I want to know how you personally go about typing people. Do you have a set method that you use every time? Do you type based on vibes? Does VI factor into your typings at all, and if so, how? Do you like to figure out the program function first, or do you perhaps like to do something weirder and start with the HA? Do you focus much on quadras initially? Do you plug elements into a function until you find one that fits? What's your strategy? I'm curious.
In addition, do you feel your strategy is better than others? If so why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of your method?
As for my own strategy, it's a bit loose and may vary from person to person, but in general it's deductive. If I really wanna sit down and figure out someone's type I'll whip out my whiteboard, write each type out, and then also write the 8 information elements out. I cross off elements which definitely aren't ego functions, and then cross off the corresponding types. Ideally I do this with the person I'm trying to type so that I can explain each one and they can give me feedback on what does or doesn't resonate with them. Generally I try to make it as much of a collaborative process as possible if I have access to the person themselves. I don't trust typings assigned to people who don't understand the theory at least a little bit. I still use such typings for my own reference, but consider the typing "incomplete" until I sit down and confirm it with them. Anyways, most of the time we are able to establish whatever the rational ego element is. I find rational ego elements especially when extroverted (Fe or Te basically) to be the easiest to spot. Sometimes I'll even mark out a few functions Fe or Te could occupy in someone's type if I'm really stuck even if the person definitely isn't an Fe or Te ego type. I do this because typing can often get very abstract, and identifying and working from those elements I feel can help ground things again if things are getting too hazy. I basically keep repeating the process of figuring out possible functions the different elements could occupy, and narrowing down the types they could be as possibilities are thrown out. My method is a lot like playing sudoku with type. There's usually a few things which are somewhat apparent, and I work from those to gradually come to a conclusion I feel is basically irrefutable, because in the end, assuming that I at least understand the definition of the elements and the typee's cognition properly (which is why I like to have them there with me), even if the type we come up with has a weird description that doesn't fit them super well, we at least know from a theoretical perspective that it must be their type since the other's simply can't be.
The biggest problem I face in this method is second-guessing my understanding of the information elements and functions (something I do a lot lately since I recently immigrated from MBTIland), but assuming my understanding is accurate I believe this method is the most reliable and expedient.
What do you think?