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.
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.