User Tag List

Page 6 of 105 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 1046

Thread: MBTI Type and I.Q.

  1. #51
    Resident Snot-Nose Array GZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahara View Post
    Math =
    That was the best post ever. I feel the same way.

    I'm the kind of guy who every teacher says should be getting the highest marks in the class, and is otherwise considered "smart" by other people, but do poorly in school, especially math. My all time low score was a 5% on a test in grade 10. I was trying, too. HA! I just didn't understand it.

    However, people often tell me that I word things perfectly, and as I said before, people are kind of otherwise impressed with me sometimes. Not everyone, a lot of people find me silly and stupid, and I can see why, a lot of what I say is just kind of... exhaust from my thoughts, just sort of the random, funny little things that come from all my deeper thoughts.

    So what are the coresponding functions with intelligence/academia? Was someone earlier saying that people with a J tendancy often do very well in school? If that is true, it really wouldn't suprise me. School seems to have a judging thing going on as a whole -organised and structured, and very much NOT open ended and flexible.

  2. #52
    Permabanned Array
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TaylorS View Post
    I think a better way of stating this is NT = Theory amd ST = Experiment/Observation. Most scientists are probably ST lab workers, naturalists, field geologists working for a mining company, etc.
    Theory of any kind (science or otherwise) is technically pseudo-science. Psychology is mostly pseudo-science.

  3. #53
    My termites win Array ygolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Theory of any kind (science or otherwise) is technically pseudo-science. Psychology is mostly pseudo-science.
    Just because something is not a science, doesn't make it a pseudo-science. Only when people take a form of study that is not science and pass it of as one is it a pseudo-science.

    Many of the best hypothesis generated for the sciences come from excellent work by philosophers.

    I think psychology should stay in the realm of philosophy until something more rigorously testable is created (No ad-hoc hypothesizing to save a theory, sound reasoning to posit the existence of something, adequate use of Occam's Razor,...).

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #54
    The elder Holmes Array Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Somewhat off the subject, but my problem with intelligence tests like the ones on the site PT linked is such: I took one when I was feeling tired and hungry and did okay. I took two more at a later time when I was more energized and my scores were markedly better. If these things are carefully calculated to measure innate intelligence, I would expect something like hunger not to make such a difference.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  5. #55
    Aspie Idealist Array TaylorS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    972 so/sp
    Socionics
    EII Ni
    Posts
    365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Theory of any kind (science or otherwise) is technically pseudo-science.
    Wrong, what determines what is science or not is falsifiability. All science starts with problems that are explained with a falsifiable hypotheses. then that falsifiable hypothesis is tested via experiment or observation.
    Autistic INFP


  6. #56
    filling some space Array UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    xNTx
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Somewhat off the subject, but my problem with intelligence tests like the ones on the site PT linked is such: I took one when I was feeling tired and hungry and did okay. I took two more at a later time when I was more energized and my scores were markedly better. If these things are carefully calculated to measure innate intelligence, I would expect something like hunger not to make such a difference.
    No need to have such problem. Pretty much all measuring in subject to some conditions. Thermometer gives too high readings if the sun shines directly in to it, for example.

    I think the analogy with IQ test and a race fits better. Measuring the performance of 100m track runners..well, they and pretty much everyone else expects them to optimize all the conditions that might effect their results.

    IQ test is a maximum performance test. Other such tests are the Cooper test (running maximum distance over 12 minutes) and Peak Expiratory Flow test, used in medicine to measure person's expiratory performance. Instructions for both of those tests often note that the results are a variable of motivation. It can be considered a minus. Yet, given a treshold of motivation (just enough), the motivation practically stops being a factor in the results. Running results become mostly a function of VO2MAX and running economy, and PEF results a function of the power of chest muscles and the expiratory system's resistance to exhalation.

    So what is a critique of maximum performance tests, becomes a reason to advocate such tests, provided that a maximum effort is indeed given.

    Btw, a few questions for Ss.
    How would you rate the "factuality" of my statements on the scale of fact/opinion?
    What could I do to provide better information for S-type thinkers? Was I overly vague in a senseless N way?
    Did I just present a collection of irrelevant information bits, or a solid, logically understandable case?
    How much more would the above writing make sense, if I would provide a source for each and everyone of the said statements?
    Should I have proven my statements better in order for them to be useful?

  7. #57
    Senior Member Array Veneti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    XNTX
    Posts
    264

    Default

    I think you'll find traditional IQ tests have been designed by NT's.

    So, NT's will come out on top.

    An extroverted NT is more likely to be focused on social intellect and less on pure knowledge as an introvert will have greater free time for this.

    Hence, the INT is more likely to be favoured in IQ.

    Even then though, these features only provide a potential which depends on the motivation of the person to fully develop.

    Lately they've been looking more towards so called emotional IQ which is some way of promoting the F,P,S type traits. (Effective management requires the ability to manage all types of people).

    Anyway, the world is built on scientific process and as such its highly likely that the inherent traits of the rationals (NT's) are more highly rewarded in IQ tests.

    Now just imagine if the world was determined by the ability to play a guitar well... to perform on stage. It would be a completely different situation with IQ.

  8. #58
    Member Array Andy K Octopus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I can remember some important dates, I was a history major, but I remembered much easier the theories and currents of history more so than the exact dates.

    I was a history major as well, but I always remember the dates and alot of even minor characters, little factoids and such. I get obsessed with little details. Sometimes I can't see the forest because of the trees, historically speaking. I get too into minutia. I guess that is a reflection of the J (detail oriented) v. P (bigger picture) way of thinking

  9. #59
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    ...The tests are suppose to be a battery of sub-tests in order to avoid the aptitude problem. For example, the difference between doing basic word-problems (arithmetic) might depend on all sorts of outside factors, like job/training/education... but the likelyhood of being able to do those at the 130 IQ level and the ability to memorize and repeat/transform a string a numbers is unlikely - most major tests will have 2-5 major groupings of tests, each with 2-5 under that. In the WAIS, those two are part of the same 'verbal' category, as I believe the contradictions and common sense parts are. (Can google WAIS IQ to get a boatload of information on the test.)...
    Yes, this seems reasonable.
    Thanks for the info. My knowledge in both IQ and MBTI is less than basic, and I understand that any attemp to correlate the two systems can be made only in a theorhetical sphere. I don't think intelligence and personality theories can give many conclusions to people who, like me, are uneducated in and a bit suspicious towards psychology. These are very lattest interests of mine, and I welcome all info I can get about either

  10. #60
    Member Array warick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Link


    In summary, here's what the statistics indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:


    Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).
    Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is 8 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 2.5 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person (one who seeks closure) is about twice as likely to have a high IQ than a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).
    Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population. The probability is 20% for an INTP, 15% for an INFJ, and 8% for an INFP. These four types account for 66% of the high-IQ population but only 6% of the total population.

    * August 26, 2007: I apologize for not having documented the source of the statistics that I cite here. I dimly recall finding them on or via the website of Mensa USA, but I am not certain of that. And I can no longer find the source by searching the web. I did transcribe the statistics to a spreadsheet, which I still have. So, the numbers are real, even if their source is now lost to me.
    So he admits himself that he doesn't recall the source, so the credibility of this is slightly suspect.

    -IQ is a general indicator of logic, which is only a small part of overall intelligence.
    -A high IQ isn't a guarantee for success, for instance, INTJ's generally have high IQ's but we also have more anti-social tendencies/quirks. This can prevent a smart person from fitting in with social norms (like the sociopaths everone keeps mentioning). It's hard to get into good colleges and get good jobs and get promoted if your personality gets in the way.
    -As PT mentioned, most criminals have low IQ's. A low IQ can be even worse socially than a high one. A low IQ doesn't make someone stupid, but they often go hand in hand. A person can be unintelligent and still successful if they apply themselves properly (like if they have a good personality).
    I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to make you a better person.

Page 6 of 105 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Determining Socionics type from MBTI type
    By Azseroffs in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 09:28 AM
  2. Do you identify more with your MBTI type or your Enneagram type?
    By Zarathustra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 05:32 PM
  3. [E4] enneagram type 4 what mbti type matches up?
    By liYA in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-21-2011, 04:01 PM
  4. figuring out my socionics type from MBTI type
    By psyche in forum Socionics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2010, 10:50 PM
  5. Your MBTI type and your Socionics type
    By 527468 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •