Quote Originally Posted by Encrustacean View Post
... so typings like IEI, ESI, and EII just based on 1) a forumite seeing me as similar to some archetypal description or invented VI standard, or worse: 2) a forumite seeing me as similar to someone they know irl (I question @Adam Strange being logics ego as opposed to like IEE because he apparently sees this method as nearly as good as any other.... Where do I begin describing how this will yield so many more errors in a system already plagued by vaguery masquerading as incisive categories... Even 3) gestalt impression of even the forumite who knows me best won't seem high level of evidence if it falls outside the parameters I've set.
...
Hi, @Encrustacean.
Actually, I don't see my behavioral "comparison" method as being as good as any other method precisely because, as you say, it doesn't capture all the facts which make up a personality. It is quite prone to error, as my typing efforts here have shown. I would much rather have a circuit diagram of the brain which details frequently used pathways, but that's still a ways off.
Lacking that, I'd say a thorough familiarity with the way the information elements express themselves, which @Chae and @Myst seem to have to a much greater degree than I do, is preferable. Coming in dead last is VI. I only use VI because it suits my purpose.

Remember, I'm trying to find an ESI IRL. While I have no trouble approaching someone and talking to them, I find it harder to ask them to take a socionics test on the spot, and I also need to quickly filter out people whom I don't want to approach. So, while VI is not always accurate, it is fast, and in LIE world, a pretty good answer right now is better than a perfect answer much, much later.