I’ve read the Myer’s Briggs typology on and off for years, going through periods of intense fascination, only to put it down again.
Now, usually what deters me is the thought that if it is science, it’s one that almost completely borders on astrology.
Now this may or may not be, and it could be that Myers Briggs is simply a horoscope for those too intellectually elitist to stomach a psychic reading, when they would accept it were it not called as such.
That could be me.
But it could also be true, that maybe psychology as a science is one that can’t not border into mysticism on some level.
This observation has some merits. It would mean that only a 4th hard science is possible, because if one exists that borders on mysticism, then any after that is very likely not to be a science at all.
It would also mean that trying to force the science of the mind into rote materialism, because we all know “That’s what a science looks like,” is the very factor preventing its emergence.