>>11332199I've noticed that different people have different reactions to MBTI. Some say that reading about their MBTI type helped them a lot; some say that they constantly get different types when they take tests, and aren't able to get any value from MBTI due to not having such a fixed personality. I couldn't get much out of MBTI; although, it's pretty fun to see people talk about it. But I did find my enneagram to be rather accurate, and found some utility in it. The problem is that these personality types should be used as psychological tools on individual people, and if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. The decision to try and compress all of humanity into a dozen or so personality types is rather presumptuous.
I think the issue is that our mentality is very black and white. We think that something is either "scientific" or it is false. There isn't a lot of empirical evidence for MBTI which I'm aware of, so it could be classified as "pseudoscience." But pseudoscience is a rather empty term. It's been well understood for centuries that the scientific method and logical positivism alone aren't the end all be all of epistemology. It's very well functioning for its domain, but its domain isn't universal. It's okay for certain fields to be more nuanced and humanistic than hard science. Psychology is an example of a field which benefits from accepting scientific input while still relying on more a priori methods.
