Over the past two years I have examined the various methods of argumentation typologists use here to debate celebrity types. But they all boil down to picking and choosing, or picking and rejecting, the evidence.
For example, Arnold Schartzenegger appears to be an ENFJ in some political speeches he makes, but those are speeches and not reality - they don't represent the "true" Arnold.
And yet Princess Leia appears to be an ENTJ because of speeches she makes - although those are also speeches and not, er, reality.
Carl Jung is an INTP based on his academic writings - although there is such a thing as The Red Book which shows a more personal, thus truer, side of Jung. But apparently that book doesn't count as contrary evidence.
Immanuel Kant is an INTP based on his academic writing style, although his intention to invent a new methodology is that of an INTJ.
Once a person's mind is made up about type, all evidence to the contrary is considered irrelevant for various reasons. And this judgment is often, if not always, based on the most superficial of evidence.