none of that is know, and by pure types, i mean that a type, if defined (understood) correctly can be applied to a layer of structure IN a human being, that has this typological layer at the stage where it has been observed on other humans on the same stages. its just silly to assume that type is supposed to describe and explain whole human beings. it's supposed to be an abstract map layer that captures (signifies) an structural aspect of the actual territory. if thats not possible, than it must be improved. also: if structure disassembles outer appearance of type at some point in development, than type must not be applied to individuals who have grown to that point, but it can be applied to their history. and whatever makes people individual besides type, is not relevant to type theory. i don't know, if present type theory is any good, but i am here to find out, and i insist, that type is supposed to be good, meaning it is supposed to match actual patterns of the territory (like apples or oranges), or else it is not a typology, by definition. else it is just a statistical tool, like saying there are 66 people with short hair and 34 people with long hair. this is not a typology, by definition. typology does "talk apple and orange". except we are talking about fruits that may transform into butterflies or stuff. so, typology does not say, an apple will always be an apple. but an apple who grows wings, is still somehow a (transformed) apple on the inside, even if now he should be classified together with winged oranges, because the fact that both have grown wings indicates a higher layer of structure and on that layer, both are suddenly the same type, but the same type in a totally different typology. they are winged fruits as opposed to ananas and kiwi who will grow no wings but branchias after transformation. so, you are one type of one typology, and remain that type, but if you transform, you are in addition another type of another typology. all of this is not subjective theory of zooming in and out, because nature actually does act in stages and types. types are also called holons. holons act in a self preserving manner, meaning that the will fight for their independence. a marriage of two holons does not destroy the holons, but only alters their appearance and also creates a single entirely new higher holon. every molecule is a type. every brain hemisphere is a type (holon). every organ is a type. the lung is not a part of the stomach, it is a separated on its own level, but only on a lower level it seems to be connected (ie by a sea of protein), but the lower level does not concern the lungs properties as holon. on a higher leven (thorso) lung and stomach seem to be connected as well. they are, but only on that higher level of structure. type is either a separated structural holon in our spirit (or a constellation of interactive holons, ie functions), or it is false = it is not a type, it is a theory that is wrong and deluded and should be abandoned. we don't know, we need to find out.
if you want a statistical tool about length of hairs, or amounts of aggression .. go for it, we had plenty of these in the past, we still have the DSM or five temperaments, but they don't deserve the name typology. not only do they not refer to actual types, a lot of them do not even refer to horizontal differences (differentiations of holons on a common level of structural complexity), but to vertical differences of different levels, meaning that in some falsely labeled "typologies" you could grow from one type (ie primitive) into another type (ie educated). such statistical tools of arbitrary "zooming in or out" are not typologies, neither are statistical tools that have a grasp on not arbitrary but actually separated stages of structural order.