User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by bologna
I hesitate to even post in this thread because it's going to perpetuate it, but I suppose it's already resurrected so why the hell not.

--

We use type test statistics and correlation with other measures (IQ, % population, etc.). We also state how the type tests are terrible a measure of actual type.

We then claim the former to be meaningful anyway, disregarding the latter assertion when it suits our purposes to do so.

We're fantastic. Go us!

If (if!) we believe in JCF extensions to MBTI, and if (if!) we actually give a fuck about this question, the actual answer lies in facing this problem and reconciling it.

Off the top of my head, here: It's a matter of conditional probability. We have an answer to the question--"What's the correlation between tested type and IQ?" We don't have an answer to the question--"Given that one tests as a certain type, what's the probability that he is that type?" Depending on that probability, virtually every conclusion we make regarding IQ, population, etc. based on type statistics could be pretty meaningless, regardless of what the correlation table between type and IQ tells us.

For the record, the g factor has some merit.
it always amuses me how little grasp most people have on statistics... which is probably why adding in some numbers is the easiest way to support your lie in most cases

basing an entire argument on why some people are inferior on shoddy research and stats on a topic that can't even be conclusively proven in any manner just ends up making the arguer look stupid

for goodness sake... I can easily take the same test on two different days and get completely different results... I'm not special, so I'm assuming this would be true of just about anyone... damned self reporting tests

but this goes back to the "people don't understand numbers and testing all that well" argument... which really makes a thread like this pretty pointless...

so pretty much, you're right, mr lunchmeat

2. Originally Posted by Standuble
They were online tests, I don't think there have been any real ones. That's why I am sceptical about the result - could be higher but most likely average.
Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.

3. Originally Posted by ptgatsby
FWIW, 75% of the population is not extraverted, if we are using MBTI. There are slightly more introverts.

http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/...requencies.htm FWIW. I'd immediately distrust the other snips as it seems to be using really bad "psycho-metric" data (presumably an offshoot of MBTI, or pre step I MBTI?)
I'm actually more surprised by the F/T stats. I thought Ts dominated the US.

Also interesting is that slightly more males are N than females...especially since the romanticized females are historically considered to be more intuitive.

4. I.Q. tests are biased against sensors.

5. Originally Posted by DisneyGeek
Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.
I was fully aware of that as I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Aleda
I.Q. tests are biased against sensors.
The universe hates them, not just the IQ tests.

6. Originally Posted by Standuble
I was fully aware of that as I mentioned above.

The universe hates them, not just the IQ tests.
What do you mean by that exactly?

7. Originally Posted by DisneyGeek
Yeah, I hate to break it to you buddy, but those online tests mean nothing and tend to score you higher than you really are.
It depends on the test. All kinds of internet IQ tests exist. I took one intended for children some time back and scored about 185. But I knew my official score and I've found some that gave me identical results to the score I had before I ever went online.

8. That is a relief, Hooray for science!

9. Originally Posted by UniqueMixture
At least once more!

Here ya go @RaptorWizard see, I told ya not to feel so self-conscious!
Your post is arguably against the FAQ's rule that concerns quoting entire articles.

That being said, consider the conclusion, "The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. No one component, or IQ, explained everything."

The phrase "no one component, or IQ" makes no sense on the face of it. And IQ tests don't test short-term memory, they focus on reasoning skills alone. You would have to have a pretty bad short-term memory, such as that of an insect, for that factor to affect your test result. "Verbal IQ" has nothing to do with the reasoning component. If you want to measure verbal IQ, or emotional IQ (EQ), then that's for a different test.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO