# another try: MBTI and astrology correlation



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

Will someone please tell me why astrology would make any sense? Like, I mean that honestly. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Myers-Briggs kind of typing. MB is like "Oh, so you're a Thinker? That probably means you're less comfortable with emotions and therefore blah blah blah." But astrology is like "Oh, you were born on a Friday in September? That probably means you're less comfortable with emotions and therefore blah blah blah."

I don't understand. Or am I just missing that nobody actually takes it seriously?


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

if you're born on a day that ends in y, you have a type.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

raichu said:


> Will someone please tell me why astrology would make any sense? Like, I mean that honestly. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Myers-Briggs kind of typing. MB is like "Oh, so you're a Thinker? That probably means you're less comfortable with emotions and therefore blah blah blah." But astrology is like "Oh, you were born on a Friday in September? That probably means you're less comfortable with emotions and therefore blah blah blah."
> 
> I don't understand. Or am I just missing that nobody actually takes it seriously?


Jung, the originator of the type theories that Katharine Briggs & Isabel Myers then created the MBTI from, wrote about astrology being important to understanding because of its ties to archetypal symbolism and the collective unconscious. Jung also believed that individuals had innate personalities, and probably saw astrology as a potential tool to understanding those inborn differences. Some say his type theory was developed by what he learned from astrology -- if you looked at the OP you'll see that Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking and Feeling are each related to one of the four elements in the astrology chart. These same 4 elements were used with the 4 humors model (sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic). So really, at the root of looking at the history of temperament theories is some esoteric symbolism involving elements related to astrology. It isn't that the MBTI is inherently esoteric or that anyone seeking to understand it should have to utilize astrology or other forms of divination/mysticism/whatever you want to call it, but if your question is how it is connected, I would say it's connected through Carl Jung's works and studies, and through a historical legacy. I was going to note that this is only prevalent in the West, but then I recalled that Ayurveda is what we'd call "alternative medicine" from India and it bears some similarities to the 4 humors model.

I take astrology seriously in the same way I take religion seriously -- there have been undeniable historical and cultural effects from these agents, so they must have shaped human life in some way... thus I find it useful to explore these topics. That interest doesn't require full belief or faith in them.

Any sense you might derive from studying astrology would be based on your perspective. I think first one must believe or be open to believing that people are inherently different from one another, that "nature" plays a role in personality. 

Also, the astrology many of us are talking about it a bit more specific and systematic than your "day of week, month" model. ;P Though I quite like the rhymes about the days of the week. Actually, the names for them correspond to the (at the time) 7 planets... the most obvious example being Sun-day. I'm not sure I'd categorize that as astrology, but it's definitely out there, many time numerologists use day of the week to do a reading.

I know it's nearly impossible to change anyone's mind about anything more complicated than what's the best soup to order at the restaurant, but I am of the proclivity to believe that science is as much a limited perspective and culturally constructed system as anything labeled "mysticism". I think if one is skeptical of one thing, so should they be in the other. I'm not saying I don't trust in the scientific method, in fact I do, but I won't allow myself to believe that science is objective truth and any other methods people have used to attempt to gain understanding are therefore invalid. I think that's often what people think. It's why Freud warned Jung not to "discredit himself" by publicly dabbling in "the occult".


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@raichu,
@soya has a point, I've been delving into Carl Jungs writings a lot lately and ive seen this reference of Astrology often in it. I wouldn't discount a subject that you're not as adept in because you don't understand it. It was included along with other references n almost of all of his writings especially later on in his later years. Its not something some of us want to look past because people may think its "silly". I Just started yesterday, keeping me up until 5 in the morning eastern time, studying astrology and I'm starting to see where some thing may have derived from in his works. I still have a long ways to g, but learning new knowledge is never a bad thing as long as you keep your mind open.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Vanishing Point said:


> Yeah I can see your neptune making the oppositions and the conjunction to your personal planets, especially the moon conjunction...and pluto amplifying it all. Just at first glance seems like your character must have a definite intensity to it.:wink:
> A really interesting chart.
> 
> I use sidereal because I actually got into astrology thinking it could have something to it, but couldn't see myself from my chart using tropical placidus. A very long story short after racking my brain and trying to figure out why there'd be such a discrepancy I stumbled into the fixed stars chart feature on astrodienst which showed the constellations and read some on the use of fixed stars in astrology and it made more sense to me than the seasonal symbolism, especially since the seasons are reversed in the southern hemisphere. I liked the idea of the symbology being tied to the actual stars and defining the ascendant the ancient way as the constellations rising in the horizon at the time of birth.
> ...


I'm an sx first in the enneagram, so of course I'm intense...Would you say Pluto is my chart ruler? I've had one person say it was Pluto, someone else said Saturn I think... anyway. My chart seems dominated by Gemini-Sagittarius and Cancer-Capricorn oppositions, I'm sure that helps with the intensity. I think the moon conjunct neptune in the first house and the sun conjunct chiron in the seventh are the most "INFP" traits I see in my chart. 

It's funny, I tend to use the tropical (that's what my posted chart was, I'd be a solar Taurus in the sidereal format) because of its historical legacy, it seems more connected to Jung's perspective...and that seems exactly why you didn't love it. I'm curious to learn more about the tropical, though it's hard to conceive of myself as a solar Taurus with Mercury in Gemini, etc - most of my personal planets are changed by the "shift".

I agree, though, whatever works...whatever tools bring insight and questioning to light are good by me.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

You guys all realise that astrology is complete bollocks, right?


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

soya said:


> Obvious troll is obvious.


No, I'm just astounded that there are people who take this stuff seriously. It's impossible for there to be a correlation between astrology and MBTI, because astrology isn't based on anything that makes any sense. If there's any correlation, it's a hell of a coincidence.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Velasquez said:


> No, I'm just astounded that there are people who take this stuff seriously. It's impossible for there to be a correlation between astrology and MBTI, because astrology isn't based on anything that makes any sense. If there's any correlation, it's a hell of a coincidence.


Is this conclusion coming from studying astrology? I don't generally make a decision about anything I don't know much about... However, like I said before, I understand why many people will never give astrology a chance, and it doesn't matter much to me. It doesn't strike me as necessary to voice dissent when it comes to a topic that there is plenty of dissent against to begin with, though.

I never said that I believed astrology and MBTI were correlated. However, exploring how Jung's works were informed by astrology and then how the MBTI grew out of his work is an interesting history.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Velasquez said:


> No, I'm just astounded that there are people who take this stuff seriously. It's impossible for there to be a correlation between astrology and MBTI, because astrology isn't based on anything that makes any sense. If there's any correlation, it's a hell of a coincidence.


If you believe in coincidences. Synchronicity can explain that very well along with the archetypes, unless you don't believe in that either. Also you know these are your subjective beliefs due to what you have gathered with your Ti, which has constructed your whole logical system of your reality. Does it bother you that people believe in something different that you don't believe in due to what you think objective reality is really like due to your subjective knowledge?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Velasquez said:


> No, I'm just astounded that there are people who take this stuff seriously. It's impossible for there to be a correlation between astrology and MBTI, because astrology isn't based on anything that makes any sense. If there's any correlation, it's a hell of a coincidence.


Have you studied astrology in depth ? How much do you know about astrology except for the daily newspaper. ? Astrology is a theory just like MBTI when you look at it on a deeper level. So to say that it`s impossible for astrology to be associated with MBTI is the same as saying that MBTI is also impossible. And from where i'm looking i see you wearing an MBTI tag


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

I thought I was INFJ for the longest but I'm actually INTP, Aries with Rising and Moon in Taurus. I agree with ENTJ being aries-like. I almost wish I was an ENTJ because I feel they have the qualities that would help me get the things I want in life. 

INTP Libra? Hm. I could see that working. The others make sense too I'd think.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

May someone with good deal of knowledge on astrology answer this question for me. If the signs on the ecliptic is the signs we use in astrology then why discount Ophiucus. Don't you believe that it is a huge mishap on the astrologers part, since Ophiucus lies on the ecliptic and has for a very long time now. It seems like that can disrupt results, since the ecliptic and what lies on it is a fundamental in astrology. I would like to see some answers on this. It would be nice to know what you all think.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

soya said:


> Is this conclusion coming from studying astrology? I don't generally make a decision about anything I don't know much about... However, like I said before, I understand why many people will never give astrology a chance, and it doesn't matter much to me. It doesn't strike me as necessary to voice dissent when it comes to a topic that there is plenty of dissent against to begin with, though.
> 
> I never said that I believed astrology and MBTI were correlated. However, exploring how Jung's works were informed by astrology and then how the MBTI grew out of his work is an interesting history.


I think the fact that people still take it seriously shows that there still isn't enough dissent against it. I wasn't aiming my post at you particularly, but more at the start of the thread where people were talking about star signs linking up with MBTI types, which is just nonsense. I understand your point about people being interested in MBTI growing out of astrology or whatever though.



Radiant Truth said:


> If you believe in coincidences. Synchronicity can explain that very well along with the archetypes, unless you don't believe in that either. Also you know these are your subjective beliefs due to what you have gathered with your Ti, which has constructed your whole logical system of your reality. Does it bother you that people believe in something different that you don't believe in due to what you think objective reality is really like due to your subjective knowledge?


No, astrology is either valid or it isn't. There's no subjectivity about it. 'Subjective' is like 'Radiohead are a good band' or whatever. Also, this post has a very subtle kind of 'you use *cognitive function* so therefore you're wrong' thing about it, which I'm not too keen on as an argument.



MuChApArAdOx said:


> Have you studied astrology in depth ? How much do you know about astrology except for the daily newspaper. ? Astrology is a theory just like MBTI when you look at it on a deeper level. So to say that it`s impossible for astrology to be associated with MBTI is the same as saying that MBTI is also impossible. And from where i'm looking i see you wearing an MBTI tag


The difference between MBTI and astrology is that aspects of the MBTI can be and have been backed up by scientific studies, and while it's still a theory, it appears to be a constantly growing one. I've never seen any aspect of astrology be proven to be valid or correct by anybody in any context ever. You appear to be implying that all theories are equally as valid as one another regardless of their content.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Velasquez, your definition of subjective is very limited. Subjective is anything which consist of in the mind. What *you think* about something is subjective. If you lack a piece of knowledge which could prove you wrong then your thoughts was subjective because the system was right in the objective form. I'm assuming you have been wrong before just like I have, that is because what you thought about something is a subjective thought. In reality everything is subjective, hence why everyone has different opinions on what they consider to be right or not. By closing your mind to a system you may not understand or possibly lack knowledge in is a subjective response you created in your psyche. Do you deny the fact that astrology possibly being correct is possible?

Also I didn't mean to attack your cognitive function, every function has a subjective aspect to it, even I can get lost in my possibilities because of Ne which could disrupt my analysis on things. Try not to take too much offense to it, it wasn't meant as so.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Velasquez said:


> The difference between MBTI and astrology is that aspects of the MBTI can be and have been backed up by scientific studies, and while it's still a theory, it appears to be a constantly growing one. I've never seen any aspect of astrology be proven to be valid or correct by anybody in any context ever. You appear to be implying that all theories are equally as valid as one another regardless of their content.


Well scientific studies hasn't proven to date that love is logical, yet people fall in love daily. So i guess you're saying that unless love can be proven or backed up scientifically there is no such thing. Anyway that is for a different topic, just trying to make a point.

I guess my point is people can be open to the idea of astrology through possibilities. Maybe i just like to keep my options opened regardless if there is scientific proof or not. Not saying i believe either way, just saying it is possible.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Velasquez said:


> I think the fact that people still take it seriously shows that there still isn't enough dissent against it. I wasn't aiming my post at you particularly, but more at the start of the thread where people were talking about star signs linking up with MBTI types, which is just nonsense. I understand your point about people being interested in MBTI growing out of astrology or whatever though.


I wasn't taking anything personally. No harm intended toward you, Dugtrio... I really do think society is made up mostly of the "if it's not scientific it's worthless" camp and the "it seems cool/myterious so i'll buy into it without questioning it" camp, so people like me who aren't comfortable with either often feel like speaking up and offering another voice, I guess.

I agree that there is no correlation between the signs and MBTI -- now, if people were using the basic models of the signs and relating them to MBTI functions, sure, maybe that could be interesting -- but saying "X type is Y sign" - not accurate or useful. I've looked through the poll threads where people posted their sun sign and their MBTI type and there was so much variation, no patterns seemed to emerge.

It seems a lot of people interested in topics like astrology like a very simplified, distilled version, which is their business, but it does bother me because I'd rather not have people who know little about any topic be seen as the spokespeople for it. I can see why skeptics would write things off when the loudest voices are those who are less informed or are trying to sell something.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

Radiant Truth said:


> your definition of subjective is very limited. Subjective is anything which consist of in the mind. What *you think* about something is subjective. If you lack a piece of knowledge which could prove you wrong then your thoughts was subjective because the system was right in the objective form. I'm assuming you have been wrong before just like I have, that is because what you thought about something is a subjective thought. In reality everything is subjective, hence why everyone has different opinions on what they consider to be right or not. By closing your mind to a system you may not understand or lack possibly lack knowledge in is a subjective response you created in your psyche. Do you deny the fact that astrology possibly being correct is possible?
> 
> Also I didn't mean to attack your cognitive function, every function has a subjective aspect of it, even I can get lost in my possibilities because of Ne which could disrupt my analysis on things. Try not to take too much offense to it, it wasn't meant as so.


I wasn't taking offense, you can insult my silly cognitive functions as much as you like, I just kinda thought it was an irrelevant thing to bring up, that's all. I don't like this whole idea that 'everything is subjective', and everybody's idea of 'correctness' is equally valid, because it would kinda just mean that there'd be no point in ever discussing anything ever. It's the whole 'you can't prove that it _isn't _true thing', which could apply to absolutely anything and gets beyond a joke after a while. I could use the same argument that you're using to suggest that I'm actually a dinosaur or something if I wanted to. You'd be silly to deny that it's impossible for me to be a dinosaur, but stuff like that just gets absurd.

I don't deny that astrology being correct is possibly, but I do think that it is highly highly highly improbable, and therefore not even worth considering unless new information were to come up that contradicted everything we know about it.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Well scientific studies hasn't proven to date that love is logical, yet people fall in love daily. So i guess you're saying that unless love can be proven or backed up scientifically there is no such thing.


That would also require the added assumption that 'people only do rational things', which is just clearly not true.


----------



## Velasquez (Jul 3, 2012)

soya said:


> It seems a lot of people interested in topics like astrology like a very simplified, distilled version, which is their business, but it does bother me because I'd rather not have people who know little about any topic be seen as the spokespeople for it. I can see why skeptics would write things off when the loudest voices are those who are less informed or are trying to sell something.


I agree. Sadly, this is a problem in many many areas, including MBTI, it seems.

EDIT: Also, I've just realised I've posted three times in a row there. If anybody is offended by that, I apologise.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Vanishing Point said:


> I'm not going to say anything about wether there is a correlation or not, but there are more factors an astrologer would consider than just your sun sign. The ascendant is also a very important point (and the mc) and you need a very precise time of birth to determine it. People born very closely together may have different ascendants. The moon signs of two people born on the same day may be different too.


Even with all the parts of my chart taken into consideration it still fails at describing me...

Lest you believe I'm just a stereotypical INTP who's totally closed-minded to anything that doesn't sound scientific (I even read tarot!), rest assured, I was very open to the possibility of it being true. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt whenever there was ambiguity. I consulted several different practitioners to see if any of them could offer me any better advice. But in the end it still failed. Astrology just empirically doesn't work for me.

I'm sort of disappointed to be honest, because it sounded very interesting...


----------



## Vanishing Point (Oct 2, 2012)

nevermore said:


> Even with all the parts of my chart taken into consideration it still fails at describing me...
> 
> Lest you believe I'm just a stereotypical INTP who's totally closed-minded to anything that doesn't sound scientific (I even read tarot!), rest assured, I was very open to the possibility of it being true. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt whenever there was ambiguity. I consulted several different practitioners to see if any of them could offer me any better advice. But in the end it still failed. Astrology just empirically doesn't work for me.
> 
> I'm sort of disappointed to be honest, because it sounded very interesting...


Love your methology. roud:
But you've only really tried the modern western method, which I don't believe is accurate personally. 
The other forms of astrology bear very little resemblance to what is now called astrology. You could even say they are a different method altogether... so your final verdic is a bit premature. I'm personally undecided in regard to astrology because I lack proper knowledge of it to make that call.
In any case...the forms of astrology that are very dirfferent, and predate, the astrology used in the west today:
Vedic (or Jyotish ) astrology, which differs considerably from the modern western, (where I am an Aries not a taurus, and they don't use the modern planets traditionally). In India astrology is widely in use and is officially a recognized form of science in fact.
Also very different in the ways one casts the natal and interprets is the western method that predates the modern: In the west there is now an increased amount of astrologers who have gone back to the classical way of interpreting natal charts which is more "mathematical" and with set rules giving precise results rather than having the more intuitive, open ended and descriptive style. There was a big revival going on, the last I looked on the astrology forums.
Medieval astrology
Renaissance astrology
These two types have a much higher attraction to T types in general, which I'm purely deducting from very lenghty online forum fights about the right way to translate and interpret Plotinus and the ubiquitos love for finding new obscure reference material. :laughing:


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Vanishing Point said:


> Love your methology. roud:
> But you've only really tried the modern western method, which I don't believe is accurate personally.
> The other forms of astrology bear very little resemblance to what is now called astrology. You could even say they are a different method altogether... so your final verdic is a bit premature. I'm personally undecided in regard to astrology because I lack proper knowledge of it to make that call.
> In any case...the forms of astrology that are very dirfferent, and predate, the astrology used in the west today:
> ...


I'm not judging the other forms of Astrology; just the modern one, which most people push, and which I have the most experience with. I really don't think that's a bad reason to dismiss it though. Most people who push it do so out of positive personal experience; I do the opposite because of negative personal experience. It's not something that can be scientifically proven (at least causally), so the question then becomes: "does it work for you"? For me, that answer is no, so I don't use it. But other people might get something out of it; more power to them. I'm just not going to waste time on something that doesn't work for me.

I don't know about the other forms of Astrology; for all I know, they may be valid, but those aren't the forms I tend to encounter in RL. I'll look into them though.


----------



## shmiddy.plant (Oct 30, 2012)

The way I see it (not put much thought in) is by combining the Temperaments with the astrological elements 
in the system there are 4 elements (water-feeling, Fire-activity, air- thought and earth-stabiblty). So if I were to compare these to the temperaments I would probably see that the xNFx temperament would be water (I have an INFJ friend that absolutely bleeds cancerian). I would say xNTx is air (I am a typical aquarius and I am also an ENTP it was like reading the same damn description) xSxP is fire associated with spontaneity and energy and finally xSxJ earth.

I know 3 ISTJs and they are all virgos 
my father is an ENTP with a 6w5 and he is a Gemini on the cusp of cancer (think about it)
I have 2 libran friends both of with are ISFP (against my own theory i know, but still fuck off)

I think personally some talented MBTI superslooths should read in detail the descriptions of each of the Sunsigns and then type them (people probably have I am just not bothered to look)


----------



## MrMagpie (Aug 22, 2012)

INTP, Virgo.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

shmiddy.plant said:


> The way I see it (not put much thought in) is by combining the Temperaments with the astrological elements in the system there are 4 elements (water-feeling, Fire-activity, air- thought and earth-stabiblty). So if I were to compare these to the temperaments I would probably see that the xNFx temperament would be water (I have an INFJ friend that absolutely bleeds cancerian). I would say xNTx is air (I am a typical aquarius and I am also an ENTP it was like reading the same damn description) xSxF is fire associated with spontaneity and energy and finally xSxJ earth.


Um... I'm not any of those. And I don't know anyone that's an xSxF. I don't even know if that's possible. Maybe you can switch it with xSxP?


----------



## shmiddy.plant (Oct 30, 2012)

raichu said:


> Um... I'm not any of those. And I don't know anyone that's an xSxF. I don't even know if that's possible. Maybe you can switch it with xSxP?


Oh wow nice work man, you should feel heaps proud


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

shmiddy.plant said:


> Oh wow nice work man, you should feel heaps proud


Absolutely. I'm so proud, I had my mommy print out an award for nice work.  It's hanging on the fridge.


----------



## hunnybee143 (May 16, 2017)

so which planets get 20 points and which get 5?


----------



## Kaioken (Mar 4, 2017)

I really can't comprehend how could someone truly believe in astronomy, it would basically mean that your life is shaped depending on when you are born, which is quite sad.

And astrology seems to rely a lot on mental gymnastic.

That said, I'm a Gemini, born on the last Taurus day/First Gemini day. I don't know what that could mean.


----------



## Librarylady (Mar 11, 2017)

My chart is mostly earth. My sun is Virgo, and also have Capricorn rising and Taurus mars. I don't feel like a sensor unless my Si feels lile looping though.


----------



## Happy29 (Jul 31, 2016)

I got Air 60 points; Fire 50 points; Water 30 points; Earth 25 points. I'm an ESFJ, so I have no clue what correlation there is here.


----------



## Witch of Oreo (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm Aries and not ESxP. Bollocks.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

(My actual starsign by birth is the twins. Go figure.)

If I should describe myself as a starsign I would at this point in my life chose:
Cancer, Sagetarious, Picses and Aquarious. Twins?

In between: Libra and Taurus

I am least like: Virgo, Capricorn, Leo and Aries.


----------

