Skeptics welcome: if 9 unrelated traditions say the same thing about you, does it mean anything?

I've always been curious about esoteric systems, but never as a believer.

So I developed an algorithm to test them. It calculates 9 traditions built centuries and continents apart (Western astrology, BaZi, I Ching, Ifá, Kabbalah, numerology, Gene Keys, the Enneagram and Human Design) independently from the same birth data, sets the results side by side, and only keeps the patterns where at least two systems agree.

What surprised me was not the power to predict. I tested it to the limit: 59,675 football matches and 10,744 lottery draws (EuroMillions since 2004, German Lotto 6/49 since 1955, Austrian Lotto 6/45 since 1986). Nothing above chance.

What surprised me was something else: the ability these systems have to characterise each individual in a unique matrix.

Now the skeptic's problem. The Forer effect is real: since 1949, study after study has shown that people recognise themselves in generic, flattering descriptions. Eysenck found in 1978 that the sun-sign effect vanished in over 1,000 children who knew nothing about astrology. And Carlson's famous 1985 test in Nature concluded that astrologers performed at chance level.

But the story doesn't end there. In 2009, Suitbert Ertel re-analysed Carlson's data in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Using the astrologers' full rankings instead of only their first choice, he found a weak result in their favour, at the edge of significance. Weak, but not zero. The debate goes on.

That's why I don't ask anyone to trust the readings. The systems are what they are; I don't claim they are science. The method is.

So the real question isn't whether astrology "works". It's this: what is the potential of a system that cross-checks many traditions and keeps only what they agree on?

Quick question, YES or NO: would you trust a pattern more if several independent systems agreed on it?

Curious to hear from the data people, the skeptics and the believers alike.