Sure, I don't disagree too much, these systems definitely model certain salient features, otherwise they wouldn't be as successful as they are. One self-reports, and receives a predictably sufficiently accurate description of a "type" one now supposedly belongs to. The craving to be told who you are is finally partially satisfied. But there are enormously many limitations to it, and there's a long road for the psychological claim "I am a Logician." to arrive at the same level of scientific factuality as the empirical claim "I am Blond."
I wouldn't seek an identity in something like MBTI. A lot of the axes can be blurred, extended, complicated. For example, take the first question in the linked test: "Do you find it difficult to introduce yourself to other people?". I'd answer the most strong "Agree", and that answer is a point added towards "introversion", away from "extraversion". But is it even that bilateral and obvious? "difficulty", "introducing yourself", "other people" - all these terms can be unpacked and broadened. Do we, as responding individuals, even possess the mental capacity to assess something as vague as "difficulty"? It depends, it's a variable, not a constant, sometimes it may be easier or harder, there are intensive continuous spectra of gradation, and that doesn't even take into account the "difficulty" compared to who or what.
Of course no one conceives any of these questions in this way, and my own practical response for the purposes of this test will always and forever be "Agree". Of course I'd be much more comfortable and engaged working as an "INTP" mathematician, than an "ESFJ" social worker. But my point is that you can still complicate any one of these questions, such that there exist no straight forward answers, and hence you're not mappable unto any given "type". Suppose there exists an equally intelligent alien species now co-existing with us humans on Earth, but that the MBTI types just doesn't describe their psychology at all. Where is the objectivity now? It follows MBTI is inherently an anthropoid construct reserved 'for us', and I'm sure there exist many counter-examples even for that, in schizophrenics, that don't have any obvious type.
I would concur that, in a general aggregate way, we relatively sane contemporary people can fairly accurately pinpoint our 'type', but I wouldn't attach that much value to it other than a passing reference on an off-topic forum thread. I wouldn't construct my life around it, while some do.
Related to the above, I don't think it's too valuable to attach these types to historical figures either. Anyone can certainly say that Darwin was closer to an INTP than an ESFJ, but then again you also have debates whether he might be an ISTJ, etc., debates I frankly find fairly pointless. Not even competent biographers I'd say would have much of a clue. An ENTP may appear as an ISTJ, an ISFP as an INTJ; mental faculties, thought processes, lifestyles, behaviour - all these "indicators" intertwine, differ, there's evidence for both sides of any given claim, and the whole thing becomes so complicated that it's better to reassess ones initial conceptual framework.
René Descartes and Immanuel Kant are often typed as INTPs. Do they fit among authors you're reading, have an interest in, or even feel a kinship with? Maybe not, and there are countless other examples that wouldn't fit. You might say that their thought processes are in some sense comparable to your own, that given where they started from, their assumption and definitions, they made valid inferences through a combination of their 'thinking' and 'intuition', even if your don't agree with them, that they both have a philosopher's inquisitive nature you identify with and the label "INTP" overarches, and so on, and so on, but I'd say all of that is meandering, and that ditching the labels entirely would be better. I'm not going to view noteworthy historical thinkers through some one system devised recently. INTPs may also be prominent among communists - are they hence not 'true' INTPs, no true Scotsmen? It all becomes too vague and complicated.
Hehe, cheers I guess.Carmel, I could, even without knowing you, have told you, that you were INTP, simply by reading a couple of your comments.
Speaking of which, I'm sorely missing your input on the "Your Favourite Books Read in 2017" thread... have you read any good Austrian economics recently? ;)...a lot of authors I'm coincidentally reading at the moment...
...most prominent among anarcho-capitalists...