BlueGray
New member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 474
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Ok one step at a time...
How many people are INTP in the normative sample?
Not given but from the percentage roughly 330.
Which I have already stated.
Ok one step at a time...
How many people are INTP in the normative sample?
N=9320 - is the sample size for the normative data... 4828 are the gifted sample...
INTPs in the normative = 330
INTPs in the gifted = 582
Total INTP across both samples = 911
Gifted/911 = % of INTPs who are gifted
IF THE SAMPLE OF GIFTED IS VALID
This value is completely meaningless and you then used it in an attempt to derive other information.Total INTP across both samples = 911
That is where you are wrong.
This value is completely meaningless and you then used it in an attempt to derive other information.
Where in the research report does it say they took a representative group of students. Separated them into gifted and non-gifted and found percentages from these two groups?
Hmm are you denying that there are more giftedn INTPs than normal INTPs?
if you look at the definitions udner the table, you will see * which relate to columns in tables wich is pretty standard notation in research.
Sample size for Gifted is given as column N gifted
Sample size for the normative data = c.9000
I'm saying that as long as the percentage of people that are gifted is less than 1/3.54, about 28%, there are more non-gifted INTPs than gifted INTPs. If the percentage of gifted is higher there are more gifted INTPs than non-gifted INTPs.
Which of these two cases it is can not be determined from the given data.
I have simply said that the data you created to "clean up" his approach used an assumption that the normative group and gifted group were the non-gifted and gifted parts of a total group.
You seem to understand the meaning of what the study is saying although your numbers were completely off from the given information.
There isn't a singular survey. There were 20 different surveys. 19 of gifted students and 1 of the general population.I took the base data and calculated it more cleanly to give a total INTP for the survey
Dividing percentages by each other is perfectly valid. The only problem is the rounding errors. Rounding errors aren't removed by taking the given percentage * the total. The only way to remove them is by taking the original value, which was given for the gifted but not the normative. Since the percentages were done out to the ten thousandths the rounding error is small.
I understand perfectly what you are saying and what the article is saying. You don't seem to understand that I am pointing out the flaw in your calculations.
There isn't a singular survey. There were 20 different surveys. 19 of gifted students and 1 of the general population.
*sigh* Okay. You're just doing exactly what I said -- seeing what you want to see. There is a limit to how much data can be skewed, but you don't just throw out some parts of the study while keeping others. Unless you are biased.
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.