Okay, so, I've never understood astrology. I looked into it a few years ago and it just sounds really stupid. How can anyone possibly think that the stars have any effect on people's personalities? It doesn't make any sense. I was talking to this guy a few days ago who liked astrology. He thought I would too, since I am slightly interested in the Enneagram. But I think it's the stupidest thing ever. Even if you ignore the whole stars and planets thing, the type descrpitons are just really random. You might find a type that describes you most, but what's the point? I won't say anything about you that you don't already know. It has no base. It's random. You might think your sign describes you well. Obviously, this will be true for some people. It's impossible that nobody would identify with their astrological sign. But their are many people whose signs don't describe them at all. Also, I have noticed that people tend to see themselves in a type description if they want to, and they don't see themselves in a description if they don't want to. For instance, a person I know has always thought of herself as an Enneagram type 5. We read the description and she thought it sounded a lot like her. I didn't think it did. I thought she was a type 9. So I read her type 9, but she didn't think it described her very well. The thing is, I think she saw herself in the type 5 description because she wanted to be a type 5. Perhaps it's the same with astrology.
I'm a Taurus. A bull. Lovely. According to a random site on the internet, Taurus people are dependable, persistent, loyal, patient, generous, stubborn, lazy, possessive, materialistic and self-indulging. Here is a list of these traits with notes about how much they describe me:
- Dependable: I think this describes me.
- Persistent: Definitely. I don't give up.
- Loyal: Ha ha, no.
- Patent: Depends. Do I get ice cream?
- Generous: Nooooo.
- Stubborn: Yesssssss.
- Lazy: Kind of.
- Possessive: Not at all.
- Materialistic: I am the exact opposite of this.
- Self-indulging: Not really.
- Analytical: Totally.
- Observant: Kind of.
- Helpful: Definitely not.
- Reliable: Mostly.
- Precise: Depends.
- Skeptical: A bit.
- Fussy: Maybe.
- Inflexible: Yes.
- Cold: Sometimes.
- Interfering: Not really?
- Confident: I act like it but not really.
- Ambitious: Sometimes.
- Generous: Nope.
- Loyal: I'm kind of like a Slytherin in this way.
- Encouraging: Not unless I have to be.
- Pretentious: Not really.
- Domineering: Well, okay, yes.
- Melodramatic: Not unless I'm angry, which really isn't often.
- Stubborn: Yes.
- Vain: Not at all.
Someone said to me "Well, astrology a lot more complicated than that." Sure, whatever, all I know is that it's based on stars, which I think is stupid. And, also, some people seem to think that if you make something more complicated, that somehow makes it more accurate. I have this problem with Myers Briggs, too. In all the experience I have had (which, I admit, is not very much), I have found that complicated things are not better than simple things but it is in fact the other way around. I think Einstein said it well. "If you can't explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough." I apply this principle to everything, science, math, people. Especially people.
If you like astrology, good for you. I just hope you don't think it's the answer to the universe. I also hope you don't think Enneagram is the answer to the universe, or even Myers Briggs. Every personality typing system is inaccurate. That is the beauty of people, they are too complicated to truly explain. Some people would say "so don't try", but I like to imagine that I understand things, though I never forget that I really don't. I like creating order in the universe. It's fun to look at something random and messy (like a human mind), and pretend that it is something infinitely simple. But it still isn't the truth. And so when I tell you that I am an INTJ, what I mean is not that those four letters completely and accurately describe every bit of my personality, what I mean is that those letters are a way I have found of looking at myself. It is not reality, it is a pair of glasses. I am looking at myself through the lens of Myers Briggs.
So, technically I have just argued against my own point (I do that a lot). I have pretty much said that astrology is just as good as Myers Briggs. Both are equally valid ways of looking at people (ignoring the bit about stars, again). It's just that I personally do not like astrology.
And I think have successfully made my way back to the beginning of this post and probably also successfully confused you. Like I said, ignore me.
No comments:
Post a Comment