The study distinguishes a person’s actual line of work from the interests and working preferences that may sit underneath a job title.
Which traditional vocation significators point to the participant’s actual line of work? This measures how closely the reading of the top of the chart lands.
Significators examinedBeyond the job title, which elements and planets track what a person is drawn to? Interests are measured with the same model used by established career assessments, then compared with the chart.
Measured with RIASECDoes the true birth chart perform better than plausible incorrect charts? This isolates whether correct birth data adds information beyond common patterns and base rates.
The comparisonsAnswer from your life as you remember it, not from what your chart or a previous reading says should be true.
Choose the field closest to your real work and identify where you are in your working life.
Rate how much you would enjoy eighteen activities, whether or not you are paid for them.
Describe the values, environment and kinds of work you naturally prefer.
The analysis becomes more precise as the sample grows. Every phase keeps the misses.
A first look at the signal once 400 charts are in. Early results, wide uncertainty, published openly.
The analysis runs again at 2,500 charts, with tighter estimates and checks on what survived Phase 1.
The complete analysis at 5,000 charts, including what worked, what failed and what remains uncertain.
Blind first. The chart is calculated and its vocation predictions are recorded before anyone reads the participant’s answers.
Standard instruments. Interests are captured with RIASEC, the same framework used by professional career assessments, so the results can be compared with published research.
Misses published. The findings include where these significators fail.
Read the full methodology →You will sign in by email, enter your birth details once, and use the same profile for any other study you choose.
