i feel that the most relevant part of the hair typing system is the least considered, while the most irrelevant bit of info is the only bit of info many naturals are concerned with,and that is curl size, shape and pattern. i believe when it comes to selecting the appropriate hair products,developing techniques, ad considering the styles best for your hair type, the only info that matters is; porosity, elasticity,whether its coarse or fine, silky or woolly, or cottony, the degree of shrinkage.when often looking for "napspiration" in celebs, models, and fotki profiles, these characteristics are most relevant. there has been a few time i thought someone had hair similar to mine, but on of the previously mentioned factors made it impossible to use them for inspiration, styling guide or product recommendation!!! while there have been other with a completely different hair type, but we shared the same characteristics, and their product recommendations and handling techniques were far more helpful!!!sorry for the novel, those are just my two cent on hair typing!!
Setting aside the fact that the most often-quoted hair typing measurement system (Andre Walker's plus the 3c and 4c modifications) is highly unscientific and doesn't take into account the existence of different textures on a single head:Hair typing is simply a means to an end, not the end itself. A lot of people get this twisted by thinking that hair typing is a new form of good hair/bad hair segregation. It only becomes that when people add a value system to it and try to rank one type over another. Minus this kind of subjectivity, if you're new to natural hair, knowing where your hair fits on a texture scale can help in managing expectations about how certain products, techniques, and conditions will affect it. However, once you figure out what works for you, the hair typing system merely becomes another way of describing your hair in shorthand (to those who understand the language, of course). From a personal perspective, it then stops being a big deal.