It's not that people keep talking about them, it's just that very little new information is disseminated.
I wish people would talk more about Jungian theory or MBTI, but the best we get is this Cosmo-ish rehashing of the same arguments. People have almost used the same arguments word for word in the two threads I posted. It gets very boring.
So yeah, heart's basically right. This topic is like Maury and paternity tests.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
Well, yeah. I think we've covered the "type is not the person, just tendencies" "the map is not the teritory" points several times.
I think CC was voicing a frustration that seems to come up a lot.
I think it stems from a frustration of being pigeonholed or sterotyped.
The same way we don't like it when all Asians are stereotyped as bad drivers (even thought I am both Asian and a bad driver).
It is so formulaic, that even I notice it.
People will often just say,
All <insert category here> are not <insert steroetype here>!
What do we really have to say about this?
Affirmative statements with "all," or "never" in it tend to be false-- An emperical observation of mine.
Since this particular set of stereotypes comes from a theory that people on the forum are familiar with and are studying. We set off another formulaic reaction:
But there is some truth in <the theory I am studying/exploring>.
I think the seed emotion for this statement is the feeling of not wanting to have wasted a lot of time. So in a way, we are defending our stake in the time invested.
So then we have this battle:
"I don't want to be stereotyped" vs. "My time spent was worthwhile."
We see it in a lot of hot button topics on this forum, not just in personality types, but also IQ and other theories/philosophies.
Anyway, hopefully that was a somewhat novel point to a very tired topic.
(I am not holding my breath, though)