Well I like the IP IJ EJ EP distinction in terms of temperaments. It seems to be the one catching the biggest behavioral clusters among the available alternatives. NT NF ST SF are called "clubs" in socionics, which makes more sense: people with similar interests, not similar lifestyles.
I don't relate all that much to the SP temperament because it's based on an extraverted function (Se), yet I consider myself to be very introverted so for me Se is a bit stunted or ignored I think so maybe I use Ni a bit more.
So I probably feel more like:
So I end up feeling somewhere between the SP and NF temperaments.
I read that site, often.
I like John Fudjack and his partner, since they are not beholden to MBTI assumptions.
Case in point:
We now have reason to believe that pure types (MBTI types that have the same 'attitude' for the dominant and auxiliary function - eg, Ni and Ti) are not only possible but more frequent than previously suspected, even though they are excluded in MBTI definitions that emphasize opposite attitudes between dominant and second Jungian functions.
The prevailing attitude that people need to have alternating function attitudes to be "healthy" is just a bunch of conventional, closed-minded, nonsense.
If this is the best of possible worlds, what then are the others?
― Voltaire, Candide
The temperaments are just arbitrary groupings at the end of the day, even more-so than the MBTI; no one configuration is going to please everybody.
QFT. Any set of temperaments will only highlight one or two dimensions of behaviour or thought, whether it be EJ, EP, IJ, IP; SF, ST, NF, NT or SP, SJ, NF, NT. None of these configurations are necessarily better than any other. Different people will identify with different temperaments, depending on their individual quirks.