User Tag List

First 1959676869707179 Last

Results 681 to 690 of 1060

  1. #681
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    I hesitate to even post in this thread because it's going to perpetuate it, but I suppose it's already resurrected so why the hell not.

    --

    We use type test statistics and correlation with other measures (IQ, % population, etc.). We also state how the type tests are terrible a measure of actual type.

    We then claim the former to be meaningful anyway, disregarding the latter assertion when it suits our purposes to do so.

    We're fantastic. Go us!


    If (if!) we believe in JCF extensions to MBTI, and if (if!) we actually give a fuck about this question, the actual answer lies in facing this problem and reconciling it.

    Off the top of my head, here: It's a matter of conditional probability. We have an answer to the question--"What's the correlation between tested type and IQ?" We don't have an answer to the question--"Given that one tests as a certain type, what's the probability that he is that type?" Depending on that probability, virtually every conclusion we make regarding IQ, population, etc. based on type statistics could be pretty meaningless, regardless of what the correlation table between type and IQ tells us.


    For the record, the g factor has some merit.
    it always amuses me how little grasp most people have on statistics... which is probably why adding in some numbers is the easiest way to support your lie in most cases

    basing an entire argument on why some people are inferior on shoddy research and stats on a topic that can't even be conclusively proven in any manner just ends up making the arguer look stupid

    for goodness sake... I can easily take the same test on two different days and get completely different results... I'm not special, so I'm assuming this would be true of just about anyone... damned self reporting tests

    but this goes back to the "people don't understand numbers and testing all that well" argument... which really makes a thread like this pretty pointless...

    so pretty much, you're right, mr lunchmeat
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #682
    who are
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    They were online tests, I don't think there have been any real ones. That's why I am sceptical about the result - could be higher but most likely average.
    Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.

  3. #683
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    FWIW, 75% of the population is not extraverted, if we are using MBTI. There are slightly more introverts.

    http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/...requencies.htm FWIW. I'd immediately distrust the other snips as it seems to be using really bad "psycho-metric" data (presumably an offshoot of MBTI, or pre step I MBTI?)
    I'm actually more surprised by the F/T stats. I thought Ts dominated the US.

    Also interesting is that slightly more males are N than females...especially since the romanticized females are historically considered to be more intuitive.

  4. #684
    Retired Nicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    I.Q. tests are biased against sensors.

  5. #685
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.
    I was fully aware of that as I mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleda View Post
    I.Q. tests are biased against sensors.
    The universe hates them, not just the IQ tests.

  6. #686
    Retired Nicki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standuble View Post
    I was fully aware of that as I mentioned above.



    The universe hates them, not just the IQ tests.
    What do you mean by that exactly?

  7. #687
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.
    It depends on the test. All kinds of internet IQ tests exist. I took one intended for children some time back and scored about 185. But I knew my official score and I've found some that gave me identical results to the score I had before I ever went online.
    "If you try to build something that is idiot-proof, the universe will build a better idiot."
    I'm an extrovert trapped within an introverted soul.

  8. #688
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexicon View Post
    How many more times will this piss-contest thread be resurrected, I wonder.
    At least once more!

    Here ya go @RaptorWizard see, I told ya not to feel so self-conscious!



    Western-led research debunks the IQ myth


    After conducting the largest online intelligence study on record, a Western University-led research team has concluded that the notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading.

    The findings from the landmark study, which included more than 100,000 participants, were published today in the journal Neuron. The article, "Fractionating human intelligence," was written by Adrian M. Owen and Adam Hampshire from Western's Brain and Mind Institute (London, Canada) and Roger Highfield, Director of External Affairs, Science Museum Group (London, U.K).

    Screen testUtilizing an online study open to anyone, anywhere in the world, the researchers asked respondents to complete 12 cognitive tests tapping memory, reasoning, attention and planning abilities, as well as a survey about their background and lifestyle habits.

    The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

    No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain.

    With so many respondents, the results also provided a wealth of new information about how factors such as age, gender and the tendency to play computer games influence our brain function.

    "Regular brain training didn't help people's cognitive performance at all yet aging had a profound negative effect on both memory and reasoning abilities," says Owen.

    Hampshire adds, "Intriguingly, people who regularly played computer games did perform significantly better in terms of both reasoning and short-term memory. And smokers performed poorly on the short-term memory and the verbal factors, while people who frequently suffer from anxiety performed badly on the short-term memory factor in particular”.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  9. #689
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    That is a relief, Hooray for science!

  10. #690
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    At least once more!

    Here ya go @RaptorWizard see, I told ya not to feel so self-conscious!
    Your post is arguably against the FAQ's rule that concerns quoting entire articles.

    That being said, consider the conclusion, "The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. No one component, or IQ, explained everything."

    The phrase "no one component, or IQ" makes no sense on the face of it. And IQ tests don't test short-term memory, they focus on reasoning skills alone. You would have to have a pretty bad short-term memory, such as that of an insect, for that factor to affect your test result. "Verbal IQ" has nothing to do with the reasoning component. If you want to measure verbal IQ, or emotional IQ (EQ), then that's for a different test.
    "If you try to build something that is idiot-proof, the universe will build a better idiot."
    I'm an extrovert trapped within an introverted soul.

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
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO