So roses cannot be beautiful, because they have not chosen to be so?
Haha is that a different take on the wording of "A rose by any other name...."?
In any case that post was a bit of a joke really, but think about the idea of beautiful, there is no such thing as being inherently beautiful it's a human concept we impose on something or someone around us.
I personally don't find roses beautiful myself either.
As for my point about type being determined, it is a premise of MBTI, or at least the version of it most people subscribe to, that type is something we are born with and then develop over time.
If that is the case then while it is true that an individual can take pride in their own achievements and abilities, I find it bizarre that anyone can take pride in the so called collective attributes of people from an entire type.
It's almost biblical in the implication really; "no one can help how they were made". And yet....we can help, (or at least give the impression of helping), our own worst instincts and habits.
But in the mainstream interpretations of typology theories, people usually don't switch types, although there is an old interview with Jung uploaded to youtube, (the face to to face one), where he claims that type is nothing static and changes over the course of life, however theories change all the time and just because Jung said so doesn't mean we should adhere to that.
But anyhow, my point is that I see human beings as constantly in a battle with their own generalisations, it's natural for our brains to group information by a common link, because it is easier to do so and makes the information more accessible, however sometimes along the way we lose sight of the important differences in subjectivity that broad understandings cannot tell us about.
It's as if everyone is judging one another, but they aren't actually LOOKING at people with insight and understanding. Just looking for a scapegoat for their own assumptions of what reality should be. I am not innocent of this myself.
As for roses, they don't, (as far as we know), have a typological theory that can be used to create voids between people as opposed to understandings. I did understand the point of your question, but roses are not humans.
This is all just my opinion after all.
ps: If you reply to this I won't for a while because I am on holiday as of today. But If the topic is still around I might get to reply back, although a week is a long time.