Writing descriptions that make everyone happy is definitely a challenge, especially since type can be so personal.
Seeing that vultology aims to be a reliable and accurate tool I can understand why a large amount of statistics is needed since it narrows the margin of error but I also feel it would take a long time to have a database big enough to draw new conclusions that already seem quite obvious.
Overall, I agree with everything you said and I wish I could expand your points further but unfortunately I can't since my English level doesn't allow me to be that expressive (it takes me tons of mental energy to just write this small paragraph).

I fully sympathize with the frustration you mention @animal - also thanks for writing this. Odd as it might seem, I'm actually not a fan of doing statistics. They feel like death to me, and it's one of the things that goes against my native state the most. It feels like reading a dry textbook for the 10th time, instead of gathering new and fresh material.
Just like you, it only takes me a few examples (sometimes even one sample being cross-referenced against many adjacent types) to "see" a trend. Doing the statistical work is like chewing cardboard. So I've been mostly putting-off doing rigid statistical comparisons (except in places like here and here) yet I'm deeply respectful of the process. In fact, it's impossible for CT to succeed and overtake other models without this advantage we have.
Where CT may be differentiated from other mbti/etc forums and communities -- is in that in CT we may actually have a chance at resolving questions of personal opinion through an objective avenue. Rather than being doomed to agree-to-disagree, there's a technical way to resolve each question, if the parties involved are willing to grind through the stats. So it's not a dead-ended model, but it does mean progress of this sort takes a rigorous discipline.

Obviously I appreciate that people do things differently than I do, and I wouldn’t want anyone to try to be like me.   So this is just a reactionary ‘point of view’ that I figured I’d share, for whatever it’s worth.

But yea, not everyone needs to be a statistician. Trailblazers are critical for a theory's expansion. It's equally necessary to do rapid iteration & reinterpretation of data, and to adjust to incoming data-points seamlessly; to swivel gracefully into the best alignment by tasting the air for where the juicy fruits may be found.
Part of Pe exploration, I think, is in having a sense/hunch of where there's treasures and what avenues will pay off. Pi is the guardian of the accumulated knowledge, but Pe is what adds to that knowledge. We need both in equal proportion. Keep doing what you do Animal!
Also, the senex is steadier but also slower than the puer, and this manifests also in how written words will always be a bit outdated as soon as the ink dries. To say something is to bind it. So for example the CT corpus will always be a bit 'behind' in its details, compared to the most recent understanding. I'll try my best to update it as we go along, but don't worry too much if the descriptions are lacking here or there -- since this is normal in all fields of knowledge. Usually the living/active community has the most updated know-how, and things that are obvious enough will correct the corpus eventually, if a healthy dialogue exists between Pe-Pi. So I may not always agree with the trends you bring up but I consider all of it. : )

Responding to @animal's initial post, here's where I think some of this resistance toward generalization is coming from, at least regarding differences in NeSi & NiSe. As an NeSi type, my orientation is more anecdotal--i.e. I'm not oriented toward general patterns or trends so much as I am toward events that tell compelling/vivid narratives. While I still see the importance of common patterns & general trends, I often find that outliers, flukes and misfits tell stories that are every bit as compelling as mainstream trends.
It's been pointed out that Ne-Si's methodology tends to be more conservative than that of Ni-Se. NiSe tends to be more comfortable making generalizations that are true in the aggregate, even if they're not 100% true in all the particulars. So, for example, I wouldn't have any issue with anyone saying "Alphas tend to be like this-and-this-and-this," as long as they acknowledge that not all of us are necessarily that way. This very same sort of Ne-Si conservatism is the very reason that Deltas are often such good scientists.
During the course of my life, I've had a lot of situations where I've felt more like an outlier than like part of a mainstream trend...I can point to a minor example of this in CT. Despite being clearly an Alpha, in a lot of ways I don't feel like I've ever truly found my place within the generalized Alpha depictions/portrayals. For instance, IRL people have described me as ideosyncratic or individualistic, and I'm pretty confident that most people who know me would agree with that description, for better & for worse. It's not hard for me to see how Fe can lead to its own flavour of individualism through its social-niche-creating properties, even if that isn't the most common outcome. Yet so far I haven't seen any acknowledgment of an "Alpha individualist" shade or anything of the sort--perhaps because we are relatively few & far between. The issue isn't so much that I want to pretend the mainstream trend doesn't exist. It's more that generalizations can feel oppressive if they're presented as too absolute--if people don't deliberately make room for the outcasts.
Now, I don't mean to portray myself as a poor, oppressed misfit--in a lot of ways I consider myself in a fairly privileged position in life.
But here's a relevant example of where overgeneralization has led to genuine oppression and denial of individuality. In western, Euro/American culture, it's generally assumed that everyone fits into one of two gender categories: male or female. Indeed, the vast majority of people do fit into those categories biologically, and at a cultural level, most people relate to these categories enough to accept them as part of their identities. Yet the problem is that western culture has constructed this male-female thing as an absolute binary into which everyone can be unambiguous categorized. In actuality, there are a small proportion of intersex people, with ambiguous characteristics, who can't be cleanly placed into one category or the other. Yet instead of accepting this ambiguity, the social gravity of the male-vs-female distinction has made it so that parents of intersex babies--and doctors--often simply decide on a gender assignment at birth and sculpt the babies' genitals accordingly. Sometimes the gender to which the parents assign their child is ultimately mismatched to its psychology. This can have tragic consequences: people who are biologically intersex but get misassigned in this way are far more prone to mental health issues and even suicide.
More broadly, even among people with no biological ambiguity, cultural-psychological generalizations about  male vs. female differences don't always fit. (Besides, as Margaret Meade originally pointed out, the sets of contrasting traits ascribed to men and women vary considerably from culture to culture). Yes, I would agree that women are generally more nurturing, emotional and collectively-oriented, and that this difference has a biological basis. But it doesn't fit 100% of the time. Psychological differences between male-ness and female-ness are general trends, but in our culture the difference is constructed as an absolute, oppressive binary. Trans people and others who happen to feel alienated from the traits associated with their assigned genders suffer high rates of violence from those who seek to enforce this binary.
Of course, it's entirely possible that some people who identify with another gender (i.e. other than that of their biological sex) are doing it for the wrong reasons. But I also don't think it's fair, at all, to presume that our culture's gender-categories are so well constructed as to be the best psychological fit for everyone. Similarly, in CT, if a Beta type were to say, "I really don't relate to such-and-such a depiction of Betas," it could be entirely possible that they're just kidding themselves or don't fully understand the depiction. But it could just as easily be possible that they are simply an unusual Beta and fall outside of the mainstream. Without actually knowing such a person IRL, I don't think there's any way to really be sure.
I know this has been a rambling anecdote, but my overall point is just that even the most statistically-robust differences tend to have overlap & gray areas. I have no objection to speaking in generalizations as long as adequate room is made for tails of the curve.
Edit: I hadn't read the "CT & Sociology" thread before making this post, and I see that auburn did bring up some of the issues I was trying to get at here in the part about "unusual people."

But you just made a helpful distinction! And that is what I likes when typology can be used to explain the ways we are seeing things differently.

Thank you @animal! lol, yes, the irony of that post wasn't lost on me!, since I was using generalizations to say that NiSe's are more comfortable with broad generalizations. I'm not categorically opposed to generalizations or categories (that would be silly), as long there's adequate room to wiggle out of them when they don't quite fit.
I also realize this topic is very complex, since CT strives to make absolute distinctions (e.g. metabolic differences), and not just describe (statistical) trends. I didn't capture all the nuance of it in my last post.
But for what it's worth, the absolute binaries is an area where I feel some doubt toward CT theory. Even though it's obvious to me that CT is largely true, I don't quite feel convinced that all seven billion Homo sapiens belong to one type or other in a totally clear-cut way, even if the vast majority of us do. (i.e., just like with biological sex). However, I don't understand the inner-workings of CT theory, it's more just my Pi sense about the grayness & imperfection of everything...as Leonard Cohen says,
"Ring the bells that still can ring,
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything,
It's how the light gets in."

I didn't read the whole thread, but I read the OP, and wow! You're right. I think you actually came in during a period where we began making fewer distinctions because before we were attributing *everything under the sun* to functions, so we went kind of the opposite way and adopted a conversatism toward distinctions, fearing we'd gone overboard. And also every so often, some new understanding shakes everything up.
I really agree with your push toward toward the most basic, fundamental and core aspects of functions. This would help avoid over predicting ... or predicting shallow things that are peripheral and not central. I've really backed off the whole thing until I myself can make more clear distinctions.