Before I ever knew what dialectical materialism was, I had some years on and off with interest in frameworks like MBTI and its "cognitive functions", or to a lesser degree, Enneagram. And though I've never been big into Zodiac for various reasons, I have some awareness of how it works too.
What these kind of frameworks have in common, a thing in common that is at odds with diamat, is the tendency to view personality as something static that you are born with. The born with part would be fine on its own if it wasn't trying to outline whole personalities; sure, genetics give us various tendencies/predispositions and this when combined with similar material conditions and choices will surely lead to somewhat different outcomes. But this is not the same as an entire personality being in our DNA. And observation of cultural differences would support this distinction. I recall Dario Nardi, for example, one of the more serious names in MBTI for trying to observe and categorize it scientifically, talking about some variation in how types show up in different cultures. For example of differences, people who get categorized as extrovert in the US tend to be more gregarious and bubbly than in some other cultures.
But more than that, of critical importance is understanding the nature of change. Diamat suggests that dramatic change can occur. However, it's also not a thing that is going to tend to happen as a matter of whimsy via waking up one day and deciding to be a wholly different kind of person. Instead, friction resulting from contradictions will give rise to motive, motive may give rise to changes, and sufficient changes may transform from quantitative to qualitative.
With this in mind, it's not that we should expect personality to go wishy washy and change all the time, but we should also not expect it to be static throughout life. And to view it as rooted in underlying static characteristics in a person is ego more than science (no personality framework I'm aware of has managed to link genetics and personality - what limited science there is in it, is more about observing surface-level trends). In a hyper individualistic society, it may be reassuring at times to try to ground oneself in a framework of personality. But this can also have the side effect of individualizing systemic problems. "Capitalism is causing problems again? No, no, it's because I'm an XYZ going through standard XYZ troubles, that's the real cause."
This makes people less literate in understanding the world, more stubborn about who they are even if who they are is detrimental to themself and others, and works hand in hand with liberalism. Liberal likes to get swept up in this idea that no matter who you are, it's still valid. It doesn't have a proper answer for how this applies to people who chronically do terrible things to others.
In other words, we come back to one of the lies of modern western thinking, which is the ability for any given human being or institution to be "neutral". If we agree that this is nonsense and there's no such thing as a neutral, impartial view, then it follows that personality frameworks are also not neutral and impartial. This, I think, is easily observable in the fact that they tend to tell you what is the "good side" and the "bad side" of any given personality you could have.
So these systems are not neutral scientific observations, but are frameworks that are impacted by the society they come from. A personality framework coming from capitalist society will serve capitalist interests. A personality framework coming from a communist vanguard could look very different.
But it is also hard for me to imagine a communist vanguard seeing the need to hyperfocus on the individual in such a way. People are more alike than they are different and much of what they need is the same basic needs met. This is the primary problem that needs solving, via having control over the means of production and distribution, not validating every little contextual cultural quirk that a person has as something they were born with.
I say, believe in your ability to change. Just expect it to be a dialectical process that is impacted by the conditions you're in (which can also change), not through willpower alone. Dramatic change probably won't come in an instant. Instead, it may sneak up on you, after months or years of gradual changes made.
Be wary of systems that present themselves as neutral and come from bourgeoisie society.
And recognize the shared struggle for liberation. That's worth far more to be literate in than personality systems.