I'm also intrigued that people are voting up the comment which is a sarcastic attack on the people who believe something, while voting me down for attempting to discuss it in a logical manner rather than, say, engaging in discussion of the topic.

So, would you care to explain how it can be correlated with something in a series of studies and still be meaningless?

Star Trek viewing correlated with higher IQ. Now what? Anytime you divide a population that's large along any category or measure you will find many many correlations.

Now you know that liking Star Trek is non-random. You could then try and understand what the basis and rules behind this liking is. You can then apply that understanding to things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-ladowsky/pedophilia-and-... and see if any useful conclusions can be reached.

The question is whether MBTI _is_ a measure. If you're saying that it's a measure, but not one you care about, then that's fine. If you're saying that it's not a measure, and that the results are purely random, then you have to explain why there are correlations between said random data and non-random data.