Reply To: Hierarchies in Typology Communities

[Ivory]

Amen. The objectivity in recognizing type within CT is such a breath of fresh air. I have a crazy amount of praise for this project, but I feel like being negative so I will continue on with that (don't shoot me):
As Animal mentioned, there are the "development levels." While demonstrably real and they definitely should be explored, part of the issue that invites hierarchical thinking here lies in the naming of this phenomenon: development suggests developed and undeveloped functions. While this isn't a problem when looking at type in an objective way, we must understand that the vast majority of people who look into typology are, at least in part, looking to identify with a type and as such, instead of seeing their type listed with objective development levels, many will see it as ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ being a "developed type" - as opposed to being an un(der)developed type. The term "levels" doesn't exactly help with this problem either.
Competition is everywhere and you will never be able to avoid it. That's fact. It's the nature of Nature. But what is also fact is that according to the "development levels," an individual with I--- can become II--, meaning a gain in development level, and a theoretical III- becoming a II-- (is this even possible?) means a loss in development level. The competitive soul won't rest until they achieve IIII. And the really competitive soul will try to monetize "helping" others gain such "levels." 😉 It's like an RPG, and each level you gain you will hear a *DING* and gold sparkles will flash. Now, who wouldn't want to be MAX LEVEL?!?
Of course, the latter has MAJOR ethical problems, the biggest ones being the lack of psycho-therapeutic support and the overall infancy of this territory. While CT may not engage in such practices, the potential for this type of abuse is currently present in the basis of the model. It's something to look out for.