As usual BW... your eloquent writing style makes it difficult to read. Although I must say the style is becoming more flowing... an improvement. But still, the length of your essays makes it a chore.
As requested, my brief comments while skimming.
In this essay I shall argue that the behaviorist approach which is reminiscent of Keirsey's typology is inadequate...
This idea rings plausible, however, in order for us to definitely state such a conclusion about the individual we must thoroughly observe his lifestyle and biography. We are not in the position to accomplish this due to the limitation of our faculties.
Was it not the reason why the tests asks the individual to identify their type? Seeing as how they should be the ones who know themselves the best? They are specifically told to address the questions based on their "typical" behavior.
Pray kick me in the ass if I'm confusing MBTI testing protocol with Keirsey's.
we could boldly declare that the behaviorist is not aware of the essence of type itself, but only of the external manifestation thereof.
One must not forget the main purpose of the behaviorist is not to understand the mind or even the person. They merely seek to predict an individual's behavior. To such, the mind is a functional blackbox... all he care about is the effect of situations (inputs) affects behavior (outputs). With that said, I highly doubt Keirsey ,or to generalize to any type theorists, can be behaviorists.
The type in itself is amorphous and indescribable because it inheres within the nature of mind incommensurable to anything we may observe in the external world and intelligibly depict in the terms of our language. However, to make matters bearable, we can have some access to this phenomenon by embracing the approach of philosophy of mind and not behaviorism, as the latter stultifies us in the shallow waters.
Type is indeed amorphous... if it, in fact, exists in the first place. I've previously brought up my views to you in private communications. I do believe people have certain tendencies which manifest themselves as traits... and perhaps these traits can be grouped and named... with MBTI labels I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P. However I do not see why dichotomy between traits must exists. Empirical evidence from the population suggests it does not. Trait distribution follows a bell curve.
With this in mind... I have to raise the question concerning whether temperament and distinct types truly exists. Perhaps that are merely due to artifical categorizing. Following that line of thought, the validity of the underlying judging and perceiving cognitive functions pertaining to specific types must also be questioned.
Allow the obviously non-existent Te in me to step in. Until that issue is addressed in a satisfactory manner, I do not see a purpose in further discussion on the detail theories behind dichotomized "traits". (And no, I did not bother with reading more of your writing beyond that point)
Oh. I also have an issue with rationalization of how minds work. I do not see how such theories can be proven with logics. The only way to prove it in my mind is via empirical testing. Unfortunately even in this day and age such is beyond the skills of mankind.