First off, it is not at all difficult to generate a text that sounds like it fits you - especially with a questionnaire of over 60 questions as an input. Second, for me 'taking it too seriously' is taking it serious at all. To put it bluntly, it's a completely made up test, based on 8 completely random traits, that only allows you to label / categorize / put people in boxes. People are complex, are changing over time and act different in different situations. All factors that the M-B completely ignores. I don't think any index can fix this properly, unless you want seven billion boxes to put people in. From what I know about you and what you do, I would argue that you make much more use of experience, people knowledge and skill than whatever simplified label you can tag on them in the first five minutes. Once you've concluded that a person is, say, a sensing introvert, it becomes very hard not to fall prey to selection bias and framing. Hence my opinion that these kinds of tests are just toxic.As someone that has made a living being able to read personality styles in order to quickly create a buying environment, I know that there is validity to these index tests.
Let me be clear, I don't think the tests are anything but a device to get people thinking and discussing our different ways of experiencing the world and recognizing that others have different motivating factors. I phrased the part you quoted poorly. The validity isnt the test, it's that we all have different "styles" as I mentioned before, these are not static. I don't think we would disagree on much regarding these except hat I find them to be much more benign than you do, perhaps because I've never known someone to really take them too seriously. That said, I think everyone wants to think they're a precious, unique flower when in reality, yes on a level you are but on another level you can be pretty damn predictable.
I really wish I had omitted any mention of MB. It was an afterthought in a post about the death of relationship and solution based selling.