The spirit of the spirits
Those studies are very poor. Sample sizes were tiny and he tends to jump to conclusions way too quick about his findings, while ignoring other possible result influencing factors. In his book he went into details how he conducted research, scientifically they are poor. Besides those flaws he also failed to ensure identical experiment conditions and that could skew results as well.I haven't read any of his books and yes, I'd agree that his work was very exploratory. He is however the very first neuroscientist to actually acknowledge MBTI as having research value so no, you're absolutely wrong about his research having no value as his EEG studies, which are published applied and academic research, does show that functions are seemingly valid.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm a student. I can confidently say that I would have got a negative grade from work like that.If you're not a scientist, then I guess reading his books might be better for you, but if you do understand the science then getting a hold of a few of his published papers would be much more informative. I guess being intellectually curious is one of the nice things about living in a big city. He did most if not all of his work while at UCLA and I live fairly close to UCLA and can go there and look stuff up if I'd like.
Most of psychology and psychiatry isn't exactly scientific either.Neuroscientists can and do work with MBTI, although most probably stick with the Big 5 or some other scientifically validated analog to the MBTI while psychologists will either have to reverse their position on MBTI or continue to call it pseudoscience and work their way around the fact that a lot of older psychologists are going to call the MBTI pseudoscience.