i like the Temperaments, Quadras and Clubs; each of these offers its own snapshot based intuitive perspective that is integrated into a composite intuition on a person's type. functions i have started putting less stock in over the years; they are more like phantoms of the theory (like particles in quantum mechanics) than real things that can be pointed at and shown, or even "seen" beyond what Ts, Qs and Cs can tell you.

now, that is just the first stage of the process. after you've intuitively decided on a typing or a partial typing (such as IxTp; which i strongly encourage) by this method, you need to find more demonstrable features of typing eligibility to be able to meaningfully contribute to a typing debate. intuition can be a guide to the process of finding things that can approximate (by which i expressly don't mean reach) the solidity of empirical proof, but as a mere "as offered" confession it is insufficient. the search should be for things of which both the "measurement" (i.e. whether it is the case) and the pertinence (i.e. what it means, in what way it is relevant) are not publicly disputed (much). but on a community wide level there should also be means of settling disputes on what matters and how facts pertaining to typings are established...

the second stage is where i (and by my estimation pretty much everyone) gets stuck, which is why i don't spend much time discussing typings anymore. the only way to really fix the process is to introduce an extensive academic environment complete with empirical testing and statistical correlation work being done, but the resources for that just aren't here, not to mention much of a motivation for it. and this assumes somewhat liberally that in the end it would be possible in the first place.