Philosophical analysis of both those theories would determine their context. The arena of psychology posits many ideas that are the imaginations of a group of a certain type of speculative theorist who don't engage in a scientific project, proper, but has the flaw of word and picture artistry more than scientific proof, which makes it pseudo science no matter how many books and people sign up to the idea, it only make it a form of literary art. It is not to say that the content may hold truths but these theories if they are theories would necessarily have to be held to scrutiny for the utility and worth as forms of art, since it is clear they are pseudo-science or having the appearance of universality in concept of nature.

I am not a fan of Myers-Briggs and I hadn't heard of the other system you described, but I had some thoughts I hope are responsive.

First, I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. Pragmatism as a philosophy focuses on how knowledge and understanding are used and how they can be useful. Myers-Briggs at least was developed and is used for practical purposes, e.g. to help people work together and understand each other better or for human resources purposes. I've always seen it as more a psychological engineering method rather than scientific or philosophical. My father and I were both engineers. In later years, his work involved labor relations with a strong emphasis on giving workers a role in work decision making. He used testing like Myers-Briggs a lot. He and I sometimes argued about the way it organized and characterized people. So - pragmatism.

I think the main reason I dislike Myers-Briggs is that it is just a way of labelling people without ever having to see them. Lao Tzu is one of my favorite philosophers. As he wrote (Tao Te Ching, Verse 1, Stephen Mitchell translation):

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things. — Lao Tzu

I guess I would say the person who is characterized by Myers-Briggs is not the real person.

I'm trying to think what other philosophies might have something to say about this. I'm not really much of a student of philosophy. This type of testing attempts to characterize people using methods that are claimed to be objective. Does that make this a materialist approach? The term "reification" is applied to situations where an abstract idea is treated as if it were real, concrete. I would say that M-B classifications are reifications and that claims they represent something "real" are open to question.

One final thing, which may seem to contradict things I've said so far. My understanding of how people come to adopt philosophies is that it is strongly dependent on temperament - our general attitude and outlook toward life. It would be interesting to see if anyone has compared different people's M-B categories with their philosophies.

Maybe it is in notifications settings, but I didn't find out that I had gotten any comments on this, so a bit rueful about the late response.

The arena of psychology posits many ideas that are the imaginations of a group of a certain type of speculative theorist who don't engage in a scientific project, proper, but has the flaw of word and picture artistry more than scientific proof, which makes it pseudo science no matter how many books and people sign up to the idea, it only make it a form of literary art — Alexander Hine

Hello @Alexander Hine,
and thanks for the distinction. I do like poetry, and I also care a lot about the connotations of words. Moreover, to me, forming maps of how words, meanings etc. are associated in various ways in the world, has been a useful way of understanding how things work.
One meaning of the word pseudo is 'sham', and another is 'insincere'. Whereas in general the term was meant to mean, I assume, something that didn't follow proper the Scientific gold standard. But, as far as I know, Spiral Dynamics, or MBTI for that matter, is not a sham, nor is it insincere that I am familiar with.

Art is powerful, and in many ways, much more so than scientific results. Moreover, some literary art, I believe, can also be used to further scientific advances, and also, hopefully, improve the scope of scientific inquiry. And some art must be better than others, even when it sometimes depends more on its proponents.

I haven't found anywhere where the two are mixed though, or are artistically scrutinized the way you mentioned, both of which I would be quite interested in.

Even if you don't have anything, or isn't really keen on finding anything, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

He used testing like Myers-Briggs a lot. He and I sometimes argued about the way it organized and characterized people. So - pragmatism.

I think the main reason I dislike Myers-Briggs is that it is just a way of labelling people without ever having to see them. Lao Tzu is one of my favorite philosophers. As he wrote (Tao Te Ching, Verse 1, Stephen Mitchell translation): — T Clark

Greetings @T CIark,
I agree very much with your comment, and most of the reason I have combined the two, is because of the issue with the'outside view'. I am looking more at the form from the inside, and I only use theories and models as reference points, as opposed to guidelines. Categorizing things using Language brings about limitations, but I still see it as useful to have a couple of categories and sub-categories to put experiences in, especially when there seems to be somewhat of a general sense of applicable, conversational value to it.
And by using both MBTI and Spiral Dynamics, certain categories emerge that are a much better fit than words and expressions alone, simply because the exact same words, can more predictably have various different categories of meanings, instead of just 'anything'.

And I will have to reflect a bit about the philosophical part. Similar to the response from Alexander above, my choices do not seem to stand out as being that "useful", at least from you two.
Of the two, Spiral Dynamics is the more philosophical, but it is still better to call it cultural evolution/evolutionary consciousness psychology, than philosophy. That is also the one you weren't that familiar with.
I do believe there are some slivers of truth in how the cognitive functions operate, but that the image is further complicated/distorted by the interactions between functions. Furthermore, to me, that hasn't really been an image that reflects the inner reality in a substantial enough way, and as such Spiral Dynamics found its place There are others, but I have focused on these two, as these two produce a more overarching theme.
Reification... I mean, maps are more than just images of the world. They contain all sorts of symbols to guide you, and provide information that isn't apparent... But mapping a world that is simultaneously moving and changing, is a different challenge from mapping the Earth, which generally moves on a much, much slower timescale.
Maps over human development might, in many instances, be very fluid and short-lived. MBTI doesn't really add the Transcendent Function from Jung. I do believe it is commonly understood that the cognitive stacks aren't fixed, in that you can't use other functions. But refer more to predispositions in temperament, which usually changes for many people, apparently, later in life.
However, adding in Spiral Dynamics, is something I would find interesting. It is quite an abstract concept, but one thing that should be doable, is to somewhat map how different personalities express themselves, primarily, in different paradigms.

However, conversationally and for self-growth especially, even with an unclear image of something, it does become easier to talk about and have a more conscious connection to what is going on. As such, we have found it useful so far to mix the two, and even when it is mostly exploration and not putting in the finishing touches to established imagery.

I am wholly unfamiliar with engineering, but reading your post, maybe I am quite the engineer in my own right. :) I have found this philosophy post by @Philosophim useful. With regard to MBTI and SD, however, it seems of more general applicability. I see it more as a specific skill learned using one or two cognitive functions at a certain level, than I see it as something that complements the former two... Could that be what I am looking for? I mean, improving something is relatively hard...

Maybe I am missing the point here somehow, and my post is fairly short, so if you have any questions of sorts, I would gladly answer. Moreover, I'll see if I can change notification settings, but I'll be sure to see it if you mention my nickname somehow.

Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence