>>10838168Astrology isn't near as bad as MBTI. All astrology constitutes is ancient people trying to find correlations between seasonality and people or events. And there actually is evidence for a relationship between birth month and schizophrenia risk for example (likely because people born during colder months are more exposed to brain development impacting pathogens), so they weren't that far off.
Meanwhile, here's everything wrong with MBTI:
indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdfIt has low consistency (people taking the test multiple times in a set period of time often end up with different types). The choice in hypothetical dimensions like thinking / feeling or sensing / intuiting is wrong because they have correlations with each other / aren't actually independent. It also makes the bad assumption there are discrete categorical distinctions (e.g. you will be classified as either thinking or feeling) when in actuality there is no evidence of bimodal distribution in MBTI types and most people score towards the middle and have more in common with those closer to them but in the opposite category than they do with those in their same category.
And even the US military won't touch it:
>In a recent review of the MBTI, commissioned by the Army Research Institute, it was concluded that the instrument should not be used for career planning counseling.13 The Institute's analysis of the available research showed no evidence for the utility of the test. Indeed, with respect to career planning they note that "the types may simply be an example of stereotypes."Also astrology has historical value as the product of thousands of years of our ancestors' approaches to tracking time and trying to figure out recurring patterns, whereas MBTI is shitty fan fiction bastardization of Jung's writings on personality created by a couple of uneducated women with too much free time during WWII in a completely arbitrary way without any actual evidence to inform their decisions.
