Is astrology actually legit?

Disclaimer: I researched about astrology for 2 years as of now and my personality is rather adamant hence I usually shrug off criticism about astrology.

But what I just saw yesterday felt a bit sickening to me.

https://publications.lbl.gov/islandora/object/ir:88130/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf

This document is made by the California government back then and what it suggests is that natal charts aren't actually legit.

Quoting the report:

From that study:

"The abilities of astrologers to match natal charts to CPIs was not significantly different from that predicted by the "scientific" hypothesis (i.e. their choices were no better than random), a result which strongly refutes the astrological thesis."

I'm very lost. Help?

Disclaimer: I researched about astrology for 2 years as of now and my personality is rather adamant hence I usually shrug off criticism about astrology.

But what I just saw yesterday felt a bit sickening to me.

https://publications.lbl.gov/islandora/object/ir:88130/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf

This document is made by the California government back then and what it suggests is that natal charts aren't actually legit.

Quoting the report:

From that study:

"The abilities of astrologers to match natal charts to CPIs was not significantly different from that predicted by the "scientific" hypothesis (i.e. their choices were no better than random), a result which strongly refutes the astrological thesis."

I'm very lost. Help?

Posted by Astrology101
You need more than 2 years imo.

Obviously but I said it so people won't think I just read about my sun sign and posted this to troll ?

Yes it's fake. Most people who find it accurate either don't realize how vague the descriptions are or they're actively trying to live up to stereotypical aspects of their charts. If you actually compare the chart of someone who doesn't believe in astrology to their behavior, with as little bias as possible, you realize they're nothing like -whatever placement- says they ought to be.

The astrology section in barnes and noble irks me more than the ones the other bookstore.

Posted by xBruceCampbellx
The question I would pose is this, "Does it even matter?"

Yes because it means everyone who believes in astrology are delusional idiots. >.>

Posted by tiziani
It's not legit as a science if that's what you mean.

Yes it's not legit as science at all (hence pseudo science, pseudo means fake)

But overall can it be trusted as a legit thing but can't be explained?

It's as legit as you want to make it. Just like anything in life. I don't give a fuck what scientific study we created, somewhere in the universe is something that will defy it and prove it wrong. Astrology is like any thing in life really. All sources of information were first documented by a single human or group of people, then over time modified by and enhanced by other people. Like the first human to ever sit and analyze a tree likely thought "It has soft things connected to long things connected to a hard thing." Then a human called the soft things leaves, the long things branches, and the hard thing a trunk. Then another human figured out the tree grows from sunlight. Then another human figured out it was made up of cells, and absorbs carbon dioxide then create oxygen. It's just a list of things gathered and enhanced over time which makes a tree understandable to human intelligence. Astrology is the exact same thing. It's just information that keeps gathering to the point it starts to makes sense in our brains. Some will call it false sure, but there isn't a single thing that can't be proven false. Other then we as life live, and then die. That is certain.

Posted by EtherealTraveler

Posted by tiziani
It's not legit as a science if that's what you mean.

Yes it's not legit as science at all (hence pseudo science, pseudo means fake)

But overall can it be trusted as a legit thing but can't be explained?

click to expand

Trusting astrology is a choice you'll have to make on your own, if you decide to live your life based on astrology then that's up to you. By in large you'll become a self fulfilling prophecy by it but that's your choice.

Trust in astrology comes down to your belief in it and in that realm it's as trustworthy as Zeus throwing lightning bolts, eight balls predicting future events, and tossed chicken bones divining upcoming tragedies. If I'm not mistaken someone claimed McGregor (or whatever his name is) would win the match against Mayweather via astrology, that didn't happen but that's fine. Just blame retrograde mercury or whatever for that fluke.

Astrology will never be proven scientifically. It can easily be explained by its basic principles though. For a moment just throw out the connect the dot constellations, the plants, aspects, any anything else associated with deep astrology. Just focus on nothing but a human and the earth. Then document that humans personality as a child and adult based off the month, day, and time they were born. Now do that for 100 people. Only focus and document what those people have in common, and put the things they don't have in common to the side. Keep doing it for 1000's of people. Then do it for millions of people. Then keep doing it for thousands of years, and you have modern day astrology.

Posted by LordComplexity
Aside from what @sakuraflowers said. What always bothered me about that study was that they attempted to match people to their charts by mentioning alleged qualities of different charts and asking the people if it described them.

The problem with that is. The scientists are just taking it word from mouth what these people's personalities and such are actually as they claim. The scientists themselves do not even have a thorough understanding of Astrology itself and thus can't even make sure that certain astrologists' interpretations of what each placement means is actually accurate. I mean shit even on DXP I see so many misconceptions all the time. About almost every kind of placement from sun and moon to rising and midheaven.

So both on the astrologists' side and the people being matched to charts' side. The scientists just half-assed accept what is being said and done. They don't understand astrology themselves so there is no fidelity reassurance or anything.

In fact what's worse is. Scientists should explicitly know better when it comes to this kind of thing. Because of something else that is definitely scientifically substantiated and just so happens to have to do with people's personalities. What am I talking about? MBTI.

In prettt much every MBTI test, they explicitly tell you to "stop and really think about the question with an HONEST analysis about yourself".

Because psychologists know that if you ask someone if they have so and so quality. Especially if that quality is perceived as more of a positive than a negative. Then the vast majority of retarded mindless drones will always say "YEAH THATS ME". Even if they basically contradict themselves by saying they have completely opposing qualities simultaneously.

So of all things. I get that astrology is not an easily respectable idea to anyone that knows how the real world works. But to me this is a case of scientists stooping to the same level and disgustingly herpderping an entire study because they honestly couldn't give 2 shits about the subject.

Oh for fucks sake. Even Young, who created MBTI said it was bullshit. It does not hold any esteem among scientists, some employers/teachers might use it as a base tool for determining how someone perceives themselves but outside of that it's useless. There's a move in science to dissuade people using mbti when it comes to employing people and creating work teams.

Posted by LordComplexity

Posted by Catullus
Oh for fucks sake. Even Young, who created MBTI said it was bullshit.

Who the fuck is Young? The guy that invented the shit was named Carl Jung, and he NEVER said any such thing.

He might've said that it was hardly a fully comprehensive and truly accurate picture of human personal. But that's just humble admittance that, you known. This shit ain't all I encompassing the complexity of human personality.

It does not hold any esteem among scientists.

Lol lies.

Some employers/teachers might use it as a base tool for determining how someone perceives themselves but outside of that it's useless.

Wrong, it's used around the world by psychologists for treating mental patients where it is extremely useful for correcting imbalances. Which was basically Jung's main intention in the first place, because more than anything the system addresses the cause of UNHEALTHY personality traits more than anything.

There's a move in science to dissuade people using mbti when it comes to employing people and creating work teams.

Which means precisely jack shit. Weeeeeee.

click to expand

I meant Jung, he literally called MBTI a parlor game, nothing more and nothing less.

Mental illnesses are caused by things such as hormones, brain abnormalities, and personal traumas. A personality test does nothing for helping to determine that. Which is why you don't see people running around calling all -insert whatever mbti type you want- bipolar 'cause that's not how mental illnesses nor personality tests work. If psychologists are using it to determine mental illnesses then they need to stop practicing that. Any test that asks you to answer honestly about yourself determines how you perceive yourself, regardless of what spin is put on the test.

Yes there is a movement to inform employers about how mbti isn't accurate and shouldn't be utilized for hiring, work distributing, or team building.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-myers-briggs-personality-test-is-pretty-much-meaningless-9359770/

https://resources.workable.com/blog/personality-tests-hiring-mbti

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/25/483108905/personality-tests-are-popular-but-do-they-capture-the-real-you

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless

Posted by LordComplexity
@Catullus

I like BTW how you skipped over the part where I explicitly pointed out the tendency for people doin MBTI tests, to answer dishonestly. Which both is reflecting upon part of the reason again for shitty results with diagnosing someone's MBTI type, and thus more generally explaining in part why it gets as much skepticism as it does. Just like astrology and the study OP is talking about.

But more importantly it reflects the only motive I had for bringing up MBTI in the first place. To make an example of the fact that when people are given ANY KIND OF PERSONALITY TEST, they rarely ever know what they are talking about. Despite it being about who THEY are. Because everyone is just retarded. Get it? Got it? Good.

I noticed, it wasn't relevant to my point. MBTI is frowned upon in the scientific community and what you're talking about is one of those reasons. People almost always fall victim to self-serving biases which means personality tests can not accurately describe anyone. You're correct astrology is much the same in this regard. Both cater to people wanting to perceive themselves in the best light possible, if you actually dissect the wording in charts and horoscopes down to their simplest form they all say pretty much the same stuff just worded differently.

Traits that all the signs have:

Creativity

Honesty

Loyalty (some signs are pickier than others but whatever)

Some sense of justice

Courage/bravery

Tenacity/fortitude

Caring

Protectiveness

Romantic

Some sort of super special aura that makes them the center of the party/people just can't take their eyes off them etc.

Seriously, if you ever get bored, go to an astrology site take the description for virgo and post it in the pisces forum and say "I just read this about Pisces! It seems pretty accurate to me, how about you guys?" a lot of people will agree lol. You can use whatever signs you want, personally I find Libra and Leo descriptions super interchangeable lol.

Posted by LordComplexity

Posted by Catullus
I noticed, it wasn't relevant to my point.

You weren't the one defining what points were pertinent or not. I was because I was the OP of this convo. I made a point, and then you retorted like an arrogant assface with shit that technically had nothing to do with what I was trying to say.

MBTI is frowned upon in the scientific community.

Psychology itself is frowned upon by the scientific community. What makes you think it's even remotely respected by people who are overwhelmingly Materialistic in philosophy? The mind doesn't exist as far as the scientific community is concerned. Only the brain, Neurology. Even I consider Psychology a barbaric science. I told my therapist such bluntly early on.

As a scientist I won't have much regard for it either. But to pin it on a random personality test, or people's individual biases. Is just stupid.

What you're talking about is one of those reasons. People almost always fall victim to self-serving biases which means personality tests can not accurately describe anyone.

2 false dichotomies in one post actually. It doesn't get more retarded than that.

First, the self-serving biases of a person do not in the slightest count as evidence against a given tool that they use. This is the most retarded kind of mindset you can have. Considering scientists themselves know all too well about corrupt and forged scientific journals like that study used to support the idea that flu shots cause autism. There's scientists who believe in Creationism for fucks sake.

Yet nobody thinks that's justification to throw science away or whatever.

Second, following the first thing it's an absurd stretch to say this means that personality tests can't accurately describe anyone at all. In fact it's explicitly false because it has nothing to do with the test's legitimacy. It's insanely intellectually dishonest, and you can't peddle it without extending the same to critics of science itself.

You're correct astrology is much the same in this regard. Both cater to people wanting to perceive themselves in the best light possiblRAEPED.you actually dissect the wording in charts and horoscopes down to their simplest form they all say pretty much the same stuff just worded differently.

Oh god..

No. Fucking NO. You really fucking dared to say this absurd piece of aids covered shit?

Let me tell you something. Shit like:

"Leo Midheaven has the tenacity and longevity to attain the lofty goals they aim for."

"They know that persistence pays off."

"They understand that whatever trials they go through in their journey will make them stronger."

"They are courageous and noble, but need to watch out for the possibility of becoming arrogant."

None of this is vague or unspecific. We can see very clearly just by that last example, that it's an insanely bullshit claim to say that this stuff is only aimed at positivity. Arrogance is not viewed by anyone as a positive trait, and if you even try to tell a Leo they are arrogant. Well good luck. Because by first hand experience I know they don't like arrogance or the idea that they are.

Last but not least. None of what I just quoted is identical in shape, form, or way to this:

"Pisces Midheaven is very susceptible to outside influences."

"They will usually wait and see what happens."

"Some people think they are unstable just because they follow their own time table."

"Since they are very sensitive to psychic energies, it can disrupt their activities."

"These energies may come to them through channeling, intuition or feelings."

"If all goes well, this psychic ability will give the individual with a Pisces Midheaven compassion, inspiration and a spiritual perception."

"But this doesn't mean they have an easy time deciding what they want to be when they grow up."

"They know what they want to achieve, but they lack practicality. When they do make a decision, it will probably be made based on emotions"

Not even 0.0000001% are they identical. Which again the Pisces one also has negative qualities in their description. I'm sorry but this statement you made is just insanely false.

Traits that all the signs have:

According to who besides a retard that doesn't know what he's talking about?

Creativity

Nope, mostly only Libra, Aquarius, and Pisces. Which in the case of the air signs has more to do with the element. Air is considered intellectual, which Art is inherently intellectual In nature. Pisces because it is the embodiment of fantasy.

Honesty

Yet again horribly, horribly, wrong. Mostly just Fire and Earth signs. Fire because such people are blunt and up front. Earth because they are pragmatic and to the point.

Also notice so far that the reasons for the elements or modalities are not in any shape way or form identical. Intellectuality has absolutely nothing to do with Fantasy, being blunt and being pragmatic have nothing to do with each other, etc.

Loyalty

Fixed signs only. Not that the others are "unfaithful", but it'd be a false dichotomy to say that not being unfaithful means you are loyal. There are a lot of people that don't get into serious commitments in the first place, or they engage in polygamy and such. Etc. Like a Libra can respect their relationship but they're much more likely than a Leo to break it off.

Some sense of justice

Air/Fire signs only. But especially Libra/Aries.

Courage/bravery

Leo only.

Tenacity

Fire signs only. Especially Leo or a Fire/Earth combo. Aquarius and the air signs get the opposite reputation. All air signs are regarded as weak pussies. Aquarius is considered a weasel ass busta. Not positive traits at all. In fact what's hilarious is, the Aquarius is basically the loser of the zodiac. It's barely a good thing to be an aquarius. So the idea that this system takes advantage of flattery is asinine.

Fortitude

Taurus and by extension some manifestations of it's opposite Scorpio.

Caring

Water signs only. Especially Cancer. Aquarius gets called "humanitarian" but that's actually just because they're suck ups that stroke your dick or ego to make you want to keep em around. In other words, they snakes.

Protectiveness

Fixed signs and fire signs. Different kinds of protective based on elements in the fixed modality.

Romantic

Air and Earth, especially Libra and Taurus. Yet again for completely different reasons.

Some sort of super special aura that makes them the center of the party/people just can't take their eyes off them etc.

Leo and Scorpio only.

You can use whatever signs you want, personally I find Libra and Leo descriptions super interchangeable lol.

According to your theory, you're supposed to be able to interchange ANY 2 SIGNS. SO WHY IS YOUR EXAMPLES A FIRE AND AIR SIGN, AND THE LITERALLY DIRECT OPPOSITE PAIR OF PISCES AND VIRGO?

YOU GOD DAMN PIECE OF AIDS INFESTED SHIT. STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. YOU FULLY KNOW THAT OPPOSITES ALWAYS CONTAIN A SEED OF EACH OTHER. YOU KNOW THAT LIBRA AND ARIES SHOULD SHARE TRAITS PRECISELY. OR IN YOUR EXAMPLE, PISCES AND VIRGO. BECAUSE THEY ARE 2 SIDES OF THE SAME FUCKING COIN. THE ONLY DDIFFERENCE IS THAT WHAT TENDS TO BE POSITIVE FOR ONE SIGN OR PLACEMENT, TENDS TO BE EXHIBITED IN A NEGATIVE EXPRESSION IN THE OPPOSITE.

AQUARIUS IS VASLTY MORE LIKELY THAN LEO TO BE ARROGANT. LEO ACTUALLY MORE SO HAVE FLAWS SUCH AS SPEAKING WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR BEHAVING IRRATIONALLY. THE NEGATIVE INVERSES OF RATIONALITY AND KNOWING SHIT THAT AQUARIUS GETS CREDITED ON THE POSITIVE END. MEANWHILE AQUARIUS GETS THE NEGATIVE TRAIT OF COWARDOUS, PARALLEL YET SAME SPECTRUM TO THE LEO'S COURAGE. OR BEING NEGATIVELY SELF-SERVING VS THE LEO'S GENEROSITY. ETC.

click to expand

Right, I stopped reading your rant lmao. I can't take anyone seriously who believes they somehow have control over what others decide to comment on their posts. I was focused on your stance that mbti is approved of in the scientific community. Also the false biases thing was me rephrasing shit you already said lmao, you're so hell bent on turning this convo into a fight that you haven't even realized you've started arguing against your own points. Good job dude.

Posted by LordComplexity
@Catullus

I'm ignoring you. Because you're just so. Soooo. Retarded. But especially deceptive.

You have no real point to be here, saying the shit you are. Because you go back on it 2 seconds later and distort what was said and done. Why exactly? Who the fuck knows. You betrayed your original point. So, I'm just done. You are just some dumb irrelevant piece of shit that stumbled along my post and decided to regurgitate some shit you haven't really thought out or researched all that well.

You're so intent on wanting to fight me that you seriously have lost track of the convo. You said in your first post that mbti is considered a valid scientific test, I simply said it isn't. I didn't waiver on this in the slightest and gave you sources, there's tons more than what I gave but the gist is that mbti and personality tests aren't considered scientific.

You then wanted me to address this point:

Posted by LordComplexity
@Catullus

I like BTW how you skipped over the part where I explicitly pointed out the tendency for people doin MBTI tests, to answer dishonestly.

click to expand

I said it wasn't relevant to my stance -mbti isn't a scientifically supported test but I addressed it nonetheless. In addressing it I agreed with you, people fall victim to self serving biases while taking personality tests hence why they don't answer them honestly. You then proceeded to argue about how I, while agreeing with you, was wrong hence why I said you're so hellbent on a fight that you've started fighting against yourself.

For any confusion I may have caused you in my responses I apologize but I do maintain my initial point, mbti is nothing more than a parlor game for entertaining friends and that there is a movement to fight against mbti being used by employers. Hopefully this post has helped clear things up for you.

Aside from this I doubt I'll be responding further to you on this topic, I've proven my point and I've backed it up to go further now would be a waste of time.