>That said, it's odd that the narrative persists of M-B having been discredited, when, as the article mentions but doesn't explore, the opposite is true.

What? The article directly says M-B has been discredited:

>In academic circles, however, the test has long been discredited. While the Myers-Briggs test lumps people into “types,” most modern personality tests measure traits on a continuum. Another objection rests on the test’s inability to predict meaningful life outcomes. “Basically, there isn't an algorithm that translates how people answer into how they're likely to behave,” explains Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of business psychology at University College London. Today, this is considered a crucial element of a personality tests. The backlash against the Myers-Briggs test has been powerful – beyond being shunned by academics, a steady drip of articles over the years have condemned its shaky scientific grounding. But this hasn’t stopped diehard Myers-Briggs fans seeing themselves within the test’s categories.

You're falling into exactly the same trap that horoscope enthusiasts have, gesturing to vague correlations and associations with no scientific grounding or basis.

You're simply wrong. M-B is pseudoscience.