I personally find it difficult to type people, and require a fairly substantial time with someone to give an accurate enough read that lives up to a standard I impose on myself. I don't want to throw out loose typings for anyone so I take the time to ask various questions that uniquely pertain to them. The main reason I find typing people difficult is because when you start layering more and more personality type systems onto someone, you start introducing more variables to the equation. I feel you get a more accurate read of someone's unique qualities, when you add enneagram to someone's MBTI typing, and further, instinctual variants, but again, you start dealing with far more variables.

How do you know what someone is, when a collection of variables can make someone appear as a "12"? When, one set of variables means they are composed of 3 x 4? Or someone is composed of 6 x 2? The end result still gives them that "12" appearance, but how do you determine which function/personality dynamic the person is using unless you dig deep into someone's psyche and take the time to fully understand them? The more systems and variables in place only complicates things further. Throwing in enneagram for example, may make someone a (2 x 4) + 4. Still, a "12" on the surface, but stemming from a much different place than a (3 x 3) + 3.

In my analogy, a "12" is the person's reading, or the stereotype of this or that, that we all love to complain about, but it is also that very stereotype that we also attach to this typing or that, and is what many people use to type others on the forum and in real life. Until I get to a level where I can identify the subtle differences in various functional dynamics and get to know someone on a deeper level, their motives, their history, etc., I just find it rather difficult to type someone when they ask me to. I'll do my best, but I just don't feel my opinion gives personality science justice.