I can only say this so many ways: Virtually no one here has read Psychological Types or any other typology books for that matter. This is why I keep dishing out what other authors have written. I would be very happy to discuss "different interpretations" with people who have "done their homework," but it seems most are too lazy to bother.
Sure, just use this line: "my views are whatever is written in Psychological Types and anyone who says something that doesn't agree with something in this book is wrong."
Also it's pretty debatable as to whether or not you really are happy to discuss different interpretations, since if the 'Reckful vs. Inquisitor' thread is any indication, the discussion is just going to go something like this:
Person A: I interpret MBTI in this way
Inquisitor: that's different to Jung, so you're wrong
Person A: I'm actually sourcing my ideas from someone different to Jung, so maybe you should read them in that context?
Inquisitor: those people have different ideas to Jung, so they're wrong too
*repeat until everyone's exhausted*
Even from regular members, I still see a lack of understanding of the fundamentals. That's why I'm "touting" the opinions of the experts, so people at least know that their interpretation differs significantly from that of the experts. You want to show me how my interpretation of Jung and other authors is wrong, pick up the damn book and point it out to me instead of attacking me.
Thing is, most people don't actually care about what Jung wrote necessarily. Given the prevalence of people like Dario Nardi, McCrae etc. it's not even necessary to read Jung to understand MBTI - which isn't the same as Jung's Psychological Types. You don't like that because you thing Jung (and your interpretation of Jung) is the be-all and end-all of typology.
So here, just use this line: "my views are whatever is written in Psychological Types and anyone who says something that doesn't agree with something in this book is wrong."
As for the opinions of experts "constantly" being redefined and highly subjective...you're basically saying that since the field is always changing, there's not much point in reading the foundational works of the field b/c they're not very relevant anymore.
Now you're just straw manning me.
There's a point to reading Jung's works - if you want to know about Jung's works. I've read Jung's Psychological Types, as well as some of his others works. I've also read a lot about MBTI and have since come to some sort of working usage and various ideas about typology that don't necessarily adhere rigidly to either one. In some cases they're aligned, in some cases not.
So if I'm going to discuss typology with someone, here's a few things I don't need to be told about, as I'm already well aware of them:
"You're saying something different to Jung"
"My interpretation of Jung doesn't agree with yours"
"The PersonalityJunkie website doesn't say that anywhere"
"Myers (or other expert defines that differently to you"
And so on and so forth. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people on this forum are probably in the same boat. Maybe they haven't read all of Jung - but maybe they don't think they need to read all of Jung just to discuss typology.
So instead of brow-beating people about how important it is that they read
Psychological Types, you should just use this instead:
"my views are whatever is written in Psychological Types and anyone who says something that doesn't agree with something in this book is wrong."
It's really the easiest way for you to make your point, have everyone acknowledge it and then if they want to they can always engage you on the point. By simply making your point very clear from the start, as opposed to ranting about how unlearned all these other people are (in your opinion), which is inevitably going to lead to them marvelling at how much of an ISTJ you are (in their opinion).