Tag: Gauquelin with Human Design

by Patrick Jerome

In 1957, Michel Gauquelin published his first statistical study of astrology. Using horoscopes from thousands of French professionals, including athletes, actors, doctors, and scientists, he found measurable correlations between specific planetary placements and professional success. Gauquelin then replicated his results with German, Italian, Belgian, and Dutch professionals. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, his studies consistently produced statistically significant associations between certain planets and particular professions.

Gauquelin’s work approached a significant milestone in astrology, as validating astrology’s claims would represent a fundamental shift in long-held scientific perspectives.

Members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) understood this and were obsessed with disproving Gauquelin’s findings. Founded in April 1976 by 25 “humanist” university professors  and one magician—the Amazing Randi—the CSICOP’s stated goal was “to not reject on a priori grounds . . . any or all such claims, but rather to examine them openly, completely, objectively, and carefully.” 

While CSICOP’s stated intent was to conduct objective investigations, critics argue that the organization’s actions often focused on debunking paranormal claims, and Gauquelin’s research became a primary focus for scrutiny.

What is interesting is that Gauquelin himself had begun his work as a skeptic. Although he had loved astrology as a boy, making so many predictions that his classmates called him “Nostradamus,” when he entered the Sorbonne, he became ashamed of those interests. He staged elaborate tricks to make believers appear foolish. He once, for example, put an ad in a newspaper, “Get a free horoscope,” and then asked those who responded to rate how accurate the reading was. The overwhelming majority responded “very accurate” or “extremely accurate” when, in fact, every single person had received the same print-out, which was based on the birth information of a serial killer.

This approach mirrored some methods associated with CSICOP. Gauquelin stated that his initial goal in data collection was to test and evaluate astrological claims rigorously.

But unlike the leaders of the CSICOP, Gauquelin truly wanted to examine the facts ‘openly, completely, objectively, and carefully.‘ Even after he got results that contradicted his hypothesis, he dared to publish them. However, it must be made clear that Gauquelin did not prove the astrology you see in newspapers or astrology texts. He did not prove the validity of signs, houses, aspects, or other traditional techniques. Indeed, his tests of those factors were negative. What he proved was that, in the charts of prominent professionals, certain planets had either just risen or just culminated, depending upon which profession was being studied. This is where his findings validated tradition. Mars, the militant planet, was prominent in the charts of athletes and military leaders. Jovial Jupiter was prominent in the charts of actors and politicians. Sober Saturn was prominent in the charts of doctors and scientists. The profound congruence of all this was one reason why the CSICOP was so intent upon crushing him. In the mid-1970s, they issued Gauquelin a ‘challenge.’ 

The Challenge was a classic control experiment: isolate the sports ability variable by comparing the Mars horoscopic positions of the champions Gauquelin had already collected vs. the Mars horoscopic positions of all other persons (non-sports champions)—the “control” group—born about the same time and place as the champions. If the control group exhibits the same hit-rate (a “hit”: being born when Mars resides in celestial Sector 1 or 4) as the champions, 22 percent, then clearly sports ability has nothing to do with the Mars Effect, which is thus revealed as merely a by-product of purely natural influences. This is what the top CSICOPs expected to happen. 

However, when the results contradicted expectations, the subsequent handling of the data by CSICOP became a source of controversy. Although initial plans included publication of all results, some members expressed concern over how the findings were communicated, with member Dennis Rawlins publishing a critical analysis. 

Some astrologers, including Dane Rudyar, were critical of Gauquelin’s work, primarily because while Gauquelin’s research supported a new approach—sometimes called “neo-astrology”—it did not find evidence for traditional astrological concepts. This led to differing responses within the astrological community.

Rudyar represented a traditionalist perspective, contrasting with the views of skeptics, both of whom interpreted Gauquelin’s findings through their preferred frameworks.

Proving astrology is tantamount to proving the existence of God.

The skeptics didn’t want God to exist. This is why they attacked Gauquelin so ferociously. What Rudyar failed to grasp was that astrology had won. It wasn’t his brand of astrology, but it had won. This meant astrologers were under a moral obligation to restructure their tenets, taking the new information into account. That’s how science works. You have a hypothesis, experiment, and adjust your description of reality based on the results. But astrology didn’t do this—there was no adjustment. Gauquelin had proven a particular kind of astrology, but most astrologers continued to practice the old, discredited kind.

And it wasn’t just old school apologists like Rudyar. It was everyone. Even the great scholar Robert Hand, the “Francis Bacon of astrology,” who had written that Gauquelin’s findings are “one of the strongest threats to mechanist-materialism in existence,” continued to use interpretations that fly in the face of reality. Here is Hand’s description of the 12th house:

The Twelfth House [signifies]. . . things like “self-undoing,” imprisonment, secrets in general, secret enemies, seclusion, and generally being withdrawn from the world, and it is usually regarded as being one of the worst houses in the chart.

However, those familiar with Gauquelin’s research note that the 12th house (and the 9th) appears as prominent placements in distinguished horoscopes, contrary to traditional views. Even recognized experts, such as Robert Hand, who acknowledged Gauquelin’s work, continued to reference traditional interpretations.

And he isn’t alone. Here’s what four modern astrologers, from four different websites, have written about Mars in the 12th house:

DANA GERHART:  People with a 12th house Mars often have difficulty going after what they want.

THE ASTROLOGY PLACE: [Mars in 12th house people] find asserting themselves very difficult . . . The desire to put themselves first is lacking. . . . hide from confrontation . . . no reaction to conflict  . . .

ASTRO CHERRY: take all precautions to avoid confrontation . . . unresponsive during conflict . . . experience trouble with force and assertion . . . lack the “me-first” desire.

CAFÉ ASTROLOGY: Energy stifled . . . afraid to assert themselves . . . defeated before they start.

If it sounds like these writers are imitating each other, it is probably because they are, but they are not just imitating each other; they are imitating the ideas of pretty much every astrologer in history, from Ptolemy to Dane Rudyar.

These interpretations differ significantly from the evidence provided by Gauquelin’s research.

In addition to his professional studies, Gauquelin conducted a series of keyword studies aimed at establishing a link between professional success and temperament. Here are the results for the 9th and 12th house Mars:

Professions showing High: Athletes, Military officers, Doctors, Businessmen

Professions showing Low:  Artists, writers, musicians.
Related keywords:  Active, ardent, belligerent, brave, combative, daring, dynamic, energetic, fearless, fighting, lively, offensive, reckless, spontaneous, strong-willed, stormy, tireless, tough, valiant, and full of vitality.

Think about it: the most aggressive professions show rates above chance, and the gentlest professions show rates below chance—precisely the opposite of what tradition says—and the keywords bring the point home. Here are the results in a schematic:

Keywords for 12th House Mars

Gauquelin findings	Astrological tradition
Active, ardent, dynamic, energetic	Energy stifled
Daring, Combative	Hide from confrontation
Strong-willed	Lack the me-first desire