hahaha - i see how it works, and its sort of relates to a conversation i had with [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] a few days ago - what is the simplest thing you can state about typology that is self evident? what is the absolute bear minimum you can state about it as being correct without any evidence to support anything else - not the functions, not the dichotomies, not the extended readings about what the types mean or how they interact... just looking at what we know:
we know that people read typology, look at some types and decide this isn't who they are, and look at other types and thinks that could be them or are sure it is them. perhaps one compliments them more then the other, perhaps one illustrates who they like to see themselves as more then the other, who they think they are.
so at the absolute minimum, we have a typology of ego's - a typology matching
some people's sense of identity