I propose a stable way of typing: look at someone's media consumption and pick out the themes in it. That stuff won't change under observation and it won't change dramatically if they become obsessed with typology (they might learn new things from their typology friends but they probably won't be night and day from what they already like.) When I first came to this site some Russians were using images, music, etc. to type people in socionics, but they were just looking for superficial qualities or technical aspects of the images when it would be much easier to have a few archetypal themes and proliferate them, never mind the fact that that kind of excessively detail-oriented work is missing the point of everything ever. "Archetype" was originally a natural sciences term anyways, referring to the original species in a genus, original rock of a type, etc. back in Romantic science. Big Five seems to have largely been validated this way and I'm going to be looking into how they did it mostly just because it will be cool. If the archetypes of socionics, enneagram, etc. can be validated this way, we can actually make psychology empirical instead of a method of social control that is effective on masses of stupid people or for impressing a certain kind of person you probably don't want to impress at cocktail parties, and useless for much anything else.