I'm sorry if this comes across as antagonistic, Timmy, but you've said precisely the same thing again, without making an effort to address my points about language and taxonomy.
You've also referenced just one example (based on your own subjective evaluations) to argue for MTBI descriptors' absolute accuracy or infallibility.
Since this forum is for academics (in practice or in training), our methods and conclusions should be informed by considerably greater rigour than you've applied here.
I'll admit that my horoscope analogy was hyperbolic and used for effect; but this doesn't mean the Myers-Briggs test is a reliable indicator of personality types and their demarcations, which are inevitably problematic, for the reasons I've stated above.
Furthermore, the test derives from Jungian "theory," and thus exists to at least some degree at the level of abstraction; or put another way, is beyond absolute empiricism. (For the record, I'm from a humanities background, so my comments aren't "anti-theory." However, I recognise theory's limitations in particular contexts, including this one.)