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

1. The song says: There is a center.. in everything.
This means: We have to add an X.

IN: 4
IS: 4
IT: 4
IF: 4
IP: 4
IJ: 4
EN: 4
ES: 4
ET: 4
EF: 4
EP: 4
EJ: 4

+ 1 = 49

= 16+16+16+1

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1

+ 1

The number of X = 25 out of 49

XYYXYYX
YXYXYXY
YYXXXYY
XXXXXXX
YYXXXYY
YXYXYXY
XYYXYYX

2. Originally Posted by INTJMom
If someone tested as an xxxx, I think it would mean they were emotionally or mentally ill. The goal of the maturation process is to develop preferences. Then later on in life we mellow out a little and learn to use the opposites better.

Hmmm... Jesus... That would be hard to say. Since He was God and all, I don't think He'd fit in a box like that. But He was human, and I just finished saying there's no such thing as xxxx. Hmmm...

He had a small circle of friends, and frequently retreated from the crowds. - I

He could read people's thought and motives - not fair, that was the God-part - the widow put in more than the rich people did - N

He was moved with compassion, He wept, He was angry with hypocrites, righteous indignation - F

He was black and white, no beating around the bush with the bad guys - J

INFJ
yeah, except that part about J/P. That has nothing to do with J/P (I only say this because I'm getting really sick of seeing posts that say stuff like that.)

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I really don't see any sign of extraverted feeling in how Jesus was presented, but there's introverted-feeling like stuff throughout the new testement.

3. Originally Posted by wildcat
A serious miscalculation my boy.
how? if the probability of one x is n, then the probability of 4 xs is n^4.

like if the probability of flipping a coin and getting heads is .5, the probability of getting 4 heads (out of 4 tries) is .5^4, or .0625.

to solve this problem, all we need are likelihood values for getting an x on each opposition. then we multiply them all together.

read jennifer's post, she basically said the same thing as i said.

Originally Posted by wildcat
The song says: There is a center.. in everything.
This means: We have to add an X.

IN: 4
IS: 4
IT: 4
IF: 4
IP: 4
IJ: 4
EN: 4
ES: 4
ET: 4
EF: 4
EP: 4
EJ: 4

+ 1 = 49

= 16+16+16+1

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1

4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1

+ 1

The number of X = 25 out of 49

XYYXYYX
YXYXYXY
YYXXXYY
XXXXXXX
YYXXXYY
YXYXYXY
XYYXYYX
i have no idea what you're talking about. can't follow that at all.

4. Originally Posted by dissonance
how? if the probability of one x is n, then the probability of 4 xs is n^4.

like if the probability of flipping a coin and getting heads is .5, the probability of getting 4 heads (out of 4 tries) is .5^4, or .0625.

to solve this problem, all we need are likelihood values for getting an x on each opposition. then we multiply them all together.

read jennifer's post, she basically said the same thing as i said.

i have no idea what you're talking about. can't follow that at all.
Yes I read her post. I have also read John and Linda.

The slot machine of the MBTI loopholes the X. Why?
The entire theory is built on the standpoint of the 16 types.

The 16 types are only by the way. They are nothing but loopholes. They are a part of the picture, not the whole.
The X is a multiple continuum. Not a margin.

Of course you can have it your way. I have no objection.
But you cannot force me to have it your way.

5. Originally Posted by wildcat
Yes I read her post. I have also read John and Linda.

The slot machine of the MBTI loopholes the X. Why?
The entire theory is built on the standpoint of the 16 types.

The 16 types are only by the way. They are nothing but loopholes. They are a part of the picture, not the whole.
The X is a multiple continuum. Not a margin.

Of course you can have it your way. I have no objection.
But you cannot force me to have it your way.
i'm not trying to force my way on you.

can you explain how there is a 50% chance of being XXXX, though? i can't figure out a set of assumptions that would lead to that conclusion.

6. Originally Posted by dissonance
i'm not trying to force my way on you.

can you explain how there is a 50&#37; chance of being XXXX, though? i can't figure out a set of assumptions that would lead to that conclusion.
I should not use the word "chance" .. as if it would be one or the other.
What it is is a matter of interpretation.
There was a discussion of what was the type of the asperger. They found the INTJ was the most common type among them. INTP was the second. ISTJ was also listed.

But then I began to look at the function order of the participants. It was very odd. There was a new type. Nothing matched.
I could see that the INTP and the ISTJ participants were essentially of the same type. Between the XXXX and the loophole. What is the outcome if you have to choose between them? I vote the XXXX.

And these were aspies. What about the neurotypical people? They do not gravitate towards the XXXX?

If the XXXX acts the way of the others, as a loophole, then its magnet powers should be the maximal. Every time it is close at hand.

If nothing acts as a loophole, then there is no CHANCE. Because it is not any more one or the other.

You are right. If we accept the XXXX theory then we accept that the XXXX is a loophole also.

I added the X. What does it accomplish? Everything.

That is also the right answer. The "fourth" can be seen an illusion.
A part of the picture is always out of the game? Not when you need the part.

I should say that a part of the thing is as well there- as it is on the other side.
But not at the same time.

I do not think I made myself clear. Sorry.

There is no 50 per cent chance of being a one hundred per cent XXXX, no way.
How is the X defined?

If you are 30 per cent P, 29 per cent J, and 41 per cent X, what are you?

EDIT
I do not say you math is wrong at all- as math. It is a question of the preliminary. The set up.

7. Originally Posted by wildcat
There is no 50 per cent chance of being a one hundred per cent XXXX, no way.
How is the X defined?

If you are 30 per cent P, 29 per cent J, and 41 per cent X, what are you?
that's our disagreement right there.

i'm thinking of each letter as a 1 dimensional spectrum. so you can't be 30%P, 29% J, and 41% x in my definition. you just have some value between maximum P and maximum J (P is 0 and J is 100 or vice versa, whatever). so your score in that opposition is just one variable, not three.

your way is logically sound too (i always knew it would be, especially since you're an ITP).

by the way, i really had a hard time following your manner of speak. i don't mean to sound like a dick, but honestly, i know you are capable of phrasing things more clearly. you obviously have good understanding of what's going on, and i don't really get why you choose to phrase things the way you do. i'm really curious about your thought processes, but i just cannot follow your cryptic speech.

8. Originally Posted by dissonance
that's our disagreement right there.

i'm thinking of each letter as a 1 dimensional spectrum. so you can't be 30%P, 29% J, and 41% x in my definition. you just have some value between maximum P and maximum J (P is 0 and J is 100 or vice versa, whatever). so your score in that opposition is just one variable, not three.

your way is logically sound too (i always knew it would be, especially since you're an ITP).

by the way, i really had a hard time following your manner of speak. i don't mean to sound like a dick, but honestly, i know you are capable of phrasing things more clearly. you obviously have good understanding of what's going on, and i don't really get why you choose to phrase things the way you do. i'm really curious about your thought processes, but i just cannot follow your cryptic speech.
I agree.
Statistics claims the other dimension.
A dimension?

4-1
MBTI?

3-1
Map?

2-1
Toss?

1-1
?

.

9. Originally Posted by dissonance
i'm thinking of each letter as a 1 dimensional spectrum. so you can't be 30%P, 29% J, and 41% x in my definition. you just have some value between maximum P and maximum J (P is 0 and J is 100 or vice versa, whatever). so your score in that opposition is just one variable, not three.

Originally Posted by wildcat
I agree.
Statistics claims the other dimension.
A dimension?

4-1
MBTI?

3-1
Map?

2-1
Toss?

1-1
?

.
I thought the two are simply to different ways of describing the same system.
4 dimensions as in 4 axis... one for I/E, second for N/S, third for T/F, last for J/P. Each one gives a % along the axis... eg 40% I.

There's also the % as in a probability... the probability of a person being in the "I range" eg 100-50.0% I... that would be 50% chance...

You add probabilities together by multiplying...

10. Originally Posted by nightning
I thought the two are simply to different ways of describing the same system.
4 dimensions as in 4 axis... one for I/E, second for N/S, third for T/F, last for J/P. Each one gives a &#37; along the axis... eg 40% I.

There's also the % as in a probability... the probability of a person being in the "I range" eg 100-50.0% I... that would be 50% chance...

You add probabilities together by multiplying...
Does the tool dictate the measure?
No.
The measure dictates the tool.

To define is to zero the irrelevant number.

#### 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