Big 5 vs MBTI vs Astrology | Comparing the Science of Personality Tests

[@AsuraPsych]

I see people making notes in the comments about the studies use of only sun signs for astrology. I would like to make clear that as a practitioner of science and philosophy, that I firmly believe astrology to be a pseudoscience. To this day, not a single study of reproducible value has ever produced anything meaningful regarding astrology and outcomes, regardless of the intensity and complexity of the measure. If you are interested in readings on why this is the case and a logical argument with evidence, I suggest the following: Thagard, Paul R. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience.” PSA : proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1978.1 (1978): 223-234. Web. On top of this, a large double-blind study was conducted in cooperation with representatives of the professional astrology community that examined Natal astrology (including Sun, Moon, planets, Ascendant, Midheaven, Descendant and Immum Coeli as well as the aspects or angles between them) that found that Natal astrology performed no better than chance. "Carlson's experiment involved twenty-eight astrologers who were held in high esteem by their peers. They agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles that were generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), a standard and well accepted personality test, which the astrologers themselves identified as the scientific instrument that was best aligned with type of information they believed they could divine from their art. The astrologers agreed that the experimental protocol provided a "fair test" of astrology prior to taking part in it. The participating astrologers were nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research (NCGR), which acted as the astrological advisors to ensure that the test was fair. The astrologers came from Europe and the United States. The astrologers also identified the central proposition of natal astrology to be tested. The results were published in Nature on December 5, 1985. The study found that astrologers were unable to match natal charts to their corresponding personality tests better than chance. Moreover, astrologers were no more likely to be correct even when they had high confidence that they had made a match correctly. Carlson concluded that the result "clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis"." Carlson, S. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318, 419-425 (1985). doi.org/10.1038/318419a0

[@tigerfist1126]

Vedic Sidereal Astrologers are right that the Sun sign has nothing do with a persons personality , but the Sun is about a person's Soul , Ego , father , and etc ... while the Moon sign is about a person's mind , emotions , mother , etc ... which is why the Moon is one of the most important planet in the Vedic Sidereal Astrology . Human Design is actually using Tropical Astrology and other systems to help people find their Arua and Personality called profiles . In which Human Design also help me find what MBTI type i am , INFP . What i like about Vedic Sidereal Astrology and Human Design is that a person can not be boxed into one type. MBTI and Tropical Astrology in my opinion is that both systems trying to box people into one type . People have more than on type of Personality . Everyone is like a snowflake . Not everyone will have the same personality . No two INTJ'S will be a like. No two Sun in Aquarius will be a like .

[@bellhula1535]

Hope to recover soon Also do more Jungian and the Netherlands guys philosopher.

[@michaelsutherland5848]

MBTI is useful specifically for its categorization. If I want somebody to understand me better, I can just tell them to research INTJs. Not everybody is so neatly categorized, but it's what makes MBTI more useful for day-to-day use than Big 5. "Hey, my OCEAN is 80-86-26-90-16" just doesn't have the same impact.

[@DistortedV12]

Exactly, the ocean coordinate system needs its own typology

[@cschelko]

Good to see you up and moving around. Continue getting well.

[@opalknight6947]

As far as the Big 5 vs. MBTI for personality assessment goes, I think that the BIG 5 is a great tool to sum up who you are to another individual very quickly, easily and succinctly. I do think it is one of the best tools a workplace has to identify what type of worker an employee will be and what a good fit of their overall strengths are. If I was at an interview and the interviewer asked, "so who are you?" I feel I wouldn't have the time nor open tome in front of me to describe that effectively for the purposes of whatever job it would be for. In that regard, Big 5 is a great way of saying, "THIS is who I am!" I think that the MBTI delves a lot deeper than the Big 5 as far as reporting the how's and why's of a person's thinking and actions as far as predicting what type of position or tasks a person will excel at. I think most jobs now-a-days should just give the Big 5 as it's entry level assessment of an employee, but that if it is the kind of workplace that really needs to rely on a perfect fit for positions and tasks that it would behoove them to also give an MBTI assessment to further their picture of an employee's personality. If one is talking about self-discovery in regards to personality and more importantly understanding others and getting along better with others, Big 5 really can't compare to MBTI. And perhaps that is the take-away for statistical psychology. On paper Big 5 statistically looks great, but when it comes to it's merits for deeper inquiry there just isn't a way to collect that kind of data. As far as Psychology as a science or pseudo-science goes, it's always about the statistics. Something else of note to determine how good of an assessment and the predictive outcomes any of these personality testing methods are, is how much time, research, and knowledge one needs to really be able to understand the whole picture of what the information is providing you. I think realistically it takes a bout an hour (possibly a day) to understand what the results of the Big 5 are telling you. But I think to really get the benefit from MBTI one should really spend at least a year/couple of years learning what all the ins and outs of the functions mean and how they associate with one another. And in that regard, I think one really needs to spend a decade really researching the ins and outs of Astrology to really understand it. For that reason the Big 5 is the most accessible to the masses, where as you really have to put time and effort into learning MBTI (and definitely Astrology) to fully benefit from what the outcomes are telling you. But that is not something that can be collected as data for a statistic, or at least isn't considered for the purpose of this kind of study.

[@yournidom6512]

Your third paragraph... 🔥🔥

[@Quraishy]

Hope you get well so soon Happy to see you again Welcome back 🌹

[@opalknight6947]

An interesting note about their reporting on Astrology for this study, I noticed, is it only went off of Sun Signs. I'm not into Astrology myself, but I spent a couple of years unofficially learning a bit about what it entailed (I am an INFJ) as I had spent the majority of my life believing it was complete bunk. But only looking at Sun signs for Astrology would be akin to only looking at the Auxiliary function in MBTI and knowing nothing about a person's Dominant, Tertiary, or Inferior functions and then trying to get an accurate measure of a person's personality from only knowing that one portion. I'm not saying that Astrology has the same validity for personality as the MBTI or the Big 5, but I am saying that to only look at the one measure for Astrology is unfair. Astrology has to do entirely with correlations to an entire birth chart of placements and has three major placements (Sun, Moon, and Rising signs). To say that this study only took Sun signs into account is to say that this study did not actually include Astrology at all.

[@tehufn]

I'm glad you pointed this out. Scientists like to take digs at astrology any time they can, and using sun sign astrology instead of looking at the positions of the planets and their relation to each other in general is just the low-hanging fruit. There have been some more fair studies into astrology, and besides that most astrologers who look at full birth charts will tell you the sun is not enough to go by. This over emphasis on the sun was likely made popular by the esoteric astrologers of the early 1900s. Buy the rules of traditional astrology, half the time the moon is "the important" planet for a person... though again astrologers insist you still have to look at all the planets. I am an INTJ, and I started looking into astrology because I had already looked into everything else I could get my hands on, and it was just next on the list. I was interested in looking into one of the most ancient personality systems. I can't read a chart too well, although I know the basics. It's quite fascinating, I'm still in search of more research.

[@ZTRCTGuy]

People conflate an exact science with pseudoscience all the time. Psychology as a whole isn't an exact science, including the big 5. But it's nowhere near pseudoscience. I have a bit of a problem relating personality to life outcomes, life outcomes are dependant on a whole slew of factors of which personality is just one, and imo probably not a big one either. I think your social or financial class, or where you live have way more impact. What I would find way more interesting is how personality can predict behaviour or to an extent the opinions and views of an individual. I will say in my experience I've found enneagram to be completely superfluous next to MBTI. I took the survey.

[@dianeds9520]

Welcome back, nice to see you back and well!!

[@AuthenticBranding]

Finally getting to this video, been in my watch later. Im excited. Heart problems for the win. With you all the way.

[@BeyondPersonality]

Great content that's helpful informative and thoroughly researched as always. Thank you for this and wish you a speedy recovery

[@opalknight6947]

Really glad to hear you are doing great post-surgery. You look really well and healthy so that is a wonderful sign. I hope you have all the energy you need both for a full recovery and also for little baby! But thank you for taking the time and energy to put out a video for us. Sorry for breaking my comments up into three posts, but I felt it would be easier to read that way. (Also it's better for the KZbin algorithms!)

[@tedsmusic5556]

Look after yourself, and let us know the results of your research. :-)

[@AuthenticBranding]

Enneagram is one I struggle with the most in my research, so I would love to get videos of this from you.

[@pianotationsystem]

Good to see you're doing well Bro!

[@kingdomjesus]

Speedy recovery and all the best in your research!🙏🙏🙏

[@PriHL]

When I look for people to work or cooperate with in any capacity, I don't look at MBTI but I look at big 5, especially at high agreeability and conscientiousness, as I don't need to deal with the stuff that comes with the lack of it. Welcome back and hope your health soon gets better!

[@yournidom6512]

Can you say more about the implications or value of high agreeability? I understand the implications and value of high consciousness... just not agreeability... yet. Please expound when you have time.

[@PriHL]

@@yournidom6512 Agreeability is more than just being cooperative and contributing to a good atmosphere. Most importantly it's the lack of antagonism, the signs of which are manipulation, lies, exploitation and a desire to take mental or other types of control over you, entitlement to take what's not yours etc. Highly agreeable people are focused on building something and seek consensus, are open to other people's perspectives, are more helpful and friendlier. The contrary type is the my way or the highway, possibly abusive type. Disagreeability (antagonism) is strongly correlated to narcissism (of which some signs I have just mentioned) as clinical research has found. So healthy, agreeable people prefer to have contact with their like. Agreeability is constructive while disagreeability is destructive.

[@NormieNeko]

​@@yournidom6512Agreeable people can be friendly and willing to help, but they're also often afraid of saying no and going against the current. While they may not be cruel, they may allow cruel things to happen around them if it benefits their group. There's a lot of people-pleasing and lying for the sake of harmony. Agreeable people do well following orders and the dominant morals and rules. They keep society afloat (fair and unfair societies alike). I'm low in agreeableness. Can you tell? 😉

[@freedomofspeech6905]

Excellent content! 😊

[@yournidom6512]

This is exactly why I call you the INTJ Academic... and why you are my favorite. 😅❤ Thank you for this analysis!

[@infensus1992]

Using only Sun Signs for Astrology is like using only a single function for MBTI. They might as well of not even bothered rather than take some half-made new-age view of the ancient SCIENCE of the mind. If I only looked at people's first function and ignored everything else, my model would fail...the functions, by the way, are simply the Elements in a new package....MBTI is just Alchemy. The very minimum for astrology is to look at their Sun, Moon, and Rising signs and how they interact in order to construct a proper picture of that individual's "stars," or the universal archetypes that mix and interact to produce that specific individual. There is also the Eternal aspect of Tropical astrology, or the state of Being, and the Changing aspect of Sidereal astrology, or the state of Becoming, which must be understood as the aspects of the "Spirit of the Depths" and the "Spirit of the Times," to use Jung's terminology. I dare think you would gain enormously from not focusing so much on "peer-reviewed" work and instead wandering down a more ancient road, into the Deserts of your own Soul. You are in Sanity; you must get out of there.

[@morganamarianana3088]

You don't know enneagrams? You'd probably enjoy looking into it, the definitions are by Claudio Naranjo. It brings a whole new level of depth into mbti. It's very much related to childhood, it has a somewhat freudian approach (??) I'd say but I'm not sure. The instinctual variants are extremely interesting, sx/sp/so. For example, a sexual 7 has a different psychology and different underlying motives from those of a self-preservation 7, and different from those of a social 7, which is the most usual enneagram for ENTP, therefore it brings a whole new layer of understanding into the psychology of that particular type, and so on for all types. After learning about enneagrams and instinctual variants mbti per se start looking extremely incomplete. It's not strictly focused on cognitive functions (as mbti should be, despite how superficially people take it) but there is correlation to those as well.

[@cindyc]

Glad your surgery went well. 🤗❤️🌞

[@HexagonSun990]

Do you ever think you'll become friends with Eric from Talking with Famous People? I saw there was a bit of drama between you two and I was just curious if you'd consider that ever again.

[@mauritsbol4806]

Science defines 0.3 as a weak correlation. But don't be mistaken. That is a huge weak correlation. (Btw, how i get to 0.3, is that you do not have to chose, *insert y not both meme here*)

[@caseypham7975]

astrology for the win

[@Kevintj]

A correlation study of astrology based only on sun sign? Give me a fucking break. I doubt it can predict much in the end but at least do the job properly.

[@leggi_bois4eva]

🧀🧀🧀