General birth distribution

Post Reply
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 15852
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

General birth distribution

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat May 20, 2017 10:54 am

One of the problems that always faces statisticians examining astrological (aka astronomical) data distributions is that the expected frequency of Sun (for example) being in a given part of the space is not even. The astronomical variants were compensated for in Bradley's Profession & Birth Date. We also have to consider demographic factors, such as natural birth frequency inequities (the "birth curve" itself tends to peak in the late summer), and other non-astrological tendencies for scientists to be born in one season artists in another, flipping six months for geographic hemisphere. For a given sample, there may also be selection bias.

The best technique, when it can be used - as when data is a subset of a larger collection - is to use the whole collection to determine expected distribution, and then apply these expectations against the subset being studied. (For example, for the 2,492 clergymen from the 14th edition of Who's Who, use the whole of that volume of Who's Who to determine expected values.

I thought it worth recording some observations from various life-birth collections, just so we have their basic consequences on file.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 15852
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: General birth distribution

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sat May 20, 2017 10:55 am

At the end of The Zodiac Revealed, Rupert Gleadow published a number of statistical collections, some of which were first intended to show expected values for other studies.

The first was "the registrar-general's annual returns of live births in the 121 Great Towns of England and Wales for 1935." It is a bit uneven due to these being birth registrations, not births themselves, so they tend to run slightly late (but probably not much). Unfortunately, he only tabulated these numbers in terms of the Tropical zodiac, not the Sidereal. On casual observation, I note that the numbers peaked in Taurus-Gemini-Cancer (Sidereal Aries through Gemini, more or less) and were lowest in Tropical Scorpio through Pisces (Sidereal Libra through Aquarius, roughly). This is different from any other "birth curve" distribution I've ever seen.

He then gave birth distribution for the first 2,000 pages of the 1939 edition of Burke's Peerage. Again, he only gave these broken out for the Tropical zodiac. The peak was much less zodiac-contiguous, so there might actually be an astrological effect here, though there is still a tendency for peak in spring and summer, and trough in the same part of the year as the record above. When I frame these within expected astronomical (rather than demographic) distributions, there are actually some statistically extreme variations - they don't match the astronomical distribution model at all. (The cumulative chi-square of the 12 categories, when comparing Burke's to astronomical distribution is a high 61.201, far beyond the 26+ we need for 12 categories.) The highs are not contiguous but the lows are all together. Basically, there is a spike in Tropical Gemini (Sidereal Taurus?) at almost 1,000-to-1 odds against chance occurrence. The three lows all of which are statistically anomalous, are in Tropical Scorpio, Sagittarius, and Capricorn.

We should be mindful - at least for British births - that these seasonal birth inequities may be operative.

Next, 7,055 famous men from 11th edition (1910) of Encyclopedia Britannica, the 1950 edition of Chambers' Biographical Dictionary, and explicitly stated dates in 1001 Notable Nativities. This is quite a different distribution! To begin, the three most common Sidereal Sun-signs, in raw numbers, are Capricorn through Pisces, just the opposite of what the raw-birth figures above were showing. ; and the lowest are Taurus through Cancer. This is quite the flip of the two above, with the main distinction between level of accomplishment. Aquarius ends up highest (nearly 10,000 to 1 against it being chance), which I have tended to attribute to its generality of interests (this being a collection of professional diverse individuals); but the next two highest are Capricorn and Pisces, so it is more likely a non-astrological birth curve related to this broad kind of eminence. Cancer (as often happens) is in the basement, beyond the 10,000-to-1 mark for infrequency.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
By Jove
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:10 pm
Gender:

Re: General birth distribution

Post by By Jove » Sun May 21, 2017 12:55 am

That is interesting! Humans are the most sexed in fall so as to ensure children born in the warm summer months. Most animals however are most aroused in spring because gestation is much faster for them.

The current data on frequency of births shows a common trend. The most common birth days are from early July to early October, mid summer to early fall. (Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo). By contrast the least common birthdays are from early January to late April, winter until mid spring (Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces, Aries).

But there are nuances, the remaining time periods are different. Libra remains more or less even at low frequency. Scorpio births early in the sign (late November) are very rare, only eclipsed by two patches in Sagittarius, while later Scorpio births (early December) are a little more common. Sagittarius births are very common in mid to late December (around the Christmas season, with the ironic exception of December 24th and December 25th), while early January births are far paler in frequency. Birth frequencies pick up around the time of Taurus (late May to early June), and this trend continues to increase into Gemini (late June).

http://literock969.com/how-common-is-yo ... rthdays-2/

http://thedailyviz.com/2016/09/17/how-c ... -dailyviz/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/busin ... table.html

User avatar
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: General birth distribution

Post by Jupiter Sets at Dawn » Sun May 21, 2017 10:26 am

It would be interesting to see a grid of dates nine months after significant holidays in Great Britain for the first chart and the US for the last and see the matchup to the highs and lows.

James Condor
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 10:47 am
Gender:

Re: General birth distribution

Post by James Condor » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:05 pm

The conception numbers during Sun in Sagittarius are high. So Sun in Sagittarius might not be as "low sexual appetite" as thought.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 15852
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: General birth distribution

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:08 pm

James Condor wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:05 pm
The conception numbers during Sun in Sagittarius are high. So Sun in Sagittarius might not be as "low sexual appetite" as thought.
"What people do with Sun in Sagittarius" is different from "What Sun in Sagittarius people do."

Conception leans high during Christmas and New Years Eve.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

James Condor
Zodiac Member
Zodiac Member
Posts: 383
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 10:47 am
Gender:

Re: General birth distribution

Post by James Condor » Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:12 pm

Good point. I don't know what I was thinking. Clearly high conception in Sun in Sagittarius, the holidays, but the people doing the conceiving, could be of any sign, of course. Again, don't know what I was thinking.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest