1
Certain factors I've been able to corroborate as meaningful indicators of type; certain other factors I tend to dismiss. For example, I generally don't put much stock in: A person's specific competencies or skillsets, their profession or hobbies, achievements in life, etc. At best, I'd consider these weak correlates of type—i.e. just because someone is a venture capitalist doesn't necessarily mean they're likely ENTj, or just because they're a theoretical physicist shouldn't lead one to assume they're ENTp.
I'm also dismissive of behavioral trait attributions, given their susceptibility to biasing errors (yes, there's an entire sub-branch of psychology devoted to exactly this). For instance, your idea of "aggressive behavior" may be quite different from my idea of it; someone who strikes you as blunt, brash, and forceful may strike me as entirely normal, for whatever reason. Such assessments should be regarded as specious.
In a nutshell: Socionics is better suited as a theory about phenomenological cognition, not a theory about efficacy or behavior. I'm less interested in what you do or how well you think you do it; I'm more interested in how you do it and in the ways one tends to perceive and experience reality.
Of the factors I've been able to infer as reliable type indices, no single factor by itself will be a sole determinant of what I type someone; I rather try to look at what the overall convergence is from all possible factors at my disposal.
Depending on availability, I'll consider any of the following:
- Images and/or videos, preferably capturing the individual from a variety of different angles and expressions. Source media must be candid, non-airbrushed, and large/clear enough to notice aspects of that individual's face and demeanor which may be relevant for purposes of VI. I've been able to note certain characteristic patterns of facial muscle activity unique to each type. Recognizing these patterns can be learned, though they're not always immediately apparent. It's important to consider the many ways in which human faces can appear similar or dissimilar in contrast—looking like someone is not the same as VI-ing like someone. The use of VI-like approaches in gauging human personality is an active subject of contemporary psych research, as well. For instance, this article discusses links between facial appearance and Big 5 Trait Theory (link). I've a dozen or so other papers dealing with similar topical matter if anyone's interested.
- Bearing and demeanor in video. What are the person's eye movements like, in what kind of poise do they tend to hold their body, what patterns of muscular tension or slackness are present and where, what sorts of gesticulations do they frequently make? Much of this factors into VI, particularly for purposes of identifying temperament.
- Tone, cadence, semantics, and syntactical patterns present in one's style of speech and/or writing. The syntax structures and semantic content of one's discourse can give a wealth of constructive insight into how they think, what they tend to notice about reality and how, what their preferred modes of understanding are, what qualitative themes color their subjective experiences, and so forth. I corroborate much of this using the Sematics of IEs research page (link). The central unifying question in inferring such data is, "How do they seem to be consistently experiencing and internalizing information, and what qualities about it do they frequently emphasize?" I also try to get an idea of the epistemological values they seem to hold—i.e., upon what standards do they deem something as being valid or useful knowledge? What is their decision-making process like and upon what basis do they seem to be arriving at their judgments?
- Themes present in what they profess to be their values, outlooks, and motives in life—and most importantly, why? What is this person’s 'ontological disposition'—i.e. what sorts of concepts, ideas, and principles do they consider meaningful or condemn as meaningless? Are there particular philosophical or spiritual outlooks they gravitate towards?
- Tastes&preferences in art, aesthetics, and literature. What kinds and forms are they often drawn to, find appealing, or even inspiring? Are there particular artists, writers, comedians, or even actors they enjoy?
- Communication styles and interactions with others of known types that they're personally connected to in any capacity. What sorts of intertype relations make sense as the most plausible between them? This can include but is not limited to: Spouses, significant others, family members, best friends, hated enemies, colleagues, role models, ideological influences, etc. I mostly rely on the intertype relations as they're depicted at socionics.us.
- Any spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person for no explicable reason, which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type. Do they attract or repulse me? Do they seem like someone comfortable to be around or like someone who'd put me on edge? Do I have a hard time taking them seriously or do they seem to easily command my respect? So on, so forth. These reactions can provide cues about the possible intertype relations which exist between myself and that person.
- Correspondence to certain Reinin dichotomies (link). Thus far, the following seem to contain a grain of observable truth…
– Static|Dynamic: Tends to be an obvious component of temperament. EJs and IPs are Dynamic, EPs and IJs are Static.
– Merry|Serious: Useful indicator for
/ 
vs. 
/ 
value preferences, that shows in a person's typical group interaction style and conversational themes.
– Democracy|Aristocracy: The kinds of interpersonal criteria one uses to assess others, and what forms of social organization they're inclined towards (open/collaborative or closed/hierarchical).
– Judicious|Decisive: Contrasts
/ 
vs. 
/ 
value preferences. The former tends towards more leisurely paced environs, the latter tends towards more mobilized states of affairs.
– Positivist|Negativist:
– Involutory|Evolutory:
The remaining dichotomies I ignore; I don't have enough experience noticing them, assuming they exist. - Miscellaneous quirks, idiosyncracies, and minutia I’ve seen recurrent in others of a given type.
- General Typology: This interview featuring Lenore Thomson is a great primer on the subject of 'what is personality type?'. This article by James Hillman on typologies is also good.
- Kepinski's Information Metabolism: Everyone should learn about it as I suspect most will find it interesting. My basic view of Socionics is largely shaped and influenced by this. I've found these ideas both effective and useful as a conceptual approach for understanding the nature of Socionics—insofar as what Socionics 'is', what IEs 'are', and what sorts of phenomena we're dealing with (or should recognize we're dealing with) when we try to talk about Socionics.
- Temperaments: I utilize the basic Four Temperaments idea that's been around for the past few thousand years—Choleric (EJ), Phlegmatic (IJ), Sanguine (EP), Melancholic (IP). I'll find a decent source on this.
- Information Elements: I largely draw upon Rick's definitions here and here, Jung's original founding descriptions here, and I can see promise in Lenore Thomson's ideas here.
- Reinin Dichotomies: I mostly work from these explanations, along with some characterizations from a few other Socionists.
- Gulenko's Cognitive Styles: As described in this article, are proving to be another excellent resource for type screening and verification purposes.
- Intertype Relations: I evaluate these along the same lines as described here and here.
- Miscellaneous: I use the same 4 quadras with the same 16 basic sociotypes divided among them, each defined by the same 'ego' and 'superid' blocks, etc. I use subtypes too—just the usual accepting/producing 2, no DCNH or anything like that.
