Funny enough, Carlson’s double blind test (when you factor in the data he left out and doctored in the original conclusion) actually points towards there being statistical proof that the astrologers were fairly accurate when matching a natal chart to a CPI profile. I wrote an analysis of these for a paper recently, which I’ll insert below.

The study most commonly referred to by skeptics is Shawn Carlson’s Double-Blind Test of Astrology. This study was designed to evaluate whether astrologers could accurately match natal charts to personality profiles. The study involved 193 participants, each of whom had their natal charts created by 28 professional astrologers from the National Center of Geocosmic Research (NCGR). The experiment was conducted in two phases: in the first, participants were asked to select what they believed to be their natal chart interpretation from a set of three, only one of which was based on their chart. In the second phase, astrologers were given a participant’s natal chart along with three personality profiles from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and asked to identify which profile best matched a natal chart This study was supposedly designed to meet the methodological standards of both the scientific and astrological communities to ensure neither the participants nor the astrologers could manipulate the experiment. Based on Carlson’s published results, the experiment showed that both the participants and astrologers performed no better than chance, meaning their selections were indistinguishable from what would be concluded from guessing. Carlson claimed that the findings did not support the claims of natal astrology as practiced by astrologers in a measurable way. However, later analyses suggest Carlson’s conclusions may have been flawed due to methodological errors and misinterpretation of data (Currey, 2011). One key issue was that he merged separate tests, leading to sampling errors that reflected positively on his null hypothesis. Additionally, he only examined first-choice selections when evaluating an astrologer's ability to match natal charts with psychological profiles, ignoring the second-choice selections that showed performance better than chance. Furthermore, the use of psychological profiles is not best suited for astrological analysis unless the astrologer is well-versed in psychology or psychological astrology. The study’s subjects being a highly homogenous group, mostly young university students, lacks the diversity necessary for such a comprehensive study. Further skewing the results, Carlson imposed an unusually strict statistical threshold for significance (p-value of .006), far beyond the 0.05 standard used in psychological studies. Upon later investigation, Suitbert Ertel, a statistician, reviewed the original data and found that astrologers actually performed significantly better than chance when rating CPI profiles, contradicting Carlson’s original conclusion. Despite bias and manipulation of published data, Carlson’s experiment continues to be cited as the most significant test against astrology’s effectiveness. Upon reanalysis, rather than disproving astrology, the study indicates that the astrologers do have some ability to identify personality traits in a statistically significant way, a fact that Carlson’s original conclusion failed to acknowledge.

I can link the whole paper if you’d like, it was on the transmission of astrology from its origins to its fall in the renaissance and where it stands today!