Too much context. Not enough content. The material that was new to me was just completely wrong. The sad problem with Typology is the hallucinogenic effect of the models, whereby one can propose a theory that sounds entirely reasonable but, in fact, is not grounded in real experience, instead of observing the relationships and interactions of people and forming a model from that evidence.
Such was the case here, where Hunziker tries to suggest that an ENTJ and an ISFP have an inclination to be attracted to one another due to their similar 'spines and arms', whereas the ENTJ-INTP relationship is doomed because of the dichotomy of ego and shadow. That said, there is no need to dispute the theoretical claims here, because one can simply observe the interactions they have with their shadow type and will see that the complete opposite fact is true, that they are perfectly compatible.
Despite my critical view of the book, I do believe it contains many valid and insightful ideas, even though the ones I found interesting originated with others, not from Hunziker himself. For example, the bidirectional triggering of function-attitudes and the archetypes as well as the stages of FA development.