wait wait wait.
You mean like, we all agree on definitions/understandings/meanings/foundational-knowledge? And go from there?
as opposed to
Everyone has their own interpretation?
Assuming that's what you mean, is it even possible at this point? I'd like it if we could talk about the actual foundations of it all and go from there, but it seems like the typology community doesn't want that.
Something like
Step 1: 8 types -> Leading function -> Start with Chapter X on pyschological Types
Step 2: 16 types -> Adds creative -> Something like Socionics. Talk about what people think Socionics has right or wrong and whether Jung "should" be improved or ignored or whether we are oversimplifying things with Socionics. For example, people often criticize Socionics for having Alpha bias because it was made by Alphas. We could go back to Jung and see how things are wrong or at least talk about it. (But maybe people have already done that and those people are gone, I don't know). At least people could actually say what's "different" between Socionics and Jung, without just saying "it builds upon it, so we can say it's different. Okay, what's different exactly?".
Step 3: 64 type -> Gulenko DCNH -> Build upon the 16. Start to actually explain the differences. Supposedly Dario Nardi supports Gulenko's typing system. But we can't really talk about this, until we talk about the other levels first. I'm open to Gulenko's subtypes, but I've largely ignored them because it's hard enough just trying to talk about Socionics 16 or even Jung's 8 types, let alone DCNH, lol.
It's like learning algrebra before calculus, right? Mathematics.