Typing Methodologies

[Azeroffs]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

[Jarno]

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

[Logos]

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

[mu4]

You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!

[Mattie]

Now that I'm an 'experienced' typer, I go largely by processes of transference and counter-transference.

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

Well, you did ask for practical examples. There go my mystical vibes.

Can't argue with that I'm guessing that you identify through dichotomies to gain context until you can start to spot the IMEs and their positions?

how much jung have you read? you should read some jung.

Most of the Jung I've read had to do with his other observations (archetypes such as shadow, anima, etc) rather than his functions. I have obtained his writing on psychological types and plan to read it when I have time. Why do you suggest this in particular, and I guess a more pertinent questions would be, has specifically reading him altered your typing methodology?

I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings. I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

Typing by comparison. (You do need a large database in your mind of people and their behaviour.)

If it walks and talks like a certain type, it is part of that type category.

My question to you would be how did you get your database, and how did you check your database before it was large enough to be reliable?

I have developed a cynical outlook towards typology. Typing rarely seems to be employed in a methodological manner. More often than not typing becomes an exercise of "I hate you" or "You rub me the wrong way," so you are in my opposing quadra. Or "I like you" or "You do not annoy me as much as others," so you must be in my quadra or an adjacent one. And of course the all too frequent, "You're so hawt, I want you in my quadra right now!"

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

[Ave]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

[Mattie]

When I first discovered socionics I read up on the descriptions of the types to get a clear idea in my head of what they were like. I already had some idea, based on MBTI so that part wasnt difficult. After that i immediatly started typing people I knew. As it turned out many of these typings were wrong, some were not. After that I got a better idea of the types and had some common trends in my mind based upon the typings i had made. Now with these common trends I tend to type based on surface impressions i get of people, mainly their behavior and relations with other types.

Mind giving some examples on what these sort of trends are? Are there some types of trends that are more influential on your typing than others? And what are the differences between the MBTI types and Socionics types, that you've noticed, in practice? Do ENTPs tend to be NeTi, etc?

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

I read your original post thinking you were putting a negative light on what you were describing, which is why I said what I did. But I find myself doing this as well, especially when I come to any knee-jerk assessments; I think it's a good rule of thumb to be weary of why you came to a certain conclusion, and to "fact-check" so-to-speak. I also try out typing them another type possibility as a counter-argument, if you will, and see if the original type was a better suggestion or not.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.

What exactly do you mean by "Objective Typing" and what do you consider the "basics" of IAs, IMEs, and the functions? And what is the methodology of how you "simplify" peoples' actions, and how is this useful? I'm not trying to quiz-show you, I'm genuinely curious about this paragraph.

Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

From my understanding, this would cause a lot of trouble. First, you're typing by actions that you don't necessarily know the motivation behind, and because of your type, you seem them in a particular manner. Just as an example and not to drag through theory, you will have a hard time not rationalizing something under your leading IME and it's likely you will not be able to directly observe your Role IME without dedication; and you won't always be having this switch on. So you're always under the influence having an interpretation, putting aside the argument that your subjective understanding of Socionics is, well, subjective. It would take a good amount of time to know a person so well that you can detect their motives to explain each of their actions... I'm not sure, I'd like to hear why you came to this.

Basically my whole complaint is that I have to use an impractical method to get some practical use, and even then the practicality is questionable.

For some reason, I don't find impracticality in how I type and the result. I think it's because I actively try using that information to see if something good can come out of it. It might come from that I've always been confident about my type and when I seem to go through a paradigm shift of understanding, I have confidence in myself to translate things over and adjust how I've been handling things. This also might come from that my ultimate aim to use Socionics as a practical tool, as it seems pretty useless to me otherwise; I don't find it a strong tool at the moment, or it's one who of electric drills with 3445 power settings and I only figured out the go button and make do with that.

My only requirement is that the overwhelming majority of evidence must be of a firsthand (i.e. primary source) nature. I don't like secondhand opinions or intepretations; I like what I can observe with my own eyes or experience myself through interaction.

I find this important because I get very different feelings from people on the forum and in videos and pictures in comparison to my offline interactions. Actually, you don't in person with this, but for me personally, I'd add "In person." The visceral feeling of other people, the fact that you're experiencing them and getting these feelings, create a better context for you as long as you're specifically aware of this context and how it influences you. I had recently plopped down some typing of forum members I've talked a lot with, but even then, something very gaping and missing is evident.

For example, I generally don't put much weight on things such as: Specific competencies or skillsets possessed by that individual, what their professions or hobbies happen to be, what their achievements in life may have been, etc. At best, I'd consider these weak correlates of type

This is something I'm generally aligned with and I find a lot of people disagree with.

As you might already know, I'm pretty dismissive of behavorial trait attributions as well. I consider them highly misleading and too prone to the Fundamental Attribution Error among other things. In assessing others behavior, the subjective element of perception is an oft-forgotten aspect of Socionics…

[...]


To put it in a nutshell: Socionics is infinitely more useful as a theory about cognition than it is a theory about behavior. I'm less interested in what you do, I'm more interested in how you do it, and in the ways you seem to think, feel, and perceive.

I'd like to hear what people have to say to this, because I agree and try not to type based on behavioral traits, but a lot of others' find it to be the way. Is it because there isn't a readily apparent alternative? I already know Ashton's opinion, so I'd wanna hear others'.

I find myself using mostly IA/IE dichotomies these days, though it really depends on what's most pronounced. In my experience, Jungian dichotomies don't tend to be clear in most cases

Reminds me of an argument we once had

Also, I probably wouldn't have commented as I did about your writing if I weren't somehow acquainted with you and considered myself able to tell what's typical for you. Or if it were less about your approach and more about opinions.

What about this was typical, out of curiosity (I want to see what qualities you pick up on), because I'm not really all that great of picking up someone's type on a wall of text.

It reminds me of an argument we had long time ago about typing and mirrors.

It differs a little from what we were talking about. Basically, this is my best friend from around the time I started learning MBTI (when I was 12-13; I am now 23, so MBTI has been in my life for 10 years, jeez), and when I typed her then, she was ENTP. Now, over the years, she has been gradually going to INTP, and I would say she is, indeed, INTP, but I kept in my mind that when was ENTP because I never ran into a problem directly with it. The problem comes in with Socionics because of it's close ties to MBTI... I just switched her over as NeTi because it seemed to work, and I was ENFP and translated well over to NeFi, so why not? The first cue I got that something had gone awry with my Socionics was when I had typed a friend of our's NiTe, but then I realized, oh shit, he's really SiFe! How the hell did I type someone their Super-Ego? I came to the conclusion that it was because he was an INTP in MBTI, and that had colored my typing. So I started to rework my typings now that I was aware of that MBTI-bias that helped me understand Socionics but was making my typings wrong, and I still never questioned my best friend's type; until recently. We have been traveling together and are taking a class together for the first time, and the different modes we have are just way too different, I started to question NeTi, and one day, I just popped into my head "What if she is actually TiNe?" and things eerily fell into place. Until then, I thought I interacted with NeTi differently than with my best friend because I had known her for so long, but she also has a lot of TiNe friends and the similarities were just starting to add up too well.

In general, when I type people, I don't have a person as possibly being one type and it's mirror, because I usually have a certain IME in place that would discount the mirror as a possibility. I usually have the creative/mobilizing IMEs figured out first, which would throw out the mirror typing; I believe the discussion we had over this was how typing by IMEs in functions wouldn't allow for certain type either-ors, such as someone saying "I can't tell if I'm NeFi or FeNi." Though, I'd be more willing to accept "I don't know if I'm NeFi or NiFe" over FiNe seeing that the blocks are all in the same configuration, just a different order.

[Logos]

I can understand this cynicism when it comes to the forum, but does this affect you as well? Are you unable to control your own urges? I was hoping for a personal methodology rather than the critique of others'.

This phenomenon affects everyone unequally. Though asking whether or not I am "unable to control [my] own urges" makes it sound as if it was deviant or perverted behavior. I would say that it becomes easier to reflect on the matter of a subject's type through continual self-awareness of this phenomenon. Sometimes I must ask, What preconceptions do I have about the subject? What preconceptions do I have about a type? Do I have an agenda with this subject? What do I know about them, and more importantly, what do I not know? Is the foundation for my conclusion built upon well-reasoned evidence or intuition?

[Skeptic]

I used to compose a list of actions they performed in what situations and then subjected them to a socionics analysis. This usually involved drawing parallels from their actions to the socionics IEs or descriptions. Aside from being very shady and creepy to have a big database of this, it could take hours if it was complicated enough.

 

Nowadays I recognize how totally inconsistent and wrong human memory is, so that database was really just a subconcious projection of my prejudice. I feel as though interactions with people are like dreams; the further in time you are from the experience, the further you will be from understanding. So I believe in speculation in the moment/right after, but not rushed. I've been trying to come up with a system based on the IEs to make this process easier, which involves reducing the IEs to very abstract concepts applied very indirectly by people in conversation; i.e. he's taking the initiative and speaking very confidently about this, what function is he using (how is he explaining it)? Now this other one is responding to him; how do they relate and is this a relation of functions? It's really intense!

Occasionally I picture everything I know about that person in my mind, trying on different types until one 'fits'. I really need to know them well enough to predict their behavior like that though.

 

A list of benchmark types; comparison is a great way to type someone! What bothers me most about it is that you could have been wrong in the first place, making it self-defeating...
Being around the person for a long time; anything you speculate before this is unreliable. I honestly don't think you can reasonably type anyone if you haven't spent extended periods of time with them, i.e. several sittings of several hours +.
Being around socionics for a long time; By seeking out new materials and reviewing/discussing the old ones I feel I have a more fleshed out version of the IEs.
Getting to know the person.. personally; 1on1 time will give you insights to what they're good at/what they like to do and a general overview of their life if you get that far in conversation.

 

Trying to explain a type based on intertype relations; Typing should be clear and not require abstract explanation. You could be wrong on the other guys' types too.
Typing based on personal feelings; your typings will change as often as your feelings!
Taking another's typing for truth; it ain't true till you've gotten your own hands dirty. I've friends who are just bad.

In general; Vibe typing bad. Don't rely on more than one person to type one person.

Objective typing;

I think objective understanding can be achieved to an extent; instead of blowing the IEs out of proportion in order to compare them to people's actions, I try to simplify people's actions until they compare to the fundamental basic functions. This is why I disagree with removing the essential basics from the functions; though a person's actions may not be forceful, once simplified and examined at their most primitive level they could resemble force.
Clearly, using this method, the problem no longer lies in the interpretation of the functions but rather the examination and simplification of another's actions, which leaves much less room for error imo, especially if you understand the person and their motives.

@words; I held your position a couple months ago; that socionics lacks any application and that it may just be imagined. That's why I tried to learn to apply socionics at its very basic level that left no room for interpretation of the functions but still works.

TBH; you'll never be able to get this crap out of your head so best learn to live with it... that's what I told myself anyway.

[Azeroffs]

Interesting, for me, something usually tips me off when I'm not looking to type them, and it makes me think "Oooh, this seems like such a good example of >insert IME in a function position here<" and then look to see if it reoccurs. I also find that quick typings are less useful, and over time when the person as a whole is really incorporated into your understanding, and what they do is Socionics-related and what isn't, then it starts to... mean something to you. You experience it and then understand, rather than mentally putting it together.

Huh, usually I feel comfortable with typing someone, but it's not completely etched in stone. I keep the typing until it seems like a lot of information conflicts with the typing (I had a typing of NeTi for my best friend, and as I started to realize certain communication differences, I realized the potential for her being TiNe, and then as I mulled this over, I realized she's been TiNe all along) and use it to understand misunderstandings.

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

[Logos]

Yeah I do the same as what you said here except that I purposefully question myself in order to make sure I have the right typing. But, I have problems with the inherent uncertainty of typings, and the general inability to say beyond a doubt that person is a certain type. So when I break down the uncertain parts, in many cases I could throw out the whole typing. What use is a typing you can't be certain of? How could I possibly make a a decision based on it? How can a make a comparison? Hell, I even question my type from time to time. Of what practical use something like that? I'm pretty comfortable forming opinions, but it doesn't go beyond that except in rare instances, and I'm not willing to base anything on that.

I know that practicality has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it affects my typing method by scrutinizing it to death so that I might be able to predict how a relationship might turn out or whatever else.

I beg to differ. Practicality is of enormous importance when discussing methodology. What use are impractical methodologies?

[consentingadult]

Mind explaining this in a little more detail? I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

ETA: it's not just what feelings other people invoke in me, but also my response to it in terms of action/non-action.

Transference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[blankblank]

I would say I benefited by understanding that certain things people said (like my best friend) weren't being rude, malicious, or intentionally difficult, and I apply Socionics to discern this. I also use it to adjust how I explain things as well, and to anticipate certain issues and prepare for them.

That's how I would like to be able to use socionics and other personality theories.

[Mattie]

Going along with this thread's theme, I was hoping to jump-start more of an active interest in maintaining the wiki we have, at least creating pages that outline our view on how we approach Socionics; this will not only help us think critically of our own methods, but also give us the opportunity to be exposed to others' ideas that might not be concisely presented here on the forum. I have my methodology and opinions more explicitly here: User:Mattie - Wikisocion

[DividedsGhost]

When I try to apply socionics, I try to keep in mind what socionics is. (information metabolism; essentially, what people are aware of and focus on.) I then look for anything which might signify key aspects of an element. What does this person focus on? How do their thoughts reflect their focus? How do their actions reflect their focus? I try to get into people's motivations and thoughts and derive where those motivations might have come from. A lot of the time it's unclear as a single action could the result of many different motivations, and motivation from many different awarenesses. I keep in mind that getting into people's heads is not easy, and often impossible unless they're willing to bring you in. I rely on my ability interpret the reasoning of things and people's vibes, but it's a constant battle of building up and then breaking down the conclusions I come to. Over time I've begun to realize the impracticality of trying to do quick typings, and I only give typings weight in situations where I'm able to get really close to a person and be sure I know them at a deep level.

Really the only thing of practical use I get out of socionics on a daily bases is the realization that people just have different ways of thinking about things and a way to try to rationalize it. I might assign a type or traits of a type to a person in order to understand where their coming from and adjust my perspective in order reach a compromise in situations of misunderstanding or general disagreement. But, often these traits I assign to the person are temporary in order to get through the misunderstanding. Assigning a permanent type to someone takes a long time and generally just doesn't happen as it's too impractical to come to any finalized sense of certainty that I have figured out their true type. There are a number who I will give provisional types to, but they're all very subject to change, and I really don't give any weight to the typing making it essentially pointless.

Freaking excellent . To expect anything more than the bold is a waste of effort. The study of human relationships and information metabolism is an always changing study.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

That said, in the short immediate term, I mostly look for situations where people are displaying leadingFunction-seekingFunction dynamics, as well as where people are utilizing their demonstrative function. In the long term, I look for inter-type relations and PoLR; and if that checks out, then I decide on leading and creative functions. That has been most reliable and rewarding for me in understanding and working with other people because these things tend to be somewhat variable in the short-terms among many people, depending on the situation. Of course, at other times, and usually in the long term, if the inter-type relations and PoLR are there, then I apply an overall type as most efficient in understanding. But basically, the more complex the motivations, the hazier everything becomes so I prefer to keep things situational (even when I have typed them) rather than static, unless the static has been shown to be quite probable. A static type for me would imply that the PoLR of the person typed has been mostly show to be stereotypical or extreme and that the inter-type relations are there to back them up, showing a clear particular leading and creative functional orientation.

[Mattie]

I somehow forgot about this thread lol I must have read it before leaving for somewhere and never saw new replies, sorry for disappearing

I'm not trying to objectively type, but get as close as I can. The fundamentals of types and functions I interpret as what is written on wikisocion; that is force, power, territory, Fe is focus on people, relationships and emotional atmosphere, etc. When I say simplify people's actions I mean getting to the origin of the action; why did they do this? What purpose did it serve for them? When you reduce their actions they more closely resemble the basic functions.

I was more wanting to understand what you meant by the term rather than question your intentions. I agree with the premise of wanting to find out how to objectively type as possible, and I can't really argue against your method. It's not exactly how I came to finding what is "objective," I also am curious to know how confident you are at guessing at peoples' intentions and motives, as that's something I don't feel comfortable doing because I can see people going so many different ways... Reminds me of another thread, and it seemed to be a vs difference, which I can understand. I don't think I personally would have came to either method you described in your example, I find behaviors and actions to be a hint but not good enough evidence. For me it's teasing out a person's thought processes and see the how and why they came to a reasoning or observation. My poor best friend is subject to many different strange questions as I like to understand how different her thought process is from mine.

Your argument assumes that we need to use a certain IE in order to see that IE. I have always thought that you can see the same through and also through . Just because we're using different functions to interpret another doesn't mean our judgement is inherently wrong or biased.

I didn't mean it that way, I meant that you always have the lens of certain IMEs on. So if you're -leading, you're naturally going to see things existing in context before you go about identifying certain behavior, especially when something catches you off guard. I don't think you have to be a certain type to conceptualize the type's process (in a basic abstract sense, of course). So I don't think it's impossible, but I think you have to go through an extra step, you have to realize that from the beginning, you've been building your understanding through your type... I only brought it up because I personally felt the method you described would fall prey to that, but I can't say that my method escapes such pitfalls either.

I think it's easy to recognize non-valued functions through the absence of valued functions. That is, / most often comes across to me as something like "not-/". I also find it useful to treat functions in pairs like this… i.e. if someone seems valuing, they should necessarily show signs of -valuing as well if this is true. It's a simple measure that can help double-check a person's type.

I've heard this from a couple of other people, but I can't seem to do this. I always spot the existence of something rather than the nonexistence. And I tend to piece things together IME by IME.

I also disagree with the idea that you need to 'know the person well' in order to type them. Typing is not that deep.

To add onto this, sometimes knowing a person too well can be a hindrance. I think knowing people well is needed by Skeptic's typing method, because they have to understand a person's motivations as connected to IMEs. I would say I don't need to know the person well because I have an idea how to type someone by what they are actively doing without needing to know (a large amount) of their thoughts that they don't express.

however if this was based on a relatively small amount of information i might not consider the typing to be that strong. but if i gather more and more information about a person that turns out to be consistent with the typing, it would only reinforce it. if the new information seems to conflict with my previous conclusion i may drop the typing and reconsider - whether it's the typing or my own understanding of things. generally, everything has to fit or it's hard for me to accept a clear typing. often i have someone's type narrowed down to a few options.

[...]

i don't force typings. if i can't get readings on someone then i accept that i don't know their type for the time being. sometimes people strongly come across as a certain type to me even when i wasn't necessarily trying to type them.

no typings are set in stone for me - i'll most likely never be 100% sure of someone's type and don't care to be. my typings are always subject to change.

I'm generally like this as well, I'll have a "working" type that I try to have the person "wear", and they wear it until something comes to contradict it, and then I'll switch the type. I think because I don't talk about Socionics too often offline, I never have a person's type as 100% solid, and don't feel pressured to report types.

regarding other people's opinions: other people's typings (or the person's own self-typing, if available) can give me some kind of a starting point to work with, though in the end i mostly rely on my own understanding of things to type, and to determine whether i agree with someone else's analysis or typing. if there is a consensus on someone's type, and i happen to have an unpopular opinion that i'm reasonably convinced of, that doesn't really affect my own typing much. i just think everyone else is wrong, until something convinces me otherwise.

also sometimes someone else's thoughts/analyses on someone's type, or socionics in general, may resonate with me; i find them very perceptive and i use them to improve my own understanding; and others' i just don't find that impressive or insightful and i find them easy to dismiss. i'm not sure yet exactly what causes this difference in my reactions.

I'm pretty much the same way, but my opinion of this person and how they are in multiple realms greatly affects how I deal with information coming from them.

It is similar to what Jarno said: in my mind (mind actually isn't the right word, but I don't know a better one) I have 'knowledge' on various types, and I type someone else by means of the 'feelings' (again: for lack of a better word) they invoke in me. So unlike Jarno, it's not how they look or behave, it's the gut response they invoke in me. This response almost always involves a value judgment of some kind, but it is not something rational (in the non-socionc sense) or cognitive.

I see, the "database" method is rather unintuitive for me, as I see too many nuances with every individual to really have a chunk of them in a category and have them as models. I always start with a gut feeling, like you, but I never end on it.

I would say I have found it most useful to just keep a basic easily adaptive model in mind for predicting behavior and motivation where I don't go overboard on trying to apply complex logistical systems that attempt to explain everything by putting people into static types. It will never work; it is just not worth the effort.

I'm starting to find that I don't really have a model at all... Just a whole bunch of terms with definitions and combinations that I check against what I've observed. I think if I was (for some reason) had no lead about someone and I couldn't get a gut vibe to guide me initially, I would just through every IA and function combination at them until I see a pattern or get a lead.