Horoscopes as a set of archetypes

[runvardh]

Taurus might be the typical businessman or member of the noblity.

*looks around*

Eh, maybe by the way I dress... A great-great-grandfather of mine lost his position due to the Russians taking over near the end of WW2. Another great-great-grandfather lost his Canadian fishing fleet when his wife divorced him and she lost it during the Japanese internment. *sigh* oh well...

 

[Saffronsocks]

yes! - i think it's easiest to see in terms of what roles each type or sign might take in a typical myth or fairy tale..





further, breaking up the 12 signs into 6 pairs of "opposite" signs, we see common fixations with different expressions...representing two sides of a coin, or a 'push-pull' scenario between character roles..



this is my own interpretation. just thought i'd share.

I like the breakdown here! (in the quotations that aren't showing up of course)
Especially the dichotomies between opposing signs, very poetic... I'll have to send this to my astro-friend right away. I also like the hero archetype for Aries, it reminds me of Fool in tarot cards (no. 0 - the pre-birth, divine madman blank slate beginning-of-journey kind of guy). I think I might start a tarot / psych thread soon...

Oh yes, and Free Will Astrology gets fresh horoscopes today.

Free Will Astrology : Horoscopes

Pisces:
A delicious forbidden fruit will be more available than usual in the coming weeks. You can choose to ignore it, of course. You can pretend it's not even there and instead concentrate on the less forbidden fruits that are tasty enough. Or, on the other hand, you can sidle up closer to the forbidden fruit and engage in some discreet explorations, testing subtly to see whether it's any healthier for your sanity than it used to be. I'm not sure what the best decision is, Pisces, but I do suggest this: Don't just rip off all your defenses, forget all your commitments, and start heedlessly taking big bites out of the forbidden fruit.

well I'll be damned. *locks away the forks*



stupid crushes.

 

[callmemigs]

Horoscopes themselves are obviously not always valid, yet they still fascinate us. I believe it's partially because they represent a set of archetypes that we use to identify ourselves and others. Consider:

Aries probably seems to represent the typical rash teenager, or old-western cowboy.

Taurus might be the typical businessman or member of the noblity.

Gemini could be the diplomat, lawyer, or socialite.

Cancer seems like a reclusive artist, or a very sensitive person with a lot of unexpressed dreams.

Leo could be a knight, or the visionary and exacting leader.

Virgo could be the dedicated, practical mother.

Libra might be an arbitrator or a philosopher.

Scorpio might be any fierce competitor.

Sagittarius could be an activist, possibly a hippie.

Capricorn might be the self-made wealthy individual.

Aquarius could be a scientist or researcher.

Pisces could be a typical melancholy dreamer.

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds natually categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

I have to say the reason you look horoscopes (or astrology to be more specific) as archetypal is because you are looking at the sun signs. Not that I 100% believe astrological theories and principles BUT astrology is more than just looking at the sun sign. Like in my case, I'm a Cancerian sun BUT I don't seem to fit your "definition" right above there. Maybe it's because the strong influence of Scorpio and Capricorn on my birth chart, plus the influences of Uranus and Jupiter. I mean, I can identify more with the Capricorn, Scorpio, Aquarius and, to a lesser extent, Sagittarian archetypes you stated. And talking about birth charts, birth charts are what determines the person's individuality in a multi-faceted form that, in some way or another, differentiates himself/herself from the rest of society alive. But still, astrology is 60% accurate. I've been accused by my birth chart (I took one a few years ago) for being too pessimistic about life and being overtly sexual and I don't agree on this things.

 

["?"]

I have to say the reason you look horoscopes (or astrology to be more specific) as archetypal is because you are looking at the sun signs. Not that I 100% believe astrological theories and principles BUT astrology is more than just looking at the sun sign. Like in my case, I'm a Cancerian sun BUT I don't seem to fit your "definition" right above there. Maybe it's because the strong influence of Scorpio and Capricorn on my birth chart, plus the influences of Uranus and Jupiter. I mean, I can identify more with the Capricorn, Scorpio and Aquarius archetypes you stated. And talking about birth charts, birth charts are what determines the person's individuality in a multi-faceted form that, in some way or another, differentiates himself/herself from the rest of society alive. But still, astrology is 60% accurate. I've been accused by my birth chart (I took one a few years ago) for being too pessimistic about life and being overtly sexual and I don't agree on this things.

I have to agree. My sun is Gemini, but earth signs dominate my chart (5), followed by fire (3), air (2) and water (1). I am anything but a typical Gemini.

 

[vanizorc]

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds natually categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

You should not compare silly things like "astrology" to psychological tests such as the MBTI. Astrology (and other related psuedosciences like numerology) is scientifically invalid, having been disproved by numerous studies. This should be common sense, as no rational person should think that something outlandish such as the "position of the planets" actually influences our being.
In contrast, psychological personality tests like the MBTI are grounded in empirical evidence (albeit self-administered). The possibility of selection-bias aside, these kinds of tests are valid not only because they have grounding in reality, but also because they have been shown time and time again to sucessfully correlate and predict other traits/behaviours as well.

 

[vanizorc]

But still, astrology is 60% accurate. I've been accused by my birth chart (I took one a few years ago) for being too pessimistic about life and being overtly sexual and I don't agree on this things.

I'm curious - which studies show that astrology is 60% accurate? Ever heard of the Barnum Effect?

 

[Jaguar]

tests like the MBTI [...] have been shown time and time again to sucessfully correlate and predict other traits/behaviours as well.

"The MBTI instrument sorts for preferences and does not measure trait, ability, or character."

Source: Myers-Briggs.org

Abstract
Journal of Personality Assessment
1993, Vol. 60, No. 2, Pages 290-301

Bipolarity in Jungian Type Theory and the Myers--Briggs Type Indicator
Steven A. Girelli, *Jayne E. Stake*



The standard form of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaultey, 1985) was constructed to measure introversion/extroversion, sensing/ intuiting, and thinking/feeling as single, bipolar dimensions. We tested this assumption of bipolarity with a Likert form of the MBTI that allowed for the independent assessment of each attitude and function. A total of 106 female and 59 male undergraduate and graduate students completed the standard and Likert MBTI forms approximately 3 weeks apart. Evidence for the bipolarity of the introversion/extroversion dimension was weak, and findings did not support the bipolarity of the sensing/intuiting or thinking/feeling dimensions. Results provide evidence that high negative correlations within MBTI dimensions are an artifact of its forced-choice format.


Is the Myers Briggs system reliable?

This is an extended quotation from the Gale Encyclopaedia of Psychology,

"With any psychological test, its use is dependent on its reliability and validity. A reliable test is one that produces consistent results over time. For example, IQ tests have high reliability, inasmuch as your IQ as measured today will not be appreciably different a year from now. The MBTI's reliability is only fair. One study showed that fewer than half of the respondents retained their initial types over a 5-week period. Consequently, we should be careful about making career decisions based on a classification system that is unstable. People change over time as a result of experience. The MBTI may capture a person's current state, but that state should probably not be treated as a fixed typology. Does the MBTI assist in career counselling? Is the test diagnostic of successful performance in particular occupations? These questions pertain to validity-the ability of the test to predict future performance. There have been no long-term studies showing that successful or unsuccessful careers can be predicted from MBTI profiles. Nor is there any evidence that on-the-job performance is related to MBTI scores. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the MBTI's popularity and its proven scientific worth. From the point of view of the test-taker, the MBTI provides positive feedback in the form of unique attributes that are both vague and complimentary, and thus could appeal to large numbers of people. It is possible that the MBTI could be useful as a vehicle for guiding discussions about work-related problems, but its utility for career counselling has not been established."

Personality testing and, MBTI in particular, is here found to be of "only fair" reliability and its use, even in career counselling, doubtful.



Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality.
McCrae RR, Costa PT.
Gerontology Research Center, National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD 21224.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five-factor model of personality as measured by self-reports and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985b). Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93. Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework.

The National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from over 20 MBTI research studies and concluded that only the Intraversion-Extroversion scale has adequate construct validity. That is high correlations with comparable scales of other tests and low correlations with tests designed to assess different concepts. In contrast, the S-N and T-F scales show relatively weak validity. No mention was made in this review about the J-P scale.

Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs, the very thing that it is most often used for.

Thoughts on Myers-Briggs:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=897176#post897176