[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoOqQiVzwQ"]Try this[/YOUTUBE]
Feedback for the accuracy of the video is welcome.
Ok my feedback is that this video is about as accurate as skimming a flat stone across a river top in an attempt to understand what lives at the bottom of it.
I suppose that is a little harsh, it does explain the generalities fairly well but it leaves out the point of contexuality.
So what happens if a person looks at that styrofoam cup and cannot relate to exactly what the bullet points are telling them? Yes it is true that if you have a bit of knowledge and intelligence then you will realise that they are truely meant as mere examples of how either an S or N might observe that cup. But most people will try to....stick to what the 'rules' are and wonder that they aren't thinking about saving the planet or if the cup has a conical shape.
The same goes for the J and P part, it clearly wishes to give generalised examples of what the J and P dichotomy might produce in a person, but you will always get those who are looking at it very literally and without that same knowledge of context.
Thus we end up with people going "hey I love to see things through and finished...." "BUT WAIT, I also like to be spontaneous" "Arrggh I am confuzzled".
It is good as an introduction to the theory but it assumes too much about how well it's audience possesses the ability to understand the subtleties of a theory they may not have researched or come into contact with before.
It's for the same reason most test's are usually worthless. People either type themselves based on their observation of a persona rather than their cognition, or they know enough to understand why a particular question is being asked and will end up twisting the answers for their own personal preference, either consciously or not.