What does the gravitational balance of celestial bodies have to do with human being's personalities?
We have to be the most outrageously arrogant and self-centered beings in the universe, I'll put money on it.
It is our experiences, our cognitive ability, our environments that shape and define our personalities. Not the time of year that we are born. You will not find statistical evidence to prove personality traits are more prevalent in people born at one time of year over another. People have tried! The only way to do so is to generalize a trait to the point where it's universal, and then slap it on someone. "Taurus' are quick to anger" <-- EVERYBODY is quick to anger at some point in time. There's more credibility to the idea that being Irish leads one to high temperament, due to not only genetics but cultural influences as well.
Some aspects of astrology are worth studying, but attributing a person's personality (or sexual / romantic compatibility) to whether or not they popped out of the womb at a certain time of year is absolutely preposterous. How many "exceptions to the rule" are among your friends? More than roughly 90% of my friends and family possess SOME traits attributed with their sign, and other traits are radically inaccurate. If I go through the list of every single sign in the zodiac, and compare it to someone I know, it's the same thing. There are some things that are spot on, and others that are dead wrong.
With the MBTI personality test and observing people I know, I can at least make ACCURATE guesses as to traits they will possess. An ENFP is likely to be similar to me. Another person with the same sign as me is not. Plain and simple, nothing has refuted this in all my experiences in life.
If I could experience a single ounce of CONSISTENCY with astrological signs indicating people's personalities, I would believe. I have not, nor have I ever seen any data that supports it. The chart you listed shows numbers well within the acceptable range for random dispersal.
Sure, zodiac signs show us universal traits and let us explore them, that's cool. In fact it's wonderful to promote introspection and self awareness. As for any statistically plausible and consistently accurate traits? They're just not there. Your average lawyer or star kid on the debate team can show you how to manipulate data to implicate a certain thing.
I'm not trying to be overly aggressive or hostile towards astrology, I just find it interesting people put stock in something proven by modern science to be incorrect. But then again, there are still devoutly religious people...
The main problem is that our astrological sign has to do with the month and year we were born, but the brain does not stop developing at birth. In fact, it has only just begun. The years following our birth? THAT'S where our personality comes from.
We have to be the most outrageously arrogant and self-centered beings in the universe, I'll put money on it.
It is our experiences, our cognitive ability, our environments that shape and define our personalities. Not the time of year that we are born. You will not find statistical evidence to prove personality traits are more prevalent in people born at one time of year over another. People have tried! The only way to do so is to generalize a trait to the point where it's universal, and then slap it on someone. "Taurus' are quick to anger" <-- EVERYBODY is quick to anger at some point in time. There's more credibility to the idea that being Irish leads one to high temperament, due to not only genetics but cultural influences as well.
Some aspects of astrology are worth studying, but attributing a person's personality (or sexual / romantic compatibility) to whether or not they popped out of the womb at a certain time of year is absolutely preposterous. How many "exceptions to the rule" are among your friends? More than roughly 90% of my friends and family possess SOME traits attributed with their sign, and other traits are radically inaccurate. If I go through the list of every single sign in the zodiac, and compare it to someone I know, it's the same thing. There are some things that are spot on, and others that are dead wrong.
With the MBTI personality test and observing people I know, I can at least make ACCURATE guesses as to traits they will possess. An ENFP is likely to be similar to me. Another person with the same sign as me is not. Plain and simple, nothing has refuted this in all my experiences in life.
If I could experience a single ounce of CONSISTENCY with astrological signs indicating people's personalities, I would believe. I have not, nor have I ever seen any data that supports it. The chart you listed shows numbers well within the acceptable range for random dispersal.
Sure, zodiac signs show us universal traits and let us explore them, that's cool. In fact it's wonderful to promote introspection and self awareness. As for any statistically plausible and consistently accurate traits? They're just not there. Your average lawyer or star kid on the debate team can show you how to manipulate data to implicate a certain thing.
I'm not trying to be overly aggressive or hostile towards astrology, I just find it interesting people put stock in something proven by modern science to be incorrect. But then again, there are still devoutly religious people...
Mick Jagger said it best: Old habits die hard.