# Thread: Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?

1. Originally Posted by aelan
Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33&#37; 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

2. Hmmm.

3. Originally Posted by dissonance
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

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

4. My guess was that the the chances of having all 4 X's would be something like 6.25&#37; for some reason. I have no idea why?

5. Originally Posted by TheBeatGoesOn
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).

6. Originally Posted by aelan
Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33&#37; 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.

7. Originally Posted by dissonance
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.

8. Originally Posted by Jennifer
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.

9. Originally Posted by INTJMom
So we don't know what the answer is yet, but we're getting closer.
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!

10. Originally Posted by Jennifer
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!

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

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO