I say that it's "pseudoscience" because of the unreliability of the system. There is no way I can prove or disprove anything about type or cognitive functions other than the weak evidence of anecdotes and the comparisons in them... that's not saying much. Even though there are descriptions of the cognitive functions and such, I can think of many exceptions to the rule regarding some portions of the description because there so many different aspects of an individual that MBTI can't address. In the end, I really do like IFPs. I was just throwing out my ideas and anecdotes about the ones I know.
How can you even classify an individual as a type if the definitions have no bearing?
This is like saying Monopoly isn't real, so you can break its rules & still play it. True, it is not "real", but it is defined by its rules & structure, so if you break them, then you're not playing Monopoly anymore. You've just invented a new game with different criteria.
Type is not about reality. It's a system to classify & describe. If you ignore its structure, then you're not working within its system anymore & the terminology becomes useless.
I don't think the types are strictly defined so that you could call them rules; they are vague outlines & not rigid dictates. However, to insist
a type in general is characterized by a trait that contradicts its description as a whole becomes so arbitrary that it makes typology itself pointless. Fi means nothing if anyone can decide it means ANYTHING.
But, introverted feeling can be seen as black and white. The way I understand introverted feeling is that it makes decisions in a way that are congruent with the person's chosen identity or some ideal they have. Also, feeling judgments in general, place importance on things. So, things could congruent/in-congruent or important/not important or black/white or any other dichotomy.
This is a poor understanding of valuation though. Valuation is not necessarily about strict good & bad. More often than not, it's a scale.
- Something is more important/better than something else, but less important/worse than yet another thing. This involves context, comparison, and degrees, which is not black & white.
- Something is important to me/this group, but not necessarily to others. This means that opposing views are not necessarily wrong/bad. There is no black & white dichotomy.
- Something is important/good within this context & with these supporting details, but not within every context or when these details are absent. Again, this is no rigid valuation.
- In regards to ideals, Fi is about basic, fundamental concepts of what is good/significant/necessary in relation to being human, which can be fulfilled in a multitude of ways. This is not black & white because it does not say "X is good & everything else is bad". Instead, the process gauges things as to how well it lives up to an ideal, which is a model, not a strict standard. The closer it is to the ideal the better it is, the farther it is, the worse. Again, that is a scale accounting for context & differing variables, and using degrees, not black & white categories of good/bad.
- Having a strong opinion & disagreeing with someone is not black & white thinking. You may hold a strong view & not think all contradicting ones are "wrong". You may disagree with someone, but that doesn't mean you think only your view is right.