VI and Nonverbal Typing Methods (split from Alyssa Milano)

[Aylen]

I don't even know why people still use Filatova photos to type other's with. Even Filatova didn't use VI according to that link.

It should be noted that Ekaterina Filatova did not use visual identification ("V.I.") to diagnose types. She relied on questionnaires and interviews to establish socionics types and later began to notice similarities between people of the same type, which she tried to capture in her type photo albums.

Perhaps video would capture whatever "mimicry" that is supposed to be portray but honestly it doesn't look like anything to me. I look like my mom. I have been told I use some of her expressions. A couple weeks ago I showed a recent pic that I took for my sisters (over the holiday) to someone since I was wondering if I now VI LSI. My sisters told me, in unison, I look so much like our mom. Both my sisters look similar to me btw. The ESE a bit more since the EII is darker hair, olive skin. Anyway, when I shared the pic with an extroverted sensor they told me my eyes were too glazed over to look LSI.

I was looking at my whole face and missing the details My family copies each others facial expressions and we look similar so trying to type any of them by a static photo comparison from that link would be impossible for me. I notice over all vibe, irl, and it is easier to see similar features in people than micro expressions (K4M does that I think) or whatever people use to type by these photos. Maybe if someone were to use a stylus and mark the areas that match I might finally get it.

[Sol]

I don't even know why people still use Filatova photos to type other's with. Even Filatova didn't use VI according to that link.

The initial sense of that was that Filatova made her galleries during a typing which used different methods, including interview, tests, etc. This does not exclude that she also used VI.
Also that could to mean her play with physiognomy, as she had an interest to people with similar look among the same type.
She also used own photos to type people by IR effects, what point that she assumed photos contain types related traits.

It's definetely bad to type by physiognomy from her photos.
And in general, to type by VI from Filatova's photos is not good, as a single photo has not much of nonverbal info. But it's possibly, in princliple. Especially if to use generalized impressions from people of the same type. The additional problem is ~50% of her examples mb wrong, due to common low matches and hence objective problem of common mistyping. I may disagree with ~50% of her actors types, for example.

About her VI.
VI (nonverbal of people) is described at Augustinavichiute and is one of common ways to decide about types.
Filatova described peoples' nonverbal related traits, - VI, - in her books and hence she used VI to type them. She seems even used physiognomy slightly, as Augustinavichiute possibly could too.

even from this your text is evident that she used VI
"and later began to notice similarities between people of the same type"
as if she related some VI traits to some types, then to think she did not used those traits to decide about types is baseless
and that "later" follows from nothing. she could to use some VI elements and before too and most probably did this. as VI approach is part of Augustinavichiute's works and is just a part of the usage of N for typing. all typers had intuitive impressions from people and it's evident that those impressions followed from nonverbal too.
how we suppose and feel is a human emotional or not, - a trait related to T/F - by nonverbal. is a human's sight open to the world of more open person or it's a closed person with a sight alike from inside - related to E/I - by nonverbal. the lesser concentrated, dreaming sight of N types, compared to more concentrated on what happens here and now of S types. etc

according to my experiment of 2015 nonverbal objectively has information useful for typing. I used nonverbal with the success from the start and without this it would be much harder to understand peoples' types and to see how their behavior fits to theory of type, harder to understand own type by IR. I could not be unique in using VI to identify types with the positive results. all of typers use VI, but may reject the usage of N for typing from the fear to look "not scientific".
N - is one of Jung's functions. All people use N to decide about something. To decide about types they use N too. Some more, some lesser. The problem was - can nonverbal be used for this successfully - the objective basis for VI. I've proved it can.

Especially it's funny to see when people which take seriously baseless bs like Reinin's traits and other heresies without rational reasons, by the same irrational approach reject the usefulness of VI. After positive results of my experiment it's espesially funny - as they already reject the objective fact, that VI allows to type with the matches higher than accidentally and even close to matches by questionnaires/interviews.

[silke]

I don't even know why people still use Filatova photos to type other's with. Even Filatova didn't use VI according to that link.

Perhaps video would capture whatever "mimicry" that is supposed to be portray but honestly it doesn't look like anything to me. I look like my mom. I have been told I use some of her expressions. A couple weeks ago I showed a recent pic that I took for my sisters (over the holiday) to someone since I was wondering if I now VI LSI. My sisters told me, in unison, I look so much like our mom. Both my sisters look similar to me btw. The ESE a bit more since the EII is darker hair, olive skin. Anyway, when I shared the pic with an extroverted sensor they told me my eyes were too glazed over to look LSI.

I was looking at my whole face and missing the details My family copies each others facial expressions and we look similar so trying to type any of them by a static photo comparison from that link would be impossible for me. I notice over all vibe, irl, and it is easier to see similar features in people than micro expressions (K4M does that I think) or whatever people use to type by these photos. Maybe if someone were to use a stylus and mark the areas that match I might finally get it.

I don't think VI works for everyone, and certainly if you keep reading superficial, ethnicity based traits like "darker hair" and "olive skin" there is little chance that you will make it come together into anything informative and meaningful. You'd have to look for the dynamics and the overall picture, rather than going by details in static photographs.

As for that link, if you read further, you'll notice that Ekaterina Filatova has commented that there is something similar in the appearances of people she has photographed, that is - she herself has attested to there being a possibility of VI.

"Later she [Filatova] compared her pictures, and discovered so-called “quasi-twin” series within each of the 16 types. However, they were similar not as much by facial traits (form of nose, lips etc.) as by their characteristic mimicry (facial expressions)."

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...atova#Foreword

[Aylen]

The initial sense of that was that Filatova made her galleries during a typing which used different methods, including interview, tests, etc. This does not exclude that she also used VI.
She also used own photos to type people by IR effects, what point that she assumed photos contain types related traits.

It's definetely bad to type by physiognomy from her photos.
And in general, to type by VI from Filatova's photos is not good, as a single photo has not much of nonverbal info. But it's possibly, in princliple. Especially if to use generalized impressions from people of the same type. The additional problem is ~50% of her examples mb wrong, due to common low matches and hence objective problem of common mistyping. I may disagree with ~50% of her actors types, for example.

About her VI.
VI (nonverbal of people) is described at Augustinavichiute and is one of common ways to decide about types.
Filatova described peoples' nonverbal related traits, - VI, - in her books and hence she used VI to type them. She seems even used physiognomy slightly, as Augustinavichiute possibly could too.

even from this your text is evident that she used VI
"and later began to notice similarities between people of the same type"
as if she related some VI traits to some types, then to think she did not used those traits to decide about types is baseless
and that "later" follows from nothing. she could to use some VI elements and before too and most probably did this. as VI approach is part of Augustinavichiute's works and is just a part of the usage of N for typing. all typers had intuitive impressions from people and it's evident that those impressions followed from nonverbal too.
how we suppose and feel is a human emotional or not, - a trait related to T/F - by nonverbal. is a human's sight open to the world of more open person or it's a closed person with a sight alike from inside - related to E/I - by nonverbal. the lesser concentrated, dreaming sight of N types, compared to more concentrated on what happens here and now of S types. etc

according to my experiment of 2015 nonverbal objectively has information useful for typing. I used nonverbal with the success from the start and without this it would be much harder to understand peoples' types and to see how their behavior fits to theory of type, harder to understand own type by IR. I could not be unique in using VI to identify types with the positive results. all of typers use VI, but may reject the usage of N for typing from the fear to look "not scientific".
N - is one of Jung's functions. All people use N to decide about something. To decide about types they use N too. Some more, some lesser. The problem was - can nonverbal be used for this successfully - the objective basis for VI. I've proved it can.

Especially it's funny to see when people which take seriously baseless bs like Reinin's traits and other heresies without rational reasons, by the same irrational approach reject the usefulness of VI. After positive results of my experiment it's espesially funny - as they already reject the objective fact, that VI allows to type with the matches higher than accidentally and even close to matches by questionnaires/interviews.

I understand the thing about nonverbal but I think it is a lazy way to type and not as accurate if you don't listen to what the person says too. I agree with some of what you said since I don't know if her portraits were typed correctly to begin with. I just woke so it may take me a couple times of reading your post to make out everything.

I don't think VI works for everyone, and certainly if you keep reading superficial, ethnicity based traits like "darker hair" and "olive skin" there is little chance that you will make it come together into anything informative and meaningful. You'd have to look for the dynamics and the overall picture, rather than going by details in static photographs.

As for that link, if you read further, you'll notice that Ekaterina Filatova has commented that there is something similar in the appearances of people she has photographed, that is - she herself has attested to there being a possibility of VI.

"Later she [Filatova] compared her pictures, and discovered so-called “quasi-twin” series within each of the 16 types. However, they were similar not as much by facial traits (form of nose, lips etc.) as by their characteristic mimicry (facial expressions)."

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...atova#Foreword

The "darker hair" and "olive skin" had nothing to do with VI so you suggesting I type superficially when you are the one confidently typing people then using a Filatova portrait to back up your typing is just strange. I mentioned that to distinguish my sisters and me. I am not saying I am the same type as one but not the other and it is because of hair color and skin tone. I just said the ESE looks a bit more like me as a whole because of those things. If you put them in a room together no one is going to even realize they are family. You put me in between them and all of a sudden you get the big picture. We all look alike but it isn't apparent without me there so people could compare us. People have asked my EII sister and me if we are twins even with her darker hair and skin. I have also had people just sit and stare at my ESE sister and me sitting side by side and they were amazed how much we looked alike when we were both still and not talking. No one has ever even compared those two. You get what I mean now? I share a biological dad with the EII only.

Now that we are past my family ethnicity, my point is that those pics are not good to use to type yourself or to backup your typing of others. At various times throughout my years here I have seen people use one of her photos to back a self typing but when I look at it I see nothing. That is why I suggest someone use a stylus to point out the expressions they are seeing because again my family members all mimic each others expressions and gestures to a certain degree but you spend a half hour talking to us in a group and it is apparent by socioncs, mbti, enneagram and any other typology that we are different types.

FTR I agree with <50%, mb, (If I consider all the people I have seen you both type) so I don't just disagree without reason. This wasn't even about Milano specifically since I don't recall seeing an interview with her. It is those old black and white bad photos people use. You guys don't even agree with each other that much from the few celeb typings I have seen. You are both using some form of VI so which one of you is right in those cases...What do you see that he doesn't? What does he see that you miss? You are probably both confident in your self typings and probably both just as confident in your typings of others. I have seen sol walk a few back though. I don't know if you do that too when you consider new information.

It's like you guys hold the secrets to VI and won't share with the rest of the class.

[vesstheastralsilky]

I don't think VI works for everyone, and certainly if you keep reading superficial, ethnicity based traits like "darker hair" and "olive skin" there is little chance that you will make it come together into anything informative and meaningful. You'd have to look for the dynamics and the overall picture, rather than going by details in static photographs.

As for that link, if you read further, you'll notice that Ekaterina Filatova has commented that there is something similar in the appearances of people she has photographed, that is - she herself has attested to there being a possibility of VI.

"Later she [Filatova] compared her pictures, and discovered so-called “quasi-twin” series within each of the 16 types. However, they were similar not as much by facial traits (form of nose, lips etc.) as by their characteristic mimicry (facial expressions)."

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...atova#Foreword

Excellent reminder post to all @silke. VI is not about comparing facial features but energy. The more idiosyncratic yet characteristic for the type the expression, the better. That just brought to mind the possibility of a hilarious VI reference guide in which everyone is striking the silliest poses they can ... Which isn't entirely what is meant limh.

[Aylen]

Excellent reminder post to all @silke. VI is not about comparing facial features but energy. The more idiosyncratic yet characteristic for the type the expression, the better. That just brought to mind the possibility of a hilarious VI reference guide in which everyone is striking the silliest poses they can ... Which isn't entirely what is meant limh.

If it is just "energy" as you say then that is what most people do. If you read my response to her then you know I was not talking about physical features but I do think some would mistype me if they saw my physical features based on my ethnicity. I have already been mistyped because of photos I shared when I was new. lol I type by vibe (intuition) and make no secret of it. I sometimes attempt to use parts of theory to back it up but in the end when I type someone it is an intuitive impression.

Some people use those pics quite literally btw.

I might as well ask this now though. Do you think sensors are better at it? If so why?

[vesstheastralsilky]

If it is just "energy" as you say then that is what most people do. If you read my response to her then you know I was not talking about physical features but I do think some would mistype me if they saw my physical features based on my ethnicity. I have already been mistyped because of photos I shared when I was new. lol I type by vibe (intuition) and make no secret of it. I sometimes attempt to use parts of theory to back it up but in the end when I type someone it is an intuitive impression.

Some people use those pics quite literally btw.

I might as well ask this now though. Do you think sensors are better at it? If so why?

I don't see why sensors would have an advantage. People as they get older tend to start associating people they meet with others they have known and might start making little predictions about what they might behaviorally expect from that person right or wrong. For example I have known what it is like to attract my Beneficiaries for so long now that they have become easier for me to spot than most types...

I looked through 32 pages of alleged Gammas last night and saw many typings seemingly based on physiology and mistyped too. That was a bit disheartening.

[Aylen]

I don't see why sensors would have an advantage. People as they get older tend to start associating people they meet with others they have known and might start making little predictions about what they might behaviorally expect from that person right or wrong. For example I have known what it is like to attract my Beneficiaries for so long now that they have become easier for me to spot than most types...

I have been associating new people I meet with other people most of my life. When I joined this forum I posted that everyone here at the time had a counterpart in the last forum that I was in and it was the same with the group I was in before that. I could probably link that back to childhood if I were so inclined. I just keep meeting the same people over and over. They may look different and be from different parts of the world but in essence I keep meeting the same group over and over. They have the same issues, beliefs, mannerisms, etc...

It is just another way of saying we see archetypes.

Edit: It is a bias I have to work to overcome but I don't really care to anymore. I would rather excuse myself when I feel biased than lead someone to believe they are a type. At least typing celebs is just a fun pastime for some and won't interfere with their self discovery. I think the "danger" of telling people who you think they are is that some will start to act it out. I have seen it on the forum too many times. Every type change comes with a new way of interacting and with that comes the retyping of others to fit their new perception of self. It is fascinating to watch.

[Sol]

I understand the thing about nonverbal but I think it is a lazy way to type

Nonverbal is _one of_ useful info for typing. The lazy would be to ignore this info and such to reduce the chance for the correct typing.

Also by the gotten typing matches it's not significantly lesser effective way to type when used alone than questionnaire or interview. The same 15-20% matches like in SRT-99 when people typed by IRL interview, not lesser matches than by special long questionnaire in socioforum's experiment.
How it's correct will be - depends on typer's skills and the info he has. I'm satisfied by the results. Additionally I take into account common behavior analysis too. But it's far more limited data for people you know a little or which do not want to do a normal and needing efforts typing interview, to do tests, questionnaires. In many cases an asured opinion about the type appears without special interviews. I watch people, check what I feel from them (through nonverbal) and how they interact with me and other ones, may ask some questions. And this is often enough - if I become sure then with high probability I'll not doubt in the type goten such after will know more about the human as his behavior fits good. Only when this approach does not give an assured opinion - then I'd need to use more direct and specialized methods to try to understand the type, or just to watch that human longer and to think more about him.

In my experience nonverbal is effective typing way. It's often fast, does not need much to know, no direct typing, more trusty data than what people say about themselves. It may be called as "lazy" only with bad efficiency, what would need the skills improvement.

> and not as accurate if you don't listen to what the person says too

It's accurate enough when you get assured opinion by it. This needs skills in this method and in other methods used by you - so the results matched.

What a human says is under significant conscious control, filters, mistakes in selfperception, may to have intentional misleading. People may to play roles, to have distorted selfperception by emotional reasons, to have nontypes reasons for a behavior. This noise is much lesser in nonverbal part and so it's harder to be misleaded by nonverbal. The ways to interpret the said and the behavior are different, - it's significantly subjective method too. In other case questionnaire typing experiment would give high matches, while they were <20% in average. To analyse a random behavior is harder, but the better is - people are more natural and honest.
The other problem. If some human knows typing theory (all on the forums and almost all which come for typing) - his questionnaires and interviews have reduced value in alike twice. You'll listen how he wants be typed or was assured about his type before in strong degree, but not about him real. You'll need to value more the nuances about which noobs do not know good without the experience, and lesser what those say and do in situations to which they were ready to be seen and where they have good selfcontrol.

Take the example of Maritsa. You thought her as EII, much because she says so, wants to think herself so and she plays EII often. But also makes "mistakes" - which are more important for her typing. Not anything is desribed in books, not always she follows to those descriptions. Also by VI she differs from EII, what you'd noticed in case you'd could to use it better. She looks as calm to remind an introvert - but it's not nonverbal of base Fi, she smiles differently. This needs skills to understand. And to interpret correctly how to assign weights to different facts of her behavior needs skills too. Even without nonverbal by the seen on the forum she is doubtful to be EII, but in case you'd added nonverbal to take into account - the situation would become totally clear for you.

> I agree with some of what you said since I don't know if her portraits were typed correctly to begin with. I just woke so it may take me a couple times of reading your post to make out everything.

Even if 30-40% there are people of the said types - her examples are useful to study VI. In its nonverbal part and by general impression. As the other % of people have random types and the whole generalized impression from the examples with the significant correct core will be correct also (just softer).
The problem is when people use the examples for physiognomy similarity. Or when they'd noticed the similar nonverbal of some example, while that example could be wrong. To understand the degree to trust to concrete examples needs studing of general impressions and experience of watching people of different types.
Filatova did a good job with her books. Easily described theory. Relatively useful examples, when they are used appropriately.

[Aylen]

Nonverbal is _one of_ useful info for typing. The lazy would be to ignore this info and such to reduce the chance for the correct typing.

Also by the gotten typing matches it's not significantly lesser effective way to type when used alone than questionnaire or interview. The same 15-20% matches like in SRT-99 when people typed by IRL interview, not lesser matches than by special long questionnaire in socioforum's experiment.
How it's correct will be - depends on typer's skills and the info he has. I'm satisfied by the results. Additionally I take into account common behavior analysis too. But it's far more limited data for people you know a little or which do not want to do a normal and needing efforts typing interview, to do tests, questionnaires. In many cases an asured opinion about the type appears without special interviews. I watch people, check what I feel from them (through nonverbal) and how they interact with me and other ones, may ask some questions. And this is often enough - if I become sure then with high probability I'll not doubt in the type goten such after will know more about the human as his behavior fits good. Only when this approach does not give an assured opinion - then I'd need to use more direct and specialized methods to try to understand the type, or just to watch that human longer and to think more about him.

In my experience nonverbal is effective typing way. It's often fast, does not need much to know, no direct typing, more trusty data than what people say about themselves. It may be called as "lazy" only with bad efficiency, what would need the skills improvement.

> and not as accurate if you don't listen to what the person says too

It's accurate enough when you get assured opinion by it. This needs skills in this method and in other methods used by you - so the results matched.

What a human says is under significant conscious control, filters, mistakes in selfperception, may to have intentional misleading. People may to play roles, to have distorted selfperception by emotional reasons, to have nontypes reasons for a behavior. This noise is much lesser in nonverbal part and so it's harder to be misleaded by nonverbal. The ways to interpret the said and the behavior are different, - it's significantly subjective method too. In other case questionnaire typing experiment would give high matches, while they were <20% in average. To analyse a random behavior is harder, but the better is - people are more natural and honest.
The other problem. If some human knows typing theory (all on the forums and almost all which come for typing) - his questionnaires and interviews have reduced value in alike twice. You'll listen how he wants be typed or was assured about his type before in strong degree, but not about him real. You'll need to value more the nuances about which noobs do not know good without the experience, and lesser what those say and do in situations to which they were ready to be seen and where they have good selfcontrol.

Take the example of Maritsa. You thought her as EII, much because she says so, wants to think herself so and she plays EII often. But also makes "mistakes" - which are more important for her typing. Not anything is desribed in books, not always she follows to those descriptions. Also by VI she differs from EII, what you'd noticed in case you'd could to use it better. She looks as calm to remind an introvert - but it's not nonverbal of base Fi, she smiles differently. This needs skills to understand. And to interpret correctly how to assign weights to different facts of her behavior needs skills too. Even without nonverbal by the seen on the forum she is doubtful to be EII, but in case you'd added nonverbal to take into account - the situation would become totally clear for you.

> I agree with some of what you said since I don't know if her portraits were typed correctly to begin with. I just woke so it may take me a couple times of reading your post to make out everything.

Even if 30-40% there are people of the said types - her examples are useful to study VI. In its nonverbal part and by general impression. As the other % of people have random types and the whole generalized impression from the examples with the significant correct core will be correct also (just softer).
The problem is when people use the examples for physiognomy similarity. Or when they'd noticed the similar nonverbal of some example, while that example could be wrong. To understand the degree to trust to concrete examples needs studing of general impressions and experience of watching people of different types.
Filatova did a good job with her books. Easily described theory. Relatively useful examples, when they are used appropriately.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I like Filatova's descriptions. I think sometimes it does lose something in translation, as most translations do, but I am ok with that. I can fill in the blanks when it does. I just think people see those portraits and imagine themselves or others to look the same so will type by that. This is the most you have ever written on how you VI so at least I have a better idea. You are not just going by intuitive impressions. You have something else you use as well. Do you think anyone here has good VI skills other than you since those who use VI do not agree very much. I am just curious. I am not really interested in learning a method btw. I have my own ways. I know K4m uses some kind of micro-expression thing and iridology from what he has posted.

In the end it still comes down to how some people makes you feel in comparison to others. No one is truly objective and the VI methods people use are still subjective interpretation of other people's methods. Unless you have discovered a very Te and Se way to do it.

[Sol]

I just think people see those portraits and imagine themselves or others to look the same so will type by that.

To seek for similar impressions from nonverbal - the only correct approach.

> You are not just going by intuitive impressions. You have something else you use as well.

VI as intuitive impressions from nonverbal is the main my typing method. In offline typing I often use only it, in case with actors and bloggers especially. Other methods I may use too, what was noticable in my forum talkings.

> Do you think anyone here has good VI skills other than you since those who use VI do not agree very much.

If I'll see someone having _real_ typing match with me as >50%, then I'll can to suppose him typing as not badly. I saw no one such still. If someone mistakes in 50% of cases - it's hard to say as good. A duality couple they'll do with 25% chance only, the good pair (+2/15 of activation/semi-duality) with 38%, what mb close when Socionics would not used. And it's the best typing skills I may expect based on the seen anywhere still.
I may trust to own skills. But I doubt I type good enough to use them massively by the current typing approaches. When you type a new human IRL by an interview/test for 2 hours. In 50% of cases I may keep singificant doubts in a concrete type with this approach. Or may do a mistake with 10% or mb more when I'd was sure in the type -> 20% of not duality pairs, at least - it's a lot.
As one of solutions mb used IR test (or similar based on IR effects) as a supportive method, if will be made as should (when a dual is placed in top 4 almost always and mb other IR where should), - may be will reduce the mistake to acceptable level. In case an expected dual is not placed there - a typer should not get a pay, or full pay. To guarantee that typer will not fool - he says you the supposed type in a crypted text before IR checking is done, and after it's done then he may say you a key to decode the text with a type. When 2 methods will match - your typing + your IR effects - it's good chance the type is correct.

At socioforum is Marat (Марат), thinks own type as IEE. He may be relatively not so bad in VI due to matches of my VI experiment, even being a relative novice. Ne types should to use VI better than average, in case will stay in limits of classical theory. They should develop in VI alike twice or more quicker than me. If they will study by my examples and then on IRL experience will notice the match with the theory of their own typings - they may achieve the level close to mine during several years of regular typing by videos and IRL.

I have relatively good skills because do not use doubtful theories to mislead me (incl. avoid a part of classics, besides the core of types), also use VI and IR _seriously_ besides common behavior with which I demand the match, I type and watch many people of known types for many years. After 15 years of this process I still see my skills as needing the improvement, as I change the assured opinions sometimes to other types or to not assured ones.

I doubt in general typing skills of other people. It's secondary what methods they used and even the theories. I decide by types they say, how often they differ from my opinion and how far those types are from my opinion. Also I see people use doubtful hypotheses (as Reinin's), strange interpretations of the normal theory (thehotelambush surprised me recently with Si types, while he's not a novice) or reject the important part of the core theory (alike IR effects) - what definetely reduces their accuracy.

I trust in own typing skills, including by VI (even in IRL typing VI is the main method, as I lesser trust to what people say about them - I prefer to feel them; and in common behavior I understand the possible influence of nontypes factors; while in nonverbal people are the most natural) based on my long time experience of good results. My experience in typing and of watching people of different types is far more than most have among forums activists. Seems I also know and understand better the typology theory (its classical part) than most English talkers, as they lack the good sources to study it - unofficial translations (some are even by google only), a single (!) normal English book by Filatova (which appeared 10 years ago only and almost no one read it), the mess of theory on English sites where classics and heresies are mixed alike equals, many ones did not read the basics of Jung and Augustinavichiute.
Being trusting highly in own opinion based on the said, hence I may evaluate the skills of other people by the degree they agree with me. Also there is nothing objective to trust in typing skills of others. If to approximate roughly the average and max real typing matches - no one has an accuracy higher than 0.17^1/2 - 0.4^1/2 = 40 - 60%. So the chances of mistakes from anyone ~50% - it's a lot to trust significantly. I often remember when other ones do not agree and in case in the future I'll doubt by other reasons I'll think more about their versions.
In sum.
From subjective approach I have the basis 1) to trust to own typing highly (when I'm sure in the type), 2) do not trust significantly to what a random forum's talkers thinkgs, especially non-Russian one.
From objective point: Besides the objective my advantage in experience, I got among the highest typing average real match in the experiment with VI - my skills are higher than average. My IR test (which is made by VI mostly) gives reasonable results in significant degree - what is not possibly with incorrect types, while taking into account it's not IRL communications - I should objectively to type good (>80% if to approximate from subjective mistake, what is more than hypotetically possible best 60% I saw at others).
You may try my IR test and see the results by yourself, mb it will work as should for you too (though being Ne based, better the test is expected to be done by Ne types) and you'll take VI more seriously. That you know which types I assigned to people in the test will not have much influence on you, as you just do not trust. So relax and just follow the recommended procedure to accept or to reject my VI skills based on your direct experience with them.

> I am not really interested in learning a method btw.

That nonverbal is useful got objective prove. Seems even not lesser useful than questionnaire/interviews. So to do not use it means to have lesser typing accuracy. Also I'm sure you are using intuitive impressions from people to decide about their types, as anyone, and especially N types. You may study to use better your intuition to type people by practicing. It's best method for express typing - to suppose types of new and surfacely known people, at least. And is good to check your opinion about the type goten by common behavior - there should be the match of your VI impressions, of your IR effects with that human and of the behavior you see. There are no reasons to reject VI as it's useful.

I saw SLE woman. She described herself as emotional one. I saw she's not emotional like F type would be. No Fi comfort, no Fe annoyance, - just poker face in our communication. If you'll type her only by words - you'll may think her as F type, as she to compensate her type, to perceive herself as more feminine - prefer to think herself so. If you'll take into account your intuitive impressions from her - you'll notice the contradiction between your impressions and her words - you will have lesser chance of a mistake. You are using intuition in many regions in your life. To think it as not appropriate in typing is just lol, especially when VI is known to give the matches comparable with interviews. Develop in your strong N region in typing, use it more and you'll find more usefulness from VI. You may study on my types examples on the initial stage. Ne is not your valued, you want T explanations by child functional block, - nothing else between you and VI usage.

> I have my own ways.

You have strong N. You may use it in typing to improve your accuracy. The truth should be your way.

> I know K4m uses some kind of micro-expression thing and iridology from what he has posted.

VI is _intuitive_ method. It's based on the feeling of people, but not thinking about "micro-expressions". You see a smile and analyse what impressions it inspires in you - closer to description of Fe or Fi ideas, closer to your IR with Fe or Fi types.
There is the typing match experiment based on VI made by me in 2015. It objectively from statistics have shown the needed to use VI. Forget about particular cases with additional factors. Generally, the typing matches are low between of anyone by any method - the real typing matches. k4m tells a lot of opinions, he prefers to think independently to be lesser affected by a conformism, his low match with you and others is more noticable, while his novice skills and unknown/doubtful (alike iridology bs) details of what he does may reduce the match (below common 17%). When you agree with opinions of other people after they said them to you - is not your real typing match with them, the real one mb the same low too.

> In the end it still comes down to how some people makes you feel in comparison to others.

What mb used by IR effects theory to type and it's part of VI too. As nonverbal inspires your IR effects too, as it contains info about types as was proved.

> No one is truly objective and the VI methods people use are still subjective interpretation of other people's methods.

There are no methods with objective 100% accuracy. VI is not an exception. It gives comparable matches with interviews, which also allow subjective inerpretation - in the comparable degree according to close matches as with VI.
100% objective accuracy is not needed for a method to be useful. It needs to allow higher than accidental real matches what proves it uses objectively related to types information. And it needs you subjectively saw the use of the method for you, when your assured opinions about types goten by this method or with its help have good correlation with the theory in the majority of cases.
The more useful for typing information you are using, the better your skills are in this - the higher typing accuracy you'll get. There is nothing to do not use VI among your methods. And you are using it, anyway. As you can't ignore your intuition.

> Unless you have discovered a very Te and Se way to do it.

Te have allowed to notice the usefulness of VI and to prove it objectively. While Se helps me to be stubborn to spread this truth.

I'm the 1st who: 1) have given the clear description of VI in behavioral sense, and hence fiting to normal psychology and Jung's functional approach, 2) have proved objectively VI mb used for typing but not only a subjective dreaming, 3) have created IR test where VI mb tried by anyone to notice that it works (as IR effects go from nonverbal related to types, but not from "magical fluids"; and results fit to the theory more than accidentally).