What do you even mean they "do the same thing".
What I mean is that you can use them in the same way as methods of categorizing kinds of personalities, that's all.
The only arbitrary thing I've seen amongst any of the topics of discussion in this thread has been your equation of astrology and MBTI.
Just because there are 12 sun signs and 16 MBTI types and the two pertain in their own ways to personality does not mean that the two methods are at all similar.
You are trying to force the two into a narrow box, and, by doing so, you're making me about as frustrated with your all-too-often simplistic, narrow-minded thinking as Jaguar always seems to be.
THAT is what's arbitrary, Sim: your equating of the two.
This seems like a communication error. Maybe I'm not explaining this well.
What I meant was that you can look at the different sun signs as labels for personality categories in the same way you can use MBTI types to categorize people. I didn't mean the systems were derived the same way or had the same developmental history or any of that. (There are obviously personality traits associated with each sun sign, or the girls in your story would not have been able to tell you were a Libra by interacting with you.)
The reason I brought up the fact that the developmental history AND methodology (you didn't even acknowledge the second of these two in your response) of astrology differ greatly from those of MBTI is that this difference is SIGNIFICANT (i.e., to
arbitrarily equate the two -- as you did -- is a grievous error of reasoning, and will only serve to produce a fucked-up end result).
Hence, when you say something idiotic like...
... I can only
and laugh, because what's obvious is that it's your narrow-minded, simplistic attempt to equate two VERY DIFFERENT things that is the fail here.
Thus, Sim, it is actually your Ti fail, here.
Your Ti is trying to cram a triangle and a circle into a triangle-shaped box.
And it is my Ni that is noticing it.
I'm not making any commentary on the developmental history or methodology; I'm just describing the only way I could imagine that we could make any real use of astrology.
Where did I say I thought the creators of each system thought they should be used in the same way?
I didn't--I just think astrology is useless in the way it was intended, so the only way I see that it might be somehow useful is to use its categories in a way similar to Jungian typology.
Because what you failed to understand is that I was trying to show that, based on your (lack of) knowledge of astrology, you weren't realizing that astrology and MBTI are, in fact, too differently shaped to be properly crammed into the same-shaped box.
Obviously, you didn't get this; hence, your question.
I will further elucidate this point below:
I don't really care if astrology was designed to work differently from typology in theory--because in practice, it doesn't. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt by granting it usefulness in terms of applying it like a typological personality categorization system (even if its creators didn't design it to work that way.)
You get it yet? I'm saying we can squeeze some value out of it
if we treat it like a typology system, regardless of whether it was designed to work that way.
Outside this one use, which its creators did not even intend, its only value is in personal entertainment.
The issue is that you don't actually understand the system, so you don't know why this isn't really the case.
If you understood the astrological system better, you would see why this argument fails.
For example:
No, it doesn't.
Your point is whatever you want it to be, and this doesn't change it.
It does, however, change the efficacy of your point.
See, not having any real working knowledge of the astrological system, you (and your point, for that matter) are working under the assumption that the 12 sun signs are comparable to the 16 MBTI types.
The problem is: they're not.
Then how is it that the clothing store girls were able to observe your personality and label it "Libra"? Doesn't this imply that Libras all tend to share certain personality traits?
As I said multiple times earlier in the thread, the sun sign is basically like 1% of a full astrological natal chart.
If you wanted to be extremely forgiving, you might be willing to offer that it represents approximately 10% of the content of a full astrological profile.
So, while it might not make a difference to your point, it does render your point useless.
That's the part that I clearly see that you clearly don't.
Here's the one and only thing I need to know about astrology:
Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.
I don't need to read a book on alchemy to know that it doesn't work. I've read the basic premises of astrology and I understand that the scientific community considers it pseudoscience, so until somebody shows some reason that it has any real use, I'm going to ignore it. I don't really give a shit about the finer details.
I'm not "overemphasizing the sun sign" because:
A) There are obviously personality characteristics associated with each sun sign, or those girls wouldn't have been able to peg you for a Libra based on your behavior, and
B) Every other piece of the natal chart is based on the same premise as the sun sign: That locations of celestial bodies at the time of birth can impact personality. Whether this is based on one celestial body or ten million celestial bodies doesn't matter, because it's an erroneous premise from the start.
If I happen to be missing out on some extraordinary, fantastic ancient wisdom that could totally revolutionize my life, then I guess I'll just have to take that risk.
I think the point that you are missing is: Regardless of how many pieces a natal chart consists of, they're all still based on the same central flawed theme--that the positions of celestial bodies at birth have some direct impact on personality.
For that matter, why does astrology use the star chart as the celestial bodies exist at the time of birth, rather than at the time of conception?
Does the mother's biological tissue somehow block out astrological influence until the time of birth? That's interesting, because the biological tissue in the human head doesn't seem to block out astrological influence to the brain.
Not to mention, how would we account for the influence of celestial bodies that we haven't discovered yet? Is astrological influence limited by distance? Surely even a full natal chart includes but a tiny, tiny fraction of the celestial bodies in the universe--how can we hope to have anything remotely resembling a complete picture of the nature of all celestial bodies in the universe at the time of birth? Why are only the currently known bodies relevant?
In fact, more celestial bodies are discovered all the time. Does that mean all natal charts done before we discovered the ones we know about now are actually inaccurate, because they failed to account for the influence of celestial bodies that hadn't yet been discovered? How is this explained?
Which brings us back to a point that I want to reemphasize quickly:
No, Sim.
The horrible reasoning is coming from your
lack of any substantive knowledge of astrology, which causes you to fail to realize that
your attempt to compare and equate astrology and MBTI is completely devoid of any truth, relevance and/or value.
This is a discussion for another day, but I really can't stand your consistent use of the word "arbitrary" in this way.
Your use of the word "arbitrary" is too arbitrary.
I'm well aware that MBTI and astrology are designed in totally different ways.
I was trying to throw astrology a bone by suggesting that we use it in a way different from what its creators intended--as a typological system of personality categories:
We could take the character traits associated with each sun sign--
and again, there obviously are traits associated with each sign or you would not be identifiable as a Libra by your behavior (which creates an obvious parallel to typology)--and use them as labels for categorizing personalities. I could see some measure of value in this, which would be similar to the value of typology.
If you're not willing to consider using astrology in any way other than the way it's intended, though, it's good for entertainment purposes and nothing more.
I mean, seriously, you said you've discounted it having any predictive power, but if any of the data offered anywhere on the entire natal chart actually shows a real correlation with your birth information,
that would constitute predictive power, of which you've already conceded it has none.
What exactly is the use here beyond personal entertainment?
There are no such things as "personality types" in astrology. Every chart is unique. There are no "types".
Most people know only their sun sign, which, as I've said before, is just a small facet of astrology.
To equate one's sun sign to a "personality type" is highly problematic and erroneous.
That's interesting--how is it that those girls were able to tell from your behavior that you were a Libra, then? This seems to imply that there
are characteristics which Libras tend to share--in fact, the girls themselves said, "Libras always have highly refined aesthetic taste", or whatever it was.
Doesn't this imply that, even though each chart has unique characteristics, there are trends which create behavioral commonalities between people with the same sun sign? How else would they know you're a Libra from watching you?
In fact, if every chart were
completely unique and no trends could be observed across different people's charts, such recognition would absolutely impossible.
I just googled for "Libra characteristics" and found thousands of pages listing supposed characteristics shared by Libras...for instance:
Libra characteristics deem them often good looking and Librans are among the most civilized of all the zodiac. They exhibit good taste, charm and elegance. They are naturally kind, gentle and love the pleasures which harmony and beauty can bring.
Librans have a strong critical mind and can easily play devil’s advocate by standing back and look at matters impartially. Once they have reached a conclusion though, they don’t suffer arguments of others very well and this manifests itself in impatience with criticism and a greed for approval. With that said, they are more often than not well balanced and even tempered types.
Sensitive to the needs of others, Librans have an innate understanding of the emotions and can head off sadness in their companions with their own optimism. As highly social humans, they loathe any form of cruelty, vulgarity and conflict.
You’ll find your Libra to be artistic more than intellectual yet often too balanced to be avant garde in the arts. Their perception, observation and critical ability gives their work integrity as is indicative by the works of Paul Simon or John Lennon.
Can somebody say, "confirmation bias"?
One who actually knows the astrological system would know this.
Did you know that there are potentially hundreds of supposedly meaningful data points in a full natal chart?
Did you know that they're all based on the same flawed premise?
And that the meaning of one data point can contradict the meaning of another?
And that this is all looked at as well and fine according to astrology (and common sense), because people often have competing and contradictory dimensions to their own personalities?
So, in light of the above, how easy (let alone possible) do you think it would be to isolate for all these different aspects of a full natal chart in order to scientifically verify or falsify astrology?
Hint: if you're thinking "it would be easy", stop for a second, breathe, remind yourself that you don't really know jack shit about astrology, and repeat.
Then go read a book about astrology.
So let me get this straight--astrological charts rest on so many conflicting data points that you have enough information of a wide enough variety to read whatever you want into it. If you look hard enough, you'll always find something that sounds like you.
You've established here that astrological charts are
designed to be so complex, dense, varied and even contradictory as to be nearly unfalsifiable, and that they offer such a large volume of conflicting information that almost anyone can find something that sounds right somewhere in the chart?
And we have no credible reason to believe the positions of celestial bodies influence personality or other worldly events in the first place?
And you wonder why the scientific community considers this pseudoscience that's popular due to confirmation bias?
As I said, I see one way this is useful, aside from treating it like typology--personal entertainment. I'm sure you can derive hours of fun from sitting around reading about your astrological chart and all the different personality traits it supposedly implies and trying to think of creative ways to apply them to yourself. Really, I'm sure that's a blast, but I'm really not interested in investing the time into learning the intricacies of how it's done--I guess I'll just have to miss out on this particular well of ancient wisdom.
