okay, what do you suggest for some SJ titles? (personally, I feel "Guardian" works a little better for ISTJ)Just because they're more romantic, doesn't mean they deserve a more legendary/romantic title. That's where the bias comes from in the first place!
I mean, hell, I'm pretty sure every type glorifies themselves in their imagination somehow. (That's why I suggested "Guardian" as a romantic ESTJ title, not just because it's already been used for ESTJs, but because the idea of fighting for Justice and All That Is Right is something that I feel ESTJs would easily relate to.) So why deprive the rest of us of that glorification, so long as we're giving it to the NFs? You can keep your Paladin title if the rest of us get rough equivalents.
MBTI type bias usually comes from this sort of reasoning -- i.e. it's fine for these type descriptions and type names to be tonally different, because TECHNICALLY they're still accurate. Nonetheless, as an SJ, I look at the SJ type names and wonder why we got the boring office-job names when everyone else got either dramatic/artsy ones (SP), romantic/"legendary" ones (NF), or epic/"genius" ones (NT). It doesn't matter if NTs are more likely to want intellectual work, or if NFs are more romantic, or if SPs really do all want to work with their hands (which I'm highly skeptical about). From where I see it, the only way to get rid of type bias is to describe each type on equal terms. No one type should be called a legendary figure without every other type being one as well, because no type is more legendary than any other. Otherwise, what you get is: Artists, Craftsmen, Scientific Geniuses, Psychics, Poetic Innovators... and office lackeys. As if NFs, NTs, and SPs couldn't just as easily be office lackeys. (Which is why I referenced the other naming systems posted on the first page, as being more fair: they all have the same "professional" tone, and are thus more fair and equal.)