> If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. This was kind of my point, if it's not science, criticising it as unscientific doesn't seem to be a particu

> If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. This was kind of my point, if it's not science, criticising it as unscientific doesn't seem to be a particularly meaningful activity. One has to consider how MBTI is used by people in the real world, I've come across two scenarios in my own life: 1) A business does it during some form of team day or off-site. The main purpose is to highlight that people think/operate in different ways and have different value, and an effective team is sensitive to this and works within it rather than trying to fight it. My comment is that the _specifics_ are kind of irrelevant, as long as the message that people are different is communicated effectively. 2) People use it in their personal lives as a form of reassurance, they've found something that they feel describes themselves and perhaps is useful in explaining themselves to others. This won't happen for the people who are close to the centre of the various axis, because they'll feel that more than one of the "types" could apply to them. But for the people who are closer to the extremes (like myself) find them to be rather accurate. And we're the people who'll find value in it. So my comment here is simply that if someone thinks their MBTI type is meaningful, it probably is -- because for the purposes they care about (how do I explain myself to others, or similar), it actually is pretty helpful.