Typelogic? That site is so full of contextual examples of behavior. If someone who cares about precision and accuracy wants to write descriptions of each type, then they need to fit everyone of that type, not just a few romantic examples that are dreamed up as being "typical." Don't you think so?
Looking at the ISFP description, very few people who aren't "wandering star" neo-hippies are going to relate to a portrait that paints all ISFPs as being that way. If people dismiss descriptions because the details don't fit (as people who prefer Sensing generally do), then they not only can't really benefit much from type theory, but they end up confusing other people by talking about their mistyped preferences.
No offense, seeing as how you like that site, but nobody I know who prefers Sensing fits the descriptions on that website. It's Just Not Helpful.