I've studied astrology for quite a few years. I've noticed that the twins I knew personally were very different from one another...on purpose. A natal chart is more about possibilities and tendencies. We all have free will, however, and the choices we make aren't entirely dependent on astrological signs. The more we grow and evolve as human beings, the less our natal charts dominate our personalities. That said, astrology, like tarot cards, MBTI tests, and other methods of seeking our true selves can be of great help...or harm. Remember they're tools to use; don't let them rule you.
Astrology and MBTI
- Thread starter Curiosilla
- Start date
I tend to think the MBTI is far more reliable than astrology being that it uses actual aspects of your personality to assess a certain stereotype rather than where certain burning gas clouds where in the sky on the day you where born. That being said I don't think it's wrong for anyone to believe anything, but I think comparing the two is a little inappropriate since what the two are based on are entirely different foundations. I'm an aries and I don't fit that description at all, I do fit my personality description.
Two things that jump out at me is the assumption that astrology is only your sun sign (Aries). I think astrology gets a lot of flack, simply because it's so complex, and people want the boiled-down version to be as useful as the detailed. Your sun sign does not lord over your chart, it works with, influences, and is influenced by, everything else. I also tend to look more at a person's ascendant than their sun sign for the basic personality, since I see the sun sign as your private self, and your rising as how you relate to the world, and other people. So if I was to try and see how that person is relating to the world around them (and therefore, me) I would look at the rising, to begin with (but not stop there).
Then, with the influences of "gas clouds"... I always use this metaphor, and then I'll finish with someone much more eloquent than I.
Look at the influence that the moon has over the water on the earth. It causes water to swell, to move, to change. And then look at how much water is in our body! I don't think it is possible to say something doesn't effect something else, the "everything is interconnected" philosophy that has seemed to pop out of me the past few years.
And, now, someone who says it better than I:
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great nerve center from which we quiver forever. Who knows the power that Saturn has over us, or Venus? But it is a vital power, rippling exquisitely through us all the time.
-D.H. Lawrence[/FONT]
And, just for funsies, another one.
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]I know that astrology isn't a science... Of course it isn't. It's just an arbitrary set of rules like chess or tennis.... The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people. In astrology the rules happen to be about stars and planets, but they could be about ducks and drakes for all the difference it would make. It's just a way of thinking about a problem which lets the shape of that problem begin to emerge. The more rules, the tinier the rules, the more arbitrary they are, the better. It's like throwing a handful of fine graphite dust on a piece of paper to see where the hidden indentations are. It lets you see the words that were written on the piece of paper above it that's now been taken away and hidden. The graphite's not important. It's just the means of revealing their indentations. So you see, astrology's nothing to do with astronomy. It's just to do with people thinking about people.
-Douglas Adams[/FONT]
I don't care if someone believes in astrology as long as he or she doesn't use it to make decisions that affect anyone else. The last czar of Russia believed in astrology, particularly as interpreted by Rasputin, and look where that got him. To me, believing in astrology is the same as believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (or, perhaps I insult these legendary mythological figures). We live in a world of cause and effect, a world where there is a reason why things happen. That is, there is a mechanism behind everything. It has always amazed me how many people live their lives mostly in the context of these mechanisms and behave accordingly, yet retain irrationality as an alternate "reality." Coming from a family where all our INFJ's have MD's and/or Ph.D.'s (or are working toward those degrees), I know that the ability to be a "feeler" is not exclusive of hard, raw rationality. Logic and the scientific method transcend personality type. If you believe in astrology, please explain to me the mechanism by which the positions of the planets affects what we are and what decisions we should make.
I would argue that astrology is a science as well but it is very difficult to actually test out since it is so complex so they lable it a "pseudoscience." I think though that is is mostly because of what ideas and observations structure astrology (the position of planets and such). but really it's as you said, "people thinking about people," observations. It's testable and there are many studies out there trying to prove or disprove it--so it has turned into more of a "not really" theory--but in my eyes it is a theory.For some reason, if something is "based on science," it gives it more credability. It sounds smart--but as soon as it's in some unknown realm (pseudo) then it's looked down upon.
So many people don't question "science," after some theory has been extablished--just because they think it has been proven and therefore "valid."
Science is never able to prove anything correct though.
That's an excelent question, and one that an early Christian Church writer fought against astrologers over. I am Christian, and I know the famous twins in the Bible he was referring to when he was writing it. I also hold that Jesus Christ as Son of God was subject to everything that influences us in this physical world, but hold the belief that he DID NOT have a planetary pattern that imprinted Him at birth, as Son of God. It would be impossible for God to have a birth chart as the Uncreated One. Which was yet another reason He overcame the world around Him.
I have an impression that the twins in question could have been Geminis or Pisces or Libras.
I don't know, the guy I liked who was an acquarius matched the personality type so well that it was scary
But it could have been a coincidence.
It was. N=1 is not an experiment. It's hardly an anecdote.
Oooh this is such an interesting thread~ I never knew a lot about astrology until I was about 13 or so (That's about the time when I found out that June 18 meant Gemini). But that's probably because my father's side of the family is riddled with atheist, university, science, professors and suches, whereas my mother is from an agnostic/atheist family while she herself is a super Christian. They're all like "Astrology is stupid" But you know, I can see the merit in exploration and intrigue. I'm sure that probably aligns with the main ethos of scientific pursuit: "keeping an open mind and seeing the possibilities".
Aaanyways! I'm a Gemini~ and so is my twin sister (I know right, coincidence?)
Anyways, I reaaally like the "atmosphere" of this thread because it's kinda positive and like poofy~ dunno. . . ~ Anyways, you guys started talking about the twins and their personality and stuffs so I thought, hey~!~ I'm a twin
But there is one thing that kinda disturbed me~ @Curiosilla ~ When you talk about astrology being a science/pseudo science. True, it's very difficult to study astrology through scientific method. That in turn makes people discredit it to some extent, but I don't think we should in turn take upon the "them and us" mentality. I really can't stand it when people take upon the victim role, we should persevere through that.
Let's not get frustrated by the people who misunderstand us, let's not throw jabs at "science" either.
It might make people think one suffers from ulterior emotions such as jealousy or bitterness. I believe people are worth more than petty beliefs on what ought to be and what not.
I hope I don't sound patronizing or something like that~ >.>
Aaanyways! I'm a Gemini~ and so is my twin sister (I know right, coincidence?)
Anyways, I reaaally like the "atmosphere" of this thread because it's kinda positive and like poofy~ dunno. . . ~ Anyways, you guys started talking about the twins and their personality and stuffs so I thought, hey~!~ I'm a twin
But there is one thing that kinda disturbed me~ @Curiosilla ~ When you talk about astrology being a science/pseudo science. True, it's very difficult to study astrology through scientific method. That in turn makes people discredit it to some extent, but I don't think we should in turn take upon the "them and us" mentality. I really can't stand it when people take upon the victim role, we should persevere through that.
Let's not get frustrated by the people who misunderstand us, let's not throw jabs at "science" either.
.
It might make people think one suffers from ulterior emotions such as jealousy or bitterness. I believe people are worth more than petty beliefs on what ought to be and what not.
I hope I don't sound patronizing or something like that~ >.>
Last edited:
1. Astrology does not apply the scientific method (i.e., established methods of empiricism), therefore it is not a science.
2. Astrology is not more complex than biology (e.g., the brain, with trillions of neuronal connections), it is not more complex than Astronomy and Astrophysics, and, for that matter, many (all) other branches of science.
3. If "something is based on science" it does have more credibility than something that isn't testable, and repeatedly so. When we say that something is "testable" it does not mean picking and choosing the data that support your hypothesis.
4. The reason why "so many people don't question 'science'" is because so many other people do question science. The questioners are the scientists themselves who continually do research that challenges established theory, thus strengthening it when it is supported by the data, and altering it when the data are at variance with theory. That's how progress is made and that's why science is self-correcting.
5. Theory has multiple meanings that are too often confused, misunderstood, and falsely used as obfuscation during, particularly, arguments about beliefs. Thus, evolution is not a "theory" in the sense that it is a series of unproven hypotheses. It is a theory in the same way as electromagnetic wave theory. That is, it is a collection of related technical knowledge comprised of well understood principles that have withstood empirical challenges.
6. It is interesting to note that astrology does not change the way science does. They were saying the exact same stuff in the 16th century and earlier. Science is continually changing because it is inherently a dynamic process.
Technical difficulties...I see you have replied to something I have said..i left the window open and was distracted for a bit...
@ Norton:
I don't care if someone believes in astrology as long as he or she doesn't use it to make decisions that affect anyone else. I believe any decision anyone makes effects everyone else--but I see life as a chain of events that are bound to happen...anyway that's off the topic. The last czar of Russia believed in astrology (I don't know who this is but Im going to google him after), particularly as interpreted by Rasputin (and him), and look where that got him (I wonder..but eitherway--wherever that got him I dont think it's very reasonable to use that as a good argument "Well this person believed this..this happened..so therefore.." What exactly did he believe? Astrology is a thick trunk with many branches--not everyone notices they dont all have the same purpose for climbing the tree; perhaps they just want to jump). To me, believing in astrology is the same as believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (or, perhaps I insult these legendary mythological figures [Perhaps you do, or perhaps Santa has put you on the "Naughty List" again.]). We live in a world of cause and effect, a world where there is a reason why things happen (yeah I believe everything happens for a reason too "a chain of events" [cause and effect]). That is, there is a mechanism behind everything Mechanism...I'm trying to think of less obvious reasons why you mentioned this What is the point of the mechanism? It has always amazed me how many people live their lives mostly in the context of these mechanisms? and behave accordingly, yet retain irrationality as an alternate "reality."So you see things as possabilities--possabilities of alternate realities--so you concider this as one but just choose not to believe it. Coming from a family where all our INFJ's have MD's and/or Ph.D.'s (or are working toward those degrees), I know that the ability to be a "feeler" is not exclusive of hard, raw rationality This made me giggle a bit. Logic and the scientific method transcend personality type I agree. If you believe in astrology, please explain to me the mechanism by which the positions of the planets affects what we are and what decisions we should make. I'm not going to try because it's very complex...honestly it would be very difficult for me to come up with something concice enough in one blow here without missing out on anything--there is just so much to miss out on. I personaly dont think it effects "what decisions we should make," though. are you reffering to horoscopes? That branch broke from the tree I climbed--it didn't support me. As for "what we are" well I think it's more like "the way we are." If you really want to know all the mechanisms..there is a lot of research to be done--much like my history homework right now...
@ Norton:
I don't care if someone believes in astrology as long as he or she doesn't use it to make decisions that affect anyone else. I believe any decision anyone makes effects everyone else--but I see life as a chain of events that are bound to happen...anyway that's off the topic. The last czar of Russia believed in astrology (I don't know who this is but Im going to google him after), particularly as interpreted by Rasputin (and him), and look where that got him (I wonder..but eitherway--wherever that got him I dont think it's very reasonable to use that as a good argument "Well this person believed this..this happened..so therefore.." What exactly did he believe? Astrology is a thick trunk with many branches--not everyone notices they dont all have the same purpose for climbing the tree; perhaps they just want to jump). To me, believing in astrology is the same as believing in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (or, perhaps I insult these legendary mythological figures [Perhaps you do, or perhaps Santa has put you on the "Naughty List" again.]). We live in a world of cause and effect, a world where there is a reason why things happen (yeah I believe everything happens for a reason too "a chain of events" [cause and effect]). That is, there is a mechanism behind everything Mechanism...I'm trying to think of less obvious reasons why you mentioned this What is the point of the mechanism? It has always amazed me how many people live their lives mostly in the context of these mechanisms? and behave accordingly, yet retain irrationality as an alternate "reality."So you see things as possabilities--possabilities of alternate realities--so you concider this as one but just choose not to believe it. Coming from a family where all our INFJ's have MD's and/or Ph.D.'s (or are working toward those degrees), I know that the ability to be a "feeler" is not exclusive of hard, raw rationality This made me giggle a bit. Logic and the scientific method transcend personality type I agree. If you believe in astrology, please explain to me the mechanism by which the positions of the planets affects what we are and what decisions we should make. I'm not going to try because it's very complex...honestly it would be very difficult for me to come up with something concice enough in one blow here without missing out on anything--there is just so much to miss out on. I personaly dont think it effects "what decisions we should make," though. are you reffering to horoscopes? That branch broke from the tree I climbed--it didn't support me. As for "what we are" well I think it's more like "the way we are." If you really want to know all the mechanisms..there is a lot of research to be done--much like my history homework right now...
I think the problem I have with comparing astrology to MBTI is that I actually have to answer questions about myself for MBTI. Astrology feels a bit like Voodoo to me, no offense to anyone, I just think it takes a bit away from the validity of the MBTI if it's being compared to astrology (And I don't think MBTI is even scientific, however it does use questions rather than what appears to be an arbitrary system). To me it's similar to christianity getting mixed up with science.
[MENTION=1678]Norton[/MENTION] Again..
1. Astrology does not apply the scientific method (i.e., established methods of empiricism), therefore it is not a science.
Not by the universal definition
2. Astrology is not more complex than biology (e.g., the brain, with trillions of neuronal connections), it is not more complex than Astronomy and Astrophysics, and, for that matter, many (all) other branches of science.
I never said it was--or did I? If I did i don't know what i was thinking...but just because it's not *as* complex as those things doesn't mean it's not complex.
3. If "something is based on science" it does have more credibility than something that isn't testable, and repeatedly so. When we say that something is "testable" it does not mean picking and choosing the data that support your hypothesis.
it is testable--it just hasnt been tested as much in those senses because of the "beliefs" that are attatched to them. It falls closer to the ranks of religion sometimes.
4. The reason why "so many people don't question 'science'" is because so many other people do question science. The questioners are the scientists themselves who continually do research that challenges established theory, thus strengthening it when it is supported by the data, and altering it when the data are at variance with theory. That's how progress is made and that's why science is self-correcting.
your own thoughts should be self-correcting; we don't have to be labled as "scientists."
5. Theory has multiple meanings that are too often confused, misunderstood, and falsely used as obfuscation during, particularly, arguments about beliefs. Thus, evolution is not a "theory" in the sense that it is a series of unproven hypotheses. It is a theory in the same way as electromagnetic wave theory. That is, it is a collection of related technical knowledge comprised of well understood principles that have withstood empirical challenges.
If I was able to just be "technical" and go by the definitions in the book we might be able to agree a bit more. I'm too agnostic for this.
6. It is interesting to note that astrology does not change the way science does. They were saying the exact same stuff in the 16th century and earlier. Science is continually changing because it is inherently a dynamic process. and it's intresting to note both are human-thought creations.
1. Astrology does not apply the scientific method (i.e., established methods of empiricism), therefore it is not a science.
Not by the universal definition
2. Astrology is not more complex than biology (e.g., the brain, with trillions of neuronal connections), it is not more complex than Astronomy and Astrophysics, and, for that matter, many (all) other branches of science.
I never said it was--or did I? If I did i don't know what i was thinking...but just because it's not *as* complex as those things doesn't mean it's not complex.
3. If "something is based on science" it does have more credibility than something that isn't testable, and repeatedly so. When we say that something is "testable" it does not mean picking and choosing the data that support your hypothesis.
it is testable--it just hasnt been tested as much in those senses because of the "beliefs" that are attatched to them. It falls closer to the ranks of religion sometimes.
4. The reason why "so many people don't question 'science'" is because so many other people do question science. The questioners are the scientists themselves who continually do research that challenges established theory, thus strengthening it when it is supported by the data, and altering it when the data are at variance with theory. That's how progress is made and that's why science is self-correcting.
your own thoughts should be self-correcting; we don't have to be labled as "scientists."
5. Theory has multiple meanings that are too often confused, misunderstood, and falsely used as obfuscation during, particularly, arguments about beliefs. Thus, evolution is not a "theory" in the sense that it is a series of unproven hypotheses. It is a theory in the same way as electromagnetic wave theory. That is, it is a collection of related technical knowledge comprised of well understood principles that have withstood empirical challenges.
If I was able to just be "technical" and go by the definitions in the book we might be able to agree a bit more. I'm too agnostic for this.
6. It is interesting to note that astrology does not change the way science does. They were saying the exact same stuff in the 16th century and earlier. Science is continually changing because it is inherently a dynamic process. and it's intresting to note both are human-thought creations.
isn' the question, "Am I like that?"
Do you mean you just preffer MBTI because it involves less thinking (not reffering to it's creation) when trying to figure out what your personality is supposedly like?
No I mean I actually had to answer questions based on my real life to get a result as opposed to letting stars decide for me. To me astrology seems far less reliable.
Oooh this is such an interesting thread~ I never knew a lot about astrology until I was about 13 or so (That's about the time when I found out that June 18 meant Gemini). But that's probably because my father's side of the family is riddled with atheist, university, science, professors and suches, whereas my mother is from an agnostic/atheist family while she herself is a super Christian. They're all like "Astrology is stupid" But you know, I can see the merit in exploration and intrigue. I'm sure that probably aligns with the main ethos of scientific pursuit: "keeping an open mind and seeing the possibilities".
Aaanyways! I'm a Gemini~ and so is my twin sister (I know right, coincidence?)
Anyways, I reaaally like the "atmosphere" of this thread because it's kinda positive and like poofy~ dunno. . . ~ Anyways, you guys started talking about the twins and their personality and stuffs so I thought, hey~!~ I'm a twin
But there is one thing that kinda disturbed me~ @Curiosilla ~ When you talk about astrology being a science/pseudo science. True, it's very difficult to study astrology through scientific method. That in turn makes people discredit it to some extent, but I don't think we should in turn take upon the "them and us" mentality. I really can't stand it when people take upon the victim role, we should persevere through that.
Let's not get frustrated by the people who misunderstand us, let's not throw jabs at "science" either.
.
It might make people think one suffers from ulterior emotions such as jealousy or bitterness. I believe people are worth more than petty beliefs on what ought to be and what not.
I hope I don't sound patronizing or something like that~ >.>
True, I was more just trying to get my idea across--hmm victims.. another thing to think about today..I'm not sure how to respond to that yet.
Gosh I really should focus now on my homework for a bit.
Ill be back.
I've met a few twins who were born under gemini before--I find it so ironic but in a good way--I joke sometimes "you had four babies!" =b
How do you relate to your sister? Many people have showed intrest in the twins idea--you should share your perspective on it. =)
What questions are you reffering to exactly? and why would you say it's a lot less reliable?
I actually find astrology to be more exact and individualistic when it comes to my personality. Astrology's breakdown of how we functions in different areas of life is more on point than the generalized MBI definitions for me personally. Also astrology can unveil the many layers of personality as well as the challenges one faces in developing their personality. It is not so much predictive but just an indication of how one can grow and develop and the aspects between the planets and signs gives clues to the areas that one is mostly need to work on.
The inner complexities uncovered by astrology has given me much more insight about myself than MBTI and enneagram typology. Astrological or the birth chart really reveals the individuals within a given MBTI type...as we all know not all INFJs are identical in how they deal with social situations, relationships, aggression, etc.
Astrology can give clues into extraversion/introversion, how one presents oneself versus how they really see and feel themselves within themselves and so on.
The inner complexities uncovered by astrology has given me much more insight about myself than MBTI and enneagram typology. Astrological or the birth chart really reveals the individuals within a given MBTI type...as we all know not all INFJs are identical in how they deal with social situations, relationships, aggression, etc.
Astrology can give clues into extraversion/introversion, how one presents oneself versus how they really see and feel themselves within themselves and so on.
In MBTI I or someone else has to assess my personality type based on how I feel about things and my natural preferences and behaviors, it seems a far more proactive way of self discovery than looking at a star chart. I find astrology less reliable because I don't believe in it, that's not to say that I "believe" in personality typing based on the MBTI but the correlations there actually make sense to me where as astrology feels more like religion than sociology.
Sorry if my comparing astrology to MBTI testing bothered you. I'll try to say things more clearly. MBTI tests themselves are only approximately 70% accurate, but they are a good jumping off point. I want to learn more about them, this is part of the reason I joined this forum. It's also the reason why I started studying astrology; to assess its validity in relation to myself. The deeper you delve into a particular area of study, the more you learn about it, as well as yourself. I feel that if I haven't studied something, how can I have an opinion on it? So I research the hell out of a subject before I comment or express an opinion. I personally have found out a lot about myself using many different means, astrology included. If something works for you and helps you see things more clearly after you've spent some time with it...great. If not, well that's okay, too. I feel one of the most important things to remember is don't simply accept anything based on what someone else says. Try it out for yourself first. And don't forget, many of us lie best to ourselves, so even shy peeps should look for feedback. Sorry for rambling...I'm just really into this thread!
I'm truly interested to know where you got this number. WADR, do you have a citation?