[atypeofuser]

The "top 2 functions" thing almost isn't bad, but keep in mind, sometimes a function of the same orientation (tertiary) is almost expressed like it's at least the "second" function because that's the person's preferred mode (whether I or E).

[bookbutterfly]

I have a Q: some of you guys say Ne-users are really easy to spot. Maybe because I'm an Ni-dom, but I actually find it rather difficult to spot an Ne-user, even compared to an Ni-user. What are some characteristics of Ne-users? I know quite a few, but maybe because I haven't really gotten into enough deep conversations and interactions with them to figure it out...what is a good way to spot an Ne-user off-the-bat? I know they tend to have varied interests, can sometimes seem sensor-like (at least, the few that I know...I'm not sure why that is)...how do you tell?

Also, how reliable have you all found visual cues in typing? I know that this guy on YouTube says that Fe-users will use their whole face to convey their emotions, whereas Fi-users have this frozen look with their eyes, but how true have you guys found this to be? This might sound silly and weird, but I remember researching a bit into Socionics VI, and it seems to me like people of similar types tend to have similar facial structures...and it's odd, because I do notice that friends of a certain type will have similar facial structures as a celebrity of the same type.

And what about speech mannerisms? There seems to be some underlying trend between those of the same type, imo--all the INFJs I know (including myself) are soft-spoken, whereas those of other types (especially Te/Fi-users) will have a more decisive quality to their voice.

[hornet]

Read the art of speedreading people!
Learn the cognitive funtions in and out!!!

Amazon.com: The Art of SpeedReading People: How to Size People Up and Speak Their Language (9780316845182): Paul D. Tieger, Barbara Barron-Tieger: Books

[Fallen Nocturne]

My method of deducing personality types is quite possibly the worst way of doing things...

I choose my target, and I follow their choices, actions and reactions. I'll take note of how they make their decisions, how they speak (if at all), how they act around others. I go through the four dichotomies individually and make some initial guesses as to what they might be. If I notice that my subject is more action oriented and interested in interacting, I'll make a guess that they're probably extroverted. If I'm not noticing them at all, I'll make the guess that they're introverted. If someone is driven by logic, Thinker. If they seem to be driven by what the feel... Well, Feeler.

The hardest of these is usually N vs S because I find it difficult to make assumptions about how people perceive the world... Or more that I don't think I can trust my guesses. I usually look more at the overall personality of the person and how they match up with certain type traits to guess this one.

I usually leave J vs P for later because it only effects the order of the cognitive functions and I have difficulty guessing just by observation.

Once I've made a few initial guesses, I'll look at the cognitive functions of the likely personality types and decide which the person appears to fit. This is when I'll decide on J or P, dependent on which function I think is dominant. I'll look at the stereotypical traits of a personality according to a site like typelogic or something as well to see if they match.

Yeah, I have way too much time on my hands!

[NovaStar]

First, I try to determine either the dominant or auxiliary (rarely both together, because I've yet to meet many healthy examples of various personality types). This part is easiest, although it can take some time to determine. I usually debate between introverted/extroverted functions and decide which one is more dominant based on whether or not they gain more energy around others. How outgoing they are has nothing to do with Extroversion/Introversion. That said, a lot of Introverts I know seem like 'fake introverts' when they spend 'time alone' with friends (admittedly online, but still as engaged as I am with people both online and offline).

Second, I determine the inferior function. This one is really hard, even with someone you really know. I look at their subconscious as it manifests through their actions and fantasies, then give a base concept of E/I. Action-oriented subconscious is an E function, and fantasy-oriented subconscious is an I function. What kind of people does this person seem most attracted to personality-wise, and how does it match up with their dominant/auxiliary function? What sort of mindset and actions do they fall back on when depressed, angry, or sad?

Finally, I determine the middle two functions depending on how healthy the individual seems. The more constantly anxious and pissed off on the inside they seem, the more focus I place on their tertiary - what function seems to be the most awkward when being used? The tertiary is rarely developed in most individuals, or so I've read. I would expect an incomplete manifestation of that function in most individuals, though it shows more readily in unhealthy types. The auxiliary is kind of the 'how' to the dominant 'theme', so I determine how they're building off of their dominant and decide the function from there.

It's hardly a perfect method, but I've typed about 30 people this way since I seriously learned the system - and I got about 20 of those right. When the results of a test don't match up with my conclusion, I carefully pick apart my analysis with someone (usually the person I typed) and we determine which one more closely matched reality. Only the individual can determine his/her own type with absolute certainty, although even they can make mistakes; it's worth getting a few observations from someone else once in a while.

[Cory Ryan Banta]

I usually work with an intuitive schema and general understanding of type stereotypes that I apply to people. This works about 80% of the time, though around 20% of the time ends up wrong after getting to know them better. If I'm still confused, I might rely on narrowing it down to two to four types and going off of dominant functions and possible auxiliary functions from there. If all else fails, I sit down with a paper and pencil and draw out their function hierarchy, which I usually run by them later on.

[bookbutterfly]

Something I found about Fe vs Fi smiles; I was thinking about this thread, because I read it a few months ago and found it really interesting, but only found it again just now. It kind of goes with what I last posted about, and I would say it's pretty darn accurate. Try comparing friends and family whose types are confirmed and their pictures. I think I definitely have an Fe-aux smile. 16 types, 16 smiles: The way thinking and feeling functions effect the smile. - INTP Forum

[NovaStar]

Almost forgot; this might be worth looking into, if you're interested:

Vocabulary - Wikisocion

Haven't tested it out myself though, except on two people. Still don't know their types definitively though. Using this by itself isn't going to help much.

[Finagle]

I get a feel of the person, from that I generally intuitively find a function or something, and then start from there. I generally find 2-3 letters or functions that I am sure, and don't try to be more precise than that. I'm quick reading, it's bound to be inaccurate anyways.

[Yedra]

I don't really know how to explain it. I kinda photograph the person with my inner eye and everything is just there. The easiest type to spot is ISTP, at least for me, phlegmatic and cool as a cucumber :), love that type.

1. Cosculluela (rapper)
2. Kimi Räikkönen (F1 driver)
3. Ivan Lendl (tennis legend)

51j5R4+jocL._SS500_2.jpgE3719A68AA6F50D2A74C11FDE2ADD.jpgivan-lendl_2264203b.jpg