You are right about one thing, Terrence. Much to my surprise, I find that there actually HAVE been "twin studies" (I wouldn't call them "long-range," though) done "from an astrological viewpoint." But they were done in hopes of proving astrological influence, and thus of demonstrating that astrology was "scientific." (Let me stress here that I am totally skeptical of astrology. And what surprised me was that any reputable scientist would concern himself/herself with it.)
However, the only reference I found was to recent work. Nothing going back to the seventies. Here is a relevant passage from an article (by a Jungian), entitled "A Transdisciplinary Approach to Science and Astrology":
At this point, we might turn to two recently scrutinized studies that seem to
move towards the verification of astrology. Madame Suzel Fuzeau-Braesh,
research director at France's National Center for Scientific Research, has
demonstrated that 238 pairs of twins with nearly identical charts, but for their
ascendants, display behavioral differences which correspond to the meanings of
their ascendants. Out of 238 responses, these studies reveal 153 which are
favorable to astrology (7). Henri Broch, physics professor at the University of
Nice, has exposed myriad deficiencies in Fuzeau- Braesh's work, such as a
dearth of numerous parameters, a refusal on the part of the researcher to
communicate precise information on the procedures and statistical methods
used, hypothetical births, and so on (8). Suzel Fuzeau-Braesh partially
addresses these criticisms in her most recent work (9) and has vowed that her
experiment will be repeated with a new generation of twins.
earthnet.net
The article itself is a curious mix of sense and nonsense. (But what else could one expect of a Jungian? <g>)
|
