Hi welcome to this week's edition of PHQ questions from the personality

hacker community my name is Joel Mark Witt and I'm Antonia Dodge and

Addison let's get right to our question today.

Hi my name is Lily and I enjoy listening to your podcast.

Could you please do a podcast or article on the scientific base behind the

NS, F.T, and J.P. cognitive functions report me in the direction of material that discusses research

pertaining to this. The only part of Myers-Bregs that is valid scientifically that I know of is

the introvert or extrovert divide and I have read resources that deal with the

brain in that regard.

How could this material be valid scientifically, not personally or socially if it has no basis in truth.

Note I do understand why this material is valuable in other ways.

I'm simply looking for data that pertains to this topic.

Thank you, Lily. What I love about this question is that I think a lot of people have this particular question in their mind as a barrier of entry into type, into all models actually. Any model or map that doesn't seem to have like,

I almost want to say like the full force of say the psychological field or the full force of any of the sciences behind it if it tends to be something that's like out of fashion or it doesn't have massive credibility behind it.

I think we tend to wonder if that thing in and of itself is false because wouldn't, you know,

like wouldn't the psychology psychology or a psychological field if it was true wouldn't

they immediately adopt it and on top of that the question is how much faith do we put into

concepts that are abstractions like typology?

Like are we going to go ahead and say that they're empirically true even though we don't

necessarily have proof for it or like how and if we don't have proof for it is it something we shouldn't put any

faith in or have any you know a belief around I think that those are all

extremely valid questions especially since the concepts like faith and belief become really convoluted in amongst things that are specifically unscientific.

...