That's a good article, thanks for the link (yes, I know it's old). A bit repetitive, but that's okay. The main points are clear enough.
Here's another along the same lines:
"In social science, we use four standards: are the categories reliable, valid, independent, and comprehensive? For the MBTI, the evidence says not very, no, no, and not really."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/give-and-take/201309/goodbye-mbti-the-fad-won-t-die
I'm a psychologist (retired), so I know too much about personality testing. I'd never use the M-B in practice, because it doesn't meet minimal standards. I know some counselors who do, though.
It's a pop psych personality instrument on the level of "what color are you" type systems. I'm sure it can provide some interesting observations, based on how you describe yourself, but that's true of many casually developed personality schemes.
The best part of M-B is the I-E (introversion-extroversion) scale. That was one of Jung's great contributions -- rescuing introversion from Freud's characterization of it as a neurotic, defensive withdrawal. The I-E dimension has held up very well in subsequent personality research. The other scales, not so much.
The M-B benefited from very savvy marketing. It also cornered the market very early. As a result, it established a foothold in business and popular culture and, through that, got into a lot of people's consciousness.
If you look at it like you'd look at any other pop psych personality system (e.g., color types, Eneagram, etc.), and just try to glean whatever useful information you can from it, you're okay. Just don't take it to heart or as being scientific.
