I'm not really bothered by type. However, you must adopt models for the purpose of perception. We shouldn't throw out models because they lack omniscience. We are confined to models in some form or another. The only purpose of shifting models if you find a model with a grander scope or discovering a novel truth.
MBTI is mostly for people who lack sense of identity and integrity.
Mostly young people who do not know any better.
Mostly people who need to do something to prove to themselves they are better than they really think they are.
For people who have no identity complex MBTI is mostly a tool for interacting with people.
A practical framework for how to deal with different types of people.
Frame work of MBTI is really not that great if you look at the effect and time investment.
Also there is no actual common ground on how personalities in MBTI actually work in real life. Its a fluffy theory, but if you look at how people use it its pretty much anything including their own bias and dogma. If anything MBTI should do the opposite, but it does not.
When Jung had personality theory, he was already an accomplished psychiatrist and a professional with huge wealth of experience treating patients.
He to say it in plain terms helped a lot of people to troubleshoot and find resolve.
Most people who know about MBTI have 0 knowledge of psychology let alone psychiatry. What is more some even have negative knowledge, because they probably read pop psychology. All these factors will show up when using MBTI to your advantage (disadvantage).
What is more psychiatry, psychology or simply the mind science is not a formal thing. Even theories that are hailed as cure for most part are simply judged on the impact they have on patients. Its not a science with rigid rules and regulations and all round perfect principals.
Plus the human mind is so complicated that you can pretty much accomplish positive results in many different ways.
MBTI has no scientific foundation. It is somewhere what one might call a soft science.
A composite of observation, data collecting and some form of hypothetical.
For what its worth the INTP type could in reality be a cluster of traits that really is made of many different personalities. What indicates this being true is mostly the fact INTPs tend to be very individualistic. While certain traits seem consistent, overall there is no reason to assume this consistence is actually a common personality. Better just call it cluster of traits that seem to coincide.
MBTI is not an exact science just like the rest of psychology. The human brain is incredibly complex and intricate in its workings, and not everyone within these types are gonna be the same. MBTI offers generalized traits about a certain "type". All these types mean are you happen to think kinda similar to others of your "type". Does this mean that the MBTI can't be used to help one put wordage to how they are or find comfort in themselves, no. What it does mean is that one should not be too quick or eager to define themselves only by their "type". A person is more then just a couple letters that seek to explain how a person uses their cognitive functions.
Mbti is an indicator (showing what is likely) not a science or a life sentence.
Archetypes do exist. Existence of something like cognitive functions is true.
Cognitive functions aren't skills, aren't even really personality or some kind of inteligence. They are something like a preceptual and considering tool box, where each tool influences all the others.
Everyone has a favorite preceptual tool and a considering tool.
It is possible to learn lower function skills.
It is possible to learn to dress well with a super low Se, but it won't automatically make you good with other Se skills. But you could learn a lot of the Se skills so much so that you can fake having it effectively and be awesome at those skills.