|
Post by stella22 on Jan 4, 2006 17:54:59 GMT -5
I'm an aries-pisces which fits me fairly accurately.
What I really enjoy though is the myers-brigg personality profiles and also the enneagram. Those can be eerily accurate. I think I'm between INTP and INFP.
What I always have to remind myself about is that other people operate from completely different personalities and ways of viewing the world. For some reason I always think that people are more like me than they are. I think that is some common fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Jan 5, 2006 18:26:48 GMT -5
When I was younger, I was a firm believer. But there are some things that made me change my mind. First of all, there is convincing empirical evidence against astrology: www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html(I won't sum it up, it's a must-read.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondly, what do these men have in common? Lord Byron The Austrian leftist politician Bruno Kreisky John Travolta Franz Schubert An unknown Italian party lion An unknown German astrologer An unknown German pen pusher Answer: They are all Aquarius with a Cancer ascendant. Like myself, too. Remember: There are 12 x 12 = 144 possible sun sign - ascendant combinations, and the astrologers agree, that these two are the most powerful and most important factors in a horoscope. So in theory, each of these persons, including myself, should belong to a very special group of people who make up only about 1/144 of the population (= about 0,69%) and who are more similar to each other than to the other 143/144 of the population. But in fact it's obvious that they are very different. In a sample of, let's say, 100 people you'll surely going to find people who are closer matches to one concrete person of this collection than the other persons (of the collection) are. Before I started this search (already long ago), I personally expected to find a sample that was a) much more homogenous and b) more similar to myself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still, many people have got the strong subjective impression that astrology works, and therefore they believe in it, or they are reluctant to fully reject it ("there must be some truth in it"). This subjective impression is something that has to be explained. Here are some answers (summed up and reedited from the German page www.psi-infos.de/_von_jedem_ein_bisschen_fur_al.html ): 1. Astrologers (and astrology) are suggestive and manipulate the self-image of their clients and followers. If you believe in a certain statement about your personality, you include it in assessments of yourself and see yourself in that light. 2. Astrological personality profiles are like interpretation filters, which filter what we perceive inside and around us, also at other persons. Plus: Selective memory - you rather remember statements that turned out to be true than the not fitting ones. 3. The Barnum effect: Many personality traits in astrological descriptions fit to a large deal of the population. ("You have a tendency for self-criticism." "At times you get serious doubts if you've made the right decision or done the right thing." "You prefer a certain amount of change and get dissatisfied if you get restricted and hemmed in." "You have learned that it's unwise to open one's heart too candidly to other people." "Mostly self-controled towards the outside, you tend to be unsure inside." "You are proud to think independently and don't accept without satisfying proof what others claim." "Although you have certain character flaws, you're generally able to offset them." About 80-95% of the population believe that these statements hold true of themselves.) 4. Halo effects: First impressions get rashly generalized. If a single, concrete statement for once has turned out to be amazingly fitting, the readiness grows to accept also more vague and ambiguous statements, and finally even wrong ones get accepted, and the self-image gets modified. However; there had been experiments demonstrating that even horoscope analyses of other people (even anonymous analyses of murderers) get largely accepted by people who had been told that they were their own.
|
|
|
Post by Educate Me on Jan 5, 2006 18:48:48 GMT -5
I am aries, Isnt Aries like boring?
How does aries supposedly behave?
You dont meet many aries, like few people are born during those days.
And how do you know your ascendant? and what does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Jan 5, 2006 18:56:14 GMT -5
your ascendant? and what does that mean? It's the sign (of the astrological zodiac, not the real one; they are not identical btw) that was rising in the East at the time of your birth.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Jan 5, 2006 19:23:40 GMT -5
- Western astrology does not correspond to any real star constellations. It's output is basically speculation because the stars changed their position since the time the system was invented.
- Indian vedic astrology does dynamically correspond to stars. The sun sign would be shifted backward in comparison to the sign calculated by the Western method for example. However, the conclusions are culturally archaic and not as psychologized.
- It were the Akkadians that started to calculate personal fortunes with astrology. Before that, it was mainly used to predict the course of wars.
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Jan 5, 2006 20:03:15 GMT -5
That's cancer(zodiac sign) effect.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 5, 2006 21:09:21 GMT -5
take a Guess what I am?
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Jan 5, 2006 21:40:26 GMT -5
You already said it. Scorpio
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 6, 2006 4:49:47 GMT -5
Good Memory!
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Jan 6, 2006 7:47:22 GMT -5
Len, I you don't happen to have Mercury (planet associated to intelligence,communication, commerce, among other things) in Acquarius too ? That would make a person an original and indipendent thinker ready to attack the existing scemes. I'm, BTW, a Libra with a Virgo ascendent and Mercury rising (first planet from the ascendent). A very critical diplomat.
|
|
|
Post by stella22 on Jan 6, 2006 12:37:32 GMT -5
I am aries, Isnt Aries like boring? How does aries supposedly behave? You dont meet many aries, like few people are born during those days. And how do you know your ascendant? and what does that mean? Aries aren't boring. They have a reputation for being dynamic and ambitious. I have noticed in astrology books that they are the least favored of the signs. Usually they are characterized as being immature, impatient, argumentative and competitive.
|
|
Mjora
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by Mjora on Jan 6, 2006 13:50:43 GMT -5
I am aries, Isnt Aries like boring? How does aries supposedly behave? You dont meet many aries, like few people are born during those days. And how do you know your ascendant? and what does that mean? Aries aren't boring. They have a reputation for being dynamic and ambitious. I have noticed in astrology books that they are the least favored of the signs. Usually they are characterized as being immature, impatient, argumentative and competitive. You forgot to say selfish.Aries is one of the most egocentric sign in zodiac
|
|
|
Post by Liquid Len on Jan 6, 2006 15:36:11 GMT -5
Len, I you don't happen to have Mercury (planet associated to intelligence,communication, commerce, among other things) in Acquarius too ? That would make a person an original and indipendent thinker ready to attack the existing scemes. I'm, BTW, a Libra with a Virgo ascendent and Mercury rising (first planet from the ascendent). A very critical diplomat. No, my Mercury is in Capricorn, and reinforcing this, Saturn in the third house... But there's something else that should enhance my originality: Uranus forms a precise trigon with the ascendant. (There's almost always another factor that can explain a specific trait.) Besides I've got Jupiter rising and the moon, Venus and Neptune in Sagittarius. This is supposed to give me luck and Sagittarius traits. I am aries, Isnt Aries like boring? How does aries supposedly behave? Aries is usually described as passionate, red-blooded, easily excited, extroverted, choleric, spontanous, fast, competitive etc. That's cancer(zodiac sign) effect. Well, I have read that a dimple in the chin is typical for Libra... Byron had one too (a cleft chin), according to some portraits, but I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 6, 2006 15:59:03 GMT -5
Scorpius is the best.
|
|
|
Post by stella22 on Jan 6, 2006 20:20:40 GMT -5
Aries aren't boring. They have a reputation for being dynamic and ambitious. I have noticed in astrology books that they are the least favored of the signs. Usually they are characterized as being immature, impatient, argumentative and competitive. You forgot to say selfish.Aries is one of the most egocentric sign in zodiac Very good, I did forget that one. The funny thing is that I have known many Aries and though I don't connect with them, they don't appear to be that selfish. I think the most selfish sign is Capricorn.
|
|