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

1. Originally Posted by wildcat
To define is to zero the irrelevant number.
Is that not a post hoc definition then?

What is the irrelevant number in this case? The specifics. Whether you're I or E, T or F etc?

2. If Jesus was an INTP, He would've been too busy trying to understand everything to get stuff done. When He saw the crowds with nothing to eat, He wouldn't have been moved with compassion; He may have logically come to the conclusion that someone might not be so well off since they were in the middle of nowhere. When Lazarus died, he wouldn't have cried. He would've hung his head and said "that sucks."

I think we can rule out INTP, and probably all the T types for that matter.

3. So we still haven't had a math wiz come in here and give us the answer yet on the chance of someone being XXXX?

I might have to get one of my kids to do it.

4. Originally Posted by INTJMom
So we still haven't had a math wiz come in here and give us the answer yet on the chance of someone being XXXX?

I might have to get one of my kids to do it.
define some arbitrary percentage of people that are x for each of the 4 preferences. multiply.

if 10% are x in each preference, .1^4 people are XXXX = 1/10000 = .0001 = .01%

or if you arbitrarily say 5% of people are x in each preference, it's .05^4 = 1/160000 = .00000625 = .000625%

etc.

5. What is the meaning of being XXXX... It means no preference for any axises I/E etc. What does no preference mean? Assume each axis has a range from (0,100). To have absolutely no preference theoretically is to be at exactly 50.000000... The probability of something falling on any one point on the number line is 0&#37;.

If you want to do it practically though... what does X mean? Falling so close to the divide that one cannot readily test their preference... since there's an error associated with testing. How big is the error? You'll need to look up the specific inventory. After you've obtained that... use dissonance's calculation.

6. Originally Posted by nightning
Is that not a post hoc definition then?

What is the irrelevant number in this case? The specifics. Whether you're I or E, T or F etc?
As far as they are concerned, zero = X

The zero continuum loopholes the types. The type category does not loophole itself.

7. Originally Posted by INTJMom
So we still haven't had a math wiz come in here and give us the answer yet on the chance of someone being XXXX?

I might have to get one of my kids to do it.
There is not enough data to compute a reasonable probability. If the 4 "letters" are independent events then the probability is

P(X1)*P(X2)*P(X3)*P(X4)

So if all of the probabilities of each X are the same then the total probability is P(X)^4. However if the events are not independent then even more data would be required to calculate a reasonable probability.

8. IMHO, it is possible. Contrary to what others have stated I believe as you mature your preferences balance out.

9. Originally Posted by JustDave
IMHO, it is possible. Contrary to what others have stated I believe as you mature your preferences balance out.
yes, balance out as people develop the inferior function. So when an introverted intuition type is just beginning to really 'live life', an extraverted sensing type is diving into parapsychology and anthroposophy.

10. Originally Posted by Gabe
yes, balance out as people develop the inferior function. So when an introverted intuition type is just beginning to really 'live life', an extraverted sensing type is diving into parapsychology and anthroposophy.
Well at least we agree on one thing.

Excellent post. My Dad and most of my cousins all of which were very E have slowed down and gained a tremendous amount of depth over the years.

#### 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