the meyers-briggs classification system is pseudoscientific, analytically useless, and functionally unreliable lol

https://perception.jhu.edu/chaz/teaching/courses/intro/files/readings/14.Personality.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00346543063004467

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13617672.2015.1033209

Essentially, there are a few problems with the system

1) the categories are so ambiguous that you'll find something to relate to with at least one of them; that makes them functionally useless as an actual differentiation of personality

2) the test relies on how you THINK you'd feel and act in certain scenarios; that's often different from how you actually feel and act in those real-world scenarios

3) it's fundamentally impossible to shoehorn in every personality to 16 "standardized" factors, and to do so the test relies on questionable quantile and statistical methods

4) the test has little utility when actually predicting success at making friends, etc; extroverts on the meyers-briggs test weren't actually correlated with getting more friends in real life

5) the test tends to reflect what people THINK their personality is rather than what it actually is; for example, I might picture myself as an introvert while being an extrovert and that's going to affect how the meyers-briggs test assesses me

that's the largest fundamental problem with the test; it relies on a "self service" model of psychological assessment that's going to reflect more of what people think is the idealized version of themselves then what they actually are

essentially, there's no functional difference between being an "intj" or an "enti" or whatever in terms of SAT score, career success, academic performance, or a variety of other factors - the distinction is an analytically useless category

there's more, read the sources above because I'm lazy and I need to do chem hw