I'll start off this with a caveat: of course, I'm biased because I'm training to be a mental health professional in grad school but the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is an assessment tool. Like any other assessment tool, it's shaped to give an objective framework that is otherwise layered with subjective experiences. Each question was honed to bring out the probability of your own personality trait being a more dominant one amidst thousands of traits. I understand that Julia received her education in undergrad and I don't know how much assessment training she received. It, however, was difficult to listen to this podcast without cringing at the inferences without sources or at the idea of offering one question to sum up a potential black-and-white personality trait of the hosts.
I know this isn't a true science podcast and I appreciated that the topic of the MBTI became an opportunity to be introspective. Still, psychology is a often-misaligned field of the "soft" sciences and I wonder how much good came from this podcast with the superficial consideration of the makers' intentions (besides the hilarious "INCONCEIVABLE!").
