I should have clarified. Im right there with you that its generally a mistake to try to externally type people based on functions. There was even a post asking about what functions were in use for playing "basketball" and i went on to show how one person playing basketball could be described using a myriad of functions combinations.Ummm....I don't want it to be more precise. That's exactly the opposite of my point, which (no offense), I think you missed. The point was that I think a lot of people expect an unrealistic level of precision from it, and it leads to overconfidence in amateur psychoanalysis.
So we are in agreement up to that point. But whats wrong with people using functions to describe their own behavior?
we agree that there is no Te organ, no Te "pathway", and that externally typing behavior as "Te" is problematic. But if someone reads the description of Te and Fe and then decides "you know, that Te description REALLY fits the way i tend to think about what actions to take", what is psudoscientific about that? No in is claiming that its scientific when they describe their own processes as fitting rather well with the Te description. If it helps them describe how they relate to other TJs with 'more precision' (assuming the TJs are all reading a Te description and tend to see a "part" of themselves) than simply saying "TJ", then who cares?
People want more specificity. Simply looking at ENFJ and ENTJ and saying the difference is simply "feeling" doesnt quite tell the whole story. If you give the ENFJ and ENTJ a description of Fi and Fe, I would bet that most ENTJs will relate a lot more with Fi than Fe and the ENFJs will relate more to Fe than Fi. Clearly this gives more precision than simply saying the difference between them is "feeling". Its self reporting, which is significant simply because 'people' will pick one at non-random.You're using functions in the first way I described--a rehashing of MBTI letters. If you're only using them as descriptions/groupings of externalized behavior, then you don't really need them, because they don't really add anything new beyond the basic preferences described by the four two-letter dichotomies. It's just the same concept reworded.
it doesnt have to be scientific. trust me, i agree with that a lot of psychology is bullshit (your talking to a biology major), but i see the functions as doing more good than harm in describing personality, as long as they arent over used in describing other people. The fact that we cant 'view' the true process as you imply, doesnt really matter. For the very fact that we cant view the true processes, is what makes 'self reporting' the best we got. When modern science gets better at descibing how peoples brain structures affect how they think and do, then we may have a reason to say that the functions are harmful.
this is all my opinion. Im ok with saying that. Functions arent scientific. they simply have a lot of utility in describing things.