A colleague and I were discussing what it would take to make type theory as accepted as, say, multiple intelligences. In spite of posts to the contrary, after all there are now over 11,000 bibliography entries on type theory, a preponderance of which validate the theory and the effectiveness of using it (CAPT: Training, Books, Research for MBTI, Archetypes, Leadership, Psychological Type.)
She pointed out that with the competing theories, someone is always lower in the pecking order, or there is a "right" or "wrong" way to be. Which are the best intelligences? Logical/mathematical, right? Look at funding/pay/other measures and there's a hierarchy. The Five-Factor Model...one end of each trait is associated with mental health issues, if you read the writings of those who created the NEO-PI. Most models show "THE WAY" to lead, etc.
But with type theory, there are 16 normal ways to be with their own strengths and gifts. The best decisions are made when all four functions are considered: S, N, T, F. We always need the input of others because our skills with their preferences will never be as great as theirs. In fact, as we move toward individuation we become more aware of our shortcomings, not, as some people hint, fully developed.
Type theory says, "We hold different views...and yours may be just as legitimate as mine. Let's compare our perceptions and share the rationale behind our judgments." It usually involves compromise or a complete revision of what we thought we knew. Human nature rails against both. It's easier to accept theories that say, "I'm right; you're a jerk."
I at least thought this has some merit. I'd put bets most of Congress has taken the MBTI at some point in business school or something and has managed to conveniently forget anything they learned about constructive use of differences...