Athenian200 said:I don't believe in Astrology, but I still find myself fascinated by it enough to study it and look for patterns in it.
Thanks for posting -- that's really interesting. Do you have a link to the study, or name of a book or whatever?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 babies all born on the same day, at the same time, in the same area. All babies 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 babies 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.
Thanks for posting -- that's really interesting. Do you have a link to the study, or name of a book or whatever?
We believe in typology......why not?
I can definitely see the logic of this assumption. For myself personally, I am 100% turned off by it. It may be because I've already been hoodwinked once into believing crazy stuff when growing up, so i may be a bit more rationalistic and Ti oriented than many Ni people.I think Ni might be more drawn to it - archetypes, symbolism, mysticism - than other types. But I think belief and practice of it involves much more than that.
psychology is different from religion like pseudoscience
Not much. It works the same way. There is actually a lot of psychology involved in the serious practice of astrology, and it's used a lot for psychological development. As I am so fond of saying, I believe astrology has more validity than typology. It's been around for thousands of years, it's impossible to be "mistyped" if you have an accurate birth time, and it's more tailored to individuals.
It seems to me to be accurate, and for me it is absolutely accurate- I've read things about me in enough detail and enough times to know whether I was ignoring things which didn't apply- but it could be true that it's more accurate for some people than others. I think it's probably at least mostly true for a lot of people, but the way I look at it is that it doesn't really matter whether it's objectively true or not as long as people can use it for positive purposes. If it works as a tool, it has some amount of truth. As to whether it is objectively true or not, I couldn't say. I am a skeptic and always acknowledge that we can't be sure of much of anything, so I concede that it might not be. I've actually tried a couple of times to not believe it, but I find that the archetypes and categories are so ingrained in my mind there's probably no getting them out. So I might as well use them well and as rationally as possible.
Me: Virgo/Libra sun, Aries/Taurus rising, Leo/Cancer moon, and a bunch of emphasis on Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius in the rest of the chart.
Typology assigns a category based on traits that one exhibits. Astrology assigns traits based on one's category. They are inverse of each other.
Example:
Being born in '76, I'm classed as a dragon, and based on that I can look up the described behaviors.
Typology goes the opposite way. Rather than putting me in a category first and then describing my behaviors based on it, I take a test which examines my behaviors and then assigns a category. A descriptive category based on what I actually exhibit.
Or in other words, typology is based on how you are. In astrology, how you are is based on something else.