I really appreciate your try to add more sense and correctness in your messages by adding my quotations.
I'm sure such your messages will be taken more seriously as having more useful.
Keep doing this, dude. The best would be if you'll create a topic with my quotations. But I understand, I want too much of your efforts.
Only one wish. Add, please, a link to my original messages near quotations. So people could to see the context, as they need a full chance to understand my text a little more adequate than you.
Taking into account your special mental abbilities, I think a comment is needed for try to overcome them.
"Yes, it's base Ni" - was said that it's a human with base Ni type.
"which just said that likes food a lot" - yep, a human just said something. What does not mean it's such indeed, has a real high degree, is more common than average for N types, etc. Just words in some of places, which proof almost nothing and mean a few compared to general impressions from nonverbal behavior.
"I may relate this to nontypes factors or the lesser sincerity or self-understanding." - There are different factors besides types which affect on a behavior. I understand that to take this sentence seriously is too much for you.
"In nonverbal behavior you have the most complete and correct representation of the personality related to a type, - it's far more meaningful, than what people say in one of clips." -
Yep, general behavior (nonverbal here) is far more meaningful than one or several phrases in one of clips which may be not true, not full true, to have not enough data for sure typing, to be incorrectly interpretated and such to mislead (like it happend with you, for example). And yep, I trust more to method of intuitive impressions from nonverbal behavior than to "speculative interpretation of doubtful words which people have said somewhere" - when I get mismatch between methods, I with more chance will stay on nonverbal side and may reduce the confidence in the type's version. I never hided what is my main method, but seems it has become an opening for you recently.
"Also she intrigues me personally more than SEI do. I use IR theory." - Yes. I'm taking into account IR theory with myself as it's part of classical theory. I understand that for you such baseless nonsense as Reinin's dichotomies or Gulenko's subtypes may to be infinetly more important than classical theory. I'm sure you even type without taking into account nonverbal behavior, despite it was described as meaningful from the beginning and hence it's classical method (unlike Reinin's bs and much of other newer baseless fantasies you should to take seriously, like other "serious" persons on this forum). I even did an cross-match typing experiment on socioforum in 2015 which have given an objective proof that nonverbal info can be used not worse, than ankets - as I got up to 20% of average typing match by this, what is close to results of SRT-99 with 17% typing match in irl interview and experiments of socioforum with ankets. You may easily find that my theme in experiments section of socioforum, but I'm sure you as "serious" dude even did not read my results and how they were taken.
P.S. As a bonus to show how serious this bush may to
be: "I haven't thought about your type in a while, but my impression was EII. I'm not 100% sure though, SEI is plausible too." EII and SEI seems like rather close types in his perception. The Force of Reinin's dichotomies may be felt in his words.
Also serious bush prefers to type with his serious assurance by only a short lame questionnaire.