Since K4 rarely feels inclined to explain his typings you can get a general idea of his method in these two posts. @FarDraft @queentiger

Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions. To date, opponents of VI have not been able to disprove VI by showing examples of identical twins where the vibe is totally different. I put the challenge out there but nobody has been able to meet it. You will never find a set of identical twins where one vibes like henry kissinger and the other vibes like Jim Carrey. More than that, identical twins tend to know what the other is thinking and they can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. It goes beyond just a sibling bond.

Not every person of the same type will be identical twins, of course. So it becomes a question of where to draw the line. That's where VI has to be tempered by common sense. The Intelligent Design Method of Typing is just that, VI + Common Sense. That's where reading up on these people is a good way to find out where one type ends and another begins. You can find a chain of VI proofs in the beta examples thread, where I build one example off previous examples. So very often, the same personality markers appear in people that VI alike. VI is also effective because it undercuts all those socially constructed differences/similarities between people, like race, gender, status, occupation. It also undercuts other factors such as differences in IQ.

VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to their replica. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. In other words, they attempt to exert conscious control over their personality in order to distinguish themselves from their twin. And some can be successful at it. But mother nature has the final word on it....the vibe doesn't lie, as vibe and micro-expressions speak more directly to the nature of your personality.
Quote Originally Posted by Kill4Me View Post
I also use the Open Borders Approach, another one I coined. I am speaking to two fundamentally different views of Socionics.

The Open Borders approach dissolves the Quadra Values mythology….”drains the swamp.” Socionics New Wave still recognizes Quadras but in the same way that England recognizes the royal family. We will call them King and Queen but they don’t have any actual power. Although there may be some values loosely associated with each quadra, there's absolutely no rational basis for treating Quadra Values as an axiomatic principle of Socionics. It's ludicrous to use it as starting point.

The Closed Borders view is the one that is held by pretty much every Socionics School of Thought except for Socionics New Wave. That is, the view – religiously held by some -- that there is such a thing as Quadra Values and that one can or should begin with quadra when typing. So in the classic methodology, first you type Quadra based on Quadra values, whatever that means, and then you narrow it down by one of four types, either through VI or one of the less objective, less serious methods of typing.

Consequently, the VI breakdown for each Socionics type laid down by Socionics New Wave is much better than the breakdown proferred by Socionics.Com. Even though both schools of thought recognize that VI is superior to all other methods of typing, pinterest.com/socionics's breakdown is not inhibited by a Closed Borders Approach. The Open/Closed Borders difference may not be the precise or only reason why the New Wave breakdown is better. However, I can affirmatively state that the New Wave breakdown would not have come out so great if it had been based in the more arbitrary Closed Borders Method.