Which aspects/planet positions would be typical of guys who would step out somew!


Question: Like... why, astrologically, was a person like albert einstein a genious, or thomas edison an inventor or charles darwin a revolutionary... i mean which aspects would make a person step out in terms of learning about things, which would make a person "apt" to know a lot more and learn a lot more easily than others and also to teach...

Would a conjuction between Mercury and Uranus mean mind brilliance?

Would a Uranus-mercury conjuction in the 10th house signify geniousy in everything a person would do in per instance career terms or in the 11th, in society terms...?

*expecting peaceful debates*

And those astrology non believers... see ya ;)


Answers: Like... why, astrologically, was a person like albert einstein a genious, or thomas edison an inventor or charles darwin a revolutionary... i mean which aspects would make a person step out in terms of learning about things, which would make a person "apt" to know a lot more and learn a lot more easily than others and also to teach...

Would a conjuction between Mercury and Uranus mean mind brilliance?

Would a Uranus-mercury conjuction in the 10th house signify geniousy in everything a person would do in per instance career terms or in the 11th, in society terms...?

*expecting peaceful debates*

And those astrology non believers... see ya ;)

Mercury conjunct Uranus doesn't necessarily mean downright genius. I should know; I have that aspect. In fact, it simply means that your mind doesn't stop working and spawns a lot of strange thoughts... genius or simply far fetched, the aspect doesn't really discriminate.

Genius is also a very subjective term. You can be an artistic genius and not have the intelligence to save your face in a simple quiz show. Or you can be a mathematical genius who couldn't understand physics for the life of you... Of course, every kind of science or art in which a genius can appear, has their own rulers in astrological terms.

Also, each chart has different ways to achieve the status of "genius". As an example, Einstein was an intelligent man who dared to imagine (mercury in 9th, in aries; he was a philosopher who dared to put his theories to action). He had a lot of fall backs to deal with until he finally earned recognition; in school he was even bad at mathematics and was told that he was retarded. Even during his lifetime he had a lot of fallbacks which he had to overcome, regarding his ideas (saturn conjunct mercury; if you can overcome any saturn conjuncting a personal planet, you come out all the better. Saturn is a tough teacher so anything you learn under the influence of saturn, sticks with you for a lifetime)

His saturn is ironically conjunct the MC as well. But Uranus has no aspect to any of them. No Eureka moments there; in fact, his realisations came gradually. He imagined them first, did experiments in his mind, dared to imagine how life could be if such-and-such were the rule of thumb... I sincerely think he simply became a physicist because he was told that he was retarded at a young age. Now I'm not questioning his intelligence, he definitely was intelligent, but he got over the Saturn bondaries to show everyone what he got.

Although now certain people suspect that he had Asperger's syndrome. People just can't accept that someone is more intelligent than the mass, can they?

I could go on (I've collected a few charts of genii -or whatever the plural is again- of all sorts of sciences and arts but haven't had a chance to have a good look at all of them), but I just wanted to show it doesn't always have to be Uranus ^_~


Another interesting thing to look at might be Gacquelin's studies on the subject of planetary positions and talents for certain careers.

It's Ironic that you want to classify the origins of brilliant minds when they would be the first to tell you that horoscopes are garbage. Maybe if you look for some horoscope traits that define people who think horoscopes are retarded you will find where the smarter ones come from.

I normally don’t bother answering skeptics, even indirectly, because it is rare that they have any significant knowledge of the subject, and therefore it is rare that they have anything intelligent to say about astrology. But in this case the skeptical answer is tied to the answer to the question. Both are based on similar dubious assumptions. Let’s start with Avid Milk’s idea that “smart people” or “geniuses” are or should be authorities on everything. This is an assumption that is little more than a basic error in logic. We’re saying that “smart people” must be right about nearly everything they say because they’re smart (therefore smart people never disagree?). This is circular reasoning. I recently read a definition that said an intellectual is a person who is best known for stating with certainty in public things outside his area of expertise.” I think of Richard Dawkins expounding on theology or Bobby Fischer on politics.

This line of reasoning is so silly that it is the basis for an intentionally absurd TV commercial for Holiday Inn Express. “Are you a wildlife expert?” “No but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.” Other examples of this line of “thought:” “So and so is a great astronomer, so I’ll ask him to diagnose my chest pains. Hey, he’s smarter than my doctor, right?” And the ever popular: “Such and such is voting for so and so. He’s so smart that must be the right way to vote.” These are senseless positions. If you believe them, you probably also believe you can play championship tennis, if you use Roger Federer’s racquet. Madison Avenue was created to take advantage of people who think this way.

In point of fact, some of the finest minds in history (“geniuses”) spent more than a little time with astrology. Galileo’s interest and Kelper’s contributions to the subject are something of an embarrassment to modern day scientists, so they do what all good scientists do when they are confronted with irrefutable evidence that they are wrong. They go into deep denial. The inventor of the universal joint, still a staple in contemporary engineering was, also a guy who made great strides in the development of algebra and was an internationally acclaimed astrologer - Jerome Cardan (1501 – 1576). The scientists can’t go into denial regarding Cardan’s astrology. He left too many astrological writings. So they ignore it. The current Wikipedia article on him mentions his invention of the combination lock, publication of two encyclopedias, but causally mentions he got in trouble for publishing his horoscope for Jesus. There is no other mention of his astrological work at all.

Milton’s use of astrology in Paradise Lost is profound. So profound that not only must he have been very familiar with astrology and its symbolism, but he must have expected the same from his intended audience, highly educated people, i.e. “smart” people. It is also true that because someone can come up with a list of “geniuses” who practiced astrology, it does not follow that astrology is valid. Astrology stands or falls on its merits, not on endorsements or lack of.

The reason I’m even bothering with mentioning all of this is because it goes to the heart of the original question. The question, like the skeptics criticism, assumes there is a single identifiable attribute common to all people that from time to time show exceptional intelligence. Other than an IQ score they probably have very little in common. I know of no cosmic IQ test or signature in the chart that shows precise differences in intellect.

Start at the beginning and do what every good scientist should do; question assumptions. What is the definition of genius? “Genius” is one of the most overused and probably most misused words in English. DaVinci’s Mona Lisa was a work of genius. The same is true for the invention of the cotton gin, or the discovery of germ theory of disease (which a lot of smart people thought was absurd). Somewhere along the line we began to think of the person as the genius. “The theory of relativity is a work of genius,” becomes “Einstein is a genius because he thought up the theory of relativity.” Einstein himself once said that he didn’t think he was smarter than everyone else, but he did think he had a better imagination - interesting observation.

Thomas Edison worked like a mule. He was creative, but he once noted that “genius is 99% perspiration.” He’s also been accused of stealing more than one idea for which he later claimed credit. Would the genius of Einstein and Edison show up in a similar fashion? No because they are not the same person and did not come to their respective stations in life via the same route.

Because we’ve moved the definition from accomplishment to individual, we believe there is such a thing as a “genius” IQ – usually about the top 2% scores. So if you fall down a percentage point or less, you are not a genius, but the guy who answered a couple of more questions correctly is?

Then there are cases of people with such “genius” IQ scores that waste their brain power. One such case, I learned of a long time ago, was a guy who was a janitor in the New York City Public Library, one of the finest libraries in the world. It was discovered the man was a member of Mensa, a club for people who test in the top 2% of IQ scores. Why did he do menial work? He responded that after work he could read and study till his heart was content. If he held a more responsible position, he wouldn’t have time to do all that. That is what he wanted to do with his life. Is he a genius? Is it in his chart?

Another is Marilyn Vos Savant who had a verified IQ of 186 and an unverified score of over 200 according to some. She solves puzzles on her website. She is reportedly an author, but I don’t know what else she may have done with this gift, if anything. Does her IQ score make her a “genius?” If it does, then the word has less value than it used to.

One of the higher IQ scores among less famous people that I ever heard of was Edgar Smith’s. His IQ was supposedly in the 160s, if I recall correctly. Never heard of him? He had problems holding menial jobs and was convicted of murder. He bashed a girl’s brains in with a rock. He did manage to beat a lie detector and truth serum test, though. He was a genius all right. Within a few of years of his release from prison, about 14 of which he spent on death row, he was back in jail, and still is. Brilliant.

Would the “genius” of Einstein show up in the chart the same way the “genius” of Edgar Smith would show up? Of course not. There cannot be a single astrological significator for “genius” if IQ or any other way of measuring potential is the criteria. There has to be more. These people are not any better psychologically or morally than anyone else. If they are, it has to do with something other than IQ.

Would anyone go to the janitor, Vos Savant, or Edgar Smith to do body work on their car? I didn’t think so. So why ask them about astrology? Why not ask the auto body repairman? In fact, if the auto body repairman has studied the subject, his opinion would have more value than anyone who has not regardless of any difference in IQ between him and the “geniuses.”

The chart has limits. There are indications of ability to think rationally (Mercury) and indications of great imagination (Moon). But to categorize them or look for a particular “signature,” for genius is probably a waste of time. You need more than smarts to accomplish things. You need drive, dedication, and self respect. Those attributes will not guarantee fame and fortune, but they will produce more than those who sit around waiting for people to ask them things because they have a “genius” IQ.

PS Debbie Kempton Smith, astrologer and author of Secrets from a Stargazer’s Notebook is a member of Mensa.



The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 enter-qa.com -   Contact us

Entertainment Categories