Quirkology (3 page)
Authors: Richard Wiseman
A week is not a long time in the world of finance, and so we decided to continue the experiment for a year. It proved to be a difficult twelve months for global finance, with the market showing an overall drop of 16 percent. However, almost one year after our original experiment, we asked Barclay’s Stockbrokers to reassess the value of the three portfolios. This time, the differences were even more dramatic. Our expert investor had a 46.2 percent loss on his original investment. The financial astrologer did somewhat better, but still suffered a 6.2 percent loss. Once again, Tia led the pack. In the face of a falling market, she had managed to make a 5.8 percent profit.
8
8
I wasn’t entirely surprised that our experts’ predictions were less than impressive. This was not the first time that the wisdom of financial analysts had come under scrutiny and been found wanting. In a similar Swedish study, a national newspaper gave $1,250 each to five experienced investors and a chimpanzee named Ola. Ola made his choice by throwing darts at the names of companies listed on the Stockholm exchange. After a month, the newspaper compared the profits and losses made by each competitor: Ola had outperformed the financial wizards. Similarly, the
Wall Street Journal
regularly asks four investors to pick one stock apiece, and then uses Ola’s random dart-throwing technique to select four others. After six months, the paper compares the returns on the stocks selected by the experts with those of the “dartboard” portfolio’s picks. The darts are often more successful, and they almost always beat at least one or two of the experts.
Wall Street Journal
regularly asks four investors to pick one stock apiece, and then uses Ola’s random dart-throwing technique to select four others. After six months, the paper compares the returns on the stocks selected by the experts with those of the “dartboard” portfolio’s picks. The darts are often more successful, and they almost always beat at least one or two of the experts.
My test of financial astrology was not the first scientific examination of the alleged relationship between heavenly activity and earthly events. Similar work goes back for decades and has involved a series of unusual experiments, including work carried out by one of Britain’s most prolific psychologists.
Hans Eysenck was arguably one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century, and at the time of his death in 1997 he was the living psychologist most frequently cited in scientific journals and magazines. Famous for liking the phrase “If it cannot be measured, then it does not exist,” Eysenck spent much of his career trying to quantify aspects of the human psyche (including poetry writing, sexual behavior, humor, and genius) that many believed to be beyond the grasp of science. He is, however, perhaps best known for his work on the analysis of human personality, and he developed some of the most widely used personality questionnaires in modern-day psychology.
To appreciate Eysenck’s astrological investigation fully, it is necessary to understand his investigations into personality. Eysenck first had thousands of people complete questionnaires about themselves; he then analyzed the results using powerful statistical techniques designed to uncover the key dimensions on which people differed. The results revealed that the variations in people’s personalities are not nearly as complex as they first appear. In fact, according to Eysenck, they vary on only a handful of fundamental dimensions, the two most important of which he labeled “extroversion” and “neuroticism.” The Eysenck Personality Inventory, which contains about fifty statements, was designed to measure these traits. It asks people to indicate whether each statement describes them by circling either “Yes” or “No.”
The first of Eysenck’s personality dimensions, extroversion, is all about the level of energy with which people approach life. High on the scale are the “extroverts.” These people tend to be impulsive, optimistic, and happy; they enjoy the company of others, strive for instant gratification, have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, and are more likely than others to cheat on their partners. At the other end of the scale come the “introverts,” who are far more considered, controlled, and reserved. Their social lives revolve around a relatively small number of close friends, and they prefer reading a good book to going out for a night on the town. Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, and the Eysenck Personality Inventory measures people’s level of extroversion/introversion by presenting them with statements such as “I am the life of the party” and “I feel comfortable around people.”
The second dimension, neuroticism, concerns the degree to which a person is emotionally stable. High scorers tend to worry; they have low self-esteem, set themselves unrealistic targets and goals, and frequently experience feelings of hostility and envy. In contrast, low scorers are calmer: They are more relaxed and resilient in the face of failure, and they are skilled at using humor to reduce anxiety; sometimes they even thrive on stress. The Eysenck Personality Inventory measures people’s level of neuroticism by using statements such as “I worry about things” and “I get stressed out easily.”
According to ancient astrological lore, six of the twelve signs of the zodiac are traditionally associated with extroversion (Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius) and six with introversion (Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, and Pisces). Similarly, people born under the three “earth” signs (Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn) are seen as emotionally stable and practical; those associated with the three “water” signs (Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces) should be far more neurotic.
To find out whether this really is true, Eysenck teamed up with a respected British astrologer named Jeff Mayo. A few years before, Mayo had founded the Mayo School of Astrology and rapidly gained a large international following of students. About 2,000 of Mayo’s clients and students were asked to report their birth dates and to complete the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Those skeptical about astrology expected the findings to reveal absolutely no relationship between participants’ personalities and ancient astrological lore. In contrast, proponents of astrology were confident that the positions of the heavens at the time of birth would have a predicable impact on people’s thinking and behavior.
Much to the surprise of the skeptics, the results were perfectly in line with astrological lore. Those born under the signs traditionally associated with extroversion did have slightly higher extroversion scores than others, and those born under the three water signs obtained higher neuroticism scores than those born under the earth signs.
9
The astrological journal
Phenomena
announced that these findings were “possibly the most important development for astrology in this century.”
10
9
The astrological journal
Phenomena
announced that these findings were “possibly the most important development for astrology in this century.”
10
But Eysenck became suspicious when he realized that the participants in his study already had a strong belief in astrology. Most people who have such beliefs are well aware of the types that astrology predicts they are
meant
to be, and he wondered whether this knowledge had undermined the study. Could his participants have skewed the results by thinking that they had the personalities they knew were associated with their star signs? Could psychology, rather than the position of the planets on his subjects’ birthdays, have accounted for his remarkable results?
meant
to be, and he wondered whether this knowledge had undermined the study. Could his participants have skewed the results by thinking that they had the personalities they knew were associated with their star signs? Could psychology, rather than the position of the planets on his subjects’ birthdays, have accounted for his remarkable results?
Eysenck conducted two additional studies to explore this idea. The first involved people who were far less likely to have heard about the personality characteristics associated with different star signs—a group of 1,000 children. This time, the results were dramatically different and didn’t match the patterns predicted by astrological lore: The children’s levels of extroversion and neuroticism were completely unrelated to their star signs. To make certain, Eysenck ran a second birth date/personality study with adults, but he also assessed what they knew about astrology. Those knowledgeable about the effect the planets should have on personality did conform to the pattern predicted by astrology. In contrast, those who professed no knowledge showed no patterning. The conclusion was clear. The positions of the planets at the moment of a person’s birth had no magical effect on personality. Instead, many of the people who were well aware of the personality traits associated with their signs had developed into the people predicted by the astrologers.
11
When Eysenck presented these follow-up findings at a conference exploring science and astrology, his biographer noted that “there was a strong feeling among some of the astrologers that Eysenck had first beguiled them with his patronage, and then betrayed them by bringing forward some ugly facts.”
12
11
When Eysenck presented these follow-up findings at a conference exploring science and astrology, his biographer noted that “there was a strong feeling among some of the astrologers that Eysenck had first beguiled them with his patronage, and then betrayed them by bringing forward some ugly facts.”
12
This is not the only time that researchers have found evidence that people become what others expect them to be. In the 1950s, the psychologist Gustav Jahoda studied the lives of the Ashanti people in central Ghana. According to tradition, every Ashanti child receives a spiritual name that is based on the day he or she is born, and each day is associated with a set of personality traits. Those born on a Monday are referred to as
Kwadwo
and are traditionally seen as quiet, retiring, and peaceful. Children born on a Wednesday are referred to as
Kwaku
and are expected to be badly behaved. Jahoda wanted to know whether this early labeling could have a long-term impact on the self-image, and lives, of Ashanti children. To find out, he examined the frequency with which people born on different days of the week appeared in juvenile court records. The results showed that the label given to children at birth affected their behavior, with significantly fewer
Kwadwos,
and more
Kwaku,
appearing in the records.
13
Kwadwo
and are traditionally seen as quiet, retiring, and peaceful. Children born on a Wednesday are referred to as
Kwaku
and are expected to be badly behaved. Jahoda wanted to know whether this early labeling could have a long-term impact on the self-image, and lives, of Ashanti children. To find out, he examined the frequency with which people born on different days of the week appeared in juvenile court records. The results showed that the label given to children at birth affected their behavior, with significantly fewer
Kwadwos,
and more
Kwaku,
appearing in the records.
13
Did Eysenck’s results cause millions to alter their belief in heavenly influence? Apparently not. Instead, many proponents of astrology argued that the star signs merely provided a rough guide to a person’s personality, and that real accuracy could be obtained only by carefully studying the precise moment that a person entered the world. The claim has received a great deal of attention from researchers around the globe.
The British researcher Geoffrey Dean is a soft-spoken, mild-mannered man who has dedicated his life to collecting, and collating, information that might allow him to assess the potential impact of the stars on human behavior. Since he is one of the few scientific researchers who used to earn his living as a professional astrologer, he is in a unique position to carry out the work.
In 2000, I was invited to speak at an international science conference in Australia, and I was delighted to discover that Geoffrey was on the same program. During his talk, Geoffrey described his latest and largest project: an investigation that he referred to as the “definitive test” of astrology. Like so many good ideas, this one was very simple. According to the claims of astrologers, the position of the planets at a person’s moment of birth predicts his or her personality and the key events in that person’s life. If this is true, people born at the same moment, and in the same place, should be almost identical to one another. In fact, they should, as Geoffrey noted, be “time twins.”
There is some anecdotal evidence to support the idea. In the 1970s, astrological researchers trawled through a database of births and noted that some people born within a few days of one another lead surprisingly similar lives. For instance, the French champion bicycle racers Paul Chacque and Leon Lével were born on July 12 and 14, 1910. They were both highly successful in 1936: Chacque won the Bordeaux-Paris section of the Tour de France, and Lével won the two mountain sections of the same race. In March 1949, Lével died when he fractured his skull in an accident on the Parc des Princes track. In September of the same year, Chacque died from a similar injury on the same track.
14
14
Intriguing though cases such as these are, they could simply be the result of chance, and so Geoffrey decided to carry out more systematic work into the alleged phenomenon. He managed to uncover a database containing the details of just over 2,000 people born in London between March 3 and 9, 1958. The database had been created by a group of researchers who studied people as they progressed through life, and it contained the results of intelligence tests and personality questionnaires administered at the ages of eleven, sixteen, and twenty-three. The precise time of birth for each person had been carefully recorded, with more than 70 percent of them being born within five minutes of one another. Geoffrey arranged the group in order of birth and moved down the list, calculating the degree of similarity between each pair of time twins. Once again, the skeptics and proponents made very different predictions about what he would find. The skeptics thought that there would be no relationship between the test results of each pair on the list; the astrologers expected to see the type of striking similarities found between the personalities of identical twins.
This time, the skeptics were right. Geoffrey found little evidence of similarity between his time twins. People born at five minutes past eleven on March 4, 1958, were no more similar to their time twin born moments later than another person born days later.
15
15
Geoffrey has carried out many tests like this and the results have one thing in common—none support the claims of astrology.
16
As a result, he sometimes describes himself as “the most hated person in astrology.” Modern-day astrologers see him as something of a turncoat—a man who has gone over to the dark side by publicly declaring his skepticism about the impact of the heavens on our lives.
16
As a result, he sometimes describes himself as “the most hated person in astrology.” Modern-day astrologers see him as something of a turncoat—a man who has gone over to the dark side by publicly declaring his skepticism about the impact of the heavens on our lives.
Other books
Eternity Road by Jack McDevitt
Akarnae by Lynette Noni
Success to the Brave by Alexander Kent
Brooklyn Bones by Triss Stein
Close Contact by Katherine Allred
The Dreamer Stones by Elaina J Davidson
The Dog by Jack Livings
Promise Me This by Christina Lee
The Flash of a Firefly by Amber Riley
The Oracle's Queen by Lynn Flewelling