Why do people have a problem with people mistyping themselves?
Possibly this has already been mentioned and yes this is not necessarily the point of your topic, but id have said from my own observations of forums such as these, concerning this theory that:
People need self-confirmation and affirmation. They need it like they need air. The interesting variety within this requirement is what is most intriguing to me though.
Some people admire the love of humanity; a sense of clear morals and connections to their neighbours, a burning passion of an arduous nature for it is both beautiful and terrible as it requires the lines of ethics to be drawn quite clearly and sometimes the clarity of an individuals morals are also it's greatest weakness.
Then there are those who admire the cognitive abilities of humanity; they admire the heights of clear and rational thought, soaring above the lesser concerns of those who would find themselves entrentched within complacency at the cost of innovation and within emotive content at the cost of clarity.
These are only two examples of what a person might admire. Some might say admiration is directed towards skills or attributes you do not possess, others would say the opposite. Id say it is inbetween and it is this very inbetween that this theory has hit upon so brilliantly.
So an individual introduced to the theory cannot help but admire him or herself for the archetypes of what a type is, constructed over time by a collective of opinions and assumptions. So many take great pride in attachment to a type so much so that they come to believe that anything that type does is reflective of their own potential.
This is a dangerous thought path to walk down, but so many do and it is equally trod by both thinkers and feelers, intuitives and sensors. But I am not innocent and I would not wish to present myself as some arrogant seer above the flaws he spots. But in noticing this I also learned to turn back from that trek and curtail such traps before I become too sucked in.
Essentially groups then begin to emerge within the idea's of types, they centralise their conclusions, admiring and patting one another on the back at their own brilliance.
"Im the most intelligent, the most logical"
"Well im the most caring, possessed of a sincere emotional depth."
"My abstraction destroys the effluent nature of your abstraction"
"This is irrelevant because my reality is sound and cannot be shaken, I do not need your foolish abstraction, I love what is and admire it for that honesty".
If such a person should appear of a type, but he or she deviates from the group perception....suddenly all is not well.
"This person breaks the framework"
"You dont vibe the right way"
"My type would not say or do it like that".
Now we find ourselves in an odd position and the outcast is either defensive or submissive to these pressing charges.
So in the end they either fight their corner but still end up acquiescing to the group and are absorbed by it, or they submit and are thrown into the void, hoping for acceptance in one of the other groups.
The important point to remember is that these groups may define the heuristic evidence of this theory for themselves, they may define the definitions in agreeance, but this alone is not required to be correct. But it is that very heuristic nature which makes this so hard to avoid. Afterall if there is no collaboration then all is meaningless. It is also made difficult by the reality that not all such accusations as noted above are unfounded.
This is why I would seek to unify the collective towards set standards, but standards that would still be somewhat subject to contextual influence, because the perculiar animal of humanity is a most contextual beast. So in the end both the objective and subjective standards need to be brought into line to stem the tide of mini-group outrage and prejudice.
