Joyce Jillson, astrologer to the stars

Bridging the gap between serious astrology and entertainment astrology.

Earlier this month, starry-eyed readers read the last horoscope of one of America's leading newspaper astrologers, Joyce Jillson. Death came on October 1, but her horoscopes had been prepared up to November 6. From November 7, another expert will cipher out the meaning of the stars for her readers in nearly 200 newspapers.

JoyMs Jillson was not a mundane cross-my-hand-with-silver sort of star gazer. She was the official astrologer for 20th Century Fox Studios. It was on her advice that studio executives picked the opening date for Star Wars in 1977, which went on to become the second-highest grossing film of all time.

She also moved in circles which played another kind of star wars. After the March 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, she "spent a lot of time" at the White House -- an assertion denied, of course, by the White House, although Nancy Reagan was known to consult astrologers. Since Ms Jillson claimed to have fingered George H.W. Bush as Reagan's vice-presidential candidate in 1980, perhaps she is responsible for W's dance with destiny.

A few words from Ms Jillson's ex-husband sum up her contribution: "She bridged the gap between astrology and self-help and astrology and the entertainment community." And not only these, but companion animals as well. Awaiting publication are two books by Ms Jillson, Dog Astrology and Astrology for Cats.

The death of an astrologer prompts questions: couldn't she have done something about it? Gone on holidays? Consulted a better doctor? Taken a rain check? Perhaps this is the moment to ask whether reading your horoscope is a useful investment of time.

Most astrology columns in the media, says a professional astrologer, are just "creative writing".

A journalist acquaintance of mine tells the story of her brief career as an astrologist. During a stint on a rural paper, she was able to access the astrology column before the paper went to press. As a joke on one of her colleagues, she used to adapt the wording of his star sign predictions to suit what was happening in his life. Much to her glee, he used to tell her confidentially how incredibly accurate his horoscope had been in recent weeks.

The moral of the story is that newspaper astrology is rubbish. Surprisingly, professional astrologers agree. The president of the Federation of Australian Astrologers, Dr Duane Eaks -- his PhD is in psychology -- says that newspapers are boltholes for charlatans. Accurate astrological information requires the exact time and place of birth, he told MercatorNet. Most astrology columns in the media, he says, are just "creative writing".

Professional astrologers claim that their trade is a science and sneer at the vague platitudes written by astrological hacks for the media. "They're so general that anyone could have written it," says Dr Eaks. His Federation has its own examination system and practitioners teach part-time courses lasting two or three years. There are assignments and projects, and for the highest qualification, a research thesis is required.

However, notwithstanding this veneer of academic rigour, a recent comprehensive study debunked the predictions of professional astrologers as well. In a magazine called the Journal of Consciousness Studies two researchers analysed the results of more than 40 controlled studies and found that the best of astrologers perform little better than chance even on the simplest tasks.

The core claim of astrology is that the positions of the sun, moon and planets indicate and even produce changes in our minds, emotions, bodies and careers. Ultimately it is based on the discredited principle of correspondences: that things similar in some respects are similar in others. As above in the heavens, so below in our lives is the underlying philosophy.

If astrology is a science, scientists ought to be able to test its predictions. But none of hundreds of investigations into its claims since 1975 has found anything to support them.

The most damning of these studies was carried out by Dr Geoffrey Dean, an Australian scientist and former astrologer, and a Professor Ivan Kelly, a psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan (1).

The lives of more than 2,000 people born in London in the month of March 1958 were tracked. They had been born on average 4.8 minutes apart and according to astrological theory, their lives and temperaments should have shown exceptional similarities.

More than 100 features of each person in the study -- such as IQ, anxiety, aggressiveness, musical ability, accident proneness and marital status were examined. According to the Dean and Kelly, "the test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success. But the results are uniformly negative."

Dr Dean told the London Telegraph that this massive study of so-called "time twins" undermined the claims of astrologers, who normally work with birth data which is far less precise than the data he was working with (2).

"They sometimes argue that times of birth just a minute apart can make all the difference by altering what they call the house 'cusps'," he said. "But in their work, they are happy to take whatever time they can get from a client."

Many of the claims made by astrologers are anecdotal. But Dean and Kelly reviewed more than 40 controlled studies -- and all of them found that astrologers cannot perform significantly better than chance. In 25 of these studies, astrologers were unable even to agree on how to interpret a birth chart.

"If astrologers cannot agree on what a birth chart indicates, or on their confidence in that intuition, then what price astrology and the supposed intuitions of astrologers?" ask the researchers.

"It has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid and it has failed hundreds of tests," said Dr Dean. "But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books which, in effect, are exercises in deception."

Have these criticisms rattled astrologers?

Not at all. In the words of British astrologer Roy Alexander, "I take it for granted that astrology works, and that we have enough cumulative experience to know that it works, whether the computer studies and the scientists agree with us or not."

In fact, some astrologers believe that their own mental state, or insight, is more important than the birth chart in interpreting your life. In other words, their work is a form of extra-sensory perception, or magical insight. Astrologers are latter-day medicine men seeking to divine the plans of the spirit world. Some even believe that successful astrologers conjure up spirit guides to gain access to hidden knowledge.

However it works, astrology has lost none of its appeal. Interest in astrology is burgeoning. A Harris poll in the United States found that 31 per cent of the public believed in astrology, including 36 per cent of women and 43 per cent of people between 25 and 29. Dean and Kelly say that about 1 person in 10,000 in Western countries is practicing or seriously studying astrology.

The internet is flooded with information on astrology. After pornography sites, it is said, astrology sites are the most visited sites on the internet. You can send in your birth data, pay a fee, and learn all about your future. Financial astrology is a growing area, too, with many sites offering insight into the ups and downs of the business cycle and tips on what shares to buy.

There are no readily available figures on the size of the astrology business. However, the London Telegraph says that some of the most popular astrologers in the British media can earn £600,000 or more a year. Back in 1999, the Daily Mail in London reportedly offered its astrological expert a £1 million salary and a £1 million bonus to keep him from deserting to a rival newspaper. A popular astrology website can be worth as much as £50 million, says the Telegraph.

However, after twenty centuries of practice, astrologers do not agree on how the map of the heavens at the time of our birth, or "birth charts", should be interpreted. Even professional astrologers have acknowledged that "astrology is almost as confused as the earthly chaos that it is supposed to clarify".

With astrology proven time and again heap of twaddle, it's a puzzle why so many people still check Joyce Jillson's horoscopes. Perhaps the thought that the stars are responsible for lost loves and financial ruin is more comforting than the daunting challenge of free will and responsibility for our lives. As Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings."

If astrology really worked, you'd think that Joyce Jillson's horoscope for October 1 would have reflected her death. She was a Libra, and this was her message for Libras: "Feeling a little off kilter? It might be something as simple as eating smarter, more nutritious meals." Sadly, it wasn't that simple.

(1) Geoffrey Dean and Ivan W. Kelly, "Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 10, No. 6-7, June-July 2003

(2) Astrologers fail to predict proof they are wrong, Telegraph (London) ,15 November 2004