You are right. Language is largely metaphoric. So it behooves us to understand what a metaphor is, and what are the limitations of a metaphor.
Having said that though some words do refer directly to reality. You might start with the Periodic Table and move through an actual table and onto the Sun.
Children learn language by first associating words with real things. As they mature they learn that words can describe relationships. And finally they move onto metaphors which are comparisons of relationships.
So metaphors are a fair way from words and real things.
The difficulty is, I think, is that words can refer to real things and also be metaphoric.
And of course a comparison is not a real thing.
And just as an electron is a wave and a particle, so words describe things and comparisons.
And look I have nothing against the suspension of disbelief whether it's Creationism or MBTI.
But it seems silly to me to call Creationism, science, just as it is to call MBTI a personality test.
And I know everyone here wants to get on without dissent so I wonder why I bother. Except I know this is the way cults operate - they offer social acceptance and belonging if you leave your brain at the door.
In the temple of MBTI there is a big box of brains just inside the front door.
I rest my case.
Your case has nothing to do with mine, since you're using 'metaphor' differently than I am. Even with your definition, though, how can you say "cognition" is connected to reality? Our bodies are made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms. Where does cognition come in? If cognition is an okay term, so are Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition. They're just arbitrarily defined subsets of cognition.
Or, even better, how is "personality" connected to reality? Your argument is fine, but it applies to much more than the words that I'm defending.
Plus, every word is a metaphor. There is no such thing as "connecting to reality", since we have no access to reality.
Dissonance you gave nothing but your personal opinion the same as Jack and Xander have been doing. What you don't say is how anyone can scoff at astrology when it was key to Jung deriving type, and MBTI followed suit? Now that's obvious. Don't you people read about this subject?
I don't care about Jung or his beliefs -- nothing to do with the terms that he defined. Just because someone has a cool idea doesn't mean that it came from a "valid" place, or that the person's other beliefs hold any water.
I'm not just asserting my opinion. I stated a bunch of reasoning, used metaphors, and asked people if there were flaws in my stance. Are there? Is there something I'm missing about astrology? If so, let me know. Because, honestly, I'm interested in having a discussion, not a meta-discussion.