• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Stupid Thinkers...

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
So the gifted sample is valid? Hmmm...:rolleyes:

All of these discussions seem like people seeing what they want to see because it gives them some sort of validation.

Yep. Which is why going off topic was much more productive. Even if there were some scientifically valid correlation, there are far too many extraneous variables to even come close to concluding a determinative effect.
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
This is the proportion of gifted children from the MBTI category...

I had to tweak a tiny bit to the Gifted sample to get it to add up to 100% - but relatively eavenly done.

so Of All INTPs 64% were gifted...

INTP 64%
INTJ 60%
INFJ 58%
INFP 57%
ENTP 55%
ENFP 51%
ENTJ 44%
ENFJ 40%
ISTJ 34%
ISTP 29%
ESTP 21%
ISFJ 17%
ISFP 17%
ESFP 13%
ESTJ 12%
ESFJ 11%

How do you get that? There was no information in the study that could give such results. That could only be done if you were given the % of the total population that is gifted or other like piece of data and no such pieces were given.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
How much of that is an actual issue, and how much of that is tribalism? Individualism is very much a defining characteristic of Western society, and in particular, the societies of Great Britain and its former colonial holdings. In the context of when Orwell and Huxley wrote, when British democracy seemed incapable of handling the stresses of the industrial era, along with the loss of Empire, is it no wonder then, that writers of the period clung to that individualism? The Huxleys of 1938 and 1958 were very different writers, for sure.



I can't help but think that we're in somewhat unmarked territory currently, as industrialization changed everything. As we deindustrialize, we're faced with a situation whereby scarcity for staples is essentially zero; however, demand for labor increasingly diminishes as technology increases. As such, in the UK, what does a working-class or middle-class youth have to strive for? Selling mobile phones? Going to university in order to become a glorified mobile-phone salesman?



It's not that much different either - our class structure is simply different (since ours is much more racially oriented). Look at New York in the 1970s if you want to see an apathetic city. Meanwhile, we've still encountered the same structural issues, but tried to wave them away with huge amounts of debt. If anything, the only main difference is that we've still bought into the bullshit that there's an inherent value in any kind of work, no matter how menial it is... even though we talk out the other side of the mouth whenever we say something to the effect of "well, the world needs ditchdiggers too".


Bizarly enough society is the converse of Orwell.... when he wrote 1984 UK society was pretty balnd and lacking your triablisim... or much variety of choice at all... we are in a time of true fragmentation.... But if people are being forced to conform to an overly societaly drivne rules base then we would indeed be in an Orwelling phase. I wasn't too een on Hulexy, found him weird... :)

The UK labout market is changing and will still change, but there are ranges of opportunitites.. yes plenty o service role, retail, health etc, manufacturing - although car industry is in decline, there will be other manu jobs in the offing, farming etc... we move towards more eccological and local services... banking is going through major changes as is commerce itself. Actually there will be more opportuities opening up while people mature - the babyboomers will retire... we are not a nation of phone sellers...:)

I agree there is no point having graduate dichdiggers, manual labour doens't require advanced education, however there is always a spread of more intellectual jobs as well as "working class" roles.
 

Saslou

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
4,910
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Well If xNxP's are the most gifted, then good for them .. Although people are showing the statistics here (which can always be manipulated), i do wonder just how many of those gifted people/children went forward and produced greatness in their life .. and didn't become a fuckup/dropouts due to the pressure.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
I edited that for clarity.

AVID was doing extra analysis, I did a more correct version for him.. thats all...

It doens't say the survey is valid... HOWEVER it also doens't say the survey is unvalid, I've said that I ahve issues with the definitions... which means that the survey may be totally OK but the definitions are poorly written.

Sorry I'm not really sure what it is you are getting at... what really is your concern here?
 

Lauren Ashley

Revelation
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,067
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sorry I'm not really sure what it is you are getting at... what really is your concern here?

Not trying to jump down your throat, but it definitely appeared as if you were okay with the data taken from the study as long as your type was on top. Which made me laugh when I saw that because you were putting in so much time trying to oppose it, initially. If you are now saying that neither the study nor the samples are valid, okay. Just reminded me of those race/penis length/waist-to-hip ratio and IQ discussions I see on other forums. ;)
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Bizarly enough society is the converse of Orwell.... when he wrote 1984 UK society was pretty balnd and lacking your triablisim... or much variety of choice at all... we are in a time of true fragmentation.... But if people are being forced to conform to an overly societaly drivne rules base then we would indeed be in an Orwelling phase. I wasn't too een on Hulexy, found him weird... :)

Late 1940s: UK won the war, but it still somehow feels like a loss. Sure, the RAF just detonated a nuke, but that feels pretty hollow considering they lost India. Our infrastructure is in shambles, no one can get a job, and the only way we aren't starving to death is post-war rations. Everything's being nationalized because we simply can't keep it running otherwise. My God, isn't there anything good about being British anymore? See: Garnett, Alf.

The UK labout market is changing and will still change, but there are ranges of opportunitites.. yes plenty o service role, retail, health etc, manufacturing - although car industry is in decline, there will be other manu jobs in the offing, farming etc... we move towards more eccological and local services... banking is going through major changes as is commerce itself. Actually there will be more opportuities opening up while people mature - the babyboomers will retire... we are not a nation of phone sellers...:)

I hope you're right, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of ways to actually produce wealth in the future. Service industries don't count, either.

I agree there is no point having graduate dichdiggers, manual labour doens't require advanced education, however there is always a spread of more intellectual jobs as well as "working class" roles.

What makes an intellectual job productive unless it leads to more stuff pulled out of the ground and made useful?
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
How do you get that? There was no information in the study that could give such results. That could only be done if you were given the % of the total population that is gifted or other like piece of data and no such pieces were given.

LOL arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaahhhh

OK AVID was doing some analysis... and I simply did a cleaner job of getting him the view of the data he was interested in....
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
How is your information cleaner? His information was created using actual data whereas yours has no basis.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
Not trying to jump down your throat, but it definitely appeared as if you were okay with the data taken from the study as long as your type was on top.

Which made me laugh when I saw that because you were putting in so much time trying to oppose it, initially. If you are now saying that neither the study nor the samples are valid, okay. Just reminded me of those race/penis length/waist-to-hip ratio and IQ discussions I see on other forums. ;)

Sorry

I beleive I've said repeatedly that I think the data is shonky (technical term) ;)... however, if the definition is cleaned up and the data is valid of the defintion, then the results hold true... My type or anyone else type is totally irelevant.... LOL The data will say what it says

Once the data sourcing has been iussed out... it may well be that the gifted sample will hold true (or as true as close as we are going to get)....

It's secondary data, it's never perfect the mether is grey, the defintions are very shonky...

Big picture is that I would think even with screwy definitions, and all the other issues.. the only things that you could vaguely rely on NP thing (skew was big enough to indicate it's got a lot of wiggle room for failure) and the overall N thing (which was a massive skew)....
you wont like that... the findings are large enough differences that they would hold true with slightly better defintions​
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
How is your information cleaner? His information was created using actual data whereas yours has no basis.

WTF?

581 INTP gifted sample
330 INTP Normal sample

Total INTP sample 911

581/911 = 64%


I used the actual data - worekd back from the % to give me people, he used the reported % which is is not as clean. Either way it's bollox anyways because we have questionable sample etc

Make sense...?
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
WTF?

581 INTP gifted sample
330 INTP Normal sample

Total INTP sample 911

581/911 = 64%


I used the actual data - worekd back the % to give me people, he used the reported % which methematically is not as clean. Either way it's bollox anyways

Make sense...?

Those are two separate samples. You have 582/4829 of gifted are INTP and 330/9320 of people are INTP. If only 1% of the total population is gifted then 3.4% of INTPs are gifted. There was no gifted/total values given.

Check and 3.4/1 is the value in Avis's chart.

The main problem is you assume that the gifted sample and the normal sample are two parts of one sample which they are not. The normal sample is just a database sample of types while the gifted is a sample of people in a gifted group.

Edit: Also while working with counts is cleaner than percentages counts created from the percentages are no cleaner than the percentages themselves. The counts are only cleaner if they are the values the percentages are from and not vice-versa.
 

Lauren Ashley

Revelation
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,067
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Big picture is that I would think even with screwy definitions, and all the other issues.. the only things that you could vaguely rely on NP thing (skew was big enough to indicate it's got a lot of wiggle room for failure) and the overall N thing (which was a massive skew)....
you wont like that... the findings are large enough differences that they would hold true with slightly better defintions​

In your mind. You do realize that you're essentially saying "Despite all the screwy data, and the fact that the study is completely invalid, I still think the results will hold true in another study."...What makes you think that? The data and the study? Or your personal bias of what consistitutes "giftedness" and who is likely to have it?
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
Those are two separate samples. You have 582/4829 of gifted are INTP and 330/9320 of people are INTP. If only 1% of the total population is gifted than 3.4% of INTPs are gifted. There was no gifted/total values given.

Check and 3.4/1 is the value in Avis's chart.

The main problem is you assume that the gifted sample and the normal sample are two parts of one sample which they are not. The normal sample is just a database sample of types while the gifted is a sample of people in a gifted group.

In terms of INTPs in terms of the joint population its a different statistic than the first list I produced, which was careful labled as beign the proportion of all INTPs who were gifted (64%), not the proportion of the whole sample who were INTPs.

I didn't assume gifted and norm as the same sample, I did exactly the opposite, if you look a the calculation above its pretty clear I didn't..

And what makes you think the two samples are seperate because there is nothing in the report that says so - which I've looked through but not at oober depth.. Which is part of the issue... I will look more fully tomorrow but it's late here.

Of the total population

Gifted INTP = 582
Norm sample = 14148

= 4.1%... which was why I said AVIS stats were wrong.. because he divided %/% which is a bit shonky... gets you a ball park but not the absolute number
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
In your mind. You do realize that you're essentially saying "Despite all the screwy data, and the fact that the study is completely invalid, I still think the results will hold true in another study."...What makes you think that? The data and the study? Or your personal bias of what consistitutes "giftedness" and who is likely to have it?

yes, I work with quant data samples - there is a limit to how much a source will be screwed up..

In a normal population the data skews 70+% S type

In the gifted sample it's 70+% N type

So yea I'd say that aint gonna change an awful lot once the definition is tied down, P is less pronouced... but still fairly big...

No No no - I didn't say the study was invalid, I said the sample was badly defined/reported... It may be that once the defintion of gifted is established and the sample is established as independnat, it will be valid.

PS for what it's worth, at these type of sample sizes very small changes are signficant.
 

Lauren Ashley

Revelation
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,067
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
*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.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
*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.

No you are not understanding... but thats OK, the survey isn't nessesarily invalid, just badly reported - to the point it is vague on some fundementals.

The really big differences are likely to still hold true... which is a pragmatic view in light on the lack of definitions.... given the scale of the differences.

An example... if I find 3 or 4 qualitative surveys where XYX appear more pronounced in a group... so long as those 3 or 4 surveys are well conducted, there is a fair to middling chance it wills tack up in quant research... there is no absolute gaurantee, but fairly often... now we have 14 surveys with 4000odd people that say N is more prevelent... I'd say that is likely to hold true... pragmatically speaking...

Maybe if you feel the need, you could do some primary research of your own?
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
In terms of INTPs in terms of the joint population its a different statistic than the first list I produced, which was careful labled as beign the proportion of all INTPs who were gifted (64%), not the proportion of the whole sample who were INTPs.

I didn't assume gifted and norm as the same sample, I did exactly the opposite, if you look a the calculation above its pretty clear I didn't..

And what makes you think the two samples are seperate because there is nothing in the report that says so - which I've looked through but not at oober depth.. Which is part of the issue... I will look more fully tomorrow but it's late here.

How can 64% of all INTPs be gifted if gifted are only 1% of all people? if all gifted were INTPs there would only be 28% of INTPs as gifted.

The norm group(n = 9,320) is composed of high school students in 11th-12th grades. Data for the norm group is adapted from the Atlas of Type Tables(Macdaid, Kainz & McCaulley, 1986).

Source of the normative values.

The literature review was done by means of the online version of the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts International. Currently, ERIC contains either abstracts, full texts of studies, or both indexed from 1966 to the present. Keywords used in the search with various combinations were gifted, talented, personality, personality characteristics, personality types, psychological types, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and MBT I. Four hundred and twelve studies either in full-text or in abstract format were found. After an examination of each abstract, 63 studies were selected for further review. The rest of the studies were excluded from further investigation for three possible reasons: They were completely irrelevant to this research, they did not use the MBTI, or they were not original research.

After 63 studies we re obtained, including articles, reports, books, and dissertations, they were coded in identification forms for further review, which indicated that only 14 of them had enough data for inclusion. Each study had to report either the number of participants falling into each type, the eight basic personality types of the participants, or both to be included in this research synthesis. The 14 studies yielded 19 independent samples because some of them had more than one sample. Also, multiple studies by an author were carefully reviewed to avoid duplication in the synthesis. When sample characteristics matched in different studies by an author that were published in different journals and at different times, the one that had more data about findings and sample characteristics was included in the synthesis. Only two studies of one author (Mills, 1984; Mills & Parker, 1998) were included because there were 14 years between these two studies and the sample characteristics were significantly different. The 19 samples were then coded in sample characteristics forms and type distributions forms for inclusion.

Source of the gifted values.

There were two completely separate methods used to gather the normative information and the gifted information.

You took (gifted INTPs)/((gifted INTPs) + (normative INTPs))
This finds the percentage of INTPs in either source that were gifted.

If I took a sample of 10 people with 2 INTPs and a sample of 100 gifted people with 10 INTPs your method would give that 83% of INTPs are gifted. You are treating sample size as an indicator of the prevalence of giftedness.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
How can 64% of all INTPs be gifted if gifted are only 1% of all people? if all gifted were INTPs there would only be 28% of INTPs as gifted.

Ok one step at a time...

How many people are INTP in the normative sample?
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
In terms of INTPs in terms of the joint population its a different statistic than the first list I produced, which was careful labled as beign the proportion of all INTPs who were gifted (64%), not the proportion of the whole sample who were INTPs.

I didn't assume gifted and norm as the same sample, I did exactly the opposite, if you look a the calculation above its pretty clear I didn't..

And what makes you think the two samples are seperate because there is nothing in the report that says so - which I've looked through but not at oober depth.. Which is part of the issue... I will look more fully tomorrow but it's late here.

Of the total population

Gifted INTP = 582
Norm sample = 14148

= 4.1%... which was why I said AVIS stats were wrong.. because he divided %/% which is a bit shonky... gets you a ball park but not the absolute number

Norm sample is 9320 not 14148. That is adding the two completely separate samples together. 4.1% is your value and is off from his because his is giving what he wanted whereas yours is meaningless. 3.4% is nearly dead on from the information given. There is no significant error from dividing percentages in this case.
 
Top