Look at you guys with your possibilities. Name one.
The biggest one you've got going for you is "there might be other arrangements of functions". You do realise that still MBTI, right? It's the "16 types + fuckups" developmental model of MBTI.
I was thinking about it the other day: as INTJ, and seeing more and more clearly each day that the INTJ model applies, am I wearing the MBTi sunglasses and seeing only what they offer or is MBTI true and I'm seeing strengths that were there anyway to be consciously developed? Guess which answer I choose.
Name a better possibility, you retards. You are NOT critiquing this model in the right way if the best you got is, gee, well, something else might be possible, knowadimeen?
Pick up the ball and run with it or shun the ball for being round, your choice.
EDIT: ahhh okay, I'm being too religious.
But see, it has the holy grail: utility. A lot of real world phenomena appears verifiably explained. That's what I don't get about people saying it isn't verifiable: stuff plays out in real life like type theory says it will. At least, it does in some positive cases. It isn't verifiably complete as a model, nor is its actual level of depth verifiable, but this "toolbox" people speak of... if there was an actual toolbox, there'd be tools to asses the depth and applicability of MBTI too, the tools would be comparable. Are they? If they were, wouldn't we have a measure of MBTI as a tool that apparently we don't have.
Learn to love the uncertainty of application. All this business of claiming other tools is just loving uncertainty in your own special cognitively approved fashion. Make a choice and Go!
Wheee, look at me being all auxiliary Te about theory making. See how it's me choosing consciously to use Te as an auxiliary to introverted possibility? Me saying, wow, possibilities, choose one and see what happens. Maybe MBTI only works for INTJs.