I think you would like me to justify MBTI a priori.
My father liked to argue like that and had a very old book called, "First Principles".
And for him empirical evidence fell outside his argument.
You couldn't quote history at him because he would always argue a priori from first principles.
A priori gives a certain seductive certainty.
And it was this certainty that fed his vanity.
And whatever you feed, grows.
Dude what are you talking about? You're doing exactly what your father was doing. You're so vain that you aren't questioning your own beliefs -- "And it was this certainty that fed his vanity. And whatever you feed, grows."
A priori or a posteriori, who cares? I'd just like to hear you justify your dismissal of MBTI in any sense at all.
You keep dodging the question.