Here are some things that we need to do away with if we are to accurately type people:
2. Unofficial behaviorist function test.
Come on, we all know that test is broken. For one thing, function use is not equivalent to function preference. For another, the definitions of the functions on that test are behaviorist and differ from the actual MBTI definitions. They also seems somewhat biased towards certain functions, and against others. Finally, functions are not about behavior or skill, they're about how a person thinks, which is not as easy to assess.
I would pretty much agree with this. I used to cheer on that test more, but then saw the
Forer effects, particularly around Fi ("aka "valuing"; and even for Ni when people such as charismatic-leaning Christians take the test).
Still, behavior can be used as an
evidence of type, because the way a person thinks does
affect his behavior. And the key word here (as in my assessments of people's type) is
evidence.
3. Liberal allocation of the shadow functions.
If a claimed INFJ seems more like an ISTP, people will just cite tertiary Ti and inferior Se as the culprits. If an claimed INTP seems more like an ISFJ, people will just cite tertiary Si and inferior Fe as the culprits. Sigh... the shadow does NOT work that way. A person's basic behavior while not under stress, would not be more like that of their shadow, at least not until they're older and they've consciously tried hard to integrate it. I can tolerate a provision for allowing the shadow traits to come up once in a while when it's not part of the typical pattern, but you can't use that to dismiss a huge, major pattern in their personality!
For one thing, the tertiary is not a shadow function, and even though the inferior was widely considered as such; "shadow" has come to mean the "other four", or the four with the attitudes reversed. These aren't being used to type people much, though again, I might occasionally use them and the associated Beebe archetypes as evidence when I see something that appears fit.
The tertiary often becomes quite strong, because it's the next function in the dominant attitude that the ego runs to (sometimes bypassing the auxiliary). So it may be quite apparent and mistaken for a preferred function.
4. The T/F gender socialization card.
I can buy it only in very limited circumstances. Sure, this might explain away a few superficial traits, or maybe even major ones if the person had a VERY harsh upbringing that emphasized gender roles and was forced against their preference repeatedly. I don't think this is as common as people are imagining, though. The reality is that this card is effectively used to make it such that a woman can show far more F preferences and still be called T, while a man can show far more T preferences and still be called F. They're basically lowering the standards in an attempt to make the distribution of T and F more equal. But in reality, it doesn't work that way. The standards should not be lowered, because there are T women and F men who have CLEAR preferences, and often without even going too far outside of gender roles. Accept that this function sometimes shows a gender bias and move on... don't try to artificially "repair" that bias with this card, please? You're only making it harder for women that are only slightly expressed Fs, or men that are only slightly expressed Ts, to determine their type.
Others addressed this. I would add, again, since behavior is influenced by functions, this will have an impact.
5. Overuse of Keirsey's temperaments.
I'm guilty of this myself at times. But seriously, his temperament descriptions were extremely shallow and stereotypical... also, they discount the importance of the dominant function, and make the auxiliary too important. Not to mention that they group Sensors differently from Intuitive types. I don't agree with the assumptions behind why T/F isn't as important for one group as it is for the other. I think those assumptions underestimate the intelligence and decision-making capacities of Sensors. SF and ST are just as valid, if not more so, as SJ and SP... even though I admit to having been programmed to think otherwise at one point.
Again, behavior (which temperament focuses on) being influenced by type. Keirsey's groupings are just those that matched the ancient ones, and the Interaction Styles are as well; but both are covering different aspects of those same four temperaments, and each type is a blend.
I do believe that the other groups (ST, SF, etc) have their uses as well. (Like ST/SF figures in Interaction Style. IP, IJ, EP, EJ are said to be the first letters that become apparent in a child, etc).
6. "Weak" letters that don't fit the type pattern.
One's dominant function should never be "weak." One can have a weak auxiliary, but the dominant function should always be fairly strong, or that means you're a different type. I would think this would be obvious, considering that the dominant function is supposed to represent the consciousness and the self-image.I can accept a weak I/E, because that just means you have a strong auxiliary. I can also accept a weak auxiliary indicated by a weak letter associated with it. But I do not buy the whole concept of a weak dominant, or a weak J/P. J/P has less to do with behavior in terms of organization/punctuality/neatness, and more to do with functions. The difference between J/P types is a completely different functional order, and you should be able to tell which one you have, unless you're completely mistyped.
The letter is weakened largely because the outward behavior doesn't seem to match the expected behavior. So this is where we realize the point you are making, that you can't go too much on behavior, and as in the case of SuchIrony, when you really get to the bottom of "the way she thinks", it becomes clear she is a dominant T, despite whatever behaviors that might seem to suggest F.
7. Use of third-party systems that attempt to convert MBTI types.
Whether it's the classic 4 or 5 temperament system, Socionics, or Beren's interaction styles, this method is somewhat unreliable. It's based on a separate system of typology that is different from MBTI, and finding a result within these systems does not tell you your MBTI type. You could even be a different type in these systems than in MBTI.
Again, I use these just as evidence. (Actually, Interaction Style is built into type. All I did was show how the 5 temperament system maps onto both it and Keirsey's groups).
Well, that's my rant. I'm sure people will disagree with me here, but it's all just my opinion, and I hope I get a few people to think about these things. There have to be better ways of assessing type. I'm going to try and come up with a few, later on.
Chances are good that I will slip back into these very behaviors and assumptions I described due to temptation by others, making me a hypocrite, but I still actually think they're flawed.
Again, all of this is just a matter of squaring together functions and behaviors. I believe they do correspond, as different angles of the same thing, but the different angles raise different questions that can make them seem not to fit at times.