Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?

[Jive A Turkey]

Fifty per cent.

Alright I give up.

Which ball did I drop?
a) Mathematics / Statistics
b) Vocabulary
c) Humor

 

[white]

I was considering your question earlier, beat. Wondering if it would be easier if I could be an XXXX - for e.g. it'd mean extreme flexibility - ability to deal with any situation, via use of any/all of the 8 functions, in any combination. Such an individual would be rare. (Jesus? )

But I'm not certain how a person with XXXX would function in reality without self-immolating at some stage. Plausibility check as Athenian mentioned: How'd you firstly deal with multiple inputs which you weigh to the same degree, and how'd you come to a decision if your judgements are going to be equally weighted in 4 directions? Inaction and merely absorbing in 4 ways? Inability to act/to choose is a preference in that case, isn't it? And extreme flexibility is a choice of Ps too for e.g. So it'd negate an X straight away. *ponders*

As we grow/mature, we'd tend to some traits, and that's what the dichotomies stand for merely, preferences. Perhaps over time, we get clearer, so someone younger could have more Xes?

Theoretically, the possibility is there, 50% as wildcat's pointed out.

JiveATurkey, I think your ball is statistical.

Edit: hey, wildcat, I was thinking of it, the chance could also be 33.33%? (derailment alert)

To explain my reasoning,

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

 

["?"]

Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?

 

[proteanmix]

Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?

Me and my X are very happy to hear this!

 

["?"]

Me and my X are very happy to hear this!

As they should be Protean!

 

[Domino]

Fifty per cent.

A flip of the coin? Heads. Tails.

 

[INTJMom]

Actually the more healthy you are, the more Xs you should receive, which is why I laugh when I see someone bragging that they are 100% of any dichotomy. Don't you know you are striving for imbalance when you do this?

I agree.

 

[INTJMom]

Two Xs seems to be somewhat common. What are the odds of generating an "XXXX"? Are stats like this available?

I would think it would be some difficult mathematical equation to figure out because you have to take into consideration the natural tendency to differentiate one way or another in each of the 4 dichotomies. It's probably equally difficult or even more difficult than being 100% in all of the four dichotomies.

 

[wildcat]

I was considering your question earlier, beat. Wondering if it would be easier if I could be an XXXX - for e.g. it'd mean extreme flexibility - ability to deal with any situation, via use of any/all of the 8 functions, in any combination. Such an individual would be rare. (Jesus? )

But I'm not certain how a person with XXXX would function in reality without self-immolating at some stage. Plausibility check as Athenian mentioned: How'd you firstly deal with multiple inputs which you weigh to the same degree, and how'd you come to a decision if your judgements are going to be equally weighted in 4 directions? Inaction and merely absorbing in 4 ways? Inability to act/to choose is a preference in that case, isn't it? And extreme flexibility is a choice of Ps too for e.g. So it'd negate an X straight away. *ponders*

As we grow/mature, we'd tend to some traits, and that's what the dichotomies stand for merely, preferences. Perhaps over time, we get clearer, so someone younger could have more Xes?

Theoretically, the possibility is there, 50% as wildcat's pointed out.

JiveATurkey, I think your ball is statistical.

Edit: hey, wildcat, I was thinking of it, the chance could also be 33.33%? (derailment alert)

To explain my reasoning,

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

Sound reasoning.

 

[wildcat]

Alright I give up.

Which ball did I drop?
a) Mathematics / Statistics
b) Vocabulary
c) Humor

You did not drop any ball.

 

[redacted]

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X. I think you were coming from the angle that a person would be E/I (one outcome) or X (second outcome), i.e. 50%?

Now whether you're E/I/X does not affect whether you'd be N/S/X, T/F/X or P/J/X. I think the term is independent events.

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX

 

[swordpath]

Hmmm.

 

[white]

you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX

No wonder I didn't do well in stats. *slaps me. no more derailment. nudges thread back.*

 

[Athenian200]

My guess was that the the chances of having all 4 X's would be something like 6.25% for some reason. I have no idea why?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

haha. Just curious. Also, what would you say Jesus' type would be?

It depends on whose definition and test you use. If the test is designed so that you can be balanced, then sure, why not. If you're actually asking can a PERSON (not the results of the test) be balanced, then my answer is that your question makes no sense, because personality doesn't actually divide into discrete functions to begin with, it's just the way we divide up personality for convenience (and control).

 

[Totenkindly]

Let's start with E/I: If you're either or the other, or X, it means your chance is 33.33% of being E or I or X.

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.)

It means overall chance of being XXXX is 33.33%, if you take X as a discrete possible outcome of the MBTI, or 50% if you're taking it from wildcat's angle of E/I as one outcome, and X as another.

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.

 

[wildcat]

you really want to assume that people are just as likely to be x as E or I? i always thought of it as a 1dimensional spectrum. x in my mind just signifies that you're somewhere in the middle (maybe between 45% and 55% or something arbitrary like that). assuming x is between 45% and 55%, you gotta use standard deviations and all that stuff to calculate the percentage of people in the x category. then you have to do that for each dichotomy and multiply them together. (this also assumes that opposite preferences are equally likely).

so say 15% of people are in the x category for each opposition. that means the chances of XXXX are .15^4 (since the variables are independent of each other).

right?

edit: even if you assume 33% or 50% likelihood in each dichotomy, you still have to multiply the chances of each one.
33% for one letter --> .33^4 chance of XXXX
50% for one letter --> .5^4 chance of XXXX

A serious miscalculation my boy.

 

[INTJMom]

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.

So we don't know what the answer is yet, but we're getting closer.

 

[Totenkindly]

So we don't know what the answer is yet, but we're getting closer.

At this point, my desire to have a specific, accurate number is being overborne by "Close-Enough" P-style expediency.

Hence: The chance someone's a bona fide "XXXX" is REEEEEL small. Next topic!

 

[INTJMom]

At this point, my desire to have a specific, accurate number is being overborne by "Close-Enough" P-style expediency.

Hence: The chance someone's a bona fide "XXXX" is REEEEEL small. Next topic!

Right. What I do is wait for someone nerdish or OCDish to come along and give us the answer.