Is belief in astrology type related?

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

The way to identify cognitive function is by behavior. It doesn't work in reverse. Archetypes in this case work based on an observed precedent.

Typology doesn't truly address the cause of behaviors, it categorizes them. There is no "I act this way because I'm an INFJ" since to even know that one is an INFJ, they must first know how they act, so therefore it is rather "I'm an INFJ because I act this way"

There are certain linked correlations of behaviors which lead to categorization of cognitive functions, and propensities for whatever, but once again to know what functions one uses, they must know their behaviors first. Functions cannot be assigned before behavior.

Another issue is that in astrology, one has their sign before they are ever born, which is hypothetically describing a person who does not yet exist. That is more of a predictive archetype which is hard to rationalize any kind of basis for.

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

The way to identify cognitive function is by behavior. It doesn't work in reverse. Archetypes in this case work based on an observed precedent.

Typology doesn't truly address the cause of behaviors, it categorizes them. There is no "I act this way because I'm an INFJ" since to even know that one is an INFJ, they must first know how they act, so therefore it is rather "I'm an INFJ because I act this way"

There are certain linked correlations of behaviors which lead to categorization of cognitive functions, and propensities for whatever, but once again to know what functions one uses, they must know their behaviors first. Functions cannot be assigned before behavior.

As many people have pointed out, it's not all about behavior. It is about motivations for behavior, under which circumstances one behaves a certain way, and cognitive functioning. Not all behavior can be categorized in MBTI, so there must be something higher. Psychology is a complex thing and comes before actions. It is the causes of actions we are focusing on when looking at a type as a whole. In determining my type I don't think I've used behavior much at all; I've looked at characteristics, preferences, responses, motivations, patterns of energy expenditure, emotions, underlying beliefs, values, and how the functions interact with each other in the particular type hierarchies. Most of this is not directly observable and requires a lot of conceptual analysis and knowledge of systems. The whole system is based on categorization of a person's mental processes, which lead to associated behaviors. We all think and feel, we all think about things objectively and subjectively; explaining differences requires establishing these categories before they are applied to any individuals. We first have a system for categorizing causes of behavior based on analysis of cognitive functioning, and then based on behavior and psychological patterns we fit the individuals with the categories and use the categories to predict behaviors. I see your point, but it definitely goes both ways in both typology and astrology.

Another issue is that in astrology, one has their sign before they are ever born, which is hypothetically describing a person who does not yet exist. That is more of a predictive archetype which is hard to rationalize any kind of basis for.

This I agree with.

 

[Mole]

The False Belief of Astrology and the Science of Astronomy

Astronomy has shown astrology to be untrue, to be false. So astrology is a false belief.

I remember addressing a small group of astronomers and asked an astrology question, and they just laughed. And the astonomers laughed because astrology is laughable.

And yet hundreds of millions believe the false belief of astrology. Why, go to the back of any women's magazine, and we will discover pages of astrology but not one page of astronomy.

And still, astrology is the Ur-religion, the religion that is template for all the other religions.

So astrology is a form of psychological manipulation, a time honoured form of trance induction, followed by other religions right down to the present day, even to mbti. So mbti is simply astrology for the college educated.

 

[/DG/]

I believe in science...so no.

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

That's why I don't believe it... but I never read any study. Chinese astrology goes by year, and yet those in the same age range possess wildly different mannerisms. Why should Western astrology be the exception? I mean, the central premise - that there are correlations between man and the rest of the universe - is common sense IMO and can be recorded through scientific statistical analysis. However, the specific "connections" between the fate of individuals and the heavens, according the western astrology, are completely arbitrary and as out of focus as a telescopic lens can get, mainly because they are vague and yet individualized. It seems like an individual of any natal chart could reap more significance from reading the horoscope of every natal chart as though the process was as applicable as a particular forecast.

EDIT: I completely understand how astrology serves as a life-affirming, existential tool. But... there is far more depth to existence.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

It only appears to go both ways because if somebody is typed completely wrong, you contest it or correct it.

This is why it would be absurd to have an INTJ that has never acted like an INTJ.

Typology does not address causes at all. It categorizes observed results - period. Being an NF or whatever is not a material cause of anything. It's an arbitrary category. It's a handle. It's not like there's some kind of typology genes or typology synapses, and overall it doesn't matter because it cares how you act, not how you got that way.

Saying that one is an NF for example doesn't explain anything about how one even came to have that function or why they have it. There could be hundreds of physical ways to arrive at a similar function.


I know people believe otherwise but those people are wrong.
End of.

Edit:
Typology is like taxonomy without being able to actually see the animals, and only going by what they eat, how they sound, their footprints, etc etc. This is why there are behaviors and classes that don't fit. You might think you're following a jaguar but it could actually be a leopard - you don't really know what it actually is.

 

[violet_crown]

I don't think the presence of the belief itself is type related. I do feel that how people explain/rationalize that belief will be type-contingent, tho.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't think the presence of the belief itself is type related. I do feel that how people explain/rationalize that belief will be type-contingent, tho.

This exactly. Since all a type is for is to give a name to a set of tendencies. It's not some kind of mechanic - we have other fields to cover that.

It seems like a mechanic at times because the purpose of a descriptive type is of course to describe the aspect of the thing it relates to, but that is just the nature of description. Just like spheres are round and roll down hills, but there is no more to the 'sphereness' of the sphere other than it being itself, simply because it isn't something else (a square sphere that doesn't roll for example - it stops being a sphere) and being round is the property that allows rolling to happen, but is not the mechanic that causes the rolling.

So of course a description seems to correlate to itself. Because it does and can't do otherwise since that is the purpose of a description.

 

[Randomnity]

WHAT THE HELL, ~50% of each type believes in astrology?

I'm just going to go ahead and assume low sampling size bias + joke votes + people being drawn to vote more if they're interested. Because otherwise I fear for humanity.

 

[Riva]

WHAT THE HELL, ~50% of each type believes in astrology?

I'm just going to go ahead and assume low sampling size bias + joke votes + people being drawn to vote more if they're interested. Because otherwise I fear for humanity.

Why, do you have compelling arguments/facts to discredit the whole theory?

If not you don't necessarily have to fear for humanity.

 

[Randomnity]

Why, do you have compelling arguments/facts to discredit the whole theory?

If not you don't necessarily have to fear for humanity.

....yes. The fact that there is literally not a shred of evidence or rationale involved. That's a pretty compelling reason to not believe in something.

 

[Riva]

....yes. The fact that there is literally not a shred of evidence or rationale involved. That's a pretty compelling reason to not believe in something.

There is indeed one major rationality behind it, which is what the whole theory is based on.

 

[WALMART]

I cannot fathom how reliance on astrology actually still exists. I would have expected it to be shed of thought sooner than God, to be honest.

 

[Randomnity]

There is indeed one major rationality behind it, which is what the whole theory is based on.

Go on.

 

[Riva]

Go on.

You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize you don't know / don't know the basics and then you ask us to Go on.

I cannot fathom how reliance on astrology actually still exists. I would have expected it to be shed of thought sooner than God, to be honest.

The concept of God still survives and would for a long time to come. Make it a thousand years or make it a million, it would always be there atleast among a dozen people in a universe occupied by billions. The concept of God / belief in God will only fade away with individual experience, never by science or popular belief.

Besides the concept of God would have made a bit/lot of sense if he wasn't written to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

[WALMART]

You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize you don't know and then you ask us to Go on.



The concept of God still survives and would for a long time to come. Make it a thousand years or make it a million, it would always be there atleast among a dozen people in a universe occupied by billions. The concept of God / belief in God will only fade away with individual experience, never by science or popular belief.

Besides the concept of God would have made a bit/lot of sense if he wasn't written to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

My phrase was a little dramatic. Let me revise: sooner than polytheism.

 

[Randomnity]

You do your research, you find the basics, you prove it wrong and you come here and let it known - should be the proper way.

Not - You condemn it, you let us know that you condemned it, you realize something is missing and then you ask to Go on.

Got it, so there is no rationale after all. Just making sure.

To clarify universal debate rules for you, the onus is always on the person making a statement like "This happens" to provide evidence or at the very least, a rationale. The onus is never on the person who is skeptical to disprove ridiculous statements. This avoids the ridiculousness of things like me stating that invisible purple unicorns pull the earth around its orbit, and forcing you to build a space shuttle to disprove it. Astrology is pretty much on that level for me. Certainly less plausible than the idea of a god, and I am an atheist.

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION]

It only appears to go both ways because if somebody is typed completely wrong, you contest it or correct it.

This is why it would be absurd to have an INTJ that has never acted like an INTJ.

Typology does not address causes at all. It categorizes observed results - period. Being an NF or whatever is not a material cause of anything. It's an arbitrary category. It's a handle. It's not like there's some kind of typology genes or typology synapses, and overall it doesn't matter because it cares how you act, not how you got that way.

Saying that one is an NF for example doesn't explain anything about how one even came to have that function or why they have it. There could be hundreds of physical ways to arrive at a similar function.


I know people believe otherwise but those people are wrong.
End of.

Edit:
Typology is like taxonomy without being able to actually see the animals, and only going by what they eat, how they sound, their footprints, etc etc. This is why there are behaviors and classes that don't fit. You might think you're following a jaguar but it could actually be a leopard - you don't really know what it actually is.

I'm not suggesting typology is a cause of anything, I'm saying it describes causes. It's not just a collection of behaviors. It has a lot to do with preferences, and reasons for those preferences which go back to cognitive functioning and psychology. Like I'm an introvert not because I behave like one all the time, but because interacting with strangers all the time drains my energy and I need to have a little bit of time alone to gather my thoughts. The underlying principle is that my energy is primarily directed inward rather than outward. That's a preference based on a psychological characteristic, not a behavior. The underlying principle is explanatory, and the collection of principles comprises a type, which is also explanatory. My behavior is that I choose some activities over others in some circumstances when I am in certain moods, but categorizing me as an introvert explains why I do those things. And if it is like taxonomy as you suggest, then it does go both ways too; if the jaguar confirms that she is a jaguar, then you can infer from that that she has other jaguar characteristics. And if a behavior puzzles you, you can use what you know about jaguar biology (along with other observed behavior) to theorize why she would behave that way.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm not suggesting typology is a cause of anything, I'm saying it describes causes. It's not just a collection of behaviors. It has a lot to do with preferences, and reasons for those preferences which go back to cognitive functioning and psychology. Like I'm an introvert not because I behave like one all the time, but because interacting with strangers all the time drains my energy and I need to have a little bit of time alone to gather my thoughts.

That describes what an introvert is. You are called that because you exhibit that effect. Doing that is behaving like an introvert and is how you identify it.

The underlying principle is that my energy is primarily directed inward rather than outward. That's a preference based on a psychological characteristic, not a behavior.

Characteristic, trait, behavior, they're practically the same thing. It's based on a thing that you are doing or have a tendency to do. That's what a characteristic is - a trait, mark, behavior, etc.

The underlying principle is explanatory, and the collection of principles comprises a type, which is also explanatory. My behavior is that I choose some activities over others in some circumstances when I am in certain moods, but categorizing me as an introvert explains why I do those things.

I beg to differ. It does not explain why you do those things. It merely names you as one who does tend to do those things.

This is like saying a person is right handed because they predominantly use their right hand - it's self descriptive because they are the same thing - a right handed person is a person with right hand dominance. One is not because of the other, the one is the other.

You might infer right handedness as a trait but it doesn't arise just because the person has a right hand preference, since that preference is the same characteristic of right handedness.

And if it is like taxonomy as you suggest, then it does go both ways too; if the jaguar confirms that she is a jaguar, then you can infer from that that she has other jaguar characteristics. And if a behavior puzzles you, you can use what you know about jaguar biology (along with other observed behavior) to theorize why she would behave that way.

My point there was that you can't necessarily confirm it.

 

[greenfairy]

That describes what an introvert is. You are called that because you exhibit that effect. Doing that is behaving like an introvert and is how you identify it.


Characteristic, trait, behavior, they're practically the same thing. It's based on a thing that you are doing or have a tendency to do. That's what a characteristic is - a trait, mark, behavior, etc.


I beg to differ. It does not explain why you do those things. It merely names you as one who does tend to do those things.

This is like saying a person is right handed because they predominantly use their right hand - it's self descriptive because they are the same thing - a right handed person is a person with right hand dominance. One is not because of the other, the one is the other.

You might infer right handedness as a trait but it doesn't arise just because the person has a right hand preference, since that preference is the same characteristic of right handedness.


My point there was that you can't necessarily confirm it.

Well I don't know how to explain my opinion any more clearly, and you've explained yours well, so I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Edit: Ok, I'll have another go at it. How's this: categories and the things they describe create each other. You can't really have one without the other and have a deep understanding of things. Arguably you can create order out of chaos, but if you are only seeing chaos, you are not seeing the organizing principles behind it, and the categories are used to describe them. It's like a filing cabinet. You can either get one and label the drawers before you have anything to put in it, or you can have a huge pile of papers, put them into smaller piles, and then decide you need a filing cabinet. The drawers exist for the purpose of having papers, but they can also be used to decide where a paper goes if you are confused. And within the drawers are folders and subfolders, divided into sections. The larger and more general the category, the more explanatory power it has because it's describing an underlying more general principle. Like Ti and Te are subcategories of thinking. We use these concepts to describe certain cognitive processes which produce behavior. We all think and we all feel, we all sense and intuit, and this system of organization is true independent of specific behavior.

Maybe at this point we are debating semantics, but there is a two directional process to it.

My phrase was a little dramatic. Let me revise: sooner than polytheism.

Are you suggesting that monotheism makes more sense than polytheism? Pardon me if the answer lies earlier in the thread.