I think this is a good thread, the idea that type and being true to type means being one dimensionally or stereotypically a particular descriptive outline of conceptualised cognitive functions is balls. Its doubly balls the sorts of inferior/superior definitions of specific types which go on too.
Although I'd hesitate to go with the idea of a dynamic typology which suggests that there is a life course or cycle in which at some stage everyone experiences every type or people migrate along from being one type to its opposite and back again like some kind of eternity's caterpiller-crysilis-butterfly-crysilis-caterpiller.
I do think that there are dynamics within types though, the comprehension of a holistic version of self involving this is seriously lacking. Sometimes I think its the superficial way in which some quizes and sources have been interpreted by their readers, other times a more basic group dynamic thing which could be reproduced with any other sort of source material whether it was magic cards, star trek, politics, videogames.
I remember back to the discussion about Erich Fromm and the idea, repeated a lot in discussions I've had elsewhere, that he was obviously a feeler because of the importance he placed upon feeling, on deterministic affect vs. rational cognition or the cultural significance repression of feeling and negative trends at the opposite extreme he was only seeing the first hints of back when he was alive. The idea that he was a thinker who thought a lot about feeling because it wasnt innate to him isnt something a lot of people tend to agree with.