And I mean really evaluate, like get them to answer questionnaires, if they're cool with it. That's the kind of field report that would really produce fascinating resuults. And useful ones.

For example, if we discover that male fems are much more likely to be "personality type" whatever, then we have very useful information. We can estimate who's in danger of being converted to feminism and see if there are ways to persuade him to be open-minded about the MRM, and conscious of the best people within it as well as the more abrasive.

If we were real psychologists, we'd have to register experiments. But AFAIK there's no rule against amateurs trying to follow professional methods for their own purposes. Obv only do this if it's fully legal. If it's not currently legal, we can speculate about what might be done if it were to be made legal in the future.

I'm thinking of Jordan Peterson's mentioning of the Big 5 personality traits. From Wiki:

The five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.

I believe the Jordan has done some work on this topic. But the funding for such research can be hard to get. It's always good to have more data.

As we are global, we can get more details from people. Maybe male feminists in India are vastly different from their counterparts in England or Russia. This way we can see if culture or even genetics might play a role in the formation of male feminism.

Sometimes, if you know a person well, you don't need a questionnaire to see if he's high or low in a given trait. Highly neurotic people are easy to spot. If you know a guy who's super calm and collected in a crisis, that's probably low neuroticism. Introverts are pretty easy to spot. Conscientiousness often becomes apparent if you get to see a person's personal space, his house, his desk, his room.

Perhaps there are other psychological vectors we could explore. In any case, more data = mo' better