Did you actually read her book? Lenore Thomson has mostly abandoned the MBTI dichotomies some time after her (c)2001 book was written and replaced them with the updated dichotomies from her book, for example, J - left-brained/linear, P - right-brained/holistic, that no longer derive from Myers-Briggs redefinition of Jung that P/J relates only to extroverted functions. I think these fans know that since they follow her. Lenore Thomson recognized that, for example, Ne/Se isn't the defining quality of Ps, but that many Ti/Fi dominants don't relate to this P description. Thus the definitions of P and J have been thoroughly reexamined by Thomson and redefined, to incorporate every like-minded IP and IJ.
In Thomson's book she emphasizes the importance of types not fully correlated to the MBTI provided in her book. She now admits that the MBTI provided in her book will easily give you the incorrect type, and thus to continue reading into the rest of her book, which is largely different and theoretical, branched more from Carl Jung and not the Myers-Briggs assumption that P/J is for extroverted functions only. Now the nature of the functions redefine the dichotomies, the functions are the predominant methodology for typing.
In her book, Thomson explains that there are more essential definitions to the dichotomies we must know, which she paints the majority of her book's type profiles with. For instance, she distinguishes INTP/INTJ as opposites, where Js are defined as left-brain linear types (NiTe) and Ps are right-brain holistic types (TiNe,) with then switched tertiary functions. In her (c)2001 book she fully paints her profiles in these terms, not MBTI terms, and doesn't emphasize MBTI dichotomies in the theoretical portion of her book. Her type profiles are markedly different and more branched-out than your typical MBTI ones. We can clearly see that upon reading, the vast majority of a type's nature is her understanding of each types' functions.
Thomson emphasizes that the dichotomies should be yielded from understanding the functions, not the other way around, meaning that, one assuming MBTI dichotomies could lead you to the deeper cognitive nature of an individual, is an error in logic. You must first understand the nature of the functions, the very definition of a type, and then only then can you grasp the dichotomies correctly. Years later she admits to abandoning the MBTI dichotomies and that their influence on real type profiles is only correlative, that there is a deeper way to learn dichotomies by reading all the original material from her book.