(TAROT NUMBERING, AGES AND OCCUPATIONS [continued(5)])[9th April 1987]

[Redbook3:162-163][19870409:1345r](TAROT NUMBERING, AGES AND OCCUPATIONS [continued(5)])[9th April 1987]

19870409.1345.

[continued]

I would not necessarily expect statistical surveys of birthdates to support this* – these are very symbolic patterns – but naturally I should be overwhelmed if they did.** But as a caution, I have reread the article*** on [O.H.] and noticed that his birthdate is 16^th May (i.e. precisely the opposite of where I placed his type as gleaned from the [Times] interview), whereupon I started looking for the opposite characteristics (e.g. compartmentalised mind, interest in art....)

Following on from the last marginal note[**above] – if it was discovered that (say) 10% of several particular occupations were born in the right Zodiac sign, instead of (say) the expected 8.33%, and if this was statistically significant – what it might mean in theory was that the influence of birth sign qualities etc. on my [sic] present type could be described as '10%' (in round terms).**** The other 90% of influence# might be accounted for by (for example, and in theory), say:

Heredity ([e.g.][O.H#*]'s grandfather and father were stockbrokers in the same firm.)

Parental influence ([e.g.][O.H#*]'s grandfather and father were stockbrokers in the same firm.)

Upbringing ([e.g.][O.H#*]'s grandfather and father were stockbrokers in the same firm.)

Education and training

Other environmental factors

Personal choice.

Mistake

etc.

– in varying degrees of importance, all incalculable.

What this would mean would be that the influence of birthdate would be in most cases very small – but it might exist.#** In the case of [O.H.], it means that we do not have to be thrown into disarray by finding that he was born on 16^th May, merely (if there is something in the statistical results) to note it as a small but possibly contributory factor (e.g. encouraging an interest in the products of Art?#***

All the same, I don't want my comments taken as necessarily relating to the man – merely to a Type which I perceive, drawing partly on journalistic reportage, which may or may not be accurate with regard to the man referred to, but may well have some validity with regard to the Type.

*[See last previous entry.] (In case they don't.)

**Even if they did it would only be a significant correlation – which could be a relatively tiny percentage for an occupation (e.g. of 12 Zodiac signs (8.33%?), 10% [of any particular] occupations in one [sign] might be statistically significant? – leaving 90% elsewhere!

***[The original Times article is inserted in the ms. at p.148.]

****(instead of 8.33%.)

Is this a correct conclusion? <870410>

#(i.e. if all possible characteristics were represented on the Circles.)

#*[[Redbook3:148-149][19870409:1345b](QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS{1}[continued])[9th April 1987]]

#** i.e. as random variation would expect or as slightly more than random variation would expect. <[87]0410]>

#*** or frenetic energy? <[87]0410>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger02for03042016]