Bertram R. Forer: "Subjective Validation"
In 1948, Psychologist Bertram Forer decided to test a fairly new concept at the time, called subjective validation. Supposedly, “subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or random events are perceived to be related because a belief or expectancy demands a relationship. (Anonymous) In other words, people will believe that two unrelated events are related because they are told or expect that they will be.
Forer decided to prove this concept correct by giving his students a personality test. Afterword, Forer gave them back the analysis of each of their personalities saying that, "they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based on the test's results." The students were asked to rate the accuracy of the personality test results from 0 to 5, five being very accurate. In reality each student received the exact same analysis for their personality test results. The personality analysis was this:
"You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious
doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life." (Anonymous)
On average, the rating was 4.26/5 which means that, on average the students found their personality analysis to be 85% correct.(Anonymous) Forer's students were told after they had given their ratings that they were each given the exact same personality result. This experiment demonstrates "subjective validation" in an exemplary fashion. The students believed that the analysis was correct
because they were told and believed that it was.
There have been other studies done in similar fashion afterwards and these studies have concluded that people give a higher accuracy rating if: the subject believes that the analysis applies only to him or her (for example, a horoscope) the subject believes in the authority of the evaluator (for example, a psychic) the analysis lists mainly positive traits (for example, most daily horoscopes) Forer explains that "subjective validation" is real due to a concept later named "Barnum Statements", or statements that are so vague they could apply to
anyone. They were named after P.T. Barnum, who used such statements in his performances. Barnum, it is said, is famous for coining the phrase, “there’s a sucker born every minute.” (Anonymous)
Forer decided to prove this concept correct by giving his students a personality test. Afterword, Forer gave them back the analysis of each of their personalities saying that, "they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based on the test's results." The students were asked to rate the accuracy of the personality test results from 0 to 5, five being very accurate. In reality each student received the exact same analysis for their personality test results. The personality analysis was this:
"You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious
doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others’ statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life." (Anonymous)
On average, the rating was 4.26/5 which means that, on average the students found their personality analysis to be 85% correct.(Anonymous) Forer's students were told after they had given their ratings that they were each given the exact same personality result. This experiment demonstrates "subjective validation" in an exemplary fashion. The students believed that the analysis was correct
because they were told and believed that it was.
There have been other studies done in similar fashion afterwards and these studies have concluded that people give a higher accuracy rating if: the subject believes that the analysis applies only to him or her (for example, a horoscope) the subject believes in the authority of the evaluator (for example, a psychic) the analysis lists mainly positive traits (for example, most daily horoscopes) Forer explains that "subjective validation" is real due to a concept later named "Barnum Statements", or statements that are so vague they could apply to
anyone. They were named after P.T. Barnum, who used such statements in his performances. Barnum, it is said, is famous for coining the phrase, “there’s a sucker born every minute.” (Anonymous)
Testing Astrology in India
Predicting the Future
A general definition of science is something that creates testable and correct predictions. In India, an astrologers job is to predict the future. Yet, all tests done on Indian astrologers predictions have been poor and faulty. (Narlikar) To test an Indian astrologers ability people often ask about election results long before they happen. One such example were the elections held in 1971. These elections were a competition between Indira Gandhi and several others. "The Astrological Magazine was filled with predictions by amateurs and professionals, most of whom predicted that Gandhi would lose." (Narlikar) However, Indira Gandhi won with a large majority. The 1980 elections attracted predictions as well, once again predicting her loss. For example B.V. Raman predicted that Gandhi’s efforts to regain office ,“may misfire. Her ability to influence the government will be disconcertingly limited in effectiveness” and the outcome “may not see a stable government.” (Narlikar) Another Indian astrologer believed that Gandhi would never become prime minister. However, "she won with a huge majority, was prime minister, and formed a very stable government." (Narlikar)
Judging Intelligence
There are many professional astrologers in India and these astrologers, in addition to being able to tell the future, are supposed to be able to determine someone's intelligence from their horoscope. A study conducted in Pune, India in 2008 tested this idea. They invited any astrologer who would like to participate by announcing the study publicly. The Committee for the Eradication of Superstitions volunteered to go to schools around the area and ask teachers for names of students who were deemed "mentally bright". (Narlikar) They also went to schools for the mentally handicapped and collected names of students there as well. They used a total of 200 students, 100 from the handicapped schools and 100 from the regular schools. Each students birth information was collected from the parents and then given to the twenty seven astrologers that volunteered. Each was given one month to evaluate forty horoscopes.
If the Indian astrologers could truly tell a person's intelligence level from their horoscope the person should have around forty hits out of forty. "The highest score was of twenty-four hits by a single astrologer followed by twenty-two hits, by two astrologers." (Narlikar) All twenty-four of the other astrologers had less than twenty hits. There was one astrologer, categorized as a professional who said that, "thirty-seven were intelligent and three were undecided." In other words none of his forty students were mentally handicapped. This astrologer had seventeen correct. The twenty seven astrologer's accuracy was 17.25 hits out of forty. This is less than what is expected by chance, twenty out of forty.
This study concluded that all twenty seven of these professional, Indian astrologers could not determine a person's intelligence from a horoscope any better than an ordinary person could just by flipping a coin.
If the Indian astrologers could truly tell a person's intelligence level from their horoscope the person should have around forty hits out of forty. "The highest score was of twenty-four hits by a single astrologer followed by twenty-two hits, by two astrologers." (Narlikar) All twenty-four of the other astrologers had less than twenty hits. There was one astrologer, categorized as a professional who said that, "thirty-seven were intelligent and three were undecided." In other words none of his forty students were mentally handicapped. This astrologer had seventeen correct. The twenty seven astrologer's accuracy was 17.25 hits out of forty. This is less than what is expected by chance, twenty out of forty.
This study concluded that all twenty seven of these professional, Indian astrologers could not determine a person's intelligence from a horoscope any better than an ordinary person could just by flipping a coin.
Conclusion
After reading through all of these experiments done to test astrology's accuracy and after reading the reasons why people support astrology I believe that astrology is a pseudoscience. None of the scientific studies show that astrology works. The first demonstrates how people can be fooled to believe that it has worked, the second shows that future predictions were completely wrong and the third explains that an astrologer has as good of accuracy as anyone who can flip a coin.