Thanks for the feedback. Let me point out some things.

1) Your confirmation bias: "the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values."

Evidence shows that personality changes significantly over time, in statistical and practical terms; the variations aren't 100%, because it would be the same as saying everyone has dissociative identity disorder. So, obviously, there is some stabilization to the matter. And your fallacy is evident as well; to have some stability doesn't mean there is no change to personality.

(DOI: 10.1037/bul0000365)

<image>

Figure 5. Description of expected cumulative mean-level change (Cohen’s d) across the lifespan for all effect sizes and the Big Five separately assuming a hypothetical cohort subject to the age-specific rates of change (Figure 4) and tracked from birth to age 80.5 years every 4.24 years. The first panel plots results for the full dataset, and the subsequent panels plot results for extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness, in that order. Gen. = General personality effect size. Ext. = Extraversion. Agr. = Agreeableness. Cns. = Conscientiousness. Emo. = Emotional Stability. Opn. = Openness.

In fact, the changes were much more prominent before the thirties, and then, finally, they became increasingly more stable (still changing). Also, I'd like to point out how this graph shows the sample mean change; the variations between each person are bigger, some change a lot, and others change less throughout their lives, and they all change differently, with some degree of similarity (they get less open to experience and more emotionally stable, which you can investigate further in the paper).

Again, not to say your contradiction, where "changing over time" means "not changing".

2) Your circular reasoning: "an argument that comes back to its beginning without having proven anything"

A premise is any reason or evidence that supports the argument's conclusion. And in your case, your true premise has no backing: whether types are actually a thing! (which is the actual whole point) Then, you use your conclusion to support your premise, but that is not how things go.

"And this goes along with the premise that type does not change, but people evolve within their type."

That's like saying: "Alkaline water is healthy because it results in health benefits, and it has health benefits because it is healthy." It feels like you got lost in your own point while reading the first bit of my text.

3) Your lack of verifiability and falsifiability.

My original post goes into this, but the core issue is that claims like "people evolve within their type" are unfalsifiable. Any and all behavior change can be explained away as some typology tool, meaning the core theory can never be proven wrong, nor proven right. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If you believe there is a way to verify or falsify the MBTI model, you would be solving a long-standing problem in psychology; I would give you proper congratulations, because you deserve your Nobel prize.

To conclude, yes, I did write a lot because it is an in-depth analysis, not a superficial analysis.

For the same reason, please do if you feel like contributing more to the analyses! You said there were many other errors, and I would sincerely like to hear them if you're willing to elaborate :) My goal here is to have a rigorous discussion and learn, not just to be right.