How positive are you of your self-typing?

[Exodus]

I'm 99.99% sure of my type. If it was something else it would totally change my understanding of socionics.

Also Golden is almost certainly EIE (> 85%).

[EyeSeeCold]

[99, 100)% for the reason stated above.

[Airman]

I hate myself and want to die so I must be IEI.

perfect reasoning. sometimes I question myself if I am your dual.

[1981slater]

So guys I infer from your opinions that I come across as ILE

[Creepy-Snaps]

I think you need more opinions.

[The Ineffable]

He just needs reassurance, since he's hounted by the fact he's LIE just can't get used to the idea of changing. Come one Slater, I know you can, just one more little effort and you'll feel relieved forever. Don't worry about them, they'll get used to LIE, in two years or so they'll vote with it, I assure you.

[Korpsy Knievel]

He just needs reassurance, since he's hounted by the fact he's LIE just can't get used to the idea of changing. Come one Slater, I know you can, just one more little effort and you'll feel relieved forever. Don't worry about them, they'll get used to LIE, in two years or so they'll vote with it, I assure you.

Is it possible to be 100% sure of something while actually being wrong?

Mark your calendars.

[The Ineffable]

Mark your calendars.

Not yet, silly. He's still ILE (overlook that Fieldmashall, that's in MBTI).

[Quaris]

After 2 years of socionics interest I still have no idea.

[woofwoofl]

I put myself in the 90%-99% range of certainty for SEE

I tried considering IEE, that didn't work

I tried considering ILI and LIE - they make sense to me, until I encounter an ILI or an LIE

I tried considering ESI, LSE, and SLI - none of those added up in the end either, nor does EII...

That said, I can come off a bit IEE, ILI, or even LSE or SLI at specific times, and there's a chance that no one person will ever experience all of those from me - regardless, though, I'm almost certain of me being SEE

As far as subtypes go, though, I'm a bit less certain... about 65% or so at the moment...

[Jarno]

As far as subtypes go, though, I'm a bit less certain... about 65% or so at the moment...

You VI as the SEE-Fi subtype.

Also you seem to care a lot about others instead of making jokes to make yourself laugh, like some Se subtypes do.

Just my opinion.

[The Ineffable]

I put myself in the 90%-99% range of certainty for SEE

Wow, you're a Socionics expert, woofwoofl! You always type correctly and your explanations are always valid. I want to learn Socionics from you, PLEASE! You're so confident and it feels so good to know that you are always around to guide us when we're falling into error. Please never go away...

[Creepy-Snaps]

I put myself in the 90%-99% range of certainty for SEE

Wow, you're a Socionics expert, woofwoofl! You always type correctly and your explanations are always valid. I want to learn Socionics from you, PLEASE! You're so confident and it feels so good to know that you are always around to guide us when we're falling into error. Please never go away...

What's your problem? You were mean and sarcastic to me on the other thread, too.

I put myself in the 90%-99% range of certainty for SEE

I tried considering IEE, that didn't work

I tried considering ILI and LIE - they make sense to me, until I encounter an ILI or an LIE

I tried considering ESI, LSE, and SLI - none of those added up in the end either, nor does EII...

That said, I can come off a bit IEE, ILI, or even LSE or SLI at specific times, and there's a chance that no one person will ever experience all of those from me - regardless, though, I'm almost certain of me being SEE

As far as subtypes go, though, I'm a bit less certain... about 65% or so at the moment...

You're an awesome SEE at that!

[woofwoofl]

You VI as the SEE-Fi subtype.

Also you seem to care a lot about others instead of making jokes to make yourself laugh, like some Se subtypes do.

Just my opinion.

Thanks! I'll definitely keep that in mind...

Subtypes come easy to me in obvious examples outside of myself, but other than that, yowww... it's not like when I'm weighing against , or against , where both can't exist simultaneously (by the way, the parts I'm more certain of, I bolded in my sig - that's why "SEE" is bolded, while none of the subtypes are, with "SEE-SLI" being the faintest of them all)...

In any event, I should be around much more people much more often if I can grow my mental pool of SEEs that I know, to a point where I can get a mental average of them, and from there, try to figure out how far, and in what manner, I deviate from that average, I can make some more progress - the problem still exists that I'm more acquainted with my surroundings then whatever in the world it is that I am...

Wow, you're a Socionics expert, woofwoofl! You always type correctly and your explanations are always valid. I want to learn Socionics from you, PLEASE! You're so confident and it feels so good to know that you are always around to guide us when we're falling into error. Please never go away...

As usual, and

You're an awesome SEE at that!

Thanks! you're a pretty awesome ESE - when I was picking out shirts the other day, I found some long sleeve comfy knit kinda ones and thought "this would work on Mountain Dew", then I tried them on, and they were great on me by the way, $80 of shirts for only $13 - hell yeah for clearances and coupons!

[Absurd]

101%.

[stanprollyright]

Gender is something that has been accepted and proven scientifically; all nations, races, and cultures agree on the definitions of "man" and "woman." Gender is very specific. Sure, there are rare cases where gender is more vague, such as in the case of someone born with both sets of genitalia.

I am a woman, because I look and sound like a woman, sure; but I also possess the genetic double-X chromosome that defines me as a "woman," I have given birth, twice.

No human being on this earth could refute the fact that I am a woman and be taken at all seriously. However, if someone were to question my socionics type, they could be much more successful.

What you are describing is called sex. You can empirically prove yourself as the female sex because you poses female reproductive organs. "Gender", "man", and "woman", are all social constructs/psychological attitudes that cannot be empirically proven. Hence transgender people: people who belong to the male sex but are women by gender, or belong to the female sex but are men by gender.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You're an awesome SEE at that!

Thanks! you're a pretty awesome ESE - when I was picking out shirts the other day, I found some long sleeve comfy knit kinda ones and thought "this would work on Mountain Dew", then I tried them on, and they were great on me by the way, $80 of shirts for only $13 - hell yeah for clearances and coupons!

Haha that's awesome.

Gender is something that has been accepted and proven scientifically; all nations, races, and cultures agree on the definitions of "man" and "woman." Gender is very specific. Sure, there are rare cases where gender is more vague, such as in the case of someone born with both sets of genitalia.

I am a woman, because I look and sound like a woman, sure; but I also possess the genetic double-X chromosome that defines me as a "woman," I have given birth, twice.

No human being on this earth could refute the fact that I am a woman and be taken at all seriously. However, if someone were to question my socionics type, they could be much more successful.

What you are describing is called sex. You can empirically prove yourself as the female sex because you poses female reproductive organs. "Gender", "man", and "woman", are all social constructs/psychological attitudes that cannot be empirically proven. Hence transgender people: people who belong to the male sex but are women by gender, or belong to the female sex but are men by gender.

Typing people would be so much easier if there were 32 different kinds of genitalia. 16 different types times 2 for each type for each gender. Typing would be as easy as some newbie walking along, "What's my socionics type?" "DROP YOUR PANTS!" "What?!"

[Aleksei]

I'd say 70-75% sure or so. I've considered a few other types and there are a couple of holes in my self-typing, but overall nothing seems to fit better than EIE.

Lol @ all the people saying 90-99% (especially considering the number of them that are actually wrong). It's hilarious how much stigma is attached in this forum to being indecisive on type.

[Jarno]

Lol @ all the people saying 90-99% (especially considering the number of them that are actually wrong). It's hilarious how much stigma is attached in this forum to being indecisive on type.

hmm 60% who are absolute certain, that means 40% doubts at least somewhat.

Seems correct to me.

[silke]

seems like a fit