User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe in astrology?

Voters
182. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    33 18.13%
  • No

    142 78.02%
  • I have no idea what it is? So I'm not sure.

    7 3.85%
First 14222324252634 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 648

  1. #231
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I feel like I just took a giant dump.

    Feels good, don't it?

    In my experience, qualitative measures are that of opinion, while quantitative measures are that of fact.

    For instance, "Jung sexually abused his patients" is a statement that can be objectively verified, thus it is considered to be "fact". This is why it would be wise to present evidence for such a statement.

    On the other hand, "Jung was intelligent" is a statement that is both qualitative and subject to interpretation - so it is considered an opinion. From a layman, Jung would probably seem exceedingly intelligent. However, compared to Einstein, he may not have been intelligent. In a biological context, every poster on this forum is intelligent because we are all sentient.

    So this is why it is exceedingly difficult to measure quality.

    Also - concerning the physicality of the universe - I recognize that there tends to be a symptom of nihilism that drifts along the back of such a worldview, like a parasitic remora tagging along with a whale. This is brought to light especially in regard to free will; for when we adhere to a purely physical state of existence, we deny any breed of metaphysical free will, and our choices are suddenly solely contingent upon neurons in our brains and external stimuli. The seat of consciousness becomes purely physical.

    Not only that, but we deny any metaphysical quality of humanity. However, I think that society runs much more smoothly when we add some level of subjective free will. When we dispense some sort of divine nature to ourselves and each other, we give more of a reason to be compassionate, and less of a reason to measure the quantitative worth of a human.

    We do not always make our decisions with objective reality in mind... and with good reason.

  2. #232
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    What do you even mean they "do the same thing".
    What I mean is that you can use them in the same way as methods of categorizing kinds of personalities, that's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The only arbitrary thing I've seen amongst any of the topics of discussion in this thread has been your equation of astrology and MBTI.

    Just because there are 12 sun signs and 16 MBTI types and the two pertain in their own ways to personality does not mean that the two methods are at all similar.

    You are trying to force the two into a narrow box, and, by doing so, you're making me about as frustrated with your all-too-often simplistic, narrow-minded thinking as Jaguar always seems to be.

    THAT is what's arbitrary, Sim: your equating of the two.
    This seems like a communication error. Maybe I'm not explaining this well.

    What I meant was that you can look at the different sun signs as labels for personality categories in the same way you can use MBTI types to categorize people. I didn't mean the systems were derived the same way or had the same developmental history or any of that. (There are obviously personality traits associated with each sun sign, or the girls in your story would not have been able to tell you were a Libra by interacting with you.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The reason I brought up the fact that the developmental history AND methodology (you didn't even acknowledge the second of these two in your response) of astrology differ greatly from those of MBTI is that this difference is SIGNIFICANT (i.e., to arbitrarily equate the two -- as you did -- is a grievous error of reasoning, and will only serve to produce a fucked-up end result).

    Hence, when you say something idiotic like...



    ... I can only and laugh, because what's obvious is that it's your narrow-minded, simplistic attempt to equate two VERY DIFFERENT things that is the fail here.

    Thus, Sim, it is actually your Ti fail, here.

    Your Ti is trying to cram a triangle and a circle into a triangle-shaped box.

    And it is my Ni that is noticing it.
    I'm not making any commentary on the developmental history or methodology; I'm just describing the only way I could imagine that we could make any real use of astrology.

    Where did I say I thought the creators of each system thought they should be used in the same way?

    I didn't--I just think astrology is useless in the way it was intended, so the only way I see that it might be somehow useful is to use its categories in a way similar to Jungian typology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Because what you failed to understand is that I was trying to show that, based on your (lack of) knowledge of astrology, you weren't realizing that astrology and MBTI are, in fact, too differently shaped to be properly crammed into the same-shaped box.

    Obviously, you didn't get this; hence, your question.

    I will further elucidate this point below:
    I don't really care if astrology was designed to work differently from typology in theory--because in practice, it doesn't. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by granting it usefulness in terms of applying it like a typological personality categorization system (even if its creators didn't design it to work that way.)

    You get it yet? I'm saying we can squeeze some value out of it if we treat it like a typology system, regardless of whether it was designed to work that way.

    Outside this one use, which its creators did not even intend, its only value is in personal entertainment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The issue is that you don't actually understand the system, so you don't know why this isn't really the case.

    If you understood the astrological system better, you would see why this argument fails.

    For example:





    No, it doesn't.

    Your point is whatever you want it to be, and this doesn't change it.

    It does, however, change the efficacy of your point.

    See, not having any real working knowledge of the astrological system, you (and your point, for that matter) are working under the assumption that the 12 sun signs are comparable to the 16 MBTI types.

    The problem is: they're not.
    Then how is it that the clothing store girls were able to observe your personality and label it "Libra"? Doesn't this imply that Libras all tend to share certain personality traits?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    As I said multiple times earlier in the thread, the sun sign is basically like 1% of a full astrological natal chart.

    If you wanted to be extremely forgiving, you might be willing to offer that it represents approximately 10% of the content of a full astrological profile.

    So, while it might not make a difference to your point, it does render your point useless.

    That's the part that I clearly see that you clearly don't.
    Here's the one and only thing I need to know about astrology:

    Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.
    I don't need to read a book on alchemy to know that it doesn't work. I've read the basic premises of astrology and I understand that the scientific community considers it pseudoscience, so until somebody shows some reason that it has any real use, I'm going to ignore it. I don't really give a shit about the finer details.

    I'm not "overemphasizing the sun sign" because:

    A) There are obviously personality characteristics associated with each sun sign, or those girls wouldn't have been able to peg you for a Libra based on your behavior, and

    B) Every other piece of the natal chart is based on the same premise as the sun sign: That locations of celestial bodies at the time of birth can impact personality. Whether this is based on one celestial body or ten million celestial bodies doesn't matter, because it's an erroneous premise from the start.

    If I happen to be missing out on some extraordinary, fantastic ancient wisdom that could totally revolutionize my life, then I guess I'll just have to take that risk.

    I think the point that you are missing is: Regardless of how many pieces a natal chart consists of, they're all still based on the same central flawed theme--that the positions of celestial bodies at birth have some direct impact on personality.

    For that matter, why does astrology use the star chart as the celestial bodies exist at the time of birth, rather than at the time of conception?

    Does the mother's biological tissue somehow block out astrological influence until the time of birth? That's interesting, because the biological tissue in the human head doesn't seem to block out astrological influence to the brain.

    Not to mention, how would we account for the influence of celestial bodies that we haven't discovered yet? Is astrological influence limited by distance? Surely even a full natal chart includes but a tiny, tiny fraction of the celestial bodies in the universe--how can we hope to have anything remotely resembling a complete picture of the nature of all celestial bodies in the universe at the time of birth? Why are only the currently known bodies relevant?

    In fact, more celestial bodies are discovered all the time. Does that mean all natal charts done before we discovered the ones we know about now are actually inaccurate, because they failed to account for the influence of celestial bodies that hadn't yet been discovered? How is this explained?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Which brings us back to a point that I want to reemphasize quickly:



    No, Sim.

    The horrible reasoning is coming from your lack of any substantive knowledge of astrology, which causes you to fail to realize that your attempt to compare and equate astrology and MBTI is completely devoid of any truth, relevance and/or value.

    This is a discussion for another day, but I really can't stand your consistent use of the word "arbitrary" in this way.

    Your use of the word "arbitrary" is too arbitrary.
    I'm well aware that MBTI and astrology are designed in totally different ways.

    I was trying to throw astrology a bone by suggesting that we use it in a way different from what its creators intended--as a typological system of personality categories:

    We could take the character traits associated with each sun sign--and again, there obviously are traits associated with each sign or you would not be identifiable as a Libra by your behavior (which creates an obvious parallel to typology)--and use them as labels for categorizing personalities. I could see some measure of value in this, which would be similar to the value of typology.

    If you're not willing to consider using astrology in any way other than the way it's intended, though, it's good for entertainment purposes and nothing more.

    I mean, seriously, you said you've discounted it having any predictive power, but if any of the data offered anywhere on the entire natal chart actually shows a real correlation with your birth information, that would constitute predictive power, of which you've already conceded it has none. What exactly is the use here beyond personal entertainment?


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    There are no such things as "personality types" in astrology. Every chart is unique. There are no "types".

    Most people know only their sun sign, which, as I've said before, is just a small facet of astrology.

    To equate one's sun sign to a "personality type" is highly problematic and erroneous.
    That's interesting--how is it that those girls were able to tell from your behavior that you were a Libra, then? This seems to imply that there are characteristics which Libras tend to share--in fact, the girls themselves said, "Libras always have highly refined aesthetic taste", or whatever it was.

    Doesn't this imply that, even though each chart has unique characteristics, there are trends which create behavioral commonalities between people with the same sun sign? How else would they know you're a Libra from watching you?

    In fact, if every chart were completely unique and no trends could be observed across different people's charts, such recognition would absolutely impossible.

    I just googled for "Libra characteristics" and found thousands of pages listing supposed characteristics shared by Libras...for instance:

    Libra characteristics deem them often good looking and Librans are among the most civilized of all the zodiac. They exhibit good taste, charm and elegance. They are naturally kind, gentle and love the pleasures which harmony and beauty can bring.

    Librans have a strong critical mind and can easily play devil’s advocate by standing back and look at matters impartially. Once they have reached a conclusion though, they don’t suffer arguments of others very well and this manifests itself in impatience with criticism and a greed for approval. With that said, they are more often than not well balanced and even tempered types.

    Sensitive to the needs of others, Librans have an innate understanding of the emotions and can head off sadness in their companions with their own optimism. As highly social humans, they loathe any form of cruelty, vulgarity and conflict.

    You’ll find your Libra to be artistic more than intellectual yet often too balanced to be avant garde in the arts. Their perception, observation and critical ability gives their work integrity as is indicative by the works of Paul Simon or John Lennon.
    Can somebody say, "confirmation bias"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    One who actually knows the astrological system would know this.

    Did you know that there are potentially hundreds of supposedly meaningful data points in a full natal chart?
    Did you know that they're all based on the same flawed premise?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And that the meaning of one data point can contradict the meaning of another?

    And that this is all looked at as well and fine according to astrology (and common sense), because people often have competing and contradictory dimensions to their own personalities?

    So, in light of the above, how easy (let alone possible) do you think it would be to isolate for all these different aspects of a full natal chart in order to scientifically verify or falsify astrology?

    Hint: if you're thinking "it would be easy", stop for a second, breathe, remind yourself that you don't really know jack shit about astrology, and repeat.

    Then go read a book about astrology.

    So let me get this straight--astrological charts rest on so many conflicting data points that you have enough information of a wide enough variety to read whatever you want into it. If you look hard enough, you'll always find something that sounds like you.

    You've established here that astrological charts are designed to be so complex, dense, varied and even contradictory as to be nearly unfalsifiable, and that they offer such a large volume of conflicting information that almost anyone can find something that sounds right somewhere in the chart?

    And we have no credible reason to believe the positions of celestial bodies influence personality or other worldly events in the first place?

    And you wonder why the scientific community considers this pseudoscience that's popular due to confirmation bias?

    As I said, I see one way this is useful, aside from treating it like typology--personal entertainment. I'm sure you can derive hours of fun from sitting around reading about your astrological chart and all the different personality traits it supposedly implies and trying to think of creative ways to apply them to yourself. Really, I'm sure that's a blast, but I'm really not interested in investing the time into learning the intricacies of how it's done--I guess I'll just have to miss out on this particular well of ancient wisdom.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #233
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    The horrible reasoning is coming from your lack of any substantive knowledge of astrology, which causes you to fail to realize that your attempt to compare and equate astrology and MBTI is completely devoid of any truth, relevance and/or value.
    Correct.

  4. #234
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I think the funny part here is how Jag is withholding his real opinion on astrology in favor of helping Z rip on me.

    I guess that's more of his vaunted "integrity."


    And Z, I love you man, but note that I'm the only NT even bothering to humor you here. Jag is hanging around to look for more opportunities to stick it to me--he's not even addressing his own opinions on the topic of astrology. Every other NT who's entered the thread has given up on you by now because it's widely known that astrology is just an ancient superstition that's good for entertainment value and nothing more.

    Go and reread Trinity's post here. You even agreed it was an outstanding post, and it succinctly outlines the problems with your arguments.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #235
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I think the funny part here is how Jag is withholding his real opinion on astrology in favor of helping Z rip on me.
    I was just about to give up on Z, until he gave the correct answer.
    He finally gave it.

    Your arguments in this thread are inane drivel.

  6. #236
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    I was just about to give up on Z, until he gave the correct answer.
    He finally gave it.

    Your arguments in this thread are inane drivel.
    You are lying because you value criticizing me above expressing your real opinion. If anyone is going after me, you'd rather get behind him than admit to disagreeing with his premise.

    We both know you don't buy this astrology crap.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #237
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    You are lying because you value criticizing me above expressing your real opinion.
    If it makes you feel better to think so, rather than deal with your own incompetence, knock yourself out.
    I'll say it one more time - your arguments in this thread are inane drivel.
    The more you post, the more it shows.

  8. #238
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    If it makes you feel better to think so, rather than deal with your own incompetence, knock yourself out.
    I'll say it one more time - your arguments in this thread are inane drivel.
    The more you post, the more it shows.
    I'd be surprised if you even read my posts.

    It's hysterical that you'll actually implicitly support astrology just to avoid taking my side. Honestly...this is coming from Mr. Te himself? Every position you normally take is founded on requiring quantitative, empirical evidence to consider anything worthwhile and now you're supporting astrology?

    I may be just a dumb NTP, but even I'm not dumb enough to buy that.



    By the way, Z, here's another study of 2,000 "astral twins" born within minutes of each other--no significant personality similarities:

    Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?

    A large-scale test of persons born less than five minutes apart found no hint of
    the similarities predicted by astrology. Meta-analysis of more than forty controlled
    studies suggests that astrologers are unable to perform significantly
    better than chance even on the more basic tasks such as predicting extraversion.
    More specifically, astrologers who claim to use psychic ability perform no better
    than those who do not. The possibility that astrology might be relevant to consciousness
    and psi is not denied, but such influences, if they exist in astrology,
    would seem to be very weak or very rare.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #239
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd be surprised if you even read my posts.

    It's hysterical that you'll actually implicitly support astrology just to avoid taking my side. Honestly...this is coming from Mr. Te himself? Every position you normally take is founded on requiring quantitative, empirical evidence to consider anything worthwhile and now you're supporting astrology?

    I may be just a dumb NTP, but even I'm not dumb enough to buy that.
    This may be hard for you to understand, but this isn't personal.

    Quite some time ago, there was a thread like this over at INTJf.
    The same lame arguments were being tossed around until one INTJ spoke up. One.
    You know what his answer was? The correct one.
    It was like Z's but just worded differently.

    It doesn't matter if it's Astrology, Psychology, or Endocrinology.
    The answer is still the same - you can't pronounce something is bullshit when you aren't well-educated on the subject.

    What's next from you - thinking you're qualified to make an argument about the implications of TSH ranges in diagnosing hypothyroidism?

    Get educated before making an argument on ANY subject. It's that simple.
    Then when you post, you won't look like an idiot.

    You and Kalach should get together.
    Both of you make posts in this forum that are drenched in ignorance, but you actually think you know what you're talking about.

    Big hat. No cattle.

  10. #240
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Get educated before making an argument on ANY subject. It's that simple
    Yeah good call, even though this wasn't directed at me, I feel dumb now. I don't know shit about Astrology, so I should just shut up until I do. Zarathustra is right.

Similar Threads

  1. Height/How tall are you?
    By niffer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 360
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 02:44 PM
  2. What are you wearing right now?
    By Sartorial in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 04-29-2016, 02:28 PM
  3. Followers of Astrology: Why are you a believer?
    By iwakar in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-18-2011, 02:17 AM
  4. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  5. Happiness, Children, and Are you that one girl?
    By Wolf in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 03:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO