Diurnal planetary effects. Gauquelin divided the sky into 12 sectors inner circle or 36 sectors outer circle , half above the horizon and half below.
The sectors that planets tended to favour or avoid are shown in black. Gauquelin called them key sectors inner circle or plus zones outer circle , but for simplicity I refer to both as key sectors. Each profession was linked to one or more of three planets, namely Mars after which the effect is named, Jupiter, and Saturn the Moon was added later and Venus later still , but not to the other planets or the Sun.
For example the planet showing a surplus was Mars for physicians, military leaders and sports champions, Jupiter for actors, and Saturn for scientists. Mars and Saturn also showed a deficit for painters. On the other hand there were notable conflicts that Gauquelin had listed side by side in L'Influence des Astres p.
These 15, new cases, together with a further cases from France, led to the results published in his second book Les Hommes et les Astres. Denoel, Paris , pages. Writing it had taken Gauquelin six months of work without pay. But the results were almost uniformly positive. Of the total of 13 French planetary observations for eminent professionals Mars, Jupiter, Saturn for physicians and scientists; Moon, Mars for champions; Moon, Mars, Jupiter for military men; Moon, Jupiter for politicians; Jupiter for actors; Mars, Saturn for Painters , no less than 11 replicated with statistical significance.
Similar tests of non-eminent people in the same professions gave results close to chance expectation. It was an impressive achievement. Gauquelin's summary from p. In summary, the results using foreign data showed that the surpluses and deficits previously observed for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn at the birth of eminent professionals were real. The Moon previously uncertain was now linked to creative writers.
Venus had no apparent effect, but was later found to reach significance when similar groups were combined, eg for writers plus journalists, and for actors plus musicians plus painters. As before, the results more or less fitted astrology, but the conflicts remained, especially the lack of an effect for ordinary people, which on Gauquelin's later figures meant It was all very puzzling. Nevertheless the results led to two general hypotheses, based on a total sample of 20, cases, which guided his work from then on: 1 Different professions are linked to different planets. The effect had nothing to do with signs or aspects.
What mattered was the planet's diurnal position relative to the horizon -- whether it was rising or had culminated overhead. The opposite positions below the horizon seemed also to be involved, but too weakly and erratically to justify routine inclusion, a view corroborated 30 years later by Ertel who found no consistent relation to occupation. This may seem a lot, but about four-fifths of births fall outside key sectors, and in terms of the whole sample which is what matters the effect is much smaller and of no practical value, see later section on effect size.
Detecting such small effects amid the sampling noise is difficult and is one reason why the Gauqueli findings were to become controversial. Nevertheless, for the Gauquelins, planetary effects had replicated and were now a reality. One of many boxes of replies from registry offices. Replies were stored in their original envelopes the one visible here is from Acheres-la-Foret and is addressed to Monsieur Michel Gauquelin, 8 rue Amyot, Paris. Birth data and planetary positions were recorded on index cards.
Eventually there were more than half a million cards. Explaining planetary effects via heredity Still puzzled by his findings, Gauquelin started looking for an explanation. He saw that inherited disposition and a favourable environment seemed sufficient to explain professional success, which meant that an explanation had to be linked in some way to heredity and environment.
Of the two, heredity was the easiest to investigate. Especially as Francoise, as part of her official psychology studies published as "L'heure de naissance" [hour of birth] in the French journal Population 14, , , had obtained birth data from a large Parisian hospital and 10, birth data from registry offices near the hospital, which data could be used as a starting point.
In fact, planetary heredity had to be a general law of human nature, and no longer a perquisite of some people whose vocation was clearly marked. For five years I worked on the birth registers at several city halls in the region of Paris.
In the total figure more than 15, matchings of parents and their children were collected [ individual birth data], which enabled me to calculate almost , positions of the planets" Astrology and Science The results repaid the huge effort and were published in L'Heredite Planetaire Planete, Paris , pages , as if to herald the Gauquelins' own personal contribution to heredity, namely son Daniel born 22 April Parents with the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn in a key sector tended to pass the same planet on to their children, although not necessarily in the same key sector.
Later Gauquelin explained how it works by reference to his own family:. I was born on 13 November at in the evening in Paris, at the culmination of Jupiter.
Venus had no apparent effect, but was later found to reach significance when similar groups were combined, eg for writers plus journalists, and for actors plus musicians plus painters. Yet basically, I had absorbed all the mysteries of the horoscope. Baffling planetary puzzles Gauquelin's work simultaneously discredited astrology and replaced it with weak planetary effects of no practical use. Like Choisnard's, Krafft's results did not exceed chance fluctuations and did not replicate with large samples. Chris Brennan says. For astrology the puzzles include: Why only diurnal position and not signs or aspects, why traditionally weak positions cadent houses and not strong ones, why occupation and not character, why does the occupation effect disappear at low eminence and sometimes diminish at the highest eminence, why does it sometimes deviate from tradition eg Moon instead of Mercury for writers , and why only five planets Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and not the Sun and other planets?
In both cases, Jupiter was to be found in one of the key zones of the sky, and one could say that there is planetary heredity, as far as Jupiter is concerned, between my mother and myself. My sister was born in Paris on 9 October at 5 in the evening. Jupiter at that time was neither at the rise nor the culmination, and the hypothesis of Jovian heredity between my sister and my mother has not been confirmed" The Truth about Astrology The heredity effect was increased if both parents had the same planet in a key sector.
There was no tendency to pass a different planet on, and there was no effect for zodiac signs or for aspects or for the other planets including the Sun.
The strongest effect was for Venus, which supported the weak Venus effects recently discovered in eminent professionals. The heredity effect, like the planetary effect, was solely a diurnal effect and involved the same five planets. Although it was only half as strong it was still an important step forward. Gauquelin presents the latest Gauquelin results in New York, March , where the Gauquelins and I met for the first time. On the blackboard is the standard Gauquelin diagram showing how certain planets tend to peak in key sectors.
In fact Gauquelin later considered planetary heredity to be the most important of his findings because it offered a clue for integrating planets with disposition and environment. It also showed that planetary effects existed for ordinary people as well as eminent ones. How the planets worked was unclear.
Gauquelin dismissed the idea that planets could somehow imprint something on the person, simply because the moment of birth is too late -- everything is decided at the moment of conception. So he speculated that the unborn child might have a particular planetary sensitivity that would trigger the birth process at a particular time rather than at some other time.
The planet added nothing to the genetic makeup -- its position in the sky merely reflected what that makeup was. To support this view Gauquelin pointed to the apparent disappearance of planetary effects for births after about , which he attributed to the increasing incidence of interventions such as Caesarians that upset the delivery timing. On the other hand he noted that planets triggering birth would affect the beginning of labour rather than its end, but the beginning of labour for several thousand cases showed no planetary effect.
As the first step to resolving this impasse, he wanted to study eminent professionals who had been born only via interventions. If the planetary effect disappeared it would strengthen his trigger idea. If it remained he would have to return to the imprint idea.
He began such a study but died before it was finished Neo-Astrology Explaining planetary effects via personality Despite the link with heredity there was a snag -- biological heredity was known to involve personality rather than occupation. So planetary effects had to reflect personality regardless of occupation, and more strongly because it was more direct, otherwise they would have no plausible basis. Both points had to be tested, and to do this Gauquelin chose four of his existing professional groups where success was most strongly linked to a single planet, namely writers Moon , sports champions Mars , actors Jupiter , and scientists Saturn.
During , with the help of Francoise and a dozen paid helpers, he obtained as many biographies as he could for these four groups and extracted all the character traits from each biography. For cases, roughly one-third of the total, they extracted a total of 52, traits.
And by he had the results. They were positive. As he put it: "The relationship between planet and character trait could be observed without any need to take account of the professions. Persons with an iron will often had a tendency to be born under Mars, expansives under Jupiter, introspectives under Saturn and poetic temperaments under the Moon" Truth about Astrology Furthermore the planetary effect sizes for character traits averaged 0.
It seemed to be an impressive vindication of Gauquelin's ideas. But there were snags. First, a replication of the heredity effect in with 18, new parent-child comparisons was only weakly positive, with effects only half as strong as those in the first test in A third replication in with 33, parent-child comparisons showed no effect at all. In other words it was not clear whether the heredity effect and thus the argument in favour of personality effects actually existed.
Second, Gauquelin's trait calculations were based on the number of traits rather than the much smaller number of subjects. In other words his statistical results were based on inflated N's and were therefore much too optimistic. When repeated with correct N's their significance tended to disappear. Furthermore, the character traits were English translations of the original French, and had been extracted by Gauquelin after he knew where the planets were.
So both procedures could have been affected by inadvertent bias. Gauquelin accepted that a Gauquelin extraction bias had "very likely But the calculation bias affected his results only slightly, so he felt it was "unlikely But biassing the translating of trait words where there is always a range of English words for each French one is easier than biassing the sector corresponding to a given birth time where only a small proportion will be ambiguous. And in this case it needed only 1 in 12 translated traits to be biassed to produce the mean observed effect size of 0.
Third, Suitbert Ertel had made a study in which four specially-trained students extracted traits from the biographies of eminent professionals. Ertel's approach avoided the above problems and his results showed no tendency for planets to be linked with the relevant trait Correlation 10 2 , , The extraction had also been done by Gauquelin with positive results, and by two students hired by Gauquelin, again with positive results.
Gauquelin argued that Ertel's negative results were due to poor extraction. However, this seemed unlikely because Ertel's extraction process had been carefully refined beforehand to minimise errors.
Also, when Ertel compared the extractions for all three studies, it was clear that Gauquelin, not working blind, tended to extract more matching traits and fewer non-matching traits than did Ertel's students working blind, even though the students extracted on average twice as many traits as Gauquelin did from the same biographies. Furthermore, as noted by Ertel in Correlation 12 1 , , , Ertel's student extractions were used as is, whereas Gauquelin's student extractions were discarded by him if they showed poor agreement.
Discarding was often a matter of interpretation, for example in deciding whether "active" was in agreement with "energetic", which of course allowed the same Gauquelin bias that the study was supposed to avoid. And once again there were more matching traits and fewer non-matching traits in the Gauquelin-selected student extractions than in Ertel's student extractions the effect size of the difference was 0. Ertel concluded "this is strong evidence for concluding that Gauquelin, as trait extractor, was greatly influenced by his knowing the sector positions of the persons whose biographies he worked on" p.
In other words Ertel had shown that, contrary to what heredity required, the planets were linked with occupation, not trait. Gauquelin's objections could have been resolved by analysing his student extractions before selection, but he died before this could be done. For a detailed overview see Correlation 16 2 , , The Gauquelins at the second AA research conference at the Institute of Psychiatry, London, in November , where they spoke on their latest findings.
Abstract -- Until his untimely death in May , Michel Gauquelin (b) was the . Nevertheless his popular books tend to ignore astrological research by. The Mars effect is a purported statistical correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars relative to the horizon at time and place of birth. This controversial finding was first reported by the French psychologist and "neo-astrologer" Michel Gauquelin published Later research claims to explain the Mars effect by selection bias, favouring.
The conference attracted a record people from eight countries. Psychology of the planets If Ertel's finding holds, it means that the planet-trait links found by Gauquelin are merely the result of Gauquelin knowing planetary meanings in advance, no doubt a legacy of his intense teenage involvement with astrology.