I think, (and I'm being presumptuous here), everyone knows there are no true 'bins', and that people are complicated, and every characteristic is from in a continuous metric, and there is no good or bad.

I also think that this is why bins are used. It's not an attempt at correctly describing people, but rather a simplification, using general terms in order to communicate the traits in a, best-effort, meaningful way.

I could never adequately describe how I _truly_ am as a person. All I can do is draw on gross simplifications that you yourself can translate to a meaningful metric based on your own experience.

Sure, that makes sense, I'm just of the opinion that scales describe people a bit more accurately than bins, e.g. the Kinsey scale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

I think you're right, though, most people probably use it as a sort of description rather than a hard categorization.

People have a massive incentive to put themselves in bins: it gives them the opportunity to hate on the people in the other bin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

> Well, enough of that. Here's a new theory: There are no bins, there's a continuum of behaviours, and there's no good or bad.

Hey, if you can convince the other 7 billion people who drop people into bins as a matter of biological instinct that you're right, then cool.