Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?

[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

 

[Gabe]

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.

 

[redacted]

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.

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.

 

[wildcat]

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.

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[wildcat]

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.

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[wildcat]

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
?



.

 

[nightning]

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.

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...

 

[wildcat]

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...

Does the tool dictate the measure?
No.
The measure dictates the tool.

To define is to zero the irrelevant number.

 

[nightning]

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?

 

[FFF]

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.

 

[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.

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[nightning]

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%.

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.

 

[wildcat]

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.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

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.

 

[JustDave]

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

 

[Gabe]

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.

 

[JustDave]

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.