Type Theory Hasn't Conquered All Because...

[Tiltyred]

Did you ask him if he learned about projection in his workshop?

Maybe it was a joke. In either case, what an ass.

He was serious. For what he wanted me for, I AM worthless. He found an ISTJ to help him with that stuff. My talents have come to be valued even if they're not what he had hoped for. One of them is putting up with him.

So I do very much see how MBTI in the workplace can be abused.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You've illustrated its misuse well. S and N have different styles of creativity. N is not more creative. Unfortunately many of the creativity tests were developed by Ns,a s were tests of giftedness, so there's a bias that puts one preference over the other. The question isn't which type is the best leader, or the most creative, or the best teacher, etc., but in which way does each type achieve excellence in those areas. Check Marci Segal's work on creativity..

Suppose we grant that the Intuitive is not more creative than a sensor by definition. By implication, it would follow that the Extrovert is not more outgoing than the introvert by definition. Simply put, both sensors and intuitives engage in creativity, but they have different ways of doing so. Similarly, both Extrovert and Introvert can be outgoing, yet they simply go about it differently.

Very well, however, the MBTI folks will then ask, why is it the case that more Extroverts are outgoing than Introverts? An advocate of your typological method will claim that perhaps social outings are biased in favor of introverts and discourage them from being active in interpersonal activities.

I think this is rather plausible. Any shy and reserved person is likely to be labelled as an introvert. In many cases, indeed taking a different approach to encouraging people to socialize can be successful; that is, a method that often inspires an outgoing person to interact with others is ineffective once applied to introverts. However, a new method could be designed specifically for helping reserved people to become more adept at interacting with people.

I admit that this does solve the problem of unwarranted personality labels advanced by the MBTI authors, as it suggests that one type of personality can master the skill-set that a different type is expected to have.

Regrettably, it runs into difficulties at a further stage of inquiry. Although in many cases a person's MBTI test-results are based on a person's life-experiences led him to perceive himself and are irrelevant to his temperament or innate dispositions. In other cases a person's temperament has a great deal to do with the MBTI persona he identifies with. For instance, a person who is of the introverted temperament is frequently led to 'type' himself as an introvert.

Empirical studies have shown that Introverts by their nature tend to become more easily stimulated than extroverts and therefore tend to require less interaction. On that note, I do not believe that you can avoid conceding that there is something about the MBTI definition of the Extrovert that makes him better adjusted to be outgoing than the Introvert.

This fact does not show that Introverts are necessarily less talented at being outgoing or less talented at doing so, however, it does imply that there is a certain inequality between types. Some are by their nature drawn to one kind of an activity and others to another. As for example, an introvert, by the constitution of his mind is subtly drawn away from activities of high social interaction. He certainly can fight this natural tendency and become more outgoing than any Extrovert, however, he will have one certain hindrance that the Extrovert shall lack.

The implication of the temperament perspective on the issue shows that at least in some cases, a person of one MBTI type is going to be at a disadvantage to learn a certain set of skills that the person of the other type will not. Although the disadvantage is far from insurmountable, it contradicts the thesis that in all cases all MBTI types have equal strength, as can be exemplified by the dictum that sensors are not less creative then intuitives, introverts not less outgoing than extroverts and so forth.

In summary, by definition one type does not have a virtue that the other lacks, as a type in this context is a temperament which is nothing but a tendency. However, in the context of your argument, a type is not defined as a temperament, but a collection of personality qualities. As noted, in some cases, a person's temperament will influence his personality profile and manifest in existence or lack thereof of certain qualities that are present in another personality profile. If you claim that extroverts are not inherently better socializers than introverts but are so because of a certain social biases inherent in our society, the argument from temperament still holds. Even if Introverts are given a fair opportunity to become better socializers, they will be hindered by their natural dispositions. In that respect, it is a mistake to claim that all types have equal strength.

 

[Mole]

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Garbage in, garbage out.

If you apply logic to garbage, you get garbage in return.

But we seem to think that if we are only more logical, if only our logic is more detailed and focused, then we can turn garbage into gold.

This is exactly the same thinking behind alchemy which seeks to turn lead into gold. It's called magical thinking. But the magical thinking of alchemy had been replaced by chemistry based on evidence and reason.

But it doesn't matter how much logic we apply to MBTI, it is simply garbage and we get garbage in return.

Of course the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' is usually applied to your computer, but it equally applies to MBTI.

Bananatrombones has pointed out, "The appeal of conspiracy theories is that they are logically consistent". And this is the appeal of MBTI. But garbage in, garbage out.

If you are digging a hole for water and find none, the temptation is to keep on digging. So you find the aficionados of MBTI keep getting more and more logical as they become more and more absurd.

This relationship between logic and absurdity has an interesting name. It is called schismogenesis.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Garbage in, garbage out.

If you apply logic to garbage, you get garbage in return.

But we seem to think that if we are only more logical, if only our logic is more detailed and focused, then we can turn garbage into gold.

This is exactly the same thinking behind alchemy which seeks to turn lead into gold. It's called magical thinking. But the magical thinking of alchemy had been replaced by chemistry based on evidence and reason.

But it doesn't matter how much logic we apply to MBTI, it is simply garbage and we get garbage in return.

Of course the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' is usually applied to your computer, but it equally applies to MBTI.

Bananatrombones has pointed out, "The appeal of conspiracy theories is that they are logically consistent". And this is the appeal of MBTI. But garbage in, garbage out.

If you are digging a hole for water and find none, the temptation is to keep on digging. So you find the aficionados of MBTI keep getting more and more logical as they become more and more absurd.

MBTI isn't logically consistent, the more logic you 'apply to it', the more compelling reasons you will find to reject it. Of course, there are many species of MBTI theory floating around, many of which I am ignorant of, however, those of the conventional online or Keirseyan variety are indeed incoherent. Type profiles attribute incompatible qualities to one person and maintain that a person can only be one type, yet there is nothing about the MBTI system in itself that precludes a person from having many types. MBTI notions only characterize fleeting personality features all of which are commonly displayed by nearly all kinds of people. This alone shows thats a rendition of a single personality profile is untenable or must include contradictory qualities, since MBTI is willing to accept neither premise, it collapses.

 

[BlueScreen]

I wouldn't say MBTi doesn't exist. It just doesn't say that much which I didn't already know.

The key things it tells us are:
- People are different and we don't all work the same way (Hands up everyone who hadn't realised this and needed Hollywood or MBTi to tell them.)
- People learn in different ways (I've taught for longer that I've known MBTi and was actually better at adapting when I assumed everyone was different rather than a type.)
- People are better suited to different career paths (Yes, but they should do what interests them. It would be a sad world if we all just did what our type said. You would lose diversity in many fields, and they'd go down hill as a result.)
- MBTi is a way to communicate what I know pseudo-scientifically so some people who otherwise wouldn't believe the obvious will. (Probably where I've found it most useful. Sounds a bit like religion.)

I'm quite happy that it hasn't conquered all, because it would be beyond scary. I skipped the IQ test at my school because I was sick and that was enough that I didn't have merit for acceleration maths after one bad exam. Imagine if MBTi was used extensively? You can say everyone will learn to use it well, but if people on TC don't learn these things, why would teachers in schools? Since when did teachers stay impartial, unbiased, impersonal?

I know there is an ideal and a dream behind having it. We will all suddenly know our way and be happy. But not everyone wants to know the way, or needs to. Getting lost can be far more constructive. As proud as I am to be my type, it is a limit and a box. It is a simplification of me rather than an amplification of my strengths. And people using it to describe me or decide my future, how I learn, what I'll love, sounds like a nightmare. They might call it caring, but caring would be asking for my input and learning about me to know these things. Not being lazy and expecting a theory to describe humans on a mass scale.

 

[Mole]

I wouldn't say MBTi doesn't exist. It just doesn't say that much which I didn't already know.

The key things it tells us are:
- People are different and we don't all work the same way (Hands up everyone who hadn't realised this and needed Hollywood or MBTi to tell them.)
- People learn in different ways (I've taught for longer that I've known MBTi and was actually better at adapting when I assumed everyone was different rather than a type.)
- People are better suited to different career paths (Yes, but they should do what interests them. It would be a sad world if we all just did what our type said. You would lose diversity in many fields, and they'd go down hill as a result.)
- MBTi is a way to communicate what I know pseudo-scientifically so some people who otherwise wouldn't believe the obvious will. (Probably where I've found it most useful. Sounds a bit like religion.)

I'm quite happy that it hasn't conquered all, because it would be beyond scary. I skipped the IQ test at my school because I was sick and that was enough that I didn't have merit for acceleration maths after one bad exam. Imagine if MBTi was used extensively? You can say everyone will learn to use it well, but if people on TC don't learn these things, why would teachers in schools? Since when did teachers stay impartial, unbiased, impersonal?

I know there is an ideal and a dream behind having it. We will all suddenly know our way and be happy. But not everyone wants to know the way, or needs to. Getting lost can be far more constructive. As proud as I am to be my type, it is a limit and a box. It is a simplification of me rather than an amplification of my strengths. And people using it to describe me or decide my future, how I learn, what I'll love, sounds like a nightmare. They might call it caring, but caring would be asking for my input and learning about me to know these things. Not being lazy and expecting a theory to describe humans on a mass scale.

Some personality tests are valid and reliable. And we know they are valid and reliable because they have been subject to many double blind experiments.

But in seventy years MBTI has not been subject to even one double blind experiment.

This is not surprising as MBTI is not a personality test, rather it is another American scam.

However they claim it is a personality test, but this is simply a confidence trick to ensnare the gullible and the vulnerable.

 

[BlueScreen]

Some personality tests are valid and reliable. And we know they are valid and reliable because they have been subject to many double blind experiments.

But in seventy years MBTI has not been subject to even one double blind experiment.

This is not surprising as MBTI is not a personality test, rather it is another American scam.

However they claim it is a personality test, but this is simply a confidence trick to ensnare the gullible and the vulnerable.

It is essentially self fulfilling. You select certain traits and compare them. Then you put a person in a section based on these traits. Then you say the person is more likely to prefer certain things because they are in a certain section. That works and seems quite simple.

The problem is the "sections" and the "more likely"s. It is statistical. It doesn't really say anything solid about anyone. You can't guarantee that I will do or prefer anything as an ENFP, any more than you can say a middle class mother reads women's magazines. You can guess that I might because I come from a certain group, but you can predict nothing. All you have is the information I gave in testing. If something fits this information directly then you can conclude something. If I said I do a certain thing, you can say I do a certain thing.

The question is why not use that information? Why suddenly bundle the other things I said I don't do but are in the same section with it? What is the point of that except to decrease accuracy? Why not have a student questionnaire that says, "What do you like?" "What do you want to be when you grow up?" "Why?" "How sure are you?" etc, and then tailor their curriculum to help them achieve it. Why bundle crap with it and assume something which might only be partly true for them instead? Does it fit better in a spreadsheet or something?

 

[BlueScreen]

Question

Why don't they make a test that maps thinking styles and interests to careers? Why is there a middle step which brings in lots of inaccuracies and assumptions? ie. Why must I go: thinking styles->ENFP->possible careers (most of which I have no interest in)?

Obviously careers are constantly changing, but the criteria matching each career could be updated as they change (especially in the computer age). It seems like it would be far more effective.

 

[Mole]

You can ask an atheist to study theology but there is no point because the atheist does not accept the existence of God.

In the same way there is no point in learning the ins and outs of MBTI because it is not a personality test.

So why do they keep telling us it is a personality test? Are they lying to us or do they believe their own propaganda?

 

[Venom]

Victor, can you explain to me step by step how MBTI could be administered using "double blind" methods?

 

[edcoaching]

In that respect, it is a mistake to claim that all types have equal strength.

But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...

 

[Mole]

Victor, can you explain to me step by step how MBTI could be administered using "double blind" methods?

MBTI could not be administered using double blind methods.

A double blind experiment is designed to test the validity and reliability of a personality test.

So a double blind experiment has nothing whatsoever to with administering a personality test. But has everything to do with its validity and reliability.

 

[Mole]

But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...

The problem is that some want to teach Creationism and some want to teach Natural Selection.

Some want to teach alchemy and some want to teach chemistry.

Some want to teach astrology and some want to teach astronomy.

Some want to teach blind belief and some want to teach evidence and reason.

The two are just not compatible. So both can't be right. However one can be right and one can be wrong.

Which one do you choose?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

MBTI could not be administered using double blind methods.

A double blind experiment is designed to test the validity and reliability of a personality test.

So a double blind experiment has nothing whatsoever to with administering a personality test.

I don't know why you keep beating the double-blind drum. MBTI isn't a test or an experiment. It's a sorting tool. You tell it some things about you, and it wraps them up into a package and gives them right back to you.

The problem isn't the sorting tool, it's how people attribute too much significance to it. The tool really only works for the input you give it. It's when people (administrators or takers) generalize and try and draw conclusions about your OTHER tendencies that you run into a problem. But that's a problem that's unrelated to it's validation, because again, there's nothing to validate. It's a problem of misunderstanding.

In the end, MBTI isn't an invalid tool, just a blunt one.

 

[Mole]

I don't know why you keep beating the double-blind drum. MBTI isn't a test or an experiment. It's a sorting tool. You tell it some things about you, and it wraps them up into a package and gives them right back to you.

The problem isn't the sorting tool, it's how people attribute too much significance to it. The tool really only works for the input you give it. It's when people (administrators or takers) generalize and try and draw conclusions about your OTHER tendencies that you run into a problem. But that's a problem that's unrelated to it's validation, because again, there's nothing to validate. It's a problem of misunderstanding.

In the end, MBTI isn't an invalid tool, just a blunt one.

MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not. It is another American scam.

How do we know this?

Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types".

And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Then they sold it as a personality test for the masses that would help us understand ourselves and get on with one another. But in fact MBTI is used for social control by the only remaining super power.

So by telling the truth about MBTI we are speaking truth to power.

I understand that most here identify with this power. But unfortunately for them, this is an international site with an international perspective. So it is too much to expect that all of us will willingly take part in an American scam.

Particularly as this scam is being exported to foreign school children in their bedrooms.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not.
...
And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Claimed to be a test by whom? The I stands for inventory, which means that it's collecting data about you and trying to build something meaningful out of that data, not testing. But you know...who cares? Why get tripped up in this language? Why not just attack the faulty logic when you see it, rather than attack the test itself? Your criticism of the inventory only works if the person believes that it holds this special meaning. In other words, your criticism would be better lodged against the person misinterpreting the test than the test itself.

I'm fully in support of a campaign like that to disabuse people of their misconceptions about MBTI, specifically, the way they try to squeeze their (and others') identity into 4 sacred letters. The control thing, I don't really get so much. I guess I see what you might be saying, but I don't think the intent of corporate America is to control the masses through a semi-popular personality-assessment tool.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

But that is not what I'm arguing. What I have stated is that no type is a better way to be than any other type. Each is unique, each has its strengths, each has its own style of leadership, creativity, learning, etc. Human nature, though, seems to want to find its position in the pecking order, making things like multiple intelligences more acceptable...or distorting the constructive use of differences to imply that one way of being is better than another as opposed to learning from each other...

In that case, we go right back to the question of in what context is one style better than the other? As you've admitted, each type has its own strengths and is unique, which suggests that one type has the kind of strength that the other does not. Clearly in one situation, one strength is more desirable than the other. Thus, people will inevitably construct a hierarchy on the basis of what virtues they deem the most acceptable. For example, people who values socializing will have Extroversion at the top of the hierarchy and people who value originality shall have Intuition at the top of the hierarchy. We could say that people should not value one type of a virtue more than the other, but is that truly possible? It is indeed human nature to pay respect to others in accordance to how meritorious they are perceived to be. Overcoming this tendency will indeed be extremely difficult.

However, it seems to me that your judgment that one MBTI type should not be regarded as better than another is not a conception of MBTI itself, but about morality. As far as personality profiles are concerned, you've seemingly conceded that some types are more adept at certain activities than others. Whether or not we should treat them with an equal measure of respect is a whole another question. On that note, I do not think that you've successfully defended the claim that all MBTI types are equal, it is flatly inconsistent with the assertion that they all have different strengths.

Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types"...

They didn't plagiarize anything, just distorted Jung's findings.

And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever..

No, he responded to this criticism that the empirical evidence consisted in his work as a psychotherapist.

 

[highlander]

MBTI is claimed to be a personality test but it's not. It is another American scam.

How do we know this?

Two Americans with absolutely no qualifications in Psychometrics plagiarized MBTI from Jung's book, "Personality Types".

And even Jung himself admitted that his book, "Personality Types", had no empirical evidence whatsoever.

Then they sold it as a personality test for the masses that would help us understand ourselves and get on with one another. But in fact MBTI is used for social control by the only remaining super power.

So by telling the truth about MBTI we are speaking truth to power.

I understand that most here identify with this power. But unfortunately for them, this is an international site with an international perspective. So it is too much to expect that all of us will willingly take part in an American scam.

Particularly as this scam is being exported to foreign school children in their bedrooms.

At last, a way I can achieve world domination. I wield power through MBTI!!

 

[edcoaching]

In that case, we go right back to the question of in what context is one style better than the other? As you've admitted, each type has its own strengths and is unique, which suggests that one type has the kind of strength that the other does not. Clearly in one situation, one strength is more desirable than the other. Thus, people will inevitably construct a hierarchy on the basis of what virtues they deem the most acceptable. For example, people who values socializing will have Extroversion at the top of the hierarchy and people who value originality shall have Intuition at the top of the hierarchy. We could say that people should not value one type of a virtue more than the other, but is that truly possible? It is indeed human nature to pay respect to others in accordance to how meritorious they are perceived to be. Overcoming this tendency will indeed be extremely difficult.

However, it seems to me that your judgment that one MBTI type should not be regarded as better than another is not a conception of MBTI itself, but about morality. As far as personality profiles are concerned, you've seemingly conceded that some types are more adept at certain activities than others. Whether or not we should treat them with an equal measure of respect is a whole another question. On that note, I do not think that you've successfully defended the claim that all MBTI types are equal, it is flatly inconsistent with the assertion that they all have different strengths.

Well, this is why I seek out the strengths of INTPs when I'm writing for academic journals because as an Ni I assume things rather than write them clearly. In some circles I'd be the better communicator, in some circles you would be. And chances are we'd naturally choose different circles, yet enrich each other's if we chose to collaborate.

But back to the question...for example on leadership. There are examples of great leaders of all types. They lead in very different styles. They're usually attracted to different causes/companies/organizations to lead. Worldwide around 75% of leaders in every study, though, prefer TJ. Is that because TJ's make the best leaders? Or because leadership as currently defined demands rapid decisions for which criteria are measurable or replicable, and the politics involved cause FPs to say "No thank you, I'll go work elsewhere." But then all the books on corporate leadership are written by TJs (Other than Bill George, retired from Medtronics who shares he is ENFJ) and it becomes "the way" to lead. And measurements of leadership skills reflect TJ tendencies.

Or education. The Miller Analogy Test is still a requirement for many graduate programs. Many type experts view it as an excellent indicator of Intuition, not academic ability or intelligence. I don't have the S-N official point differential on it, but in the few doctoral samplings I had it was substantial, yet the doctoral work of the S types was of at least the quality of the N's. so when we talk about strengths what are we measuring in education?

Creativity is usually measured as some iteration on thinking outside the box. However, Sensing creativity is often based in creatively using what exists. Watch my husband build a mini golf course out of literally a few sticks of wood and a couple of toys, a course so great it keeps a dozen tweens playing for 90 minutes, and you'll see that creativity shine.

So situations certainly cause some types to outshine others, and there's certainly a ton of evidence that we self-select into fields that use our strengths (hooray--we're not total idiots as a whole race), but in general no type is inherently superior to others.

Oh, and on "amateur" statisticians (I guess this is hiding an answer to Victor), most women born in 1900 weren't allowed to finish high school--or men either. I think the grad rate was around 25%. Fewer still went to college. Katherine Briggs actually did in the 1890's because her father was a professor; Myers did in 1916; her father was head of the gov't Bureau of Standards. They actually sometimes talked stats at the kitchen table.

More important, though, any type can develop a skill if they need it to serve an overall passion. For the research behind Step III, where Myers was correlating the research items not included in Form G, predicting how different combinations of up to 20 items correlated with such things as college retention, leadership success, and so on, she actually developed 2 statistical methods that no one else used until supercomputers were available to do the computations. People of former generations thought less of formal credentials and more of learning what they needed to know to accomplish what they needed to accomplish.

My own grandfather (b. 1887) was only allowed to attend school through 8th grade, his wife through 4th grade. They read the Encyclopedia Brittanica for kicks at night (were doing it the first night my dad visited and scared that North Dakota basketball player to death). They were self-taught accountants and successfully ran what became a small manufacturing firm. There are millions of examples of self-taught experts outdoing credentialed individuals--anyone heard of Harvard dropout Bill Gates?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, this is why I seek out the strengths of INTPs when I'm writing for academic journals because as an Ni I assume things rather than write them clearly. In some circles I'd be the better communicator, in some circles you would be. And chances are we'd naturally choose different circles, yet enrich each other's if we chose to collaborate.

But back to the question...for example on leadership. There are examples of great leaders of all types. They lead in very different styles. They're usually attracted to different causes/companies/organizations to lead. Worldwide around 75% of leaders in every study, though, prefer TJ. Is that because TJ's make the best leaders? Or because leadership as currently defined demands rapid decisions for which criteria are measurable or replicable, and the politics involved cause FPs to say "No thank you, I'll go work elsewhere." But then all the books on corporate leadership are written by TJs (Other than Bill George, retired from Medtronics who shares he is ENFJ) and it becomes "the way" to lead. And measurements of leadership skills reflect TJ tendencies.

Or education. The Miller Analogy Test is still a requirement for many graduate programs. Many type experts view it as an excellent indicator of Intuition, not academic ability or intelligence. I don't have the S-N official point differential on it, but in the few doctoral samplings I had it was substantial, yet the doctoral work of the S types was of at least the quality of the N's. so when we talk about strengths what are we measuring in education?

Creativity is usually measured as some iteration on thinking outside the box. However, Sensing creativity is often based in creatively using what exists. Watch my husband build a mini golf course out of literally a few sticks of wood and a couple of toys, a course so great it keeps a dozen tweens playing for 90 minutes, and you'll see that creativity shine.

So situations certainly cause some types to outshine others, and there's certainly a ton of evidence that we self-select into fields that use our strengths (hooray--we're not total idiots as a whole race), but in general no type is inherently superior to others.

Oh, and on "amateur" statisticians (I guess this is hiding an answer to Victor), most women born in 1900 weren't allowed to finish high school--or men either. I think the grad rate was around 25%. Fewer still went to college. Katherine Briggs actually did in the 1890's because her father was a professor; Myers did in 1916; her father was head of the gov't Bureau of Standards. They actually sometimes talked stats at the kitchen table.

More important, though, any type can develop a skill if they need it to serve an overall passion. For the research behind Step III, where Myers was correlating the research items not included in Form G, predicting how different combinations of up to 20 items correlated with such things as college retention, leadership success, and so on, she actually developed 2 statistical methods that no one else used until supercomputers were available to do the computations. People of former generations thought less of formal credentials and more of learning what they needed to know to accomplish what they needed to accomplish.

My own grandfather (b. 1887) was only allowed to attend school through 8th grade, his wife through 4th grade. They read the Encyclopedia Brittanica for kicks at night (were doing it the first night my dad visited and scared that North Dakota basketball player to death). They were self-taught accountants and successfully ran what became a small manufacturing firm. There are millions of examples of self-taught experts outdoing credentialed individuals--anyone heard of Harvard dropout Bill Gates?

There is one prominent recurring theme in your post. People who fit a certain personality profile tend to be rewarded the most in society and it tends to be assumed that their way is the only way to be successful. For example, it is surmised that a good leader must have Te qualities and a good computer scientist must have a formal college degree.

That isn't true as non-Te people can become good leaders and Bill Gates who is arguably the best computer scientist in the history of the discipline was a college drop out. That's all well and good, however, it does not at all sidestep my criticism. You can train an Introvert to be gregarious and sociable, just like you can train an Fi person to handle tasks that Te types excel at. However, the bottom line remains that Te offers people a natural advantage at leadership and extroversion offers people a natural advantage at socializing.

The mistake folk typologists frequently make consists in assuming that a good leader can only be a Te type or a sociable person can only be Extroverted. They fail to understand the fact that there are many reasons why a person is sociable or a good leader, the fact that they may be a Te or an Extroverted type is just one very small contributing factor. In fact, it is insignificant enough for us to assume that individuals of radically different types could have the same virtues.

In this respect the study of typology from the perspective of temperament becomes important. It defines type as a mere natural tendency rather than a solid personality trait. If you define MBTI as a combination of character profiles, people will be inclined to assume that their type is something immutable and fundamental to the very essence of their being. I admit that this is not evidence of a fault of MBTI itself but rather of the interpretive error that people make, however, it is desirable to rely on a system that is less prone to misunderstandings that cause multitudes of people to be maligned and marginalized on a basis of a certain personality trait that appears to establish the limitations of their abilities but actually does not.