>>23055324it's not about reducing an entire person to some random classification/box based on a reductionist system
it's about whether you can observe certain markers about a person which have UTILITY and CONSISTENCY
the sort of questions you pose in your OP are what determine whether the system is useful or bullshit
>>23055209>What are they most likely?if there is a specific answeer to this question which is consistently observed, then we could say the myers-briggs test could be useful, or atleast that it measures SOMETHING which could be used to make predictions about a person
