You may like it or whatever, but don't think this is in any way objective, a trait which it has in common with practically all personality psychology.
Which is quite a shame because the underlying groundwork of Jung is quite interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
Someday psychology might be a science but it isn't now; it just rejected its alchemical mystics like it saw the cool sciences doing, but without any paradigm to follow them.
The findings of psychology tend to be unreplicable just-so stories, like all the findings so popular in pop-psychology books that failed to replicate in the 2010s, or journal-filling tautologies, like "Big 5" papers showing introversion correlates with introversion or what have you.
Alchemy reformed into chemistry. You can make real sciences out of mysticism. Psychology is not a real science reformed out of mysticism, it's just academic bureaucracy set up like the ones associated with real sciences, producing useless papers.
Please don't enact your personal psychodrama on random people on the Internet, or at least don't do it to me.
I wouldn't dream of competing with you.
Suppose I make a test and ask questions like "Do you like coffee?" and "Is your favorite color blue?". That would get a very high test-retest reliability. If I then score e.g. +coffee -blue as "intelligent", does that really mean people who like coffee but prefer orange are intelligent?
Let's just say that if astrology was reliable, people would follow their horoscopes.
Boy is that a dismissive overstatement. Briggs began thinking about personality in 1917, intentionally read biographies to get more data on personalty, and incorporated Jung's ideas in 1923 when his book was published, albeit with her own interpretation. Meyers did an apprenticeship with a test developer to learn how to make tests. So both Meyers and Briggs were, in fact, reasonably well versed in the field. They did not even make the test until 1944, after they'd been thinking about these ideas for over 20 years. Note that the Big 5 was not developed until the 1980s, almost half a century after they developed their theory. Ass-pulling this is not.
Wikipedia hates on the MBTI, but the actual test that you have to pay for is hardly "Barnum effect, flattery, and confirmation bias": you have 50 or so questions that you have to choose between two options of what you do. Now, you do have to answer what you actually would do rather than what you think is best or what you should do or what you should do culturally, so there is some confounding effects there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
Folks with Autism often have traits of being: direct, seek deep details, are able to stick with a few topics to deep excellence, can sometimes struggle reading people’s emotions.
And yes while generalisations, I wonder on how different neurodivergence’s may be hiding in plain sight within some of these personality systems.
I’ve def seen jokes online that notice that certain MBTI profiles are commonly gateway diagnosis for say ADHD/Autism.
Interested in others thoughts and takes on this.
To be more nuanced, the underlying basis for MBTI on cognitive functions is about describing the input processing of various personality types, which isn't obvious (and completely obfuscated) if one is reading descriptions on a site like 16personalities.com.
It's a subtle but nuanced difference, but provides an avenue for therapists to understand how inputs in a client's life may affect them and their responses to situations. This is a more valid dive into the input-processing aspects of MBTI: https://www.typeinmind.com/type-theory
If you read the type descriptions on the typeinmind.com website, you'll see that the approach is very different. It may seem arbitrary and foo foo, but I'd challenge you to look deeper before completely writing it off as bologna.