I'm against labels of any sort that purport to define the person. In many of the examples that you used, I don't think they are accurate at all, but rather only your view of them.
What truly is an Urkell, someone who's a nerd? What's a nerd though, someone who's well read, or is it someone who's socially inept, or is it someone who enjoys Star Trek? There's no definition that's agreed upon, so what's the point.
In the same way, I regard Tiger Woods first and foremost as an athlete, a pro golfer. Then, he's a highly regarded business man. Those are his dominant aspects.
An arrogant bodybuilder is no more a type than a arrogant whatever. It certainly isn't a dominant trait of a bodybuilder. Based on my experience most bodybuilders are athletes who enjoy competing, and most aren't arrogant.
I classify Bryant Gumbel as an intellectual type, and then a journalist.
I could go on and comment on other of your supposed types as well, but I don't see the value as I have attempted to explain why these labels have no value in viewing people because people are multi-dimensional.
In case you don't agree, I can point out any error in your comments regarding the mixing of "different types". If you recall Common, the RAPPER, who's also a poet was invited to the White House. So, it seems that rappers and presidents can mix together.
By the way, perhaps you should read, The Invisible Man, as I don't understand your comment about not wanting to be seen as a Black Man. I ALWAYS want to be seen as a Black man. My Blackness is part of my identity, history and partly responsible for my sensibilities as a person. I don't want anyone to deny me that part of myself. What is most important for me is that I'm not JUDGED because I'm Black. But, that's just my opinion.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to swirlman07 again. :smt023
Well said as always...
Thank you.