You're not the only reader. I tend to speak to an audience, rather than directly to an individual in a public forum.

It's an idiom, and it is a normative statement, not a descriptive one.

I am a Christian woman but I will NEVER date another Virgo as long as I live....disaster every time.

Ah. But you used ^^^ pointing to my post and responding to it specifically and individually.

So your tendency wasn't one in this case.

Regardless of how the various methods are based, the outcome is the same..............to describe/predict human behavior.

And they all rely on the individual's perception as to whether or not the results are accurate.

Right. Kinda like common sense not being all that common.

This is true, however, I still would think that most people would put more weight on a profile based on their own honest answers than one based on their date of birth.

Someone not believing it doesn't make it inaccurate; the MBTI is documented at being approximately 75% accurate.

Are you saying that is an idiom? Are you saying I lack common sense? I'm sorry, but you lost me there.

Oh I dunno. I like being able to blame things on the fact that Imma Virgo. But hell, now I can blame it on M-B type too or instead of! LOL

Unless the part not believed fell within the 25% inaccurate zone.

Also, I'd think that if they knew precisely how accurate/inaccurate it was, they'd be able to adjust it to eliminate inaccuracies. (shrugs)

OH I'm sorry!!! You typed Idiom, I read cliche! It happens.

i hope i'm missing your point but blaming one's behavior on something one doesn't have any control over is stupid. if i'm stubborn & independent it's because that's the way i choose to behave, not because i'm a capricorn.

Awareness into understanding why certain tendencies MAY be there is all. There was a funny saying we used to say growing up "I was born this way, what's your excuse?" It's a joke, really. From my understanding of it, Astrology does not say anything is absolute (and that does not mean I believe in it)!

DELIVERY ROOM. NO SMOKING.

I don't understand the point of your study and I don't believe it has any relevance to astrology. With all of your scientific background and understanding of astronomy I am saddened that you're wasting your time on this kind of thing. If you really cared whether there was any merit in astrology you would read the studies showing correlations and try to find out what part of astrology might work and what might not.

But instead you've already decided that it doesn't work and you've decided WHY it doesn't work, so instead you're testing peoples' ability to know themselves, and not the ability of astrology to show objective data in the lives of people. I think your test is vaguely interesting in a humanistic way but basically is a joke insofar as actually testing astrology.

All of the tests that are quoted actually test astrologers, people who read their horoscopes or natal charts, and don't actually test astrology. Studies that look for specific traits and look for correlations in birth charts could potentially show interesting patterns, and actually increase knowledge in how natural cycles affect us.

But there are still only 9 planets used, they don't land at random, and they are not of equal significance. Their significance could easily be looked at according to distance and size. The Sun and Moon are significant for these reasons, the largest body and the closest body -

I believe that what it is today is nothing more than commercialized B.S., to skeptics.

I don't really understand how you do not agree with the huge fundamental difference between these two profiles.

I don't recall the name of the study but a room frull of college students is given what they think is an accurate description of them based not just on the sign but birth place, time and all the other mumbo jubbo.

The all read the assessments and were asked to rate the accuracy , they all rated it exceptionally high.

They were then asked to trade assessments with the person next to them, every assessment was identical.

Often enough, I am a skeptic of scientific research and studies. Why? Because they require large sums of money to conduct. The majority of the time, the financier has a bias. A financial bias. They wanna make money off of the research or study.

In my opinion, researchers conduct studies with a bias, not objectivity. Often enough, the results prove their bias.

You could, however, say that I am one that has become disillusioned of science.

I have a mind that can grasp and accept more than science can explain acceptably. Probably more than I can explain acceptably to others. Please don't hold that against me.

Like I said before. Astrology, Religion and Science ALL require faith.

A true scientist doesn't not have the time or capacity to test EVERY scientific theory or claim out there. It's just flat out impossible. So, said scientist must blindly accept what others have said or written. This is faith. Believing that which you have not or cannot prove.

I don't need science to dictate to me that which I know to be true.

You want to prove things right by proving them wrong. But if you can't prove them right, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Only that "you" can't prove them right, based on what you used.

I'll keep believing as I do because I know what I believe to be true. That doesn't mean that you have to believe it too.

Many people take the same route, everyday to get to work. More often than not, there's other routes available. But they have their reasons for going the way they go(shorter, scenic, avoids a railroad crossing, etc). As long as they arrive at the same location, it doesn't matter which way they went.
To me, the outcome is the same!

Where did that opinion originate? It feels biased. A team of researchers often consists of interns, too, do you believe the entire team is biased?

Haha, I think opinion on the fact that this person's opinion that people are biased is biased. I think you've been dabbling too much in the hard sciences and you forget that there is a spectrum - once you get into the soft sciences and behaviour the lines can VERY easily be changed to bias a study towards one end rather than another. It's because these studies often do not take into account the many variables, which cannot be reduced as easily as in the hard sciences. There are many, many conflicts, ego clashes and differences of opinion amongst scientists in many disciplines. You talk as though everyone is in a merry agreement with each other, each adjusting their data as soon as the latest research findings come out.

As a small parallel - I did a study comparing my natal chart with another one that wasn't mine, in which I used a website that put together statements based on about 5 factors, some of them combining 2 factors (sun and moon together). I went through and highlighted the statements that were true, false and neutral. My results were that my natal chart was around 95% accurate and 0% wrong. The other one was around 50% accurate and 25% wrong.


You did another similar test involving your natal chart and a randomly generated one. You used a different site, one that I checked out and dismissed because I found the statements too dramatic and harsh. You used many more elements of the chart, but none of them were combined to show what a real astrologer would do. Yours showed no difference in the two, with both being accurate to a high degree.

Hmm ... could it be someone is biased? Both of us perhaps?