Personality and astrology

[Fullcrum]

Apparently I cannot edit my previous post, and the thread was moved. It is now here.

Consequential Proof of Astrology

Check this thread before you make rash judgements over the validity of astrology.

[m18pak]

I'm a Pisces, and I'm an INFP.

[tin]

I would like to quote from sujai's blog ( one of the blogs I read) here on Astrology:
"
The reason why many think it is science is because it deals with stars, constellations, mathematical calculations which are the tools or ingredients of the prevailing sciences. This is a ridiculous argument. Using goat’s entrails to predict whether it would rain does not make it biology or meteorology. Stopping oneself from entering the street because the cat has crossed your path does not make it zoology. Just because one has built an elaborate scheme using astronomical data to predict things that happen to members of one single species on an insignificant planet revolving round an ordinary start in one of billion billion galaxies does not make it astronomy or a science.
"
and

"
Some proponents of Astrology make another case. They say there are other kinds of influences not known to science. There could be certain ‘cosmic rays’ or rays that travel faster than light and so on. If one were to assume that it is the case (which it is not) we still come to the same conclusion. Take the case of a variant of cosmic rays that seem to affect human beings. They are supposed to have an influence on a newly born baby. When asked how they go inside a hospital building, the proponents of astrology attribute it to their property to penetrate buildings. According to them, they penetrate every planet and matter and hence they can pass through the building of a hospital. So, the question is, if they can pass through the building, shouldn’t they pass through the baby as well, without producing any influence on the baby? If one were to assume that these rays only affect the living bodies thereby sparing the building, how do these cosmic rays know the difference between the mother and the baby? If we do assume that they pass through building but stop at living bodies, the question is will they not influence the baby when it is inside the womb? If they can travel through millions of light years penetrating everything that is on the way only to stop at a baby, why should they not penetrate the womb of the mother and influence the baby while it is inside, why is the moment of birth so important? What is birth according to these stars and planets, the moment of conception or the moment of seeing the outside world, or is it when the tether at the baby’s navel is cut off from the mother? Is the boundary of such termination just the skin of human or is it something more (like heart, brain or soul)? So, are we to assume that these planets are aware of each individual who is born on earth? If so, are they aware of each living species on the planet? There would be many billions of living beings on the planet, would they consider the fate of each of those living organism? Or these planets are especially interested in humans only? What about our cousins the chimps, gorillas and orangutans?

Also visit (if interested) my topic where I shifted from belief in Astrology to awareness: there can't be anything called Astrology:

Astrology, FATE, Mr. GOD & its derivatives

[Brutha]

Some proponents of Astrology make another case. They say there are other kinds of influences not known to science.

Science is a method. If there a correlation between Meyer Bricks and Astrology prediction you be able to make statistic statements about the correlation between them through regression analysis.
Especially if the chart were designed for that purpose and they didn't find that correleation that shows that the theory is bad.

[Zwynd]

Originally Posted by Adelina

Is there any relationship between the Meyers Briggs type indicator, and other personality inventory, and the zodiac?


capricorn: EARTH: CARDINAL: – I - S – F - J
==

cool! mine fits!!

this makes sense.

anyone else see a relationship between their MTBI and zodiac sign?

I'm an ENFP (last time I checked; maybe a year ago) and am a Capricorn. Mine doesn't match up. Though I don't go outside as much as the club-hopping personality, I'm very chatty and open on the gaming forums where I roleplay. I'd like to think that makes me an 'E'. I can be very spontaneous and love new things.

However, I seem to have many similar qualities of the ISFJ when it comes to organizing a guild/club.

I guess it depends on different aspects of your life?

[Julia.Ru]

I'd never believed in astrology until I read Linda Goodman's horoscopes. Apart from the fact that every detail seemed true, it was impossible not to believe a person who'd written so detailed characteristics of every sun sign - I mean, if a person describes you so thoroughly, she really knows what she is talking about. I think Ancient Greeks were in some spheres much wiser than us and they just happened to know the truth. As for Mayer Briggs, I've never cared about it, but if this system is very well thought of, no wonder it will coincide with sun signs - both would just uncover one and the same truth. That's what I think.

P.S. Just read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs (better not abbreviated and for all the signs) to change your mind completely.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

There are far more than just 12 personality types in the world.

False, personality is described by Ascendant, and there are 12 types. Perhaps you mean that a human being is more than his/her personality.

Originally Posted by Julia.Ru

I'd never believed in astrology until I read Linda Goodman's horoscopes.

You don't believe in math, you just use it.
There is no reason to believe in astrology either.

I have studied astrology since more than 10 years to see how true or false it is.

In my case I once made the Synastry of a friend of mine and her exhusband and synastry showed very good.
But her case was a case of domestic agression and she was almost dead.
So it tells me that syntastry tells you how it starts in the very first days, but how it continues is a matter of how we humans build the relationship.
Linda Goodman failed the test with her book on relationships.

I discovered that astrology is below human decisions.
It describes basic psychological patterns and some basic medical aspects. But what happens as product of human decision cannot be forecasted using astrology.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Science is a method. If there a correlation between Meyer Bricks and Astrology prediction you be able to make statistic statements about the correlation between them through regression analysis.
Especially if the chart were designed for that purpose and they didn't find that correleation that shows that the theory is bad.

If you tell me that you can scientifically prove the existence of psyche, I would consider psychology as science. I am an engineer, I am familiar with research on man-machine systems, HCI and basics of artificial intelligence (that should be called simulation of inteligent behavior). I have found that all the researchers have found that the way how human works remains a mystery.

You can statistically predict behavior when it is about simple and repetitive tasks a robot could perform, like fitting a geometric shape in a hole, but for complex tasks involving human decision, judgement and intelligence, figures have such variations even under the most controlled conditions that numbers are useless to predict. You may look for the work of V. Venda and B. Lomov on that.

I have found no evidence that psychology is a science for it fails in the process of repeatability. In my country, a cop who had bad relations entered Chilean embassy and killed everyone some years ago and he passed psychological exams. Astronaut Nowak also did something amazingly stupid and she passed the tests too.

To me, astrology and psychology are in the same level. The only added value of a psychologist is his wisdom, a feature that is not scientific.

[Brutha]

False, personality is described by Ascendant, and there are 12 types.

No, he simply thinks that the describtion of personality by Ascendant isn't good. Perhaps you mean that a human being is more than his/her personality.

I have found no evidence that psychology is a science for it fails in the process of repeatability.

IQ test are repeatable. While there a certain amount of error, knowing the IQ of a previous test gives you more confidence in knowing the result of a new test.

To me, astrology and psychology are in the same level.

Psychology makes predictions in numbers while astrology doesn't. There parts of psychology that aren't really scientific.
A Meyer bricks ranking correlates with all sorts of other psychological measures like a DISC profile.

If there some relationship between astrology and the Meyer bricks rating there is a correlation between them that you could express mathematically.

my country, a cop who had bad relations entered Chilean embassy and killed everyone some years ago and he passed psychological exams.

That's a very bad argument that shows that you don't understand the basic claim about what statisical knowledge.

The psychological exams is pupposed to put people into two groups where one group is more likely to do something insane than the other.
There no claim that one of the groups will have no people that go insane.

[tin]

Originally Posted by Julia.Ru

I'd never believed in astrology until I read Linda Goodman's horoscopes. Apart from the fact that every detail seemed true, it was impossible not to believe a person who'd written so detailed characteristics of every sun sign - I mean, if a person describes you so thoroughly, she really knows what she is talking about. I think Ancient Greeks were in some spheres much wiser than us and they just happened to know the truth. As for Mayer Briggs, I've never cared about it, but if this system is very well thought of, no wonder it will coincide with sun signs - both would just uncover one and the same truth. That's what I think.

P.S. Just read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs (better not abbreviated and for all the signs) to change your mind completely.

Some thoughts on Linda Goodman's work:

E=mc^2: Astrology Vs Science II: Linda Goodman debunked

and anyone is more interested proceed to:

E=mc^2: Astrology Vs Science I

[Julia.Ru]

Originally Posted by ar81

So it tells me that syntastry tells you how it starts in the very first days, but how it continues is a matter of how we humans build the relationship.
Linda Goodman failed the test with her book on relationships.

I discovered that astrology is below human decisions.
It describes basic psychological patterns and some basic medical aspects. But what happens as product of human decision cannot be forecasted using astrology.

I think you failed to understand the main thing Linda Goodman says about human relationships - that it's up to humans to direct their relashionships one way or the other. I remember her description of the blending of the elements where every passage was something like: "Water can flood fire or fire can dry water. The result depends on both partners." In her book she just describes the peculiarities of every combination of the signs. By the way, she doesn't point out that some relashionships are good while others are doomed to be bad, she doesn't even say some combinations are more preferrable than other. After reading her book, you realize that in every combination you've got good and bad. However, in my previous post I meant mostly her book Sun Signs (I was more interested in people's personalities than their relationships) - I don't know who couldn't agree with her after reading it.