One of my university professor once told me that if you have a strong reaction to either the sentence: "I'm a normal human." or "I'm not a normal human." that means that you probably have an issue worth addressing in detail.
An astrology test might tell you: "One the one hand you are a human like everybody else, but on the other hand there something were unique about you."
If the statement that the test says that you are a normal human like everybody else triggers you, that has meaning. If you get an angry reaction, where you say: "No, there no way in which I'm like other people." that's a topic worth further exploration.
Just to be clear, I don't have meaningful personal experience with astrology I'm extrapolating from other personal experience and general knowledge.
If the statement that the test says that you are a normal human like everybody else triggers you, that has meaning.
I wouldn't read too much into such a reaction. It seems to be a fairly common thing, resulting in the creation of a uniqueness-seeking scale in psychology. There is some support for a "need for uniqueness" as a human universal, with a review here.
From my notes on the Handbook of Positive Psychology:
...As predicted, the students who were told that they were mod- erately similar to other respondents reported more positive moods th
Have you ever taken a personality quiz/test that helped you have valuable insights? If so, what were the tests and how were they useful?
The only useful ones I've found all yielded the same type of insight. They showed me where I stand relative to others, which is can be genuinely useful since representative samples of large populations can be hard to come by. This includes IQ tests and tests for mental disorders (in my experience, people are usually aware that they are, for example, smarter than the average (although the Dunning-Kruger effect might complicate this) or have some intrusive thoughts and compulsive rituals, but might be surprised to find that they are three standard deviations above the norm or that their symptoms are sufficiently severe to be considered OCD).
No remotely reliable (as in, not astrology) test I have ever seen has revealed genuinely surprising information for a moderately self-aware person, outside of ranking. Furthermore, they rarely gather personality data in a remotely subtle or non-transparent way ("do you like spending lots of time with large groups of people?" "yes..." "surprise, you're an extrovert!"), and thus seem super susceptible to test-takers' attempts to confirm a desired identity.
An example of a more interesting/subtle way to potentially conduct a personality test would be to use question like OKTrends' "do you like beer?" which clusters strongly with "do you have sex on the first date," and, potentially, sexual openness. Such results might be harder for manipulate (consciously or unconsciously) and could assist with deeper self-awareness.
Edited because the first link was broken.