Kaotiklysm said:
And as well as different systems, we apply them differently - one person may be good at getting to the core of a person's psychology, while others may be less able to properly differentiate what processes are being used, so it's based on a person's accuracy under their own system as well.
That's certainly a factor; I just think it's worth emphasizing in addition that the reason that we get
rampant and apparently nonsensical disagreements (as opposed to more modest ones where we generally agree and occasionally differ in some typing) tends to have more to do with the foundations than application strategy. For example, if Beebe types Jung as a NiTe type, and Jung wouldn't agree with that, that's because in part the two's systems
fundamentally differ. I dislike when the Beebe-ites try to smooth over this foundation-level difference and try to make it seem like they're just seeing his type
differently with roughly the same framework. Even the definitions of things like "N-dominant" can differ radically across systems -- what you consider to be intuition is up for definition. In fact, I even dislike the suggestion that the attitudes of functions alternating comes down to a difference at the level of application "one just works!" rather than a foundation level difference, where the latter is more about singling out what your system is about from the getgo than about having a rough idea in mind and then seeing what version of it fits the facts best.
At that level, I don't find it useful to appeal to application differences; we'd have to examine if either a) one model is true or b) each is true in different precise senses.
I have arrived at something more like b), in that I think the reason Jung had typings like NiTi>FeSe in his world is that he fundamentally differed in the direction he took his foundations: even the very definition of a function being introverted/extraverted might subtly differ.
I think if you really examine each person's thinking, you can see how they arrived at their way. Then it comes simply to picking the better framework. I have come up with such a framework that I find covers all the advantages/disadvantages pretty well, and of course I also sometimes am willing to just appeal flexibly to different frameworks for sake of argument to say "well, in this framework, maybe my type or X's or Y's type would be different.....and I see what that logic would be....I still think my framework is philosophically more complete and reasonable"