I have to wonder, however, just how far the subject can be dissected. If you consider a couple of things: 1) how comfortable one becomes after they've known about their type for some time, and 2) criticisms levelled at MBTI from, say, the Socioncs camp - beyond information for newcomers, what exactly is there?
Well, I think if you ever look at Rivercrow's style of posts, you'll see some of the more creative explorations of type. (For example, she launched into a wonderful comparison of S/N and T/F by presenting various scenarios and people could share their responses to things... and then the information can be compiled.)
I think some of the recent dialogs exploring the functions and their impact on attitude/behavior is good (referencing the Lenore Thomson wiki in particular). There we are getting a better understanding of the functions themselves and how they interact with the other functions in a particular personality -- understanding the parts of the system and thus seeing the whole as the parts interact.
But yes, I wouldn't mind some more critique of MBTI and its flaws/weaknesses. Are the function pairs truly sufficient to cover the bases? What is missing? How do we know these pairs are insufficient? What makes MBTI authoritative at all, at least as some claim it to be?
Looking around at more of the professional MBTI sites, you can see what sort of study of the system is possible.
I do not mind the lighter stuff either, it's fun and informative at times. And I've noticed a recent shift back into some more serious topics later, which I welcome. We should continue to cover a full range, from casual to more serious; things were just feeling very lopsided to me for quite a bit, which everything just being about everyone's personal casual experience/opinions, rather than exploring the topic more objectively, as a system outside of ourselves that might have some coherence on its own.
I for one would like to see more discussions about archetypes of the functions, like Zhash's "INTJ and their Puer/Puella," shadow functions, and psychoanalysis.
I missed Zhash's topic when it came up, but it sounds like it would be fascinating.
I notice that since we have so many INs here, most topics are about INs. People don't seem to be very curious about ENs (esp. ENTJs and ENFPs), ESs, STs, and SFs outside of complaining/advice-seeking. There's recently been some positive activity in the SJ and SPs subforums, which is good.
You're right. Could you suggest some "better" topics that would help explore Ex and Sx experiences in a way that had more depth? Some of it is inevitable bias, either in how we think or how we articulate our thoughts; but I would like to see more exploration of these things.
Honestly, for myself, I am still learning to understand ENs. The best I generally do is parsing them as "extroverted" forms of myself, but I don't think that is correct or at least does not grasp the underlying differences at all. (I know it's hard for me even to truly understand extroverts in general, because I am such an introvert.)
And I thinks Sx types are fascinating, and I tend to meet many more of them than the EN types, just in sheer volume of numbers, so that would always be a good exploration as well. What are their primary motivations? How does the S function play out, in conjunction with their T/F? Is there room for "new thought" in an Si person? Do and should they always look like someone who is rooted in a world that has now passed on, or can they look more progressive? And if so, why and how?
Someone somewhere also mentioned offhand a number of ISFJ female types that he had dated. I found that enjoyable because I recognized some of the variations. ISFJs are not stodgy carebear types (especially in dress) across the board, sometimes they can and do look very different on the surface. What are the variations, and what is the connecting thread that seems to underly each one of them?
I don't know. I wish I could contribute/spearhead more; realistically, I admit that my energy level is not very high due to deal with my personal circumstance(s), so I cannot invest as much as I would like. But I'm willing to do what I can to participate in those sorts of discussion.