I'd really like to talk with you about this, but there are so many problems with talking about typology that I feel like even trying makes me a fool.
1. You've got people arguing innate behavior versus conditioned behavior, which is philosophically oppositional to each other if you refuse to accept that they both can exist, which creates a paradox.
People don't care about answering questions like:
What should be considered innate and why?
What is often considered to be conditioning and why?
2. An abstract concept such as the functions can be interpreted within many different contexts of point 1 above. And these contexts can be in complete opposition to each other, where each person will assert that their contextual understanding is somehow better.
One person might see that Fe has more to do with people being moody, whereas another might know a more stable Fe user that uses Fe to boost their well-being and others. Neither is necessarily biased or wrong until we talk about what things are innate and what are a result of conditioning.
3. People use number 2 to justify using multiple typology systems at once, while asserting that they should not be combined or confused between each other when that's a bit of a contradiction.
For instance, if a theory starts to focus more on evaluations of behavior over innate cognitive thinking and vice versa, then suddenly we get a split in what people believe should be what. And if you try to talk about either within the context of the other, people treat you as if you're ignorant, when you're more knowledgeable than them. And this can make some knowledgeable people think they don't know anything or think it isn't worth discussing anything because no one will listen.
4. All systems of typology have to have some axioms that support it. If a theory doesn't discuss openly the limitations that their axioms can place on thought, but instead focuses on what it hopes to achieve while ignoring criticism with circular reasoning, it becomes intellectually dishonest and supports a self-fulfilling belief in the typology.
For instance, this creates groups of people that start to believe they know more than they do and will be unwilling to listen to or consider criticism. This freaking sucks because nothing you say or do will end up being constructive. It also means that even though a typology system may be based on empirical evidence, there are ways it will be questionable or have problems, even or perhaps especially, if your name is Carl Jung or you invented MBTI loosely based on Jung without knowing the limitations of the axioms to begin with.
5. Jung said a lot of things. He changed his mind at times. He was contradictory at times. He explained his axioms as processes that occurred in people, some processes that we are all technically capable of, and some processes that are more thought to be innately structured.
Until people understand enough, they can't get past using things that he's said as some sort of definitive fact or way to ignore people that know more than them when they should be learning. But who can blame with problems 1 through 4 already in place.
6. A lot of people can't grasp that there is a philosophical structure of the functions that Jung based his empirical processes on.
It makes it ludicrous to talk to anyone that thinks two systems of typology that use these same basic Jungian principles can be valid, but can define them completely differently from Jung, ignoring most or all of what Jung said, and asserting that Jung is invalid, incompatible, or a weak system of thought. It's like stealing the basic conceptual plans for the combustion engine and using it to build an electric car and still claiming that it's a combustion engine - it's completely absurd.
adklfjsaldjfsdfdkfjaskldfjsdgasdf
edit:
7. Some people really don't care if they are biased and don't want to take this seriously at all.
Self-explanatory.
