As I've said before, we've had this conversation you don't want the answer... there is something called astral twins.
There is a study by Gauquelin (?Sp) which did formal quant research. I'd say astrologers are like psycologist, AWFUL at research, most psycological research is nothign short of PANTS, small non indepdnant sample sizes, MASSIVE skewed findings. MBTI has no scientific testing behind it acroding to wiki... which is quite funny I think
Really? Can you link to some of this research?
By the way, MBTI has no scientific testing because it's not scientific. All the categories are arbitrarily defined and there's never any empirical claim made.
Typology just says, "Ok, people who do this, this and that, I'm going to arbitrarily label type X. People who do this, this and that instead, I'm going to arbitrarily label type Y." We don't claim that everyone born at x date/time/place must be an ESFJ; "ESFJ" is just a made up label that we stick on people who behave a certain way. If their behaviors don't line up with the ESFJ profile, we just move them to a different category. You can't move someone to a different astrological category because that would involve changing their birth place/date/time.
You see how there's not actually any proposition to be proven? It's just one possible categorization system; there's no claim to be tested. Nobody thinks it's "scientific fact" that you're an ISFP or whatever type. All it says is, "We could call this kind of person this name, and other kinds that name, based on a system we made up ourselves."
If you wanted to categorize people using names like "Scorpio" or "Aries" based purely on behavioral patterns, placing them in arbitrarily made up categories, that would be equivalent to MBTI. It's not scientific in any way; it's just one possible way of organizing data. Think of it like musical genres--typology is just genres of people. You can't test or prove that Jennifer is INTP any more than you can test or "prove" that Led Zeppelin was a rock band. The term "rock band" is just an arbitrary label we assign to a group for indexing and categorization purposes; it's not scientific and doesn't purport to be. Typology operates exactly the same way.
This is different from astrology
because astrology claims a testable causal connection between birth date/time/place and behavioral patterns. You could actually set up a test to determine empirically whether or not any of these connections between birth place/time/date exist; you could not do this with typology because it's just a collection of arbitrary labels that claims no real testable or observable correlation between anything.
Do you see how these are different now?
I don't see the point in going round in circles with you its seriously dull, and just roaring that you think it's all rubbish just makes you seem uneducated. My original point was that astrology isn't about a month or even a day, it's abotu a specific moment in time and space... that is totally uneque.
I'll resist the urge to insult you, since Jennifer is evidently monitoring this thread for rudeness--suffice it to say, I'm not sure you have the grounds to be telling others they sound ignorant here.
So in astrology, your behavioral patterns are completely unique to you because your birth occurred at a totally unique point in space and time? Therefore...no one else in the world will ever have the same astrological profile as you. So how do you actually draw any conclusions about behavioral similarities between people, if no two people ever have the same astrological data?
--Astrology claims to have causal powers. It claims that a time and space positioning of planets has a causal and metaphysical effect on humans. Its not just a self response inventory.
Bingo. Very well said. 20 bucks says Tinkerbell will refuse to acknowledge this, yet again.