ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

Home → Science → News

Scientists Put Over 100 Experienced Astrologers to The Ultimate Test — The Results Are Embarrassing

Experienced astrologers fail to match people to their natal charts above random chance.

Tibi PuiubyTibi Puiu
August 12, 2024
in News, Psychology
A A
Edited and reviewed by Zoe Gordon
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterSubmit to Reddit
zodiac signs
Credit: Britannica.

Your life in stars

Although around a quarter of Americans swear by astrology and its potential to shape lives, science has never been convinced. In fact, the notion that celestial bodies can significantly influence our lives or that a zodiac sign plays a role in defining an individual’s core traits seems so ridiculous that most dismiss it entirely.

However, that doesn’t mean some haven’t tried to validate astrology empirically. Although funding is hard to come by, studies have time and time again shown that astrology is bogus. The most recent attempt comes from researchers led by Spencer Greenberg from Clearer Thinking, a startup that uses research about human behavior to build tools that help people achieve their goals.

Earlier this year, Greenberg and colleagues first ran a small study that attempted to predict 37 facts about people’s lives using their astrological sun signs.

“While personality tests were able to predict these facts decently well, sun signs couldn’t predict even a single one of them,” Greenberg wrote on X.

As you might imagine, these results received a lot of backlash. Responding to criticism from astrologers about previous research, the team devised a new study. This time, they designed the study with the help of six experienced astrologers so that predictions use a person’s entire astrological chart.

A new study, this time with experts

The study then enlisted 152 experienced astrologers who each received a lot of information about twelve real people. The personal information included answers to 43 questions about each person’s life and personality, along with five full astrological charts. The astrologers had to determine the person’s real natal chart — the other four were decoys. Astrologers believed they could perform this task well above chance. However, the results told a different story.

“One of the most fundamental claims of astrology is that a person’s natal chart contains information about that person’s life and character. If true, astrologers should be able to correctly choose a person’s chart at a rate well above random guessing,” Greenberg wrote.

RelatedPosts

Oceans of diamonds on Uranus
Astrology doesn’t work and never worked. Here’s why
Chart of astrologer's predicted accuracy
Credit: Clearer Thinking

Despite their confidence, astrologers as a group performed at levels indistinguishable from random guessing. On average, they got 2.49 out of 12 matches correct, close to the 2.4 correct matches expected by chance. No astrologer managed to get more than 5 matches right, even though many believed they had done significantly better.

“Neat aspects of this study design are that (1) if astrology doesn’t work, it’s impossible for astrologers to do better than random guessing at this task, while (2) for the study to come out in support of astrology, astrologers only need to do slightly better than random guessing.”

“So, how did astrologers do overall? If they’d gotten even 23% of questions right (slightly above the 20% of random guessing), the study would have come out in favor of astrology. But astrologers as a group performed indistinguishable from random guessing, getting < 21% right,” Greenberg wrote.

Chart showing astrology predicitons vs what was expected with random chance
Credit: Clearer Thinking.

Even those who identified as world-class experts performed no better than amateurs. Additionally, there was little agreement among astrologers on which chart matched which person, further questioning the consistency of astrological interpretations.

Credit: Clearer Thinking

The study, though designed with the input of astrologers and focused on a central claim of astrology, revealed that astrologers could not demonstrate any ability beyond chance to match individuals to their natal charts. This suggests that astrology does not have the predictive power that its practitioners claim. This is supported by another phase of the study, which found very little agreement between the seasoned astrologists on the right natal chart.

“Much to my surprise, astrologers had very low agreement with each other on the chart for each person. If astrologers picked charts at random, they would agree with each other 20% of the time. In our study, even the most experienced astrologers only agreed 28% of the time.”

“In conclusion, despite believing they could do it, the 152 astrologers seemed to lack any ability to match people to their astrological charts,” Greenberg wrote.

Astrology experience self-rating by participants
Credit: Clearer Thinking

The study’s methods and conclusions were reported on the Clearer Thinking website. The researchers also posted the same questions they used in the study, which you can use to test yourself.

Tags: astrologyempirical study

ShareTweetShare
Tibi Puiu

Tibi Puiu

Tibi is a science journalist and co-founder of ZME Science. He writes mainly about emerging tech, physics, climate, and space. In his spare time, Tibi likes to make weird music on his computer and groom felines. He has a B.Sc in mechanical engineering and an M.Sc in renewable energy systems.

Related Posts

Features

Astrology doesn’t work and never worked. Here’s why

byMihai Andrei
2 years ago
Physics

Oceans of diamonds on Uranus

byMihai Andrei
15 years ago

Recent news

The Worm That Outsourced Locomotion to Its (Many) Butts

May 16, 2025

The unusual world of Roman Collegia — or how to start a company in Ancient Rome

May 16, 2025
Merton College, University of Oxford. Located in Oxford, Oxfordshire, England, UK. Original public domain image from Wikimedia Commons

For over 500 years, Oxford graduates pledged to hate Henry Symeonis. So, who is he?

May 16, 2025
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Editorial Policy
  • Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • How we review products
  • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Science News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Space
  • Future
  • Features
    • Natural Sciences
    • Physics
      • Matter and Energy
      • Quantum Mechanics
      • Thermodynamics
    • Chemistry
      • Periodic Table
      • Applied Chemistry
      • Materials
      • Physical Chemistry
    • Biology
      • Anatomy
      • Biochemistry
      • Ecology
      • Genetics
      • Microbiology
      • Plants and Fungi
    • Geology and Paleontology
      • Planet Earth
      • Earth Dynamics
      • Rocks and Minerals
      • Volcanoes
      • Dinosaurs
      • Fossils
    • Animals
      • Mammals
      • Birds
      • Fish
      • Amphibians
      • Reptiles
      • Invertebrates
      • Pets
      • Conservation
      • Animal facts
    • Climate and Weather
      • Climate change
      • Weather and atmosphere
    • Health
      • Drugs
      • Diseases and Conditions
      • Human Body
      • Mind and Brain
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Wellness
    • History and Humanities
      • Anthropology
      • Archaeology
      • History
      • Economics
      • People
      • Sociology
    • Space & Astronomy
      • The Solar System
      • Sun
      • The Moon
      • Planets
      • Asteroids, meteors & comets
      • Astronomy
      • Astrophysics
      • Cosmology
      • Exoplanets & Alien Life
      • Spaceflight and Exploration
    • Technology
      • Computer Science & IT
      • Engineering
      • Inventions
      • Sustainability
      • Renewable Energy
      • Green Living
    • Culture
    • Resources
  • Videos
  • Reviews
  • About Us
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Editorial policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2025 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.