[MBTI General] stimulated world

[Paisley]

I've already argued that and resonate with your heart cry.

 

[Qre:us]

Loads of questions, why it works is not proven, at a very educated guess ................something along the lines of the miridians used in accupuncture.

As beings we are made up mainly of water - which is why the moon impacts us - we are tidal beings even if trapped in unatrual light.

Have you done the mathematical calculations for the pull of elements to each other with that much distance between the two elements? And, the comparative ratio of the elements while factoring in distance (a human body to insignificant in comparison to moon)? By this logic, elephants, whose body water is same as ours, around 70%, but a lot more weight, would have a stronger reaction to lunar cycles than us? (and dare I add, their astrology would be more accurate? If only someone told Dumbo he truly would fly he wouldn't have needed that feather)

Do you know womens can be rendered infertile and cured by Moonlight, stop drawing cutrains while you sleep can regulate your menstral cycle.

Some epidemiological studies as reference would greatly help in this matter, even of the qualitative kind, not just anecdotal stories, please.

Mars - blood contains iron, Mars is related to Iron... I was anemic a few years ago (when my mars was being affected).

And, even FARTHER than the moon we go. And, we start to even predict that Mars, compared to us, as individual humans, would have such a pull to our miniscule level of 'elements', that we would all have differential effects on our own individual body (I say, differential, cuz I've never been anemic, and in my world, just like yours, Mars exist, and I stand on the same planent as you)

Venus - I think relates to copper (but I could be wrong).

You messed up the pattern!
It's closer to us than mars....

Most planets relate to different minerals within the body - which may be the root of how these planets influence.

Which brings me to my final point....in what way exactly (again, a logical justification), are different minerals assigned to each planet?

In terms of free will - I totally agree. Astrology may predicat a window of opportunity, but if you don't leave the house that opportunity is never relaised (unless it is abotu accidents or the sky falling in).

What determines when a thing becomes an accident, happenstance, or willed direction, beyond the judicial system, but, on us, as humans?

Can we sperate horoscopes from astrology please, the latter is much more detailed.

Lis

I don't get this extrapolation of yours (or perhaps, inference ), when did I mention horoscopes?

 

[Shaula]

So, if the point you debate is that MBTI has validity, and to counter, you say, MBTI is based on Jung, which is based on astrology.....and anyone who would only question why astrology is not valid while not question MBTI has lack of knowledge?

I believe this statement (well technically it's question, shoot me) to be incorrect. Why?

1. This is an MBTI forum. We are biased towards it. This doesn't particularily mean a lack of knowledge.
2. People frequently take ideas form the past which are scientifically impossible but find a way to impliment it in a way that it is. For example, the idea of flight has been around for hundreds of years but it took forever to get an actual working aircraft. Many early designs of flying machines were not feasible at all. This could explain how Jung got his ideas from astrology but implimented on the grounds of psychology.

 

[ptgatsby]

This could explain how JungMyers got her ideas from Jung but implimented on the grounds of psychology.

Just to be clear. That's why I asked what the definition of "scientifically validated" means. The test is relatively robust. The other theories less so, but still more than astrology, which has none.

For all intents of purposes, even though we cannot prove a negative, astrology comes about as close as we can. Comparing the two can only be done in historical terms, which is disingenuous. Not only has time said that astrology is bunk, it has shown that personality theories have some degree of backing, complete with brain scans that have some degree of connection to various traits.

 

[redacted]

Guys

MBTI is unproven, not validated scientifically, so you are on pretty thin Ice. I ran a nationally representive sample and had the largest number of unclassifiable people I've come across.

MBTI doesn't have to be proven. It's descriptive, not predictive. Are you even reading what people are saying?

Saying MBTI has to be proven is like saying "hard-working" or "happy" needs to be proven. MBTI is a set of adjectives. That is all.

Do you have any problems with calling people "shy"? That's a label for a behavioral pattern you've noticed in an individual. Either you accept MBTI or throw out all adjectives.

Astrology is not about date of birth, it factors in Date, time and place...

blah blah

Again, types in astrology are fixed. There is no room for effects of nurture to change your type. There's even no room for genetics to affect your type!

It's odd. If the doctor was 15 minutes late, it could change your astrology type, but anything (I mean ANYTHING) that happens after you are born can't affect your type at all? That's just completely retarded.

Astrology throws out nature AND nurture.

 

[Paisley]

Predestination is a tricky beast to tackle, only known in hindsight. In the eyes of infinity our universe is predestined, but it's tricky in that once you look into the future you've changed it, and that's where astrology falls in. I would say Astrology doesn't really throw nature and nuture out, but simply places them into the predestined pattern. The point, is that it is faith based, and you have to take a giant leap, to put stock in this overarching concept of predestination, interwoven into Astrology. The question is not really the specific scientific questions, although they are a good starting point as they infer logic and reason, but why should astrology necessarily be true and on what grounds does it make it's truth claim? On what authority? Astrology is a speculative subjective subject, ie, predestination, understood by speculative objective values and constants. MBTI is a probative theory that knows it's own gaps.

 

[simulatedworld]

Haha well, being that the thread was addressed to me I was going to respond, but it looks like lots of people have already beat me to the punch.

Please stop blathering on about how MBTI isn't proven. That's obvious and no one ever said it was; I even said in my last post to you that it's a system of general guidelines/educated guesses and obviously not perfect.

The reason it has more validity than astrology is that it makes no assumptions about a person's behavior other than the ones that person uses to directly describe him/herself, based on personal experience. It takes lots of these and then uses inductive reasoning to guess (not scientifically prove beyond all doubt) how people will generally act in a variety of situations. SOMETIMES IT'S WRONG! It's just accurate a lot more often than astrology.

Astrology makes all kinds of assumptions based on only one small piece of data (DOB), and then blindly assumes that all people with the same DOB have common behavioral characteristics.

I can't believe you weren't actually a troll, Tinkerbell! I mean seriously. As Nickels said, NO ONE is that incoherent.

Look guys, either she's continuing this just to be purposefully annoying or she really doesn't understand and probably won't any time soon.

She's provided the same poor arguments rehashed and restated without actually doing anything to address any of ours, so I'm with Nocap: close the thread.

I'm done here. Thanks for the outpouring of support from everyone though, haha.

 

[tinkerbell]

Ah SW, just because I beleive in alternative perspectives than you do, doens't make me a troll. I know my subject, better than anyone who has replied on this thread, most of whom are daming the unknown because the only experience of astrology is horoscopes.

Actually natal astrology provides descriptives for the person. There is nothign predictive about. These discriptives are remakably more detailed than anything MBTI can churn up.

The reason Natal astrology is a much stronger discipline than Horoscopes is because it focused on the individual. It works on central tendancies... for instance if 80% the average teenage plays 3 hours of computer games a day, then you'd expect that is you stopped an talked to a teenager they would play computer games
- which is exacly how astro interpretation occur. There is also interacting abilities within a person that allows them to use a variety of different talents to solve issues whic they may choose to use at different points in thier lifes.

Predictive astrology provide predition - although this is only 1 form.

Anyways got stuff to do this evening

Lis

 

[Costrin]

The reason Natal astrology is a much stronger discipline than Horoscopes is because it focused on the individual. It works on central tendancies... for instance if 80% the average teenage plays 3 hours of computer games a day, then you'd expect that is you stopped an talked to a teenager they would play computer games

Could you elaborate on what exactly natal astrology is? How does it differ from predictive astrology?

 

[tinkerbell]

Could you elaborate on what exactly natal astrology is? How does it differ from predictive astrology?

Ah a sensible question.....

Natal astrology profiles who you are, the personal resources you bring to the table so to speak - and hose those resources intract with each other. For resources = talents and non-talents.

A natal chart is calculated for the exact moment and location you are born. It is a snap shot of the planets and where they all are. This snap shot is based on the astronomical possition of stars for that moment in the place you were born.

Astorlogers INTERPRET (either well or badly) what each planet means within its possition in comparison to the rest of the chart. Each planet has a possibility of 360 placement (although a fair few planets move slowly - so in fact the 360 is much smaller in a given year for some planets.

When examining the planets, the astrologer looks at the angles they make to each other - some are easy, othrs difficult. The difficult ones can bring drive with them or sever problems between them dependant on how well the person uses that planet.

Each planet represents something. The moon - represents the mother (and some important women in your life), nurturing, emotional sensitivities, how you feel secure. Mars = sex drive, get up and go energy, anger and agression, Venus = money, other women - sometime sisters, beautify, adornment, seductive abilities, and pleasure in some respectes. How those planets play together is he angles they make together. Say you have the moon in a hard aspect to Mars... the person may be emotionally volatile, or prone o being severly defensive, or driven to do anything they can to stay emotionally secure.

A natal chart/reading = the same type of profile MBTI would give. It gives you and understanding of a person you are... Not all your resources are available at the same time. For instance you may have a tricky aspects that makes you agressive and angry and defensive, but you may only be like when severly provoked. Others with different charts, could get really angry and no one would notice because they do it in such a quiet way.

If you want to try it out, log into astro.com, and plug in your birth details, then read the personal profile. The site will list a very crude reading of the astrology (they are not bad, but they are incomplete). They may be uncannily like the profile of your MBTI - but there will be differences - which are purely personal to you.

Predictive astrology uses the chart for today, right now, and sees how it plays against your natal chart. Is there a planet that is poking a big stick at your angry botton? Does it mean you will loose the temper with someone today? Possibly if provoked, if you are not provoked, you may just be a little hyperactive and get a lot done. You choose to use the agression to achieve rather than getting angry. There are many predictive techneques but the transiting planets (ie for today - or at some point in the future) is the main one. It's best at picking up really big events, the day to day stuff is pretty lightweight.

The natal astrology report is descrpitive of who you are and the talents/weaknesses you have. You can choose to learn new ways to help your weaknesses have less impact or even to make them into a strength, but that requires you to work at it.

Snuff?

Lis

PS - hororscopes are predictive for mass markets, and can be very accurate if used properly, but 80-90% of the people reading them are reading the wrong sign (because it's more complex than can be dealt with on a mass market way).

 

[Costrin]

long post

Ok, so natal astrology gives general tendencies, in what ways you would tend to react in certain types of situations. Predictive astrology tells you how your day will turn out. Correct?

If so, is natal astrology and predictive astrology under the same system? (how to word this...) Are they two subsets of the same theory, somewhat different applications, but the same process (the planets alignmnets) determines the results?

Also, how much influence do the planets have? Could you, at least in theory, predict the entirety of a person's life down to every detail?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'm jumping in ... *ohh, as predicted, cold water* ... but I'll brave the elements to add a few comments of my own.

Have any of the astrology naysayers in this thread actually had a chart done? (Tsk, tsk to all you T's if you haven't yet are debating in this thread.) Personally, I had two done in 2005, for fun. First, a chart that was intended to profile my personality; the second, a chart that was to predict my life trends for the years 2005 - 2006 (and outline some longer trends to 2010'ish.)

1.) The psychological or natal chart was, in my opinion, almost as accurate as reading a description of my MBTI type. It described my parents, the type of relationship they shared, my "infp-ness" for lack of a better term, the types of men I am attracted to and some quirks that don't fit the MBTI mold. Length of chart: about 20 pages of typewritten text. Degree of accuracy: ~65-70%. (Bearing in mind of course, the tendency to fit oneself within the words, which I can be as guilty of here as with the MBTI.) Some bits I didn't agree with at all. But, I was surprised at how specific and accurate some of it was. Reading my natal chart was as eye-opening to me as the first time I read a description of my MBTI type.

2.) Re-reading the predictive chart in the "here & now" of 2009, was it accurate? In my analysis, it is written in too vague a way to numerically assess with a percentage. I did "buy into" some of the predicted trends, but really, it deals with generalities, not specifics. It is simply too easy to interpret it the way you want to.

Do I think astrology is scientific and proven? No.

Do I accept that there are forces influencing us beyond current human understanding? Yes.

And perhaps everyone can agree on that.

 

[Willfrey]

I shall quote Phil Plait

...astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.

 

[PeaceBaby]

What evidence does Phil Plait present to support his opinion?

Because ... it is an opinion.

People have simply always had a need to explain the unexplainable. To categorize their lives and the systems that surround our lives. To make sense of things that seem to have no sense at all, to bring order to chaos.

I don't think astrology is "the answer", is a better predictor of personality, or that you should base your whole life around it.

If you have fact-based evidence to either prove or disprove it you will then have EVERYONE's attention.

But it is a fundamentally weak argument to say that just because you can't prove astrology, it's not valid. And that's all that has been presented so far in this thread, imho.

 

[Willfrey]

Do I accept that there are forces influencing us beyond current human understanding? Yes.

And perhaps everyone can agree on that.

I disagree. What forces are you talking about?

There are four forces in physics.

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

 

[Willfrey]

What evidence does Phil Plait present to support this opinion?

Because ... it is an opinion.

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Astrology

He cites his sources at the bottom.

It's a very good read.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy ... It's a very good read.

I shall enjoy reading it tomorrow, must head to bed now.

Just bear in mind folks, I AM NOT ENDORSING ASTROLOGY, I am simply pointing out the lack of fact based, logical arguments to disprove astrology in the posts thus far.

Playing devil's advocate as it were.

And the forces I cite above are "beyond current human understanding" thus ... they are not defined.

 

[Willfrey]

I shall enjoy reading it tomorrow, must head to bed now.

Just bear in mind folks, I AM NOT ENDORSING ASTROLOGY, I am simply pointing out the lack of fact based, logical arguments to disprove astrology in the posts thus far.

Playing devil's advocate as it were.

Just the same I'm waiting for logical arguments to prove astrology.

The too TL;DR version of the article:

There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim. Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism). An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.

Astrologers tend to rely on our ability to remember hits and forget misses. Even an accurate prediction may be simple chance.

Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict your life's path.

There is harm, real harm, in astrology. It weakens further people's ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.

 

[Costrin]

I shall enjoy reading it tomorrow, must head to bed now.

Just bear in mind folks, I AM NOT ENDORSING ASTROLOGY, I am simply pointing out the lack of fact based, logical arguments to disprove astrology in the posts thus far.

Playing devil's advocate as it were.

And the forces I cite above are "beyond current human understanding" thus ... they are not defined.

It's not the skeptics job to disprove anything. It's the one making the claim (in this case, that astrology works) to prove that it does. Otherwise, I could make any ridiculous claim I want, and you would be forced to believe me, because you can't disprove it. For example, I am God. You can't disprove this, any evidence you might find is fake, made by me to test my followers to see who has True Faith (tm).

Have any of the astrology naysayers in this thread actually had a chart done? (Tsk, tsk to all you T's if you haven't yet are debating in this thread.) Personally, I had two done in 2005, for fun. First, a chart that was intended to profile my personality; the second, a chart that was to predict my life trends for the years 2005 - 2006 (and outline some longer trends to 2010'ish.)

Is there a place where I can get one (especially online) for free? Please point me to any astrology site you consider reliable.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It's not the skeptics job to disprove anything. It's the one making the claim (in this case, that astrology works) to prove that it does.

I agree.

And I agree that the OP has not proven astrology, far from it.

I am only saying that you cannot use the argument "it's stupid" to disprove it.

Perhaps the OP can point to a reliable free online source for a detailed birth chart. (I did pay for mine at the time.) I'll do a little research in the morning to see if any look promising too.

Addition: Just in case you aren't "reading between the lines" in my post above, I believe the natal chart to be too accurate to be simply a "lucky guess" about me. But I have no rational argument to state why this should be so. The information used to create it was simply my exact time of birth and birthplace.

Personally, I think this is a debate that is not a "winnable" one - the best result is a stalemate. But I wanted to toss my own experience in the ring, for what it's worth. And if anyone wants to mount a controlled research project with a renowned astrologist, I'd be fascinated to review the outcome!