The history of humans trying to reduce one another to a personality profile

In fact, one of the problems with the Myers-Briggs is that it is continuously brought up in these discussions, even when experts in the area of behavioral individual differences dismiss it because it is lacking in evidence (and it has never really been dominant, or at least not for decades). There's all sorts of model-testing that lends support to some models (e.g., the Big Five, which is mentioned in the essay) and not the M-B, in terms of its internal empirical characteristics and predictive properties. And they do involve falsifiable predictions of multiple sorts.

The problem is that people complain about nonsense such as the M-B being nothing more than a money-making consulting scam, but then don't take that assertion seriously, in the sense that they assume the consultants are scientists.

It's as if con artists were selling perpetual motion machines, and HR departments started buying them, and then we started complaining about physics being non falsifiable, rather than about HR departments and business administration not understanding physics. It's all strawman arguments.

As an exercise, for example, I recommend someone searching for modern basic research using Myers-Briggs uncritically in mainstream psychology journals. You probably won't find it except for as some kind of deceptive ruse in an experimental protocol.

As for measuring behavior, any measurement throws away information. That's the tension: weight, BMI, blood pressure, temperature (under what pressure?), etc. The problem isn't in the measurement, it's in how that measurement is used and interpreted, and how much information is thrown away.

So, nothing is wrong with getting a measure of emotional-behavioral state. The problem is overgeneralizing from that, across time or situations, overestimating its predictive information, failing to consider uncertainties or biases of measurement, and so forth. BMI is an imperfect summary of someone's physical health, but it does have utility. The danger isn't in BMI per se, it's in assuming it won't change, assuming things about the reasons for a given BMI, ignoring how any given BMI was calculated, and so forth.

This is simply ignorant and untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology

That's very well put.

I would compare it to a dyslexic ex coworker. I can look at a sheet of paper and read it within seconds, understand it and spot spelling errors. He could stare at it for hours and only see a jumble of letters. I practiced a lot with him but he just didn't improve. On the other hand the same person could go to a bar, look at people, and immediately he knew who to talk to in what way. I go to a bar, see random people, but simply can't read the situation.

Does this make sense? I have improved a lot from a miserable childhood up to my 30s to now being socially reasonable functioning but I have some hard limits I can't overcome no matter how I try. Now I am accepting this and feel liberated from pressure.

Disorders are defined by the society in which the trait (or "symptoms") arise. In South America, people who hear voices and have visions are recognized as having the potential to become a shaman. Shamans are seen as the protectors and healers of a village-- lauded and respected. In North America they are called schizophrenics. We distrust schizophrenics here and don't really know at all how to "help" them. They don't have a place here.

I have autism and I don't see myself as being disordered. I have trouble sometimes in North America, but any help I need is due to my non-alignment with the culture, not due to myself inherently.

Extroversion could be a disorder in a place like Japan, where personal space, privacy, subtlety, boundaries between strangers, and silence are highly valued. In America extroversion is often a huge advantage.

Nothing is a defect in the right context, just like anything could be in another.