Same here. Even if I'm still awake at 4 a.m., I still get up before 9 a.m. in the morning. Don't need much sleep.What if you stay up very late, and wake up very early? Does that make a difference?
I have a simple theory on why this is: a more active brain takes longer to shut down, and often doesn't want to.
Why Night Owls Are More Intelligent than Morning Larks
More intelligent people wake up late and stay up late
Net of a large number of social and demographic factors, more intelligent children tend to grow up to be more nocturnal as adults than less intelligent children. Compared to their less intelligent counterparts, more intelligent individuals tend to go to bed later on weeknights (when they have to get up at a certain time the next day) and on weekends (when they don’t), and they wake up later on weekdays.
i think he was joking.
Same here. Even if I'm still awake at 4 a.m., I still get up before 9 a.m. in the morning. Don't need much sleep.
Researchers say that people who sleep 5 to 6 hours live longer then people who sleep a full 8 so thats good.
Researchers say that people who sleep 5 to 6 hours live longer then people who sleep a full 8 so thats good.
Smarter -> better education -> more money -> laxer work schedule & more hours worked
This is the most likely mechanism, the fact that there's no correlation during weekends further supports this conclusion.
Smarter -> better education
/fail
being smart doesent mean that you will automatically get a good education. being well educated does how ever mean that you have much information, but thats a whole different thing than being actually a smart person
/fail
being smart doesent mean that you will automatically get a good education. being well educated does how ever mean that you have much information, but thats a whole different thing than being actually a smart person
agreed. I didn't even know how to address his assertion that smart people always have a better education a good job and more money, or that even having more education makes one "smarter"...those actually appear to very SJ methods of measuring intelligence
It's not a fail. On average, smarter people do get better education - that's a fact. Sure, this doesn't hold for each individual, however most studies average out individual effects, so the relationship between "smartness" and "education" will generally hold, if their sample was well-selected.
No, you didn't understand my post. I never said that smart people always have a better education. Statistically however - thus, on average - they do have a better education, there's a large amount of studies that have been carried out on the subject matter - what causes being "smart" isn't my concern now, it's sufficient that my definition collimates with the one being used in the original.
No, education doesn't make you any smarter - I never implied such causation either (again: smarter people on average have better education, having better education on average leads to jobs with laxer work schedules - that's all I'm saying).
if something is fact average, it doesent mean that it would be the whole truth. therefore you fail if you think that fact by average is the truth. therefore the relationship of education and being smart does not hold, since its only so in some cases. it doesent matter if its so by 75 or 90%, its still true only on some cases, so it only holds when you look at it by average, but since average does not equal truth, it is not the truth.
The same is valid for whatever's been said by the study linked by the original poster. So, it's still a valid refutation, because we start from the same set of premises. The relationship between being smart and education (NOT the reverse, as you wrongy say) still holds on average. I understand your objection, but you're definitely nitpicking - we're not trying to discover a new physical law, in which case we would need a 100 % correspondence. "Social" sciences are fuzzier (unfortunately) - there's nothing which holds in 100% of the cases.
statistics that are measured by average only give you guidance for the truth, its not the truth itself. its just the fact about average, not fact on the truth.
imo being smart means that you get this kind of stuff and that you realize that something by average is not the truth. if you mix these two things, it will lead you to wrong conclusions about the full truth, therefore its not smart to mix these two things together.
social sciences measure averages(atleast usually), its not meant to even find the whole truth.
im not nitpicking, im just providing you the information that your Te leaves out and leads you to make ignorant conclusions
Sorry but I know perfectly well what you're talking about, you don't need to provide me with this extremely basic information in such a condescending fashion, I was aware of it of since middle school.
The problem here is that we don't have (yet) a precise way to reconstruct "molecular" truth up to how each everyday happening takes place, thus we need to use (by their nature, "incorrect") statistical methods. We can also opt not to use them & avoid discussing everything which results from them, yet if that were the case this forum wouldn't exist either, since MBTI isn't "true" the way you want any given theory to be "true".