Bias against "S" types

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by "?"

Not sure about Canada, but the US found I.Q. test socially and economically biased, with no real value in determining true intelligence. I agree with Keirsey on one thing, the fact that intelligence varies in types, thus a comparison between any type outside one's own temperament is apple/orange. Stategic intelligence cannot be measurably compared with tactical, logistical or diplomatic intelligence since they each measure something different. Besides, I know some ISTJs that would run circles around most when it comes to intellect.

In straight up IQ tests, Ns dominate - do you disagree with this? I agree that the tests can be challenged on those grounds, but unless you are also saying that intuition as a whole can be divided along the same lines, the correlation remains.

Originally Posted by FDG

Sorry, is there any other way to do something? How can you do something without knowing how?

Oh, lots of people try to do things without really knowing how... but it's also how people learn to do it that matter, and their drive to do it. "Flighty" types are less direct and often don't reach their goals, as compared to Js, for example... and even to ISTPs and so forth. I'm not trying to gradient them out, just point out that Ns tend to overthink and "see too much" into getting to a goal, where the S, even with limitations that the N dislikes, can often do better.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Seeing Ns who are not, themselves, geniuses taking pride in being an N because Ns are statistically overrepresented amongst geniuses reminds me of the fat guy at work who talks about how "we" hit 3 home runs and beat the Yankees last night.

Yes, I find that amusing. It's right up there with being an N and ignorant (if not stupid), etc.

"Congrats, you just accomplished a test that shows you are a perfect worker Bee! Now, get on with life!".

Funny how many smart people are so misunderstood and miserable, judging from the *c boards.

[Ivy]

It seems to me that in some ways IQ tests (having taken them a number of times myself for school and whatnot) actually measure what MBTI classifies as iNtuition. Being able to extrapolate patterns and make intuitive leaps, that sort of thing. So naturally, M-B intuitives will outscore sensors. If there were other intelligence tests that measured the kinds of intelligence that sensors dominate, they would outscore intuitives on those tests.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Ivy

It seems to me that in some ways IQ tests (having taken them a number of times myself for school and whatnot) actually measure what MBTI classifies as iNtuition. Being able to extrapolate patterns and make intuitive leaps, that sort of thing. So naturally, M-B intuitives will outscore sensors. If there were other intelligence tests that measured the kinds of intelligence that sensors dominate, they would outscore intuitives on those tests.

I think they do cater to iNtuition: They are mostly about recognizing and applying data patterns on the fly, or (for example) quickly defining the connections between word pairs and applying that pattern elsewhere as well.

iNtuitives probably outperform Sensors when neither has any experience with the pattern in question. Sensors who have actually experienced the patterns are probably quick to recognize the same ones again, however.

A slight tangent, but what sort of tests exactly do we think would cater more to Sensors? What sorts of questions should be asked? I assume one area would involve recall/application of detail and/or experiential questions, or complicated computational questions. Aren't those more like the Achievement tests (ACTs?) that are given along with the SATs?

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Funny how many smart people are so misunderstood and miserable, judging from the *c boards.

In contrast to every other ability that exists or can be described, understanding this "IQ" ability IS the same as having it. It's not like running speed, where there exists almost complete understanding of what makes a person a fast or slow runner in any category (like 100m, or marathon).

And I don't just mean understanding as "uh, ok, smart people are smart", but realizing what makes every intelligent solution so intelligent. If someone would be able to "emulate" high IQ in all the pertinent aspects, he/she would HAVE high IQ. This is analogous with running speed. The fast runner can slow down, but the slow can't (by definition of fast and slow) reach the speed of the fast runner.

There is something that can be understood even with low IQ, but it's not universally accepted. High IQ people tend to have larger short term memory and higher information transfer speed from short to long term memory (and back), when the effect of learned ability to memorize certain kind of information is cancelled. This means that it would make in invalid test to make a low and a high IQ person to memorize chess board patterns, provided that they have different levels in chess.

I understand that believing the existence and the usefulness of the concept named IQ can be likened to believing in god, to some. It all boils down to great masses of people who just refuse taking the concept.

If the test is done with something where everyone can agree on the correct solution and the variable being measured is the speed, there will be people who refuse to believe that the fast persons would do any better in complicated matters.

If the test is done with an array of questions of different complexity (and understandability), there will be people who say that the question's they didn't answer "correctly" are utter rubbish.

I understand emphatically how difficult it is to believe in IQ concept for some. Hence I don't generally feel that it's useful for me to discuss about the subject at any great length. I would say that even that IQ, intelligence and the related studies are among the most well-established and best proven concepts in psychology, it has little hope to become a useful concept in normal situations, because it has such a poor acceptance. Evaluating, mentoring, directing and helping people might be much better done with other psychometric instruments.

This is not to say that considering IQ wouldn't be useful for those who accept the concept.

[FDG]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

I think they do cater to iNtuition: They are mostly about recognizing and applying data patterns on the fly, or (for example) quickly defining the connections between word pairs and applying that pattern elsewhere as well.

iNtuitives probably outperform Sensors when neither has any experience with the pattern in question. Sensors who have actually experienced the patterns are probably quick to recognize the same ones again, however.

A slight tangent, but what sort of tests exactly do we think would cater more to Sensors? What sorts of questions should be asked? I assume one area would involve recall/application of detail and/or experiential questions, or complicated computational questions. Aren't those more like the Achievement tests (ACTs?) that are given along with the SATs?

Wouldn't generally speaking sensors be better able at recognizing sensory patterns? Following this, wouldn't sensors outperform intuitives in the visual subset of IQ tests, by this token compensating the differential advantage of intuitives in f.e. number series recognition(*)?

(*)I agree completely with Santtu on the matter: experience completely falsifies any attempt at measuring the *correct* speed of computation of number series, provided that by correct we mean: the speed at which they would be evaluated without prior experience.

I'm not trying to gradient them out, just point out that Ns tend to overthink and "see too much" into getting to a goal, where the S, even with limitations that the N dislikes, can often do better.

Why would this be? Sorry for questioning your thought process, but I do not see a clear reason.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

A slight tangent, but what sort of tests exactly do we think would cater more to Sensors? What sorts of questions should be asked?

you are welcome to come up with some, but they have to be very narrow. ACT and SATs favor IQ and Ns (in truth, they tend to favor Js the most, I believe).

(From memory, but based upon the FFM research, I believe that is true.)

I assume one area would involve recall/application of detail and/or experiential questions, or complicated computational questions.

Statistics > theory, I'm afraid. I'm not terribly concerned with being PC and I'm a data whore, so I tend to say exactly what it is that has been found. Ss, no matter how you want to measure IQ, has to deviate entirely from academics and related concepts in order to show their value.

Originally Posted by Santtu

In contrast to every other ability that exists or can be described, understanding this "IQ" ability IS the same as having it. It's not like running speed, where there exists almost complete understanding of what makes a person a fast or slow runner in any category (like 100m, or marathon).

They measure entirely different things. IQ measure "muscle mass" in order to see how fast you are likely able to run. Running is like measuring the actual "event", the one specific thing you wish to deduce.

And I don't just mean understanding as "uh, ok, smart people are smart", but realizing what makes every intelligent solution so intelligent. If someone would be able to "emulate" high IQ in all the pertinent aspects, he/she would HAVE high IQ. This is analogous with running speed. The fast runner can slow down, but the slow can't (by definition of fast and slow) reach the speed of the fast runner.

Carrying what weight? Over what distance? In what terrain? What altitude?

There are infinite factors in life. We measure specific ones in order to understand the effect because we can never run enough experiments to actually capture them all.


(I'm not sure if you were even addressing what I wrote or it was a tangent to the original material, however I have looked at IQ almost as much as I have personality research, so I have a pretty good idea of what it actually means. I attack both sides - those that think of it as a gold standard and those that, either for PC or for other reasons, aren't willing to say what it actually says... but the reality is that, even in your very percise measurements, everything we measure only measures that one specific thing. The correlations are rarely significant at the personal level. Not until you measure them in that context - for example, attachment styles and relationships rather than personality types... The rule will always be, measure exactly what you want to know, then see how it relates. The relationships are interesting, but that's all they are.

The one exception being the concept of odds, of course, such as predictive outcomes of actions. Fair enough to say that intentionally scoring low on the SAT will have a predictive outcome much like actually scoring low... I remember this came up with the concept of marrying young and not getting divorced. Odds don't really lie much since the underlying factors remain static.)

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by FDG

Why would this be? Sorry for questioning your thought process, but I do not see a clear reason.

I'm not even explaining why, simply saying that it does happen. What follows are my theories, so I'm stepping away from outright research... but this is my opinion;

The strength of Ns comes from their inherent ability to see connections between things and data. I was watching a video today about the synthesis of happiness that brought this to mind (here)... in the video, it talks about the ability to simulate events that we haven't actually experienced. To me, that is the essence of "N-ness", once you strip out the IQ crap (ie: openness to ideas). An N is geared towards investigating what could-be... the S is simply less good at it.

What does that mean though? Well, it means that Ns can easily tell you, as he says, the liver and onion ice cream is not going to sell well... the S cannot, or rather, they have a harder time. For example, and this is where the change of my type comes from, I would ask for a sampling group to determine if it was actually true. Until then it is simply conjecture. In a way, this is exactly what happens all the time. The N says "this is true" because it is "logical" - in reality, what they are saying is that they have simulated it, not deduced it, so it must be true. A very powerful tool - it's what makes us tool users, technologists... and it has changed the whole concept of evolution into a sort of social evolution model. Very significant.

That's great for Ns, right? Well, as with the rest of the video, it's only great when it works properly... and it often doesn't. Our ability to simulate is inherently cognitively biased. In situations in which this is a disadvantage, such as physical/etc situations in which our mindset influences behaviour, it is a net negative attribute to have. For example, as a child, I tried doing things like urban jumping and what not. I never simulated what would happen to me. The degree of simulation here is very minor relative to more abstract concepts.

Moving deeper, consider the use and manipulation data. In these cases, cognitive biases are outright detrimental. A good intuitive will progress towards simulating the world based upon data because it allows the next "step" to take place. Actively seeing connections between data and then expressing them in ways that just don't make sense happens all the times - largely with Ns.

From an evolutionary standpoint, this is fine. A thousand Ns can come up with one good idea - the idea will pass into collective memory and the species will advance. That's what makes the simulator so powerful... from an evolutionary POV. For individuals that work daily, however, it offers very little personal benefit. It actively works against making proper analytical decisions that are solidly grounded.

So, when I was talking about "direct route", that's what I mean. Ns put up barriers more than accurately solve problems. Why do xNTJs dominate so incredibly compared to the xNTPs? NTPs should be smarter, blah blah. Well, the answer lies in the xNTJ need to have closure, which leads to acting. Simulation + acting = recurrence of events = progress, no matter how often it is wrong. It's growth personified. It's also why STJs match up, however - simulated or not, the act is good. INTJs just don't over-simulate, which allows their advantage, while STJs just truck along and make up a lot of high ranks, regardless of the heavy influence of IQ in the upper job positions.

Stripping out all of the MBTI concepts and going strictly biological - the foundation of all personality traits - really think about your own reactions when you need to make a decision. Ss, especially strong ones, suffer from "animal instinct" problems - the inability to simulate - which results in them going for authority or ignoring it (outside of the scope normal response). Likewise, strong Ns exist in a fantasy land. They simulate reality that seriously diverges from simulators.

Let me give you a practical example. Back when I was still in the financial world, my friend and I tried to set up corporation selling financial analysis. One of the mini-games we played between us were competitions to see who could pick values at certain dates, trends... measurable stuff. To put it in perspective, this guy was in the financial world before me, an INTJ - physics degree, system analysts, did work with the US DOD. He's smart... but he oversimulated every single analysis that he performed. A literal "thought about it too much". On the other hand, I was right within a fairly ridiculous margin...

However, one of the reasons it didn't work out was because I couldn't do it often. I struggled to come up with a solution to most of the problems that he offered. When I was able to simulate, I simulated extremely well. I had a strong backing in psychology, in data, previous cases, etc. That was my strength. Figuring out how they should apply? That was my challenge... and the opposite of his. He thought everything applied.

Another example of simulations from the same guy - using financial examples and research to argue about my next step in my finacial plan... examples that require hundreds of millions to execute. Useless to me. Likewise, talking about using mortgage debt to buy investments because it creates tax benefits - no conditionals, no knowledge of how it works.

Or how about one from this week - I was looking into the interaction between covered call income and the S&P. Answer was that buy-write strategies are worse than buy-hold due to limited upside. I quantively needed to know if this was true - after all, in an efficient market, it should be exactly equal.

As it turns out, the research for BXM was done a little while ago which shows it is slightly biased towards covered calls with less risk.

Same argument happened over managed futures up until I was able to argue in N terms - about the transference of risk being asymetrical because of the fixed nature of farmers.

Well, that's long... but I hope that explains what I mean when I'm saying it. Ns have tons of advantages... almost an entire SD of IQ, etc... they even get to cherry pick their own group that is under 2x the size of Ss. Yet, they don't significantly pull ahead in society. There is a reason for it - at the bottom line it's because reality is what matters and to put it bluntly, Ns are reality simulators and suck at reality. It's a very important trait and it should be elevated to the academics, where the simulator produces good ideas and move mankind forward. It's valuable. It's just not all that.

Total aside;

Simple experiment; split a group of people into a 30% and 70% group. Tell the 30% group they are special (because they have blue eyes). Simulate what cognitive shift happens to the 30%.

Normal distribution. I like it for a whole lot of reasons... and that's one of them.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Statistics > theory, I'm afraid. I'm not terribly concerned with being PC and I'm a data whore, so I tend to say exactly what it is that has been found. Ss, no matter how you want to measure IQ, has to deviate entirely from academics and related concepts in order to show their value

I too appreciate statististics more in some problem domain where statistics have been compiled.

I've noticed that some people have strange view on data and conclusions. If you deduce something in front of their face, they think that "you just made it all up", which makes is as worthless a piece of info that anything can be.

Walk around the corner and do your deducing there, print it on a paper and put a fancy name on it, a title and an official stamp, and hallelujah, there's their fact. To me it's like magical thinking, "no independent thinking was used in making up this fact, it all came from somewhere else". It's like the kid who was being asked if he drank cow milk. He replied, "no I don't", I only drink milk from the shop".

This is so obvious it's funny. It's exactly like they say about eating meat, "wanting to eat an hamburger doesn't mean that you want to meet the cow". The "facts" like figures, data, statistics, are made by people, who sometimes arrive at the conclusions by being inspired by desire to show something. When something new is found, it has to be invented by a person at some point. It can then be said that the person just "thought it up him/herself." What a disappointment that you can't always say that A got the facts from B, B got them from C, and perpetually so to the eternity (or some person lived in the year 1700, which makes their thoughts magical).

This desire to lose track on information origin's also seems like the infinite turtle thing, too.. that the earth is being supported by a turtle, that stands on the back of another turtle, who stands on the back of another turtle, ad infinitum..

I've repeated myself a lot, but my point really being that what is some people's publicly accessible knowledge and facts, in actuality, has probably origins in some original, (somewhat) independent thinking, the kind of thinking that fact-lovers hate. A Statistical institution (worked in one for 5 years) for example may have good work ethic, experienced mathematicians, statisticians and archivers who maintain standards on what definitions are used etc. and some person has been bureaucratically assigned to the job of realeasing what become official statistics. Some persons are overseen that they use the correct methods and follow the established procedures in making the data, some are less so, when they become more trusted upon. Some work is done by starting with a compilation of statistics from existing sources and by saying that it was well compiled, and giving the unfinished work to the next person who performs the next phase in the work. At some point the unfinished work becomes unfinished and it is released as official information. It has then went thru a lot of phases which have been overseen and quality controlled, but there remains many qualities in the finished product that reflect the creator's individual decisions, whatever those might be. It's not a flaw or anything wrong, it's just not completely impersonal.

I'm sorry that I wrote so long. I would just wish to completely stop the magical thinking that facts and data are something that can somehow be done without the human factor. Our national statistical institution is one of the most trusted public institutions in our country, and it makes an impression of a faceless institution. They rely on the image to create public trust. The trust is well-earned and the statistics, research results and the articles are created according to good standards, but it's humans in the end who make it. No matter how much safe-guarding there can be on any published information, the human factor can never be taken away. Not if the papers would go through a thousand committees before being published. Not that the human factor should be taken away.

Omg I've written an essay. I just think that this is a really important issue to accept. So the bottom line:
all our facts have been essentially "made up", either by you or someone before you.
Let the refusal step in. No! Nooo!! NOOOOOO!! Not my precious facts!!! AAAARRGHHHHH!!!!!!

[Xander]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Funny how many smart people are so misunderstood and miserable, judging from the *c boards.

Actually the correlation is there. Many intelligent people can become depressed and feel misunderstood because of their intellect.

Think of it like jocks, sure they can play with the overweight guy out of IT but they would eventually become impatient to compete and team up with others of their own ability level for the challenge and stimulation. Is this so different from the brainy guy who spends his time thinking of quantum mechanics and becomes impatient to discuss such things more so than what her at number 15 has done?

I would imagine that you yourself have been frustrated before by trying to engage someone on a topic only to be told that it involves too much effort to think about and hence they can't be bothered. Sometimes that gets really annoying. Hell it's one of the reasons why I both love and hate these forums. The chance to engage minds with others who are not so lazy when it comes to thinking.

Of course there are some who claim to be misunderstood because they wish to avoid the analysis of what they say and how it ends up being disassembled but this does not mean that all who seem to have their thoughts disassembled and claim to be misunderstood are actually not misunderstood.

You probably already work under that guideline but I felt compelled to point out the flaw in case someone who really is misunderstood takes offence or gets guided wrong by it.

(okay talk about your overthinking but still..)

[Santtu]

S do a lot of practical work, and different S have different working habits. Some Ss have a tendency to lose part of their work effort to trial and error; not because the person would fail by internal standards, but because unexpected consequences in the greater system invalidate part of the person's work. It's like physical computation of sort.

Now dont make mistake about this. I am a burnout recoveree and often inefficient. I would love to be able to start a job without hesitation, even though it might end up being redundant because of poor planning. I have good planning skills for a project, but I do overplan. Yes, your criticism hits right the spot at me.

I hear a lot of funny stories from SP how they take pride in how unexpected way the things developed when they did something totally unplanned and wasted time, in effect, but to comical results.

It's as much as N love to use their planning and big-picture-viewing skills for fun, SP love "trying out", often with little attachment to work at hand. If it works, great! If not, at least they got to do something, and they're already on their way to try out a different thing.

Some S's counter the danger of loss of efficiency by planning procedures that minimize wasted effort. I feel in debt especially to some SJ-like established procedures which are easy to conceptualize and that are helpful to the tasks they're designed for.

If the system inefficiency for SP can be in some unseen trial-and-error results in actual tasks, for SJ it seems to come from processes. SJ seem to have a great accuracy in starting up the most efficient processes possible from scratch, but when they go wrong, the results most probably effect a lot of people and waste their collaborative effort for a long time. What's worse, SJ dont always seem to care about it, or allow for a change for the fear that the process might stop while it is being improved upon. I dont know if it's that they care about to have some results with certainty, and they judge them so that the certainty is more important than efficiency, or what is it. SJ could often really use NT's input in designing the procedures, when the results affect many people or cost a lot.

Some SJ are, in my opinion, outstanding in stating immediately the procedure to follow when a particular kind of problem or issue comes into attention. It has the benefit that when no-one has thought about the thing and the first solution is said immediately, it hits the spot right there. There's no "unlearning" to do. NT could often invent a better procedure later, when people have either had to wait for the solution to be made, or they have already started to do the thing in a different way. This uncertainty and change is not conductive to learning, and it's annoying to hear that we should have made a different decision. I hate it as much as the next guy. On the other hand, the SJ would often be unable to invent as an elegant and efficient procedure as the NT, but SJ may have the benefit of inventing *a* procedure fast, getting people used to it and therefore establishing it in a practical way.

SJ seem sometimes too much emotionally attached to repeating the same thing. I understand some of the merit of that myself. When I just do something and "tune out" I dont necessarily experience something as boring as it really is. It needs a level of rote memory and learning to be able to do something while tuned out, tho. I did this for years as a telephone interviewer.

Not an example of loving routine here, but we did one particular type of standardized interview so long, that one person memorized the whole questionaire and played computer games while doing the telephone interviews. She switched quickly with the game screen and the interview program whenever she had to input an answer.