OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who know

OK, I'll bite. Not so much because I'm a defender of Myers-Briggs, but because there are significant problems with your two sentences here. > we know Who knows? Who is "we?" > it is not accurate Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range. > (and thus irrelevant) Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain. > the facts of the matter Which facts would that be? > have been long settled By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?