The Validity of Astrology

[Jezebel]

I'm just curious how seriously you guys really take astrology. I see no validity in it whatsoever. My sign description doesn't fit me any more than any other random sign I choose. The idea that everyone born at the same time of year would have the same personality due to things going on in the cosmos is ridiculous to me. Even more ridiculous is the idea that people can predict my future based on this system. I've never seen any evidence good enough to make me question my doubts.

For those of you who do think astrology is accurate, how did you come to this conclusion?

[Firelie]

It's amusing at times, but I don't truly believe it. Out of all of the traits I'm *supposed* to have for my sign, there are more that don't apply than there are that do apply. Oh, and I've never seen a horoscope that made any sense at all.

[Rei]

Hum... some of it actually applies to me.
But I feel like it's so vague that it can remotely apply to pretty much everyone... :thinking:

[Firelie]

Hum... some of it actually applies to me.
But I feel like it's so vague that it can remotely apply to pretty much everyone... *:thinking:

Exxxxxxactly.

[v1cious]

unqualified no.
brain litter, just like religion.


i think we need a poll on religion; i bet a vast majority will be atheist or at the very least agnostic (BOO).

[anul]

It gives stupid people something to do, like scratching lottery tickets. Except you can win money by scratching lottery tickets, so it's less productive than scratching lottery tickets. I never understood why there were always two people giving horoscopes in the newspaper. If it was really accurate they would only need one person writing the horoscope section.

[v1cious]

It gives stupid people something to do, like scratching lottery tickets. Except you can win money by scratching lottery tickets, so it's less productive than scratching lottery tickets. I never understood why there were always two people giving horoscopes in the newspaper. If it was really accurate they would only need one person writing the horoscope section.

agreed. astrology just attempts to give stupid people a simple answer to a question that deals with something of immeasurable complexity.

[rasoirviolon]

why is there even an astrological section in the paper? ...i know there's usually a disclaimer about not taking it too seriously but where does the information for these forecasts come from?

[Jon]

There's a distinct difference between stupid people and gullible people. You don't need to denounce them all just because they choose to believe something so harmless.

[v1cious]

There's a distinct difference between stupid people and gullible people. You don't need to denounce them all just because they choose to believe something so harmless.

gullibility is a subset of stupidity.

[Capwolf]

If you're going to broaden the definition that much, I can't think of anyone I wouldn't include under some subset of stupidity.


Because astrology is broad and vague, and because when you get deeper into it you'll probably end up with influence from quite a few of the signs, you're likely to find at least a few things you agree with - and if you don't, that's interesting information as well. So I take it as seriously as I take any other personality system: I take from it what I agree with, discard what I don't, and end with a better understanding of myself.

I don't really think that the alignment of the stars at time of birth creates personality, but honestly, I can't entirely rule it out. After all, personality is influenced by how other people treat you (from birth!), and there's evidence that a great deal of people do change moods according to weather. It's possible that a group of factors, some of which we're not even aware of yet, do in fact come together to exert pressure on personality in a particular direction based on when one's born.

Horoscope predictions, on the other hand, I can't even begin to take seriously. Until I know something of how they arrive at their conclusions, anyway.

[v1cious]

Because astrology is broad and vague, and because when you get deeper into it you'll probably end up with influence from quite a few of the signs, you're likely to find at least a few things you agree with - and if you don't, that's interesting information as well. So I take it as seriously as I take any other personality system: I take from it what I agree with, discard what I don't, and end with a better understanding of myself.

personality systems are not nearly as broad and vague as astrology. just because i am a cancer and i agree with some of the things it has to say about me means absolutely nothing about whether any of the claims provided by this phony system are true. sounds a little like nostradamus: make a million random statements and hope at least one of them makes sense and makes you famous. i cannot verify astrological claims, but i can verify MBTI claims, and that's what makes belief in one system great and the other system retarded.

[Capwolf]

personality systems are not nearly as broad and vague as astrology. just because i am a cancer and i agree with some of the things it has to say about me means absolutely nothing about whether any of the claims provided by this phony system are true. sounds a little like nostradamus: make a million random statements and hope at least one of them makes sense and makes you famous. i cannot verify astrological claims, but i can verify MBTI claims, and that's what makes belief in one system great and the other system retarded.
And you know enough about astrology to be able to say with confidence that "make a million random statements..." is how they worked it out? Personality systems are absolutely as broad and vague as astrology, and when they're not, they're rightly mocked - as with the socionics physical descriptions of types.

I'm no expert, but I know that astrology has more to it than just sun signs - check the wiki page or innumerable other websites for an overview - and (like Enneagram) its purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of MBTI. Although both touch on interpersonal relating, astrology explains character, not behavioral preferences. (You might once have been an ESTJ, but you'll never be a Virgo.) And it seems to be used more for self-awareness than for categorization; you're unlikely to see astrology used in the workplace. At the level of simplicity that would allow for mass division into types, enough of the meat of astrology will have been lost that it'd be basically useless to try to make categorical conclusions - this is another system that I think is more suited to insight than to immediate judgment.

BTW, it's ridiculous to compare a nuanced view of MBTI to a rudimentary view of astrology and then conclude that because astrology lacks nuance, anyone who believes in it is "retarded".

[Guido]

The results of the pole so far make me laugh :D They are always so vague that it coudl apply to anyone. I tested this once and read all the personality profiles and most of them could be applied to me. Also, most people tend to notice when something hits home rather than when it misses.

Something that would be interesting to see, is where the MBTI types fit in with their distributions compared to the average distribution of birth dates. You might find weird things like introverts generally being born in winter because on average, things are quieter and days are shorter during the winter months (in countries that experience winter that is.) Who knows what you'd find, but I'm sure you could use the findings to disprove astrology :D And isn't that all that matters?

[Jezebel]

Something that would be interesting to see, is where the MBTI types fit in with their distributions compared to the average distribution of birth dates. You might find weird things like introverts generally being born in winter because on average, things are quieter and days are shorter during the winter months (in countries that experience winter that is.) Who knows what you'd find, but I'm sure you could use the findings to disprove astrology :D And isn't that all that matters?
Guido, we're so already doing this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Pay attention! :P

[v1cious]

personality systems are not nearly as broad and vague as astrology. just because i am a cancer and i agree with some of the things it has to say about me means absolutely nothing about whether any of the claims provided by this phony system are true. sounds a little like nostradamus: make a million random statements and hope at least one of them makes sense and makes you famous. i cannot verify astrological claims, but i can verify MBTI claims, and that's what makes belief in one system great and the other system retarded.
And you know enough about astrology to be able to say with confidence that "make a million random statements..." is how they worked it out? Personality systems are absolutely as broad and vague as astrology, and when they're not, they're rightly mocked - as with the socionics physical descriptions of types.

i don't need to know "enough" about astrology to be able to say that it's complete and utter bullshit. it is glaringly obvious that the horoscopes just use sweeping generalizations about a particular group just to appeal to a broad audience (i.e. all cancers are loyal) because all zodiac signs are beneficial in one way or another; there is no "bad" sign, but the descriptions are very dynamic and not very consistent, i.e. as dictated by the weekly horoscope, a cancer may be loyal one month and unloyal the next. the question is, how can i verify any of this like i can with my MBTI "horoscope" of the INTJ and make future projections about what i will do? i can't.

and just to clarify, the personality systems that i am talking about are, in fact, a single personality system and that is the MBTI-- i have to see anything work remotely as well as this one in describing individuals, therefore it is the only personality system that i adhere to. "which NSYNC member are you?" would fall into the category of bullshit personality systems, just as astrology would.

I'm no expert, but I know that astrology has more to it than just sun signs - check the wiki page or innumerable other websites for an overview - and (like Enneagram) its purpose is somewhat different from the purpose of MBTI. Although both touch on interpersonal relating, astrology explains character, not behavioral preferences. (You might once have been an ESTJ, but you'll never be a Virgo.) And it seems to be used more for self-awareness than for categorization; you're unlikely to see astrology used in the workplace. At the level of simplicity that would allow for mass division into types, enough of the meat of astrology will have been lost that it'd be basically useless to try to make categorical conclusions - this is another system that I think is more suited to insight than to immediate judgment.

okay, there may be more to astrology than just sun signs, but how are any of those things relevant if the horoscopes or even initial categorization of Zodiac signs rarely fit anyone to a tee? i think you misinterpreted my statement about nostradamus; if you look at the horoscopes, they all make statements that would appeal to and fit anyone in one way or another, just like nostradamus did in his time. it's clever because it gets stupid to believe in it, but it's still bullshit.

unless you would like to prove how any of the horoscope claims can be verified, i think we can agree that relying on astrology is dumb.

BTW, it's ridiculous to compare a nuanced view of MBTI to a rudimentary view of astrology and then conclude that because astrology lacks nuance, anyone who believes in it is "retarded".

i don't think it is. any system that is unreasonable also makes the follower of the system unreasonable. see: religion.

[Capwolf]

Aha. I considered saying something about not defending horoscopes, but I assumed that I'd already covered that with "Horoscope predictions, on the other hand, I can't even begin to take seriously. Until I know something of how they arrive at their conclusions, anyway." Horoscopes are predictions based on... something or other, and explaining things that exist, however bizarre the explanation might appear, is nothing like trying to predict the future. I agree that the validity of horoscopes (and sun signs at their most common) probably hangs somewhere around chance + over-applicability. The only part of astrology I'm defending is the personality typing aspect - and I mean the full astrological profile, not the sun sign on its own.

MBTI makes sweeping generalizations about a particular group to appeal to a broad audience also - there's just somewhat less bogus use of it in the general public (and less room for error) because it's a vastly newer system, and because it's a less complex and personal system. And I don't think that the lack of a "bad" type makes the system bad. If a personality typing system does allow for "bad" types, then unless we're actually looking at/for mental illness, it's a bad system. Different types have different strengths and weaknesses in all decent systems.

Different personality systems also have different strengths and weaknesses. As I also said, I consider astrology more useful for insight than for behavioral predictions, as it doesn't really measure behavior, which MBTI transparently does. MBTI is the best system I know for a general overview of likely reactions/behaviors without having to know too much about someone, so if you don't have much use for insight systems and prefer to rely on straightforward classifications that you can use on near-strangers as well as on yourself and the people you know very well, then you've come to the right place. I use MBTI more than any other system because of how useful it is for surface interaction & with little information.

I don't really find MBTI in itself useful for predicting my behavior, maybe because INTP is "best fit" for me and not a perfect fit. I can make predictions about what I'll do in the future because I know myself, not because I'm INTP, or even INTP 8w7 Respectful Inventor Virgo blah blah. Personality systems help you get to the point where you know yourself (or other people) once you have the basic foundation, because they hold up a set of traits which you can then agree or disagree with, and they make connections between traits with high correlation (like the need to be around people tends to go with social ability, and empathy often leads to interpersonal acumen) that not everyone would draw himself. Sometimes you'll consider things you never even thought of before - and it's presented impersonally enough that there's no confrontation and little defensiveness, unlike if you actually told your ESTJ friend that he's anal retentive bordering on Adrian Monk.

i don't think it is. any system that is unreasonable also makes the follower of the system unreasonable. see: religion.
I disagree. Unless you know level of involvement (most people who believe in astrology probably just fit their sun sign well enough and find the predictions fun - also, hey, another excuse to talk about myself!), personal history, and motivation/reasoning, you can't make any predictions about how reasonable people are given that they follow something you consider unreasonable. And I wouldn't want to make a general, sweeping statement about whether being unreasonable comes from holding unreasonable beliefs/positions, or vice versa - or if they feed into one another. Further, some people are only unreasonable because they've never really thought about it, and given time and education, they'll wake up. (De-programming?)

[biased]

the MBTI isn't that "valid" either, take a look at it's criticism and who it's based on. Carl Jung, lol.

Take a look at him. The man who "popularized" Gnosticism in the west and had his completely unscientific idea of collective unconcious.

[v1cious]

Aha. I considered saying something about not defending horoscopes, but I assumed that I'd already covered that with "Horoscope predictions, on the other hand, I can't even begin to take seriously. Until I know something of how they arrive at their conclusions, anyway." Horoscopes are predictions based on... something or other, and explaining things that exist, however bizarre the explanation might appear, is nothing like trying to predict the future. I agree that the validity of horoscopes (and sun signs at their most common) probably hangs somewhere around chance + over-applicability. The only part of astrology I'm defending is the personality typing aspect - and I mean the full astrological profile, not the sun sign on its own.

yes, i understood this. my question is, why rely on such wild speculations when they have no scientific grounding?

MBTI makes sweeping generalizations about a particular group to appeal to a broad audience also - there's just somewhat less bogus use of it in the general public (and less room for error) because it's a vastly newer system, and because it's a less complex and personal system. And I don't think that the lack of a "bad" type makes the system bad. If a personality typing system does allow for "bad" types, then unless we're actually looking at/for mental illness, it's a bad system. Different types have different strengths and weaknesses in all decent systems.

right, but my point is that the MBTI has much more grounding than astrology and therefore possesses more value. i am not denying that MBTI makes sweeping generalizations that appeal to the general public-- it certainly does. nor am i disagreeing that the presence of a "bad" type necessarily makes a "bad" system. i am disputing the way in which such generalizations are made: whereas MBTI makes statements about personality types and their respective personality traits that have been tested via what i imagine to be the scientific method, astrology just makes statements that seem completely random.

i must also mention that i don't believe there exists any system that is truly perfect. every system, be it a political system or a personality system, will exist independently of the reality that it attempts to shape. there are, however, systems that are better than other systems, such as MBTI > astrology.

Different personality systems also have different strengths and weaknesses. As I also said, I consider astrology more useful for insight than for behavioral predictions, as it doesn't really measure behavior, which MBTI transparently does. MBTI is the best system I know for a general overview of likely reactions/behaviors without having to know too much about someone, so if you don't have much use for insight systems and prefer to rely on straightforward classifications that you can use on near-strangers as well as on yourself and the people you know very well, then you've come to the right place. I use MBTI more than any other system because of how useful it is for surface interaction & with little information.

okay, but how would you be able to verify this insight when it's based on virtually nothing? i can verify INTJ traits, i can verify INTP traits, but i cannot do the same for cancer or taurus. (obviously we are talking about REASONABLE verification, i.e. there will always be a margin of error present in both systems, but i contend that the margin of error present in MBTI system will be significantly smaller than its astrological counterpart.)

I don't really find MBTI in itself useful for predicting my behavior, maybe because INTP is "best fit" for me and not a perfect fit.

no disagreement here. i cut out the rest of the post because i feel that i have made my point.

i don't think it is. any system that is unreasonable also makes the follower of the system unreasonable. see: religion.
I disagree. Unless you know level of involvement (most people who believe in astrology probably just fit their sun sign well enough and find the predictions fun - also, hey, another excuse to talk about myself!), personal history, and motivation/reasoning, you can't make any predictions about how reasonable people are given that they follow something you consider unreasonable.

this would make sense only if we were dealing with something that was intrinsically subjective, like "the meaning of life" or another topic on metaphysics. saying that i can't make predictions about how reasonable people are given that they follow a concept that is on the same level as "2+2=5" is, ironically, unreasonable.

the reasons for subscribing to a certain concept are irrelevant, anyways. if someone has a bad personal history that motivates/leads them to reason that "2+2=5," is it still unreasonable to say that they are unreasonable? i do not think so.

And I wouldn't want to make a general, sweeping statement about whether being unreasonable comes from holding unreasonable beliefs/positions, or vice versa - or if they feed into one another.

there are different degrees. i wouldn't call anyone unreasonable for following a life philosophy even if it sounds stupid (i.e. nihilism) because such matters are intrinsically subjective and are there for the individual to decide upon, but the topic at hand makes the follower of the system unreasonable.

Further, some people are only unreasonable because they've never really thought about it, and given time and education, they'll wake up. (De-programming?)

and until they do, they are not intelligent.

[iamnotspock]

I think I am the one vote in the poll in favor of astrology. We can't say why it might work anymore than we can say why schizophrenics are most often born in the spring. But that doesn't mean the system does not contain valid observations which can be predictive.

For example, ancient people might have believe myths about gods and the moon and the stars. Well maybe those gods didn't "exist". But their stories accurately predicted the positions of the moon and the stars.

So, the only way to test the validity of astrological types would be to use a scientific method. Any argumentation based soley on insight could at best be logically complete -- but not scientific.

Which brings us to MBTI. It does seem to work. But where is the logic? Or the scientific evidence? Where even the underlying axioms? Really, it's just a set of accumulated observations. That puts it in the very same class as astrology, at least from a scientific standpoint.

P. S. For those who laugh at the notion that cosmic bodies might effect our personalities . . . could you account for the majority of the mass or energy in the universe? If you could, you would win a Nobel prize. And if we don't know what most of our universe is made from -- indeed what is inside the nucleus of the billion atoms we are each made from -- then how can you rule out the possibility that it effects personalities systematically?

That said, I don't read horoscopes, those are just bunk ;-))

[snowyegret]

I always read them after the day is through. I find it amusing and completely invalid. I'm a sagittarius. It's all so general it could fit anyone and anything.

[Tarrick]

The results of the pole so far make me laugh :D They are always so vague that it coudl apply to anyone. I tested this once and read all the personality profiles and most of them could be applied to me. Also, most people tend to notice when something hits home rather than when it misses.

Something that would be interesting to see, is where the MBTI types fit in with their distributions compared to the average distribution of birth dates. You might find weird things like introverts generally being born in winter because on average, things are quieter and days are shorter during the winter months (in countries that experience winter that is.) Who knows what you'd find, but I'm sure you could use the findings to disprove astrology :D And isn't that all that matters?

Actually I heard that it the Sun has some affect on you, and it's dependent on when you were conceived, rather then born. Makes sense. Not much about you changes when you are born, physically speaking.

[Rei]

The results of the pole so far make me laugh :D They are always so vague that it coudl apply to anyone. I tested this once and read all the personality profiles and most of them could be applied to me. Also, most people tend to notice when something hits home rather than when it misses.

Something that would be interesting to see, is where the MBTI types fit in with their distributions compared to the average distribution of birth dates. You might find weird things like introverts generally being born in winter because on average, things are quieter and days are shorter *during the winter months (in countries that experience winter that is.) Who knows what you'd find, but I'm sure you could use the findings to disprove astrology :D And isn't that all that matters?

Actually I heard that it the Sun has some affect on you, and it's dependent on when you were conceived, rather then born. Makes sense. Not much about you changes when you are born, physically speaking.

I've heard of the temperature deciding the sex of crocs babies but the sun? :thinking:
I'll need to hear the explanation there...

[Guido]

Guido, we're so already doing this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Pay attention! *:P

LIES!!

Seriously though, we'll probably need about 1000 or so INTJs as well as a distribution curve of 'regular' personality types to compare with. Otherwise I don't think any definite conclusions could be reached. Unless we're all Aquarius or something o.0

[Tarrick]

Guido, do you what would happen if we gathered one thousand INTJs? Do you?!

I heard it happened once before and the universe disappeared and was replaced by something infinitely more complex.

[Rei]

Guido, do you what would happen if we gathered one thousand INTJs? Do you?!

I heard it happened once before and the universe disappeared and was replaced by something infinitely more complex.


LOL!

Which leads me to wonder... would there be the same breakdown of type in populations outside of North America?
I mean... the whole loud Italian stereotype sometimes makes me wonder if there are any introverted Italians :thinking:

[Wisewoman]

I really don’t know where to start here…

Well, first, newspaper horoscopes are not Astrology; and simply knowing your natal Sun sign does not determine your Astrological personality.

The general concensus on wisdom is that the first step is to “Know Thyself.” As someone said earlier, anything that helps with knowing yourself is to the good, and any personality system, even if it results in you saying, “That’s not me,” is helpful in this endeavour.

Astrology does work on two levels: the position of every planet, and the Sun and Moon, in the Natal Chart provides a personality outline, and, as the planets change their geometric aspects to the positions of planets in the Natal Chart, Astrology can provide a predictive glimpse into a personal future.

As to why no one is trying to justify this scientifically, why there are no studies of predictive success, well, there are. Try “Cosmos and Psyche; A new cosmology for the new millennium,” by Richard Tarnas. His previous best-selling tome was “The Passion of the Western Mind,” which I’m sure some of you, at least, have read?

Throwing around comments such as “i don't need to know "enough" about astrology to be able to say that it's complete and utter bullshit,” display irrational ignorance.

rowr

[Wisewoman]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to import this chart successfully. It shows a comparison of Enneagram, Keirsey, and Astrological personality types. IIRC, it may have been compiled by Kevin Duniho, but I'll try to track down the source.

Okay, no luck with that...can anyone give me a hint on how to import a table from a Word document into a Forum message? It shows up pretty messy...

Bear

[wise]

I voted NO. I believe it is all pseudo-psychological babble and nothing more.

[Jezebel]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to import this chart successfully. It shows a comparison of Enneagram, Keirsey, and Astrological personality types. IIRC, it may have been compiled by Kevin Duniho, but I'll try to track down the source.

Okay, no luck with that...can anyone give me a hint on how to import a table from a Word document into a Forum message? It shows up pretty messy...

Bear

Here you go.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.******omparison-chart.gif

[Wisewoman]

Thanks for that, Jezebel. I appreciate it!

Bear :thumbsup:

[Panthera]

yes, i understood this. my question is, why rely on such wild speculations when they have no scientific grounding?


So you believe in nothing until it is scientifically proven? If people like Galileo and Copernicus had the same thought process as you then maybe there would be no scientific grounding. True science is to take the unexplainable and try to explain it. It is not to say, "well there is no scientific proof, so it must be crap and as an intelligent being I refuse to believe in it" True scientific discovery happens when you take outrageous things like the earth revolves around the sun or astrology and you treat it as though it is the truth and you try to explain it based on whatever knowledge you have available to you at the time. I say if you are so quick to disregard something that you don't believe, and you can't back up you opinion with some valid reasoning, then you don't really have a very science oriented mind to begin with. ;)Fixed Coding

[Panthera]

the first line in the previous was a quote from vicious. I haven't mastered the "quote" yet ;)

[thegnat]

I'm not sure if I'll be able to import this chart successfully. It shows a comparison of Enneagram, Keirsey, and Astrological personality types. IIRC, it may have been compiled by Kevin Duniho, but I'll try to track down the source.

Okay, no luck with that...can anyone give me a hint on how to import a table from a Word document into a Forum message? It shows up pretty messy...

Bear

Here you go.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.******omparison-chart.gif

Aha! This chart is proof that I am an anomaly (either that or one or more of these theories doesn't really "fit me" or is based on inaccurate premises)! INTJ 5w6 Taurus

I think trying to correlate personalities leads to disaster.

It's like making a graph of already scattered data. The final graph will be so scattered you won't be able to make shit out of it.

They're all defined differently and the only way you can correlate is with the ones that have the most common characteristics. Being only the "most common" you aren't going to find ones that will correlate perfectly. Hence, "scatter".

[Rei]

Scorpios can be all types???

Great... so I'm by bipolar 16-fold!

[Darthchoco]

I voted no. My brother and I are fraternal twins but we are completely different.

[thegnat]

Scorpios can be all types???

Great... so I'm by bipolar 16-fold!

hehe Hi five! I'll be bipolar 16-fold with you as a Taurus!

[imoutofhere]

I'm just curious how seriously you guys really take astrology. I see no validity in it whatsoever. My sign description doesn't fit me any more than any other random sign I choose. The idea that everyone born at the same time of year would have the same personality due to things going on in the cosmos is ridiculous to me. Even more ridiculous is the idea that people can predict my future based on this system. I've never seen any evidence good enough to make me question my doubts.

For those of you who do think astrology is accurate, how did you come to this conclusion?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There's a LOT more to your astrology profile than your birthday. Don't knock the system till you've properly looked into it. Most people are in fact fine examples of their Sun Sign (birthday based), but there are a lot of oddballs who have so much through the rest of their charts that it outweighs the Sun Sign and makes them quite different. Also, usually people who don't seem to fit into the system are those born on a cusp, who create an odd mix of the two Sun Signs from either side of them.

And, if you go look into the rest of your astrological information, remember... Not every description will be a perfect fit, because you have to combine it all to get you, and certain things combine in weird ways. For example... I'm a Virgo, but because I'm not full Virgo through my entire chart, I'm not a clean freak, but am instead a rare messy Virgo.

And, in case of twins... You're not born at the exact same time, so only your Sun Sign is likely to be the same (and on rare ocassion that might not even be the case either). Also, in twins, one is usually more dominant than the other, causing them to develope different parts of their astrological charts to different degrees. And, further, it is not uncommon for a pair of twins to simply be in denial about how similar they really are. Sometimes twins of sorts that like to be different/unique, will try to force higher differentation between them than is actual. And, sometimes a set of twins that's more competitive and/or agressive might wind up fighting a lot and unable to stand each other and may then want to get viewed as nothing like the other twin becase they don't like their twin. Then, of course, a set of twins whose parents pushed them to be different will want to think they're different because they were told being the same was bad.

I cannot personally think of one set of twins that was truly different astrologically, though usually one might be more F than T, or one might be more S than N based on the dominant twin vs. the one pushed aside and made more sad. Fraternal twins are the only ones capable of turning out as totally different psychological types, and even then they'll still usually be pretty similar by the astrology system.

If you seriously look into astrology, it is highly accurate. There are in fact some scientific theories out there in how astrology actually scientifically works, just that they get ignored by most die-hard scientists who are too close-minded to give it a look, causing astrology to go on unprove by science.

Astrology is a lot more complicated than the psychology type system, and is in fact a science, even if most scientists refuse to allow it to be proven as such. There is quite a bit more to it, and what psychology type you end up as will be in large part over a combination of all of your astrology influences and then your influences from life itself, which is what would make it impossible to say that this or that Sun Sign translates to this or that psychological type. (Though, I'd bet an INTJ could easily create a system to translate between the two with ease that takes into account the person's full chart that would be highly accurate. It just couldn't be simplified to only using Sun Sign.) So any Sun Sign could fall into any psychological type, though certain types would be more likely for certain Sun Signs. i.e. INTJs are most often going to be of the Earth zodiacs (Capricorn, Taurus, and Virgo), especially Capricorn and Virgo who are deeper thinkers and more introverted than Taurus. Taurus would probably be more of an E type, but is still quite similar outside of that. But, I repeat when trying to simplify things to just looking at the Sun Sign, there are individuals who will not fit into such a simplified system, so don't write off the entire Astrology system over one error from a simplified version that can't work for everyone.

And, while astrology does have accuracy in predicting your moods and health, it cannot predict actual events in you life as the people themselves control who they interact with and when. We make our own decisions, astrology isn't fate. It's just what plays the biggest role in shaping our personalities. One of the theories in how it does this has to do with light exposure, like the theory that girls today are taller and hitting puberty earlier because they're getting to go outside more often and starting earlier on do to the invention and widespread of cellphones. (Personally, I'm pretty sure that the light exposure theories are all hooey, but other forces like gravitational pull could make sense.)

Between that the Sun Sign is often not enough, and that astrology can't make your decisions for you, horoscopes are unreliable. Don't make an anti-astrology desicion based on never seeing a horoscope that matches up. And, the same goes over Sun Sign descrptions, just because it doesn't sound like you doesn't mean that's not still your Sun Sign, it just means that there are other influences at work. I repeat, astrology is a very complicated system. You need to better understand it in order to see the true depth of accuracy.

[Jezebel]

You shouldn't assume that I haven't looked into it beyond reading my horoscope. I never said that. I had the full analysis a few years ago that looked at the exact time I was born and what houses I was in and such.

If I have to try really hard to interpret the descriptions to make them fit me, then that's probably because they aren't accurate enough. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could make a sign that wasn't mine fit me too.

I don't care how scientifically accurate it is. If I don't relate to it and can't apply it in ways that help me understand people better, then I don't see it as a valid system and it's useless to me.

[24687531]

What if i'm sagittarius and intj? what that mean? Just notice table it's well said.

[imoutofhere]

You shouldn't assume that I haven't looked into it beyond reading my horoscope. I never said that. I had the full analysis a few years ago that looked at the exact time I was born and what houses I was in and such.

If I have to try really hard to interpret the descriptions to make them fit me, then that's probably because they aren't accurate enough. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could make a sign that wasn't mine fit me too.

I don't care how scientifically accurate it is. If I don't relate to it and can't apply it in ways that help me understand people better, then I don't see it as a valid system and it's useless to me.

I read somewhere earlier that pointed out that INTJs will talk in higher detail in the areas we're more familiar with.... Doesn't that mean it's a waste of time to argue with another INTJ in an area where they have much more to say than you? I will not be further discussing this topic on this board.

[Jezebel]

I read somewhere earlier that pointed out that INTJs will talk in higher detail in the areas we're more familiar with.... Doesn't that mean it's a waste of time to argue with another INTJ in an area where they have much more to say than you? I will not be further discussing this topic on this board.
I never claimed to be an expert. I only claimed that I looked into it beyond horoscopes. I didn't find it relevant enough to pursue further as it takes time out of endeavors that I see as more worthwhile. If I have to try really hard to relate to something and dig deep for information I can apply to myself, then I get the impression that it's a weak system and move on.

I'm also not sure what gave you the impression that I was looking for a debate. If you look over this thread, there have been a lot of differing views on this topic that I have stayed out of. The only reason I addressed you directly is because you quoted me and read a lot more into what I said than what I actually did, and attacked points that I never made. If you're looking for someone to argue with over your beliefs then it really is best you look elsewhere as I generally do see it as a waste of time.

[imoutofhere]

I read somewhere earlier that pointed out that INTJs will talk in higher detail in the areas we're more familiar with.... Doesn't that mean it's a waste of time to argue with another INTJ in an area where they have much more to say than you? I will not be further discussing this topic on this board.
I never claimed to be an expert. I only claimed that I looked into it beyond horoscopes. I didn't find it relevant enough to pursue further as it takes time out of endeavors that I see as more worthwhile. If I have to try really hard to relate to something and dig deep for information I can apply to myself, then I get the impression that it's a weak system and move on.

I'm also not sure what gave you the impression that I was looking for a debate. If you look over this thread, there have been a lot of differing views on this topic that I have stayed out of. The only reason I addressed you directly is because you quoted me and read a lot more into what I said than what I actually did, and attacked points that I never made. If you're looking for someone to argue with over your beliefs then it really is best you look elsewhere as I generally do see it as a waste of time.

Wrong. The quotation was to refer to the original post and question. That post was open to all readers and had nothing to do with you. You were mistaken, and went very clearly in the direction of an argument. You saw the part of don't base it on horoscopes and took ofense, even though I did not specify that I was talking to you when I said that. My post covered a number of things, horoscopes were included for those who were even less knowing of astrology. I even had answered to someone else bringing up twins. (Clearly your limited interest in the subject led to your not paying full attention while you read my post.)

Did I even type your username to direct the conversation to you once? I'm pretty sure that I didn't. It will be better for you if you just drop this. I can make that same kind of mistake, and it's easier to just drop it and move on. Call it communication misunderstanding, or miscommunication, and be done with it. We are the same type here, you can't fool me, even after I said I wouldn't speak further on that topic you changed to deny what you blatantly did to further press me. This is the closest you will be getting to an argument, and I will not be saying anything more on the matter. Any further responses to this will be ignored (for your own sake). Don't talk to me again until you're over this.

[toonia]

BTW, it's ridiculous to compare a nuanced view of MBTI to a rudimentary view of astrology and then conclude that because astrology lacks nuance, anyone who believes in it is "retarded".
The degree of nuance in a system is irrelevant if its basic assumptions are flawed.

I think people look down on astrology because it appears to be founded in superstition. Although, I agree that MBTI is taken as a stronger absolute by many than it was ever intended. Many psychologists find it interesting, but inconclusive.

It is interesting that this seems to be common fare in human reasoning. Systems evolve these remarkably nuanced meanings, while the underlying assumptions are rarely examined or questioned. In what ways can the underlying assumptions of astrology be justified? If the placement of stars and planets affects character, how is this accomplished?

Someone made a comment about the possibility of more introverts being born in winter, etc. There is a great deal of research available for how early environmental influences affect development. You could make an alternate case that extroverts tend to be born in winter because the family gather round and stay closer together during those months. There is also plenty of room for coincidence that is later given false connections.

[imoutofhere]

BTW, it's ridiculous to compare a nuanced view of MBTI to a rudimentary view of astrology and then conclude that because astrology lacks nuance, anyone who believes in it is "retarded".
The degree of nuance in a system is irrelevant if its basic assumptions are flawed.

I think people look down on astrology because it appears to be founded in superstition. Although, I agree that MBTI is taken as a stronger absolute by many than it was ever intended. Many psychologists find it interesting, but inconclusive.

It is interesting that this seems to be common fare in human reasoning. Systems evolve these remarkably nuanced meanings, while the underlying assumptions are rarely examined or questioned. In what ways can the underlying assumptions of astrology be justified? If the placement of stars and planets affects character, how is this accomplished?

Someone made a comment about the possibility of more introverts being born in winter, etc. There is a great deal of research available for how early environmental influences affect development. You could make an alternate case that extroverts tend to be born in winter because the family gather round and stay closer together during those months. There is also plenty of room for coincidence that is later given false connections.

I like your arguments much better. Unfortunately, I already commited myself to not going further into this subject. But, I have to comment on your actually having a better anti-astrology view than the usual. Yeah, I could live with it turning out to be a lot of strange coincidences. As many coincidences as that'd make, it could still be quite possible.

But, for a fellow INTJ to tell pro-astrology INTJs that we're being stupid and/or forcing it to fit is just ridiculous. Why would we do that? Wouldn't happen. Just means we've had a different experience with it than those who don't believe in it, which gave us reason to believe, or we wouldn't. Clearly some of the people on this board are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that most everyone here is that same exact psychological type, which happens to be one that doesn't like to believe in things just to believe in something. When two INTJs come to a disagreement, it would make sense for the one with less to say (who knows less) to just accept the other's logic on it (even if they silently continue to disagree). The INTJ who knows more isn't going to yield to someone who clearly knows less on the matter. When dealing with fellow INTJs we need to remember that they are such, and try to remember how we would be in the same situation to understand the other INTJ. ("Agree to disagree" is a beautiful thing for IN_J's that come to a x-roads with one or both having emotions and/or pride on the line.)

I wouldn't mind discussing astrology with you in PM, Toonia. If you want to, feel free to, and we can see what we learn from each other.

[Jezebel]

Did I even type your username to direct the conversation to you once? I'm pretty sure that I didn't.
Yes, you quoted me. It is unnecessary to quote members if you are not directing your comments at them or specific things that they said. It would be superfluous for each member to quote the original post in each thread they respond to. If you do not want members to think you are directing your comments at them, don't quote them then follow with a long post using the word "you" repeatedly.

My issues with your posts is not that you disagree with me about astrology, but rather that you jump to conclusions about my motivations and choose to argue in a nasty way. Iamnotspock, wisewoman and to a degree, captwolf also disagreed with my original post. However, none of them took personal jabs at me. I do not take offense to any of their posts nor do I think any of them are stupid for what they believe.

Just because I'm uninterested in getting into debates and writing out long drawn out posts picking apart every point I disagree with does not mean I'm not interested in reading different perspectives, nor does it mean that more thoughts didn't go through my mind than what I wrote out. I stay out of the religious debate threads for the same reason, despite my interest in religion.

You keep saying that you will ignore further responses from me, and yet you continue making posts directed at me. It was unnecessary to write yet another paragraph about me to a member that addressed neither you nor me. This is a public discussion forum. If you do not want people to respond to what you post unless you like the way they respond, don't post it.

[Panthera]

I agree with haminette on this issue. Everyone who voted no to astrology has yet to back up their opinion. Haminette on the other hand has given a very good (imho) explanation and that is that all of you naysayers are looking at astrology on a very superficial level.

The issue here is not really yes or no to astrology, but the argument, if you want to call it that, is about whether a true intj dismisses a topic because it is not useful to them (which is what jezebel is doing) or whether a true intj has a need to back up their view with as much fact as possible and will not be deterred from their viewpoint easily (just like haminette). I read on a website that a group of intj's = an argument. So personally the mark of a true intj is one who actually enjoys the argument. So Jezebel and Haminette....are either of you really enjoying this thread? If you are it doesn't seem like it.

[Panthera]

Also jezebel you never really said that you looked into it thoroughly and your posts so far suggest that you haven't researched it very much. That is likely why haminette called you on that. I got the same impression from you.

[Jezebel]

The issue here is not really yes or no to astrology, but the argument, if you want to call it that, is about whether a true intj dismisses a topic because it is not useful to them (which is what jezebel is doing) or whether a true intj has a need to back up their view with as much fact as possible and will not be deterred from their viewpoint easily (just like haminette). I read on a website that a group of intj's = an argument. So personally the mark of a true intj is one who actually enjoys the argument. So Jezebel and Haminette....are either of you really enjoying this thread? If you are it doesn't seem like it.
Thank you Panthera, that is exactly the point of my other posts. I do view systems in terms of how useful I personally find them. That's why I don't think there is much point in arguing about things like this. At least when it comes to personality theories and belief systems.

I expressed my view, but I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just interested in other people's reasoning behind their beliefs. If you think this means I'm not a "true" INTJ, that's okay with me.

[Panthera]

Actually I think you are a true intj. that was the point I was trying to make.

[Jezebel]

Off topic replies moved here.

[wise]

I agree with haminette on this issue. Everyone who voted no to astrology has yet to back up their opinion.

I'm sorry, but my OPINION that astrology is invalid is an opinion and just that, as is any other opinion. I do not believe I am required by your desire to BACK UP my OPINION. I have never found astrology relevant to me, thus my opinion is it is irrelevant and invalid.

[Panthera]

so then the onus is on the ones who do believe that astrology is valid are the ones that must back up their opinions? In order to have a good debate about things there must be backing up of opinions on both sides. That is just the way of debates. Have you ever seen a successful debater say, "well this is my opinion and so I don't have to explain it." Of course you are entitled to your opinion and no I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on the matter. I am interested to hear WHY you have the opinion that you do. a response that is essentially "because I said so" just does not jive.

[Jezebel]

so then the onus is on the ones who do believe that astrology is valid are the ones that must back up their opinions?
Nobody has to back up their opinions. The people who would like to discuss their opinions are free to, those who don't are free not to. Which side they're on doesn't matter.

In order to have a good debate about things there must be backing up of opinions on both sides. That is just the way of debates. Have you ever seen a successful debater say, "well this is my opinion and so I don't have to explain it."
I already said I didn't want to have a debate over this.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and no I am not trying to change anyone's opinion on the matter. I am interested to hear WHY you have the opinion that you do. a response that is essentially "because I said so" just does not jive.
Okay, if you really want to know I'll try to explain my opinion on this a little further.

I know these two systems are different in what they measure, but I'll use the MBTI as an example.

For the purposes of this example, lets say I type as an INTJ and relate to the description. I also find out that other people who type as INTJ think more similar to me than most people, and I recognize predictable patterns of behavior within other types.

After I learn this, I find out that 90% of people born in December are INTJs. This piques my interest so I want to find out why. At this point I may gather facts and try to learn about theories about why there would be a correlation. I think it's great when I can find a reasoned, scientific explanation for it. However, even if I can't, I will continue to see it as a valid system because the results work. I will continue thinking there is a correlation between the personality type and birthdate even though it can't be explained, because the percentage is too high to be a coincidence.

People may try to argue with me that my beliefs have no scientific support. If I can use the results to see predictable patterns, this is not a major concern to me.

It's the same thing for astrology. I'm a sagittarius, and I read the descriptions for the sign and didn't think they fit. I was told that I also needed to look at my houses/planets, so I get this information which gives me a much longer profile. It fits better, but there is still too much that doesn't fit. I read profiles of other people, and can relate just as much to their's as my own. I didn't see consistent patterns with people and their results.

At this point I don't need to go further. Whether or not science backs it up is irrelevant because the results don't work. I do use what I know of science to get a gist of things, but the end results and usefulness matter more than everything else. People trying to argue with me from a different angle than that will only become frustrated.

Not to say that I agreed with the "scientific" points in this thread. For example, I think twins being similar is more reasonably explained by genetics than being born at the same time, but of course attacking points like that is only going to lead to a scientific proof debate. Since proving or disproving this doesn't change my stance anyway, I don't bother wasting my time arguing over it.

The only thing that might change my stance is giving me an actual profile that works and seeing ones that consistently work for other people. If this actually happened I would change my stance. I have already been approached from this angle though, and don't see the point in actively pursuing it further.

[Wisewoman]

The only thing that might change my stance is giving me an actual profile that works and seeing ones that consistently work for other people. If this actually happened I would change my stance. I have already been approached from this angle though, and don't see the point in actively pursuing it further.

I admit I haven't gone back to read the previous posts in this thread again, and I can't remember whether you've said that you had a natal chart done for you sometime in the past; that may be what you are referring to by saying that you have "already been approached from this angle..."

If it isn't, for the sake of the experiment, I'd be happy to cast and interpret a natal chart for you, to see what you make of it. I'd need your date, time, and place of birth. Many people don't know their exact time of birth, and it's necessary either to check your birth certificate, or the hospital birth records.

Maybe what appeals to the INTJ in me is the amount of geometry involved in Astrology. LOL!

;)

[Jezebel]

for the sake of the experiment, I'd be happy to cast and interpret a natal chart for you, to see what you make of it. I'd need your date, time, and place of birth. Many people don't know their exact time of birth, and it's necessary either to check your birth certificate, or the hospital birth records.
I'm up for it. I'll look up my birth certificate and send you this information.

[Happydayz]

if astrology were true we would all live in terror of The Onion's horoscopes.

[Bossy Mom]

I don't believe in astrology, but my sign (Leo) fits me to a "T." My mother, a sweet, loving, good-natured, friendly and generous woman is a Scorpio, which doesn't fit her at all. Astrology is just silly.

[phoenix]

LIES!!

Seriously though, we'll probably need about 1000 or so INTJs as well as a distribution curve of 'regular' personality types to compare with. Otherwise I don't think any definite conclusions could be reached. Unless we're all Aquarius or something o.0

/raises hand

Aquarius!

[Paul V]

I think Astrology is fairly good at predicting the most probable personality a certain person will have if he/she isn't affected by any major events. All the people I know that fit a certain sign perfectly lead normal, quiet lives. All the people I know who don't, have had scarring or troubled lives.

*shrugs* My take on the matter.

And lulz at the fact I'm the only one who voted "Yes".

[Jezebel]

And lulz at the fact I'm the only one who voted "Yes".
There were more 'yes' votes on the original forum, but I was unable to transfer the votes.

[Paul V]

There were more 'yes' votes on the original forum, but I was unable to transfer the votes.

Oh, right. I remember you telling us the polls were not transfered. Silly me. :P

[Desfrei]

Though astrology is a fun activity it should not be taken seriously. While it can be quite entertaining to check and laugh about, the fact still remains that the only reason any of it can be accurate is because of how vague the reading is. After reveiwng a few people on a birth sign you can easily guess what to hint about so as to make them beleive what you speak is about them. As I said before it can be fun to joke with others about what you find in there, just dont take it to heart.

[fynwyk32]

I laugh everytime I read a description of my sign. I seriously don't understand how I can be a Leo of all things. An extroverted drama queen who is the life of the party? More like the loner who is sulking in the corner wishing she was home with a good book.

Although there are certain aspects of my sign that do correspond with INTJ, it's just to hard to get past the idea that the sign is the most extroverted of them all.

[Alpha Prime]

Astrology, can be fun, but that's it.

[Hdier]

imoutofhere, can you link me to a good site about astrology? I never looked at it much, and whenever I google it, it comes up with a whole bunch of horoscope sites and such.

[DeepPurple]

I'm a Capricorn and my sign description fits me to the T. Even down to the way I was as a child. I don't identify with the other 11 signs. My chart does not fit me at all. I think horoscopes are bs and like someone probably already mentioned applies to everyone.
In my case astrology has some validity.


I don't believe any personality system is completely accurate though.

[elfece]

Oh, astrology no please, if my behavior was conditioned by some big rocks out there describing some wonderful ellipses that would mean that I'm far less free that I'd like to believe to...

I pray each day to quantum mechanics and light a candle to chaos, giving thanks to the fact that it seems that our universe is not deterministic, and when I already start believing in my own freedom, there comes the big, bad asstrollogy to tear it all down? Come on, I think i won't be able to resist it. :embarassed:


I really prefer soup-reading, I find the method as accurate as astrology, but also a lot easier, and if I eat it all, then I'm absolutely free to write my own future on the go.





elfece added to this post, 23 minutes and 52 seconds later...

And after some hard googling I've found it: The Forer Effect (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The Forer effect (also called personal validation fallacy or the Barnum effect after P. T. Barnum's observation that 'we've got something for everyone') is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. The Forer effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some pseudosciences such as astrology and fortune telling, as well as many types of personality tests.

I refuse to give any credibility to any description/prediction that is general enough to fit to everybody, based on arbitrary things as the planets movement.

And also, today's world is heavily analyzed, and if there were really such astrological influences, then the statistics should have been reflecting it from a long time ago.

[Femme de Homme INTJ]

I have some of the Scorpio traits, but I believe the coincidence means nothing.

[mind_wander]

I recently was talking to an female ISTJ. She mentioned something about this horoscope thingy. We do have the same interests and unique hobbies, etc. Then, she said something about my birthday,as the horoscope sign: Capricorn. As her birthday is an Virgo. The combination of the two is a keeper.

Here is the descriptions combo:

Virgo and Capricorn are a harmonious pair. Capricorn's ambition and drive for success meshes well with Virgo's perfectionism and energy. Both are diligent, disciplined, and have a sense of purpose. They admire one another and take great pride in pleasing each other. Both need respect and approval (though neither will confess this), and each intuitively gives the other exactly that. Sexual compatibility becomes a mutual achievement; in lovemaking, though, Capricorn usually takes the lead.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for the capricorn, it does fit me too well. Darn it, my INTJness is so low, I'm like WTF happened to most of my defense walls, lol. Its normally, like 10+ defense walls, wow, down to 2 defense walls, oh crap. Whats going on?

Well, can't wait for that nice webcam, she's going to shipped out to me :), hope it falls on my B day :) this month.

[Over]

Astrology is nonsense.
As far as I know, the main idea of it is that stars have influence in how person lives his life, or something close to that.

There are millions or bilions or whatever ammount of starts that look like a complete mess during the night. That randomness of dots emits a very tiny ammount of light and people usually dont even look at them, even if they do, they do not find any pattern in them. Hence, even if they did find a pattern they wouldnt see a Scorpion in it drawn from 15 dots. Also, when person is born, he doesnt go outside at night at first day of his birth to look at stars to define his life.

Astrology exists if stars can make influence to humans.
Lets say stars are (A)
And humans are (B)

In order for influence to be made, there has to be a contact between A and B. It means that A has to send some kind of signal witch B recieves and processes.

So lets see what happens in reality:

A(stars) sends tinny ammount of light that has no information in it
-->
B(humans) see the light
-->
there is nothing to process

Here you go.
Astrology does not exist.

If you do not agree with me, you are wrong.

[Maitri1970]

I'm an astrologer so I can't say it's not a relevant system. Astrology is the study of planetary cycles and aspects. Anyone who has done any serious study of astrology can't deny that cycle patterns exist. I believe our brains are either formatted for understanding astrology or they are not. There really isn't any use trying to convince someone that astrology is valid or not. I've stopped arguing with people who don't know anything about it to begin with. It's silly.

Please know that the crap you read in the paper or in People magazine is for entertainment. It's toilet reading. It's trash. If you are serious about knowing more about astrology, visit the National Center for Geocosmic Research website and hire a professional to complete a natal, transit, and progressed chart for you. It's not cheap but it's well worth it.

[Antares]

I think that my natal chart fits me 90% of the time, but definitely not their description of 'Sun in Pisces'. I'm unlike a Pisces in many ways. In fact, I think I'm more like a Scorpio or a Leo. It's fun to read the horoscopes on the so-called 'very accurate' sites, but none of them ever came true or they are too vague to be true or untrue. I have a question though. If identical twins are born within minutes of each other, they have most of the same planets, shouldn't they have almost identical personalities? I've known twins with very different personalities. Why do astrologers ignore Ophiuchus, the Serpent Wrestler? Doesn't it have a place in the cycles as well? What about the asteroid belt? Some asteroids are as big, if not bigger than some planets. How about the moons of the gas giants? What about Black Holes? Or Pulsars?

Neutron stars have very intense magnetic fields, about 1,000,000,000,000 times stronger than Earth's own field.
Why is Pluto included in our natal charts but not pulsars? Hadn't Pluto been demoted as well?

I'm hopeful that you can answer my questions. Thanks!

[gzeus]

The sign you were born under might have some validity, the problem is that due to the passage of time people born today do not have the same signs present as people did when the astrological charts were made. The constilations have moved (the earth has really) further since in the sky. Someone born today under the lets say Virgo according to the chart in reality has Libra in the sky.

The daily horoscopes that are supposed to be based on astrology are on the other hand pure BS.

Both can be refuted by simply looking at lives and personalities of twins. Born under the same sign yet completely different personalities and lives.

Have a look at this video:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tsuru]

My answer to the question of the validity of astrology:

No.

[almos]

I'm not entirely convinced by astrology as a personality validation system, although I have observered certain similarities between them

[Vivid]

Think about leap year. Because Earth doesn't travel exactly the same distance around the sun every year, we have to make up. Even though we've corrected our calendars, Earth's position in orbit can't be corrected, and what does that do to the alignment? Approximately 1,000 years ago, Earth was aligned with the Pieces constellation on February 22nd, but because the Earth has been a tiny bit behind in its orbit, it's now aligned with the Aquarius constellation on February 22nd, and all of the other signs are off too. Plus there used to be a 13th constellation.
Even if they did seem accurate, all of the signs are off. It's fun to read about, though. In comparison, Myer Briggs and other forms of typology are valid because they aren't selected randomly. You decipher what your preferences are and it just correlates things.

[Antares]

I'm actually Aquarius 0___o

[meanlittlechimp]

Do believers in astrology think that everyone born the exact time, place and date will have similar personalities? The believers always cite the newspaper daily horoscope as invalid but then state that's because they didn't have their chart done!! The true bread and butter of crackpots tryign to sell there wares or add some semblance of psuedo science.

The reason it's still so popular today is the Forer effect and skilled practitioners who sell there services one on one. Cold reading is a skill used by con men and psychics and when done well, can sometimes get the biggest cynics to believe their shit. Once they get some real converts/believers, they evangalize it with full belief which adds even more validity (like religion) in the minds of the duped.

I recall some magazine sending the exact birth details for Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, to get their charts done by the top 10 most famed astrologers - it was hilarious. Things like great empath with others, very well adjusted, generous to a fault, etc..

Some smart people that think I'm slightly nuts for talking about MBTI, and always bring up the Forer effect and horoscopes, so I have a pet peeve when astrology is associated with MBTI at all. That and the fact there is not a single piece of evidence for it's validity. What do horoscope believers think causes this polarization of personality around birthdays anyways? minute gravitional forces on your brain waves? an ancient pagaen god?

Also, the original practice of astrology was more than 2,000 years ago (Bablyonians or Summerians maybe?) and I highly doubt astrologers even bothered to realize - that the stars have moved since then, so all their charts would have to be adjusted. This, of course, was the same time folks were concocting all these other bullshit fantasies out of their asses like returning messiahs, locust/frog plagues when god wasn't gettin enough respect from his creations, elephant headed dieties and yes... horoscopes.

[Antares]

Also, the original practice of astrology was more than 2,000 years ago (Bablyonians or Summerians maybe?) and I highly doubt astrologers even bothered to realize - that the stars have moved since then, so all their charts would have to be adjusted. This, of course, was the same time folks were concocting all these other bullshit fantasies out of their asses like returning messiahs, locust/frog plagues when god wasn't gettin enough respect from his creations, elephant headed dieties and yes... horoscopes.

That's why we have tropical and sidereal astrology. I don't understand why they aren't adjusted based on the actual cycle. As Richard Dawkins pointed out, the constellations are but a bunch of stars which looks like an object our ancestors knew of. In fact, give me a map of the stars and I can create a several myself and name them... Television or 'The Penguin' or something. The stars in a constellation have NO relations with each other. That's just like searching for sheeps on your ceiling.

[Colette]

I'm just curious how seriously you guys really take astrology. I see no validity in it whatsoever. My sign description doesn't fit me any more than any other random sign I choose. The idea that everyone born at the same time of year would have the same personality due to things going on in the cosmos is ridiculous to me. Even more ridiculous is the idea that people can predict my future based on this system. I've never seen any evidence good enough to make me question my doubts.

For those of you who do think astrology is accurate, how did you come to this conclusion?

Same for me. I am a Sagittarius, ostensibly, and the profile doesn't fit me at all (except that I do enjoy travel, and freedom). I wouldn't, however, describe myself as fundamentally optimistic, carefree, and outgoing (which apparently are all Sagittarian traits).

The profile for Libra or Aquarius probably fits me better (especially Aquarius), but as you say, there is no scientific basis for Astrology whatsoever, so one must be inherently skeptical of it.

[pavman]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The link above appears somewhat objective, as it delves into both sides of a debate regarding all sorts of interesting "psychic" phenomena.

[Antares]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The link above appears somewhat objective, as it delves into both sides of a debate regarding all sorts of interesting "psychic" phenomena.

Very interesting data there. Although I'd like a pro-astrology argument to fully appreciate their position.

I have found a several. So far, I have counted the following fallacies:

- Not True Scotsman (They haven't seen TRUE horoscopes. I did a search on article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the word 'real'. Of the 34 matches, only one was a part of the word 'realize'.)
- Plurium Interrogationum or Black or White and over-simplifying the matters. Possibly weak analogy as well. (It's true that Astrology makes no common sense and may sound absurd, but Einstein's theories makes just about as much common sense)
- ad Hominem, using Randi's career as a magician therefore calling him a hypocrite because he uses illusions to 'deceive' people. It's in the same article I linked.
- Appealing to feeling. There's so much personal emotions involved in this article that I doubt that I can call it a fair 'article' anymore. At best an editorial or simply the personal rantings of an irate astrologer.

(I found it funny that they created a software and called it 'Kepler'. Maybe he believed in Astrology too.)

I'm being opinionated again, aren't I? Maybe instead of me telling the story, you should go look yourselves :laugh: Here are the links to the articles I read. Have fun.

'Real Astrology' Article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (yes, the one with 33 'reals')
'Einstein-Astrology Analogy' (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (The one that compared Einstein to Astrology)
Directory of articles on the validity of Astrology (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Should take you a while to go through them.

[paradanmellow]

astrology is a fast solution cause we need to be told what to do sometimes and I often use it as an excuse (whenever the case) or I can condemn it as inaccurate and fancy heheh it depends. but we can't fail to notice there are basic traits that often apply, even if that means to choose from other qualities and narrow it down to what we wanna get. if the astrology system doesn't satisfy my ego i choose MBTI or even hand reading or how's it called. my god, there are so many ways to fool yourself, yet so hard not to be tempted. future can be a scarry thing you know... ;D

[ArchonAlarion]

Well I see capricorns as either INTJ's or ISTJ's so I'm pretty close to my sign.

I think the MBTI is much better obviously.

[eMachine]

For 3 or 4 years while I was a teenager I 'studied' astrology and did natal charts for alot of people. Over a period of time I came to realize that most people (who would ask me to do one for them) would agree with their supposed traits, even when I made a mistake and most of it was incorrect.

I agree that horoscopes are complete and utter BS, I don't believe in astrology at all as far as foretelling the future. And I generally don't believe much in astrology in general anymore. I do think that a complete natal chart which is done correctly can provide a little insight into some personal issues, but we're affected more by our environment and experiences, so something like astrology is in no way concrete or unchangeable.

There is much more to natal astrology than the sun signs that are used in daily horoscopes and such. In a complete chart, a persons birth time is used to tell which sign was rising on the western(?) horizon, and then the 'astrologer' can tell where each planet was in the sky at the time of the persons birth, which sign each was near and to what degree... and then a 12-section chart is drawn out, which are called the 'houses', beginning with the sign that was rising at the time being the '1st house'.

Then each planet-sign and planet-house combination are identified and analyzed and the traits of each combination need to be balanced against one another, which is difficult in itself to do with any accuracy, and on top of that there are environment, experience, and societal issues among many other things that would affect a person and cause astrological traits to be inaccurate IF there was any real accuracy to it in the first place... which is impossible to discern.

I answered "No" to the poll.

(Oh, btw, I'm an Aries with a Cancer moon and Virgo rising...)

[BlueTopaz]

Along with the movement of the earth in relation to the stars so that the stars/constellations are in different positions today than they were during the times of the ancient Babylonians, how does one explain procession of the equinoxes.
I think astrology is a poor excuse for a religion or religious belief. I voted no.

[CardinalXiminez]

So, there are some INTJs who actually believe that astrology is an accurate system??? Huh?

Hmmm... Fascinating!

(And they DARE to pretend they are logical thinkers after that???) lol

[1OFMANY]

To the person who started the thread..post your birthday, time of birth and place of birth. With that you can construct a natal chart then read it and see if you can answer your own question.

[narusmummy]

Three words: The Barnum Effect!

;)

[Antares]

To the person who started the thread..post your birthday, time of birth and place of birth. With that you can construct a natal chart then read it and see if you can answer your own question.

Well, I'm not the one you're addressing, but there are far more misses than hits in my chart.

[NovemberRain]

Horoscopes, astrology readings, all of them are a form of amusement for me. Sometimes I would read my astrology and try to see if things turn out as 'predicted'. It's quite fun by the way.
I don't believe in astrology :D

This reminds me of a conversation from "The Big Bang Theory Season 1 Episode 1".

Penny: "I'm a Sagittarius, which probably tells you way more than you need to know."

Sheldon: "Yes, it tells us that you participate in the mass cultural delusion that the sun's apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality."

Penny: "Participate in the what?"

And it is also interesting to note that in one of the episodes Sheldon described a meticulously designed experiment done by I-forgot-who which proved that horoscope is only hokum (if I remember correctly)

I did some googling and found this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Doublefrost]

Voted no, at the same time it also does apply strongly on my sign in certain ways. Random chance is more likely as it's not often the case for most.

[Freedom Geek]

Vague nonsense for idiots.

[Sinequanon]

Astrology has the same validity as religion: as long as some people continue to believe in it, and base actions on it, it will have a quantifiable effect in our world. Whether it is internally consistent or objectively true is utterly irrelevant in the face of its actual impact.

By the same token, whether Allah exists or not is an interesting philosophical question, but whether Allah has an impact in our lives is a much more pressing matter, and is a concern irrespective of its existence.

[Sesshoumaru]

I remember watching this show (non-fiction) where the guy had randomly chosen several people and written out astrology (I believe) profiles for them.

Most said they were dead on, he later revealed that they were generic profiles that are worded in such a way that it can pertain to just about everybody.

It was quite interesting and got me thinking a bit.

Although I was never quite interested in astrology before, so I never gave it much weight in my world anyway.

[blatant]

None. But I used sideral astrology and then the sign i was assigned seemed fairly accurate. but i've seen the opposite hold true as well.

[PHS Philip]

Astrology has failed every rigorous test, both for specific astrologers and for the whole thing (time twin correlations and such). It's crap.

[LaoTzu]

For the most part I think it's bunk. But it's fun sometimes.

I also think that you might be able to strike a correlation with the time of birth, and first few months to the weather changes and seasonal affective psychologies of those months... and that since all in the universe is energy....perhaps certain concentrations of energies released by aligning planets could possibly effect some change on a developing child.... lol


but really? nah.... just fantasy

[sanfoin]

I have tested the principles of astrology by experience and found them to be true, in much the same way that the principles of MBTI are true.

Astrology is a very complex subject with a mass of details, many of them minor per se and easy to overlook, but nonetheless significant. Each element in a chart usually has some influence on another element, and there can seemingly be an endless chain of correspondences and qualifications, the sum of which produce a totally unique "portrait" of an individual.

It's not enough for one to know that his sun sign is X. I once had a boss, for example, who was (and still is, actually) a Virgo. Most astrologers will say that Virgos don't do well in positions of authority: they prefer to be subordinates. And this is true as a general rule. But in his chart there was a preponderance of activity in the sign Leo, which makes people ambitious to lead others (think Napeoleon, Arnold Swartz, Barack Obama), and which accordingly modified his personality.

So to judge the veracity of astrology on the basis of generalized assessments, such as found in certain books and webpages and (for shame) newspapers, would be injudicious. There's alot more to it than popular culture would suggest. . .

[Darkness]

Astrology is absolutely invalid. I don't even have two signs that match in the Western and Eastern systems. Everyone can be something in every sign.

Furthermore, I think it's just luck that they came up with this crap to explain your personality based on what month you were born in or whatever. MBTI is a lot more logical and actually makes sense, while astrology is just BS.