# Are personality types really any more use than star signs?



## AL1CE (Jul 2, 2014)

Yeah that ^ *discuss*


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

Yeah? Astrological signs have no real basis, but personality types, at the very least, can predict similar behavior between members of the same type. . and that's based only on the fact that they answered questions similarly. 

If we were each assigned a personality type based on something outside the realm of personality (like our birthdays, for instance), then no, they'd be quite similar.


----------



## skyrimorchestra (Jul 23, 2014)

Nope. But it's something fun and interesting to think about. TBH, anyone can do anything. No one is limited by "type" or "class" or "sign" although we certainly do a lot of that. I think it's a case of humanity. No one is limited by type or class, but as humans, we are fond of typing and classifying just about anything. I think that sets a lot of us up to try and live in the box of singular "kind" of human.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

skyrimorchestra said:


> Nope. But it's something fun and interesting to think about. TBH, anyone can do anything. No one is limited by "type" or "class" or "sign" although we certainly do a lot of that. I think it's a case of humanity. No one is limited by type or class, but as humans, we are fond of typing and classifying just about anything. I think that sets a lot of us up to try and live in the box of singular "kind" of human.


Are you denying that there are notable similarities between people who share the same type? Because the descriptions are often very accurate, whereas astrology . . isn't.

I agree that no one is limited by it, and that is is fun and interesting and nothing more. But there is some basis to it; it isn't a perfect predictor, and no one is confined to the descriptions set for their type, but it isn't absolutely ridiculous like star signs.


----------



## skyrimorchestra (Jul 23, 2014)

Eckis said:


> Are you denying that there are notable similarities between people who share the same type? Because the descriptions are often very accurate, whereas astrology . . isn't.
> 
> I agree that no one is limited by it, and that is is fun and interesting and nothing more. But there is some basis to it; it isn't a perfect predictor, and no one is confined to the descriptions set for their type, but it isn't absolutely ridiculous like star signs.


The question wasn't _is it ridiculous_. It was _is it any more useful than_. And it's not. People of each type are similar not because they are _the type_ but because people who are a certain way or like certain things group together more easily than people who are or do not. Maybe you could make the argument that it is useful because of that in and of itself, you are more likely to find people _like you_ among a group of people who have publicly declared they _are_ like you, but that isn't really "type" to me, it's just broadcasting.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

skyrimorchestra said:


> The question wasn't _is it ridiculous_. It was _is it any more useful than_. And it's not. *People of each type are similar not because they are the type but because people who are a certain way or like certain things group together more easily than people who are or do not.* Maybe you could make the argument that it is useful because of that in and of itself, you are more likely to find people _like you_ among a group of people who have publicly declared they _are_ like you, but that isn't really "type" to me, it's just broadcasting.


That sounds like "type" to me, and however you word it, it is a bit more useful than astrology, imo.


----------



## skyrimorchestra (Jul 23, 2014)

Eckis said:


> That sounds like "type" to me


I don't think it is. That would be like saying that people who are more focused on logic are all Thinkers, but because that's their type, no other type can be logical or focused on logic. It's ridiculously limiting if you actually believe that people are these preset sixteen "forms" and cannot exist at all outside those forms. Just because you have an interest or a hobby, that doesn't make you who you are, and it doesn't limit your ability to think and connect. This is why we have typism in the first place, people saying Thinkers are sociopaths and Feelers can't string a logical thought together.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

skyrimorchestra said:


> I don't think it is. That would be like saying that people who are more focused on logic are all Thinkers, but because that's their type, no other type can be logical or focused on logic. *It's ridiculously limiting if you actually believe that people are these preset sixteen "forms" and cannot exist at all outside those forms.* Just because you have an interest or a hobby, that doesn't make you who you are, and it doesn't limit your ability to think and connect. This is why we have typism in the first place, people saying Thinkers are sociopaths and Feelers can't string a logical thought together.


I didn't know people actually thought like that. MBTI is about preferences, not absolutes.


----------



## AL1CE (Jul 2, 2014)

I think once people know their type or think they know their type, they start acting more like the type they have "chosen".

People who are interested in star signs will often behave like a typical whatever their sign is.

Also whilst star signs may for the most part be hokum, what time of year you were born does actually have an affect on your life. For example were you one of the oldest or one of the youngest in your year at school.


----------



## phantom_ecstasy (Jul 24, 2012)

I think that although personality types are more useful than star signs, they are wayyy over-hyped on this board. At the end of the day people are just people.


----------



## AL1CE (Jul 2, 2014)

I'm a Sagittarius by the way.

Hmm now I'm wondering if there are any type/star sign correlations. By chance if nothing else some types must have more of one particular sign than another.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I’m Libra and I don’t believe in astrological signs, quiet funny if you’d ask me.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

Nah. 

I'm an Aries, and I love astrology. I think it's fun. I relate a lot with my sign. It's for fun. 
The same with my personality type. I'm an ISTP, but I don't fit the "aloof" stereotype and I really don't care all that much for mechanics. Nevertheless, studying cognitive functions helped me learn how I think, and why I sometimes react to situations the way I do. Studying the Ti/Ni loop is helping me pull through some anxiety. Knowing that other people go through that stuff reminds me that I'm not alone. Even if it isn't real, it's comforting. 

The same with astrology. I can follow Aries blogs or whatever and even if it is just a stereotype or whatever, it connects me to others. We share something. 

These two categories also help me reflect. By putting my behaviors into context I can analyze them; I can figure out a little more about myself and go from there. I just graduated college. My summer internship is ending in a month. I didn't know what I was going to do next for a long time. I live in the middle of nowhere, and even though I'm an introvert, I still need contact with others. 

Learning cognitive functions became a hobby. Getting to know a variety of SPs was a privilege. I think people all act differently, but in varying degrees. Is it more accurate than astrology? Yes and no. It points out that people are different and act and think in different ways, but I don't think it comes near close enough to nailing down specifics; I don't think anything ever can. 

Don't mind the word vomit, but I've been reflecting on this stuff a lot over the spring and summer. Stereotypes can be both harmful and helpful, and it's up to us to use them accordingly, I guess. I'm not certain exactly what I think. It's illogical, and in a way, nonsensical--to think we can categorize 7 billion people into 16 types--but if we can identify how we work, and why we work the way we do--maybe it's not so nonsensical after all.


----------



## cl0ud (Dec 3, 2012)

Yes, personality tests are _tests_ to see which category fits best. Star signs are based on an arbitrary fact about you which tells you you must fit into this group.

Its like testing you in a tennis match against a seasoned professional, and judging your skill based on your performance. Star signs are like judging your tennis ability on your eye color.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

cl0ud said:


> Yes, personality tests are _tests_ to see which category fits best. Star signs are based on an arbitrary fact about you which tells you you must fit into this group.
> 
> Its like testing you in a tennis match against a seasoned professional, and judging your skill based on your performance. Star signs are like judging your tennis ability on your eye color.


1000000% this!!



I am also a Sagittarius (@OP). I do not relate to the majority of the Sagittarius type descriptions.


"Sagittarius are born entertainers and conversationalists. They have no shortage of ideas due to their adventurous lifestyle and exciting life experiences. They make excellent storyteller, comedians, writers, philosophers and actors to name a few, basically Sagittarius are suited to anything as long as it does not tie them down with too much commitment. They like to make the world a better place and a career that will do that is well suited for Sagittarius,..."

I can totally see why an ESFP would relate to this.

But obviously ESFPs are not the only people who are born between November 22 and December 21.


----------



## C. C. Scott (Jun 9, 2014)

I know this might be in disagrence with some people, but I find MBTI to be much more accurate and less subjective than astrology. Now MBTI isn't perfect and needs work, but I haven't seen any conclusive data regarding the effect on the position of stars during birth. 

That being said, I believe in vibes, energies and metaphysical connections. So perhaps I'm wrong, and we don't have the right tools to measure its effect.

P.S. I'm a Taraus, so some may argue that's why I come off as so stubborn. roud:


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

I am a Libra and think that star signs are entertaining. I don't really take them too seriously.
But some things about Libra are pretty accurate in describing me.
I do see both sides of most issues.
I have trouble making a decision.
I'd say more but... too tired for now...


----------



## something987 (Jul 20, 2014)

phantom_ecstasy said:


> I think that although personality types are more useful than star signs, they are wayyy over-hyped on this board. At the end of the day people are just people.


Yes, but surely you can't deny that some suck more than others

:ninja:

Kidding... Astrology is hokum. It's purposefully vague to get you to identify with whatever sign you are. MBTI gives you a cognitive type based on...your cognitive inclinations. Not planet alignment.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

In terms of accuracy "ok" test that can end up in very inconsistent results plus help from a professional vs I was born on this date therefore my star sign is this and it also says I will have financial problems tomorrow (when that never happens when it says so). I think we see who "wins" here. The assessment isn't just BS, but it's not very good either, just take notice of our the numerous posts where people need help typing themselves. In terms of use, I think astrology has never succeeded in delivering anything relevant to my life ever. MBTI is used by businesses and very widespread. The question is does it actually predict job performance. Based on what I read no it's not great but maybe that's false because I just vaguely remembered reading that. Either way Big Five is preferred for the same purpose. I think the shoehorning problem is solved by the fact that there are no distinction 16 types to go read a profile about Big Five but there are also no "functions" or theory behind it either and I think that's what makes MBTI attractive besides the whole sugarcoated descriptions. In my personal opinion Jung was onto to something when he conceived of these function preferences but in reality it's one explanation for one aspect of personality which is specifically how we perceive and judge information but there are other explanations I'm sure and other components of personality as well. So I don't take this as gospel truth but I do find it enjoyable and interesting. I think most people here do.


----------



## Fat Bozo (May 24, 2009)

Yes, much more use.


----------

