In learning from how eminently successful people (Gauquelin’s phrase) respond to astrology, a natural survivorship bias enters: we risk reaching a false (or rather, incomplete) conclusion through learning only from cases where the outcome was successful, and ignoring the failed cases.
In the Neptune example posted earlier, I studied a collection of rather impressive lives. When I asked for real life examples from others regarding the Neptune transits, I also got the less positive examples, such as illnesses, job loss, deception from employees, etc, with no clear view of benefits or positive results in sight.
Such examples fit the textbook description of Neptune transit – ego wipeout, confusion, deception, etc. This balances our perspective with regard to Neptune transit (it may be that negative experiences are more common, and successes limited to a few fully individualized and lucky people.)
One question then, is ‘what was different in the case of successful outcomes?’ The dynamic of “tension and release” could partially explain this, in that the people that experienced the break or the success during Neptunian transits were already working on some Neptunian (idealistic, creative, imaginative, etc.) endeavor professionally (Johnny Depp, Steve Jobs, Kurt Cobain) or socially (Martin Luther King Jr.) But even among such Neptunian professions, there would be failed outcomes as well as successes (perhaps more failures than successes.)
One benefit of focusing on interesting, mostly successful lives may be that we can refute the perpetual negative bias that are associated with certain astrological measurements, by showing a manifestation at a higher level (however rare the occurrence may be.)