What's cool about this post is, I can move the quotes around to show how its wrong.
Bullshit.
...
If it can't be explained by neuroscience at any point, then it is invalid. And you can't argue against conjecture when it's all you have. You're pulling the rug out from under your own feet!
Lady, what the fuck are you talking about?
When conjecture is all you've got, then you'd better damned argue the hell out of it. I don't know what the context of this argument is, but I can't picture even one scientific scenario where unchallenged conjecture is better than nothing. What if it's false? Then you've wasted a whole heap of time studying what can't be true.
Fallen Astrologists will tell you I'm right on that.
If you can find yourself an INTJ who isn't too stubborn to confess, he'll tell you too.
Dissonance said:
One thing I do agree with, though, is scrapping the separate functions for introversion/extroversion.
You also link S/N T/F.
Why don't we just lump them all together and call it Ff?*
Come on son -- We're referencing the fragments of behavior separate from all others. Thinking is not tied to feeling. Else we ought to just call it judgement. When we're talking about Thinking, we're talking about the part of judgement which is separate from emotive judgement.
By your mish-mash logic, Thinking is tied to sensing, since photons still go into the eyeballs and make electrical signals even while we're using Judging functions.
You and The Poriferan need to get off the soapbox about this linking and dependency bullery. We parse concepts for a reason.
*
The reason we don't is the same reason cars don't say "engineengineengineengine" as they putt along, and a street light doesn't go "redredredredredred."