Do MBTI types really matter?

I'm not sure if any typology system can matter too much, as each function within each typology means something so unique to that relational system and not interlinked or all-encompassing. For instance, Fi in CT refers to reactive ethics while Fi in Jungian Socionix refers to subjective feeling, fully, a wholly different phenomenon that by statistical calculations of famous types never yields any correlation to one another. The broadest (most useful) categorization of cognition I've personally gotten has been with Jungian Socionix, but there's nothing to say any one typology is singularly a more important system, that is, there's nothing to say MBTI can't be useful to many individuals in that it may define their cognition the most accurately.

For instance, when it comes specifically to MBTI, I always get the same result on every test I've taken throughout 20 years, the INTP. Not only does my type never seem to change, but it's a very accurate description of a large portion of my cognition. I'm mostly a very metaphysically and philosophically-oriented individual, who leans toward abstract thought and looks down on an interest in factual reality and conventions. My logic is then secondary in frequency and quite strong, and thirdly I have strong tastes and feelings towards things, analyzing these. (The way to gauge this is in the quantity of thought, not the strength of the thought. For instance, while many people have strong feelings (F) towards things, strong enough to seem important, the majority of thinker's time never goes to this department: F is always really important to an individual because it's a subjective value. It doesn't mean it's a frequent phenomenon.) The point being is, because myself as an example, tends to focus so much on the big picture that I need others to bring me back into concrete outlets, conventions and factual focuses, because my logic and feeling are clearly more balanced and my thought wanders mostly to the meta and big-picture, ignoring concrete facts and conventional reality, then it can be clear from a sort of Descartian point of self-analysis that one would naturally view themselves in the light of the Ni dominant type regardless of how the specific descriptions of Ni and Ne can read. One is concerned more with the description's consistency of a function to its conclusive dichotomies.

In other words, even though every system might define Ni differently and usefully for gauging intertype relations (which I can attest, Ni doesn't = Ni in other systems: they're each useful terms copied down by mere convention, but evolved to newly-tested extremes in experience,) there does seem to be a universal or default type with individuals uncategorized by any unique intertype relation system, and that is perhaps what MBTI is defining. A more default broad description of a person. All my leanings for example point toward the INTP quite well, and because T / F is clearly much more balanced in myself while N / S is not, my universal default or primary function will obviously be Ni regardless of how alternate descriptions will try to paint Ni specifically. This is only to say that, pure Ni must be defined in terms of what an introvert with primary abstract-based focus will be like. In that, like philosophy, MBTI or dichotomy identification is useful, as someone might relate a great deal to it.

Probably the greater point seems to be, systems like Cognitive Type and Jungian Socionix create new dichotomies that don't match those of MBTI, borrowed from Socionics. The idea is that each type is the same if it fits its quadra, one dichotomy of judgment and the other of perception, insomuch that a primary function doesn't matter anymore. Ie. Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi, is a different dichotomy in each theory defined uniquely enough as to have their own names, ie. Proactive Ethics, Objective Feeling; not the same things. That's the overall point, that these other theories are not interchangeable but each useful in getting at something real in a cognitive-relational observation.