You could try and not be owned by @dickbong69
i trust @dickbong69 more than any astrologist
“We tested and analyzed the ability of 152 astrologers to accurately match people to their natal charts. For our primary analyses, we excluded anyone who reported no prior astrology experience as well as anyone who believed they would not do better than random guessing at the task of matching people to their astrological charts.
The 152 astrologers largely believed that they were capable of doing this task with accuracy well above chance. Whereas a random guesser would, on average, only correctly answer 2.4 questions out of 12, astrologers with the least experience thought they had correctly answered 5 charts after completing the study tasks, and those with the most astrology expertise believed they had gotten 10 right.
Despite their high-degree of confidence in their performance, astrologers as a group performed no better than chance - that is, their distribution of results closely resembled what you'd see if they had all been guessing at random, and the number of charts they matched correctly, on average, was not statistically significantly different than random guessing either.
Not a single astrologer got more than 5 out of 12 answers correct - even though, after completing the task, more than half of astrologers believed they had gotten more than 5 answers correct.
More experience with astrology had no statistically significant association with better performance, and the astrologers with the most experience didn't do any better than the rest.
If astrologers as a group had been able to do meaningfully better than chance, this study design would have supported the conclusion that astrology works. But, as it turned out, astrologers in the study performed in a manner statistically indistinguishable from random guessing.
Despite astrologers' belief that they were performing well on the task, there was little agreement among astrologers about which natal chart belonged to each study subject. The astrologers who reported the greatest expertise had the highest level of agreement, but they still only agreed with each other 28% of the time - whereas if they had been selecting charts at random they would have agreed 20% of the time.”
—Spencer Greenberg and André Ferretti (2024 Jul 21), “Study Report: Can Astrologers Truly Gain Insights About People From Entire Astrological Charts?”
