stat prof Marvin Zelen (SUNY, IIRC) of findings of a Stat PhD from France and Psych PhD wife who supplied "evidence" of what became known as the "Mars Effect".
The "scientific" claim -- for which the experiment was designed by the academicians to address possible sample and/or design bias -- was that lawyers, doctors and athletes (of "Who's Who" class in their respective professions) shared, in aggregate, a significant tendency to be born with the planet Mars at certain key angles relative to the horizon of their birth.
Likewise, birthcharts of actors, politicians, military leaders showed a statistical tendency for Jupiter to appear at the same angles.
Charts of 'Who's Who' scientists, in aggregate, tended to be find Saturn at the same angles (IIRC).
For artists, musicians (i forget who else), the Moon was "prominent".
The "key angles" would approximately coincide with traditional-astrology 12th, 9th, 6th and 3rd houses. The French statistician distributed his subjects' birth planetary positions, however, amongst 36 sectors.
(If I recall correctly, there was a tendency within the French sample provided for the "planetary characteristics" to be
mutually exclusive, while I notice from
astrology charts that
RFK and
Dan Quayle seem both to have Jupiter and Mars (and RFK also Moon) at key angles in their "natal charts" while
Einstein seems to have Saturn and Moon. I say "seem" because I don't know if reference frames of what I linked would be sufficiently coincident with the model of the French scientists.)
This was not really "astrology", because such "planetary characterizations" were not part of traditional astrological lore, and the findings were unexpected, based on traditional tenets. But the study had been conducted by a
Sorbonne PhD in modern statistics who'd laid out his academic training with the intent to "prove" the astrological tenets he'd learned as a kid. (Instead, he falsified them...and uncovered the unexpected.)
Anyway, as fas as I know, this was the only serious scientific attempt to test the statistical claims that had come out of France (and I can't recall the time-period over which the data of the subjects had been collected).
The groupings of "lawyers, doctors, atheletes" and "Actors,politicians.." etc were not mine, but the "findings" of the French scientists.
The terms "bounded" or "bounded systems" and "unbounded" are my attempts to roughly
differentiate mental applications, just from reflection on behaviors and the nature of
what and how the different occupations "practice". I'm sure there are finer occupational temperament differentiations.
I asked about "historical trend" and "party affiliation" because times change, education backgrounds change and election fraud is likely putting so-called "Republicans" in office who might not reflect traditional politician temperaments (if there is such).
Dan Quayle is a lawyer and politician, technically, just as was Bobby Kennedy...but I doubt I'd rely on Quayle for either legal or political work.
Whew.
Oh, btw, the result of the experiment to test the "scientific basis for astrology" by Abell and Zelen came back after an exasperating six month wait: "inconclusive" (due, IIRC, to the two PhDs' failure to compile a sufficient sample size. Ahem, how convenient...for all parties). I believe exchanges between scientists, experimental design and test results were reported in
The Humanist and the Journal for Interdisciplinary Cycle Research, 1975-76 (some time around there).
(Yes, I'm aware inferences about individuals shouldn't be drawn from aggregate data.)
(and during that time I learned two PhD statistics students were involved in work on the subject)
(CP Snow's
Two Cultures had a 50th anniversary "Update" by
Scientific American in September 2009.)
(
Is the "Mars Effect" genuine? For background, not necessarily conclusion)