Random Thoughts, strictly Text

D

david starling

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
Revisiting the eminence discussion that was on the forums a few moons, one modern astrology enthusiast (by his own admission) found that in the charts of the top performers across every field of human activity was a configuration that he refers to as "total dominance".



https://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?nhor=432480&num=1534521806

And here is his blog https://totaldominance.blogspot.com/

So where someone might be talented and even wildly so in an intellectual, artistic or technical field, supposedly if one doesn't have this configuration in their chart they aren't going to be recognized or attain the universal dominance of a "genius". If you check the thread he tested this finding on many top achievers like Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Goethe, Messi, Pele, Einstein and Steve Wozniak and found that the pattern stood. He also tested it on a number of presidents and found that the pattern was also present.

The last time we looked at the traditional indicators. However, this is a purely modern technique. I find it compelling. Do any of you?
Click to expand...

Anyone had time to check this out for yourself? Meaning, have you found it consistent?
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
Revisiting the eminence discussion that was on the forums a few moons, one modern astrology enthusiast (by his own admission) found that in the charts of the top performers across every field of human activity was a configuration that he refers to as "total dominance".



https://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?nhor=432480&num=1534521806

And here is his blog https://totaldominance.blogspot.com/

So where someone might be talented and even wildly so in an intellectual, artistic or technical field, supposedly if one doesn't have this configuration in their chart they aren't going to be recognized or attain the universal dominance of a "genius". If you check the thread he tested this finding on many top achievers like Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Goethe, Messi, Pele, Einstein and Steve Wozniak and found that the pattern stood. He also tested it on a number of presidents and found that the pattern was also present.

The last time we looked at the traditional indicators. However, this is a purely modern technique. I find it compelling. Do any of you?
Click to expand...

I haven't gotten a handle on it, but it has to do with ability+success+fame. If it's valid, it could pass a scientific test: Cold readings of say, 50 charts--25 would be a+s+f, meaning they became famous, and are known for their ability and success. The other 25 would lack one of more of the 3 attributes. Even a 75% correct ratio would be very impressive.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
I haven't gotten a handle on it, but it has to do with ability+success+fame. If it's valid, it could pass a scientific test: Cold readings of say, 50 charts--25 would be a+s+f, meaning they became famous, and are known for their ability and success. The other 25 would lack one of more of the 3 attributes. Even a 75% correct ratio would be very impressive.
Click to expand...

If what you have is a nominal variable with objective rules, so that it is clear that you either have or don't have it, you can use this after gathering 50 random charts and putting their values in SPSS - https://graziano-raulin.com/tutorials/spss/spss-phi.htm , assuming you have correctly input the data, and have Approx. Sig. of below 0.05, then it is statistically significant. In this case, instead of Sex, use Fame (say 1 for present and 2 for non-present), and instead of Political Affiliation, use ''Total Dominance'' (say 1 for present and 2 for non-present). Carrying out an experiment on an astrologer has more room for internal validity errors.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
''and they are entirely humble and miserable in their fortunes when neither of the luminaries is angular, or in a masculine sign, or attended by the beneficent planets'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/home.html

''Duality as a proxy for extroversion .— People born under bright signs (odd numbered) have been found to be more extroverted than those born under dark signs (even numbered). Across studies, this sign duality effect size is positive and homogeneous ( Mayo, et al ., 1978 ; Smithers & Cooper, 1978 ; Jackson, 1979 ; Veno & Pamment, 1979 ; Jackson & Fiebert, 1980 ; Saklofske, Kelly, & McKerracher, 1982 ; van Rooij, Brak, & Commandeur, 1988 ; Clarke, et al ., 1996 ). The mediation model in Fig. 1 posits that extroverted temperament ties variables in the self-concept factor to the positive emotions of warmth, contentment, and sociability ( Von Dras & Siegler, 1997 ; Lucas, Le, & Dyrenforth, 2008 ; Watson, Stasik, Ellickson-Larew, & Stanton, 2015 ). Extroverted temperament is driven by the cooperative affect system ( Hamilton, et al ., 2008 ). In tests of BST, indicators of self-esteem are antecedent to empathy, with empathy increasing bonding (Tafoya & Hamilton, 2010). Sociability, in turn, should facilitate fame...

Next, the effect of duality (brightness-darkness) on celebrities-per-sign was examined with a t test. As predicted in Fig. 1 , those with bright sign births (M = 26.33, SD = 10.56) were more likely to be celebrities than those with dark sign births (M = 23.67, SD = 6.44). This brightness effect was modest in size (t304.59 = 3.27, p < .001, η = 0.16). The variances for the two types of sign were significantly different (Levene’s F = 25.45, p < .001).'' - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/17.CP.4.7

So by factoring whether the Sun is in a masculine sign (among many other things) within a natal reading, you are factoring a statistically objective phenomenon. Authors pose the question whether this and other observed sun-sign differences are due to seasonal influences (at birth, conception or pregnancy), or due to cultural factors like starting school when born with a certain month. The latter is not as exciting.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
A list of 25 charts showing "total dominance" would be necessary. Different fields, like athletics (Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Pele, Phelps), science (Newton, Einstein), etc. Walt Disney, George Lucas, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe would all qualify for the entertainment industry.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
A list of 25 charts showing "total dominance" would be necessary. Different fields, like athletics (Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Pele, Phelps), science (Newton, Einstein), etc. Walt Disney, George Lucas, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe would all qualify for the entertainment industry.
Click to expand...

You can use any chart you want, because the null hypothesis says that astrology has zero correlation with terrestrial affairs.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
You can use any chart you want, because the null hypothesis says that astrology has zero correlation with terrestrial affairs.
Click to expand...

The ideal would be a formula for Charts with the potential for abi!ity, success, and fame. If true, it should be a very rare occurrence when someone without those markers is able to achieve all three.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
david starling said:
Anyone had time to check this out for yourself? Meaning, have you found it consistent?
Click to expand...

I didn't investigate much further after finding it out. Personally my chart fits this "total dominance" criteria (Moon/Jupiter = Neptune = Saturn/Pluto) and Valens' lot technique also shows eminence. Then my luminaries are both masculine (speaking of the study that petosiris found). I'm still a young man so we will see how my life unfolds.

I'm on the road so I will add more later, but two people who are undisputedly dominant are Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt. Let's see if they fit the criteria. I am going to take a look myself when I get home.

Any other suggestions?
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
The test I'm talking about would be someone WITHOUT the necessary combinations who still achieves "total dominance". Because, having a TD chart doesn't necessarily mean you WANT to achieve it, or that you have the opportunity to do so. For example, you may be too spiritually advanced to get so involved with material achievements. Tesla would be a good sample. Seems like he could have been TD, but turned it down.
 
conspiracy theorist

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Then collecting the birth info of 25 "totally dominant" people would still be fruitful because at this point, since we don't know if this is necessary to reach the pinnacle of a particular field. And while compelling, I'm not as confident in the configuration as alchemist777 is.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
conspiracy theorist said:
Then collecting the birth info of 25 "totally dominant" people would still be fruitful because at this point, since we don't know if this is necessary to reach the pinnacle of a particular field. And while compelling, I'm not as confident in the configuration as alchemist777 is.
Click to expand...

Even if he's off the mark, I like the attempt. And, it may be possible to improve on it.
 
Top