As a member of the type community who will probably see the great majority of his life spent in the next century, the question of where the community is going and why is very important to me. I was pleased to see a few young faces like myself at APT in Phoenix, and I began thinking about the next generation after attending Mary's session, on type history and her experiences with Isabel Myers. Questions and answers started popping into my mind: why am I interested in type over some other theory? Why do I want to write an article (this one)? I hope that some of the ideas here will provide you "older" members with a sense of things to come!

For me, and I think we all agree here, type is a language to talk about human differences and similarities. At its best, when we know the theory, it's like second nature, and doesn't force others speak or act in a certain way to use it.

It's a great perceiving tool: listening more carefully, observing with more acuity, and feeling with more awareness.

It's a great judging tool: knowing how to reframe an idea, teach to different styles for example or deciding to try something a different way.

Like many people, I was brought into the fold by "Please Understand Me," and later I read "Gifts Differing" and many other works. There is a lot to type, many models: the functions in their attitudes, temperament, the four- letter code, interaction styles. For me, if I had just been exposed to one of these, type wouldn't be a language but a small set of labels. Real languages are rich and dynamic, with many ways of expressing different ideas. As an INTJ, I remember feeling really caught up. There is so much to learn! It all works together! And most importantly, it works for me in the real world of human interactions! This "type is a language" idea is one of my four "pillars" of type.

I come from a "systems" background. My engineering Ph.D. is in "Systems Science," which includes many ideas: heuristic problem solving, philosophy of science, artificial life and artificial intelligence, industrial engineering, personality and the mind. There's a lot more than the recent paradigm shift. Interestingly, someone else my age at APT was also hails from this background. Maybe that's not a coincidence.

Sometimes, my family asks me, "what do engineering and psychology have in common?" Systems is a meta-language, a way of getting a handle multiple threads. Systems helps us use many models within type, not just one, and not as a static recipe of directions but a set of flexible tools. Just as there are many languages in the world, there are many models, and systems is our translator. We can talk about processes, patterns, different selves (inborn, developing, adapted) etc. And it's a great tool for perspective shifting - and isn't that type's ethical prerogative? I like to think systems thinking has guided type before the word came into our awareness. It's the second pillar of type for me.

Without the ethical and moral compass, type would be just another model. I remember reading how Jung's break with Freud evoked the functions in their attitudes - literally and figuratively! Wow, a personal compelling history and motive. Jung gives us an alternative to explaining people in terms of dysfunction. Similarly, Isabel Myers' legacy was a personal mission. People CAN be happy if they know themselves better. People CAN be happier with each other if they reframe differences as different gifts. And David Keirsey's admonition against the "Pygmalion Project" is my read of why temperament is important ethically.

Now could we have type knowledge without the ethics piece? I've seen some people (those uncertified users!) use type that way, but I really can't imagine people being interested in or supporting type - even giving their life's work in some cases - without a compelling moral vision. Type really keeps us on our toes, to "walk the talk" and "talk the walk."

Now I don't even know if I'm allowed to say this, but of course, politics weasels its way into all sphere of life, and I think it's sad when, as new young member of this community, I witness in fighting and maneuvering. Is that something that's gone underground, in our shadow? We're all supposed to be the identical in thinking about differences, right! What a paradox!

In a different vain, I don't know if this is others' experience, but when I introduce new people to type, if I see someone actively resist what I often see is resistance to the moral and ethical prerogative. The idea that they'd have to completely re-examine and discard some beliefs, realize that maybe the "ex" or "boss" isn't so heinous, and then change themselves.... At the very least, a lot of people my age ask, "why are so many people so 'unconscious'?" This is why, for me, "ethics" is the third pillar of type. Is not a static guide, is evolutionary.

I suspect the last pillar of type may be obvious to many of you. What are the contributions, applications and learnings unique to each of us, that don't fit neatly into my little framework? What's your desired outcome? Self-development, enhanced creativity, better leadership in your organization, or a richer understanding of the world? These are all processes that take a lifetime to cultivate, often without cut-and-dry causes, beginnings, ends or transitions.

Someone at APT, during one of the lunches said something like: "I am not involved in organized religion. Basically, type has filled that role for me." Wow! Heavy duty! I'd like to think that whatever each of us is going to be taking away from our experience of type, that we remember we are both individuals and a conscious body. When I first thought of this article, I thought of it as a manifesto of sorts, to evoke: why do we believe? But of course, in the spirit of type, it is really about where each of us is in the process of believing, and that there is not fine line between now and the next century, or between now and the next generation.