tbh, I don't really consider myself a student of Gulenko or a member of his school. I have a deep respect for him and his research, but he is over 60 years old, and I have been pretty much growing up with the internet and seen a myriad of other perspectives. I don't really cling to any of the Models that exist. Model A is alright, but I usually just pick what I find interesting and go from there while disregarding a lot of other things that seem unimportant to me. For example, I don't find Model G that appealing, but I do agree with Gulenko's perception that the creative function in Model G, which is the Demonstrative Function in Model A, is the second strongest function of a type. I also find DCNH interesting, but it's hard for me to find an ideal way to combine functional accentuations with the model.
there's a variety of ways in which you can type someone and I usuall decide on a type when a certain number of elements match together. Like I think it's extremly obvious to most people that
AWellArmedCat is an ethical intuitive type, and from there I narrow it down further etc.
regarding typing interviews. I'm not sure if I'm that open to doing them regularly. the reason I had no problem doing this one was that based on my prior interaction with cat, I could already see that he's a likeable, kind, talkative, open-minded and intelligent person, and that my communication with him would be effortless + we share a bunch of interests. I might not be that open with someone that is not as talkative or could potentially debate me (not talking about you here, just giving an example). I feel like with typing interviews, the best way to approach them as someone who determines the type is to just ask a lot of questions, and since i was already curious about him, I didn't really need to prepare beforehand.