## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by BlueGray
I have simply said that the data you created to "clean up" his approach used an assumption that the normative group and gifted group were the non-gifted and gifted parts of a total group.
You seem to understand the meaning of what the study is saying although your numbers were completely off from the given information.
Avis took one percentage and divide it by the other...not good maths, as he siad he was playing about. I took the base data and calculated it more cleanly to give a total INTP for the survey, as has been said to you already. It is clearly labled - not my issue if you can't get this...

I did say to AVIS it was nonsense, but I cleaned it up for him all the same...

If you have a problem with it...deal with it, it wasn't calculated for your benefit

2. Dividing percentages by each other is perfectly valid. The only problem is the rounding errors. Rounding errors aren't removed by taking the given percentage * the total. The only way to remove them is by taking the original value, which was given for the gifted but not the normative. Since the percentages were done out to the ten thousandths the rounding error is small.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and what the article is saying. You don't seem to understand that I am pointing out the flaw in your calculations.

I took the base data and calculated it more cleanly to give a total INTP for the survey
There isn't a singular survey. There were 20 different surveys. 19 of gifted students and 1 of the general population.

3. Originally Posted by BlueGray
Dividing percentages by each other is perfectly valid. The only problem is the rounding errors. Rounding errors aren't removed by taking the given percentage * the total. The only way to remove them is by taking the original value, which was given for the gifted but not the normative. Since the percentages were done out to the ten thousandths the rounding error is small.

I understand perfectly what you are saying and what the article is saying. You don't seem to understand that I am pointing out the flaw in your calculations.

There isn't a singular survey. There were 20 different surveys. 19 of gifted students and 1 of the general population.
Listen, I don't have the time or inclination to teach you basic maths.. Try one of your teacher perhaps dividing percentages by one another = not great maths

4. We have a sample of people. A are male. B are female. The percentage of male is A/(A+B). The percentage of female is B/(A+B). The percentage of male divided by the percentage of female is (A/(A+B))/(B/(A+B)). The 1/(A+B) cancels out giving A/B. Which is the counts of males divided by the counts of female. The percentages are no different and no less valid. The only problems arise with rounding errors in intermediate steps.

Please tell me why percentages are not valid pieces of data as I have no idea why they would not be.

5. Its 11.30pm... I'm not interested in teaching you, refer to your teacher/lecturer etc...Dividing two percentages by one another is just wrong... in this instance you loose accuracy (which even you say so)... hence it is more correct to cacluate it from base (esp with research data)

It's 11.30, you've long since exahused your credibility... speak with your maths teacher who is responcible if you have more questions.....

YAWN, good night

6. I also say that in this case the margin of error is small and that the exact data point for the norm group was not given. There is nothing wrong with dividing percentages. The loss of accuracy is a loss of accuracy in the given percentages not in the inherent nature of percentages. You can not overcome the loss of accuracy by simply converting the percentage into a count.

Why do you tell me to talk to my math teacher to prove a statement that you are making and they aren't?

7. Blue fed up with your trolling, you seem to jump on details and try and make an issue, so far you've contributed nothing... AVIS is happy I am happy deal with it... I cleaned up a calculation (saying the data is shonky).... I will not continue to repeat myself for your benefit...

I've not got the desire to show you the way on how to look at research data... simply increasing managable error within research - is not a good thing... always use the base data is you can get it... that is professional advice and leads to a reduction in accumulated error.

I'd suggest taking up anything further with your teacher if you have issue... I wont discuss it futher because you lost credibity with me about 10 post back when you tried to make out I was not using the data... I've humoured you, my patience is done.. troll someone else...

8. Originally Posted by Lauren Ashley
*sigh* Okay. You're just doing exactly what I said -- seeing what you want to see. There is a limit to how much data can be skewed, but you don't just throw out some parts of the study while keeping others. Unless you are biased.
I was tiered, and there was 3 of you all coming at me at once... sorry, I lacked patience...

Imagine you are buying a house...

You go along to view, it's a big building, there are tiles falling of the roof wich has holes in it, there are a few window pains missing, the front doot is hanging off and there is damage to some of the floor boards.... there are plumbing issues, and the kitchen needs gutted...

Bottom line is - all of the above is relatively cosmetic... we can not tell if the fabric of the building is robust enough to purchase.... it certainly needs work...

This is like the research.. the reporting is poor, really poor, but it doens't mean that the core data is poor....

If I'm honest, I would suspect the core data will be a varing degrees of poor, some will be OK other not so... all a bit messy

Secondly..

You go into the doctor who wants to run a series of tests, say 20 in all... he lets his junior run the tests, who makes a right pigs ear of them.... however 17 out of 20 of the tests say you have an iron deficiency... despite the tests being badly conducted, it's pretty clear that if a better test was run, you would show the signs of anemia (based on the assumption the junior ran the tests on your blood and not someone else)... so with research.. just because the tests were shonky doesn't invalidate the findigns totally.. certainly the N skew is likely to hold true because the answer appears to be quite strong....

Lasly, you got frustrated yesterday because of the findign about N skew... this is your lack of objectivity not the research... something you ought to be wary off. Just because you dont' want to hear the answer doens't invalidate it.

N skew doesn't say S types are stupid... 30% of the shonky gifted sample is S typed and that would change with better testeding (could be more could be less..... but unlikely to be less).... So whats your issue, that there is a skew at all? Well that's bonker... most research shows skews, there isn't real equality, not in anything really, there are always central tendancies...

Being more gifted doens't mean more sucessful.... there is a point when intellegence works against you.

Being gifted doens't give you a better job - again social skills come into play

Being gifted doesn't give you a better life.

I'm not sure what you are taking from this that isn't there but you seem to be anti the results, understand thats lacking in objectivity.

As for my own objectivity, I don't give a monkey which group is considered to be more gifted... I think that there is a huge amount of change in a child beteeen 12 and 20.

I look at MBTI in the same way as I look at astrology as descrptor not an enabler... MBTI doesn't make me intellegent, I am an intellegent person - I know this because I do well in education... does my intellegence make me better than the homeless person on the street, NO but it makes me different and gives me opportunitites and choices.

So no I'm not personally invested, more nosey to see what the data says because I've conducted primary research myself.

Hope that helps to clarify... read through the report, make your own conclusions.....

9. Tinkerbell I think your wrong also. I think you realize your wrong too because instead of dealing with the maths you began focusing on BlueGray credibility.

As bluegray was saying if 64% of INTP are gifted they pretty much take up all the gifted population.
From this alone should tell you that hey my maths/logics is off.

10. Originally Posted by chegra
Tinkerbell I think your wrong also. I think you realize your wrong too because instead of dealing with the maths you began focusing on BlueGray credibility.

As bluegray was saying if 64% of INTP are gifted they pretty much take up all the gifted population.
From this alone should tell you that hey my maths/logics is off.
It rather says that out of 64% out of the total INTPs are gifted (I think you're referring to post #79).

#### Posting Permissions

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