Archetypes

People like to classify people and personalities as "archetypes", or "dominant psychological traits", such as with personality tests, zodiac signs, horoscopes, "dog people" and "cat people", Apple and Microsoft, etc. However, archetypes tend to be more innocent in nature than outright saying "You're white, go away." Instead of labeling people, which is "bad", intended to separate people, archetypes are more focused on identifying people in an effort to better understand them.

Take for example, the Myers Briggs test, an imperfect description of archetypes. The test breaks up most personalities into 16 combinations of introversion and extroversion, knowing and sensing, thinking and feeling, judging and perceiving. It isn't made to cause people to say "Oh, ew, you're a ____", but rather to help people identify how best to relate to people, labeling people based on a symbol that typically embodies an exaggeration or pure form of someone's personality. A lawful, logical person, for example, is a "judge". An avid learner and creator is an "engineer", and a thieving, lying person is a "senator". That was technically a stereotype, my bad.

I, personally, like archetypes. i think there's something important in recognizing differences and trying best to create coordination in people groups, taking into account the differences of how people operate. "It takes all kinds of people", they say, and... 

Tangential rant, I hate when people take the definition and identification of race, gender, skills, and differences in general as something that is always negative because "labels are bad and do nothing but destroy humanity all the time without exceptions". I find that labels are a tool, and when utilized, create a more cognitive environment. I mean, I get when people want to try to treat everyone equality, but... Doctors don't prescribe the same medicine to every patient. Food stores don't throw everything on one shelf, uncategorically. And we don't all dress the same. We wouldn't normally ask a music teacher to build us bridges, and we don't go to Disney World for gasoline to fill our vehicles. Things are different, and if (I say "if" because it'll never happen) we learn that our differences are beneficial to the community, then we will achieve a peace that is not possible to acquire if we just ignored our differences. I'm good at math, and someone else is good at writing, so obviously, someone who wants help in writing wouldn't come to me. That's ineffective and impractical. People are different for a reason, we have different heritages to give us a space that is uniquely and comfortably our own, and people are different for the good of others.

Anywho, archetypes help us better understand how to relate to eachother. I won't ask an introvert to help me give a presentation because they are truly, truly, inconfident and uncomfortable in those situations. It's nice to be able to find other people that are genuinely like me and relate to them, and archetypes help me do that.

I remember a video game I loved to play, Spore. In that game, you evolved from a cell, to an animal, to a tribe, to a civilization, to a space-faring super-race. The decisions on how you interract with other cells, packs of animals, tribes and cities throughout the game will give you an "Archetype", giving you certain bonuses and dialogue options for your race and character. Certain archetypes get along better with other ones, and lots of archetypes are distrusted. For example, a race that blows up planets and turns air into lava isn't really "best friend" material.

I'm not sure how this relates, but... Spore.