There is such bias against a bimodal distribution in the psychological community for the reasons you listed that the FFM, coming from factor analysis, fits what they think they know as reality. There is still great prejudice against Myers as well because she wasn't a psychologist, even though she developed two statistical techniques that no one else used until they could use supercomputers...Why is the FFM more "academically blessed?"
They also think an instrument should measure. Type instruments don't measure, they sort. One group or the other. Bimodal.
If people use it to excuse their behaviors, yes. If people use it for development and growth, individually or in teams, no. I see people learn to operate out of their preferences when appropriate all the time (and thus move toward maturity)Do you believe the use of either typologies leads to Self-fulfilling prophecies?
You'd have to find the manuals for the NEO-PI, Sloan (I think that's a separate one) etc.Although, I understand the statistics behind various factor analysis, I find psychometric papers hard to read, because of assumed knowledge of what particular letter-denoted variables are, and general use of psychometric jargon. Is there a good way to find out what factor models are being used, and what the original data sets, correlation matrices, or covariance matrices were?
I'm not that big of an instrument buff--I can do what I do with or without an instrument and sometimes it's better to use nothing at all than to risk people feeling like an instrument is labeling them...