Is belief in astrology type related?

[syndatha]

Just a spin off from the astrology thread, and because I'm too lazy to analyse 50+ pages:
Is belief in astrology type related? Please answer the poll

 

[syndatha]

Oh - and feel free to reply too of course, whether you think it's type related or not. I think NFs are the ones most prone to believe in astrology.

 

[KDude]

Actually, I was curious if Ni types might be fascinated with it more than others. There are NTJ posters who come to mind who talk about it, for example.

I think it's worth entertaining, but I don't make much of it myself. The "portraits" for my reading (Cancer sun/Scorpio moon/Virgo rising) are kind of neat, but I barely glance at predictions.

 

[InvisibleJim]

This poll requires more selectivity because I feel that NTP posters are less likely to entertain the idea of astrology than NTJs.

 

[Vorm Krieg]

I think Ni might be more drawn to it - archetypes, symbolism, mysticism - than other types. But I think belief and practice of it involves much more than that.

 

[Athenian200]

I don't believe in Astrology, but I still find myself fascinated by it enough to study it and look for patterns in it. Sometimes, I've even used a person's belief in astrology to help them recognize something about themselves more clearly, when they believe in astrology but not psychology. There are almost always a few clear patterns in an astrological reading that explain an important aspect of a person's character when interpreted correctly.

 

[skylights]

I don't believe in Astrology, but I still find myself fascinated by it enough to study it and look for patterns in it.

as with any system, astrology is imperfect. i would not call myself a "believer" in it because i would not place my trust in it to determine a behavioral path. i would much prefer to know someone's mbti type or even enneagram, since those are self-reporting.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I see patterns with astrology too, but it really seem to me that thay are accurate in real life. So, I'd say that I'm a believer. Probably an interest related to my tertiary Ni. What is your sign Skylights?

 

[Santosha]

I am a Virgo/Libra with AQR moon, Leo Rising, most of my planets are in the 2nd house, I have scorpio on mars, leo on venus, and I've read my whole birth chart over and over and felt it totally described me. I also grew up with a ex hippy mom that regularly read tarot cards and tea leaves to the neighbor ladies.

I DO NOT believe in astrolgoy any longer. AT ALL. I went 15 yrs of studying it like crazy, doing others birth charts, and had ALOT of crazy Random coincidences occur. I will tell you what changed my mind. An astrologer did a 30 yr study on it. He took over 200 babys all born on the same day, at the same time, in the same area. All babys had the EXACT same birth chart, right down to the rising. He followed the babies on and off for 30 yrs. He analyzed growth, personality, appearance, intelligence, hobbies, etc.. he checked in with the babys and parents twice a year for 30 yrs. At the end of the study he found less than a 3% consistency in charactoristics. They all had very different personalities, life experiences, hobbies, intelligence, totally random. This was a guy who had followed astrology his whole life, he had written books, and he came out and admitted that his study revealed no connection at all. I can't remember his name or the name of the study because as soon as I realized what a bunch of crap it was I vowed to not waste another minute looking into it.

 

[INTP]

Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally defined outcomes.[7][58] Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance. For example, when testing for cognitive, behavioral, physical and other variables, one study of 2000 astrological "time twins" born within minutes of each other did not show a celestial influence on human characteristics.[59] It has been suggested that other statistical research is often wrongly seen as evidence for astrology due to uncontrolled artifacts.[60]

Experimental psychologists have suggested that several different psychological phenomena can contribute to perception of astrological accuracy. One, related to confirmation bias, is that people who are given a set of multiple predictions tend to remember more of the accurate predictions ("hits") than the inaccurate ones ("misses"). Consequently, people tend to recall the set of predictions as being more accurate than it actually was. When astrological predictions turn out to correspond with some phenomena but not with others, the recalled integrity of these predictions may stem in part from this phenomenon. A second, called the Forer effect, is that individuals tend to give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that are presented to them as tailored specifically for them, but which are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. When predictions use vague language, the appearance that they are specific to the individual may be partially attributable to the Forer effect.

The French psychologist and statistician who devoted his life to the attempt to demonstrate the validity of certain fundamentals of astrology, Michel Gauquelin, wrote that he had found correlations between some planetary positions and certain human traits such as vocations.[61] Gauquelin's most widely known concept is the Mars effect, which denotes a correlation between the planet Mars occupying certain positions in the sky more often at the birth of eminent sports champions than at the birth of ordinary people. A similar idea is explored by Richard Tarnas in his work Cosmos and Psyche, in which he examines correspondences between planetary alignments and historically significant events and individuals. Since its original publication in 1955, the Mars effect has been the subject of critical studies and skeptical publications which aim to refute it,[62][63][64] and of studies in fringe journals used to support or expand the original ideas.[65][66] Gauquelin's research has not received mainstream scientific notice.

 

[burymecloser]

I DO NOT believe in astrolgoy any longer. AT ALL. I went 15 yrs of studying it like crazy, doing others birth charts, and had ALOT of crazy Random coincidences occur. I will tell you what changed my mind. An astrologer did a 30 yr study on it. He took over 200 babies all born on the same day, at the same time, in the same area. All babies had the EXACT same birth chart, right down to the rising. He followed the babies on and off for 30 yrs. He analyzed growth, personality, appearance, intelligence, hobbies, etc.. he checked in with the babies and parents twice a year for 30 yrs. At the end of the study he found less than a 3% consistency in charactoristics. They all had very different personalities, life experiences, hobbies, intelligence, totally random. This was a guy who had followed astrology his whole life, he had written books, and he came out and admitted that his study revealed no connection at all.

Thanks for posting -- that's really interesting. Do you have a link to the study, or name of a book or whatever?

 

[IZthe411]

We believe in typology......why not?

 

[Stanton Moore]

Belief in astrology is genetic.

 

[Santosha]

Thanks for posting -- that's really interesting. Do you have a link to the study, or name of a book or whatever?

You know, I cant remember the guys name. I gave up on it about 5 yrs ago. I will think on this and see if I can pull some stuff up online.

 

[INTP]

We believe in typology......why not?

psychology is different from religion like pseudoscience

 

[RaptorWizard]

I voted NF - believes in astrology but then realized WTF I thought I was talking about NFs having bogus beleifs in astrology NOT ACTUALLY SAYING I AM ONE WHICH OF COURSE I AM NOT!

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think Ni might be more drawn to it - archetypes, symbolism, mysticism - than other types. But I think belief and practice of it involves much more than that.

I can definitely see the logic of this assumption. For myself personally, I am 100% turned off by it. It may be because I've already been hoodwinked once into believing crazy stuff when growing up, so i may be a bit more rationalistic and Ti oriented than many Ni people.

I think it appeals to people who trust established systems, desire to have resolution and conclusion about subjective, intangible aspects of reality. There is also a strong social bonding that happens in astrology environments. I am surrounded by hippie artists who assume belief in astrology when chatting. It is almost like sports or the weather. I find it alienating and disappointing because I am a bit repulsed by the arbitrary nature of it. I see irrational belief as a potential threat to survival, well being, and good choices.

 

[greenfairy]

psychology is different from religion like pseudoscience

Not much. It works the same way. There is actually a lot of psychology involved in the serious practice of astrology, and it's used a lot for psychological development. As I am so fond of saying, I believe astrology has more validity than typology. It's been around for thousands of years, it's impossible to be "mistyped" if you have an accurate birth time, and it's more tailored to individuals.

It seems to me to be accurate, and for me it is absolutely accurate- I've read things about me in enough detail and enough times to know whether I was ignoring things which didn't apply- but it could be true that it's more accurate for some people than others. I think it's probably at least mostly true for a lot of people, but the way I look at it is that it doesn't really matter whether it's objectively true or not as long as people can use it for positive purposes. If it works as a tool, it has some amount of truth. As to whether it is objectively true or not, I couldn't say. I am a skeptic and always acknowledge that we can't be sure of much of anything, so I concede that it might not be. I've actually tried a couple of times to not believe it, but I find that the archetypes and categories are so ingrained in my mind there's probably no getting them out. So I might as well use them well and as rationally as possible.

Me: Virgo/Libra sun, Aries/Taurus rising, Leo/Cancer moon, and a bunch of emphasis on Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius in the rest of the chart.

 

[sprinkles]

Not much. It works the same way. There is actually a lot of psychology involved in the serious practice of astrology, and it's used a lot for psychological development. As I am so fond of saying, I believe astrology has more validity than typology. It's been around for thousands of years, it's impossible to be "mistyped" if you have an accurate birth time, and it's more tailored to individuals.

It seems to me to be accurate, and for me it is absolutely accurate- I've read things about me in enough detail and enough times to know whether I was ignoring things which didn't apply- but it could be true that it's more accurate for some people than others. I think it's probably at least mostly true for a lot of people, but the way I look at it is that it doesn't really matter whether it's objectively true or not as long as people can use it for positive purposes. If it works as a tool, it has some amount of truth. As to whether it is objectively true or not, I couldn't say. I am a skeptic and always acknowledge that we can't be sure of much of anything, so I concede that it might not be. I've actually tried a couple of times to not believe it, but I find that the archetypes and categories are so ingrained in my mind there's probably no getting them out. So I might as well use them well and as rationally as possible.

Me: Virgo/Libra sun, Aries/Taurus rising, Leo/Cancer moon, and a bunch of emphasis on Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius in the rest of the chart.

Typology assigns a category based on traits that one exhibits. Astrology assigns traits based on one's category. They are inverse of each other.

Example:
Being born in '76, I'm classed as a dragon, and based on that I can look up the described behaviors.
Typology goes the opposite way. Rather than putting me in a category first and then describing my behaviors based on it, I take a test which examines my behaviors and then assigns a category. A descriptive category based on what I actually exhibit.

Or in other words, typology is based on how you are. In astrology, how you are is based on something else.

 

[greenfairy]

Typology assigns a category based on traits that one exhibits. Astrology assigns traits based on one's category. They are inverse of each other.

Example:
Being born in '76, I'm classed as a dragon, and based on that I can look up the described behaviors.
Typology goes the opposite way. Rather than putting me in a category first and then describing my behaviors based on it, I take a test which examines my behaviors and then assigns a category. A descriptive category based on what I actually exhibit.

Or in other words, typology is based on how you are. In astrology, how you are is based on something else.

Good point, but not completely- I've seen typology used the other way. It's based on archetypes to some extent, and people infer from cognitive functions which behaviors are associated. The categories and behaviors kind of choose each other. In applying typology, it goes both ways; people think about the types as a whole, then the functions involved, and then use that knowledge to apply it to other things that might "fit" like music or exercise. Take this thread for instance- in order to guess which types or temperaments might be more interested in astrology, you have to go from category/archetype to behavior. Yes you can sort of go the other way around, survey people and study results, but in order to explain why anything is the case you have to use the same method as astrology.

I think astrology had to work both ways when it was being created; people had to look at characteristics and behaviors and put them into categories in order to assign them to signs and planets. The signs don't just automatically have them. For instance most Virgos are nitpicky and detailed- it's represented in the archetype, but it could also have been the case that the people recognized this tendency in people and chose Virgo because it was the best fit. And in applying astrology and making it smarter, you go both ways; you study people of the same sign and people with the same planetary placements and see if they have behaviors in common; then if it's true of enough people, and enough people notice the pattern, it becomes an agreed upon characteristic of that sign or placement.