulder to the nurturing mother of all the scientific disciplines. I find it profoundly disturbing that so many scholars refuse to take even a cursory look at the worlds oldest science. They, like many, regard Star Logic as just another silly superstition believed in and practiced by fools, charlatans and the mentally incompetent. Far too many of today’s academic pundits eagerly dismiss the subject as simple lunacy not worthy of their valued attention while conveniently disregarding the arresting fact that their most honored heroes were its proudest practitioners.
Our primary problem with those of a skeptical orientation is not their closed minds. Rather it is our inability to explain to them in a logical and scientific manner why our beloved science works that is at the heart of the problem. Why astrology works and works so very well is astrology’s great dilemma. There have been many theory’s presented but, to date, there is no magical formula like E=MC2 that explains it all in an irrefutable manner. What we do know is that life on earth coincides with the movement of the planets in our solar system in precise and predictable ways. All life. Always. But why it does is simply not yet understood. Fortunately the day is coming when we will know how and why our universe works in the remarkable way that it does. When we can truly comprehend its most essential nature we will then know why everything that is our universe is so intimately interconnected and therefore why we take the actions which create the circumstances of our lives in perfect harmony with the movements of the planets in our solar system. Physicists working on a quantum level are getting ever closer to understanding and explaining how and why it is that everything in our universe is simply a part of a greater whole. Science is now on the verge of truly understanding why things are the way that they are. However, until the answers are known, we can only observe, record and continue to learn as we have since the dawn of time. To all who would impede the evolution of science by refusing to take even a cursory look at astrology, I can only offer both my personal scorn and the back of my hand. I believe it would be in their best interest to heed the advice of the great Sir William Crooks who once said, “To stop short in any research that bids fair to widen the gates of knowledge, to recoil from fear of difficulty or adverse criticism, is to bring reproach upon science.”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
as an astrologer, horoscopes are CRAP and if you actually read a detailed horoscope sight, you read for your ascendant, not sun sign as your ASC begins your house system, but even then your house system isn’t whole and lines with each sign. You need to do a natal chart analyze. I’m happy to have educated.