...

[tinkerbell]

Yeah i sort of have the same questions. I mean, I don't see alot of entps around me and sometimes I see numbers like 5-7% which just seem unrealistic (or maybe they're hiding

I did an Omnibus in the UK (twice infact) and ENTP = 1% which is tiny.

If this research was in a tech collage or Engineering students then I'd by a upswing, but having ENTPs as the biggest sample, resiously dubious...

Still I doubt we will ever clarify

 

[EcK]

I did an Omnibus in the UK (twice infact) and ENTP = 1% which is tiny.

If this research was in a tech collage or Engineering students then I'd by a upswing, but having ENTPs as the biggest sample, resiously dubious...

Still I doubt we will ever clarify

Well they used the SAT scores to define gifted which just seem sort of odd and everything and didn't say what were the exact criterias for gifted (maybe it's in the original study)
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ude-breakdowns-type-sat-iq-act.html#post25019
that study is the only study around about which i'm pretty sure is following the scientific method but the data is over 20 years old.
I've often wondered if some of the 'high iq entps' don't turn intp because of the difficulties to relate to other people's centers of interests and if this wouldn't explain at least a part of the I/E IQ discrepancies, especially after seeing statistics where extroverted nts score higher than introverts in 8-12 grade.
I actually have an example from real life. (who since then turned back entp and was very clearly an enp child)

 

[tinkerbell]

Well they used the SAT scores to define gifted which just seem sort of odd and everything and didn't say what were the exact criterias for gifted (maybe it's in the original study)
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ude-breakdowns-type-sat-iq-act.html#post25019
that study is the only study around about which i'm pretty sure is following the scientific method but the data is over 20 years old.
I've often wondered if some of the 'high iq entps' don't turn intp because of the difficulties to relate to other people's centers of interests.
I actually have an example from real life. (who since then turned back entp but was very clearly and enp child)

Sorry I don't understand the categorisation on the SAT link you sent but no matter.

If my passing an exam as a teen seems reflective of educational perfomance at that time, and it doens't realted to IQ.... I was very distracted at high school, but it wasn't a reflection of pater performance or IQ...

beign 20 years old is not the concdern, the method sound massively flawed though... but interesting to chat about...

I am getting more introverted because I work in an environment that is very suppressing of ideas/innovation... so I share less, I don't think I will let the organisation change me completly, but it is movng me towards the I scale.

 

[EcK]

the number means the position in relation to other groupstypes (averaged by group of course)

 

[Litvyak]

There will be a correlation between smart parents having smart kids, but thats probably about it.

... and very smart parents having average kids. It's an effect to counter extreme deviancy.

 

[EcK]

... and very smart parents having average kids. Return to the norm.

Well extreme equilibrium states are often fragile.

 

[tinkerbell]

the number means the position in relation to other groupstypes (averaged by group of course)

ewe still not convinced its valid as indicative of IQ... Not an issue though, hellishly difficult thing to prove without conducting c.5000 intereviews tests of both IQ and MBTI, so I guess we will never get definative evidence.

As for genetics and intellegence, I think it's a game of roulet, Intellegent parents are not certain of bright kids...

L

 

[BlueGray]

SORRY GUYS

I'm so STUPID.... columns N = sample size (should be labled n)....

How the hell did they get 548 ENTPs? I'm very suspicious of where the sample came from because ENTPs are typicall 1-5% of the population

I'm concerns over how they sampled this, 75% of the UK population is S typed and this survey is heavily skewed N types - no idea what population it relates to but I' suspicious....

The N column is the number in the gifted sample. So the ENTPs are being shown as common among gifted students. And why do people think ENTPs are only 1% of the population? I know plenty of ENTPs, they are the most common NT type.

 

[tinkerbell]

the normative group N = 9320 kids 11-12 grade, data is adapted from atlas of type tables...

I don't know what that means... but I'd still querie the 500-odd ENTP's simply doesn't make sense. As it currently report more than half the same is missing from the numbers in the N column.

Don't know and without more info it's unlikely we cna unpick it

 

[tinkerbell]

The N column is the number in the gifted sample. So the ENTPs are being shown as common among gifted students. And why do people think ENTPs are only 1% of the population? I know plenty of ENTPs, they are the most common NT type.

I did a primary nat rep survey of the UK population and it came up with ENTP = 1%, when compared with online statistics of 3%....
UK
75% = S type
20% = N type
5% were unclassified firmly

Compared with stats online

79% S type
22% N type

in the data posted previously the N is the normative not the gifted

PLEASE also note it says normative not normal group... hence it's a test sample V's the gifted sample, we don't know the definition of Normative

Enough, there is not evenough information here

 

[BlueGray]

The N is the gifted. If 548 was 4.89%(ENTP) of the total how is 188 14.97%(ESTJ) of the total?
The N matches the percentages of gifted rather than that of the norm group.

Edit:
The 16 seems to say they used 16 separate samples to get the results. They had a total of 19 samples they received. The information was created by combining the work of other people and the 16 is simply saying they only used 16 or their 19 samples. That doesn't mean there were only 16 people of each type.

The sample size for the Normative group is the 9320, the sample size for the Gifted group is 4828, the sum of the N column. The results are shown as percentages since the samples are different sizes.

 

[Kaveri]

I don't think math is an Intuitive pursuit at all. Math isn't really abstract -- at least not in the Intuitive sense. Contrarily, it's detail-oriented factual logic and highly systematic. Math is problem solving concerned with finding a definite answer -- very ISTP- or ISTJ-ish if you ask me.

The INTP and INTJ would be more comfortable with flawed logic, because N is open to fanciful rather than systematic thinking. Hence, contrary to popular belief, the INTP and INTJ are not nitpicking types.

Let's review that the N isn't about intelligence, it's about creative thinking. Math is quite the opposite way of thinking.

I haven't read the whole discussion but when I read comments like this, I must say that I disagree. Mathematical logic can be very creative and inventive, artistic even. Math is not just random numbers and solving problems with the help of boring formulas that you don't even understand anything about, even though math is sadly often taught like that in schools.

Btw, I suggest that everyone who thinks that math is boring and uncreative read this: http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

I am an INFx and I used to think that I'm an INFP but then I started studying theoretical math as my minor at a university, and as I'm often thinking about logical problems now, I cannot relate to the descriptions of INFPs any more, as most of the descriptions say that INFPs dislike logic and tend not to be very good at it. So I can't think of myself as an INFP any more, not now that I have discovered the world of math, not when according to the "rules" I should detest logic.

Calculating is fun but that's not the part about math (I accidentally wrote "magic" at first! lol) that I love. The part that I love is thinking deeply and philosophically about things like infinity and limits. To me, there's a whole different universe hidden in the world of math, a universe that we humans can only vaguely understand. It's fascinating.

I don't think that I'm very naturally talented at math... at least the online I tests that I have taken have indicated that I have an IQ that is just a little above average. But still, I have done quite well in my studies. I guess I have enough talent in any case and, combined with it, a lot of fascination and imagination, the latter being what really makes me "good" at math.

 

[Kaveri]

In school I was good at every subject... well, I didn't have very high grades in gym, but anyway, my language teachers especially thought that I'm talented and I got top grades in psychology... So why did I choose math? Because it is more interesting and fascinating! So I may have a way with words sometimes, but playing with words doesn't give me better understanding of the world. I may be good at remembering theories in psychology, but have I really learnt anything *that* fascinating in psychology? Nope. Sometimes psychology even irritates me because it categorises people in such unfair ways, like who's normal and who's not normal and which child is in danger of becoming aggressive as an adult. Blah.

I don't mean to berate language skills and human studies, I'm just saying that math can be very fascinating and relevant, and at least to me it gives a sense that I'm learning something new about the world.

Why T and N are important traits for doing math? Math is all about learn a set of pre-existing systems and apply them correctly. Math, just as logic, are ways of though that are develloped sigles ago

No, math is not about learning pre-existing theories. It is about understanding them... re-eventing them, even!

 

[Costrin]

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

Brilliant. I love it.

Ti smackdown of runaway Te, but I may be biased in my classification.

 

[Waffle]

Well I don't think the two relate. I'm an enfp, and last time I was tested it was at 165. Though I'm fairly sure it just matters where you apply. I'm not very academic, so maybe those points are wasting away!

 

[HollyGolightly]

I've never took an IQ test (well not an official one) but I imagine that the result would be quite low. I freak out on tests, I feel under pressure. I'm better if I have had time to plan. That's why I liked coursework so much at school, I had time to perfect things. In a test if you mess up, you mess up. Doesn't really measure one's intelligence or potential IMO.

 

[Litvyak]

In a test if you mess up, you mess up. Doesn't really measure one's intelligence or potential IMO.

To some extent, potential means not messing up while being under pressure.

 

[Bubbleboy]

Is there any significant correlation? On average, who is the smartest type? For that matter, how do all the types rank? I've done some Google research, and all I've really found are two articles on it. Ironically, these two seem to suggest that Feeling and Intuitive types have higher I.Q.s. I find this kind of strange because I would imagine that Sensing and Thinking would make one smarter rather than going by one's emotions. Strange...

I'm sure there is a connection. But why would you trust such an outdated invention as the IQ anyway?

 

[Owl]

I.Q. tests show a correlation between T and higher average I.Q.

We should rely on the I.Q. measurement because it's imperative that the F's become a permanent, intellectual underclass so that we T's have someone to cook our food, clean our rooms, and mend our socks.

 

[nomadic]

I.Q. tests show a correlation between T and higher average I.Q.

We should rely on the I.Q. measurement because it's imperative that the F's become a permanent, intellectual underclass so that we T's have someone to cook our food, clean our rooms, and mend our socks.

Coolness!

So if my IQ is higher than yours, you would cook and clean for me?

Wait, are you a girl or guy? Cus I only want to make this deal if you are a girl and you are willing to work for the sheer pleasure of knowing me. LOL