Page "Astrology" Paragraph 31

The former astrologer, and scientist, Geoffrey Deans and psychologist Ivan Kelly conducted a large scale scientific test, involving more than one hundred cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, but found no support for astrology.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted pooling 40 studies consisting of 700 astrologers and over 1000 birth charts.

Ten of the tests, which had a total of 300 participants, involved subjects picking the correct chart interpretation out of a number of others which were not the astrologically correct chart interpretation ( usually 3 to 5 others ).

When the date and other obvious clues were removed no significant results were found to suggest there was any preferred chart.

A further test involved 45 confident astrologers, with an average of 10 years experience and 160 participants ( out of an original sample size of 1198 participants ) who strongly favoured certain characteristics in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to extremes.

The astrologers performed much worse than merely basing decisions off the individuals age, and much worse than 45 control subjects who didn't use birth charts at all.