In my recent research of the statistical significance of astrological placements of small social groups, I’m finding interesting patterns in the placements of families related by blood.

Importantly, since my last updates, I have adjusted my methodology to account for the polarities of the zodiac; meaning, I converted all placements to a scale of 0-180 degrees, with Aries and Libra both at 0. This helps illustrate the opposition relationships, which are just as important as conjunctions.

I was able to evaluate natal placements for a family of 4, now that I have confirmed birth times for them. The following areas of the zodiac had clusters of note:

**5′ Gemini / 5′ Sagittarius:**

- Daughter’s Ascendant
- Mother’s Moon (her chart ruler)
- Father’s Moon
- Mother’s Mercury

**3′ Leo / 3′ Aquarius:**

- Father’s Ascendant
- Daughter’s Mercury (her chart ruler)
- Mother’s Part of Fortune

**20′ Leo / 20′ Aquarius:**

- Son’s Ascendant
- Daughter’s Venus
- Daughter’s Moon
- Father’s Part of Fortune

What I find so interesting about this is that many of the placements involved have less to do with the date on which the individuals were born, and more to do with the **time** and **tilt of the Earth** instead. The Ascendant, Part of Fortune, and even Moon placements differ greatly depending on the time of birth. To me, this may point to a soul connection because the odds of encountering such similar placement through random chance would have to be tiny.

Now, I haven’t actually calculated the odds of that, but I was able to measure the variance of this family of 4 and compared it with a control group of 6 strangers, as well as with all data I had available. Here’s what I found:

Comparing all placements on the standard 0-359 degrees of the zodiac, the placements of the family were less varied than both the control group and all data, but the differences between groups only became more significant as I reduced the zodiac.

When comparing placements on a 180′ zodiac (to account for oppositions), or a 90′ zodiac (to account for opposition and square aspects), **the variance was far lower for the family of 4, meaning their placements were much more similar than the other groups were. **

**This suggests that there were more aspects between family members than we would expect to occur through random chance.** I’m conducting further tests to see if these results can be replicated with other families before I dive into t-tests and z-tests, but I’m encouraged by these initial results.

I am also in the process of creating frequency distributions for the above groups. It’s possible, after all, that the distributions will not be normal, and therefore variance and standard deviation may not be the best method of evaluating significance. My statistics skills are a little rusty, but I’m having a lot of fun trying to dust them off.