I have already told you about how I find the use of Myers-Briggs and related theory. In application, I first, aim to do no harm. I have also told you that I have used it myself to good effect, and know of others wh have done the same.
We are talking about psychology here, not a hard science. Without this or Freud, or something similar, we'd have NO theory of mind to make use of.
If you go by what is proven or not, then the notion of "presonality" itself (even with no theory attached) is something that you cannot find aqqequate support no aqqeduate evidence against.
The FFM has very similar types of issues. It's validity measures are higher, but they corellate nonetheless with the Myers-Briggs scales.
No, this is not a debate, but simply cat-calls and word-sniping from the sidelines.
There is one group trying to play a game they enjoy...the discussion of Myers-Briggs related topics, and another group simply taking snipes and make snide or hyperbolic interjections from the sidelines.
That's the way I see it.
If it is relatively irrelevant to you, then please let us have our own fun discussing Myers-Briggs.
Generally speaking, there are very few things that psychologists come out in droves to endorse. They do seem to go through fads, and MBTI was one of them.
Also, Victor is quite wrong, if he thinks that Myers-Briggs is not being used in reasearch.
Now, as I've stated before, I believe there has been more than enough of this back-and-forth on something we clearly need to simply "agree to disagree" on.
I think this is bad precedent since any thread tring to discuss Myers-Briggs will go down this same tired track of some people charging it's a cult, and others taking the other point of view.
I ask the mods if they can move all such posts to an "Is Myers-Briggs a cult?" thread. I see no point in rehashing this over an over again.