User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 168

  1. #141
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chegra View Post
    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.
    Intead of quoting Blue wrongess perhpas go back to what I said that calculation was... it was correctly labled by myself.

    I said " Of All INTPs 64% were gifted" of the sample.. which is what the 64% is meaning

    I'm not continuing to be trolled if you and blue want to talk bollox feel free, lets be honest he started saying I wasn't usign data, then needed spoon fed about the data, then need spoon feeding to show the caluclation... I don't have the patience to deal with troll..

    If you'd like to discuss shyte maths with Blue, knock yourself out, but please leave me out of it...

    For what it's worth, and repeatedly said by me, there are major issue with the data sets, lableing and defintions... which I will come onto...

  2. #142
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Avis View Post
    It rather says that out of 64% out of the total INTPs are gifted (I think you're referring to post #79).
    Thank you Whew someone who understands why I calculated that....

    Hmmm

  3. #143
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Now what is wrong with this survey...

    19 sample 14 studies... need I say more - I'll skim the surface of what is wrong with the research... but not give too much detail cos I can't be arsed

    Multiple research conducted by multiple people tends to expose you to a lot of research error. A fair few were unpublished, we ahve no credentials of how badly conducted the research was - psycologist are typically poor at doign research.. if you want better executed research - speak to a social (being the most process orientated) or market reseacher... psycologist focus too much on the hypothesis and not enough on the mthod....

    This is a desk survey of other people quant research...

    TimeNone of the sample appear to align for a sample period or relate to a definable population. A 12 year old in 1980 and a 12 year old in 1985 might have significnat differences.

    Synthisising quant data for secondary use requires data fusion to be able to do it with any degree of credibility.

    It gets worse....

    Not only was the sample combiend with wooly with non definde ages, time periods etc... but the MBTI classification was not give to a number fo the different surveys.... more that the research took the personality test conducted in some of the survey and converted it to MBTI.... NOW the correlation between MBTI and the other personality tests were at times as poor as 0.75... so 25% wrong before you start (are we see the level of wrongess creeping up).

    MBTI is a segmentation tool witha fairly light differentciation (personally I've seen a lot better segmentation tools, more firm, more rigorous), I'd suspect there is up to 4-9% missatributation... ie people falling between categories.. and that is at the best of times.

    Kids being asked to classy themselves with this device - yet another layer of vaguness.

    So samples doens't match or allign, we are forcing MBTI onto other personality profiles, times doesn't align, we don't have a population defintion for the normative data OR for the gifted, I would place and educated guess on none of the survey definitons of gifted aligning with each other... or they would have defined it....

    To then try and claim quantiative outcome from the research are ridiculous.....

    As a surveying method, this is BAD! BAD research... Desk research can be used in this case but it still has firm strictures.. better to conduct isnight from each individual report and use it as an information platform...

    By that... read through each research and list out key finding...

    One survey which did use MBTI found a high skew of N's.... list that out, list out the big stuff, go through the reports and keep doing that...

    How much aligment is their between the research findings of each individual report... where their is a building body of evidence - it can be said that there is a strong likelihood that on proplerly conducted primary research we would expect XYZ to hold true... ie you use the existing research to plan out your hypothesis...

    From the research report the following are big enough to warrant further considerations:

    N dominance in gifted samples... I'd say this is a big enough finding to warant putting money that this will hold true on a primary research project....

    Increasing numbers of I's in gifted sample.... I'd say this would also hold true with follow up research, however I would think the "I" proportion will be bigger with gifted sample, but not over all gifted... ie below 49% of the gifted, but much higher than the nomrative sample.... I'd say this will hold true on primary research

    P increase in gifted... Personally I said it's keeping as a hypothesis, but I don't think the data to date is strong enough to put any certainty on this as an outcome....

    The only way that research should be sued is qualitativiely to draw hypothesis, it can not be used conclusively.

    And for those interested in research... no single peice of is perfect... there is always better ways to ask questions, quota samples need rewighting (adding in error), random sample skew randomly so are less representative, interviewers add biase, non interviewed adds non responce biase, and the list goes on and on. The researchers jobs is to lower the level of error and biase, and to strip out as much of the managable error and minimse the non managable error... it's more complex in reality... Aim for good enough for purpose... for drust sampling it's most disciplined in the absolute research, but .... this requires absolutely testing of impact, not attitude or behaviour (usually), market research works on behaviour and focuses largely on purchasing behaviour, social research on human habits...

    For thos eintersted, read the report and make your own mind up

  4. #144
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Isn't a 0.75 correlation really damn good, all things considered? Assuming a 95% confidence level?

  5. #145
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Isn't a 0.75 correlation really damn good, all things considered? Assuming a 95% confidence level?
    Not really to be honest...

    In absolute terms its .75 is Ok-ish (I would never call that strong, 0.8 is getting strong)...

    It's more a question that this is reseearch data... when you are then inferencing on top of read in data... and then making conclusions, it's not very good.... What do they do with the other 25%, were they all N types... that would have influenced the proportion in the normative data? We just can't say...

    In research you need to be wary of the compounding effect of error...

    That said, the Normative sample was pretty close to the online data for MBTI I've seen and the UK population. (near enough which is why I think the 3 findings I mentioned are worthwhile for future research).

    I didn't say above the skew for E and I and J and P will releate to countries too... I'd expectt he US to be more P than the UK ... I'd expect more I's in the UK than the US...

  6. #146
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Having learned my statistics in a political science environment, I was always under the impression that anything over a 0.45 was indicative of something worth looking into. Perhaps it's just the different disciplines.

  7. #147
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Having learned my statistics in a political science environment, I was always under the impression that anything over a 0.45 was indicative of something worth looking into. Perhaps it's just the different disciplines.
    Correlations is the degree of relationship

    a correlation of 1 or -1 indlicate the data is the same... basically you have asked the same question in two different ways (or opposite ways)...

    0.8-1 = strong
    0.5-0.8 = some but still quite weak
    0.0-0.5 = not really correlated

    basically the closer to 1 the better. How strong you need the item to be correleted depends on the data sets...Market research is used to make multi million pound decisions... so it needs strength... lots of accademic researhc makes my flesh craw to be honest.

    Also it depends on your data.. what the data it and where it has come from.

    another statistics... An r2 (r squared) for a regression model with market research best you will get is c.0.30 - ie 70% of the purcahse beahvour is not measured by the survey, thats because its complex....

    So if your data set is very complex and you are not making multi million pound decisions 0.45 correlation might be OK - it's OK enough for your teacher. (See if you can dig up soem scatter plot of different correlations and you will get why I wouldn't use a 0.45 as usable personally... I'll post you a link if I find one)

    The data in the report is trying to overly MBTI then make conclusions, if MBTI is a poor fit... then how good are the conclusions going to be... 25% wrong before you start... it's a lot...

    Much in research is subjective, and there are lot of things wrong with the reports research approach that goes way beyond my fusiness of correlation

    Found a link

    http://img.medscape.com/article/713/298/713298-fig1.jpg

  8. #148
    Senior Member Bubbleboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamske View Post
    Are Ts always intelligent? I don't think so.

    Ts prefer to use logic rather than emotions to decide upon. That doesn't imply their logic is strong...

    I've found an example. Mrs. Wormwood (Matilda, Roald Dahl) is a stupid ESTJ. She loves to watch soaps, but she doesn't care one iota about the characters - she likes to look at profit and riches. A girl has to take care of her appearance... to get a rich husband. Everything is aimed at the goal of a rich and easy life.

    I'm in search of:
    - other examples
    - maybe some descriptions of stupid Thinkers

    PS. the twin question: is it possible to be a Feeler with the emotional depth of a teaspoon?
    F and T is a matter of personal alignment and decision-making, not capacity of emotion and intellect.

    But I knew a guy who never questioned why he was, or even who he was. He watched and read only things that were garish, mindless entertainment. Education was only a means to get a job he wouldn't hate so much. This guy had no opinion of religion, politics or philosophy. It was too much work for him to form an opinion, and he decided he 'wouldn't ever find the right opinion anyway'. On ethics he always just went with his gut feeling. For recreation he enjoyed things that pushed away bottled-up emotions here and now. He appeared to me as being stupid, and he was a thinker. ISTJ.
    I'm not clever enough to have a signature.

  9. #149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell View Post
    Intead of quoting Blue wrongess perhpas go back to what I said that calculation was... it was correctly labled by myself.

    I said " Of All INTPs 64% were gifted" of the sample.. which is what the 64% is meaning

    I'm not continuing to be trolled if you and blue want to talk bollox feel free, lets be honest he started saying I wasn't usign data, then needed spoon fed about the data, then need spoon feeding to show the caluclation... I don't have the patience to deal with troll..

    If you'd like to discuss shyte maths with Blue, knock yourself out, but please leave me out of it...

    For what it's worth, and repeatedly said by me, there are major issue with the data sets, lableing and defintions... which I will come onto...
    Your getting too emotional. Do you see anybody else using words like
    shyte or bollox? Do you?

    You starting to focus on people instead of the stats/logic.
    Join my gamma group on facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit....id=63943661343
    Thats if you are either ENTJ, ISFJ, ESFP or INTP

  10. #150
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chegra View Post
    Your getting too emotional. Do you see anybody else using words like
    shyte or bollox? Do you?

    You starting to focus on people instead of the stats/logic.
    you know somtime when you have been on the recieving end of trolling behaviour it is fairly likely that the person will be frustrated.

    You don't have to read what I have to say so please refer to blue if you want to continue the conversation... because I did 2-3 hours of this yesterday it was frustrating to say the least.... Personally speaking I have shown a huge amount of patience... which has been exhausted...and will not be reapted in the future.


    Do please continue to read the report and come up with entirel different conclusions, your opinion is your own

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] easier to get on with a stupid S than a clever S?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-09-2009, 06:16 PM
  2. If stupidity is a great evil...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 10:12 PM
  3. Stupid limericks
    By ygolo in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 05:22 PM
  4. Humanity will become stupider?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 01:27 AM
  5. Only guys are stupid enough to do this...
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 09:09 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