I know nothing about astrology, but this just looks like the spread of birth months for presidents is pretty evenly random.
Wouldn't that imply that astrology isn't significantly correlated with presidency?
I know nothing about astrology, but this just looks like the spread of birth months for presidents is pretty evenly random.
Wouldn't that imply that astrology isn't significantly correlated with presidency?
Our presidents for a while have shown Leonine themes, Democratic ones being legitimate with Republican ones just being ascendants, until we hit Biden who's ascendant is unknown to us.
This trend has been in effect since George Bush the first.
The presidents somewhat show trends when you look at them in order.
I know nothing about astrology, but this just looks like the spread of birth months for presidents is pretty evenly random.
Wouldn't that imply that astrology isn't significantly correlated with presidency?
Our presidents for a while have shown Leonine themes, Democratic ones being legitimate with Republican ones just being ascendants, until we hit Biden who's ascendant is unknown to us.
This trend has been in effect since George Bush the first.The presidents somewhat show trends when you look at them in order.
Fun, that makes it a time series problem.
We can measure if those trends are random or not.
If one is considering astrological data/placements as selection factors according to traits, then quantifying this selection process will possibly yield patterns. If one can find the means to quantify (astrologically, either by sign-related factors at the time, or traits of signs that would seemingly point selection in their favor and the signs which most strongly exhibit them in relation to eventful factors) events and prevailing, national pressures, one might find correlations.
Astrology doesn't necessarily have to be objectively true, in any case. Whether implicitly or explicitly, if enough have the presentiments in their selection parameters, data might end up correlating.
I don't know if I linked one of the sources for the astrological data:
I don't know if I linked one of the sources for the astrological data:
Just from a glance at that table, I doubt there's statistically significantly trends there.
If I had more time on my hands, I'd plug it into R and check. If anyone's bored enough to make a .csv file, I might do it later.
I don't know if I linked one of the sources for the astrological data:
Just from a glance at that table, I doubt there's statistically significantly trends there.
If I had more time on my hands, I'd plug it into R and check. If anyone's bored enough to make a .csv file, I might do it later.
I'll probably do it later just to fuck around.
Here's a link to csv, contains presidents names in one column and sun signs in another column.
Here's a link to csv, contains presidents names in one column and sun signs in another column.
The moon in this case matters, as does the ascendant, but not all people have an ascendant on record which makes it annoying.
Here's a link to csv, contains presidents names in one column and sun signs in another column.
The moon in this case matters, as does the ascendant, but not all people have an ascendant on record which makes it annoying.
I don't know if those things matter because I haven't measured their effects (I also can't find others who have), but I will add them to do just that.
Hypothesis to be tested:
(1) What is the probability that a relationship exists between sun sign and becoming president, and how strong is that relationship?
(2) What is the probability that a relationship exists between moon sign and becoming president, and how strong is that relationship?
(3) What is the probability that a relationship exists between ascendant sign and becoming president, and how strong is that relationship?
(4) What is the probability that a relationship exists between sun, moon, and ascendant sign and becoming president, and how strong is that relationship?