What I am saying is that there is SOMETHING we are born with. That something is innate, and it colors everything going forward. You can call that something type if you want.
I think "traits" do a horrible job of describing who we are. But what alternative do we have?
I like the examples edcoaching gave in how dramatic the results were when the participants actually understood enough of what makes up the differences.
I too have seen breakthroughs (though not at that level), when people are willing to look at what their differences actually are and acting accordingly. In the end Myers-Briggs may just be a short hand. But notational conveniences are quite useful in facilitating communication.
Again, just knowing we want different things is not enough. We can fumble around trying to figure it out what each person needs. But even in our basic attempts to do that we may continue to step on each others needs. So having a good starting point is important.
Nevertheless, I have found the dictum that the top two functions ought to be have opposite attitudes (one introverted and one extraverted) to be eminently useful.
Again, I used it not to force myself to be extraverted, be to help me find ways to do so when I need to...and to remind me that I am more balanced when I spend time being extraverted too.
Like SW mentioned in another thread. This part of typology resembles philosophy a lot more that anything empirical.
However, keep in mind that geometry was primarily a philosophical form of inquiry, but has proven to be quite a bit more accurate than any slavishly empirical results in psychology.
There are many different forms of inquiry, just because something is not purely empirical, doesn't mean it is deception.
Yes, the mind can trick itself often, but measurement can trick us too.
Also, UCLA does support a famous name in typology.
Prof. Dario Nardi
As does UCSF and the American Psychiatric Association:
John Beebe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia