Neuroscience of Personality | Dario Nardi | Talks at Google

Except that MBTI is only a superficial shorthand for the more complex Jungian cognitive function theory[1], which is more nuanced and has functions interacting in more complex ways than just the 4 dimensions represented by the MBTI system. More interestingly, is that these cognitive functions are actually starting to have some connections to neurological phenomena[2]. So while on the superficial level MBTI is kind of just a bunch of sugar coating, it actually is founded in more well-reasoned psychology. It could still be highly inaccurate, but it is unusually consistent (once you accept that the tests for it are generally terrible). [1] Here are some good resources on their basic definitions: [LINK] [LINK] [2] This talk goes into some detail about how specific brain patterns seem to correlate with the Jungian cognitive functions: [VIDEO]

Since there's bound to be some discussion about MBTI's validity now that you brought it up, I'd like to point out that there's some interesting research emerging that seems to reliably correlate MBTI type with observed brain activity patterns: [VIDEO] [LINK] [LINK]

tl;dr - The issue of the MBTI and psychometrics in general is nuanced, and strongly held opinions of either pseudoscience, or devoted metaphysical truthiness, are equally problematic. The MBTI test as it currently stands, deserves the reputation as flawed empirical instrument, yet at the same time it's utility is undeniable. Unlike horoscopes, individual descriptions do differ rather significantly. The biggest issue in my view is not a fundamental one, but rather a flawed set of assumptions. The principle being that the test taker, possesses intimate self knowledge and presents an accurate and unchanging self portrait. In addition to the wonderful qualities humans have, there remains a number possible impairments with regards to self assessment: bias, delusion, deceitfulness, fancifulness, ignorance or simply an innocent unrefined skill in introspective ability. Thus the issue appears to largely be with the test itself, and not so much any solid refutation of the Jungian theory on which it rests. While Jung certainly had some strange and mystical ideas, which would be difficult to support in today's scientific environment, his theory of cognitive functions is uncannily prescient IMHO, and believe is most deserving of further scrutiny. He is also largely responsible for the introducing the concepts of extraversion/introversion in the early part of the last century which have remained a mainstay on both public and academic discourse. [5] Thus upon reflection, the observation of

The tests are wildly inaccurate, and MBTI itself is not the full story of cognition and personality, but I think there is enough evidence suggesting that the cognitive functions as described by Jung[0] are very real. The article you linked to uses lack of MBTI in psychology journals as an argument against its validity, but its applications in the field are very limited. You're more likely to find MBTI references in neuroscience journals as there are appears to be clear correlations between type preferences and brain activity patterns[1]. Even so, knowledge of a persons cognitive preferences just isn't very useful. So the main application of MBTI is indeed "just for fun". 0: [LINK] 1: [VIDEO]