How is collective asessment of traits that are held in one's psyche using such tools as labeling one with a disorder even begin to reach a scientific standard? Such an assessment seems to be void of any sort of discernment beyond the properties that one has percieved in their patient in order to label them in such a way, but it is QUITE obvious that those with similar disorders rarely have similar cases, and thus rarely should be treated in the same manner. This arouses in myself the suspicion of American psychology as a whole, as such labels are the basis for ALL of psychology, even Socioinics, though Socionics takes quite a different approach. One's information metabolism determines the speed and accuarcy one percieves information of a certain kind, and only describes the possible ways a person might behave with such a metabolism, and as we know, there could be several. While the validity of this entire system is still in question, I believe it to be far superior then the aforementioned system whose assumptions of particular traits are based upon anecdotal information that one gets, and from there, is applied to certain criteria in order to label you in some sort of way. So, to what degree are such labels accuarate, and for what reasons have they not been sufficiently challenged, at least to my knowledge?

While I know many psychological terms have been debunked over the course of psychology's history, it seems to me that attempting to assess one in such a manner is psuedo-science, at best. So why in god's name are they doing this!?