I disagree with this much. I do think our type is innate and unchanging, much like our handedness. Introversion and extraversion have been linked to observable differences in brain physiology. So have some traits associated with the Big 5 conscientiousness factor, though the evidence here is thinner. This doesn't constrain our actions or choices, however, which may explain why it seems we are changing type. We can behave in a way that resembles some other type when it suits our purposes. The older we get, the more aware and comfortable we often get with our less preferred functions, too. This is why typing someone based on observable behavior is usually questionable.
Unfortunately MBTI is based in heuristic observation of Jung's patients, through psychological types. In other words: He based the entire theory around the idea of observable behaviour.
Everything else that followed came out from that source.
Also type descriptions are based in listing the tendencies of behaviour each type will lean towards. Best fit rather than perfect fit....maybe..but more likely to be no fit and bad fit.
I understand the urge behind typology; it leaps out of the human tendency to want to know more, to fill in the gaps between the known and unknown. But I think there is an inherent agnostisism to existence that no one answer can really account for. And so I respect the urge behind leaps of intuition about why or what, but I don't necessarily give much credit to the settled ideas that are produced by that urge, depending on what it is and backed up by.
Truth always moves along and you can end up chasing your own tail for a long time. With empiricism, though, you get the technical examination of causal units & that can help immensely in supporting an idea or theory. MBTI's empiricism goes about as far as tautologies based around what jobs people choose...and whatever it was Dario Nardi was trying to do with his EEG scans.
But that's why I respect the leap of intuition, it's that which drives our discoveries, not necessarily the scientific method itself (which is more of a tool) but the housing of an idea into that measurable framework.
After all, the infamous Descartes (and I'm not even a fan of his) phrase was about acknowledging some existence, somewhere, somehow in some form, but it wasn't about telling us that there was either a full subjective existence or objective existence, only that there must be some existence.
That's what people misunderstand about that line of thinking & they misunderstand it when it comes to theories like this one, too.
So I'm not sure where this leaves MBTI; it hasn't got much room to grow from my perspective.....but I could be wrong.
