My father was the same way. He was a 'genuis'. certifiable. But he was a bi-polar mess of a human being. His emotional development was so low and fragile that he just couldn't cope with anything. By the time I was born , he was done being a lousy parent and just did nothing but read books and watch the Muppets. Who gives a shit what you know if your relationships are fucked up? Intelligence can be a crutch and a method of avoidance for some....
You just described my mother Especially with the reading and The Muppet Show thing.
Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou
St. Stephen took rocks and St. Sebastian took arrows. You only have to take some jerks on an internet forum. Nut up.
What about Ts who are geniuses and idiots at the same time? Like an INTP kid I used to know who's probably going to discover the cure for cancer in a few decades, who's done all these stupid things like
1. accidentally making chlorine gas in his kitchen
2. accidentally setting his entire lawn on fire
3. forgetting the name of the high school he attended
etc. etc. etc.
Also, some cartoon character examples of stupid thinkers:
- the pointy-haired boss from "Dilbert"
- Wile E. Coyote
- Johnny Bravo
- Moe, the bully from "Calvin and Hobbes"
The trend here and most other studies I've personally come across is that intuitives score higher on IQ tests and tests that gauge intelligence/"giftedness" (which is really a certain kind of smarts, and these studies are always questionable). Some studies indicate that introversion, judging and thinking give a slight edge, but not nearly as much as intuitiveness.
Thinking is just a cognitive process - it does not make someone smart, not even book smart. Think about the stereotypical STP meatheads - sure, it's a stereotype, but it shows how Thinkers can be and come across as stupid.
I have never seen these statistics, but have heard that Ns generally do better on these types of tests and that a large portion of, I think it was ENFPs (Bill Clinton maybe??) get Rhodes Scholarships. Other types of smarts (e.g., Emotional intelligence) are probably overall more important to success in life though.
There is this experiment I read about once - you give two small children a marshmallow and tell them not to eat it and if they don't, when you come back you'll get two. The ones who couldn't wait - who ate the marshmallow were much less likely to be successful later in life than the ones who waited and got two. It has something to do with self control and ability to postpone gratification I believe. That would be one example of emotional intelligence.
Not notice anything suspicious about those sample sizes at all? Absolutely sample size of c.5700, then spikes to 9000 and it really is all over the place after that.... will pick my way through the wider report, but the reporting is B-A-D.... I'm not saying that the N theory doesn't hold true....
Not notice anything suspicious about those sample sizes at all? Absolutely sample size of c.5700, then spikes to 9000 and it really is all over the place after that.... will pick my way through the wider report, but the reporting is BAD.... I'm not saying that the N theory doesn't hold true....
Ok having read through there are a few things to think about...
We have 5700-ish Normative respondents (people) and 9000 answers.... how so? We have a gifted sample of how many people (5800-sh responces)?
Define gifted (the sample is made up of a whole bunch of articles/research studies some of wich are unpublished). No clear definition of what Gifted is.
The Normative group relates fairly well to some primary research I did in the UK with an adult audience, ie it was largely similar and in comparision as well as with online MBTI statistics (which I assume are skewed towards the US.
The report reports that Intautive Introvers are higher within the gifter sample... however what it fails to draw out is that it is more even not imbalnced in the gifted sample... ie the general population is skewed heavily towards extrovertion, and in the gifted population it is more 51:49 (E/I).
People who preferred introversion and intuition showed greater academic aptitude than those who preferred extraversion and sensing.
Is not all true, N types are singificantly larger within the gifted sample and when compared with the normative, however I are not (althoguh singificantly more in gifted but not greater than Es in the gifted population).
So there is no directional split of Introvers are more gifted than Extroverts. The difference with this sample size would be significance but in practicality E and I are equal in the gifted population.
N shows a significant skew for the gifted - both against S in the gifted sample and when compared with the N sample in normative data set. (72:28) N:S in the gifted sample, which is virtually opposite to the normaitve sample.
F/T; Gifted show a T skew of c.8%
PJ - shows a proper skew into P for the gifted sample....
so there is a skew towards xNxP for gifteness.
A correlation of 0.76 is not a good correlation, 0.86 is approaching a good correlation so some of the correlations are well shonky.
I'm very dubious about the gifted sample and actually how the research has reported more people than took part in the overall surveys