This critique of typology applies to the way humans think about so many things though. Imagine a world in which we broke free of the unreasonable typology of the traffic light! Really, typologies are super helpful for solving lots of problems.
And a nice thing about MBTI in the comparing-humans world is that it's way more objective _and_ uses more than one dichotomy unlike lots of other default typologies (cf men-women, especially when MBTI was first developed) _and_ can also resolve down into things like cognitive processes, which provide even more leverage and depth.
Not that MBTI is everything, but it's damn impressive for where it came from.
And, it usually works better to criticize specific typologies using qualitative means than quantitative, just IMO.
"Most" is an assumption. And typology like MBTI is going to be intractable to distribution-thinking. After all, the instrument itself comes from soft theory. The same soft theory now explains why e.g. distributions are not a good lens by themselves.
This is why Big 5 often gets dragged on by people who like MBTI better: It's not really qualitatively interesting to try to work in depth with such a broad and shallow tool. People can also try both and judge for themselves or just defray judgement and use both.
And a nice thing about MBTI in the comparing-humans world is that it's way more objective _and_ uses more than one dichotomy unlike lots of other default typologies (cf men-women, especially when MBTI was first developed) _and_ can also resolve down into things like cognitive processes, which provide even more leverage and depth.
Not that MBTI is everything, but it's damn impressive for where it came from.
And, it usually works better to criticize specific typologies using qualitative means than quantitative, just IMO.