• 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...

tinkerbell

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

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
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 A fair few were unpublished, we ahve no credentials of how badly conducted the research was - psycologist are typically poor at doign research..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
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Isn't a 0.75 correlation really damn good, all things considered? Assuming a 95% confidence level?
 

tinkerbell

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

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
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.
 

tinkerbell

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

Bubbleboy

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
116
MBTI Type
ENFP
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.
 

chegra

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
132
MBTI Type
INFJ
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.
 

tinkerbell

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

chegra

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
132
MBTI Type
INFJ
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
:hug: Seems like you need a hug.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
tnks just more than a little frustrated with being misquotes, picked on incorrectly and then constantly running around in circules last night was just too much...

but thank you, :)

seriously read the report, make your own mind up....
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Gifted people tend to be so full of themselves. :steam:
 

Bubbleboy

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
116
MBTI Type
ENFP
AVIS was attempting to say something, I just cleaned up his approach....

I'm not denying that in the real population the gifted students would be a much smaller % (the report uses 19 sample in 14 studies, across x number of years) ... it's bollox... but if you use it as a foundation for thinking...

the overall principals are LIKELY to hold true... N's are likely to be more intellegent... and to a minor extent NP... I's will be more represented in the gifted pop (more 50:50) than they will be in the normal population - mainly because the normal pop are E skewed...

There is a LOT wrong with that report... you are only scratching the surface ;)

Wheeeeeeeeeeeew - maths online, not a good medium... :D:D
To the extent that the tests were made and inadvertently for N's.

Regardless, I don't think the point of the whole discussion was to debate statistics so much as hear if anyone knows someone who breaks the stereotype.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
To the extent that the tests were made and inadvertently for N's.

Regardless, I don't think the point of the whole discussion was to debate statistics so much as hear if anyone knows someone who breaks the stereotype.

What tests...?

the point of the thread is about Thinkers v's Feelers... or more correctly are thinkers stupid..... T v's F come out pretty even on the smart scale.. and no a predictor of intellectual aptitude...

The predictor is likely to be N-ness....
 

mrcockburn

Aquaria
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,896
MBTI Type
¥¤
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think it's very natural and human to desire a pleasant, easy life. And she achieved it. So clearly, there's a synapse or two firing under all that hair of hers.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
What tests...?

the point of the thread is about Thinkers v's Feelers... or more correctly are thinkers stupid..... T v's F come out pretty even on the smart scale.. and no a predictor of intellectual aptitude...

The predictor is likely to be N-ness....

I think the point is that the tests determine "intelligence" not as some Platonic ideal, but rather that they coincide a determination of intelligence with psychological processes that are called "intuition" under a Jungian framework.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What tests...?

the point of the thread is about Thinkers v's Feelers... or more correctly are thinkers stupid..... T v's F come out pretty even on the smart scale.. and no a predictor of intellectual aptitude...

The predictor is likely to be N-ness....

Uhh, no, the point of the thread was not "Are thinkers stupid?"

Obviously <100% of thinkers are smart, and obviously <100% of thinkers are stupid. The thread was asking for examples of stupid thinkers, not asking whether a ridiculous generalization about 100% of them is true or not.


And no, N/S is not a predictor of intelligence either. This assumes that there's only type of intelligence and that it can be measured on a one-dimensional linear scale. There are numerous different kinds of intelligence--Sensors are not less intelligent on average unless you're testing N-style intelligence.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
Thanks, Simulated... that was indeed the question.
I used some fictional examples because I always use fictional examples. I'm just more confident in typing fictional characters than real ones. Also, I don't really want to call real people stupid :)

There are different kinds of intelligence indeed. But I don't want to conclude that "everybody is equally intelligent, only in different ways" which is politically correct but not true - at least, I don't think it's true.
There are smart and stupid people. There are beautiful and ugly people, strong and weak ones. Some people can sing and others can't. Intelligence is just one of many talents.
 
Top