not very enlightening, but credit can perhaps be given to employment of the "ziti effect" - if you hurl a bowl of it against the wall, some of it will stick, & a noodle or 2 might be worth considering. so the approach has a lot in common with astrology. there is some truth to it, which then lends it "authenticity" & ergo, the hook.
the trick is that if you drill down far enough, what motivates all human beings may be fairly simple & basic -- who among us wouldn't theoretically have to cop to being "judgmental", or "sentimental" about things, etc. please. it's the degree of the 'metric', & the nuance is being lost, flattening the archetype to (mho) meaninglessness. i hate to drag eric berne into this, but at least his derivations from jung were respectful...
ultimately this is a rather simplistic reduction when you think about it, & would tend to make [my "type"] judge it as more canard than insight since once again, people are making money off of this pop baloney which preys on doubt,confusion,& the desperation for a short-cut to the 'answer', which is unlikely to exist.
and so long as a lot of personality science is just plain poorly understood, no matter what you hear, there will be an ongoing market for this surfacing-scratching which probably,in all fairness, although it has some upside,
does as much to muddy the waters as offer and real clarity... i just wonder - the old "who benefits? comes to mind: the poeple who fork over for the test on the premise of 'raised consciousness', or the folks who
put this stuff out there like a psychic version of Ron Popeil