I find that amusing, as your group work description really looked like it didn't have anything to do with the MBTI types. MBTI deals with how you think, not how lazy/motivated you are.

It was meant as an example of the point I wanted to make, not as a comparison. My bad if that wasn't clear. The test I took aimed to seek your 'core qualities' and categorized people into roles, like the Architect, the Worker, the Leader etc.

The point I was trying to make clear is that categorizing people is often too simplified and does more harm than good. Just because you can put people into categories, doesn't mean you should. It paves the way for illogical thinking, prejudices and biases. It restricted my thinking; I didn't see the people I worked with as complex human beings anymore, but as the label that they were given. I noticed the tendency to attribute their mistakes to their label: oh, they didn't get their work done, it must be because of [insert generalized character trait here]. Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he wasn't motivated enough. The categories were an abstraction that was detrimental to my perspective of the group members.

M-B is a similar simplification. I can understand that you want to use it to predict behaviour, but I doubt it's effectivity. For one, it's a binary approach to character traits. I'm not an introvert nor an extrovert; it is a spectrum, not ones and zeroes. But there's no middle ground in the system. There are more criticisms of M-B in particular but Wiki does a better job at that

I find the typing system to be particularly interesting, as it seemingly describes everyone I've ever met, with pretty good accuracy.

Are you sure that isn't just because a) everyone falls within the categories (so of course it describes everyone) and b) it is easy to see people in a certain light? And how would you know it is an accurate description of them, and not just a too simple way of framing their character traits?

This group would fail.

Yeah, it failed for me. I don't know what the rest thought, and frankly I doubt they cared at all, which was part of the problem. The idea is good but it didn't work in reality. And I'm not convinced that M-B is any different.

So it's not something to base all of your actions on, but I think it provides a great insight on people and how they behave. It also explains a bit why I tend to hang out with the people I do, and who I find attractive.

I can understand why it is good for yourself, as a critical self-assessment. And it is nice that you found out that you have suppressed a part of you that you hadn't questioned before (or not as deeply as now). I just don't see it as a tool to get 'great insight on people and how they behave'. It is too deterministic, the assessments are mediocre at best, and I found that line of thinking to be harmful to my perspective of people. The categories are binary and restrictive. No, I don't think it is a great perspective into another person's mind.

But perhaps your disinterest in MBTI is why you'll be baffled when for the most part I'll avoid outgoing people like the plague, yet attract them and in some cases actually respond positively rather than my snarky cold usual exterior.

What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not disinterested, I'm just not convinced of Myers-Briggs as anything more than a facebook-questionnaire.