RaptorWizard's responce to SolitaryWalker's Typology as a philosophical discipline thread:
We must wonder whether typology is even a logically consistent enough of a system to accurately order people into set psychological categorizations to begin with, let alone adaptable enough to account for the vast diversity of people in the world. Due to external factors and conditioning, perhaps one could act contrary to their true nature, their true personality, and even test as such. After all, people can indeed act differently than their natural personality would dictate, based on adjusting to the environment. Due to this lack of behavioral consistency, one can conclude Keirsey’s typology to be incomplete, which is based solely on behavior. If even a fully self-mastered man were to accomplish qualities stereotypically associated with different types, the foundations would further fissure. Perhaps though, the psychological states of people and the patterns of their reasoning as well as thought dynamics could be greater concepts from which to construct a typology, founded from a philosophical framework. Philosophy could be defined as a primarily conceptual and abstract study of the world, asking such questions as follows:
1. Is it possible for the mind to divine free will, to control cause and effect?
2. What is the nature of consciousness, the ways in which we see and perceive things?
3. What is the ultimate nature of reality, the existential system designing all creation?
4. What are the foundations of thought, the forge from which the mind constructs?
These questions all address the mental makeup of an individual, and as such, these things are more difficult to directly detect. Typology is thereby a study of solidified patterns of thought, and one’s natural tendencies, not consistently contingent with environmental circumstances.