A Blog of Personality Shinanigans

So this is a good time to point out that while my blog title is “all tests suck, study the functions” and I expect a basic study of those things in asks, it’s also pretty important to consider function order and interactions Otherwise there would only be four types and that would be a very different system. The way to consider this is:

Dominant function: this is your first instinct at all times. You may use this without realizing it but if you have any self-awareness about your behavior, you will at least realize in retrospect how much it, well, dominates your decision-making and approach.

Auxiliary function: provides your dominant function with a much needed opposite axis (judging or perceiving) and a much needed opposite introversion/extroversion axis as well. This lets you develop a full approach, rather than a single-minded thought without action, or observation without analysis or vice-versa.

Tertiary: not how you tend to do things, but if your normal approach isn’t working (and you’re old enough to actively chose to use your tert at times) this is an option. You’ll never be as good at it and it won’t be your favorite but you will at times realize it is better suited for the situation than your aux. You’ll also use it to add balance to your aux and inform it. When you use this on its own it will be weaker and less flexible than it would in a dom user (or than how you use your own dom function)

Inferior: you’re never great at this though you often may explore it (and your tert) for fun in low-pressure situations. Most likely it serves to soften your dominant approach and add additional perspective and nuance to it. And again, your use will always be pretty one-dimensional.

So: INFPs are going to be Fi-doms. They will naturally tend to approach problems through application of individualized morals. They’ll make decisions on what feels right for them. They will think about the world as an interconnected set of conceptual possibilities and tangents. While this will be tempered a little bit by past experience and their logic will be inductive, the morality, individuality, and possibilities will be how they primarily interact and make decisions.

ISTJs are Si doms: they tend to approach problems through understanding where they’ve seen this before and how it’s similar or different. They will prefer to be decisive and take action that maximizes efficiency, while still fitting in with that familiarity. They will take whether that most logical decision fits in with their personal moral code and may consider other possible approaches, but their primary decision making will come from experience and logic.

It gets social things done. That sounds really dismissive, and it’s not - basically, Te is motivated by the sheer act of getting things done, and Fe is more motivated by the reactions or how it will make others feel (good or bad). This is why xSTJs are often associated more with busywork than xSFJs (neither really loves busywork, there’s a reason it’s called busywork and that’s because it sucks and everyone hates it) - Te likes things to be done that need to get done to move forward in systems or plans. Fe likes things to be done that elicit a certain reaction in people, whether it’s making them happy, impressing them, etc. (a lot of Te users also want to impress people too, but it comes from sources other than Te or because of the utility of making a good impression).

I could not think of a better title. Anyway, in the continued non-snark theme of this weekend, which will be definitely abruptly dropped on Tuesday, I thought I’d talk about behavior and functions.

A lot of introductory MBTI info, even good stuff, hinges on behavior. This isn’t bad! It’s very hard to determine the cognition of other people, because you are not able to read minds. There are also clear patterns or clusters of behavior that are associated heavily with certain functions or MBTI types. Honest introspection, too, is difficult; it’s often simpler to look at your actions.

However, when it comes down to it functions are not just about cognition but also have detailed but broad definitions that apply to all actions, namely:

Fi: applying morality on an individual basis with a goal of internal moral consistency (typically in line with individual authenticity)

Fe: applying morality on a universal basis with a goal of external progression to a desired reaction (often, though not exclusively, harmony within a group).

Note: there is nothing here about what those moral standards are nor emotional expressiveness.

Ti: applying logic on an individual basis with a goal of internal consistency; sources are judged by their logical validity; deductive reasoning.

Te: applying logic on a universal basis with a goal of external progression to a desired outcome; sources are judged by their evidence; inductive reasoning.

Note: the efficiency of Te comes from the desire for progression; it isn’t as inherent to Fe because people don’t work like systems, basically, despite the two being parallels in other ways. Neither inherently imparts nerdiness nor curiosity.

Ni: applying internal conceptual reflection on an individual basis; expectations of the future come from abstracted internalized themes; convergent.

Ne: applying external conceptual reflection, improvising based on abstract possibilities of the situation; divergent.

Note: Ne is not inherently future focused; possibilities arise both in terms of how the current state came to be and how it can go in the future and much of Ne thinking is neither but rather lateral in time.

Si: applying internal experiential knowledge on an individual basis; expectations of the future come from past observed patterns; convergent.

Se: applying external experiential knowledge, improvising based on current realities of the situation; divergent.

Note: Se creativity is in working within the limitations of what is actually there. Because Se tends to take action, the idea of possibilities is invisible because the Se user makes a choice rather than endlessly considering possible outcomes and leaving them open; nevertheless in the instant before they make their choice there were possibilities.

Now, the challenge with these definitions is that they don’t describe any specific action or description in total, and so that’s why it’s not possible to take a specific action and type it as a function. Pretty much everyone, myself included, is guilty of doing so (”sounds like an Ne thing to do”) because functions do lead people to tend to act in a certain way based on how they think (eg: high Ni and Si users like to know what to expect so they plan because it allows them to control some of the parameters to match their internal references, so that they will be able to make those predictions). And that’s fine because again talking about all this in purely abstract terms often won’t work, because of the lack of mind-reading or inherent challenges in self-awareness.

To counteract that limitation, though, you need to be looking at a wide range of actions that can all be described by a particular set of functions. Any one action will not help you type yourself on its own. It won’t. There is no getting around that.

You are probably pretty average in terms of maturity, health, and general development. This means both that you are probably not a teenager with a fully developed inferior function; on the other hand you are probably not in the midst of a long-term loop either.

Use examples (show don’t tell) in order to challenge and strengthen your understanding of yourself. Don’t say “I am great at reading people” or “I intuitively understand things”. Prove that you do these things.

It’s about typical approach, not one-off behaviors. How do you usually do things and think about things? This goes both ways: A single time deviating from your normal doesn’t change your normal behavior; a single time deviating from your normal also doesn’t mean it is your normal behavior.

It’s about the cognition behind behavior, not the end result. While I knock Keirsey a lot he actually wasn’t bad as a behaviorist, at least for the intuitives: there genuinely are a lot of similarities in how the NFs, for example, behave, despite an INFP and ENFJ sharing no functions. But the reasons for their actions fundamentally differ. When typing yourself you need to do an honest deep dive into your motivations. When typing other people you need to try and actually understand them in order to type them. Typing them is not a shortcut to understanding but rather an expansion of an initial understanding.

Position matters. Use of and reliance on a function in the tertiary position will look different than that function in the dominant position and so on. For example, Fi is about our approach to morality. However, an ISFP and an ENTJ might look at the same situation and the ISFP may see it as an issue of morality whereas the ENTJ might see it as an issue of logistics, because they favor their dominant function’s approach.

On that note, you have four functions and use all of them in various combinations. You are not “Fi” or “Fe”; you’re one of sixteen types who uses either Fi or Fe in combination with either Te or Ti and your perceiving functions. You cannot take a single behavior and attribute it definitively to any one function.

The situations matter. People are often happy to explore their lower functions or functions not in their stack in low-pressure, safe situations (like hobbies), but will primarily approach real life situations with real consequences using the functions they’re most comfortable with.

A lot of human traits are near-universal and have nothing to do with MBTI, not to be a total bitch (JK, yes to be a total bitch) but please go outside and experience the rich tapestry of humanity or at least read a lot of memoirs or something until you get this. A not at all comprehensive list: almost everyone dislikes public humiliation, needs a mix of alone time and time with people, dislikes non-constructive criticism, wants approval sometimes, requires a certain amount of trust before opening up, has emotions, has a sense of identity, uses logic, behaves differently around authority figures vs. peers.

A lot of human traits aren’t universal but are also not tied to MBTI, such as intelligence, some talents (some are kind of correlated though not causative nor at all exclusive to a certain function, like athleticism and Se, but many creative talents have nothing to do with MBTI for example), and most personal preferences or quirks. Again ask yourself why you like something, not if you like it.

Other personality systems (enneagram, socionics, etc) can provide nuance and insight into your MBTI type but they can also muddy the waters and lead to overthinking. Use your best judgment, and if you don’t trust your judgement I’d err on the side of not using them.

Focus on functions over holistic descriptions. Always.

Overall: Be brutally honest with yourself, spend a lot of time researching and thinking critically about your research, always consider context, and do not try to take shortcuts either in determining type or in using MBTI to try and ‘hack’ human behavior. It primarily is a means of adding depth and further insight to existing observations about human behavior - your own and that of those around you.

“okay, they don’t get it and i can’t make them get it, i’ll move on.” but ti would not STOP until they got the person to understand and agree with them. and i’m 100% ti in this way. i can’t take it when people are like “lmao ur wrong” when i know i’m right, so i don’t let go until they see i’m right. based on all of this, would i be more te or ti?

—

I can’t tell and here’s why.

1. Wanting applications of knowledge: often Te but also related to sensing (ESTPs/ISTPs will usually feel this way).

2. Overcomplicating and overanalyzing: you just said you did this but provided no examples; I feel overthinking is on the long list of stuff that many people feel they do more than average when in fact they’re pretty typical in how much they overthink. Also healthy Ti might analyze a lot (and definitely more than what a Te user would consider necessary) but will attempt to simplify: elegant solutions over efficient ones. Overanalyzing can come from a lot of places and it might not be Ti depending on what you’re overanalyzing and how.

3. Te users do still want people to understand stuff. This is a personal pet peeve but if you read something and you remember where it is, I do like there to be a source because if you read it in the original Jung or something that’s worth discussing but if you read it on a forum or 16personalities or something then I’m not even going to bother debating it because I don’t trust the source. But that aside we do want people to understand things; we just won’t necessarily tell them every single solitary detail why if it’s not needed for the purpose for which we’re telling them.

4. Wanting people to agree with you at all costs can come from either Ti or Fi depending on the issue. We all have our sticking points. Te is more likely to judge debates on importance and pick battles a bit more closely but also immature Te users can be obsessed with being the authority/the best, so this is another case where you’ll need to look at context.

Can an Fi user value harmony and the happiness of others? Yes. Will they act in a way that is similar to that which is often superficially attributed to Fe users only? Yes. Will they act like an actual Fe user or think like one? No. If they did then they’d just be an Fe user.

The fundamental difference between Fi and Fe is the same as the one between Ti and Te, except with morals rather than logic. As someone who has really no Fe I understand it best through an analogy to Te:

Te users want logic to be based on information that is externally accessible (behind a paywall is fine, only in someone’s head is not) and they want things to reach external metrics like completion with a certain amount of time or under a certain budget, meeting certain regulations, etc.

Fe users want morals and how others interact with people to be based on information that is accessible and they want these actions to meet external metrics like a particular agreed upon moral code for the group in question.

Now, to compare Fe and Fi:

If you’ve ever seen that post which is like “That boy you just made fun of for crying? His father is dying.”:

That post is, in my mind, appealing to an Fi approach to morality. “That person might have things going on you don’t understand, and applying the standard ‘don’t cry’ which you might apply to yourself is not appropriate or universal to this situation.”

The response to that post a lot of people have had appeals to Fe approaches to morality, namely “Actually don’t make fun of people for crying ever, it’s not how you should behave.”

This doesn’t mean that all Fi users will be okay with making fun of someone for crying, nor that all Fe users won’t be okay. I personally agree with the Fe logic here…but that’s because my Fi morality says “don’t make fun of people for crying, I don’t believe there is anything wrong with crying.” However, it does mean that Fi users fundamentally think of how they treat people on an individualistic basis that often relates back to the self in some way. It’s a personal ‘moral-logic’ so to speak. Fe users think about how they treat people more as part of humanity, and whether that behavior meets a certain standard.

Therefore you can be an Fi user who thinks that promoting group harmony and caring for others is an important thing to do, but you won’t be an Fe user.

Refer to the Type Development guide for how to develop functions.I’m going to address all the functions since anyone can have communication issues. Possible function-related communication problems:

When Si is underdeveloped, you might have difficulty seeing situations outside the context of your past experiences. You are likely to compare/contrast things in such a way that has little relevance/significance to others during conversation, perhaps unable to appreciate their contributions because you are too busy thinking back on your own experiences or figuring out what to think/feel about something new to you. This can lead to the other person feeling bored or unable to connect when they cannot relive/experience alongside you whatever it is you are mentally comparing.

When Ni is underdeveloped, your mind is messy and you only have a very vague idea of what you want to express, which means you might have difficulty grasping/explaining the essential points of the conversation or often get left behind as conversations move along without you. You are likely to stop and start, pause or question when you don’t understand, twist and turn during conversation, or wrongly assume that others already understand your point. This can lead to confusion or impatience in the other person because they cannot easily follow your convoluted thought process.

When Ti is underdeveloped, you might have difficulty independently organizing and systematizing your ideas into a coherent logical framework, unable to express your ideas with clarity, unable to summarize your thoughts well, unable to correctly calculate the full effect of the things you say. You might not catch the logical contradictions in your statements nor understand how self-centered or amoral your judgments sound to others. This can lead to statements/behavior that put the other person off in some way because you have not considered their perspective nor helped them to understand your reasoning.

When Fi is underdeveloped, you tend to personalize everything through your own feelings even when something is not related to you, perhaps unable to talk about things you don’t have any feelings about or unable to show any interest in things you can’t relate to. You might not realize that what you are talking about is of little interest to others even though you feel very strongly about it, unable to translate your interest into something the other person can relate to. This can lead to the other person feeling neglected or unseen, as though you’re just talking to yourself. 

When Se is underdeveloped, you might have difficulty tapping into the flow of energy in the conversation, unable to react quickly and improvise well. You are likely to be rather oblivious and then fail to respond to changes in demeanor/behavior in the other person, likely to be too focused on what you want to say next instead of being present and listening carefully. This can lead to stilted, disconnected, or awkward communication when you keep talking past each other.

When Ne is underdeveloped, you might ramble or spout ideas/questions without actually adding anything new or valuable to the conversation. You might find it difficult to successfully riff off others, perhaps more likely to impede rather than facilitate the flow of conversational energy, unable to explain to others why your ideas might build upon what has already been said. This can lead to the other person feeling puzzled or disrupted as they struggle to see anything useful or significant in your seemingly random contributions.

When Te is underdeveloped, you might be too absolute or presumptuous because you believe your opinions are fully justified and objective, perhaps unconsciously driven to correct/criticize people whenever you feel insecure or unsure. You might find it difficult to understand when/why people might react poorly to your statements, unable to connect with others on an authentic and personal level because you are too busy judging them. This can lead to the other person feeling misjudged, unappreciated, or wanting to distance themselves.

There’s a bit of a pattern I’ve noticed in some posts based around the inferior functions of all types. I’m also seeing misconceptions on some other MBTI things, but I’ll just focus on inferior functions for this post.

Of course, this isn’t a post to condescend others and all that stuff. This system is a learning experience, and I had to also improve my own understanding of it this year (leading to a more accurate but hesitant retyping of myself). Let’s just get to it now that I’ve got that out of the way!

Misconception #1: Inferior = Entirely Nonexistent

If there’s anything I’ve learned from my reading on inferior functions, it’s that they’re blatantly still part of a type’s main stack and have their own influence on each type. These functions still serve their own purpose: to keep the dominant function balanced because they are opposites to each other. 

One way I think of the inferior position of functions is that they’re the most basic construction in a person’s psychology. Additionally, they still have their own influence on each type and work more in the distant “background.” These functions are simply not what a type may be comfortable using at a conscious level and definitely not comfortable leading with said functions in place of their dominant.

Misconception #2: Grips = Only way the Inferior is used and “developed”

Another troubling misconception, because this isn’t what grips are at all. Any type can use any or all functions in their stack at once according to their life situations - healthy or unhealthy. 

(Likewise, loops aren’t the only way a person uses their tertiary function, but that may be for another post if I’m up to making more of these. Idk if I will ‘cause I’m not super confident in my own understanding of this complex system and don’t want to accidentally spread misinformation.)

What a grip truly is, is a very unbalanced state of one’s psychological structure that dumps them into a different “world” of sorts. This world is their inferior function with an absence of the dominant, because they may have disregarded it for too long or overwhelmed/overexerted that dominant function.

Being in a grip can feel like a psychological trap. You don’t feel like yourself, and it’s something you want to get out of - but that dominant function is burned out. A grip is one of the lowest points in life a person can go through, and can happen a lot if one is in a really bad spot that only overwhelms them.

The reason why studying grips and the inferior function can be helpful in figuring out one’s dominant function, is because the dominant is literally what the person feels when at their best and more energized. Dominant functions are tough to identify alone, so we go to what function feels the most “inferior.” We still see parts of said inferior in us, but in very simplistic ways and most often the shameful/unlikable part of ourselves (given you weren’t environmentally conditioned into such shameful perspectives… So try and differentiate between that as well).

On the other end of things, the inferior function isn’t something one would lead with, so when they get unbalanced into a grip, that’s when they’re at their worst. The dominant function has little to no more involvement during these times for reasons previously explained. It is instead the inferior and solely that.

When one isn’t in a grip, the inferior function can still be used! But it isn’t taking over their mind or making their dominant feel suffocated. If anything, the dominant-inferior balance at its own best can allow dom functions to see some good use of the inferior for different situations that call for said function. It may feel like one’s weakness, but sometimes it really can be a hidden/surprising strength in those of balanced psychological states.

While I’m still not fond of this current url yet, it’ll make a good placeholder for now. I plan on making a new icon for this blog - especially since I’ve long been meaning to update the avatar before any of these changes.

If anyone’s got better url ideas, let me know. This group blog is kinda meant to have some of my interactions with others in my life, when it comes to most of its original content. I almost considered calling it “mbti-interactions” instead, but yeah. Still a work in progress if this url isn’t the final one to catch on.

My Te feels like answering this, so it may not be as in depth as you want (Te tends to get to the point with a WELL DUH answer).

MBTI is a theory on cognitive processes – it forms a type based on how your mind processes and organizes external information.

Is it bullshit?

People-experience says no. Just look around you.

Have you never wondered why you do not get along with ‘certain kinds’ of people? Or why that person made that decision, which to you seems totally insane? Or why you just ‘click’ with someone once in awhile?

Could it be that you ‘understand’ the way they think? Or do not understand someone else?

Why does THAT person struggle to share their feelings, while THAT one shares their feelings all the time? Why is THIS person a human processing machine and THAT person seems totally driven by their emotions?

MBTI just explains how your brain works. That’s it. Often, those that scoff at or doubt MBTI fail to understand this – it is not the answer to everything, it is not a big deal except that it gives you insight into how your mind (and others’ minds) work – hopefully, so you have greater tolerance for people not like you; it is not a horoscope that will dictate your future; it is a hard-drive upon which YOU get to upload software that makes you unique from every other person who has your type.

From the various sources on MBTI I can only conclude that they don’t really use 4 functional stack model. You have to only take a look at their official tests; they have separate columns for answers; each column corresponds to I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P dichotomy.

Your questions seem to be based on misconceptions. The functions are dichotomy based. MB studied Jung and refined the ideas to bring out certain concepts according to what they wanted to prioritize. I’m obviously not privy to their exact thought process but I assume they believed that the extraverted functions were particularly important for identifying and describing type, hence the creation of the J/P distinction, and it explains why their test is so behaviorally focused. Newbies know MBTI mainly from the test but the test itself does nothing to reveal the complicated process of how those ideas were extracted and revised from Jung’s theory. In other words, just because you don’t see those ideas directly in the test+results, don’t just assume that they’re not already baked in there. Jung’s writings were very preliminary, speculative, and exploratory, all over the place and unclear. The functional stack order is up for debate and there have been many refinements of Jung’s ideas in several different directions. While it’s probably true that undeveloped functions do not have i/e differentiation because they haven’t yet developed, this misses the point of the functional stack. The alternating functional stack tells you which direction is ideal for self-actualization and not meant to measure the reality of your individual developmental state, and type dynamics accurately describes what happens when you don’t develop the way you should. I’m not for or against MBTI or any other model, they are all potentially useful interpretations to consider, in fact, I try to bring them together.

The J/P dichotomy is particularly interesting because, say, you have already three letters I N F, the last letter decides not only your dominant and auxiliary functions, it flips the stack; INFP (Fi-Ne-Si-Te) vs. INFJ (Ni-Fe-Ti-Se), and then we read that according to descriptions those types are very different. But then we also have a lot of people who can’t really decide if they’re INFJ or INFP. It’s all very strange to me.

It’s strange to you because (judging by the earlier question)you haven’t understood what the J/P distinction really means and you haven’t properly distinguishedcognition and behavior. Two different cognitive functions can manifest similar looking behaviors on the surface (as I have explained numerous times in the guides, please read them carefully). E.g. Any introvert can be reflective but the reasons WHY a particular individual is reflective, the motive and explanation behind it, differs according to the cognitive functions involved (Fi vs Ni). If you don’t know the details of their inner cognitive processes, you cannot see the differences because, just looking from the outside, all you see is that they are both reflective in demeanor. And, furthermore, if you ask them to type themselves based on the characteristic/behavior of being “reflective” as tests often do, then how would they know the difference between Fi and Ni dominance? MBTI type descriptions are purposely simplistic because newbies don’t know the theory and therefore must identify themselves through simple behavioral descriptors. MB designed their system in part to sidestep the complicated process of learning function theory so that more people could access it, a noble intention, therefore simple type descriptions do not include all the info you need to type accurately because they do not address variations within type and cognitive function specifics. In other words, problems with typing stem from lack of knowledge of the theory, usually because of not going any deeper than the simplified descriptions/tests. The test was meant to be administered and interpreted by an expert, which means that people run into all kinds of problems when they try to self-type with limited to no knowledge of type theory.

Is there any real scientific proof that Jungian cognitive functions exist? Dario Nardi’s attempts are certainly interesting, but it’s a common knowledge that EEG method is far from being reliable. Also, on one of his AMA discussions on reddit he presented instances when he was testing midlife INFJ adults who he couldn’t differentiate from of ISTPs, which he attributed to the use the second most common pattern (Ti-Se for INFJs).So, which model is true, or is this a combination of dichotomies and functional stack model? Can you shed some light on those issues and inconsistencies? Additionally, I’d really like your opinion on Reynierse’s articles (“Preference Multidimensionality and the Fallacy of Type Dynamics”, etc.). Thank you. 

The question of “science” has already been beaten to death over and over again so I’ve grown impatient with this can of worms.I don’t have much to say about Nardi, he’s pursuing his ideas and more power to him, but his work is not particularly interesting to me because it is getting away from other aspects of type theory that I am more interested in. He’s useful for distinguishing the functions with greater precision and the infj example would be consistent with type development. Some people latch onto him because they desperately want some kind of “scientific proof” of the functions. Some people dabble in typology and keep demanding “scientific proof” but don’t understand the differences between quantitative and qualitative research. There are different kinds of theories, with different kinds of objectives, with different standards of measurement, with different methods of application - the scientific method is only one valid research framework and it should not be the measure of all things. Traditionally, science often includes the concept of falsifiability but you can’t falsify that which is not within the realm of empirical fact, e.g., you can’t falsify human valuations or subjective meaning/experience, so are these things not “real”? Do you understand the difference between facts and values? Do you believe that only scientific measurements can imbue ideas with value? Do you believe that materialistic explanations of human psychology are the be-all and end-all? Not everything about human experience can be reduced to neurons and electrons. If you think it can, then feel free to dismiss type theory as crap because it’s not going to fit well with your assumptive worldview. Also, abstract and concrete knowledge are different and should be treated differently. No idea is “real” because “real” implies concrete, and ideas are abstract. One can easily claim that any idea is not “real” depending on how you want to set your standards of measurement. People try to claim there is no empirical proof that gravity is “real” even as I drop a book on their head. They will say that there are many other possible explanations for the book falling on their head, yet they can’t offer a better theory but simply replace “gravity” with a different word. Similarly, people claim that “types” or “functions” are not real even when they themselves: behave as type theory describes, suffer the problems that type theory describes, feel attracted to the relationships that type theory describes, follow the developmental path that type theory describes.

Before you ask for “scientific proof”, you should first define exactly what standards of proof would satisfy you and make you believe that cognitive functions are “real”. It is quite often the case that people who like to harp about scientific “proof” don’t even understand what they’re asking for or to what end, they demand proof but no matter what proof is offered, they keep moving the goalposts because they are actually more interested in criticizing than understanding (see climate change deniers as the perfect example). Just so you know, many mbti bloggers are tired of dealing with such people, we’ve already gone through all these arguments a million times. I’m not saying you’re one of these people but beware that you’re stepping into a complex discussion and don’t seem sufficiently prepared. Instead of making people explain or educate you, state your exact criteria of scientific proof and I’ll happily tell you if type theory passes. Type theory is a big theory and some people find it hard to understand even the basic type concepts which barely scratch the surface because the theory goes far beyond simple typing. It is an incomplete and fragmented theory, with many people working on it for different reasons in different directions. Many people have found elements of type theory very useful and accurate in their lived experiences, even using it to permanently solve long running psychological issues, even using it to deftly cure relationship problems. There is piecemeal neuroscience evidence which does not directly relate to type theory but nonethelesscorroborates it. I wouldn’t know if any of this is enough “proof” because you haven’t specified exactly what proof you’re demanding. If the book falling on your head doesn’t prove gravity is “real”, then I suppose all the people whose thought processes match the principles of type dynamics don’t count as real proof either. The results say a lot. I run a popular typology blog and have dealt with thousands of people, so I at least don’t suffer from sample-size-1. Type dynamics describes very specific problems and offers workable solutions, and I’ve witnessed many different kinds of people from different backgrounds, cultures, walks of life apply these ideas with great success. Is this “empirical evidence”? I’ve had the most hardened scientifically-minded strangers think I’m a magical wizard when I can knit together their life story and reveal their innermost insecurities based only on four letters, yet all I’m doing is applying and extrapolating from the theoretical ideas as I understand them, nothing more.