Your position is that the groupings mean nothing, and shouldn't be, is that correct? That only the sixteen types themselves are valid classifications?
No... You are polarizing my position - I stated only that the grouping are arbitary, and when I bothered to respond in any detail, explained that the 4 traits are unique directions of measurement. It's those that define the available groupings.
You are the one stating that the one grouping is more valid (differential) than the others, because it's something "you see". I'm saying that you see the differences because you *look* for those differences. By definition, each of the traits are unique, and flattening type into any of those dimensions will simple flatten the measurements along those trait lines.
Is gravity a confirmation bias?
What the hell? No, that's not confirmation bias. Seeing a magnet attract something downward and calling it gravity would be confirmation bias. Seeing
only gravity everywhere you look, defining everything by gravity, not seeing anything by gravity would be confirmation bias.
Yeesh.
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it ought to be corrected since, I assume, you were making a point against or for the OP. I was less interested in how it related than the fact that you were wrong.
Confirmation bias referred to the OP,
in context, to the perception of greater differences due to the existing groupings. What you said didn't reject anything I said, it didn't even address anything I said. What do functions have to do with any of this? The groups don't even separate into functions!
It's more like how you will naturally classify behavior against functions because that's what you see in the world. You will omit information or force information to fit your model, rejecting other ideas, concepts and even data in order to preserve your conceptual model.
Functions equal gravity, confirmation bias as gravity? Gawd, it's conversations like this that make me question my use of time!