Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
4 May 2016
Looking at those who have posted in the last year, these are individuals I feel comfortable with agreeing strongly with their own self-typings. They are in order of post count. I would like to say I am 90%-95%+ certain their types are correct, but I do not trust myself to give such a figure, and I feel that many of these, while I believe their self-typing to be congruous with said type, they could almost as easily be their kindred type (e.g. LII vs. LSI etc.), or some other type (I think kindred or mirror would generally be most probable alternative types based on my overall thoughts here). My view is that in such instances, the person's own self-perception must be of paramount value. (Finally, I may have some people's current self-typings wrong, which is unintentional: I only wish to put self-typings I agree with here).

ILE: @mu4, @xerx, @1981slater, @The Ineffable, @Jack Oliver Aaron, @SlavaPHP
LII: @Logos, @Ms. Kensington, @Pa3s, @jason_m, @ClownsandEntropy, @RSV3, @Avalonia
SEI: @lemontrees
ESE:

SLE: @Ananke
LSI: @Myst, @miss BabyDoll, @Pole Ninja
IEI: @Starfall, @strrrng, @Aylen, @silke, @glam, @SisOfNight, @summerprincess
EIE: @golden

SEE:
ESI: @blackburry, @Olga
ILI: @Capitalist Pig, @Scapegrace, @Contra, @ragnar
LIE: @Narc, @Adam Strange, @May

IEE: @Galen, @Kim, @anndelise, @Animal, @Raver, @Simon Ssmall, @SyrupDeGem, @applejacks, @sapphire
EII: @Minde, @April, @Taknamay, @Birdie
SLI: @Waster
LSE: @UDP
22 Oct 2016
I think the quoted post is still true in my perception. If any of the individuals have changed their self-typings since, then should not be on here. There are individuals since this was posted who should probably be included, but I am reluctant to fish for additions lest I somehow lower my bar of qualification (i.e. that I agree strongly with their self-typings). Perhaps if I was to do the process again from scratch, I'd be able to make it up-to-date.
Probably 5-10% of those typings have change to "no opinion" or an alternative type since 2016, in line with those individuals who have become less certain or who have changed their self-typing. My rule was to only include individuals whose self-typings I agreed with strongly and/or without serious reservations. I think I could probably add a few more individuals to the list, although I don't feel especially inclined to do so at the moment. I suppose my view is that must be a certain period of stability or consistency before I could add someone to such a list.