I would argue that that's subjective, but I understand that not everyone values objectivity.
That seems an odd thing to say. It sounds like you're questioning his objectivity simply because he holds an opinion that MBTI provides decent motivational understanding and some level of predictivity for some people.
At any rate, I think that while it can easily be argued that MBTI is the best theory, it's hard to argue that it's not it flawed.
Everything's flawed. Who would argue otherwise? The flaws often come in the assumptions, since people are complex and these frameworks of personality start with a basic choice of perspective -- what will the system prioritize, and what will it sacrifice in order to honor that prioritization? Anyone who expects MBTI to properly describe everyone down to the finest detail is already starting on the wrong foot.
Main reason for this is that we cannot touch or understand reality. Every system we create is merely a best fit model to help us understand things. MBTI was created at a time where philosophy still had powers that science didn't. I would argue that science now has those powers.
If you'd like to argue it, feel free... as that's certainly not something that everyone would agree with. However, if you want to be realistic, we don't even know how the brain works yet despite our incremental breakthroughs (the latter bit of which is encouraging). I don't think I'd yet argue that "science now has these powers."
Of course he doesn't have the final word. You missed the point, however. The point was that Jung believed in things that were obviously true, and for some reason, MBTI ignores these things. It's unfair to try to fit everyone into 16 boxes. Jung believed that this wasn't possible.
Considering Jung only had eight types, right?
If you actually bother to examine MBTI in practice, it looks like the n00bs all try to categorize people according to 16 rigid types, while the practitioners are more liable to view it in complexity. Even in the practiced amateur realm, we usually mix MBTI with other type systems like enneagram or Big 5 just to give more triangulation, since just because you share a four-letter code with someone doesn't mean you look very much alike at times even if you share a few underlying principles/priorities. There's quite a range of behavior within a 16-type system, and this is also why the Step 2 and Step 3 MBTI systems were developed, to keep expanding and exploring that granularity.
I am well aware of the fundamental difference between Big 5 and MBTI. One is objective, and one is subjective. The problem I have with cognitive functions is how they literally take 16 types, line up the cognitive functions in an order specific to that type (which is predetermined by some system) and then they tell you that those ARE your functions. This "everyone fits into our boxes" mentality is unhealthy, I find.
While the function code order seems pretty arbitrary in some respects (and if you talk to members of a particular type, their 8-function order won't typically match exactly with the theoretical estimation... and of course some might not even be close), the priorities in MBTI are typically functions #1, #2, and #4, with some value on the #3. And typically people are type defined by how their #1 & #2 functions line up; the typing is really based on #1 + #2.
My perspective here, though, is that part of the rigidity problem is you; because someone provides a "theoretical notion of function order" for each type, you assume it's supposed to be rigid and exacting. How many other subjects do we present an ideal that it's already assumed no one will match up? It's simply the theoretical ideal based on the way the system is set up? You can say girls are supposed to get their first period at age 11, but do all girls get their period at age 11? No, not even close. Does that mean that saying girls get their period at age 11 is wrong? No, it's a generalization based on the "theoretical ideal" based on examination of physical maturation of human females, the theory of physical development should lead to that age (or whatever it is now) as the ideal... but the assumption is that an individual won't necessarily align with it.
I see function order as the same. According to MBTI, at least the first four functions typically derive from the basis of the theory; the latter four will depend on whose theory you are following; but I wouldn't expect people to conform exactly regardless. It's the difference between theory covering a broad group vs the practical reality of an actual person.
Thank you for trying to inform me of your angle. I just wish you had been more accepting of my views.
"Acceptance" doesn't necessitate "agreement." You barely had gotten any pushback at that point and already were acting as if people weren't accepting of your views.
To be clear, I've lost some interest in MBTI and it has its flaws, which you've started to sketch out here. I just don't see the point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor judging it more harshly than warranted. I don't think any type system can be approached from a rigid POV nor has a total handle on people; we're talking about human beings here, not laying pipe.
