Typing Methodologies

[ashlesha]

I usually just focus on what I read and apply it on this forum - most keep to myself in my head (just to check whether it coincides with user self-typings or not), some spit out and this Socionics via Absurd. With a little practice you too, can be disco dancing with the best.

you should make a type list

[Absurd]

I did. In my head. Anyway, have to drive, be back soonish (I think).

[xerx]

Temperaments, clubs and quadras are ok iff a person is a stereotypical example of that type. I find them useless for most typings.

information elements are ok, if using a more flexible understanding than the basic definitions (i.e. not the augusta, rixpatian kinds). That, and inter-type relationships, which is a powerful typing tool.

(I don't really care that much anymore though)

[Pookie]

Ni: Reinin is magical

[Absurd]

I thought Reinin was some kind of Ti people, at least from what I've seen (little). I can be wrong though. All in all, following lungs' post about science, it's funny Gamma NTs are "way more" scientific(?) actually swimming happily in a cell made especially for them. Jung and his clinical patients observations included...

[bolong]

I thought Reinin was some kind of Ti people, at least from what I've seen (little). I can be wrong though.

Reinin is ILE, so you're right..

In case of stirring relationships the things I sell my activator buys, and vice versa. We usually sell things pertaining to our second function. For example, a Don Quixote and a Hugo have stirring relationships. They usually 'sell' what the second function can offer regarding the third function, and they usually 'buy' what the first function can offer regarding the fourth function. This needs some clarifying. What does a Don Quixote sell? This type usually sells the way of understanding, the explanation of people’s relationships (this is exactly what I am doing now: I am, a Don Quixote, teaching you the way of socionics - a science which explains relationships between people).

[Absurd]

Reinin is ILE, so you're right..

I just delight in being correct in being right, thanks.

[Aquagraph]

4x4 grid is drawn to the ground, one square for each type, fenced and then you decapitate a chicken, throw it with divine guidance, see where it stops running while you chant yellow pages.

[Ron Mexican]

Hey hey!
So I'm just hoping that y'all could throw around some thoughts on how you detect types.
There's some types that I'm pretty good at recognizing, and others that I really don't know how to recognize...

Some people I meet and immediately feel a familiarity and know their type, and others boggle my mind!!
I think I recognize the Beta types the easiest, so if you have tips on how to recognize any/all types of the other quadras
I'd love it! (but if you want to include Beta as well, that's cool - all things welcome)
Anything goes. Whether you recently figured out someone's type and want to talk about that
or just any general thoughts would be great.

*BTW I would prefer, though, that this would be based on in-person experience with people, rather than typing off text.


Thanks!!!

[some chair]

Intuition and experience. "Expert judgements" as it were, to whatever extremely limited extent I might be considered an expert, though. I think this is the same "system" most people use, and the root of most disagreements. Everyone looks for different salient points that characterise the types, in whatever implicit or explicit vocabulary or symbology they have at their disposal. I guess if you wanted to accelerate into typology, you should read around on different author type descriptions, and familiarise yourself with the Big Five personality traits. From there, you should be able to characterise each of the types according to the Big Five factors (IEIs are Open and Introverted, adjusted for gender). That's just a speculative program, though

[Ron Mexican]

Thanks @Holon.
Yea I've actually already been into socionics for about a year and a half or two... I just never got into typing people too much except for some people I worked with...
The rest of the time I'd read about myself, my dual, and my dual relationship you know?
So now I kinda want to branch out..

[Aylen]

When I joined this site I sort of played around for months getting familiar with ideas but didn't really read much of the material and didn't want to so I was clueless to the lingo even though I was picking up on behaviors and certain traits and had already began putting people here into categories with people I knew in real life. Anyway the whole time I was playing around here I was observing and learning about socionics through my own interactions and with the help of forum members who gave me good instructions on what to focus on. It worked better than trying to read all that stuff all at once. Now I have a good basic understanding of it so I remember what I have learned exploring here, and using my intuition I am pretty good at matching people up to their types irl. I would say 80% intuitive and the rest based on my memories of what I have read not only the "official" socionics stuff but also my observations of people here and the stories they share. I do a lot of free association.

I knew nothing of socionics before December last year.

[InvisibleJim]

[Aylen]

Are you threatening me?

[InvisibleJim]

Are you threatening me?

[Olly From Wally World]

Hmmmm, it shows that I was mentioned but I don't see any mentionings.

I typically use information elements which includes strengths, weakness, quadra values, etc. Dichotomies as well but not so much with Reinin, mainly the basic ethical/logical and intuitive/sensor.

I've seen it said that Alphas are the children, Betas are the teens, Gammas are the middle-aged and Deltas are the oldest. Also seen it said that Alphas are childish in judgment and perception, Betas are childish in judgment but mature in perception, Gammas are mature in both judgment and perception, Deltas are mature in judgment but childish in perception (Fe/Ti, Ne/Si = childish, Ni/Se, Te/Fi = mature). I find these are good ways to look at it.

I'll only mention how Alphas typically seem to me since I feel like I have plenty of friends who are Alphas. They are usually really chill or really goofy. A lot more smiley, simple and warm than Betas but less dramatic and don't put as much energy into getting everyone involved even if they do enjoy group activities. Prioritize enjoyment in their lives and often don't seem that ambitious. I might not do a lot but my aspirations are still pretty big. Many of them seem into gaming but aren't that competitive in my eyes. Best friend is SEI and he finds the games I enjoy stressful and he's more likely to enjoy story mode while I basically only play FPS like COD and Battlefield online where I'm wrecking people. They're easy to get along with, likeable/cute but sometimes their simple happiness can be puzzling to me, you know? Does that help any?

[suedehead]

Alpha is like this.



Beta is like this.



Gamma is like this.



Delta is like this.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

i don't type ppl using a particular method. also, i am never sure about my typings. i'd say that i mostly base them on pre-existing patterns,either from vi,quadras,perception of functions etc

[Aylen]

i don't type ppl using a particular method. also, i am never sure about my typings. i'd say that i mostly base them on pre-existing patterns,either from vi,quadras,perception of functions etc

You feel like a nice blended NiTi to me. It sounds like a tropical drink consumed by mermaids...*splash*

[aisa]

hmm, well, when I found out about MBTI I got pretty much my whole family and close friends to take the online tests, then to read through descriptions and see if they match and if not then to look for some that do match. There were a few (I think two) people who didn't take tests and only read through the descriptions and chose. Then when I got into socionics I cross-checked their typings whether they transfer or not (basically along the "leading" and "creative" transfer).

Once I had that, I felt like they are my "base" for comparisons. Then I started learning more about how particular traits manifest irl and started questioning their typings in my mind (some I questioned irl discussing them with some of the people mentioned above, which led to some interesting discussions and learning, but all in all their typings didn't change except for one person from EIE to ESE, but I'm still hesitant on this one tbqh) and figuring out whether they use Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, etc. and whether the way these are used indicates their subtype.
So... that's my "base", which I periodically question - which then prompts me into reading more about particular traits manifestations depending on whether it's leading, creative, in which type and quadra... I also cross-check with VI examples that can be found in this forum, especially with the video material, as I feel mannerisms are the most important in VI if it's to be of any value.

Having said that, the people I was trying to recently type are my students and their parents or people I know but not too well cause they are a friend of a friend or sth and I find it's easiest to figure out the Fe/Ti divide and then go from that (nothing that hasn't been said in this forum, so I won't ramble even longer here). So depending on situation I go with it like this or listen to what my gut feeling is and then work my way backwards to see whether sth contradicts it.
I guess that's pretty much it.

Typing in this forum is like going into a zoo with lights off, some things shine through the writing, some things don't and going through any person's or celebrity's typing thread pretty much shows this, with results often akin to...

 

IEILESEILII...

[silverchris9]

I have a rather specific method. Usually someone will do something that gives me some guess as to what type they might be. Usually it has to do with their relationship to me. If it's relative to me, it's usually a guess as to quadra. Then my next step is all about intertype relations. Who are they particularly close to? Do they surround themselves with alphas, betas, gammas, deltas? Do they complain about people who are clearly one type or another. Who are they most themselves around? For instance, I work with a guy who is very plainly NT and a woman who I type as some kind of feeler. Now, I had no idea that this woman was as gregarious and interesting and friendly and funny as she is, because when I first met her she was around this NT dude and she was totally withdrawing into something that was not herself. That's a common reaction to polr interactions. Then, this NT dude keeps talking about logical problem solving, and working in a very Ti (as opposed to Te) fashion. So then I begin to suspect he's an LII, and that accordingly, she's probably some sort of gamma or delta sensor, given her really painful reaction to Ti. Given that I suspect she's a feeler, I now guess SEE or ESI for her type (and the more I think about it, the more one of those makes a lot of sense for her. She comes off as an introvert, creative subtype, so I guess ESI-Se is my current type assumption for her).

I also think that I tend to type in terms of the IEs that I understand intuitively. I can spot an Fe-leading type from 100 paces, with pretty reliable accuracy (they frequently remind me of actors, and I know PLENTY of actors). I can also discern certain types of Ni-leading folks pretty quickly as well---IEIs tend to be pretty easy for me to spot because there's something I recognize in their attitudes/detachment. (And now that I think of it, relative to a debate that seems to have recurred on this forum, there do seem to be relatively few people I'd type as IEI in my general interactions. I don't even know that I'm irl friends with anyone else I'd type IEI. But maybe that's because I want to be a special snowflake, I dunno). I don't understand Si and I tend to overtype people as ESE (perhaps as a consequence of that) so I try to be very very careful about that typing. Honestly I just try to be careful about typing anyone as ESE or LSE because those are types that I tend to get wrong.

If I decide to type someone who I don't already have a hunch about, I generally start either with Club (NF, NT, ST, SF) or Temperament (IP, IJ, EP, EJ). Oddly enough for intuitives I tend to go for club first, and for sensors I tend to go for temperament first. Then I'll refine Club and/or Temperament into a decent guess or three about type.

Above all, I try to come up with a well-supported guess about a person's type and then behave towards that person as-if they were that type, and then see what happens. I look at their interactions as if they were the type I guessed they were and then see if they follow the theory or not. For instance, LII co-worker is secretly quite chatty and loves to have long, energetic conversations with our mutual boss (who is clearly also some sort of Fe-valuer). But when I enter those conversations I immediately flow better in them (get more attention, more laughs, more agreement, etc.) than he does, because while he values Fe, I am, well, better at it. So that's another point of evidence in favor of the typing.

[krieger]

seat of the pants method

[InvisibleJim]

Science.

[Aylen]

Science.

[Amber]

[trifling nincompoop]

i have found that eliminating the absurd and vowing not to consider it helps keep me on track (if everything is absurd then you must ask yourself what am i missing). if you tend to come up with ridiculous theories like myself i would recommend it.

[ClownsandEntropy]

My typology system is made of ESFj's and not-ESFj's.

I actually just have a merry old time doing whatever I want, and then the person will do something and I'll be like "that's awfully EII...". Then I'll keep my eyes out for other things they do to confirm. So a lot of people I have no idea about, and some people I think "either EII or ESI... or ILI?" and the rest I have a good idea of.

[Amber]

My typology system is made of ESFj's and not-ESFj's.

I actually just have a merry old time doing whatever I want, and then the person will do something and I'll be like "that's awfully EII...". Then I'll keep my eyes out for other things they do to confirm. So a lot of people I have no idea about, and some people I think "either EII or ESI... or ILI?" and the rest I have a good idea of.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ire-(LadyB320)

[chemical]

In socionics, it is a blend of the quadra types with how they play out in specific information elements. I look for evidence of these as well as evidence that the desired interrelations to the non-ego blocks hold. In short, I type by information elements all fitting together in the rough pattern they are meant to, using other dichotomies/forms of cognition/etc as supplements for detection of the required patterns.

That said, I experience doubt in typings and am still not decided on my own.

[Contra]

I find a combination of inter type relations and quadra values to be the most reliable way. I usually start with quadra values and develop a general idea of the type of a person and then adjust from their if the relationship seems to be off from what it should be. If I'm typing someone who I don't have contact with then I just use past experience.

[mfckr]

I've no commitment to any given theoretical framework in Socionics—be it Model A, B, T, X, DCNH, or otherwise. So long as Socionics theory remains non-falsifiable, then asserting detailed models about Socionics in lieu of requisite means for experimental verification is a senseless exercise. I opt instead more for general heuristics that seem conducive to accurate & consistent typing. The overall approach tends to be multi-modal and thus broadly inclusive of many different kinds of evidence (catalogued below), with original 1°-source evidence re: the individual taking precedence over anecdotal 2°-sources & interpretations (unless the former is unavailable).

There are of course certain attributes I corroborate as typologically meaningful, along with certain conventional factors I intentionally discount—such as personal competencies, skill-sets, hobbies, and professional achievements. At best these might be weak correlates of type, yet their associated confound potential is high enough to render them unworthy of much consideration—e.g. someone being a venture capitalist shouldn't imply a likelihood of ENTj, someone being a theoretical physicist shouldn't lead to assumptions of ENTp, and so on.

I'm also dismissive of behavioral trait attributions, given their susceptibility to specious biasing errors errors (an entire sub-branch of psychology is topically devoted to this). In short, your idea of "aggressive behavior" may be quite different from my idea of it, such that one seemingly blunt, brash, and forceful to you, may in fact seem largely normal for whatever reason(s) to me.

In a nutshell I'd say: Socionics is better suited as a study of phenomenological cognition, rather than being a theory about efficacy or behavior. Ergo re: typology, I'm less interested in what a person does or how well [they think they do it]; I'm more interested in how they do whatever, and the ways they tend to perceive & experience reality.

Of factors I've been able to infer as reliable type indices, I try not to rely on any singular isolated factor alone to determine a typing. I instead try to gain an overall portrait from a variety of different evidentiary perspectives at my disposal, and see what that converges towards.

Depending on availability, I'll consider any of the following factors:

• Images and/or videos, preferably capturing the individual from a variety of different angles and expressions. Source media must be candid, non-airbrushed, and large/clear enough to notice aspects of that individual's face and demeanor which may be relevant for purposes of VI. I've been able to note certain characteristic patterns of facial muscle activity unique to each type. Recognizing these patterns can be learned, though they're not always immediately apparent. It's important to consider the many ways in which human faces can appear similar or dissimilar in contrast—merely looking like someone is not necessarily the same as VI-ing like someone. The use of VI-like approaches in gauging human personality is an active subject of contemporary psych research, as well. For instance, this article discusses links between facial appearance and Big 5 Trait Theory (link). I've a dozen or so other papers dealing with similar topical matter if anyone's interested.
• Bearing and demeanor in video. What are the person's eye movements like, in what kind of poise do they tend to hold their body, what patterns of muscular tension or slackness are present and where, what sorts of gesticulations do they frequently make? Much of this factors into VI, particularly for purposes of identifying temperament.
• Tone, cadence, semantics, and syntactical patterns present in one's style of speech and/or writing. The syntax structures and semantic content of one's discourse can give a wealth of constructive insight into how they think, what they tend to notice about reality and how, what their preferred modes of understanding are, what qualitative themes color their subjective experiences, and so forth. I corroborate much of this using the Sematics of IEs research page (link). The central unifying question in inferring such data is, "How do they seem to be consistently experiencing and internalizing information, and what qualities about it do they frequently emphasize?" I also try to get an idea of the epistemological values they seem to hold—i.e., upon what standards do they deem something as being valid or useful knowledge? What is their decision-making process like and upon what basis do they seem to be arriving at their judgments?
• Themes present in what they profess to be their values, outlooks, and motives in life—and most importantly, why? What is this person’s 'ontological disposition'—i.e. what sorts of concepts, ideas, and principles do they consider meaningful or condemn as meaningless? Are there particular philosophical or spiritual outlooks they gravitate towards?
• Tastes&preferences in art, aesthetics, and literature. What kinds and forms are they often drawn to, find appealing, or even inspiring? Are there particular artists, writers, comedians, or even actors they enjoy?
• Communication styles and interactions with others of known types that they're personally connected to in any capacity. What sorts of intertype relations make sense as the most plausible between them? This can include but is not limited to: Spouses, significant others, family members, best friends, hated enemies, colleagues, role models, ideological influences, etc. I mostly rely on the intertype relations as they're depicted at socionics.us.
• Spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type. Do they attract or repulse me? Do they seem like someone comfortable to be around or someone who'd put me on edge? Do I have a hard time taking them seriously or do they seem to easily command my respect? So on, so forth. These reactions can provide cues about the possible intertype relations between myself and that person.
• Correspondence to certain Reinin dichotomies (link). Thus far, the following seem to contain a grain of observable truth…
  – Static|Dynamic: Tends to be an obvious component of temperament. EJs and IPs are Dynamic, EPs and IJs are Static.
  – Merry|Serious: Useful indicator for / vs. / value preferences, that shows in a person's typical group interaction style and conversational themes.
  – Democracy|Aristocracy: The kinds of interpersonal criteria one uses to assess others, and what forms of social organization they're inclined towards (open/collaborative or closed/hierarchical).
  – Judicious|Decisive: Contrasts / vs. / value preferences. The former tends towards more leisurely paced environs, the latter tends towards more mobilized states of affairs.
  – Positivist|Negativist:
  – Involutory|Evolutory:
  The remaining dichotomies I ignore; I don't have enough experience noticing them, assuming they exist.
• Miscellaneous quirks, idiosyncracies, and minutia I’ve seen recurrent in others of a given type.

Supporting Sources:

1. General Typology: This interview featuring Lenore Thomson is a great primer on the subject of 'what is personality type?'. This article by James Hillman on typologies is also good.
2. Kepinski's Information Metabolism: Everyone should learn about it as I suspect most will find it interesting. My basic view of Socionics is largely shaped and influenced by this. I've found these ideas both effective and useful as a conceptual approach for understanding the nature of Socionics—insofar as what Socionics 'is', what IEs 'are', and what sorts of phenomena we're dealing with (or should recognize we're dealing with) when we try to talk about Socionics.
3. Temperaments: I utilize the basic Four Temperaments idea that's been around for the past few thousand years—Choleric (EJ), Phlegmatic (IJ), Sanguine (EP), Melancholic (IP). I'll find a decent source on this.
4. Information Elements: I largely draw upon Jung's original founding descriptions here, Rick's definitions here and here, and can see promise in Lenore Thomson's ideas here.
5. Reinin Dichotomies: I mostly work from these explanations, along with some characterizations from a few other Socionists.
6. Gulenko's Cognitive Styles: As described in this article, are proving to be another excellent resource for type screening and verification purposes.
7. Intertype Relations: I evaluate these along the same lines as described here and here.
8. Miscellaneous: I use the same 4 quadras with the same 16 basic sociotypes divided among them, each defined by the same 'ego' and 'superid' blocks, etc. I use subtypes too—just the usual accepting/producing 2, no DCNH or anything like that.

[Shiver]

Hello, haven't created many threads here yet as 90% of my activity has been in the shoutbox.

I do a ton of reading on my own from as many sources as possible to build an understanding of socionics, but have reached the point in the community where I notice my own interpretation conflicting with that of others - not to mention a high amount of conflict within the community itself when it comes to a consensus on any given user's type.

In this thread I'm looking for detailed descriptions and conscious methods that individuals here employ when typing others, specifically any ordered structure to their approach and what "tells" they seek or notice to identify individual elements by function in a typing subject. Note that I'm not looking for "vibes" or anything overly subjective or intangible. It's my belief that a scientific approach (and that is what I'm choosing to use on socionics, for better or worse; I can philosophize on my own) needs consistent structure made up of parts that are able to be - at least to some degree - measured and defined in such a way that others can observe and debate their legitimacy.

For example:

1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?
1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?
1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?

2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?
2A. Why that particular quality? Is it systematic in some way?
2B. How do you identify that quality (i.e. what defines it and is observable about it)?

3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?

4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?

Please note that I am purely looking for typing methods as far as the core theory. I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes yet, nor am I presently interested in typing by way of photographs. I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.

[Tigerfadder]

I will give it a try. For what the heck, It is not the full way im going about it but it is the points that make the line.

So for Si leads there is usually this uniqeness about them, their expression with their face. There is sometimes this negative expression going full circle making it normal expression. Disguised could be it, can apply to Se leads. Ne leads have biggest eyes. It is like them want to look at every place at once but cant because of how reality is set out to be. Fi leads have this large story about everything. They have a deep understanding of feelings how they arise from the depth of an individual. Se leads think they are the shit but usually more quiet then they think they are.

So that is the fun way of typing but there is also this. You can identify Fe pretty quickly and then you can find that person also value Ti. When you have these puzzlebits done you can choose between 4 types and that is kind of easy.

[ouronis]

1. Creative
1a. People use it to express their personality
1b. Simple indicators of overall motive
1c. The soup of perceived weaknesses in the individual

2. The most promising structure, which can be analyzed, but takes time to deconstruct, is the subconscious piecing together and filtering of various impressions without (as-yet) recognized external form. Since it is so detailed, using this structure requires significant time spent pruning possibilities and making sure statements accord with each other.
2a. It is systematic in the sense that detail tends to pour out if you open it in the right way.
2b. A sense of tension in the neck and mid-abdomen.

Leading functions will be much less obvious and the way to deduce them is getting the creative and reasoning about the two possibilities from the content of actions or thoughts.

[Myst]

In this thread I'm looking for detailed descriptions and conscious methods that individuals here employ when typing others, specifically any ordered structure to their approach and what "tells" they seek or notice to identify individual elements by function in a typing subject. Note that I'm not looking for "vibes" or anything overly subjective or intangible. It's my belief that a scientific approach (and that is what I'm choosing to use on socionics, for better or worse; I can philosophize on my own) needs consistent structure made up of parts that are able to be - at least to some degree - measured and defined in such a way that others can observe and debate their legitimacy.

You say you want a scientific approach. Then create an operationalization of your understanding of the constructs and go test. No need to post on forums for debate to do that.

1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?
1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?
1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?

1. Ego functions, preferably Leading function first.
1A. That should provide the most consistently observable trends of concretely defined categories extracted from communication analysis (categories of IEs themselves and categories of IEs in certain specific positions).
1B. By the usual definitions by the main socionics theory, taken at face value.
1C. The other Ego function

2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?
2A. Why that particular quality? Is it systematic in some way?
2B. How do you identify that quality (i.e. what defines it and is observable about it)?

Don't really go for any of this much, only as a side note. In the case of temperaments, I do consider Creative subtype modifying the base temperament.

3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?

All main steps:
1. Find Leading function
2. Find another strong function (not the Ignoring)
3. Check for dual seeking function too if possible
4. Any side observations

4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?

I analyze communication, not behaviour so I'll pass on this one.

Please note that I am purely looking for typing methods as far as the core theory. I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes yet, nor am I presently interested in typing by way of photographs. I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.

Good luck...

[Sol]

Note that I'm not looking for "vibes" or anything overly subjective or intangible.

"vibes" as intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior give typing match up to 30% and have average 15-20%. So they are not "overly subjective". These matches are close to when people type by methods like interview and questionnaires.

"vibes" is one of the 1st typing methods described in Socionics books and is used probably by everyone. There is nothing "special" to use intuition in typing where N function is just one of 4 functions of consciousness, but not esoteric thing.

> 1. What function do you look for first in an individual?
1A. Why that function?

As I have leading T, I generally start with T/F analysis. It's easier for me to feel and understand this difference in people.

> 1B. How do you identify a specific element as that function (i.e. what defines it most and is observable about it)?

F types are emotional, T types have more limited and lesser natural emotions and give impression of thinking. My analysis is like to think to description of which trait a man is closer, I watch and try to feel it.

> 1C. What is your second choice when the first preference is unclear?

When I analys T/F I may think about is it Fe or Fi, Fe or Fi valued if logic. To this moment I watched a man for some time, and have gotten also other thoughts simultaneously. About E/I, as it's close, and other.

> 2. If not a function, what other quality do you look for first? Temperament? Quadra values? Other?

Classical Socionics has no temperament analysis. It's Gulenko's specific thing

> 3. What other steps, in actual order or order of ideal preference, do you engage in?

I may try to feel more details about the type, for example according to A model.
And I think is what I feel fits to IR I have with the human. The more "black" places I have and more contradictions, - the lesser I'm sure in the type.

Sometimes I may use what impressions people get from my types examples and analyse this by IR theory. They may say impressions from concrete types, may to sort 16 types by the degree of personal comfort, may to compare some types groups - which one they like more (Te/Fi or Ti/Fe types, for example).

> 4. Optional: What do you believe is usually the most commonly observed behavior of each element as the Leading function?

my beliefs are close to what you may read in books. nothing special

> I don't necessarily need specifics on subtypes

there are no subtypes in Socionics. there are some author's hypotheses without good basis

> typing by way of photographs

photos were never thought as serious typing way, except marginal adepts of physiognomy
but they have some nonverbal information and other behavior information, so may be used

> I'm building a pattern out of any consensus I can find here.

You'd better read books and then tried to type people near. You will not get much useful info by your questions.

[Shiver]

I'm getting precisely the type of information I had intended - thank you for your replies.

Those percentages are, uh...something (i.e. garbage). I think I'll pass on those for now though.

[Beautiful sky]

First, don't look at stereotypes

[strangeling]

My typing method is to post my thoughts so somebody can tell me I'm stupid or react negatively and then I hate the people that get likes for posting practical or popular thoughts.

[totalize]

atm Im trying to type as many people (irl) as possible just for the sake of it. I use simple I/E S/N T/F J/P dichotomies then contrast with how I feel about that person's ego, i.e. strong/valued/conscious.