In thinking about where Jung's typology came from, I naturally started to try to rebuild it from the ground up.
I asked -- if I were to make my own typology, would I end up with the same divisions as in MBTI/Jung?
You could start with something like "funny vs. unfunny", but it seems to get you off balance from the start. It seems like an obviously very "random" place to start. You probably want something more abstract, something that encapsulates "funny vs. unfunny".
(Although, "funny vs. unfunny" seems to be more about personality type than psychological type. A distinction you might want to consider when making your typology.)
Introversion/Extraversion is pretty damn abstract. It divides the world into the classic Subject/Object division and then asks which way your "energy" is directed. It's holistic.
Anyway, I'm mostly trying to kickstart my own thinking on this. I'm going to see if I can come up some kind of typology, and post any ideas as a response here.
But I want to know: How would you design a typology? The goal (or my goal, anyway) is to have a compact structure which spans a huge range of possible behavior.