This is based on the false assumption you can only study that which you can see, which is completely false.
Well, it's good to know that false assumptions are completely false. It's also good to know that I don't actually believe, nor have I ever said or implied, that I believe we can study only that which we can see.
It's based on the
correct assumption that in the grand scheme of things, we don't really know that much about the human brain just yet. Emotions are only vaguely understood as caused by certain chemical reactions, but our understanding of the way they interact to create which human behaviors is shaky at best.
Of course psychoanalysis *can* be helpful to some people for sorting out their emotional problems, but then again, we can't objectively measure the results for scientific verification, so screw it.
Remember, with MBTI we don't
explain behavior so much as
categorize it, according to arbitrary standards that are totally made up. These standards vary from person to person and therefore are strictly subjective from person to person.
If science finds a way to objectively prove that the four statements mentioned earlier are untrue--that is, that people don't really prefer introversion to extroversion or logical judgment to emotional--I would be absolutely stunned, as I assumed this was intuitively obvious to everyone.
Nobody is claiming that there are precise biological mechanisms in the brain that correspond linearly to these preference ideas--we just observe and categorize for future reference. You and everyone else already do the same things I'm doing when I use typology; I just happen to use a different naming system.
But if that were to happen, I'd give up MBTI.
Seriously Te, pipe down--you don't always need an objectively measurable goal to make something worth considering. Note that I say
considering, because MBTI is only one of many possible interpretations from which to draw influence on one's own belief system regarding personal interactions. I know, I know--Te comes screaming in again, to the tragic exclusion of Ni, to remind us how OMG I CAN'T PUT IT IN A TEST TUBE AND RECORD THE QUANTITY IT'S INVALID LOLZ
Grow some Ne/Ti.
Do you doubt the existence of atoms, just because scientists can't see them? How do I know that the psychological structure of people are fundamentally similar? Because of evolution through natural selection. Just like our bodies fundamentally functions very similarly, our brains does as well.
Irrelevant straw man; see above.
What to say about this ludicrous analogy? Do I think one better understand human beings by being trained in psychology? Yes, but there is only a point to this training if the skill is relevant (the theory is good). If the theory is bullshit, it's like learning a non-relevant skill.
Ahhh, and finally we arrive at the crux of the Te overload argument against MTBI.
"If it's not objectively measurable,
why do you bother?"
And I'm afraid that's something nobody can really quite explain to you, if you don't already intuitively get it.
Try to understand that for Ne+Ti (or whatever you want to call external abstract pattern perception+internally consistent framework for comparison to future data),
it doesn't matter if there's any objectively measureable goal--considering a different perspective actually IS an end unto itself.
We like solving puzzles and making connections, and we leave no stone unturned. Ne+Ti=Low productivity, high chance of breakthrough.
Ni+Te=vice versa.
Because I am bored, because I love psychology and discussing it, because MBTI has sentimental value to me, and because there is some usefulness in viewing MBTI is a weak version of Big Five. The correlations are medium-high on the dimensions... I am an addict to applying theory, to seeing connections, and that's what I get out of it.
Seriously? You already understand this and you're still keeping up this silly "omg it's not science" argument? Who are you trying to convince here, anyway?
Let me get this straight, though--your only real argument is that we should use Big 5 for these purposes instead of MBTI, because it adds one more dimension and is therefore marginally more descriptive?
So...all the shit about how it's useless if not scientifically verifiable...? You don't even believe that? Or is Big 5 somehow science?
I'm honestly a little confused now.