Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Just wanted to know how many members here actually fit the personality detailed in their astrological sign.
As a Libra, I sure don't.
As a Libra, I sure don't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Born under a bad sign, anyone? (Astrology)
- Thread starter Gjallarhorn
- Start date
The signs aren't personality types, they are categorized properties that may relate to personality or to other things, actions and aspects of life. In regard to your birth the sign relates to the sun symbolism, which is that of the conscious mind and ego.
To say you're a Libra is just to say that you lean towards analysing things. Analysis is where you may be said to have an intellectual investment (per the ego, which tends to invest in truth). As such, you favour balance because you will apply analysis to both sides (of any coin).
Does that help?
To say you're a Libra is just to say that you lean towards analysing things. Analysis is where you may be said to have an intellectual investment (per the ego, which tends to invest in truth). As such, you favour balance because you will apply analysis to both sides (of any coin).
Does that help?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I find that mine fits me pretty well. I also find that most of the other signs fit me pretty well too.
As well they should. The categories of the signs relate in whole to every person. To being human.It makes me smile every time people think it's about them.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Actually, no. It kind of invalidates the premise of astrology even more. If all signs pertain to an individual, why do we only check a singular sign in the paper?
It seems like mental masturbation at best.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
I am a Leo and yeah, it fits.
Nyingjé Tso
Tänpa Yungdrung zhab pä tän gyur jig
Leo too... from a Leo family (yes) and it completely fit (unfortunately. Not easy everyday being a big cat)
Sees
Dragonslayer
Some see as drawing out the answers you already had within you i.e. a pointing finger though you already had a picture of the moon or knew it's location. I think this type of stuff works many ways, even those seemingly contradicting.
I wish there was a "sort of" option.
As an Aquarius, there are many aspects that match my personality. Likewise, there are many that also don't.
As an Aquarius, there are many aspects that match my personality. Likewise, there are many that also don't.
I'm a Virgo with Scorpio Rising. I've done a complete birth chart and it all makes sense.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
If we really want to go into it, my Sun Sign of Leo fits, but I have also had my astrology done according to Indian Jyotisha.
Talk about being born under a 'bad sign' - my Saturn is retrograde in Pisces in the 3rd house and that's just the start of all my 'problems'.
When ever somebody does my chart (I've had it done 4 times now for 'confirmation'), astrologers just go like this:
Talk about being born under a 'bad sign' - my Saturn is retrograde in Pisces in the 3rd house and that's just the start of all my 'problems'.
When ever somebody does my chart (I've had it done 4 times now for 'confirmation'), astrologers just go like this:
People only check a single sign in the paper because the masses are pretty darn ignorant about astrology. Newspaper astrology is a watered down, overly simplified version that has little to no resemblance to actual, serious astrological divinations. Actual astrology is substantially more complicated. I'm not into astrology personally, but I forced myself to learn enough about it that it now drives me nuts that the masses think that all that matters is their "sign." They don't even know that their "sign" isn't their sign, it's their sun sign and their natal chart also has a good dozen other signs that a proper astrologer would consider when doing a divination for you. And forget about them understanding aspects, rulership, cardinal-fixed-mutable, and so forth. Nope. "What's your sign" is as far as people get, and yeah, if that's all you use, astrology kind of sucks.
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
When laymen talk about "my sign" they mean the sun sign, as that's the only thing they know, but that's a small part of the horoscope. The sign that's most obvious when you meet some-one is usually the rising sign.
When a young man I decided to investigate astrology. My mother remembered my birth time (we don't record it on birth certificates in England), so I cast my horoscope. Everything seemed reasonable except by rising sign: Taurus. It just didn't fit. My mother insisted she had the time right: there was a clock on the wall opposite and she remembered noting the time. So, since I'd taken the time as Summer Time, as stated in the textbook, I checked in the papers for the month of my birth. Sure enough, the book has been wrong. My birth time was GMT, not BST, so I was Gemini not Taurus. That is proving astrology by experiment. And I've done much more research over the years, some with positive results, some with negative.
As for newspaper columns, there are three types.
1. Those made up by journalists, with no astrological input.
2. Those written by bad astrologers who think that the method they use does give some guide, however weak.
3. Those written by good but (to my mind) unprincipled astrologers who say it's nonsense, but better that they should have the money than some-one less deserving.
I remember that in the 1970s or 1980s there was a year-long study of newspaper forecasts in Scotland which showed that their success rate was no better than chance. The study was done by the Scottish astrological Association!
When a young man I decided to investigate astrology. My mother remembered my birth time (we don't record it on birth certificates in England), so I cast my horoscope. Everything seemed reasonable except by rising sign: Taurus. It just didn't fit. My mother insisted she had the time right: there was a clock on the wall opposite and she remembered noting the time. So, since I'd taken the time as Summer Time, as stated in the textbook, I checked in the papers for the month of my birth. Sure enough, the book has been wrong. My birth time was GMT, not BST, so I was Gemini not Taurus. That is proving astrology by experiment. And I've done much more research over the years, some with positive results, some with negative.
As for newspaper columns, there are three types.
1. Those made up by journalists, with no astrological input.
2. Those written by bad astrologers who think that the method they use does give some guide, however weak.
3. Those written by good but (to my mind) unprincipled astrologers who say it's nonsense, but better that they should have the money than some-one less deserving.
I remember that in the 1970s or 1980s there was a year-long study of newspaper forecasts in Scotland which showed that their success rate was no better than chance. The study was done by the Scottish astrological Association!
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Weird, since most people guess I'm a Taurus, Virgo, Aquarius (which I say just to get them to stop), and Scorpio.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The perception of things like astrology being accurate is largely dependent on confirmation bias and other cognitive biases, along with a certain amount of probabilistic correlation (i.e., a certain number of people's personalities and attributes will just so happen to correlate strongly with the archetypal description of each of the astrological signs, thereby increasing the frequency of correct guesses on the part of people familiar with these archetypal descriptions.)
At the end of the day, the fundamental idea that the arbitrary rotational position of the Earth (along with it's position on its eliptical orbit around the Sun) having any impact on the attributes of people who happen to be born at that time has no empirical basis, nor any rational explanation of mechanism. It's completely unscientific when presented as some type of correlational or predictive system.
Of course, as is the case with things such as Tarot cards, people can and do find useful insights by employing such techniques in a way which highlights their subconcious motivations and wishes. Personally, I think there are more direct, useful, and substantive ways to achieve such results, but I have no problem with people employing such methods, particularly when they understand it isn't scientific in any way.
The horoscope column that appears in the entertainment section of the newspaper is just that, entertainment, nothing more. It's intended to be taken lightly. It's only a fancy that it's billed as applying to anyone personally.
Blame Princess Margaret (for being born).
History, controversies, validity (Abstract+Article)