Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think I've seen this posted quite a bit but not really an in-depth exploration between specifically birth charts and MBTI. Does anybody obsessively learn about both like I do? Anyway, I've always been curious is there must be some correlation, some astrology signs that are more susceptible to a certain personality type, similar to how enneagram often is common within types (ex. me being a 4w5 which is prevalent amongst both INFPs and ENFPs)

I am constantly going in between (E)(I)NFP

BUUUUUT…

My chart really wonderfully accurate with who I am

ASC- Leo
SUN- Taurus
MOON- Capricorn
MERC- Taurus
VENUS- Pisces

I'm wondering if maybe there are patterns? Such as NF's have possibly a lot of Pisces, Leo, and Cancer within their chart

or the fact that I've noticed every NT I know has an Aries or a Sagittarius moon.

Post your charts and MBTI's, guys! I'm honestly so curious if there is actually a pattern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Where do you get a chart?

Nevermind I think I got it.

Rising sign -Sagitarrius
Sun- Gemini
Moon -Leo
Mercury- Taurus
Venus- Aries
Mars- Pisces
Jupiter -Cancer
Saturn - Capricorn
Uranus-Capricorn
Neptune - Capricorn
Pluto- Scorpio
N. Node- Aquarius (??)

There's something in there for almost every personality type... and most of it is not like me at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,689 Posts
I'm a Capricorn but it doesn't match my personality. My chart isn't any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I doubt there's a correlation, but I'm also one of the people who doesn't put much - if any - faith in astrology. Who knows, there might be one.

Rising Sign - Gemini
Sun - Leo
Moon - Pisces
Mercury - Cancer
Venus - Virgo
Mars - Scorpio
Jupiter - Taurus
Saturn - Taurus
Uranus - Aquarius
Neptune - Aquarius
Pluto - Sagittarius
N. Node - Leo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Tbh, since astrology is not scientifically based, I don't think there would be much of a correlation. That being said, I am an ENTP Taurus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
MBTI has no scientific basis either, though. The mind is ever-changing and one could argue that they identify and develop other functions that are not apart of their main four.
I just find it fun to think about haha, there probably isn't any correlation but it's just interesting
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
MBTI has no scientific basis either, though. The mind is ever-changing and one could argue that they identify and develop other functions that are not apart of their main four.
I just find it fun to think about haha, there probably isn't any correlation but it's just interesting
MBTI has much more scientific validity than astrology. Social psychology is not an exact science, but to say Jung has no scientific basis is a bit of an exaggeration. The principles are rooted in psychological theory. Astrology principles are rooted in...well, manipulation, to be blunt.

Anyhow, no, astrology is basically useless. It's vague enough to get you to identify with it, but slightly specific enough that the user can adapt it to their own life. Any correlation would be coincidental, as astrology has been disproved numerous times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I see what you mean, but I like to believe that it could be possible. I'm not taking it super seriously, but nor do I take MBTI seriously. I didn't mean that it has NO basis, I mean, it clearly does; however, it could also be more true from manipulation as well.
To say that astrology is useless when it is real to many people who follow it daily is just unfair. You're obviously allowed to have your opinion but I think it's unfair to discredit it. I believe that there are many things in life that can't be explained by science and I really think that taking out the possibility of it being true really ruins a lot of the magic in living, and it is also sort of naive in my opinion. The truth is we'll never know if it is factual but that does not make it useless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
I don't think it's unfair at all. There are many people who follow Scientology, but i don't feel bad nor do I find it unfair to say that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Not believing in astrology is naive?? Wow, that's a new one. Interesting you use that word in the same sentence as "magic".

The fact that we will "never know if it's factual" just goes to show how baseless it really is. It is structured in a way to make it unfalsifiable. Today's horoscope says you will meet someone who will change your life? Well, that's weird, because you just sat at home all day with the flu. Perhaps they're talking about the guest star on an episode of Law & Order which you've been watching all day long. Yeah, no.
 

·
Sweet Matrimony.
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
MBTI has much more scientific validity than astrology. Social psychology is not an exact science, but to say Jung has no scientific basis is a bit of an exaggeration. The principles are rooted in psychological theory.
You're kidding me right?

It's 100% correct Jung has no scientific basis. The method by which he came up with his theory of functions was essentially "look, theorise and classify." That was it. You cannot test his theory for scientific validity because it's unfalsifiable. This is the same reason Social Psychology isn't an "exact science."

In order for something to be an exact science you need to be able to devise a test that can prove it wrong at the very least. This means, it has to be falsifiable.

Until science moves away from its obsession with empiricism, if it ever does, MBTI & Jung will NEVER be an exact science. It will always be a pseudoscience.

The official MBTI test, as devised by Myers and her daughter, if that's their correct names, will also always be a pseudoscience for the same reason.

Whenever some piece of information comes up that changes the initial theory, they just add it in to the existing theory.... so it means MBTI is always "improving" but never actually being shown completely false.

I'm not bashing MBTI and I don't think Astrology is more scientific, but the fact it's been around much longer means its been added to for longer so it's methodology is more thorough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Tricky subject matter. I believe astrology has a solid foundation that has been tainted by human interpretation. My theory involves something like Being in the womb at certain times of the year, being fed certain foods and being affected by the weather patterns, among many others. Somewhat along the lines of the butterfly effect, right down to the air particles that traveled too left instead of right. Don't feel like typing all this out in detail. Anyway, to get to the point:

Rising: Sagittarius
Sun: Libra
Moon: Virgo
Mercury: Scorpio
Venus: Virgo
Mars: Scorpio
Jupiter: Libra
Saturn: Aquarius
Uranus: Capricorn
Neptune: Capricorn
Pluto: Scorpio
N. node: Sagittarius

My two best friends are ENFJ (Leo) and INFP (Gemini). Both their astrological sun signs and MBTI types are super compatible with mine. If that says anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
I'll bite. Here's my list of whateveralls:

Sun- Aries
Moon- Sagittarious
Mercury- Pisces
Venus- Aries
Mars- Aries
Jupiter- Libra
Saturn- Libra
Uranus- Scorpio
Neptune- Sagittarius
Pluto- Libra

Ascendant- Capricorn

~_~_~_~_~_~

Whenever I first started getting into astrology, I was rather surprised how much alike to me it was, even when I was being objective and looking toward the negative aspects of the different signs. On the short stack (ie: most people only know their Sun sign, mine being Aries) I am not very like excpet for a childishness and inpulsivity, but it was interesting to see the Ascendant and recognize myself there. I am and have been the Responsible, Serious One, for as long as I can remember, and it was a perfect fit.

Anyway, I do find it very interesting, but of course it's a metaphysical science as opposed to a concrete one. Regardless, I find it quite interesting to think about, and have noticed some definite correlations in people's charts and their actual personality over the years of doing it (about fifteen or so years now, on and off).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
"I think I've seen this posted quite a bit but not really an in-depth exploration between specifically birth charts and MBTI. Does anybody obsessively learn about both like I do? Anyway, I've always been curious is there must be some correlation, some astrology signs that are more susceptible to a certain personality type, similar to how enneagram often is common within types (ex. me being a 4w5 which is prevalent amongst both INFPs and ENFPs)

I am constantly going in between (E)(I)NFP"

fuck yeah! I was thinking about this today!

Great thread!

I have the same question!

"As fun as astrology and birth charts are, I don't think they have any scientific basis. So no, I don't think there is a correlation."

I think is is. Astrology is a ma thematic science.
The moon influence the seas, our body is 70% water. Also the moon also influence the menstruation in woman and everyone's emotions.

Do you think the other planets don't do it too? We're all made of electrons and magnetic energy and stuff.

Sun- scorpio
asc- sagitarius
moon- capricorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
The only scientific basis for astrology is the way it preys on certain psychological tendencies to make it sound convincing.
Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're likely to remember a horoscope that described your day perfectly, but you shrug and forget the ones that don't apply. You pay more attention to the personality descriptions that fit you than the ones that don't (and they're all pretty vague anyways). Confirmation bias.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
"the only scientific basis for astrology is the way it preys on certain psychological tendencies to make it sound convincing.
Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're likely to remember a horoscope that described your day perfectly, but you shrug and forget the ones that don't apply. You pay more attention to the personality descriptions that fit you than the ones that don't (and they're all pretty vague anyways). Confirmation bias."

please see- wikipedia- astrology, as I can´t post a link yet.

So, mathematics is a science. Astronomy is a science. Psychology is a science. But if you mix the three of them it's not a science?

A science leans on a study, experiment and proof.

What if you can write down every single thing you predict with astrology and then make a statistic?

"Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures have left astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky."

Mayas know about astronomy but dind't know about astrology?

What would it take to proof astrology is a science?

Also, have you ever done a birth chart?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
"I think I've seen this posted quite a bit but not really an in-depth exploration between specifically birth charts and MBTI. Does anybody obsessively learn about both like I do? (YES!!! I DO!)

Anyway, I've always been curious is there must be some correlation, some astrology signs that are more susceptible to a certain personality type, similar to how enneagram often is common within types (ex. me being a 4w5 which is prevalent amongst both INFPs and ENFPs)

I am constantly going in between (E)(I)NFP"

I'm thinking like, if you have much air signs in your chart, you are more rational.
Also the planets and the houses count.

I've analyze a INTJ friend and his bith chart, like amoung other people.
Curiously this INTJ (that it's very rational, almost machine like) is an aquarian. With asc in gemini and a lot planets in aquarius.
Also, he's Mercury, (communication and way of thinking) is in aquarius.

So yeah, like blood types, I think there is a correlation and I'm also studying it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
"the only scientific basis for astrology is the way it preys on certain psychological tendencies to make it sound convincing.
Forer effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're likely to remember a horoscope that described your day perfectly, but you shrug and forget the ones that don't apply. You pay more attention to the personality descriptions that fit you than the ones that don't (and they're all pretty vague anyways). Confirmation bias."

please see- wikipedia- astrology, as I can´t post a link yet.

So, mathematics is a science. Astronomy is a science. Psychology is a science. But if you mix the three of them it's not a science?

A science leans on a study, experiment and proof.

What if you can write down every single thing you predict with astrology and then make a statistic?

"Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences. Prehistoric cultures have left astronomical artifacts such as the Egyptian monuments and Nubian monuments, and early civilizations such as the Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Iranians and Maya performed methodical observations of the night sky."

Mayas know about astronomy but dind't know about astrology?

What would it take to proof astrology is a science?

Also, have you ever done a birth chart?
You're making associations but not actually explaining specifically why planets would influence mood or happenings in our lives. There is no direct evidence. It's like saying, homeopathy is a combination of (I don't know, energy fields?) and medicine, therefore it is scientific and reliable. There is no explanation why these supposed planetary attributes are connected or influential to our personality, just that they are...somehow.

Even if MBTI doesn't have scientific studies backing up its accuracy, it at least bases personality traits on something definitive - your personal preferences, behaviors, and tendencies - all intrinsic parts of your personality. In a way, it could be said to be unfalsifiable, but that's because it's something like a closed system - people who have majorly feeling cognitive preferences are F, people who gain energy by being around others are E. These things are directly related - they're just an in depth explanation of cognitive traits you already have. Planets and personalities are not. Which is why I say MBTI has more scientific basis than astrology - there is at least some amount of logic applied to it.

What if you can write down every single thing you predict with astrology and then make a statistic?
Comprehensive study of 'time twins' debunks astrology - Washington Times
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top