Various people, fields in general, and employed strategies share a method of categorizing and classifying in life. Psychiatrists diagnose, taxonomists create detailed trees, and astrologists demarcate a fixed number of types of people. Why do we do this when we know that life is too complicated to fix into a particular shape? Surely to craft meanings but should we embrace a methodology we know is somewhat futile?

Central to the question is the value of derived generalizations. Should we impose generalized lessons backed by empirical evidence knowing very will the limitations of both generalizations themselves and study parameters? Or should we rely on ourselves individually, taking more of a figure life out for yourself approach? As yet I don't have a position on this question, I just know that social scientists prefer the former and Emerson and Thoreau the latter.