Typing People: Methods

[Wittgenstein]

Being afflicted with the typical INTP social awkwardness, I find that I understand people more effectively when I have an abstract model to work with. Typing people with the MBTI is an excellent method, in my experience. If you have ever tried typing someone that you know, how do you do it? How sure are you when you label someone? And how often do you do it?

My typing process looks like this:

Step one is to solve for E/I, since it is the easiest dichotomy. This gives us

Step two is to solve for either S/N or T/F, simultaneously solving for J/P Let me explain: if a person is obviously N or obviously F, then that person's Perceiving function is most likely extroverted, making them a Perceiver - P. If, on the other hand, a person is obviously T or obviously F, then their Judging function is extroverted, making them a J.

Step three breaks down into two alternate paths. We have three letters now, but the fourth letter represents an introverted function, so solving it is a tall order. If you know the subject well, you can type them based on the data you already have. If not, then you've narrowed the subject down to two types; look up as many type descriptions as you can for those types, and choose the one that fits better. For example, if you've typed someone as an ENxP, read as many portraits as you can on ENTPs and ENFPs, and then make a decision based on fit.

 

[Dapper Dan]

I don't know about E/I being the easiest, but otherwise your method seems pretty sound. Personally, I prefer to start at the lower level of the functions and gradually apply a process of elimination as I get more information.

Really though, knowing a person's functions is more useful than knowing their letters, even if you're unsure about one or two of them.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

By this point in time, I've observed enough people that I could fit all that information into my own discreet, personal archetypes, all referenced by name, which pretty much give me a good handle on typing people, especially in real life. These archetypes are pretty flexible, focusing on tendencies, and taking into consideration the oscillatory nature of types.


I also have trained myself to notice certain manifestations of functions through writing and/or speech. It usually shows in or as a person's motivations, thoughts or worldview.


In real life, visuals help lots, the way a person carries them-self, attire, facial expression etc. Over time, these observations really help you catch the definitive nuances of types. This goes along with lifestyle, which is also very definitive(but not very telling, online).

 

[LPolaright]

Method (patent), a series of steps or acts for performing a function

from wikipedia.

The general method:

I mainly observe, look at my surroundings and how they react. I'm currently surrounded by a lot of people and thus it's hard to type everyone - I find it difficult focusing at one person at a time and I often forget what I typed before.
But, slowly the more I repeat and type the same person over and over again the more I remember.

The best general method that served me the most, was to actually ask the person in question answers for their personalities.
A series of questions that made them interested, as to why I ask them all of the sudden - made them answer. After they answer I usually give them details about what i gathered from their answers and they usually agree.
Mostly I find myself being wrong on the I/E, when counting in the observation I had on them before.
​

The specific method:

==J/P==​

I begin with typing J/P, because it is easier for me to observe. By putting some manipulations in place, you can find it out pretty quickly.
If a person strays from his routine and doesn't like it he would be most likely be a J. If you interfere with the sterile environment the J has put himself into, he will not like it. If you can easily change someone's mind with thought manipulation, he would probably be P. Generally, if you can budge a person and he will adapt to it he will most likely be a P, if not, and he will disapprove, try to change it back to his own environment he will most likely be a J.​

==S/N==​

This is rather tougher for me to know. I usually know, when a person is what, when I teach the person things that I know. If they happen to complete me in sentences, even when they are wrong, they will be most likely N's. Though, if they just absorb and repeat my sentences they will be most likely be S's.
You can also see it when giving a negative answer to someone. As N's will try to understand the negative answer and how it originated, and where is it coming from - while S's will try to change the negative answer to a positive, and give you examples as to how it should be perceived (quite obviously as they perceive the question).​

==T/F==​

Thus far it was very difficult for me to devise ways to analyze as to how people process and make decision and what they base upon - feeling or thinking. But knowing J/P and S/N gives me a better sense as to the functions I already hold in hand.
J/P rules out 2 answers, function-wise.
S/N gives me perspective.​

==I/E==​

I could never understand this.
And quite possibly, quite impossible to observe? I was surprised so many times and revealed what I thought to be I to actually be an E (and vice versa).
I tried to find the dominance of the functions,
I tried to understand where they mostly get their energies,
I tried action manipulations, thought manipulations, feeling manipulations,
I tried basing it on the physical traits - clothes and such (which gave me the most success [60% if I'm capable to view the bigger picture])
but not luck.
The best option was to ask them straightforward a series of questions.​

This is my method.
I'm quite interested on how you would type me based on this style of writing.
Don't take into account - grammar mistakes, because English is not my native language.