I think my reasoning earlier was along the lines of:

It would be absurd to be more than 95% certain of anything about my personality.

I will consider myself 95% certain I am an introvert, and 95% certain that I am an intuitive type. A few years ago, this would have been much lower. I considered how these factors are represented in legit models like Big Five and Karlie Kloss, as well as the extent to which an observer would say "Of course you're one of those!". Thus, that is about a 90.25% chance there, assuming the two factors are independent.

While using E vs. I, N vs. S, T vs. F, P vs. J. scales is not "legit" Socionics, I used it there for the sake of convenience. In terms of being mb a "T" or mb a "F" type, and mb a "P" or mb a "J" type: I could easily make a case for being 70% certain of being any of those "types" (!). And yet it doesn't seem quite right to say I'm 50:50 in terms of certainty. - i.e., that is to say, I don't really have a clue anymore. I do believe that generally, I am more "rational", more deliberate than most, but in terms of Socionics, it is perhaps significantly due to habit that means I consider myself a rational type (that and the fact that I identify strongly with being a static, -ego, IXXJ type based on type descriptions).

Thus 90.25%x50%x50%=22.56%, not taking into consideration my long-term perception/habit and the extent to which I relate to type descriptions (although perhaps I have already taken those into account in my subconscious when trying to determine how certain I am of aspects of my personality).

Then, taking into consideration existential doubt, doubts about the truthfulness of central tenets of Socionics ideology (probably most significantly, duality harmonics, but also, the extent to which the types can meaningfully represent an individual's identity, & also whether they even exist as discrete forms (not really an issue in itself, if it has some practical value))... Also, as I mentioned in the OP "the extent to which familiarity with Socionics may lead to self-monitoring (in psychology, this concept actually relates more to the recognition that individuals present an image of themselves that they believe is socially acceptable and/or perhaps that they aspire to appear to be). I don't believe that I have a habit of going out of my way to tell others how upset I am about some refugee crisis I saw on the news in order to make people think I am a particular type: I don't really care for such practices. But I have noticed that when I take personality tests now, it is difficult not to get the feeling I am answering according to a crystalized archetype/stereotype of how I saw myself years ago, that I am now unable to objectively distant myself from and thus answer according to how I actually see myself now. The very best psychology tests in my view check for self-monitoring - Socionics simply does not have that.

Based on such factors... I essentially halved the 22.56% figure and rounded down.