What's your thoughts on "type matching"?

There was a big project I had to do a while ago, and the teachers thought it was a good idea to base the groups upon something very similar to MBTI. The idea was good: they would combine people with opposing qualities, and thus create a group that was good on multiple facets. We had to do a test and a 'group role' rolled out of it. Then, we looked for the 'allergies' of that role, so the annoyances that that role had. I came out as a leader, so my annoyances were people who didn't do shit. People who didn't care, unmotivated and only willing to do the bare minimum.

So I was placed with those people. They had other qualities, the test said, like being more precise and careful with their work, or being better researchers. But the harm was already done. The type matching made me look at people only within those types. When someone was lackluster, I thought 'the test was right, he is unmotivated and annoying'. I began seeing everything they did in the context of the test result. Confirmation bias at it's finest.

It took me far too long to let go of the types and to just see them as they were, people who didn't care as much as I did. Maybe I just took the test too literally. But my point is that these kinds of tests are restrictive, not additive. They limited my thinking of other people instead of giving a new insight.

While it might have served to give me an insight to how they functioned, there wasn't anything that came out of the test that an hour of working together couldn't expose.

Myers-Briggs is the same for me. I'd much rather spend actual time talking to people to find out who they are than to have them take a test. The philosophical discussion that you had two days ago tells me much more about who you are than ISTP ever would.