I'll admit that I have a fondness for personality tests. I find them interesting, but I have no delusions about their ability to contribute to any meaningful analysis of one's life. That said, I don't think it's helpful to compare a system that is based on when you are born, to one that is based on answers to a variety of questions about how you would respond to different scenarios. The ways these tests are used by employers is exploitative, but that doesn't mean that there aren't interesting things to glean from categorizing trends in how people respond to these questions.

Astrology is uninteresting because it lacks even this barest of links to what you might be experiencing as an individual, but personality tests at least try to group you with like-minded groups. There are so many valid criticisms of personality tests, but at least they try, whereas astrology is lazy in so many ways.

anyways if you can't tell I'm an INTP and therefore always trying to understand things at a deeper level and probably better than you and or bad at communicating or something.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TerminalEncounter@hexbear.net 10 points 3 weeks ago

We had to do this colour personality test in nursing school. Everyone got greens and blues, those were supposed to be the caring, patient, relaxed or analytical, deliberate, precise colours. Some people got yellow, that was supposed to be the happy, sociable, persuasive colour.

I was the only one to get red and I felt so singled out lol, in all my cohort of 100. Red was like competitive, demanding, strong-willed

I dont think the colour personality test is a popular one or whatever but I couldn't believe I was the only one!!!

[–] crime@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

Most of the value I've gotten out of it is that "I'm INTP" has been a helpful euphemism for letting mbti-heads know I'm autistic before I trust them not to get weird about me actually telling them I'm autistic

[–] AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

Astrology is extremely interesting as one of the practices in the interaction of the history of science and the history of religion. It's quite a marvel to read what came from stargazing and how it shaped the stories that become myths and religions, comparing how different cultures interpreted the same astronomical events and so on. Most things that past societies did looking higher than the nearest ash or cypress tree falls under astrology. Yet none of that means you should take a goat to the nearest priest trained in haruspicy.

As for the interesting things one can glean from some scam test, Orson Welles spent one day as a fortune teller and at the end of that day he was able to surmise a woman had recently lost her husband seemingly out of thin air. So don't become a shut-eye, don't needlessly lend your own unconscious analysis to things that don't deserve it and don't fall for something you dug for yourself.

[–] andean@hexbear.net 3 points 3 weeks ago

According to this we could validate astrology if we let people, after questionnaires and research, to determine their own sign.

I was interested in typology during my tumblirina phase but even in socionics, a system developed by soviets, I found problems that I believe are Jung's fault: the inconsistency of his dictomies, and building a system based on the individual and their mind as entities isolated from the environment.
In the worst-case it is determinism, reinventing human nature but with 16 different flavors.