MBTI has been bastardized by behavourists. People can't help themselves when it comes to psychology the behaavourist approach is very natural. But MBTI describes the underlying functions that produce behavior.
This nuance is important...
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of type dynamics
Well indeed. How could there be? When MBTI is a system derived from rationalism. It's the product of logic and reasoning. Lacking empirical evidence is obvious really in this context... empirical evidence lends itself to behavourist appraoches in the paradigm.
Almost no research has been done on whether or not there is such as thing as a tertiary or inferior function.
Again. Emprically... how would you research this?
Cognitive functions appear to rest mainly upon the authority of Myers' original writings
Theory is developed over time. Especially rational theory!
The fact that the four letter code for a type is empirically solid does not imply that cognitive function theory is also empirically solid.
Still clutching at that emprical straw. This article would have much greater validity if it predisposed an empirical testing method. One that isn't based on behaviour.
There have been--and still are--multiple theories about how the cognitive functions are actually arranged
Rationalism.
There is not yet any study showing that different functions emerge over the course of one's lifespan
Because it's difficult to establish emprical proof. Christ, we get it already.
In short, the evidence actually contradicts itself.
Article claims that there's no empirical evidence then uses contradiction in theory as rational evidence for contradiction. Strikes of hypocrisy.
From these results we can either conclude that a.) too many adjectives were used, offering too much variety and too little chance for any overlap to appear, or b.) Nobody sees type dynamics except those who already expect to see them.
They were attempting to find a correlation in words used to describe Ti doms and found little overlap in the top 10 words when providing 300 to choose from. Hmmmmm i wonder if option a (quoted above) seems more relevant...
Effects which are often attributed to type dynamics can just as easily be attributed to other things
You mean... like... behavior?
Evidence shows that there is little to no factual basis for the hierarchical order of the functions
Citation required. If the article author had evidence it would be appropriate to present it.
Nor is there yet any proof that functions are extraverted or introverted
Empirical proof?
TL;DR The entire article is based on the lack of empirical proof. However it doesn't strive to suggest a way of obtaining empirical proof and quietly sweeps the context under the rug.
The article then goes on to describe a failed model for orbits in the solar system. A model that was easy to show false and compares it with type dynamics - something which is difficult to empirically prove (true or false).
But type dynamics is still very useful--it conveniently explains away any contradictions to type theory that may pop up.
Conveniently fitting observations.
Type dynamics allows introverts to behave like extraverts and thinkers to behave like feelers.
Semantics. These words mean different things under MBTI and do not represent what is implied by casual lexicon.
And so there is always a ready-made excuse to justify any inconvenient deviations from the code that might turn up.
It just doesn't mean what you superficially assume.
A Better Alternative to Cognitive Functions and Type Dynamics
MBTI bastardized by a behaviourist.
If we put each of the traits on a spectrum, i.e. E – I, S – N, T – F, and J – P, allowing for shades of grey rather than just black/white, yes/no choices, we can get a much clearer picture of an individual's unique personality.
But where's the empirical proof you were complaining about earlier?
Example cases.
Personally i don't think it appropriate and casts the 16 types into far more granularity. Especially when 1 standard deviation accounts for 68%+ of the population so variation is limited.
... fuck me i love attacking things with logic. I welcome any comments on these arguments. I may seem intense but i'm having fun. Se. It's a thing. Don't be shy.
