Share me a little more about Michelle Gauquelin’s research
Yes, this study actually happened! And no matter how much he was criticized, I personally believe that they are statistically important-I re-checked some of them.
But here is contradiction: astrologers (especially traditional) should be very careful citing cowquelin. 
Why?
Because they demonstrated this There is no average effect of zodiac signal On profession or social success. In other words, all traditional concepts – rullascrips, detraments, excesses, etc. – were not confirmed statistically.
Instead, what he proved was:
- Importance of angular points In the chart – the planets are likely to be statistically higher, which are more likely to be on ascending or midwen (closing) in the charts of people with specific businesses;
- Mars and Shani The charts of athletes and doctors grow more often in charts;
- This is not the amount that matters, but Cardinal Cross (AS/DS/MC/IC),
️ SO: The hints come out “empty”, but the angles actually work.
Question for you: If the findings of Gauquelin are true, how should we reconsider the foundation of astrology?
