So yes there are some communication problems, but the external frame of reference can be there (such as this forum) without actually being objectively verifiable. Just as with art, there is only a general consensus by people who have studied it as to what is meaningful art and what is not, just as our conceptions of typology vary from person to person.
We have discussions on forums like this for that very reason--the more we mix and match our varying definitions, the more flexibility we may use in describing the phenomena we observe.
There are different schools of typology just as there are different schools of art critique. Even highly informed so-called "authorities" on the topic disagree sometimes, so what on Earth are we doing looking for scientific proof?
The fact that it's wrong in certain particular cases really bugs the Sensing perspective, because they see it as a specific critique repeated again for each and every individual member of the group.
You won't gain any value from something like this until you learn to think of the generalized statements as relative relationships instead of precise data.