...

[redacted]

100, by definition, is the average, with 50% below and 50% above.

Don't mean to be a dick, but this is not technically true. Just because 100 is average doesn't mean 50% are above and 50% are below.

The average of the sequence {110, 110, 110, 110, 110, 50} is 100 but 83% of people are above average.

 

[Chloe]

The average of the sequence {110, 110, 110, 110, 110, 50} is 100 but 83% of people are above average.

Mental retardation occurs in about 2-3% of population, so if mean IQ is 100, ... 3% MR people have 50 IQ, other 97% people have IQ 101,5...

So, average person still has around 100 IQ.


... i think INTPs should have highest IQ.
N is huge plus for IQ
P has little advantage over J
T over F (maybe)
I over E.

generally... there are always exceptions.

also Ts have practice brain more than Fs, so it can be they don't have higher IQ naturally, just quicker and more vital brain.

 

[redacted]

Mental retardation occurs in about 2-3% of population, so if mean IQ is 100, ... 3% MR people have 50 IQ, other 97% people have IQ 101,5...

So, average person has to have around 100 IQ.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying that people with 50 IQ are outliers and only negligibly affect the median?

All I was trying to point out is that it isn't necessarily true that 50% are above average and 50% are below average.

It's always been kind of a pet peeve of mine: in Social Psych my teacher brought up the "above average effect" and explained it by saying "most people think they are above average, but that's clearly impossible, because 50% of people have to be below average!" Not true.

also Ts have most practiced brain, so it can be they don't have higher IQ naturally, just quicker and more vital brain.

Why do Ts have the most practiced brain? I don't understand.

 

[Chloe]

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying that people with 50 IQ are outliers and only negligibly affect the median?

Yep, IQ bellow 70 is considered MR, isn't it? so according to google shock and my memory MR are not above 3% of population. ?

It's always been kind of a pet peeve of mine: in Social Psych my teacher brought up the "above average effect" and explained it by saying "most people think they are above average, but that's clearly impossible, because 50% of people have to be below average!" Not true.

Sure. That reminds me of quote from Anna Karenina, it goes something like this "Everybody is unhappy about their fortune, but nobody is unhappy about their intelligence" (something like this!)

People can admit they are ugly, poor, whatever, but I really didn't see anybody to think about himself as being stupid. Really stupid. It's simple - you look at yourself and others with your capacity (intelligence) so you can not see more than there is... you're always maximum.

Why do Ts have the most practiced brain? I don't understand.

They think more?

 

[redacted]

They think more?

Depends what you mean by 'think'. If you mean "conscious true/false judgments", this is true. But that's pretty narrow...

"Thinking" in the common sense of the word is probably more like Intuition in MBTI than Thinking.

 

[Chloe]

Depends what you mean by 'think'. If you mean "conscious true/false judgments", this is true. But that's pretty narrow...

"Thinking" in the common sense of the word is probably more like Intuition in MBTI than Thinking.

i'm not saying Ts are more intelligent than Fs, but I expect they should score more on IQ because IQ tests are usually puzzles they prefer and do sometimes for fun.
Well, I don't know.
And I agree about intuition of course, it's most important.

 

[BlackCat]

IQ tests tend to be biased toward intuitives I've heard. Not necessarily thinkers though.

 

[nomadic]

Administered IQ tests like Stanford Binet depend more on pattern recognition, problem solving, visual - spatial intelligence, fluid reasoning.

Achievement tests are where people "work hard" and memorize.

The latter you can improve with hard work...of course. the former, your mind can work faster one some aspects with practice, but that practice is a very limited ceiling bump, and after you reach your natural limit. I do believe that subjects like Math, can be achievement type with the proper type of training, where you can go beyond your "natural ability".

 

[FDG]

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying that people with 50 IQ are outliers and only negligibly affect the median?

All I was trying to point out is that it isn't necessarily true that 50% are above average and 50% are below average.

You're missing an underlying assumption: IQ tests are made such that the distribution of the scores is Gaussian (or Normal), thus symmetric, thus 50% above average and 50% below average.

 

[nomadic]

You're missing an underlying assumption: IQ tests are made such that the distribution of the scores is Gaussian (or Normal), thus symmetric, thus 50% above average and 50% below average.

Well, I don't think they are made to be normally distributed. But found to approximate normal distributions. Minor detail...

 

[hommefatal]

Depends what you mean by 'think'. If you mean "conscious true/false judgments", this is true. But that's pretty narrow...

"Thinking" in the common sense of the word is probably more like Intuition in MBTI than Thinking.

hahaha

 

[lunalum]

Don't mean to be a dick, but this is not technically true. Just because 100 is average doesn't mean 50% are above and 50% are below.

The average of the sequence {110, 110, 110, 110, 110, 50} is 100 but 83% of people are above average.

Yes, not necessarily true. But IQ falls along a bell curve as well that is perfectly symmetrical along the 100 axis.
For example: 96% of the population is between 70 and 130. 48% is between 70 and 100. 48% is between 100 and 130. 2% is below 70. 2% is above 130.
(Again, if this appears too low, it is likely because this 2% above 130 invades these kinds of websites, and the 2% below 70 rarely communicate online.)

 

[lunalum]

You're missing an underlying assumption: IQ tests are made such that the distribution of the scores is Gaussian (or Normal), thus symmetric, thus 50% above average and 50% below average.

^ Umm, yeah. That's what I was trying to say

 

[FDG]

Well, I don't think they are made to be normally distributed. But found to approximate normal distributions. Minor detail...

I actually think (I'm pretty sure about this) that the scoring system is set up such that the scores will be normally distributed. Of course, the system is based on past experiences, thus strictly speaking it could be completely wrong for tomorrow's reality; nonetheless, that's the way it's constructed.

 

[nomadic]

I actually think (I'm pretty sure about this) that the scoring system is set up such that the scores will be normally distributed. Of course, the system is based on past experiences, thus strictly speaking it could be completely wrong for tomorrow's reality; nonetheless, that's the way it's constructed.

The Stanford Binet test (the major IQ test that is professionally administered) gives you a score where they match your "mental age" vs. your "real age". It is usually considered to be most accurate when you take it at age 8ish.

So if you take it at age 8, and you score what the "average" 12 year old gets. Then your IQ is 150. (12/8 * 100). there is nothing inherent in this scoring system that will make the distribution normal. Scores are based on nominal performance. Not adjusted.

For instance, if half of 12 year olds think like the average 9 year old, and half thinks like the average 15 year old, then half IQ's would be 75, half would be 125, for an average of 100 within that population for a barbell type distribution. Also, it is entirely possible that 12 year olds are normally distributed, 11 year olds are right tailed, and 13 year olds are left tailed, 15 year olds have kurtosis. But overall together, they are normally distributed for the overall population which is what the Stanford Binet results indicates.

 

[redacted]

You're missing an underlying assumption: IQ tests are made such that the distribution of the scores is Gaussian (or Normal), thus symmetric, thus 50% above average and 50% below average.

How can you make a test such that the results are exactly Gaussian? Maybe a Gaussian is a really good approximation...

I dunno, I guess I'm getting a little nitpicky; I was just pointing out that there's a difference between median and mean.

 

[laughingebony]

The Stanford Binet test (the major IQ test that is professionally administered) gives you a score where they match your "mental age" vs. your "real age". It is usually considered to be most accurate when you take it at age 8ish.

So if you take it at age 8, and you score what the "average" 12 year old gets. Then your IQ is 150. (12/8 * 100). there is nothing inherent in this scoring system that will make the distribution normal. Scores are based on nominal performance. Not adjusted.

For instance, if half of 12 year olds think like the average 9 year old, and half thinks like the average 15 year old, then half IQ's would be 75, half would be 125, for an average of 100 within that population for a barbell type distribution. Also, it is entirely possible that 12 year olds are normally distributed, 11 year olds are right tailed, and 13 year olds are left tailed, 15 year olds have kurtosis. But overall together, they are normally distributed for the overall population which is what the Stanford Binet results indicates.

That method has been gone for quite a while now.

 

[nomadic]

That method has been gone for quite a while now.

You read the part about the Army's use of it??? On a letter grade?

Thus, Binet developed the concept of mental age (MA), which is an individual's level of mental development relative to others[1].

After taking a standardized test, an individual's mental age is divided by his chronological age and multiplied by 100, yielding an intelligence quotient (IQ). Thus, a subject whose mental and chronological ages are identical has an IQ of 100, or average intelligence.

Mental age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really didn't know what it was referring to right? Are you trying to say because the Army uses letter grading, that means civilian population use of IQ scores on a numerical basis (mental age) no longer has any statistical significance? Please clarify.

Or did you just not know? I need to know which one of the two it is.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Is it an INFP thing? I think, from what I've seen and heard so far, you guys tend to be writers more than anything, but he's also one of those types that actually pays attention to, and remembers, alot of facts, mostly cultural, historical, and trivial, but not number-oriented.

NO. It's not an INFP thing, or an ISTJ thing, or related to type at all.
I think it's VERY important to be aware of the limits of MBTI. People put way too much emphasis on it when trying to relate it to general abilities.
I'm an INFP. No doubt about that.
I'm good at languages.
I'm good at math.
I'm very good at music.

Either I'm not an INFP (because my mathematic abilities don't fit the stereotype of the bleedingheart irrational, emotional INFP), or the steroetypes are wrong.

Assuming that someone's type gives you a glimpse into their faculties is truly nonsense.

But what the fuck do I know about it? I'm just an INFP.

 

[wolfy]

Linking MBTI and IQ lowers your IQ 20 points.