Aptitude breakdowns by type (SAT, IQ, ACT)

[Usehername]

Originally Posted by athenian200

I really think that niffer's IQ proves that you cannot correlate IQ to type preference, at least not completely. Even it if it's generally true for a particular group of people, that doesn't prove it's true for everyone. Although I do imagine that INTJ's and INTP's would have the highest IQ's, based on the way the test is usually laid out.



I wouldn't talk if I were you...

well, IQ tests basically test your ability to "think outside the box", right? not spit out learned answers?

well, isn't this abstract thinking?
and isn't this "N" "T"?

so IQ tests basically test one's NT-ness! And thus NTs should dominate--it's their home turf! However, IQs don't test plenty of other styles of intelligence.

But I do think NTs should have the highest scoring IQs--not because they're smarter, but b/c that's what the tests test! One's NT-ness!

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Usehername

well, IQ tests basically test your ability to "think outside the box", right? not spit out learned answers?

Modern ones are split between gF and gC, which you may see referenced. gF measures what you are talking about, roughly, while gC is more like learnt general information. Others also test associated things (recall and such).

well, isn't this abstract thinking?
and isn't this "N" "T"?

Funny enough, not so much. It's almost entirely N... the T/F has been found in different forms of tests, but nothing horribly significant. If memory serves, the E/I divide is actually stronger.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Modern ones are split between gF and gC, which you may see referenced. gF measures what you are talking about, roughly, while gC is more like learnt general information. Others also test associated things (recall and such).

Funny enough, not so much. It's almost entirely N... the T/F has been found in different forms of tests, but nothing horribly significant. If memory serves, the E/I divide is actually stronger.

I don't know about IQ tests, but when I saw the Keirsey breakdown of SAT scores I was surprised to find that there was little to no difference among E/I, T/F, or J/P. I had hypothesised to myself that there would be some type of preference among the letters I, N, T, and J, but in reality there was only a significant difference between S and N. In the S/N case there was roughly a difference of 100 points in mean SAT scores.

[proteanmix]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Modern ones are split between gF and gC, which you may see referenced. gF measures what you are talking about, roughly, while gC is more like learnt general information. Others also test associated things (recall and such).

Funny enough, not so much. It's almost entirely N... the T/F has been found in different forms of tests, but nothing horribly significant. If memory serves, the E/I divide is actually stronger.

Here are some highlights from an article I have about personality and intelligence. I have several journal articles like this and I'm going through them but this is the first one I've finished.

Personality and Intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, Self-Estimated and Psychometric Intelligence. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT. V13 NO.1 MARCH 2005. Adrian Furnham, Joanna Moutafi,Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

- In study 1 a total of 100 participants completed the NEOPI-R,the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Baddeley Reasoning Test, and estimated their own intelligence on a normal distribution curve. Multiple regression showed that psychometric intelligence was predicted by Conscientiousness and SEI, while SEI was predicted by gender, Neuroticism (notably anxiety) and Agreeableness (notably modesty).

- Most theories of intelligence, notably Cattell's (1971), are based on hierarchical models, which originated from Spearman (1927), who proposed that intelligence consists of a general (g) factor and a set of specific (s) factors. Based on Spearman, Cattell (1943) distinguished between fluid (gf) and crystallized (gc) intelligence. gf is dependent on the efficient functioning of the central nervous system, while gc is dependent on experience and education within a culture...Mayer, Caruso, Zigler, and Dreyden (1989) observed, personality traits are, at best, modestly related to intellect and intellectual achievement.

- Zeidner (1995) proposed that introverts have an advantage in tasks related to superior associative learning ability (verbal tasks), whereas extraverts have an advantage in tasks related to ready acquisition of automatic motor sequences (performance tasks).

- The personality factor which is considered to correlate most strongly with psychometric intelligence is openness to experience (Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). However, researchers have noticed that openness to experience specifically correlates with gc (Brand, 1994). Goff and Ackerman (1992) reported a correlation of r=.40 between openness to experience and gc...When compared with personality measures, typical intellectual engagement showed a significant correlation with openness to experience (r=.65), as well as with Conscientiousness (r=.27) (Ackerman & Goff, 1994).

- Although therewere significant relationships between psychometric personality and self-estimated intelligence, there were no significant relationships between psychometric personality and psychometric intelligence.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

- The personality factor which is considered to correlate most strongly with psychometric intelligence is openness to experience (Zeidner & Matthews, 2000). However, researchers have noticed that openness to experience specifically correlates with gc (Brand, 1994). Goff and Ackerman (1992) reported a correlation of r=.40 between openness to experience and gc...When compared with personality measures, typical intellectual engagement showed a significant correlation with openness to experience (r=.65), as well as with Conscientiousness (r=.27) (Ackerman & Goff, 1994).

I believe that this isn't as well supported anymore (gC vs gF), or at least, it doesn't appear as a significant gap between gC and gF, regardless of openness... but I have no idea where I read that as I was scanning through all of these. That might of been related to MBTI and IQ testing correlations, however.

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

I don't know about IQ tests, but when I saw the Keirsey breakdown of SAT scores I was surprised to find that there was little to no difference among E/I, T/F, or J/P. I had hypothesised to myself that there would be some type of preference among the letters I, N, T, and J, but in reality there was only a significant difference between S and N. In the S/N case there was roughly a difference of 100 points in mean SAT scores.

It depends exactly what you measure. For example, most of the research is done with FFM, but that correlates very differently than MBTI. In terms of direct IQ and MBTI, there are other factors, but only a couple of studies have been done and they don't match up perfectly. And the IQ tests differ as well, further confusing the situation. But yah, even if there is an influence from the other 3 letters, S/N is by far the most dominant

[Mycroft]

I'm amazed by the number claiming to have or know people with IQs in the range of Einstein and Bohr.

[runvardh]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I'm amazed by the number claiming to have or know people with IQs in the range of Einstein and Bohr.

How many people are involved in this thread plus the outside references? Now divide that by the total populations of Europe, North America, and Australia (the three continents most of the people on this board are living in). What do you get?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by runvardh

How many people are involved in this thread plus the outside references? Now divide that by the total populations of Europe, North America, and Australia (the three continents most of the people on this board are living in). What do you get?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

[runvardh]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Nice dodge, lol

[Mycroft]

Well, I was joking around a bit, but the proper response is:

1.) What you suggest is impossible for me. I'd need a research grant, etc., to even begin to consider such an undertaking.

2.) From a strictly hypothetical level, there is one flaw in the logic: it assumes that we, knowing all of these geniuses, could divide our genius-base by the overall population and get a number that is realistic. This is not the case. We are only a single demographic; by virtue of being the kind of people with Internet access who use a message board such as this, we are a demographic of above-average intelligence and, hence, one that would be familiar with more geniuses, but we can hardly claim to have bogarted a number of geniuses so disproportionate that when divided by the general population it would still work out to a realistic stat.

Which is to say: even taking into consideration our demographic, I consider the number of people claiming to be or know geniuses unrealistically high.

To Niffer: you're a lovely girl, but 156? That would make you a bona fide genius only few IQ points short of Einstein, who was in the lower 160s. I'm not entirely discounting the possibility that what you say is true, but I must confess that I'm skeptical. For one thing, if you'd scored that high people would have made such a hooplah that your "oh, this silly little thing? I didn't even know it was worth anything t'all!" attitude strikes me as... unfitting.