• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
I was considering your question earlier, beat. Wondering if it would be easier if I could be an XXXX - for e.g. it'd mean extreme flexibility - ability to deal with any situation, via use of any/all of the 8 functions, in any combination. Such an individual would be rare. (Jesus? :D)

But I'm not certain how a person with XXXX would function in reality without self-immolating at some stage. Plausibility check as Athenian mentioned: How'd you firstly deal with multiple inputs which you weigh to the same degree, and how'd you come to a decision if your judgements are going to be equally weighted in 4 directions? Inaction and merely absorbing in 4 ways? Inability to act/to choose is a preference in that case, isn't it? And extreme flexibility is a choice of Ps too for e.g. So it'd negate an X straight away. *ponders*

As we grow/mature, we'd tend to some traits, and that's what the dichotomies stand for merely, preferences. Perhaps over time, we get clearer, so someone younger could have more Xes?

Theoretically, the possibility is there, 50% as wildcat's pointed out.

JiveATurkey, I think your ball is statistical. :D

Edit: hey, wildcat, I was thinking of it, the chance could also be 33.33%? (derailment alert)

To explain my reasoning,

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.
 
Last edited:

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?

Me and my X are very happy to hear this! :D
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?
I agree.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Two Xs seems to be somewhat common. What are the odds of generating an "XXXX"? Are stats like this available?
I would think it would be some difficult mathematical equation to figure out because you have to take into consideration the natural tendency to differentiate one way or another in each of the 4 dichotomies. It's probably equally difficult or even more difficult than being 100% in all of the four dichotomies.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
I was considering your question earlier, beat. Wondering if it would be easier if I could be an XXXX - for e.g. it'd mean extreme flexibility - ability to deal with any situation, via use of any/all of the 8 functions, in any combination. Such an individual would be rare. (Jesus? :D)

But I'm not certain how a person with XXXX would function in reality without self-immolating at some stage. Plausibility check as Athenian mentioned: How'd you firstly deal with multiple inputs which you weigh to the same degree, and how'd you come to a decision if your judgements are going to be equally weighted in 4 directions? Inaction and merely absorbing in 4 ways? Inability to act/to choose is a preference in that case, isn't it? And extreme flexibility is a choice of Ps too for e.g. So it'd negate an X straight away. *ponders*

As we grow/mature, we'd tend to some traits, and that's what the dichotomies stand for merely, preferences. Perhaps over time, we get clearer, so someone younger could have more Xes?

Theoretically, the possibility is there, 50% as wildcat's pointed out.

JiveATurkey, I think your ball is statistical. :D

Edit: hey, wildcat, I was thinking of it, the chance could also be 33.33%? (derailment alert)

To explain my reasoning,

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.
Sound reasoning.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX
 

white

~dangerous curves ahead~
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
2,591
MBTI Type
ENTP
you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX











:D No wonder I didn't do well in stats. *slaps me. no more derailment. nudges thread back.* :D
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
My guess was that the the chances of having all 4 X's would be something like 6.25% for some reason. I have no idea why?
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
haha. Just curious. Also, what would you say Jesus' type would be?

It depends on whose definition and test you use. If the test is designed so that you can be balanced, then sure, why not. If you're actually asking can a PERSON (not the results of the test) be balanced, then my answer is that your question makes no sense, because personality doesn't actually divide into discrete functions to begin with, it's just the way we divide up personality for convenience (and control).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X.

It is?

Really, the answer of being an XXXX is factored by how many times XXXX shows up in the combinations of type possibilities using the four-slot sequence, with each slot being one of three types. This is far less than 33%. (Think about it: If you roll two dice, there are 36 possible outcomes... and only one of them is "snake eyes" or double 1's. Now extrapolate this out for four dice, each with 3 possible variables. Only one of those many many sequences is XXXX.)

But there might not even be a 33% chance of getting an X.

How is X determined? Isn't an X outcome simply a small blip in the gray area between E/I? If we want to be generous, wouldn't it just be the area around the 45-55 range on the 1-100 scale? (And if we are not generous, it would be just around 50.) But let's be generous: The odds here would be

E= 45%
I=45%
X=10% (at best)

(And this might not even be accurate, I'm not sure whether the scale is linear. This is only true if the odds of being anywhere along the scale are equal, rather than a dual bell curve or some other sort of curve. But let's just assume it.)

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

Instead of doing the three-value thing (e.g., E/I/X) for each above, assign a 1-100 value to each slot of the MBTI type. So you might have a 1/1/1/1, 2/1/1/1, 3/1/1/1, etc., up through 100/100/100/100. Your XXXX combinations will be (generously) in the 45-55/45-55/45-55/45-55 ranges. My math is shoddy, but it should only be a 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% chance or so.... which is .01% chance, I think.

Statistically, the chance of an XXXX combination in comparison to other type combinations is infinitessimally small.

The best bet would be to assume that the person simply does not want to commit to a type determination, for some personal reason. Either that, or the testing instrument was awful.

EDIT: Oh, Dissonance! you beat me to it. :)
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX
A serious miscalculation my boy.
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
It is?

Really, the answer of being an XXXX is factored by how many times XXXX shows up in the combinations of type possibilities using the four-slot sequence, with each slot being one of three types. This is far less than 33%. (Think about it: If you roll two dice, there are 36 possible outcomes... and only one of them is "snake eyes" or double 1's. Now extrapolate this out for four dice, each with 3 possible variables. Only one of those many many sequences is XXXX.)

But there might not even be a 33% chance of getting an X.

How is X determined? Isn't an X outcome simply a small blip in the gray area between E/I? If we want to be generous, wouldn't it just be the area around the 45-55 range on the 1-100 scale? (And if we are not generous, it would be just around 50.) But let's be generous: The odds here would be

E= 45%
I=45%
X=10% (at best)

(And this might not even be accurate, I'm not sure whether the scale is linear. This is only true if the odds of being anywhere along the scale are equal, rather than a dual bell curve or some other sort of curve. But let's just assume it.)



Instead of doing the three-value thing (e.g., E/I/X) for each above, assign a 1-100 value to each slot of the MBTI type. So you might have a 1/1/1/1, 2/1/1/1, 3/1/1/1, etc., up through 100/100/100/100. Your XXXX combinations will be (generously) in the 45-55/45-55/45-55/45-55 ranges. My math is shoddy, but it should only be a 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% chance or so.... which is .01% chance, I think.

Statistically, the chance of an XXXX combination in comparison to other type combinations is infinitessimally small.

The best bet would be to assume that the person simply does not want to commit to a type determination, for some personal reason. Either that, or the testing instrument was awful.

EDIT: Oh, Dissonance! you beat me to it. :)
So we don't know what the answer is yet, but we're getting closer. :smile:
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So we don't know what the answer is yet, but we're getting closer. :smile:

At this point, my desire to have a specific, accurate number is being overborne by "Close-Enough" P-style expediency.

Hence: The chance someone's a bona fide "XXXX" is REEEEEL small. Next topic!
 

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
At this point, my desire to have a specific, accurate number is being overborne by "Close-Enough" P-style expediency.

Hence: The chance someone's a bona fide "XXXX" is REEEEEL small. Next topic!
:smile:

Right. What I do is wait for someone nerdish or OCDish to come along and give us the answer.
 
Top