1. Jung (whose typology the MBTI was based upon) was very clear that his methods went into the areas that research couldn't go (often referred to as "depth" psychology). Thus, research based on the MBTI and other tests based on Jung's typology is a bit difficult to agree with. Bear in mind that I'm saying this as someone who finds Jungian typology very useful.
2. The point of Jungian typology can be summed up with the old cliche "You're a beautiful and unique snowflake, just like everyone else." Thus, although you do more than likely see certain types attracted to programming, those types are far from being exclusively programmers as there are many fields that attract them (including other engineering and scientific fields). Conversely, these types aren't the only programmers out there. I've met plenty of good programmers who were of types that weren't traditionally associated with programming.
1. Jung (whose typology the MBTI was based upon) was very clear that his methods went into the areas that research couldn't go (often referred to as "depth" psychology). Thus, research based on the MBTI and other tests based on Jung's typology is a bit difficult to agree with. Bear in mind that I'm saying this as someone who finds Jungian typology very useful.
2. The point of Jungian typology can be summed up with the old cliche "You're a beautiful and unique snowflake, just like everyone else." Thus, although you do more than likely see certain types attracted to programming, those types are far from being exclusively programmers as there are many fields that attract them (including other engineering and scientific fields). Conversely, these types aren't the only programmers out there. I've met plenty of good programmers who were of types that weren't traditionally associated with programming.