Typology is a systematic approach to categorizing personality. Polished sources on the Internet tend to define “typology” used in this sense as the study of personality type, or simply type. But type is a very vague term, and it no longer applies to typologies (systems that categorize personality into groups) today like it had decades ago. Modern typologies, or rather modern interpretations of typologies, do not necessarily recognize type as a prevailing concept that precedes the subjective experience of personality… which begs the question: what actually is type?

Type is a concept that exists (an important word we’ll keep in mind!) for many typology hobbyists you will eventually encounter on the Internet. This is less a matter of if than it is when. In fact, you might be one of those people! But regardless, we have a lot to talk about; type is a root sensibility among typology hobbyists and is, once undisguised, best described as an assumption and a fundamental misunderstanding of personality.

I firmly (yes, firmly) believe that upholding type as a concept is bad. The notion is primitive, profitable, and exploitable, and given that belief in the existence of type is prevalent and often unopposed within the typology community on the Internet, the consequences have already begun to show in many ways: how personality theory is marketed, how various companies have profited, how people have been led to form typology culture, how people theorize and form new ideas regarding personality, and how typology ropes people in. Typology as a field (can we call it that?) has spun off into something that pretends to be worth your time as a result of all of this, and… it’s not your fault.

How do we even tell right from wrong when it comes to abstract ideas? My ideas about typology aren’t unequivocally true, after all, because it is simply a perspective, and it’s awfully easy to say that all perspectives are valid if they can’t be logically proven right or wrong. And I think that’s the most annoying bit between it all—whether you believe in type or not is simply a product of your conditioning. Was your introduction to typology through cognitive function drawings posted on Tumblr? Or was it through reading an article that describes the social evolution of the cognitive functions over time?

Which opinions hold social power? Which opinions seem to come out on top? Which opinions are treated like facts? Again, regardless of what our individual opinions are regarding belief in type, it is practically undeniable that power is in the hands of its proponents. It is a prevailing opinion, and hence is commonly accepted as though it were a fact regardless of how well it performs persuasively as a result of the thinking behind it, because the truth of the matter is that an opinion does not have to be valid (intellectually) to convince people. It only needs to suffocate anything that opposes it. Recognizing that, I also realize that I am now in a position of power—with an audience large enough to influence the public opinion. Declaring this shouldn’t nullify whether my message is true or not; I say this to bring awareness to how one can genuinely change the common perspective.

Type, also known as the “One True Type,” is a transcendental concept in personality evaluation that recognizes a categorizable force that creates and/or influences personality itself. Most believers in the concept of type may not necessarily agree with the statement above when worded this way, but their limiting beliefs reveal that this central assumption does remain at the core of how they approach typology; it is generally subconscious, and internalized as a result of how people interact with typology. My personal observation is that there is a gendered aspect to how it happens, too: women tend to internalize type-related beliefs through searching for ways to explore themselves and their relationships, and men tend to by searching for ways to systematize complex thoughts and ideas into something simpler. These are not absolutely tied to gender, but entertaining this trend may aid you in realizing where it all comes from.

The connection is, however, usually drawn when we actively try to search for true meaning in typology. It presents itself as meaningful, and the endless theorizing surrounding it certainly seems to support that notion. This is why the “cognitive functions” are so revered in typology circles despite being almost entirely meaningless (I’d like to say there’s meaning in it as a case study?) and why drier, trait-based systems like the five-factor model are generally dismissed. Typology is all about the magic—drawing tenuous connections from reality to systems where we categorize based on intuition rather than strict criteria.

And where there is magic involved, there will be more magic involved. And why not? Believing in type gives us the power to know all—know yourself and know others in a way that goes beyond just simple traits that anyone can call out. If you are aware of type, you would theoretically also be able to foresee the coming self, too. Everything is just an expression of a specific factor that already preceded it; powerful, don’t you think?

But it’s also a really depressing way to approach believing in type. Imagine a world where people simply couldn’t surprise you—you know who they are through and through because you are aware of something about them that creates what you are presented with. And maybe… yes, some people do look at it this way. But some people don’t face that idea—it’s easier to be preoccupied by (re)interpreting concepts in typology and applying it to the world around you to understand both the people and concepts (and reinterpret those…) you are working with better. What do I mean by this?

Recall this idea: in theory, if type were really a significant idea, it would be able to predict personality perfectly. If you were aware of what creates personality, then deriving personality from it would be a thing, too, right? Maybe we wouldn’t be “there” yet, but it should exist as a possibility. Type would succeed as a predictor of personality.

However! Have we really ever successfully derived personality from type? Think about this carefully. Now help yourself out: How do we separate the concepts of abstract type and observable personality? Why are people so fickle regarding their own types? Why is it that people can explain personality through type easily only after an action has occurred? Why do people’s perceptions of what types are change based on reality? The answer is fairly simple—type simply is not a transcendental concept and is defined by a typist’s circumstances: sources of information, interpretation of that information, and how it applies to the typist and the world around them. And if it’s circumstantial—that is, heavily environmental—type cannot transcend personality. It is just how we have (socially speaking) chosen to categorize personality itself.

Remember how I alternatively called type “One True Type”? Maybe the most common internalization of type belief is a rather benign one that does not extend too far in its assumptions; this is the belief that no matter who you are, there is an “objectively correct” typing that exists for you. Given enough information, you will be able to narrow down your actual type. This also lends itself to a fascinating approach in how multiple typologies are reconciled with one another: they directly interact with each other to create a very specific, unique picture that you embody. You will hear about different flavors of types, where a type you identify with in a certain typology system will affect how a type you identify with in another typology system will appear. Combinations, flavors, variants… these terms all essentially mean to highlight the same idea—that the reason you are more complex than typologies seem to suggest is because you appear incongruent before each of these systems. You are just the complex product of those apparent incongruences! And therefore, you have a One True Type.

So… what’s the point? What’s so bad about this approach to typology? In short, people are just really complex. But typology? It’s not particularly complex. In a saner world, we would just express frustration when we come to terms with this idea. But in our crazy world, we decided to try and complicate something that frankly doesn’t tell us much. The authors of typology—those who created the systems we work with today—did not have you in mind when they did their guesswork. They only had their own worlds to start with, just like we have our own. We can try to play their games, but we should accept that they simply don’t apply to our world. Jung, Myers, and Augustinavichiute all belonged to different societies with different problems, different answers, and different ideas.

Let’s approach typology more pragmatically; we can try to delve into each of their worlds and theories to type people, but we should also take a step back and realize that they may not have had all the answers. We can use typology to understand things better, but we should also understand what we are understanding and how it shapes into our context. Type doesn’t exist, and we shouldn’t try to pretend it exists. We can play with magic, but we’re not witches and warlocks.