Unfortunately he has a point victor, though he didn't need to put it that way.
MBTI is not blind faith by default, nor does it encourage such. Pretty much anywheres official yeu read about it, it states that it is merely a weak attempt at trying to group people so that it makes some vague sort of sense, and that yes, it's obviously flawed because yeu, equally obviously, can't group the entire planet into 16 boxes and hope for it to be 100% accurate.
For further accuracy, use supporting tests which measure different things; for example enneagram checks whot yeur main motivations for doing things are, whereas MBTI doesn't even consider such.
The same goes for religions in general, they usually ask for a degree of faith, rarely do they ask for truly blind faith without consideration of whot's being said.
The only reason I offered the three I mentioned (there's alot more than just those three though) is that they tend to have a higher degree than normal of actively encouraging people to believe without understanding nor comprehension of why they have such dogma listed.
"HATE GAYS!" Alright... why? Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to ask why. But I'm asking anyway! >=O "Because they're unnatural!" No they're not, even in creatures which have no higher thought process or the ability to 'choose' at all intellectually, they still display traits of homosexuality in many confirmed cases. Obviously this is a naturally occurring thing in the natural world among creatures without the capacity for true choice. "Well... well... well the bible says to hate them!" No it doesn't, leviticus said yeu can't allow people to perform gay SEX but it had nothing in it about people themselves; it was the act not the state of being it had problems with, and the only issues it has with that is yeu can't have children. Which's why millions have died in africa due to AIDS - because they have been told that condoms are evil because they prevent 'life' from being transmitted. Rawr.
Anyways, there are some religions which just rely on assumming that the dogma is correct, and that those higher up than yeu are allowed to make yeur decisions on complex matters for yeu. After all, the pope supposedly has a direct connection to god, despite being voted in by committee, and as such, has the 'right' to interpret whot everything means for yeu, and if yeu disagree, yeu're wrong.
Blind faith hasn't died out in the slightest, it's just taken on new forms and shapes. And MBTI as a whole isn't one of them at its' core, because it doesn't hold the pretense of knowing all the answers, it specifically states that it DOESN'T and that it's just a theory, and one that doesn't cover much ground either, for that matter.
There ARE people who believe in it blindly, but they're missing the point. The difference between MBTI and some religions, though, is that MBTI doesn't profess to know everything, or to be infallible. Hence, the system itself is not based on blind faith, but rather, is projected such by the individual looking for something to hold their world togeather.
Which has the same end result, but then we may as well say that looney tunes is the key to blind faith, obviously, because someone MIGHT be on an acid trip and honestly believe the rather obviously hand drawn content to be reality in their warped state of awareness.
The issue isn't that MBTI is evil or that it is some self proclaimed 100% accurate tool for measuring people; inherantly it is neither. The issue, is that yeu project individuals failings upon it as if it were the cause. This's why people tend to direct their attacks against yeu personally; because it is yeur projecting that's at fault, which originates at the individual level. They can't argue against yeur position yeu hold because yeu don't actually hold one, other than the belief that people are stupid, except yeu're misappropriately applying that to other objects in a weird anthropomorphization of them.
Yes, people are stupid. No, this doesn't mean that a cigarette lighter is EVIL because someone was dumb enough to try to set their hand on fire; that just means that individual was dumb enough to try to set their hand on fire with a tool.
MBTI is a tool, and a self professed flawed one at that. It's not legal for use in courts any more than a 'lie detector' is, because they are both known to be inherently flawed and only provide vague approximations. They are tools, and ones, which if used appropriately, can provide a beginning of insight into another's mind, but hardly the full picture, and there will be cases where inaccuracies occur because both deal in absolutes to try to explain variables.
We are all introverted and extroverted in different situations, we just have general leanings towards one or the other. Yeu can't REALLY say "zomg I'm an extrovert!" because... no... yeu're really not. Yeu're just 'usually' an extrovert 'in most situations'. And even then it's not always accurate.
I dunno, I just find yeur claims of absolutes are more inherently 'evil' than the MBTI system yeu so claim to hate because yeu are doing the one thing it doesn't; profess that an absolute value is the equivalent of a variable. This isn't a personal attack, it's an observation of yeur own words. Yeu believe that something which claims to be a vague tool for trying to sort of understand other people, is instead claiming to be absolute truth, when nowheres is this ever listed as the case. There are individuals who abuse it as such, but this is the individual at fault.
Fact is, guns really DON'T kill people. People kill people. They'd do it without the use of guns, and did for a very long time. They used swords. They used axes. They used spears. They used rocks. They used rope. They used fire. They used their bare hands. People will find a way to kill each other regardless, but that is up to the individual; the tool just makes it easier for an individual to do so.
So, too, is MBTI; a tool. It makes it easier to understand other people. And it allows those that want to view the world in absolutes to try to categorize things which're highly complex as absolute values if they misuse it.
The flaw is not in the flawed system, but rather, in the belief that the flawed system is perfect. Except the flawed system is self proclaimed to be flawed, so the inherent fallacy is not in the system, as it is in the individual for ignoring the warnings provided.
I'm kind of going in circles in here but I'm not quite sure how else to explain this concept anymore. And I kind of have to go to class soooo out the door I go.
