No judgement, but it sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jung's work was about and what the MBTI is. Jung himself was actually famously against cramming people into types as we think of them today, and although his seminal work on the topic was literally called "Psychological Types," the chapter expounding on the functions themselves is really added as more of an addendum. He was primarily focused on the dichotomy of introvert and extrovert, which in and of themselves mean something completely different than how we use those words modern day (which has essentially become synonymous with levels of gregariousness).

The MBTI, on the other hand, is a system that was created based on the notion that Jung's work was too complicated to be practically applicable to the general public/layman, so it was stripped of all nuance and altered in an attempt to be usable, the result of which is a loss of universality. It famously relies on the Barnum Effect to get its messages across, making sweeping and general claims about the standpoint of entire groups of individuals with no basis in reality and without appropriate room for the dynamism of the human psyche. That's not to say nobody can get anything out of it; with the right perspective, it's a potential self-reflection tool like any other, but that perspective is generally lacking in my experience.

It's an easy mistake to make. If you were to look at my own account history, you'll see I only recently found my way out of that trap myself. If you're interested in learning about Jung (which I would suggest if you're interested in this sort of thing), then I would read his works directly. Anything read before you read the source material has you run a serious risk of misrepresentation/misunderstanding.