Both physics and biology show that we don't need more to explain more.
More information usually just leads to more questions after a certain point. It's not NEEDED to explain more, but in having more questions, yeu realize there's more out there that needs to be explained.
Fundamental laws and chance are sufficient.
noone will ever need more than 640k RAM
But very powerful institutions use the supernatural against the vulnerable.
"Very powerful institutions" are only very powerful because they are GIVEN that power by the vulnerable. They don't need to use supernatural to do it either. Governments and other large organizations have done so in the past with secular beliefs. Take a look at chairman mao, worked just fine there.
In the same way that very powerful institutions use MBTI against the vulnerable.
Most powerful institutions don't use MBTI. The few who do rarely use it as a whole. Psychological profiling is a generic tool to try to find good employees though, even if it's often abused or misused. It's not used in the same way as the supernatural at all, however; the supernatural's generally used as a "do as I say or else"; MBTI is used more like "if yeu are not ISTJ we don't want yeu".
In seventy years there has not been one double blind test of MBTI, so it is reasonable to say that MBTI is completely superfluous to understanding personality.
This would likely be due to the fact that MBTI does not actually test yeur actual personality at all; it only tests yeur preferences of whot yeur morals dictate yeur ideal personality to be. There has yet to be a test made which can determine which yeu really 'are'. Due to this, the only one who can say which type yeu are, is YEU. Meaning it's impossible to hold a double blind test because that requires at least two participants and that's impossible if the second participant's results are automatically invalid.
In the same way that the supernatural is superfluous to understanding reality.
Everything's natural. The supernatural is just that which we don't yet understand as we either don't grasp the information we have, or lack the information required to understand it yet. As such, this's also inaccurate as the supernatural, due to the fact that it actually is natural, is absolutely a part of reality and therefore IS required to understand reality. Lightning was 'magic' for the longest time. Gravity was magic. Atomic structure was magic. These are all integral to understanding reality.
But what is most striking is how ugly the supernatural and MBTI are.
Ughly in whot way? In a physical sense? Or ughly in a perceived moral sense? or ughly in just a personal sense?
And what is worse is by following the supernatural and MBTI we become ugly ourselves.
One does not neccesarily become identical to that which they review; there's also the matter that yeu've given no context into how yeu are using the word 'ugly', and I'm relatively sure the quote "That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it to mean." applies.
We have found in physics and biology that following beauty is the best way to understand the world and ourselves.
Hardly the case; in many cases 'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder, even on a quantum or biological level. How many people consider a lionfish to be ughly as sin? I know I do, yet I also commend it for doing an excellent job for whot it's designed to do. If yeu get into deep end particle physics, and quantum theory, stuff can get awfully ughly awfully fast, and a real mess made, yet it is required to better understanding the world.
If yeu're just going off the traditional "it looks nice" definition of 'beauty', then I'd furthermore like to point out that looks are often deceiving, and occam's razor isn't always accurate. Often, but not always.
Or we could just say that beauty is only skin deep and rarely holds any true relevance to the reality of function and form.
I dunno, no matter how I look at that phrase, I can't see it being accurate.