If we're talking about typology, then no, because it's a classification system. I think the ideal situation would be to look at neuroscience, examine your own experience, and create a model for how your mind works.
I know you're ignoring me (sooo growed up!) but I'm gonna explain where you're wrong anyway.
Jungian Typology is not, first and foremost, a classification system. That work was done later building on Jung's ideas about cognitive functions (Jung actually said such an exercise would be a waste of time).
We have a theory of functions (model of cognition) and a theory of types (a typology). Even if you don't think typing people is helpful, that says nothing about how accurate or useful cognitive function theory is. The OP is asking about CF theory. Does it cover everything in human cognition? If it doesn't, what else is there? Well, what else is there, we perceive (things that are in front of us and things that are intuited) and we make judgments (based on objective or subjective criteria). What else is there? How can we refine the model? What benefit would there be to such refinement?
A theory that explains 1) what ideal living is and 2) how to get there would seem much better suited. Typology doesn't do that, unless you're talking about the shadow and accepting the shadow.
That's asking typology to do something that it's not designed to do and then calling it a failure. Which is illogical.
"Ideal living"/ how to get there is different for every person (I don't even believe there is such a thing). That doesn't invalidate the study of what it is that we
already are and
have in common.
Well, to me one is a class and one is a member in a class. An orange is an orange and it's class is fruit. If you wanted to study the composition of an orange and it's life cycle, using a classification system wouldn't be very helpful. It would tell you that the orange is a fruit and not a vegetable, but that's not very helpful.
You are just talking about hierarchies.
subcomponent-->component-->object-->subclass-->class
Classification systems contain useful metadata (inheritance, for example).
In order to study an orange, one MUST use a classification system, even if only an informal one. How else does one identify an orange? You look at characteristics (colour, smell, texture, size, taste, etc) and you create a label "orange". That's the first step in understanding anything. There has to be an abstract idea that is "orange" before you can begin to understand it. Otherwise, every time you encounter an orange you'd be like, wtf is this thing? And go through the laborious process of rediscovering its properties. That's a waste of time. That's why we have classification systems.
Think about neuroscience and how the brain works. Think about cognitive psychology and language. Think about the way you actually think. There's a lot more going on than cognitive functions. Memory, language, processing biases, personality disorders, the mechanics of anxiety, desire, impulses, pleasure, pain and reward, and the other 100 billion ways you can type people (need for stimulation, need for cognition, restlessness, sexual proclivities, superstition, the list is endless). Type theories are 1) not equipped or designed to account for this stuff and 2) don't explain how any of this actually operates in a person's experience. It's the wrong tool for the job.
That's not a good argument. Just because an area of study is discrete and not comprehensive doesn't mean it's invalid. That's like saying an OB/GYN isn't a doctor because he's not a Gerontologist.
We have labels and classification systems for pscyhopathology - it's not appropriate for a typology that addresses normal behaviour to incorporate those elements. Memory and language - those are fields of study in their own right, and they don't shed light on personality and personality differences - which is what Typology is all about.