Intelligence indicator (details inside)

SunConjunctUranus

Well-known member
Someone here says something about being a Gemini and being stupid. In my opinion, being a Gemini doesn't guarantee intelligence, but Gemini seems to be more likely to have a thirst for knowledge than other signs, especially fixed signs. The fixed signs tend to be so proud of their knowledge that they stick to what they know.

You may need to put Aquarius and/or Uranus as the exception. :biggrin:
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
There was something said in another currently active intelligence thread that I agree with which is that high IQ is a different thing than intellectualism, and I can see how these discussions could obscure that difference of pure processing power vs. literary, logical and mathematical presentation which might not have the raw intelligence behind it.

I've never made a study of it, but I wonder if genius actually presents in the natal chart as lopsidedness or extremely tight configurations and patterns. Broadly speaking, genius is an extreme deviation from the norm that often results in noticeable differences in behaviour, interests and life path than an average person. This might be a different approach than looking at aspects that show up most frequently in the charts, but maybe that's not necessarily the best way to perceive genius in the chart.
 

Starsareround

Well-known member
There was something said in another currently active intelligence thread that I agree with which is that high IQ is a different thing than intellectualism, and I can see how these discussions could obscure that difference of pure processing power vs. literary, logical and mathematical presentation which might not have the raw intelligence behind it.

I've never made a study of it, but I wonder if genius actually presents in the natal chart as lopsidedness or extremely tight configurations and patterns. Broadly speaking, genius is an extreme deviation from the norm that often results in noticeable differences in behaviour, interests and life path than an average person. This might be a different approach than looking at aspects that show up most frequently in the charts, but maybe that's not necessarily the best way to perceive genius in the chart.


I tend to agree with this. I have a bit of a "bowl" chart myself, and while I do not think of myself as unusually intelligent, I know that I have abilities to focus on a subject to the exclusion of all else and bring forth "new" things, projects into the world. I would assume someone with similar focus but possibly tighter configurations/ stronger Saturn and more Moon/ Mercury interplay could achieve a great deal.
 
Last edited:

Flapjacks

Well-known member
I'd be curious to know what people think of this chart in terms of intelligence. It is one of the most interesting charts I've seen. I can tell you more about this person, but I don't want to color the interpretation until after you've had a chance to look at it.
 

Attachments

  • astro_2gw_anonymous.74532.69629.jpg
    astro_2gw_anonymous.74532.69629.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 33

Gemini888

Well-known member
I'd be curious to know what people think of this chart in terms of intelligence. It is one of the most interesting charts I've seen. I can tell you more about this person, but I don't want to color the interpretation until after you've had a chance to look at it.
This guy looks to me like someone who is always full of ideas (Aries Merc) but has a hard time putting them into practice (12H Merc and the lack of Earth). However, he has super powerful imagination (Pisces Sun, Merc oppos Neptune and Moon). His imagination may be a source of the misunderstanding toward him, and he doubt his intelligence a lot (Merc retrograde, Merc square Saturn). But he is also an independent thinker and has a determination to prove himself to the world (Aries Merc, Merc square Mars)



What strikes me as interesting is how the 12H placement of Merc is at odd with Aries and the square with Mars. Aries is determined to put everything it finds out there for the world to see, but 12H indicates either a tendency toward privacy or a lack of recognition for his intelligence. Also he has most of his planets are down the horizon and his Sun/Merc/Venus in 12H. I'm going to guess that this man spent much of his life struggling to be recognized. He may be aspired to do work that requires imagination, but finds little recognition until later in life, maybe because people find him too impractical and/or impulsive.


His compensation for the lack of Earth is the loaded 6H and 2H. Hopefully he is able to touch into his 6H and 2H to create some substance for his raging imagination, especially the 2H NN.
 

Flapjacks

Well-known member
This guy looks to me like someone who is always full of ideas (Aries Merc) but has a hard time putting them into practice (12H Merc and the lack of Earth). However, he has super powerful imagination (Pisces Sun, Merc oppos Neptune and Moon). His imagination may be a source of the misunderstanding toward him, and he doubt his intelligence a lot (Merc retrograde, Merc square Saturn). But he is also an independent thinker and has a determination to prove himself to the world (Aries Merc, Merc square Mars)



What strikes me as interesting is how the 12H placement of Merc is at odd with Aries and the square with Mars. Aries is determined to put everything it finds out there for the world to see, but 12H indicates either a tendency toward privacy or a lack of recognition for his intelligence. Also he has most of his planets are down the horizon and his Sun/Merc/Venus in 12H. I'm going to guess that this man spent much of his life struggling to be recognized. He may be aspired to do work that requires imagination, but finds little recognition until later in life, maybe because people find him too impractical and/or impulsive.


His compensation for the lack of Earth is the loaded 6H and 2H. Hopefully he is able to touch into his 6H and 2H to create some substance for his raging imagination, especially the 2H NN.

This is accurate. For a good example, he is left handed but was one of those kids that was punished in school for it and forced to write with his right hand. As a result, he can write beautiful cursive with both hands, perfectly mirrored, at the same time (I watched him do it, it is a spooky thing to observe). As he grew older, he decided to only write with his left whenever he could as it felt most natural to him. When he wrote something to me, I had to use a mirror to read it.

I later found out he had schizophrenia. He had an intelligence that seemed to flow "from beyond", if you will, which fits with the 12th house and Neptune.
 

corvidcatharsis

Well-known member
There was something said in another currently active intelligence thread that I agree with which is that high IQ is a different thing than intellectualism, and I can see how these discussions could obscure that difference of pure processing power vs. literary, logical and mathematical presentation which might not have the raw intelligence behind it.

I've never made a study of it, but I wonder if genius actually presents in the natal chart as lopsidedness or extremely tight configurations and patterns. Broadly speaking, genius is an extreme deviation from the norm that often results in noticeable differences in behaviour, interests and life path than an average person. This might be a different approach than looking at aspects that show up most frequently in the charts, but maybe that's not necessarily the best way to perceive genius in the chart.

Nature vs. nurture. So hard to unravel. No point in having processing power if you don't do anything with it. And you don't know the limit of what you can do with your brain until you try it. As your quote in your signature line says, "For all things good and fair, the gods give nothing to man without toil and effort"

Circumstance also affects achievement. Mozart was considered a genius. But he was also heavily sculpted into being a child star by his father. Sometimes I wonder if he would have a better life if he was allowed to be a child and less of a star.

I'm sure many of Bach's children wrote music when they were young. But they didn't get dragged around Europe like trained monkeys and I suspect they were emotionally better off for it.

But I have seen some studies that suggest that beyond about 130 a higher IQ isn't necessarily helpful for achievement. For one thing it gets hard to measure. Beyond a certain point higher scores could be just statistical noise.

For another, creativity and discipline become more important. And depression and anxiety is common for people with high IQs. The smarter you are the more isolated you feel.

Natally I'm a bit lopsided. I think I could achieve a lot if I put my mind to it. But who gets called a genius in the end comes down to who writes the history books. Some artists weren't recognized until after they were dead. And there are a lot of people who I know who are exceptionally talented who will probably not make the history books.

What makes one guy in a graduating fine art class the nationally recognized photographer and another not? Some portion of it is just luck, or striking the right chord at the right time. Any indication of genius in a chart would be hard to unravel from fame.
 

watcherofthesouth

Well-known member
My Uranus and Moon are pretty much conjunct the ascendant, with Sun and Mercury in Pisces in the 5th. Due to Saturn opposing my Neptune in Sagittarius, I'd say that organization and details are difficult for me. I'm considered very intelligent but slow on common sense or sense of responsibility sometimes. I've been compared to a mad scientist. So many ideas come to me but putting them into action is very difficult.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Nature vs. nurture. So hard to unravel. No point in having processing power if you don't do anything with it. And you don't know the limit of what you can do with your brain until you try it. As your quote in your signature line says, "For all things good and fair, the gods give nothing to man without toil and effort"

Circumstance also affects achievement. Mozart was considered a genius. But he was also heavily sculpted into being a child star by his father. Sometimes I wonder if he would have a better life if he was allowed to be a child and less of a star.

I'm sure many of Bach's children wrote music when they were young. But they didn't get dragged around Europe like trained monkeys and I suspect they were emotionally better off for it.

But I have seen some studies that suggest that beyond about 130 a higher IQ isn't necessarily helpful for achievement. For one thing it gets hard to measure. Beyond a certain point higher scores could be just statistical noise.

For another, creativity and discipline become more important. And depression and anxiety is common for people with high IQs. The smarter you are the more isolated you feel.

Natally I'm a bit lopsided. I think I could achieve a lot if I put my mind to it. But who gets called a genius in the end comes down to who writes the history books. Some artists weren't recognized until after they were dead. And there are a lot of people who I know who are exceptionally talented who will probably not make the history books.

What makes one guy in a graduating fine art class the nationally recognized photographer and another not? Some portion of it is just luck, or striking the right chord at the right time. Any indication of genius in a chart would be hard to unravel from fame.

I had a chart in mind which exemplified the difference I noted in that post.

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stroud,_Robert

This is the chart of Robert Stroud a.k.a the Birdman of Alcatraz

Robert Franklin Stroud (January 28, 1890 – November 21, 1963), known as the "Birdman of Alcatraz", was a convicted murderer, American federal prisoner and author who has been cited as one of the most notorious criminals in the United States.[1][2][3] During his time at Leavenworth Penitentiary, he reared and sold birds and became a respected ornithologist, although regulations did not allow him to keep birds at Alcatraz, where he was incarcerated from 1942 to 1959. Stroud was never released from the federal prison system; he was imprisoned from 1909 to his death in 1963.

In 1920, while in solitary confinement at Leavenworth, Stroud discovered a nest with three injured sparrows in the prison yard. He cared for them and within a few years had acquired a collection of about 300 canaries. He began extensive research into birds after being granted equipment by a prison-reforming warden. Stroud wrote Diseases of Canaries, which was smuggled out of Leavenworth and published in 1933,[4] as well as a later edition (1943). He made important contributions to avian pathology, most notably a cure for the hemorrhagic septicemia family of diseases, gaining much respect and some level of sympathy among ornithologists and farmers. Stroud ran a successful business from inside prison, but his activities infuriated the prison staff, and he was eventually transferred to Alcatraz in 1942 after it was discovered that Stroud had been secretly making alcohol using some of the equipment in his cell.

Stroud began serving a 17-year term at Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary on December 19, 1942, and became inmate #594. In 1943, he was assessed by psychiatrist Romney M. Ritchey, who diagnosed him as a psychopath, but with an I.Q. of 112.[5] Stripped of his birds and equipment, he wrote a history of the penal system.

This man doesn't have an impressive IQ, however this biographical information speaks unequivocally to his intellectual achievement.

His natal chart shows the standard markers of an "intelligent" person - At 6 planets + the ascendant in the element of air - this is an individual who will be strongly geared toward intellectualism, cognition and a mental approach to life. Traditionally speaking, the "human" signs were Virgo, Gemini, Aquarius, Libra and the first half of Sagittarius (the human portion of it). These were the signs that are classically attributed with intelligence/intellectualism and social grace.

He also has some chart factors that contribute to his scientific achievement, separate and apart from his intellectualism. Uranus is located on Spica and the combination of the planet that modernly represents the new and shocking, brilliance, unorthodox thinking and behaviour and flashes of intuitive inspiration and the willfulness to pursue a path to the death, as long as it came from one's personal volition with this fixed which according to Manilius signifies:

"The temperaments of those whose span of life she pronounces at their birth Erigone (Virgo) will direct to study, and she will train their minds in the learned arts. She will give not so much abundance of wealth as the impulse to investigate the causes and effects of things. On them she will confer a tongue which charms, the mastery of words, and that mental vision which can discern all things, however concealed they be by the mysterious workings of nature. From the Virgin will also come the stenographer: his letter represents a word, and by means of his symbols he can keep ahead of utterance and record in novel notation the long speech of a rapid speaker. But with the good there comes a flaw: bashfulness handicaps the early years of such persons, for the Maid, by holding back their great natural gifts, puts a bridle on their lips and restrains them by the curb of authority. And (small wonder in a virgin) her offspring is not fruitful." [Astronomica, Manilius, 1st century AD, p.237 and 239]

... then we can see how his response to the injured bird in his cell was so different from the norm. That Uranus straddles the 1st and 2nd which describes the personality and the profession. He earned as a result of his science, and with a nickname like Birdman of Alcatraz you don't need to ask if such a guy was an unconventional fellow.

Then according to Gauquelin's research Saturn was associated with scientists and Stroud has the planet in a Gauquelin zone.

Jupiter is making a phasis in this chart, on the same day that he was born. Jupiter is higher learning and phasis is often relevant to profession or what one focuses their life on doing. His intellectual achievements certainly fall into that category.

The 9th house is populated with the outers and the NN straddles the cusp of the 9th and 10th. Some more testimonies to his intellectual achievement.

Aquarius is then modernly associated with Scientists and his ascendant ruler as well as his Sun and Moon are located in that sign.

Despite his impressive resume, all of this was achieved by someone with an IQ of supposedly 112 (116 by another account). Hardly exceptional in terms of raw processing power.

To address some of the other things in your post, I'm interested in the cases who are exceptionally talented and what there charts have to say. The people who you personally know who are wickedly exceptional but probably won't get acclaim. The people like Stars' friend who are very brilliant at developing AI. Those are the persons I'd be interested to look at - That's probably where a study of genius might yield fruit vs. intelligence which while related doesn't cover exactly the same ground. I don't care one lick about who the history books have deemed geniuses -- I wouldn't necessarily start a study of exceptionalism with Einstein for instance, despite being evoked into discussions related to genius.

I also make a demarcation between achievement vs. exceptionalism/raw power. I tend toward creativity being a key component in exceptionalism, but discipline is needed to make anything that is relevant to the wider public. If one were to use the current crop of "known geniuses" you may very well be picking up eminence indicators combined with intellectual/creative placements which potentially make the whole astrodatabank project contaminated in the sense of providing you with individuals who are with anything else that they might have to offer, "famous".

I don't think genius would be hard to unravel from fame if you started from the charts that were not famous, but displayed that ridiculously gifted manifestation that one would deem as "genius". I'd also want to take a more inductive approach to finding genius in the chart than to tack on assumptions about what genius is, which will influence the aspects I "think" a genius should have, then miss the actual placements that a genius actually has in the chart.

Which brings up another important point that your posts brings up, which is what exactly are we looking for when we look for "genius" in the chart? Are we looking for achievement markers? Are we looking for raw talent/processing power? Are we looking for eminence? Is genius even a thing which can be seen in the chart, since it might just be an imprecise term that constellates a bunch of ideas together that make up "the genius archetype"?

And then, no matter how much intelligence markers it has, a table will never be on par with a person's natural capacity. Astrology provides the time, place and "energy" but it has to be applied to an object in order to have a physical manifestation. The je ne sais quoi might be beyond astrology's grasp.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
I don't think IQ has any place in discussions of intelligence. Intelligence is and always will be subjective as well as largely irrelevant


One man's genius is another man's idiot. That's the truth of it
 
Last edited:

Lykanized

Well-known member
I did do some cursory research looking at charts of people society has declared 'geniuses' and they don't seem to have tight charts, in fact their charts seem to be more scattered. May add to versatility
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I did do some cursory research looking at charts of people society has declared 'geniuses' and they don't seem to have tight charts, in fact their charts seem to be more scattered. May add to versatility

If you're referring to what I said, I mentioned tight aspectual patterns. A chart I had in mind when I was thinking about that was Bobby Fischer. Lopsidedness could be "tight charts" although lopsidedness could appear in different guises - preponderance, a lot of Rx planets (I was actually thinking about that when I posted that reply), a lot of out of bounds planets - that sort of thing.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
If you're referring to what I said, I mentioned tight aspectual patterns. A chart I had in mind when I was thinking about that was Bobby Fischer. Lopsidedness could be "tight charts" although lopsidedness could appear in different guises - preponderance, a lot of Rx planets (I was actually thinking about that when I posted that reply), a lot of out of bounds planets - that sort of thing.
Ah, I guess I misunderstood you because of the comment about bowl shaped charts after, but I'm also fasting and I've been depressed so my mind isn't so sharp


Intelligence is such a troubling subject and I will shun IQ for reasons I don't need to get into. It's like you were talking about someone who achieved great things but was thought to have a more average IQ. But aside from that, I think intelligence is partially subjective. Some people think creatives are highly intelligent. That's the kind of intelligence I admire, the person for whom no box exists to think outside of, they just exist outside the box. The iconoclast. But it might just be that these individuals may not score so high on a typical IQ test and that in any other areas than the ones they shine they may seem like an idiot


Then there's the fact that the creative individual, the iconoclast, may be deemed by others to just be foolish dreamers, idiots in their own right. It's such a complex subject


It would certainly be interested to delve into it from an astrological perspective, but coming to a consensus as to what intelligence actually is may be more troublesome
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I mean, the complexity and troublesome nature of it is what attracts me, and where the "known" bottoms out is where new discoveries can be made, so I don't mind trying to swim through the difficulty.
 

Gemini888

Well-known member
There is some talk about genius here and I would like to add some thought. Personally, I don't think intelligence and genius has much to do with each other (though having good intelligence does increase your chance of being a genius). I think genius has more to do with originality and the will to put your contribution out there (yeah, I'm having Capricorn, Aquarius and Aries in mind). The geniuses in history books seem to share the same thing: they notice something is missing in their field and they do something about it. Going out to contribute requires strong discipline and a considerable amount of courage. Van Gosh, Lincoln, King, Dali... They were ridiculed for their work at some point in their life and they kept working.

In other words, geniuses constantly exposed themselves to the public one way or another. This is different from the "here today, gone tomorrow" kind of talent, who become newspaper sensation for some time and disappear fast. I think people with strong Fire/cardinal placements are more likely to become geniuses the world remember.
 

Starsareround

Well-known member
I think I'd probably give up 10 IQ points to get me a couple drops more of persistence.

This is a great point. I debated wether or not I should share yet another story on here, but persistence cannot be underestimated when it comes to acclaim, and whether or not someone is considered “genius” or “talented”
Many many successful people will tell you that the difference between themselves and their peers who did not make an impact in their field is down to pure persistence and hard work, not natural ability. One of the peeps who used to be in my community of emerging artists and crazy kids back in my 20s is now a world renowned photographer for The NY Times. He started out taking the same decent photos as everyone else. Nothing special. But he was the one who hounded more experienced photographers to let him assist them, he was the one who moved to NY when everyone else got a day job, he was the one who insisted on “making it”...since I’m old now and I’ve seen how life has shaken out for people who I knew when we were all on the same footing once, it’s easy for me to say with confidence: hard work and persistence is 99%, talent and natural ability 1%. Sorry if this goes off topic a bit...
 

Starsareround

Well-known member
I bring this up because I think far too many people assume they lack some special genius or intelligence or talent to become rightfully eminent. It’s simply not the way it works. I’m sure we all know people who are extremely intelligent but who have not been able to “use” it and also people who have achieved a great deal but have “average” intelligence. A discussion on intelligence should recognize this disparity and not place too much emphasis on “eminence”
 

Flapjacks

Well-known member
This is a great point. I debated wether or not I should share yet another story on here, but persistence cannot be underestimated when it comes to acclaim, and whether or not someone is considered “genius” or “talented”
Many many successful people will tell you that the difference between themselves and their peers who did not make an impact in their field is down to pure persistence and hard work, not natural ability. One of the peeps who used to be in my community of emerging artists and crazy kids back in my 20s is now a world renowned photographer for The NY Times. He started out taking the same decent photos as everyone else. Nothing special. But he was the one who hounded more experienced photographers to let him assist them, he was the one who moved to NY when everyone else got a day job, he was the one who insisted on “making it”...since I’m old now and I’ve seen how life has shaken out for people who I knew when we were all on the same footing once, it’s easy for me to say with confidence: hard work and persistence is 99%, talent and natural ability 1%. Sorry if this goes off topic a bit...

Well, if we're going to be brutally honest about it, I find the people with more talent and originality (which doesn't necessarily include intelligence, but for this argument let us say "intelligence" is the driver) have a harder time because other people can't relate to them as well. Average people can have more success not just by persistence, but also because they are less intimidating. This is even more pronounced with social media culture, where the most average voice is the loudest.

For example, on Youtube, there are people making videos of a craft that I'm interested in. One of the people with the most subscribers, views, income, etc. from this craft has average skill and makes everything as kitschy, familiar, and clearly attention-seeking as possible. She only thinks one step ahead, so five steps later she ruins her own designs, but then parades them around like it was a success. It's ... maddening that she is popular, really.

Another person that does this craft is truly an artist - does things you don't think are possible and is very clever with how she puts her craft together. She also puts a lot of work into it and use techniques that require high level abstract thinking, knowledge, and experience to pull off. Yet, her beautiful work has one hundred times less views. Perhaps she doesn't market as heavily, but it strikes me that the real artist doesn't seek the validation that the average crafter does. With this craft in general, that trend is the same - the people with more average skill are more popular than the ones producing outstanding work.

I'm with conspiracy theorist when it comes to fame or acclaim interfering with the reading of a chart for intelligence. It would be difficult to disentangle because the chart might actually point to recognition for intelligence and not raw intelligence. That is why I also like to look at the charts of people that are not famous or celebrities. The downside is that celebrity charts provide equally accessible information about the person in a forum like this, which is more robust than taking other people's word about someone else's abilities.
 
Last edited:
Top