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.