Every year the Sunday Times prints a “Rich List”. This ranks one thousand of the wealthiest individuals and families in the British Isles.[1]
In 2013, the Sun newspaper ran an analysis of the list based on “a sneak preview”. Under the headline “A Gemini? You’re twin the money”, the newspaper claimed that it is “time to count your lucky stars – if you are a Gemini.” Why? Because according to the Sun's journalist, they represent nearly one in ten (9.9%) of the wealthiest individuals.[2]
Geminian Affluence - No greater than chance or inflated by Jupiter?
The problem with this conclusion is that this result (9.9%) is not statistically significant.[3] Based purely on chance the results should be 1/12ths (8.3%) and almost all (11 of 12) of the results fall within 2 standard deviations. While this result from a diverse list of dubious sun-sign data comes as no surprise to astrologers, the false positive in the newspaper headline highlights the many problems with this type of astrological claim:
Births are not evenly spread throughout the year.
About one in fifteen people are born ‘on the cusp’ between two signs so it is not possible to classify their Sun Sign without knowing the time of birth.
Wealth is the result of many different circumstances which would correspond to all signs. For example, the astrological signature in a birth chart for someone who has inherited vast wealth is quite different from one who is a self-made billionaire.
Patterns in astrology result from several planetary features rather than just Sun Sign (equivalent of month of birth). For example, the acquisition of money might correspond to Venus, Jupiter and the 2nd and 8th house rather than the Sun sign.
Astrologers expect temporary influences. Transiting planets mark periods when natal planets in a sign become active, which can coincide with material success among other experiences. So at the time of the study, April 2013, Jupiter was in Gemini (and had been since June 2012). So during this period all those born under the Sun of Gemini experienced a transit of Jupiter over their Natal Sun - a period of personal growth and expansion. (Transiting planets are listed on the graph above). So if there is a pattern, it has to be dynamic and three-dimensional.
Low frequency for Scorpio possibly for a strange reason
However, one result does appear to be statistically significant. This is assuming that the birth-rate is evenly spread between the signs (which it is not) and that the Sunday Times' data is reliable as a measure of Sun signs which it is not - as the time of birth is omitted.
There are fewer 'Scorpios' (6.6%) listed than any other sign. And this is unlikely to be a random result [p=0.0277] - most especially as the same pattern existed the last time I wrote about this in 1998. Since then many of those on the list have died (as most listed were over retirement age). Others have suffered losses in the market downturns. Even more have been surpassed by emerging tycoons or migrants from emerging economies seeking residence or tax refuge in London. Yet, 15 years ago, Scorpio was again the least frequent listed at an even more significant 4.3%. Though some may assume from this that Scorpios don't want or can't attract money, I think this is completely wrong. After all, Bill Gates who has consistently ranked the wealthiest or among the world's wealthiest men since 1995 was born 29 October 1955 - when the Sun was in Scorpio. Though one may argue that Gates is an exception, ever since I first saw the results I believed (and still believe) that this may be accounted for by a natural (Scorpionic) inclination towards secrecy and to hide their assets (in line with the traits of the sign). Seeing these results repeated convinces me that this is correct. Why?
For many British people being on any "Rich List" is something they wouldn't wish on their worst enemies. Following publication of exorbitant riches, you can guarantee an invasion by tax inspectors, charities, begging letters, life assurance sales bucks, journalist hounds, helicopter salesmen and fair weather 'friends' in search of their 'slice'.
Like many people, my path has crossed with a few of those listed. One friend thrived on his listing, ... until his assets were seized by a court and they turned out to have been greatly exaggerated. Another was stunned to be listed one year. A few days later, I saw his wife at the airport. I asked her where she was going. She said (with a smile) "I'm off to London to spend the millions that we are supposed to have!" Next year they mercifully slipped off the ratings.
Now those born under the sign of Scorpio tend to be quite secretive and they would rather endure torture than reveal or (God forbid) brag about their assets. This not about salting assets away from the tax authorities. This Sunday Times list is a mixture of publicly quoted or known assets and self-declared wealth that can easily be hidden from (or exaggerated) investigative journalists.
Conclusion
Mainstream newspapers and broadcasters are happy to mislead their audience with false negative stories about astrology that come from non-astrologers: astronomers, psychologists or even push propaganda from CSICOP, JREF etc and to ignore positive evidence from astrological journals such as the re-evaluation of the Carlson Test. Yet, popular 'tabloid' newspapers sensationalise astrology with false positives.
[1]The British Isles or Great Britain includes the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. [2]Grant, Caroline, (2013) A Gemini? You’re twin the money
exclusive. The Sun, 7th April 2013. [3]Only one result falls outside two standard deviations. Therefore there is no evidence that the Gemini results can be accounted for by anything other than chance.
In 2013, the Sun newspaper ran an analysis of the list based on “a sneak preview”. Under the headline “A Gemini? You’re twin the money”, the newspaper claimed that it is “time to count your lucky stars – if you are a Gemini.” Why? Because according to the Sun's journalist, they represent nearly one in ten (9.9%) of the wealthiest individuals.
The problem with this conclusion is that this result (9.9%) is not statistically significant.
