A friend of mine who's quite into philosophy once told me that a good number of philosophers did little but try to categorize things. Rather than draw meaningful insights, say, or squeeze every drop out of some experience, they'd simply say, here's nature, here's a grid I've drawn, let's see what falls into what square. Ok, good job; but what have you actually accomplished? (So my friend said.)

I don't know if this is true of the history of philosophy (or if it's a meaningful indictment of these philosophers), but I can't help but be reminded of it when I see strenuous efforts being made to bucket various phenomena, and human ones at that. What are we going to do with these categories? Not to put too fine a point on it, these things are complex. Any differentiating scheme simple enough will be insufficient to be the basis of any important decision, and any sophisticated enough won't be neat enough for us to be talking about it like this.

I say this as someone who spent more years than I'd care to admit obsessed with MBTI. Wow, look, there are all these different people with their strengths and weaknesses. I even get a cool framework—a stack—to aid me in psychoanalysis. And then of course you have Socionics, which shamelessly tries, using just sixteen categories, to produce a catalog of human interaction. I am not saying it isn't fun.

Actually, MBTI did help me in one way: by showing me how diverse humans are. In my most advanced, intelligent state, I'm still not going to get along with or be compelling to all of them. That was an important idea for me growing up, and still is.

But beyond that, and running the risk of sounding unsophisticated: who cares?