Then it would be guessing just the same as using no metric at all. This is only worse if the candidate is so naive as to believe they are of superior consideration than the value of a simple measure.
If not (and I’ve not seen it) then the candidate is just stating a preference for not working with companies that are lazy intellectually. That’s not naive that’s sensible.
Do you have a citation?
I'd rather take the intuition of some interviewer because at least that's based on something real. I mean if objectivity is the only criterion you simply may want to roll a set of dice for the applicants because those are cheaper than Myers-Briggs consultants.
the attitude of replacing useful human judgements with useless metrics in the name of eliminating bias is one of the worst trends in modern hiring.
That something real is called discrimination.
the relevant question is whether astrology for nerds is better than human judgement just because the former is perceived as impersonal.
Changing jobs is a big life investment. I would prefer it not be a blind date with one-way conversations from somebody likely abusive and neglectful looking for a surf to abuse. If the potential employer is instead interested in potential they are sending a signal they are willing to invest in you.
Myers Briggs gets a lot of hate due to low precision but it’s a cheap and fast assessment. There are much better assessments of personality but they take more time and are more invasive.