That’s fair. I don’t pretend it is “scientific.” Where I’ve seen value in it, in practice, is as a framework (like a lens through which to think about thinking), not an empirical description of reality. I’m just not sure if the potential benefit outweighs the harm it can cause. Now I’m reflecting on it more, the notion of tension in the psyche between the dominant and inferior function might be the most salvageable part of the theory, on the fact that it’s looking at contradiction and tension between opposites that is never fully resolved. Not unlike dialectics, in spirit, even if the rest of it is a bit iffy. I could maybe see value in examining the psyche as tension between contradictions, where instead of viewing the “cognitive functions” as static preferences that stay dominant and inferior throughout life, there are primary contradictions and secondary contradictions that can shift and change as you develop as a person. This is closer to one alternative take on the theory, which views the cognitive functions more as something you flow between rather than as static preferences.

But in practice, it would still probably be more useful to ground such a view of contradictions in the details of a person’s life and upbringing and so on, rather than through a generic lens of preferences like Intuition or Sensing.