I think this is what I find most important to know about the situation, I think anyone who looks critically at MBTI or a test of its kind would see some unrealistic ideas, but they're portraying themselves as professionals in the field, that they have a real benefit to knowing your results. People don't think to check when they believe it is an industry standard, and a lot of people haven't had access to classes teaching how to research.

They've had enough time since Jungian Theory perpetuated to switch focuses to accuracy rather than something that sounds nice, but they still refuse to switch from their either idea. They have more errorneous theory than they do theory.

Again relying on a nice idea, knowing people so well that you can create a system of personality off of the relationship, but it has serious flaws in credibility. In research you should never know your subjects, and there is no way they had enough connections to be a valid sample size.

This claim would be impossible without real observation, rather than just self reported data relying on preference. How could someone's "true self" be found through how they prefer to think of themselves? This relies on the guru effect mentioned above, it doesn't have any real meaning but if it's said vaguely enough people can be hoped to believe it.

Again with the either or mentality, there is a clear weakness in asking to choose between something that people will usually have a measure of both. People will receive unbalanced scores, and having the questions asked as preference has no real way of reflecting a person's real disposition. It's more in line with the idea that you can choose an idealized version of yourself rather than judge your current strengths and weaknesses as advertised.

This isn't entirely different from the models that we have studied in class, The Big Five and HEXACO are the closest but the idea of an Extraverisan-Introversian scale is part of I believe all of the models we've looked at. That being said the categories after feel like they're taking a few jumps in what they're meaning, how the categories are opposing one another, or even if the distinction is an important one to make. In my experience I became better at intuition and perceiving with senses at the same pace because my focus shifted towards observation, they're so intrinsically linked for me that it feels difficult to imagine them as being seperate. They're posing Thinking and Feeling on opposite ends of a scale like Introversion-Extraversion when using logic and taking others into account is very possible.