Is the Myers Briggs/MBTI just a Pseudoscience? Are we getting the MBTI all wrong? (16 Personalities)

'No psychological formula can ever explain life. At the best, it can only present the living process in a thinkable form to our reason. As soon as it claims to have explained a living process, its effect is destructive, since it interposes an authoritative, ready-made explanation between the individual and the real problems life presents, thus apparently relieving him of the need to seek his own individual solution.'
Psychological Types (1921)
2:44 Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious
5:06 How does identification with archetypes play out in “typing”?
7:03 Common issues in the MBTI community: varying types, mistyping, and being “more than one type”
7:20 What attracts us to the MBTI?
10:09 Epigenetics
12:25 Flaws of adopting MBTI
13:13 Strengths of adopting MBTI
15:13 The archetype as a metanarrative
Is the MBTI just a pseudoscience or fundamentally an archetypal framework of personality?
Pop psychology loves the Myers Briggs, but as its following gets increasingly large, so is its reputation for being a pseudoscientific formula of personality. It has become so trivialised and commercialised to the point where people are relating it more to astrology, than psychology itself.
Does this pre-existing Jungian notion of archetypes then supposedly suggest that psychological types also follows an archetypal formulation? Archetypes can be seen as images or forms of the types of people we may identify in life. Types change, although they rarely do - just as people rarely change on the fundamental level.
If an "INFJ" 10 years later, takes the test again and receives ISFP. It isn’t so much that we should deconstruct typology theory itself to explain how their personality changed, but understand that their image of themselves/their archetype has changed.
Similarly, why is it that people often continuously get varying results in MBTI tests, and also relate to a number of type descriptions? It’s because if it is true that MBTI is fundamentally an archetypal personality theory, what drives people to believe in the MBTI isn’t the rationale behind the theory itself, but the archetype or archetypes that each type represents. In fact, in Jungian typology (before the MBTI), Jung attributed personalities to the functions themselves e.g. Te was the extroverted thinker who always verbalised their thoughts and dominated conversations. That was the personality archetype. But MBTI has complicated our identification with the primary archetype by including the function stack, which is often subject to complex analysis over and over. Analysis paralysis or over focusing on the details takes us away from the bigger picture, which allows one to take the typology itself symbolically (and hence with a grain of salt), rather than literally or scientifically.
Because archetypes are symbols of aspects of human nature (e.g. the hero archetype, the God archetype, the magician archetype etc), it’s safe to say that we don’t only have ONE archetype within us. Most of us are a combination of archetypes. So it is not surprising that most people in the MBTI community identify with more than one type at different points, constantly mistype themselves, or somehow believe that their type has changed (when maybe they are just rediscovering aspects of themselves).
What is the strength of having a personality theory predicated on archetypes? The obvious flaws are stereotyping, oversimplification of someone’s true personality, and assuming you know someone based on their type. But this only happens when you take the theory literally - rather than symbolically. It is the difference between literal and metaphorical interpretations of the Bible. Literal interpretations instigate conflict over minuscule details while missing the bigger picture, while metaphorical interpretations encourage discussion and exploration.
Identifying strongly with a particular MBTI type helps narrow down your search of compatible friends and partners. If you meet someone who supposedly identifies with the same type as you, you do not automatically assume that they are the exact person as you, or that differences mean that either you and they are mistyped, a different subtype of the personality or healthy/unhealthy version of the type, what you SHOULD be paying attention to is that you two arrived at the same type, because you have SOMETHING in common. Whatever that thing is in common, should bring you together, rather than apart through constant evaluation of the accuracy of that person’s arrival of their type.
This preoccupation with accurate typing deviates you from the identification with the archetype, which is the symbolic nature of your personality or character.
When we allow the psychological formula to dictate a person’s coming to be, then typology itself loses it magnetism, and most importantly, loses its focus on the person as an individual.