Inspired by any number of threads:
People ask: “What is an ‘X’?” (actual ideologies supressed as much as possible to avoid recriminations). There seem to me to basically be two ways of answering that question:
Method #1: Find a bunch of people who style themselves “X”, follow them around, see how they behave, and then say, “An ‘X’ is the sort of person who does ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’”.
Objection #1a: A lot of other people who claim to be “X” will say, “Oh, but they aren’t real ‘X’!”.
Objection #1b: A lot of people (some of whom who may not even claim to be “X”) will say, “Oh, but you’re confusing coincidential behaviors with ‘D’, which is the real essence of ‘X’”.
Method #2. Find “N” who claims to be (or is widely recognized as) a guru of "X’, and read his statement that, “An ‘X’ is the sort of peraon who does ‘E’ and ‘F’”.
Objection #2a: Some (perhaps many) who claim to be “X” will say, “Oh, but ‘N’ is a heretic” (or perhaps more broadly, “doesn’t really represent the majority of ‘X’”).
Objection #2b: Some (who may not style themselves “X”) will say, “Oh, sure, ‘N’ claims that ‘X’ will do ‘E’ and ‘F’, but we really know that ‘X’ do ‘G’, instead”.
What think ye? Is there a third method that I am missing? How do we determine what “X” really is?