King of Seduction
Your language is one of speculation, which is fine however that's also the point.These aren't arbitrary categories though. It's not like someone threw darts at a board and picked at random. Like @reckful has been trying to say, and back up with citations, there's good reasons to suspect that they actually exist, though, because our understanding of the brain is so limited, there's not currently an explanation for why. He's not even saying they are perfect. They obviously need refinement and are far from. But I think all he is trying to say is that they are not worthless in the sense that astrological categorizations have no basis in reality whatsoever. That's actually an argument I myself have made in the past and came to realize (thanks to Reckful's citations) that I was wrong, and that it was a gross exaggeration.
The MBTI dichotomies have at least some basis. It is widely accepted that the MBTI dichotomies are drawing off the same principals of the Big 5, and the Big 5 is taught in an academic setting at universities and colleges and various institutions of psychology. And, as a matter of fact, so is MBTI. In an oral communication course I received during my attendance at the Santa Rosa Junior College, our professor spent one entire lecture discussing the benefits of the MBTI classifications for understanding the differences between people.
Furthermore, the MBTI dichotomies are taken seriously by professionals, except, apparently, the ones you cited. So what? Your sources don't form the majority opinion as far as I know. MBTI isn't some fringe science. It's widely established and those who doubt it typically don't do it on the assumption that we ought to "scrap it." They do it on the assertion that it needs refinement and lots of work, and they're right about that. But it's still "the best we've got" besides the Big 5, and the Big 5 is more popular among professionals for that reason, but the MBTI is a close second.
This is false as a point of fact. In the MBTI Manual Third Edition it addresses every possible combination of dimensions, e.g., IJ, SN, TF, EF, NJ, IP, etc, including the dimensions by themselves, and it addresses them in various contexts as well, e.g., at work, learning styles, social interaction, etc.
You have to show something is what is, that you know what you know.
You do that via statistics and studies which are peer reviewed in the top journals and the reason such a theory would become widely accepted in academic circles is because the system has strong support.
A bunch of joe schmoes who get a certificate so they can make money giving career advice doesn't constitute widely accepted in academic circles the data should come under fire of people who publish papers on the subject and look at errors in the design of the study and methodology.
I am not saying the characteristics are as bad as "arbitrary" what I am saying is that the data is weak if you take great issue with that then I'd say "not strong", that's what the dispute is about and your buddy is in essence saying that the explanation seems to circle around the human error, things that need to be tweaked, and "Jung knew this though". I don't view excuses for weak statistical predictability as reason to conclude the research is sound and widely accepted. If you categorize me wrong and make erroneous conclusions after you administer a tool and that consistently happens it speaks to poor reproducibility of the tool.
You take issue with my saying it's a notch above horoscopes?
Why? I said it was a notch above lol. You seem to think I am saying it IS horoscopes, it IS arbitrary.
I am saying it's speculative and while there are some relationships the process of categorizing people into 16 types has not had great predictive measures.
Not shown to be valid/data is not strong.
That's not an point anyone seems to be able to concede, hence the argument - Aliens.