@thisintegrated
As for myths having some grounding in reality, I think it's reasonable to assume that the ancient flood myths could be referring to some traumatic real-life memories, the Younger Dryas being a likely contender. But again, I think the problem starts when you make very specific interpretations with many premises, e.g. "this man who possessed x qualities traveled over y sea during t time and taught z lessons", or even just "the flood was a global event". Groups of humans were probably traumatized thousands of times throughout history by more local phenomena, which is still worth entries into the mythos. But that is the problem with literal interpretations in general: they're too specific. It's much safer to stick to metaphors (e.g. "the flood represents great cataclysm"), which by the way, is something Jordan Peterson does. Following that tangent, you can't really go wrong with metaphors, certainly when inquiring into the mechanics of cognition, because in a very deep sense, metaphor lies at the foundations of thinking (mental associations, synchronicity). It precedes notions like causality or logic.

There are two main assumptions here: 1. the idea that the human experience is reducible to the brain, and 2. the idea that the brain is reducible to neuronal connections.
1. Is the human experience really the result of the brain, or is it the result of the process of becoming human; of being born, growing up and being exposed to various impressions? We haven't produced brains in vats yet. In all cases where we observe functional human behavior, we have humans who grew up inside a body, inside a healthy environment.
2. The brain consists of more structures than neurons (glial cells, neurotransmitters etc.). Why should the relevant processing stop at the level of neuronal connections? What about the configuration of the neuron itself, or the interneuronal structures, or the neurochemicals? The neuron is not an island. It's a part of an interconnected whole.
The view I subscribe to says that the best inferences we have currently is that biology is what thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions 'look like' from an outside perspective. The experience of abstract thinking does not make sense outside of an organism that is also capable of emotions, perceptions and lower behavioral operations. The higher levels have the lower levels nested inside of them, and you can't reverse engineer any one of them in a reductionistic way. You have to engineer the whole thing. So what conscious AI looks like is what abiogenesis looks like.

@Someone here I had an interesting dream last night which is very likely related to this. First some backstory:
One of my roommates last year (who I no longer live with) was at that time a very disorganized stoner in the midst of a downward spiral, extremely similar to me back when I was very much a drug addict. He was smoking weed 24/7, stopped going to his job, and started getting into benzodiazepines (which I did a little bit but which wasn't a central part of my story). Now a few months later, after moving to a new place with one of my current roommates who also lived at that old place, this current roommate told me that the guy has started taking heroin after his girlfriend broke up with him, and that he has been in and out of rehab trying to sell drugs to the guys in there (like fucking Jesse Pinkman).
 
The dream
Anyways, so the dream consisted of this guy being with me, my mom and my little brother in my mom's dining room. We had set the table and were ready to eat. My mom and my brother were sitting at the table and I was about to sit down. I was looking at the guy, telling him: "come, it's time to eat!", but he was just standing there a bit further away from us, staring at us with a distraught look on his face. Then he was overcome by some kind of suicidal rage, picked up a kitchen knife and started stabbing himself violently in the gut. We were all just staring in disbelief as he continued stabbing himself. The thing was that the knife was for some reason very dull, so it didn't really do much. As he noticed the failure of his efforts, he instead tried to slit his wrists, but that didn't work either. I then tried to grab the knife from him and eventually pinned him to the ground and started beating the living shit out of him to get him to drop the knife. Finally he did, and after that, I spent the next part of the dream on the run frantically trying to avoid him, as he was hunting me down trying to kill me.
 
Interpretation
One way to interpret this dream is that he represented a version of me that didn't make the transition out of the downwards spiral, and that him doing everything he could to hurt himself right in front of my family was a symbol of how the downward spiral consists of you constantly hurting yourself while your family is watching you in disbelief without knowing what to do. Me having to attack and disarm myself symbolizes how it's ultimately only me who can stop hurting myself. And finally, me spending the next parts of the dream trying to avoid myself symbolizes how I'm still trying to avoid that aspect of myself to this day. Also, I felt that the distraught look on his face came from a feeling of jealousy, of how this current version of myself is now absolutely loved by my family, while he was getting all these looks of concern and pity, this pathetic drug addict in front of them who is not able to come to the table.

Cognition is the finite mind. Consciousness is the infinite mind.

Nope. You have literal brain areas dedicated to these things. If your brain is not well-integrated across hierarchies and lateralization, that's when you get inner conflict (what Freud called neurosis: conflict between different psychic structures). All psychological problems show some kind failure of integration of different brain areas. Plato put this as the man taming the lion and the lion taming the monster. The man is the neocortex (self-actualization/esteem needs), the lion is the limbic system (social/belonging needs), and the monster is the basal ganglia or the reptilian brain (safety and physiological needs). For Plato, Freud, Maslow, neuroscience, etc.; health, functionality and wisdom means your psychological structures are well-integrated. Spiritual bypassing, which is what you're advocating for, is one trap that hinders this process.

iT wAs a jOke, mAn

If you go for a very long time without fapping while believing very strongly that fapping is not a good thing, and then you finally do fap, of course you're going to feel like shit. The longer you go, the bigger the crash, and the more mental energy you invest into that project, when the project fails, of course you'll feel bad. On the other hand, if you find a stable and healthy rhythm of fapping and you also don't waste any mental energy thinking about it afterwards, it's completely different.
 
I promise you that this will help for the escalation problem: learn how to differentiate between "the organic feeling of sexual energy" vs. "short bursts of arousal driven by mental images". The organic feeling is in some way present all the time, and it builds up progressively day by day, while the short bursts of arousal go up and down quickly based on the mental images in your mind.
If you can learn to pinpoint exactly where your organic feeling is usually at a high point and where going any further starts to become disproportionally uncomfortable (for me it's every 3-4 days), in my experience, that is where you'll find the optimal fapping frequency with respect to brain fog and energy issues.
I promise you, it's so much better than the alternative for so many reasons. Also, one big thing is that when you actually do fap, you'll not be overwhelmed by lethargy and brain fog, but instead you'll be sitting blissed out for 1-2 hours while your mind is crystal clear. It's actually amazing how much your body rewards you when you do the right thing at exactly the right time. If you keep hitting the optimal balance head-on; straight in the bulls eye, every time; that is what health is, and it feels amazing.

I'm not making any prescriptions for Leo's spiritual pursuits, only for how he talks about them. I've tried to delineate out a few key ways in which his focus differs from those he considers "not awake", and why a clearer language is needed when referring to these people. Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, Leo hasn't had great success with increasing his baseline consciousness in any traditional sense (the focus of traditional spirituality), and he has instead opted for exploring deeper and deeper psychedelic states (psychonautics). He has stated that he has probably gone deeper on psychedelics than any other person before him, and that he is better wired for that than the alternative. He is playing to his strengths.

We evolved spoken language to increase our capacity to think and process information, cooperate with each other, create culture and survive across different environments and niches.
We then invented writing as a technology to increase our capacity to edit our thinking, and then not long after that, we invented alphabetic writing to make that process even more effective.
We then experienced the Axial revolution: the birth place of Western thought; ancient Greek philosophy and the new world religions. From there, we got various insights: the necessity of law and order (politics), of personal discipline, of a social duty to the larger society (ethics), of a transcendent purpose outside mere power and conquest (morality, aesthetics, spirituality; the Good, the Beautiful, the Sacred), etc.
All this laid the groundwork for how our society functions today. Now, do we even have to ask why that was important? Do we even have to ask why it's still important? We're not the least bit over the challenges that God is throwing at us.

@zurew The last couple of years I've been working on identifying and expressing emotions when they arise. I used to be super-agreeable and would hide emotions like anger. Now I see those emotions as tools to stand up for myself, but they're defensive and reactive rather than proactive. This energy I'm talking about is more like a drive which is always there. It's assertive in a forward-moving sense. It's the energy that makes you approach a girl, or address a conflict, or claim what is yours.

I went for an evening walk some days ago and felt like truly laying down my defenses and experience my authentic self at that moment. What I felt as my heart opened up was a flood of memories and moods from a very specific time of my life, before I was a teenager, and along with it a feeling of emotional vulnerability and the need for intimacy.
Then last night, I watched this video of Ken Wilber talking about shadows and explaining them through an evolutionary lens that I've previously not seen the full implications of:
 
 
He talked about how all evolution follows the motions of "transcend and include", and that either one of those can get out of order (you can either transcend too much and forget to include, or vice versa). If you transcend too fast without properly including earlier aspects of yourself, you'll split off that part of yourself as an unconscious sub-personality, which will actually have that age of when it split off.
So then it clicked, that what I experienced that evening as I peeled back my defenses, was that former piece of myself that I had split off: the emotionally vulnerable part of myself that desired personal connection and intimacy. It was visceral, as I literally felt like I wanted to hug and hold someone, and again, as a rather young version of myself, around the time I actually had girlfriends.
Then I started thinking about why I split it off. Then I started thinking about how I've been trying to integrate what I call "Red Andrew Tate energy", which I also know I've been repressing, but not in the same way (it goes much deeper). Was maybe my path to asserting my need for vulnerability through exactly that — assertiveness? How counterintuitive is that? Maybe I was always too vulnerable and too lacking in assertiveness, and the defense mechanism was to close it off and hide it away, rather than letting it flow outwards ("internalizing" instead of "externalizing"; a classic pattern for me).
So then, my path of integrating the shadow (my understanding of it and how it has been shaping my life), has become even more clear: I have to develop my assertiveness in order to regain my vulnerability. It's almost paradoxical, but it makes the most sense that way.

@thisintegrated I was lying in bed and I had this insight I have to write down so I can go to sleep. I've noticed that after our MBTI arc, I started to feel ashamed of my Te, feeling that you calling me FiTe and lacking in Ti was questioning my intelligence (which I've always been insecure about). So over the summer, I consciously and somewhat unconsciously tried to repress my Te and focused on using Ti (which I've learned a lot from as well). I noticed this lately when writing, that I'll stop myself from going into too much detail or using too many fancy words, and that I think I'm repressing my natural self. I've been missing the usual flow states I get from writing exactly what is on my mind. So from now on, I'll start to write so much Te that it will make your head spin! My Te ego backlash, affiliative redemption has begun, and you can't stop me! ?
And by the way, I think one big reason why I generally shy away from Ti, is because I see single lines of logic and intuition as very limited (due to my mystical experiences, context/construct awareness, psychology knowledge about cognitive biases etc.), so I'll prefer listening to other people much smarter than me who have spent much more time thinking over a subject than me. And because I'm aware of those aforementioned limitations, I'm likewise aware of the limitations of relying on these outside sources. So when I reference someone else, I do so with the knowledge that it's just one potentially highly flawed perspective and not absolute truth. And when you see me arguing strongly in defense for one such perspective, it's also not proof otherwise. We're supposed to be a Tier 2 forum, god damnit!

Meditation has been to shown to correlate with health behaviors.
I personally think most of this effect is mediated through the immediate internal feelings that healthy behaviors produce, more so than believing in the future promises of said behaviors (e.g. decrease in morality, increased longevity, illness prevention). One benefit of the immediate nature of those feelings is that it bypasses much of the problem of delayed gratification usually associated with investing in health behaviors.
Examples of internal feelings (I'm choosing things you would want to avoid to be more illustrative) could be eating too much cake and feeling nauseous, or eating too much junk food and feeling fatigued and mentally dull, or drinking caffeine and then experiencing the crash, or cheating on your workout routine and feeling dull because you're not getting those feelgood chemicals. I'm probably going to write a thesis on this subject which you can read in year 

I remember back when I first started smoking weed, I felt that a part of me was starting to fade away; that neurotic and conscientious part of my identity that was nagging me about what to do and who to be, who and what to care about, and who cares about me, and it struck me as both freeing but also a bit eerie. "Am I just letting a part of me die like this? Who could I be if I didn't hide away from these feelings? Why are those feelings there in the first place? Am I maybe supposed to have them?"
Anyways, soon this feeling, along with pretty much any feelings about that aspect of myself, fell on the backside of my mind for years as my life was crumbling... which eventually lead me to spirituality and my first awakening. There the same thing happened. Suddenly my mind had entered this very different place; quiet, serene, but also empty and in some ways severed from an even larger aspect of myself. It was on a completely different scale than before, and this same eerie feeling caught me: what have I lost in this new change? Have I forgotten something? 
Not many days ago, I remembered back to this eerie feeling, and then I viewed it in context with my current self who is 6 years older, and then I realized: maybe I have forgotten something. This idea of self-transcendence being preceded by self-actualization, of burning karma, of uncovering the shadow, is what my mind was trying to tell me about all those years ago. What I was trying to ignore through substances, and then later meditation, was the very thing I needed to face. It's so obvious, because the same feelings are still there, only magnified and projected out into my actual surroundings: my lack of social aptness leading to less relationships, lack of direction and decisiveness leading to being years behind my peers, etc.
That change cannot be reversed either. My mind will always be different. There is no anti-weed or anti-meditation. I'm also intrinsically less inclined to address those feelings, as I've become accustomed to bypassing the entire machinery. Neither did it help all the spiritual bypassing tropes I was engaging in ("there is only now" = you don't need to work on your future; "practice is ego" = self-defense mechanism for having squandered my plans to join my friend to a year of music school, etc.). Anyways, the lesson is that the thing people call the ego, you should probably listen to it sometimes, because it does have say in your life no matter what you think about it. Then again, maybe I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't take this path. What did I actually lose??

Whatever you do to act on your desires and ultimately survive, has a structure, be it going to the fridge, going to work, or having sex. When you do these things, you feel inherently fulfilled. Merely achieving the desire is just a small part of the equation, and that experience is extremely short-lived. You won't just sit and bask in it for the rest of time. You'll always return to performing actions.
Ok, so that structure can be emulated symbolically in rituals (physically), or stories (metaphorically), or philosophy (theoretically), and merely engaging in these meaning-making behaviors is inherently healthy. It's because they're in fact the symbolic representation of health itself. Health is that which sustains you as an organism, and the structure of that, distilled to its essence, is what you experience as meaning.

Don Beck and Chris Cowan were not Turquoise lol. You can find the book in PDF format on the internet for free if you'd like (parts of it).
 
Now you're conflating Tier 1 and Tier 2. At Tier 2, it's no longer individualist vs. collectivist in the sense of "my values" vs. "our values". It's individualist vs. collectivist in the sense of "all values for me" vs. "all values for us".
It's individualist in the sense of integrating the entire spiral into oneself, and then collectivist in the sense of uniting the spiral in the real world. Yellow is the pre-ignition and Turquoise is the take-off: Bezos going to university vs. Bezos founding Amazon.

That's such a great way of distinguishing between the transpersonal Mind and the personal mind.
 
You're having thoughts, feelings and perceptions that I don't have. That is your dream. I'm dreaming a different dream in that respect. But we're also part of a larger dream; the space between the thoughts, behind the feelings and perceptions.

“It is one great dream dreamed by a single Being, but in such a way that all the
dream characters dream too.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer
Interesting quote from the German philosopher. 
Can dream characters dream too? Something I will have to contemplate. 

Epistemic — relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Naivety — innocence or unsophistication.
Pitfall — a hidden or unsuspected danger or difficulty.
Here is my rendition of the most common approaches to knowledge and their pitfalls. Usually, one leads to the next:

Naive realism
takes things at face value believes in one's conditioning lack of introspection It's the default mode for most people and is the most naive framework. It tries to label the world accurately, but it fails to become aware of its own constructions. These people think that their view of the world is like looking through a clear glass window, and that people who disagree with their view is either stupid or insane.
When you see through the naivety of naive realism, you will usually move on to skepticism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive skepticism:

Naive skepticism
skeptical of most claims to knowledge extremely self-critical hyper-exclusive relativism The naive skeptic is skeptical of all labelling of reality and is pulled down by cynicism and unconstructive behavior. They discard everything that isn't patently self-evident. An example is a person who goes into a philosophy seminar and asks "how do you know that?" until they get kicked out.
Seeing through naive skepticism will usually lead you to pragmatism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive pragmatism:

Naive pragmatism
"everything goes" lack of criticism hyper-inclusive relativism There is an openness to all views, but there is a lack of structure or hierarchy, and it therefore struggles to prioritize different claims to knowledge. For example, it will easily place an equal sign between pseudoscience and science (e.g. "astrology = physics").
Seeing through naive pragmatism will usually lead you to metatheorism, where some of the pitfalls can be described as naive metatheorism:

Naive metatheorism
takes a wide perspective has a systematic approach to knowledge becomes lost in its own grand theories subtle realism The naive metatheorist is open, critical and also realistic, and tries to synthesize a coherent system which integrates many types of knowledge.
The pitfall happens when one becomes a bit too optimistic about the universality of one's theories. You start believing that because a theory is "meta" and is able to zoom out across large perspectives (cross-paradigmatic, cross-cultural etc.), it somehow escapes or transcends the limitations of your own cultural and paradigmatic conditioning (i.e. the things that made you arrive at those conclusions in the first place). An example is believing Spiral Dynamics to be the infallible word of God.
That is of course a bit naive, and the way out is to counter that impulse with the earlier lessons of skepticism, and remind yourself that the better the model, the easier it is to get lost in one's own constructions.
 
Who is not naive in any way?
One who has experienced all of these pitfalls first-hand, but who doesn't let that fact curb their ever-expanding thirst for knowledge, and who doesn't pretend that naivety is something one can ever transcend.
 
Did anything I just wrote sound familiar to you? Be honest

@Cthulu It's not just about IQ or even structural changes in the brain. The cognitive-emotional and behavioral aspects are the most important. It's not just weed: any and all habituation to a hyper-normal reward stimulus that requires sub-normal to no work, is inherently anti-hormetic (it lowers resilience and systemic integrity).
In other words, regularly pumping your brain full of reward chemicals without coupling it to any meaningful action, teaches you that meaningful actions are in fact not meaningful. It hijacks the most fundamental psycho-physiological mechanisms that sustains you as an organism.
To think that this does not have severe side effects for your mind or body is absurd. The only reason it has become so accepted in society is because it has become OK to amputate your potential and do just enough to get by. In fact, dissociating yourself from meaning at this level has become a way to cope with the meaning crisis in our current society.
We have to re-discover the inner divine strength of spirituality and the sacred collective practices of religion, so that we can have a truly sustainable opiate of both the individual and the masses.

Note: this is not a developmental model, nor is it about determining which framework is better or worse.

 
What does it do?
It shows how these different metaphysical frameworks differ in terms of the trade-off between comprehensiveness and specificity, which realms they're mainly operating under (hyper-dimensional vs. three-dimensional reality), and which explanatory constraints they're operating under (mysticism vs. naturalism vs. myth).
 
Explaining the different explanatory constraints
Mysticism
- deals with methods, metaphors, anecdotes and stories that aim to facilitate the direct phenomenological experience of God/reality, and these explanations of reality are seen as a means rather than an end. There are no general guidelines for these types of explanations, only that they aim to encapsulate the nature of God.
Naturalism
- deals with analytic philosophy, the scientific method and scientific theories. The goal is to explain a phenomena by reducing it to some other known phenomena that is compatible with the naturalistic paradigm, e.g. explaining rivers by referring to the structural-functional properties of water. The general guidelines for a naturalistic metaphysics is coherence, internal logical consistency, conceptual parsimony, empirical adequacy, and explanatory power.
Myth
- deals with metaphors, anecdotes and stories in order to explain the nature of reality. For example, God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, which explains the origin of man vs. woman. The general guidelines are specific to each tradition.
 
General -> specific, and hyper-dimensional vs. 3D human realm
The first distinction is a hierarchical one: the closer something is to the top, the more general, comprehensive, holistic, all-encompassing, and big-picture it is, and conversely, the closer something is to the bottom, the more specific and concrete it is. There is an inherent trade-off between these levels, meaning you can only have so much of one or the other, but the different levels also don't have to necessarily contradict each other (although sometimes they do):

For instance, the statement or metaphor "you are imagining everything" of psychedelic mysticism is able to encompass the experiences you encounter in the hyper-dimensional realm ("my couch just talked to me") as well as those in the 3D human realm ("my friend just talked to me"), but it seems to lack more specific explanatory power for the 3D realm. The same applies to nondual mysticism: "there is no separation" doesn't really explain the apparent illusion of separation (or at least the particularities of it, e.g. "why am I able to pick up a cat and not a car?").

On the other hand, the naturalistic frameworks are tied to conventional scientific investigation and analytical standards of reasoning, and these are more able to account for specific things in the 3D realm, like the weight of cats vs. cars, technological innovation and subsequent questions like "is AI sentient?" But these again lose some comprehensiveness, in that some things are either hard or impossible to explain:

One such example is the "Hard problem of consciousness", which has remained unsolved under physicalism (but is solved in analytic idealism, but conversely, it faces the "Decombination problem" which is solved under physicalism). However, analytic idealism seems to have a plausible solution for the Decombination problem (i.e. "dissociation"), but the research around that is still in its infancy. Mysticism has none of these problems, because again, it simply relies on metaphors, anecdotes and fuzzy concepts, not analytic philosophy and science.
 
Specific -> Pseudo-specific
On a less important note, with respect to the two "Myth" frameworks on the bottom, I denoted the tendency towards "pseudo-specific" in the sense that they're both less specific and incredibly specific compared to the naturalistic frameworks. For example, while physicalism can point to things like particles, forces and phase states to explain things like rain and fire, an animist explanation would for example be a "rain spirit" or "fire spirit" for each phenomena. Merely denoting these phenomena as "spirit" doesn't tell you much about their specific properties compared to say their chemical structure, but each explanation is in another sense incredibly specific to the phenomena.
 
Why did I make this?
Because I often see what I consider a harmful tendency towards "naive skepticism", i.e. to dismiss or deny especially analytically rigorous styles of investigation (philosophy & science). I think carefully spelling out these different levels of investigation and seeing the pros and cons in a visual way can help with that. The most important point in this respect is the naturalism vs. mysticism distinction, and that in any sort of inquiry, be it spiritual, self-help or intellectual, one should acknowledge the constraints of each framework and avoid blindly choosing one over the other.

Looking at the empirical evidence (which is tainted by WEIRD bias; "Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic"), SD has doubtful intercultural validity, certainly not cross-cultural. At least it has some empirical evidence though ?, considering it lines up with world history in broad strokes and correlates with other WEIRD stage theories (Piaget, Kohlberg, Loevinger, Kegan etc.).
However, it's practically impossible to create a perfectly universal theory of human development (independent of contextual factors, i.e. culture, socioeconomics etc.) that isn't almost only descriptive (like Sameroff's transactional theory). Predictive models have to be specific on some level, and specificity is a trade-off for generalizability.

After having had to deal with reports from the journaling section for about a year now and having tried repeatedly to find adequate solutions to these problems, I've come to a few conclusions: 
 
1. Moderating personal feuds in the journaling section is nearly impossible to do from an unbiased point of view, both from a technical standpoint and a purely practical standpoint.
1.1 Technical
It involves the same people over and over again; long-term and recurring interpersonal feuds with no definite starting point. This is a known phenomena, and there is no simple solution. Communication theory teaches you this. 
1.2 Practical
It involves scanning through pages upon pages of walls of text in multiple journals, often many hours, days or weeks back in time, and frequently changing between tabs and cross-referencing statements, all while holding two or more conversations in PMs.
 
2. Moderating, as in giving out warning points, should ideally only be done when there is a definite cause of blame.
With complex issues such as these (as stated in 1.1), this is generally not possible. Often, the only valid course of action is manually talking to people, trying to de-escalate tensions, and finally making said people leave each other alone. This is of course ultimately futile when said people like reading other people's journals, and sooner or later, the cycle continues.
 
3. Personal feuds in the journaling section generally happen in a grey area with respect to the guidelines.
These feuds are often fought using covert, subtle and ambiguous language which is not in direct violation of the guidelines. The intended meaning of such language is also hard to decode for a moderator who is not immersed in the same context as the people involved, which goes back to the technical and practical problems in 1.1 and 1.2.
 
Summary and solution:
Personal feuds in the journaling section should therefore be regarded as generally not a moderating issue. That said, moderators are still able to take actions against you the way they see fit, the same way they always have (you're not granted some special protection because you were posting in the journaling section). 
You should only use the report function if there has been a concrete violation of the guidelines, or if you deem it absolutely necessary to do so. It's up to the individuals themselves to decide whether they want to start using the block function, stop reading other people's journals, or leave their emotions aside. Blocking other people keeps you from reading their journals and posts in general, which is the safest option.
Please voice your opinions below.

That further weakens the reasoning behind calling it personality types, because it starts to look more like a quantitative difference than a qualitative difference. I would be perfectly fine with treating cognitive functions as traits that all people have to varying degrees, and then go by a case-by-case basis, instead of subjecting yourself to the myriad of cognitive biases that are naturally associated with working with neatly defined categories such as "types".
I just watched Jordan Peterson's quite embarrasing conversation (for him) with Richard Dawkins, but he made a good point in there: when looking at a large data set, there exists a huge amount of possible correlations and interpretations. The conundrum is: by which mechanism do you pick out the data you want to work with? That is a genuine problem for even the most statistically rigorous types of science.
Now, to me, MBTI typing is when you take a virtually infinitely large and ambigiously defined data set (whatever behavior of the subject you're able to perceive), and while using no structured methodology whatsoever (self-admittedly), you project whatever intuitively derived conclusion you think is relevant for your running hypothesis for a particular type (prone to selection/confirmation bias), all while under the completely unconstrained influence of your egoic drives and the general flaws of the human mind (emotional states and attachments, faulty memories and reasoning, cognitive biases etc.).
I'm immensely turned off by this process, and the times you will catch me engaging in it is because it's frankly addicting. You can avoid a large chunk of these problems by just abolishing the typology structure all together and let each cognitive function (maybe pair) stand on their own in principle, but even then, without any statistical methods, it's still just kind of a hobby. 
Anyways, I think I've said this a couple of times already, and it's not going to change anything, so I think I'll stop criticizing MBTI for a while. Just know that all this harsh critique is just me externalizing how I criticize myself when I'm trying to type somebody, and that when I see somebody like yourself who is apparently taking a more carefree approach, it triggers that process within me

You basically know most of it already, but Jordan Peterson has it the other way around; that meaning creates narrative. I'll try to show how it works: 
"Sentience" (perceiving/feeling), which is the prerequisite to "sapience" (thinking), is a survival trait. In other words, we evolved the ability to feel things like motivation (e.g. to food and mates) and aversion (e.g. to poisons and predators) in order to catalyze "meaningful" movement through the environment; meaningful in the sense that it's ordered (not random) and goal-oriented (aimed at survival). Not coincidentally, what we commonly call sentient beings are highly mobile animals. How exactly "goal-oriented movement" represents meaning gets a little clearer as we move on further down my narrative structure :
A perception, or a feeling, is an internal/cognitive representation of an external sensation (also includes intrasomatic sensations; inside of one's own body). Likewise, a thought is an internal representation, but of what?: of a narrative structure, derived from perceptions.
To derive a narrative from perceptions, you first need to go from concrete experiences to abstraction; from images to icon, from sensation to symbols. You do this by taking a set of perceptions and abstracting out a symbolic representation, effectively producing indeed a symbol (e.g. "cat" or "flower"). 
To then get a narrative, you need to arrange a collection symbols linearly (over time) across a contextual frame (a situation). Then you end up with a story: "the cat walked past the flower." Not coincidentally, symbols, times and situations are baked into language itself, and humans are the only animal with a complex language, indeed because we're the only species with "sapience", or an internal narrative structure.
Meaningful stories either confer a direct survival advantage or serve as accurate representations of goal-oriented movement, which can apply to everything from religious stories to scientific models. When you feel moved by a story (either emotionally or rationally), it's because it touches something deep within you, just like when you're moved by a emotion or perception (again, notice how being "moved" is all about "movement").
In other words, meaning has a thorough line from the lowest to the highest aspects of survival, and it shapes the very way our being is constructed, from the level of sensations and perceptions to the level of thoughts and stories.