User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 105

  1. #11
    Kickin' Ass since 1984 GargoylesLegacy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    esTp
    Posts
    1,400

    Default

    That's even worse!
    Man why do people take Astrology THAT seriously? Seriously, you guys? o.o

    Look, Astrology is like everything else. Humans have studied people, they noticed some patterns among the same zodiac signs and then they made a chart for it. Nothing else happened with MBTI, right? So why do you guys get so upset about this?
    Personally, I don't get it. I mean, you guys shouldn't mistake Astrology with Esoteric or random Mumbo-Jumbo.

    If I look at my personal birth-chart up there, it is freaking exact, cept for the stuff I changed on purpose about myself. I see no difference whatsoever to MBTI. What is this about? Only because MBTI was made by a psychologist or what? Cool down? *gives everybody a chill-pill*
    Rule #1: Driver picks the music. Shotgun shuts his cakehole.

    Again, Demons I get, but people are just crazy.

    ESTP? o.O

  2. #12
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GargoylesLegacy View Post
    Man why do people take Astrology THAT seriously? Seriously, you guys? o.o

    Look, Astrology is like everything else. Humans have studied people, they noticed some patterns among the same zodiac signs and then they made a chart for it. Nothing else happened with MBTI, right? So why do you guys get so upset about this?
    Personally, I don't get it. I mean, you guys shouldn't mistake Astrology with Esoteric or random Mumbo-Jumbo.

    If I look at my personal birth-chart up there, it is freaking exact, cept for the stuff I changed on purpose about myself. I see no difference whatsoever to MBTI. What is this about? Only because MBTI was made by a psychologist or what? Cool down? *gives everybody a chill-pill*
    But it is mumbo jumbo! That's why I don't understand why people swear by it. It's the same as people who think crystal filtered/ uv irridated/oxygenated water makes you healthier. :steam:

  3. #13
    Senior Member penelope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    249

    Default

    I like how when Pluto was no longer a planet, and astrologists still maintain that it has some importance.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Nightning, what do you actually know about astrology that brings you to the conclusion that it's mumbo-jumbo?

    Penelope, whether Pluto is regarded as a planet by astronomers or not has no bearing on its uses in astrology. Something doesn't have to be a planet or not be a planet to be useful or have meaning in chart. Astrologers look at some asteroids, for example.

  5. #15
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Nightning, what do you actually know about astrology that brings you to the conclusion that it's mumbo-jumbo?

    Penelope, whether Pluto is regarded as a planet by astronomers or not has no bearing on its uses in astrology. Something doesn't have to be a planet or not be a planet to be useful or have meaning in chart. Astrologers look at some asteroids, for example.
    Hmmmm
    Astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology

  6. #16
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Astrology is silly. As long as you keep this in mind, I could see it being somewhat fun.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Those articles prove the authors don't get it, and that's about all.

    What's funny to me is astrologers also say MBTI is mumbo-jumbo, because how could you possibly describe all the ways that people are using only four letters. See? Obvious they have not actually read anything, they don't know about all the functions, they have not experimented themselves. If you know your stuff, you can guess other people's types with decent enough accuracy to prove that there's something to it. People who have studied astrology can do similar things.

    I want to say that it's also just trite to put astrology down as a way to demonstrate intellectual superiority. I suppose it depends on your audience, but all astrologers get out of that is that you don't know what you're talking about or you don't get it, so it's not persuasive. If you were not looking to persuade, then the other purpose would be to put the study of astrology down or insinuate something not flattering about astrologers' intelligence, maybe, and ... why? People have found value in astrology for centuries. Just because it doesn't speak to you doesn't mean it can't speak to anyone.

    ok end rant but I just get so tired of reading that stuff right off the bat, it's so discouraging.

    Evan, I could go with "silly" -- do you know what time you were born? We could play around with your chart and see what comes up...

  8. #18
    Revelation Lauren Ashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    3,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    That's even worse! What forces may these "heavenly bodies" have that can affect our personality and behavior? Gravitational attractions? *shakes head* It's forer's effect.
    It's not that the planets affect our behavior. That is what people who have not researched astrology think. Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity -- the positions of the bodies reflect the qualities of a moment in time, as does anything born at that time. The positions are simply used to show what happened at that point in time; it's not causal.

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning
    That previous thread should have stayed dead. If it's allowed to be resurrected, why not disagreement with the notion of astrology? Unless you see the need of starting a new thread for that. Which I don't...
    You can disagree with the notion of astrology. I just personally would not feel comfortable taking a position on something that I really know nothing about. I would want to know what exactly I am trying to challenge. So in case others would like to know more in order to form an opinion on it, instead of automatically saying "Astrology is bunk," from the little and inaccurate information they know, I'll be glad to share all I can. After all, many people who seriously study astrology began with the goal of disproving it, including myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    What's funny to me is astrologers also say MBTI is mumbo-jumbo, because how could you possibly describe all the ways that people are using only four letters.
    Most astrologers I know are interested in learning MBTI, if they haven't already learned about it. Even if they have no interest in learning, they at least keep an open mind. Astrologers, it seems, are not likely to dismiss things right off the bat seeing as that is what many people do when it comes to astrology. I was actually introduced to MBTI by two astrologers (ENTP and INTP, fwiw). Jung did arrive at the idea of the temperament models and personality types from astrological archetypes. So dismissing one and not the other doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, even if I can understand in theory why people do.

  9. #19
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Those articles prove the authors don't get it, and that's about all.

    What's funny to me is astrologers also say MBTI is mumbo-jumbo, because how could you possibly describe all the ways that people are using only four letters. See? Obvious they have not actually read anything, they don't know about all the functions, they have not experimented themselves. If you know your stuff, you can guess other people's types with decent enough accuracy to prove that there's something to it. People who have studied astrology can do similar things.
    Let me explain why the two are different. MBTI is a model for describing behavior. It's a category scheme. Because your personality is such, you are a certain type. Not like astrology saying because you're born a specific type, your personality MUST BE this.

    I'm okay with categorical descriptions, because that's how our minds work. We like to think of things as belonging to groups. But categorizing is not the same as causal relationships. If you're saying A causes B, which is what astrology is claiming. Then you must provide proof for the claim. There is no proof. That's why it's termed "pseudoscience"... the polite word for mumbo jumbo.

    I want to say that it's also just trite to put astrology down as a way to demonstrate intellectual superiority. I suppose it depends on your audience, but all astrologers get out of that is that you don't know what you're talking about or you don't get it, so it's not persuasive. If you were not looking to persuade, then the other purpose would be to put the study of astrology down or insinuate something not flattering about astrologers' intelligence, maybe, and ... why? People have found value in astrology for centuries. Just because it doesn't speak to you doesn't mean it can't speak to anyone.
    What is not persuasive? I'm not here to demonstrate superiority or saying astrologers aren't intelligent. I'm saying they're just misguided in their believes.

    People over the centuries have found meaning in a lot of things. For example the ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts came up with mythological stories to try to explain why things are the way they are. Like the sun raises every day because Apollo rides his chariot across the sky. This is clearly wrong, but the ancient people buy it because there's nothing else to believe in.

    That's not true for the present day. We do know why personalities are they way they are. Half of it is genetics, the other half environmental. Astrology is as wrong as mythology. It might be entertaining (I do enjoy those stories), but it's false. And to advertise something like that as true is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley View Post
    It's not that the planets affect our behavior. That is what people who have not researched astrology think. Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity -- the positions of the bodies reflect the qualities of a moment in time, as does anything born at that time. The positions are simply used to show what happened at that point in time; it's not causal.
    You're saying people can influence planetary movements in any significant way? A causes change in B is what "causal" means. Synchronicity occurs when two bodies influence (change) the movement of one another. What if you get two babies born in the same hospital at the same time? It happens, but does that mean their personalities will be the same? I'm sorry, that doesn't fly for me.

    You can disagree with the notion of astrology. I just personally would not feel comfortable taking a position on something that I really know nothing about. I would want to know what exactly I am trying to challenge. So in case others would like to know more in order to form an opinion on it, instead of automatically saying "Astrology is bunk," from the little and inaccurate information they know, I'll be glad to share all I can. After all, many people who seriously study astrology began with the goal of disproving it, including myself.
    *chuckles* But I have attempted to look at my and other people's star charts (as indicated in the previous thread). The information given contradicts itself and is so vague and generalized that it's Forer's effect even if people agree with the readings. It's how the mind works... sharpening and leveling. We focus on the parts we identify with and gloss over the "unimportant". Even though the "unimportant" is often times as, if not more, telling than the other parts.

    Most astrologers I know are interested in learning MBTI, if they haven't already learned about it. Even if they have no interest in learning, they at least keep an open mind. Astrologers, it seems, are not likely to dismiss things right off the bat seeing as that is what many people do when it comes to astrology. I was actually introduced to MBTI by two astrologers (ENTP and INTP, fwiw). Jung did arrive at the idea of the temperament models and personality types from astrological archetypes. So dismissing one and not the other doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, even if I can understand in theory why people do.
    Whether astrologers learn about MBTI or not has nothing to do with validity of astrology. I'm actually quite open minded about most things, it's after I've examined something and see that it doesn't make any sense that I tell people it doesn't work. Even after everything you've said I don't see anything that matches with/can be used based on my experiences... (other than to further validate my understanding that people will argue their view points but they're horrible in letting go of something even when it's false. Which means the best way to get somebody to agree with you is to stick it to them prior to them forming a judgment on the topic. But I digressed.)

    Jung came up with an interesting theory of cognitive functions, but no he did not come up with the 4 temperament model. That's been around from before his time. Heck the ancient chinese had that forever. They use it to explain why their medicine works and how people can get illnesses. But again, it's like using mythology to explain events. Whether MBTI (which is only based on Jung's theories) is also convoluted based on astrological signs or not has nothing to do with validity. Take Freudian theories... it's plain unfalsifiable... the psychology community does not consider it as science. But it's always mentioned in intro psyc textbooks because it's history that leads to the development of modern psychology.

    My believe is that it's okay to base something on a theory that's incorrect. But it's not okay to say a theory is true despite all the evidence against such theory. I've rambled on too much. Let's leave it at that.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Well, if you don't mind, just for my own curiosity, I would like it if you'd say whether or not you have ever actually studied astrology, made a chart and tried to read it.

    Then I'd be happy to leave it at that.

Similar Threads

  1. [Multiple Systems] INFJs of Different Zodiac Signs | Astrology and the MBTI
    By Jetta in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-23-2017, 12:52 PM
  2. The President, Astrology, and MBTI
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 11:31 PM
  3. Astrology and the Astrolabe
    By Mole in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-24-2015, 02:07 AM
  4. The Connection between Astrology and "Messiahs"
    By SecondBest in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 04:13 AM
  5. Typing the US and England
    By Xander in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 07:45 AM

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