Let's "level" about type issues

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by lastrailway

Well, being the person wasting your time lately, in these IQ related threads...
I think I have generally a hard time on understanding psychology things, for one, and a complete ignorance on IQ stuff for another.
I don't do it because I don't read through your -and anyone else's- posts

No no, don't get me wrong! If anyone at all has a question or doesn't understanding, please do say something. Hell, even "I disagree because I just don't see how IQs relate to job performance" might drive me nuts (dammit you Ns, the link exists... accept it and move on! ), if you mean it sincerely, I'll try to answer/explain... and I'll enjoy doing it.

And of course, if you don't answer, I don't mind at all I'll assume you aren't interested and/or took something away. But goading me into doing the work for nothing, that irritates the hell out of me!

[cafe]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The two irritations that I do have are stereotypes that just won't go away, no matter how many times I attack them... and the extension of that, the dismissal of words based upon type/other unimportant factors (but that's pretty rare overall... although I realise it's not as rare as I thought before).

I have experienced this and it is not fun. When it is at the hands of those who pride themselves on being logical and objective and they can't see past the letters in your profile it's . . .

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

No no, don't get me wrong! If anyone at all has a question or doesn't understanding, please do say something. Hell, even "I disagree because I just don't see how IQs relate to job performance" might drive me nuts (dammit you Ns, the link exists... accept it and move on! ), if you mean it sincerely, I'll try to answer/explain... and I'll enjoy doing it.

And of course, if you don't answer, I don't mind at all I'll assume you aren't interested and/or took something away. But goading me into doing the work for nothing, that irritates the hell out of me!

As one of the people who disagree with you on the fundamental use of corellations in a predictive manner, I wonder how you react to my skepticism.

My take on IQ (and gF in particular) is that it is an unfasifiable construct that keeps its corelations by modifying the very construct of what constitutes an IQ (by changing the test). A little like people who believe in God of a particular kind keeps modifying the concept to keep the connections that are important to them, while letting go of untennable versions.

I think if someone got a copy of WAIS III (latest one right?) and practiced on it continually, they could obtain a high score on that test.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by ygolo

As one of the people who disagree with you on the fundamental use of corellations in a predictive manner, I wonder how you react to my skepticism.

I'd agree with you.

I think what we do have an issue over is the validity of data. You come from a field where data is absolute, whereas the datasets that use people are not.

To you, the IQ must represent something... I don't worry about what it represents. If it was shown that high IQ people can run fast, I'd nod, review the research and include that in my mental filing cabinet. When I go to do something, I use what information I have to predict. I also tend to say something is predictive when it isn't - otherwise it isn't predictive (the old example we had was that ADD -> J with confidence, but Js -> ADD very very weakly). That is to say, I would say that since you have ADD, it is very predictive that you are a J. However, if you are a J, it is not predictive that you are ADD.

A phrase I use a lot of - Ask the questions you want answered. MBTI isn't about being I/E - it's simply a collection of questions that were averaged out. It's like a Kakuro puzzle.

My take on IQ (and gF in particular) is that it is an unfasifiable construct that keeps its corelations by modifying the very construct of what constitutes an IQ (by changing the test). A little like people who believe in God of a particular kind keeps modifying the concept to keep the connections that are important to them, while letting go of untennable versions.

I'd agree if you hadn't used the g part. g is the methodology and theory behind being able to improve IQ test without invalidating them... IOW, they are measured against each other to find out their g-loading, to see how they compare.

Nothing's perfect - we can't give the same SAT test either. Things do change... Still, I am among the first to say "depends what test you took" when talking about IQ.

I think if someone got a copy of WAIS III (latest one right?) and practiced on it continually, they could obtain a high score on that test.

No doubt. But that is akin to saying that if someone reconfigured the entry parameters, it would no doubt differ from the model. It's not relevent to the application of the test.

(Except in cases where it could be used as an entry to school... like say... studying for a SAT? It's not that uncommon to have it happen but in the big picture, it doesn't really matter.)

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I'd agree with you.

I think what we do have an issue over is the validity of data. You come from a field where data is absolute, whereas the datasets that use people are not.

I will firmly say that the data in my field is not "absolute", most if it is statistical in nature. Though I am starting to wonder what you mean by "absolute".

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

To you, the IQ must represent something... I don't worry about what it represents. If it was shown that high IQ people can run fast, I'd nod, review the research and include that in my mental filing cabinet. When I go to do something, I use what information I have to predict. I also tend to say something is predictive when it isn't - otherwise it isn't predictive (the old example we had was that ADD -> J with confidence, but Js -> ADD very very weakly). That is to say, I would say that since you have ADD, it is very predictive that you are a J. However, if you are a J, it is not predictive that you are ADD.

A phrase I use a lot of - Ask the questions you want answered. MBTI isn't about being I/E - it's simply a collection of questions that were averaged out. It's like a Kakuro puzzle.

I definitely need more clarification on this point. Can you rephrase? My current interpretation of what you wrote seems to indicate a lack of understanding behind the math of correlations, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I'd agree if you hadn't used the g part. g is the methodology and theory behind being able to improve IQ test without invalidating them... IOW, they are measured against each other to find out their g-loading, to see how they compare.

My understanding of g, is that it is simply the factor that corellates most of the IQ tests. In which case, I would call it unfalsifiable, since you are very likely to find this sort of thing in random data sets. Use a random number generator, do factor analysis on it and pick out the factor that correlates best with the other factors. See how good you corellations are. If the p-values aren't good enough, re-factor ad try again. Eventually you'll find what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Nothing's perfect - we can't give the same SAT test either. Things do change... Still, I am among the first to say "depends what test you took" when talking about IQ.

No doubt. But that is akin to saying that if someone reconfigured the entry parameters, it would no doubt differ from the model. It's not relevent to the application of the test.

(Except in cases where it could be used as an entry to school... like say... studying for a SAT? It's not that uncommon to have it happen but in the big picture, it doesn't really matter.)

I think I understand. But I was actualy trying to say is that the parts of IQ important to job function are incredibly learnable things, not innate to the individual.

As someone who reccomends candidates of positions, I actually see these "IQ related" traits as being important (and incredibly learnable).

1) Critical thinking skills. I give the Wason card problem on my interviews. Only one person has ever gotten it right (which came as a shock to me). But after some thought almost anyone can understand it. That sort of correction in thought transfers really well to critical thinking on the job.

2) Remaining calm under pressure. Some times people get panicky in test or evaluation situations. Simple breathing/minfulness techniques is all it takes to reverse this.

3) Following a predetermined course of action. i.e. reading and following directions, creating a plan and working your plan, etc. This comes from a good understanding of what sorts of plans can be executed, and practice executing plans. Sometimes, people, in the middle of solving a problem, will lose track of what they tried, and what to do next and can go in circles. People with a good "inference engine" may need to do less of this, since they solve problems on instinct, but once the inference engine runs its course a more systematic problem-solving aproach is needed. Hence, I put really open-ended difficult design problems on interviews and ask candidates to "talk it out". This is also a very learnable trait, and comes with practice.

Am I, in effect, giving my own IQ test? Perhaps. But one thing, I am sure of, is that the three traits I listed above are incredibly learnable.

[Cindyrella]

When people tell me my argument isn't valid because it's based on emotion/feelings and not logic, I feel irritated because I'm a freakin' NF, that's why!

[Ivy]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Sorry to derail, but that Wason Card problem is hard. I'm still not quite sure of the answer.

This was my thought process: I wanted to turn over the A and 4 card because those seemed like the obvious answer. But then I thought to myself those can't be the answers because it's too obvious and it wouldn't be a problem otherwise. So then I switched to the B and 7 cards because those seemed right because I thought/think my first impulses are incorrect since this must be a trick.

What's the answer????

Ack, we need spoiler tags here! I will PM ya

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by ygolo

I will firmly say that the data in my field is not "absolute", most if it is statistical in nature. Though I am starting to wonder what you mean by "absolute".

I thought you were in a physics field where you are effectively modelling rather absolute outcomes (that despite random variances in the physics that affect the objects, the actual physics is pretty much the end all of everything). People are horribly removed from the nature of the universe, if you will

I definitely need more clarification on this point. Can you rephrase? My current interpretation of what you wrote seems to indicate a lack of understanding behind the math of correlations, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The exact correlations are maintained within the dataset but psychology deals in pools of traits. it is critical to see where the pool is coming from to understand the results.

Consider a case of;

10000 that test 1% ADD (100). The 10,000 group is 50/50 J/P.

You take the 100 ADD patients and give them the MBTI. 100% of them test J. It is not accurate to say that Js are likely to be ADD (ie: there are 5000 Js, but only 2% of them are ADD... while it is quite accurate to say that ADDs are Js.

Within that dataset, people say ADD -> J, and J -> ADD... in reality, ADD-> is very strong while J->ADD is very weak.

Of course you are right - the ADDs are all contained in the set of Js and there is a correlation... so it is predictive, if very weakly so. Problem is, people see numbers like IQ being correlated to high income when it is actually higher income being related to IQ. It's simply a barrier of entry. High IQ sure helps but it isn't all that predictive.

I shorthand that into predictive and not predictive, although both are truly predictive - it's just a matter of strength.

For example, it is very rare that upper managers have IQs below 110. However, the majority of 110 IQs do not become upper managers. People, however, assume that the two are equal. In this case the explanation is about barriers of entry, similar in academics and such.

Yes, technically it is a bit fuzzy, but I'm not a professional doing research. People misinterpret the results by not looking at the fundamental biases in the selection.

My understanding of g, is that it is simply the factor that corellates most of the IQ tests. In which case, I would call it unfalsifiable, since you are very likely to find this sort of thing in random data sets. Use a random number generator, do factor analysis on it and pick out the factor that correlates best with the other factors. See how good you corellations are. If the p-values aren't good enough, re-factor ad try again. Eventually you'll find what you're looking for.

If I understand this correct and translating this to IQ tests... you are saying, take the WAIS (for example), create a new test, give it to 1000 odd people, check to see if it is g loaded, and if not sufficiently so, write a new test and do it again? Eventually the random test giving will generate a random result that emulates a sufficiently loaded g score?

Am I, in effect, giving my own IQ test? Perhaps. But one thing, I am sure of, is that the three traits I listed above are incredibly learnable.

So are marks. SATs. GREs. So are sports, running... everything is. Skills are important. It's just another form of test. Not everyone can score 1600 (is it 2400 now?) scores on the SATs, etc and that determines your entrance into school. And not surprisingly, those that score lower on SATs tend not to do well in school.

[Maverick]

When: people talk shit about ENTJ's
I feel: amused
Because: they're just jealous because we're awesome

[Santtu]

When: people use an argument that someone's motivation was based in insecurity or feelings of inferiority
I feel: dumbfounded
Because: I can't figure it out whom of those two - or both - really were motivated by insecurity, and I feel it's prudent not to read such motivations into person's actions too stricly, even when suspected. I also find such argumentation to be an attack against the person, intellectually lazy, emotionally defensive, patronizing, avoiding the topic and distracting from the conversation.