what's an indicator of low intelligence in a chart?

L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
No, what I asked you for was examples of IQ serving a purpose, like you said, of predicting who would come up with scientific innovations

These individuals would be hailed as geniuses even if they didn't take IQ tests just like geniuses throughout history

And what do child prodigies have to do with this? Not relevant to the conversation or to my questions because there's no listing of their IQs


The only purpose IQ serves is to give people access to a special club. People who are gonna innovate will innovate
Click to expand...

Many of the child prodigies have done things that kids in their age group; also sometimes older folk couldn't do. Some of them entered higher levels of education at an earlier age and more.

And all nobel prize winners at least have 1+ SD higher than the average IQ level.


So yes it is useful in predicting whether or not someone is CAPABLE of excelling in some fields and become experts and innovators; not exactly whether they get lazy late in life and fade out.

Show me an inventor with an IQ of 105. You will not be able to find any even though 105 is five points higher than the average.

And yes child prodigies is relevent because their iq predicts whether they skip grades or not.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I understand your thought process. However -

How would you be able to measure 5% of difference between those different elements of Mercury? How would you be able to isolate the various other considerations that are having an effect on Mercury? Why 5% anyway? Why not 12%? Why not 14.57% Why does it have to be a real number?

And the time sensitivity thing is one of the reasons why that elemental "rule" looked iffy. And why the ascendant and moon were also looked at for mental/character delineation all these years.

Also, I think due to the immense amount of syncretism during astrology's development that what we get is a mishmash of different traditions surviving to this day - some of which are totally at odds with one another. I don't personally know how relevant or useful planetary friendships are to delineation when it actually matters.
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
Many of the child prodigies have done things that kids in their age group; also sometimes older folk couldn't do. Some of them entered higher levels of education at an earlier age and more.
Click to expand...
I know what a prodigy is, I'm saying it's not relevant to the conversation

And all nobel prize winners at least have 1+ SD higher than the average IQ level.
Click to expand...
The Nobel prize is a corrupt system. You can buy yourself one if you have enough money

So yes it is useful in predicting whether or not someone is CAPABLE of excelling in some fields and become experts and innovators; not exactly whether they get lazy late in life and fade out.
Click to expand...
You still honestly haven't proven that
Show me an inventor with an IQ of 105. You will not be able to find any even though 105 is five points higher than the average.
Click to expand...
Honestly I can't, but I also couldn't find you one with a 110 IQ or a 160 IQ or whatever



And yes child prodigies is relevent because their iq predicts whether they skip grades or not.
Click to expand...
Still not relevant to the conversation
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
No, what I asked you for was examples of IQ serving a purpose, like you said, of predicting who would come up with scientific innovations

These individuals would be hailed as geniuses even if they didn't take IQ tests just like geniuses throughout history. I'm also not sure Tesla or Einstein ever took IQ tests. THose are just estimates

And what do child prodigies have to do with this? Not relevant to the conversation or to my questions because there's no listing of their IQs


The only purpose IQ serves is to give people access to a special club. People who are gonna innovate will innovate
Click to expand...

Secondly they are estimates for a reason. G which is a concept contributing to IQ, tests your mathematical, and linguistic/verbal abilities and some other things. But basically everything to do with education.
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
Secondly they are estimates for a reason. G which is a concept contributing to IQ, tests your mathematical, and linguistic/verbal abilities and some other things. But basically everything to do with education.
Click to expand...
My point is, can you say with certainty what these individuals would've scored on a modern IQ test?
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Lykanized said:
My point is, can you say with certainty what these individuals would've scored on a modern IQ test?
Click to expand...

Lykanized said:
I know what a prodigy is, I'm saying it's not relevant to the conversation


The Nobel prize is a corrupt system. You can buy yourself one if you have enough money


You still honestly haven't proven that

Honestly I can't, but I also couldn't find you one with a 110 IQ or a 160 IQ or whatever

How is it not relevent or meaningful if it predicts whether or not people skip grades? If you child was found to have an iq of 180 tomorrow and can do things that a ninth grader can in grade two, would you not take the necessary steps in ensuring that he/she is in an environment that fosters her intellectual capabilities? In this way IQ is relevent


IQ is a tool used by scientiests. That's what makes it relevant. I'm not going to sit here and argue with an opinion of a common man. It has been proven to exist and predict things. It's been referred to in peer scholar articles, and it's a tool used by psychologists and school systems alike to test whether a child is suited in their environment.

I'm sick of this whole everything must be fair and equal and taboo truths must not be brought forward mentality.

Conspiracy theorist gave me a study, I saw it and I admitted my mistake and explained my rationale behind my thought process. A little objectivity and pragmatism is good for the soul as well.

If IQ wasn't real, it wouldn't again and again predict educational abilities, and referred to again and again in psychology textbooks and peer scholar articles.

If IQ wasn't real, then a kid with an 165 IQ wouldn't skip grades and forever would be drawing in class.


If IQs wasn't real, innovators wouldn't be said or have a high one.

And nobel prize winners, maybe one or two cases may signify corruption but you do realize you need to be innovative and facilitate a new scientific finding/discovery/study in order to win one right?

Also regarding your question on whether you could guess exactly what their iq would be.



You can't tell with certainty, but you can tell that they would in fact would have scored within that many SD above the average.
Click to expand...
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
love-thinking said:
Lykanized said:
I know what a prodigy is, I'm saying it's not relevant to the conversation


The Nobel prize is a corrupt system. You can buy yourself one if you have enough money


You still honestly haven't proven that

Honestly I can't, but I also couldn't find you one with a 110 IQ or a 160 IQ or whatever

How is it not relevent or meaningful if it predicts whether or not people skip grades? If you child was found to have an iq of 180 tomorrow and can do things that a ninth grader can in grade two, would you not take the necessary steps in ensuring that he/she is in an environment that fosters her intellectual capabilities? In this way IQ is relevent


IQ is a tool used by scientiests. That's what makes it relevant. I'm not going to sit here and argue with an opinion of a common man. It has been proven to exist and predict things. It's been referred to in peer scholar articles, and it's a tool used by psychologists and school systems alike to test whether a child is suited in their environment.

I'm sick of this whole everything must be fair and equal and taboo truths must not be brought forward mentality.

Conspiracy theorist gave me a study, I saw it and I admitted my mistake and explained my rationale behind my thought process. A little objectivity and pragmatism is good for the soul as well.

If IQ wasn't real, it wouldn't again and again predict educational abilities, and referred to again and again in psychology textbooks and peer scholar articles.

If IQ wasn't real, then a kid with an 165 IQ wouldn't skip grades and forever would be drawing in class.


If IQs wasn't real, innovators wouldn't be said or have a high one.

And nobel prize winners, maybe one or two cases may signify corruption but you do realize you need to be innovative and facilitate a new scientific finding/discovery/study in order to win one right?

Also regarding your question on whether you could guess exactly what their iq would be.



You can't tell with certainty, but you can tell that they would in fact would have scored within that many SD above the average.
Click to expand...
I hate to say it, but you really still have not answered my questions or proven your assertion. You've proven nothing
Click to expand...
 
Lykanized

Lykanized

Well-known member
"I'm sick of this whole everything must be fair and equal and taboo truths must not be brought forward mentality."


I'm not sure where this came from tho. You're not saying anything taboo, that would be giving you too much credit
 
BlackLioness87

BlackLioness87

Well-known member
The point is, astrology shows potentials. IMO, low intelligence flags in a chart cannot be precisely defined. Personally I know two people with Mercury retrograde and they are quite smart and communicate very well, IDK if they're exceptions because both mercuries are in soft aspect with Saturn. We all like to generalize because it's easy, but the furthest we can go is to make gross, naive and (sometimes) offensive assumptions.

As already said intelligence fall in different categories, aspects to a planet strengthens or afflicts it, we also have sect and other methods from traditional astrology that can give us a clue. If mercury is the only planet that depicts raw intelligence in a person, then we can make discussion more constructive and try to correlate each Mercury placement with some cognitive skill. Posters who have an "intelligent" Mercury may help with this ;)

conspiracy theorist said:
I have noticed some trends around certain birthday clusters - like in mine I'm aware of persons who complain about being late bloomers and behind developmentally or feelings of inadequacy because of some delay they perceive in themselves - I was born during a period where Saturn was stationing direct - permeating that whole time-frame with Saturnine force.

I've also thought about the examples of Micheal Jackson, Tim Burton, and Madonna all being born with couple of weeks of each other. There was an individual who was born during this period who also had very good artistic ability but they never manifested on the world stage like these persons.
Click to expand...
Of course generational aspects can be a blessing or a nightmare, but only those who have the aspect prominent can make the best or the worst of these placements. :( And as traditionalists recognize, astrological placements need to be read in context (bedrock reality?). What if Michael Jackson's father had died a few years after the former was born? (Well, some people believe events are fated so they would say that that wasn't a possibility). Let's suppose that happened, I don't think MJs success would have been the same without his "demanding" father presence during his formative years.
 
Last edited:
Domna

Domna

Well-known member
UnluckyGirl said:
I would like to ask you if by that's "my experience" you mean your experience with others' people charts or your personal one from your natal chart. If you mean others' people charts could you please send me a pm with charts that have to do with what we were talking about? It's important for me to see the whole chart, it's the most reliable way for me after seeing the charts of people I've known (it's good because most often than not I'm aware of their environment too). If you don't feel comfortable sharing any it's completely fine, just ignore my question.
Click to expand...

I base this opinion mostly on own natal chart as well as those of my close family. Those are the charts I've studied in the most depth thus far. I'm not sure I feel comfortable dissecting their charts with you though. I'll have to think about it.
 
BlackLioness87

BlackLioness87

Well-known member
UnluckyGirl said:
Have you heard of the phrase they say "if the chart doesn't promise something then it won't happen no matter what?

Transits affect you based on your natal chart otherwise they would affect all of us the same. They don't change who you actually are. A person with a low intelligence won't become a genius because Transit Uranus conjuncted his/her Mercury. It will be maybe the period he/she will reach his highest potential.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above, but what happens when the chart promises something and it doesn't happen? How do you know just looking at a natal chart that a person didn't have a really tough transit during her early years (esp if the transit is made by "planets" overlooked by some astrologers). A psychological traumatized person can reach her maximum potential? Most don't?

Something I learned from sport astrology is that a soccer match can be correctly predicted using just the event chart in less than 75% of the cases. If you use one chart for each half time accuracy increases, if you see the match chart progressing minute by minute accuracy is so high that you'd probably earn lots of money predicting exact score. IMO astrology works the same in events and natal charts. You need to check "transits" to make sure the "promise" will materialize.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
moonkat235 said:
Frank's website has an article discussing this information:

https://proastrologer.com/2013/04/1...le-the-astrology-of-mensa-level-intelligence/
Click to expand...

I realized after the fact that Frank was the originator of the same study that LT linked me a few pages prior. It goes to show how selective one's attention can be and how being truly objective is so difficult - she skipped over the fact that Pisces Mercury (which is seen as a weak placement according to evolving) were correlated the most with the Mensa members and picked the one aspect that confirmed her thoughts. (which nobody was actually disputing - it's established that Merc/Uranus contributes to intelligence. What is surprising are the counter-intuitive examples and looking at them more closely is what will broaden our understanding of what is truly going on in the "intelligent" persons mind.)

Also that having a Gemini Mercury is actually negatively correlated with membership. That finding reminds me of this article - Mercury in Gemini, Mercury in Virgo. Not necessarily strong for the intellect

Come on folks. Are we trying to win or are we trying to advance our knowledge?
 
Last edited:
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
BlackLioness87 said:
Of course generational aspects can be a blessing or a nightmare, but only those who have the aspect prominent can make the best or the worst of these placements. :( And as traditionalists recognize, astrological placements need to be read in context (bedrock reality?). What if Michael Jackson's father had died a few years after the former was born? (Well, some people believe events are fated so they would say that that wasn't a possibility). Let's suppose that happened, I don't think MJs success would have been the same without his "demanding" father presence during his formative years.
Click to expand...

And unsurprisingly, he has an aspect that speaks precisely to the demanding father figure presence in his life - Sun conjunct Pluto. The charts for him on asro.com are ranked DD so they are unreliable (permeating the whole life due to its "loudness") , but both charts happen to have that Sun-Pluto angular, and the Pisces Rising one has the bonus of having Saturn conjunct the MC - another aspect that could describe the oppressive home situation. (And also his public fall from grace)
 
wilsontc

wilsontc

Staff member
stop with the attacks, to all

all,

Please stop with the personal attacks and stick to astrology. I have deleted the attacking posts and the responses to attacking posts.

Back to astrology,

Tim
 
E

Evolving717223

Banned
UnluckyGirl said:
I'm so f*cking happy each time I'm guessing things especially when I don't know someone. It doesn't matter if I've done it a billion times it will always make me happy.

My question of your sex wasn't coincidental.

I thought that you might be a male with a weak mars, if you were a woman with a weak Mars I wouldn't care.

Aries is too obvious in your case and I'm guessing Jupiter magnifies it since it's in the 1st H. ASC being what you first get to know when you meet someone.

I can't say I'm exactly surprised that you have a Piscean Moon just because of the dislike you have for water Moons (the thread with Cap Moon girl coming into my mind).

However I kind of guessed that you didn't have incompatible signs with mine because no matter how much the way you come off is a rude, stubborn imo I didn't really disliked you, I kind of sensed that you're better than what you seem to be. Thinking about it I should have guessed that your ASC is in Aries without actually thinking it might be your Moon.

So your ASC being in Aries gives the wrong impression which your weak Mars may like but it doesn't do you any favors.

Actually it's Jupiter that ruins it since it makes hard aspects in your 1st H
Click to expand...

Wow, I take it you must be really advanced in astrology then, how did you get so into it?

How exactly did you know that I had a weak mars though? I can see how you would guess all the other stuff right given your explanations of how you did, of course.

Well the way one communicates is only dependent on how they think, and our emotions (moon) heavily influences our thoughts and thinking (mercury), so the way I responded was definitely proof of that. My moon is conjunct my ASC though, so that might have been you just getting mixed signals there.
 
E

Evolving717223

Banned
conspiracy theorist said:
Notice that Frank said "so far". Not sure how far gone he is all these years after the fact.

But this was the crux of the issue for me - an individual made a claim about a placement and he was proven wrong by way of examples of real people and not by sophistry. And here is someone who actually has done some level of research into the phenomena and have found the exact opposite pattern hold - There seem to be a lot of Mensa level people who have a wretched water mercury and the worst one at that. And there is no pesky issue of eminence clouding the results.
Click to expand...

Here's your problem. You keep ignoring the fact that those Mensa level people who have what you call a "weak" mercury have really good moon signs.

What everyone seems to forget or just not realize is that moon and mercury are the only planets that determine how we think, every other placement in the natal chart is either a planet that influences how we think, or just a planet that represents the results we achieve from our actions and thinking or a planet that represents how we are doing in a certain area of life, as expressed as an overall synopsis.

However there is ONE exception to this rule, that being the ASC, as the ASC is what determines how our body is physically as a whole, no other planet dictates this either. So if you were born with a aries ASC like me, you will have, one way or another, lots of physical/bodily energy, regardless of aspects as well, since the sign the ASC is in overrides the aspects it has in terms of importance and dominance.

So even if my Mars is in Aries and only has one aspect, that being square saturn, (which lowers whatever it touches), the mars is still in aries and so no matter what the mars is more representative of aries than it is saturn, even with saturns aspect in the way, this is true even for conjunctions or any aspect.

So the ASC is the only planet that determines our physical looks, every other planet either has an influence over your physical looks and/or is what we can call a representation of how we might look. Venus is the planet that dictates how attractive we are as much as it is how we express that attractiveness, so it does influence how attractive we are, but this doesnt mean it does this by at all determining how our body is physically, since again only our ASC can determine our body, not even mars (which is very similar to ASC) does this. And mars is the opposite of venus too, which just further proves my point.

What this shows is that ASC can determine how we think, because it determines how our body is, and is the only planet that does this. In other words, venus determines attractiveness but not through it determining how our body is anyways. Only ASC can do that.


So if our ASC has some sort of aspect that makes the person's body have some type of deformation of a certain body part or organ, such as the brain, our thinking can be heavily influenced by that as a result. So thats the ONLY way the ASC can determine out thinking. I have another example, me. I was born with an aries ASC, which translates to lots of bodily energy, however the only way the human body can replicate that is for the human body to naturally have been built in a way that ensures this is true.

This is why I was born with a fast metabolism, which basically means I digest food wayyyyy faster than a normal stomach should, which means I convert that food into energy very quick. This represents my ASC well, as aries is the sign of energy.

However, as a negative side effect, I experience severe hunger pains, since that food is digested and no longer in my stomach to fill it up. This negatively impacts my thinking (my mercury) as badly as my emotions (my moon) does.


With that in mind, we can now see that the only thing we have to do to understand how strong a person is socially is by looking at there three planets that can possibly dictate there thinking; the moon, the mercury, and the ASC. And of course we must consider all the aspects too, however the houses don't dictate the thinking of the two planets though, while the aspects to the placements do. This is because the houses only dictate what area of life we will end up using the placements in, nothing more, nothing less.


So those who have displayed intelligence of Mensa, well lets just say they are that smart because either their moons are strong and/or their mercurys are as well, and their ASC determine there bodies, which can influence the thoughts and emotions through bodily conditions such as bad influences, like deformations, or good influences, such as lots of bodily energy. Which in turn will have it's effects as well.
 
Last edited:
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
I understand your thought process. However -

How would you be able to measure 5% of difference between those different elements of Mercury? How would you be able to isolate the various other considerations that are having an effect on Mercury? Why 5% anyway? Why not 12%? Why not 14.57% Why does it have to be a real number?

And the time sensitivity thing is one of the reasons why that elemental "rule" looked iffy. And why the ascendant and moon were also looked at for mental/character delineation all these years.

Also, I think due to the immense amount of syncretism during astrology's development that what we get is a mishmash of different traditions surviving to this day - some of which are totally at odds with one another. I don't personally know how relevant or useful planetary friendships are to delineation when it actually matters.
Click to expand...

5 percent is more of an estimate. It could of course be more. I'm not a statistician researcher. i wish to become something like that someday. But what I'm trying to do mercury's sign should be vital but insignificant when assessing the whole picture.
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
I understand your thought process. However -

How would you be able to measure 5% of difference between those different elements of Mercury? How would you be able to isolate the various other considerations that are having an effect on Mercury? Why 5% anyway? Why not 12%? Why not 14.57% Why does it have to be a real number?

And the time sensitivity thing is one of the reasons why that elemental "rule" looked iffy. And why the ascendant and moon were also looked at for mental/character delineation all these years.

Also, I think due to the immense amount of syncretism during astrology's development that what we get is a mishmash of different traditions surviving to this day - some of which are totally at odds with one another. I don't personally know how relevant or useful planetary friendships are to delineation when it actually matters.
Click to expand...

"I have been looking at legendary scientists or just those that are said to have a high IQ, this is what I have found.

3rd house mercury in gemini or aquarius.
eg thomas edison and nikola tesla has a third house mercury
thomas edison mercury in aquarius and nikola tesla mercury in gemini

Ung Yong Kim has mercury in aquarius

Mercury conjunct saturn
I know I was surprised too, but a lot of them seem to have this aspect.
eg Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Ung Yong Kim(said to have the highest IQ in the world-has a lot of achievements at an early age)
Isaac Newton has the square between mercury and saturn. Stephen Hawking has the trine.

This one I was really surprised because of the fact that capricorn is not always a sign associated with intelligence. But then again saturn is the co-ruler of aquarius and also this could mean that they have the ability to discipline their minds to actually learn, unlike gemini and aquarius energies that activate curiosity and progressive ideas.

Mercury in aspect to uranus-which is no surprise there.
eg Stephen Hawking, Ung Yong Kim, Benjamin Yantanyahu(said to have a high IQ, Albert Einstein had the inconjunction. Thomas Edison who did not have mercury in aspect to uranus, had mercury in aquarius.

There also seems to be 3rd house and 10th house activity. Which comes to no surprise(3rd house being the house of gemini and 10th house being the house of careers -and many of them are in 'smart' fields)

10th house mercury-albert einstein. Benjamin Netanyahu. (including him does not convey my thoughts and opinions about the israel-palestine issue-so I don't want to hear comments about that-this is not political)


Mercury also aspects the ascendent or the sun.

I have observed actors and actresses said to have a high IQ-they didn't have these markers-reason for that could be because they didn't enter scientific or revolutionary fields.

So to sum it off, I think whatever aspects the mercury influence the way you think or learn. However, unless you have 10th house mercury energies, or even prominant aspects from mercury to sun, ascendent, you will not be KNOWN for your intelligence or become a famous scientist/mathematician

For those of you that have mercury with saturn, uranus, and with whatever else planet, one of your goals in this life time here is to learn how to learn effectively in regards to that planet.

For example, mercury-uranus-learn to apply what you learned to the real world-and form ideas of how this knowledge can be used, be creative with it. Maybe convey and teach the content to others in a very eccentric ways with interesting imaginary stories related to the content.

Mercury-mars-application, hands on, how you actually apply the information that you learnt.

Mercury-neptune, make a story, us imagination to form a story that relates to the content/information
or roleplay
"

Merury-saturn-plan how you are going to study, repeatedly memorize the content that you must know, but also form connections to words that will help you remember things better. Also learn how to discriminate and undergo the process of elimination when you need to like in the case of multiple choice questions.




-This is a thread I created earlier


As you can see, many of the greatest scientists had mercury in gemini, or aquarius, mercury with saturn/uranus, and a 3rd house emphasis so for me it only seemed intuitive that mercury in those signs would create intelligence.

But I've also seen an occurence of people with high iqs that don't do innovations in science, to have mercury in other signs. Also what was the basis of older astrologers claiming that certain signs produce more intelligence?

Now mercury in pisces is quite the finding and I one hundred percent agree with you. But the findings still baffle me how what's seen as naturally intelligent does show up, but also what's seen as 'dumb' also shows up in some ways or the other.

For example, the quintile seems to be a sign of talent, uranus is considered the higher octave of mercury, and it's innovation. Mercury is one part of the mind at least and it being quintile uranus definitely as a sentence reads as this person will have an innovative mind. And this aspect does show up in fact in geniuses. However, so does what's deemed as weak/debilitated.

I find that amusing and odd and I wish I could find an explanation lol.
 
L

love-thinking

Well-known member
Evolving717223 said:
Here's your problem. You keep ignoring the fact that those Mensa level people who have what you call a "weak" mercury have really good moon signs.

What everyone seems to forget or just not realize is that moon and mercury are the only planets that determine how we think, every other placement in the natal chart is either a planet that influences how we think, or just a planet that represents the results we achieve from our actions and thinking or a planet that represents how we are doing in a certain area of life, as expressed as an overall synopsis.

However there is ONE exception to this rule, that being the ASC, as the ASC is what determines how our body is physically as a whole, no other planet dictates this either. So if you were born with a aries ASC like me, you will have, one way or another, lots of physical/bodily energy, regardless of aspects as well, since the sign the ASC is in overrides the aspects it has in terms of importance and dominance.

So even if my Mars is in Aries and only has one aspect, that being square saturn, (which lowers whatever it touches), the mars is still in aries and so no matter what the mars is more representative of aries than it is saturn, even with saturns aspect in the way, this is true even for conjunctions or any aspect.

So the ASC is the only planet that determines our physical looks, every other planet either has an influence over your physical looks and/or is what we can call a representation of how we might look. Venus is the planet that dictates how attractive we are as much as it is how we express that attractiveness, so it does influence how attractive we are, but this doesnt mean it does this by at all determining how our body is physically, since again only our ASC can determine our body, not even mars (which is very similar to ASC) does this. And mars is the opposite of venus too, which just further proves my point.

What this shows is that ASC can determine how we think, because it determines how our body is, and is the only planet that does this. In other words, venus determines attractiveness but not through it determining how our body is anyways. Only ASC can do that.


So if our ASC has some sort of aspect that makes the person's body have some type of deformation of a certain body part or organ, such as the brain, our thinking can be heavily influenced by that as a result. So thats the ONLY way the ASC can determine out thinking. I have another example, me. I was born with an aries ASC, which translates to lots of bodily energy, however the only way the human body can replicate that is for the human body to naturally have been built in a way that ensures this is true.

This is why I was born with a fast metabolism, which basically means I digest food wayyyyy faster than a normal stomach should, which means I convert that food into energy very quick. This represents my ASC well, as aries is the sign of energy.

However, as a negative side effect, I experience severe hunger pains, since that food is digested and no longer in my stomach to fill it up. This negatively impacts my thinking (my mercury) as badly as my emotions (my moon) does.


With that in mind, we can now see that the only thing we have to do to understand how strong a person is socially is by looking at there three planets that can possibly dictate there thinking; the moon, the mercury, and the ASC. And of course we must consider all the aspects too, however the houses don't dictate the thinking of the two planets though, while the aspects to the placements do. This is because the houses only dictate what area of life we will end up using the placements in, nothing more, nothing less.


So those who have displayed intelligence of Mensa, well lets just say they are that smart because either their moons are strong and/or their mercurys are as well, and their ASC determine there bodies, which can influence the thoughts and emotions through bodily conditions such as bad influences, like deformations, or good influences, such as lots of bodily energy. Which in turn will have it's effects as well.
Click to expand...

Question: what do you call a strong moon? Moon in taurus or moon in aquarius. Astrologers would claim moon in taurus are exalted, but aquarius is smart and detached?

So asc plays a role or nah?
 
Top