The only problem is that it's only incredibly obvious to most people; and the few people who can't see it as immediately obvious won't (can't?) listen to logic anyway, so you're wasting your time.
As for me, I think unicorns bring children to their mother's womb, and your personality is determined by the colour of the unicorn's coat. No no, I don't want to hear any of your arguments, you clearly don't understand how it works. Spend a few years researching unicorns, then you'll understand (and if you don't, you just haven't studied enough, of course).
I like them unicorns. I'm not sure which one carried me into this world... but I always have a buckskin unicorn by my side. Nice and spunky just like my personality.
There's no need to make things complicated. I don't care whether there's an explanation for everything that goes on in the world. It's silly to even think we can ever explain everything. It's okay to make things up so long as what's made up remains inside an isolated box. It's another thing to take an assumption as truth and make conjectures out of it.
I haven't been able to find even one peer review journal in which this data has been published.
Hmmmm the only psychology peer review article published on the MBTI is a comparison between it and the five factor model by McCrae. Of course McCrae is probably
the promoter when it comes to FFM, whether that affected his interpretations I do not know. Essentially he concluded FFM is a better system than MBTI in that it's based upon "real life" categories using factor analysis of lexicon descriptors of personality traits in different languages where as MBTI groupings are "made up" using unfalsifiable theories of cognitive functions.
My pet peeve with FFM is that it's descriptive alright... but that's all it does. It has very little use when it comes to predicting human behaviour. But then again, that's the whole idea behind personality psychology. It's always been shadowed by behavioral psych... that the situation will always play a stronger role in determining behavior than personality will. It also doesn't help that we cannot really understand the human psyche. In fact to mention "psyche" is to go beyond the realm of experimental psych. MBTI may be flawed, but at least it's a place to start. Does it matter whether unicorns truly control personality within the black box of our minds? I don't think it does when we do not have the tools to expose this black box. Perhaps later when science is more sophisticated we might be able to correct the error. But for now... I only care to have a working model.
Look mate, you and all your conformist friends are claiming that MBTI is a valid and reliable personality test.
MBTI has never been "validated"... not in the sense of addressing face validity. However it's extremely reliable. Test-retest reliability for MBTI is closer to 80%? That's as good as, if not better, than many other "accepted" personality measures around. People are generally classified in to a particular type... it's just that we cannot be sure what exactly these "types" are suppose to refer to. It could be along some randomly selected arbitrary dimensions... but if people find these divisions useful, I think that by itself has some value.
Does any of this matter? Yes, because MBTI reifies the personality.
MBTI psychologically prepares us to be commodities in the consumer market.
MBTI is a well thought out and executed attack on human dignity.
Heh! Then you turn anything commercial... of course the marketers will use it to brain wash the consumers. Did Myers and Briggs intended to turn it into a big business? I doubt that was their intentions from the start. No... I suspect it was just a interesting little model that seems to fit into patterns they noticed in people.
It's like how scientific research gets twisted around by the media... Our left brain is our logical side and our right brain is our artistic side... research trends taken too far. But the media doesn't care... because the idea sells... right brain thinking, right brain drawing... the public gets duped into thinking it's truth. It's not... merely the current incomplete model.
What I find fascinating about astrology is its age and that it seems to be the precursor to so many religions.
For instance the twelve signs of the zodiac are reflected in the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ.
And the zodiac is reflected in religion after religion. So it looks like astrology is the prototype religion.
And why not, almost all of us feel the numinous as we look up into the night sky. And the Sun God rises every day.
So astrology speaks to our deepest hopes and fears - what a shame it has degenerated into a confidence trick to sell women's magazines.
But it is the separation of our hopes and fears from our thinking mind that is the real shame.
It is this separation of thought and emotion that leaves us alienated from ourselves and each other.
And it is this separation that is so dispiriting; that is so unenlivening; that is so depressing.
While it is the marriage of thought and emotion that is enlivening; that leads to poetry and joie de vie.
I don't mind astrology if they only seek to describe patterns in the sky. As I said, I rather enjoy mythological stories. However the idea of the sky dictating our lives... like god overseeing the world is a little too much to accept. My believe is in free will.
If astrology was presented different... as part of religion from ancient times carried forward, I wouldn't mind studying it. But from the way it's currently depicted? No, the thought crushes me.