I just don't think 'total B.S.' is a very scientific judgement to make of the quality of information, especially not in personality science, which is based almost entirely on statistical analysis. There's potentially valuable data in everything, we just have to pull it out and see where it fits in the larger picture.
You claim the test is bunk because people misuse it and it's not made by personality scientists or psychologists. But...that's not actually proof that the test doesn't do what it claims to do. =/
In the world of personality science, there are methods you can use to analyze inventories like Myers-Briggs on measures of accuracy and reliability. Professional-grade inventories like the Big Five get called that NOT because famous scientists made them, but because those scientists test them and work on them until they reach certain statistical checkpoints.
And you know what? Those inventories STILL get called BS, and people STILL use them in discriminatory, inaccurate ways. But those aren't the things that determine an inventory's scientific value. As long as the test collects and classifies the data it says it does, it's valid and good for more data collection, if nothing else. Even if it doesn't collect the data it says it does, it's possible to figure out what it does collect, and use that to further research. Nothing goes to waste in the field of psychology.