Being an amateur enthusiast used to be more respectable, a gentleman's pursuit for example (women were still seen as idiots). But in the modern world, it gets a bad rap. Te, especially, prefers to gain info from experts with the proper credentials. For typology, though, the entire field is essentially amateur driven. MBTI corporate, for example, are only professionals because they found a way to make money off of it. Otherwise, it isn't scientifically valid enough to have an actual board to determine who is an expert.



With all this mind, I wanted to focus on where it even matters. Ever had someone brag they took a psych class and totally understand things? In a semester, that's 40 hours of class. Being generous, we can say they did 120 hours of homework/study so 160 hours. Say they took 20 classes and got a master's degree. That's 3200 hours poured into psychology. Yet, 10,000 hours is the traditional benchmark to be regarded as an expert. My college degree is secretly meaningless, anyway. My real experience has happened on the job (and getting fired from some, too). There's also been self-made millionaires who never even graduated high school.



With that in mind, I'd say my Ti looks for the content of an argument and the experience someone has to justify it. An electric engineer is not an expert in their field cause they are certified. They're an expert because they've fixed hundreds of issues and installed wire, etc. In the same way, when it comes to typology, I don't give a damn that someone has a degree in psychology or read Jung's book. Hell, the opther day on a discord voice call, someone said they don't respect anyone that hasn't read Jung's book (when it comes to cognitive function theory). I told him that was stupid.



Let's talk Jung. I consider him to be a pioneer for the field, not the expert. Same way Louis Pasteur developed Germ Theory, but isn't relied upon in modern medicine. He's someone to appreciate for pioneering it, but like germs, personality types existed before they were defined. So, for me, when someone wants to debate typology with me, I want to know their credentials. If someone read some books or descriptions, they will regurgitate the information as if they are an expert. I've heard it all too often, yet people are much more dynamic than that.



The real credentials, in my opinion, are those who actually meet enough people and type them, to understand the complexities of personality. MBTI is one thing, but throw in Enneagram tritype, and instinctual variants, there's 125k possible combinations. I think this is something that ENTPs can be naturally adept at juggling. Anyway, I know I'm a nerd about this and no other topic can send me into a nerd rage quite like this. Still, it's important to understand what the basis for these arguments are, not just in personality theory, but all manners of real life.