I think one of my biggest problems with the typology community is that people think typology is so revelatory that they think when they've got you typed then the way to better understand you is to understand your type more, THEREFORE, they associate you with traits, characteristics, and ways, that aren't even necessarily anything like you, especially since they could be mistyping you in reality, but even IF they aren't mistyping you, those ways don't necessarily fit you. One misunderstanding grows into many huge misunderstandings about the person.
Does typology help you understand others, or does it help you more confidently MISunderstand others?
When people said don't judge a book by its cover they should've added don't judge individuals by a book.
Typology is very inductive in nature, not deductive. The problem is that people uses "therefore" instead of likely. There is some inside correlations between traits, stuff like "if you are imaginative then you are more likely to like art" (this was from Big 5 actually but it helps for the explanation) is true to most of people, but not all of them, and sadly a lot of people replaces the "then you are more likely" part with "therefore": "if you are imaginative therefore you like art", which is wrong. That is the issue, but mistaking inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning is quite normal (its still an err anyway), I see it in movies all the time (detective movies are a lot prone to do this err).
But by induction, it helps you to try to make good guesses about people motives, stuff behind, etc.. Anyway, knowing what others think is impossible, you can't really deduct what is going on others people mind in one way or another. But you can guess what is likely going on on their minds, and the typology systems
when in proper use (so forget some part of Socionics, for example), according to statistics and in Jung case not contradicting him without any stat to back up that, can assist and direct you into making the best guesses according to self-report, other-report (on Big 5 40 experimental types) and Jung's clinical experience (if you read other psychologists, it will be their experience but I think most psychologists doesn't really use typology that much except for helping you choosing careers). So, in my example, if you realize that the person is more artistic then you can guess that the person is imaginative as well, because on self-report and other-report there is a positive connection. The same goes to traits and types in general, but again, when you are using it proper. Wrong stereotypes like "Fi is selfish" just messes it, while correct stereotypes specially when combining typology systems, for example "ENFPs 7 with low Neuroticism are [more likely to be] happy" helps. But, you know, sadly there is a good bunch of misinformation running by different communities.
Some people do fit the stereotypes well, specially when the enneagram and MBTI types are an usual combination, such as INTP/INTJ 5, INFP/INFJ 4, ENTP/ENFP/ESFP/ESTP 7. For those, taking these assumptions normally works well.
EDIT: I just read the first 3 posts and Imma going to read the rest tomorrow, but I don't think that is unlikely that somebody said what I said here, its unlikely that I am repeating somebody's else post.