I'm really not that impressed with personality types, such as the ever-popular Myers-Brigg system or the Enneagram. I honestly think I like Horoscopes better as a way of putting people into categories. Why? Because it's got no real basis. If a Capricorn trait doesn't apply to me, I can ignore it with the excuse that it isn't real. Legitimate, scientific personality types carry an expectation of accuracy which some people take as gospel truth, letting it affect their decisions, their relationships, their perceptions of themselves and others. How often has my identity as an introvert kept me from exposing myself to social situations, for fear of being overwhelmed? It wasn't until recently that I began to actively seek such situations, because I discovered that they filled a need that I had been denying myself: the need for friendship and fun. Knowing my zodiac sign gives me something to identify with, and a name for some of my traits, but it does not define me, and I can interpret it in whatever way feels right.
Moreover, there are so many other signs on my chart – rising sign, moon sign, planet positions and such – that I can claim almost half the zodiac as my own. It leaves plenty of room for a complex, contradictory character, a level of complexity that I know everyone has the capacity for, whether they know it or not. My turbulent feelings are accounted for by my moon in Scorpio; my appreciation for art and beauty, by my Libra rising. Such a wealth of possible traits would be useless in a legitimate, scientific system, because a given combination could be interpreted to fit almost any person on earth; it's not an effective way to divide people into neat categories. But as we know, human character is not as tidy as sociologists may prefer. That's why it's so difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a system that fully and accurately describes different types of people without reducing them to flat, simplistic, clinical statistics. Often, the cost of accuracy is vividness and humanity, and a system that only identifies a few major categories, or even several, is ultimately more stereotyping than an astrological profile.
I think it's also a good social tool. If I meet a new person and identify myself as a Capricorn, and if she is at all familiar with zodiac lore, she will (at least subconsciously) have a set mental image of my personality before she knows me very well. Is that so bad?
The effect is that my new acquaintance will think of me as having that ready-made personality, rather than no personality at all. It's an automatic icebreaker, a way to relate to each other and help combat shyness. As she gets to know me better, she will alter her perception of my personality to accommodate the parts of me that aren't covered by the stock profile of a Capricorn, and even use those discrepencies to form an individual identity for me, saying things like "She's not as perfectionist as most Capricorns." I don't see anything wrong with this, especially considering that we all naturally make assumptions of each other based on clothing, speech patterns, or even the circumstances in which we meet each other; the eventual correction of false assumptions usually isn't much of a problem.
The interpersonal aspect of the zodiac system is nothing compared to the intrapersonal aspect. Self-discovery is a journey, and a journey must start somewhere. In order to determine who you really are, it helps to have a template, a point of reference, to compare yourself to. Legitimate personality types can be awkward starting points in this respect, because just determining your type requires some self-knowledge before you even begin. If the only things you're sure about are the things on your birth certificate, then you can use that information to find a detailed, vivid picture of who you might be, much of which is probably true. Once you have that, it's not too hard to find which parts feel right for you, and which parts were just an unlucky roll of the dice.
And if nothing else, zodiac types are so much more fun than Myers-Brigg or Enneagram types. The possibilities of art, poetry, tattoos, and even creative description are endless. Which paints a prettier picture: the letters "INFP" or the words "Water-Bearer," "Archer," or "Sea-Goat?" Would you rather be a number between 1 and 9 - or a mighty, steadfast bull, a venomous scorpion, or a beautiful maiden? Zodiac descriptions are virtually baseless, but personality types are virtually devoid of glamour, and can't match the zodiac in terms of depth and complex symbolism.
Unreality hasn't kept mythology from enriching our culture and our collective identity. Star Trek and Harry Potter are no less relevant to our perceptions because they are fictitious. Yes, Astrology is fake, but so is much of what we value in our lives.
That's why I still read my chart, and why I wonder what my friends' signs are. I've yet to find a good reason not to.
