I agree with the spirit of the OP. There are too many ways to slice up perception-- liking process or spontaneity, a taste for the concrete or the abstract, a sharp focus versus a soft focus, comfort with stasis or dynamism, a preference for continuities versus discreteness, and so on.
Look at examples even in intellectual life.
Rousseau liked spontaneity, chance, and novelty, while Hegel liked process, necessity, and laws. Hume and Wittgenstein thought we could have no deep explanations for anything, while Schopenhauer and Locke always saw unseen forces at work. Carnap had a taste for clarity, sharpness, and precision, while James liked thresholds, indeterminacy, and blurs. Bradley looked at the world in eternal terms, while Bergson liked motion and transition. Dewey saw gradations and connections, while Moore looked at our universe and found divisions and units.
Who is more intuitive? One thing is certain: the MBTI, once we start reflecting upon it, is a very, very blunt instrument. It is pop psychology, not to be taken too seriously.