...

[prplchknz]

I know how to think logically. I've learned how over the years, I just prefer not to. And I tend think abstractly and people are often confused about what I'm talking about because I talk to much in the abstract even though it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[ptgatsby]

And I have seen studies conclude the opposite. However, basically all studies show there is almost no correlation between the T/F dichotomy and IQ. But yeah, personally I would be very interested in studying MBTI function theory in light of IQ tests.

Remember, these are only tallies within his dataset. An example of how this matters is that there are more males at the top and bottom ends of IQ, leading to more Ts at the top and bottom. Likewise, there were substantially more older (and thus lower N/greater T/Lower IQ) subjects, etc.

So, a wide margin of error should be included when comparing it to the total population. (edit: Let me rephrase that... the generalities taken from this study should be given a wide margin of error when trying to be specific about the general population)

(One plausible explanation for having Ns as a higher IQ is that age factors into the degree of openness, and IQ decreases over age... making age the common factor that makes it appear that N is related directly to IQ. By plausible, I mean that there are alternative explanations... the data can be cut in a lot of ways.)

 

[nightning]

I am confused with data...

Is it not true that in the US population, we have more Es than Is?

If that is so, why is the % of Is in the sample greater than Es for all categories?

You're sampling 1000ish ppl... this isn't likely to be randomized... can we trust the data?

Or unless I'm a complete idiot that can't read the table properly... please explain?

 

[ptgatsby]

Is it not true that in the US population, we have more Es than Is?

No, there are more Is than Es (by about 1-2% - Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org )

If that is so, why is the % of Is in the sample greater than Es for all categories?

It's higher than population... well, it's within the high end of the population, so still reasonable.

You're sampling 1000ish ppl... this isn't likely to be randomized... can we trust the data?

Yup, it should be enough. In this case, it is the instruments being used that cause a lot of the distortion.

 

[The Ü™]

And I have seen studies conclude the opposite. However, basically all studies show there is almost no correlation between the T/F dichotomy and IQ. But yeah, personally I would be very interested in studying MBTI function theory in light of IQ tests.

I think an N can only score a high IQ if he can think logically.

 

[Splittet]

I think an N can only score a high IQ if he can think logically.

It's pretty obvious. It's like saying you have to be good in math to get a good math grade. However, remember that the T/F dichotomy doesn't measure the ability to use logic. And also remember IQ is about a lot more than ability to think logically, it's rather more about being able to see connections and patterns. Usually they are not very demanding in the logic department.

 

[Recluse]

(One plausible explanation for having Ns as a higher IQ is that age factors into the degree of openness, and IQ decreases over age... making age the common factor that makes it appear that N is related directly to IQ. By plausible, I mean that there are alternative explanations... the data can be cut in a lot of ways.)

Does the Sensing preference increase with age? Would that not mean that older Intuitives who are close to the Sensing-Intuitive borderline would cross over the border and become Sensing types?

 

[Splittet]

Does the Sensing preference increase with age? Would that not mean that older Intuitives who are close to the Sensing-Intuitive borderline would cross over the border and become Sensing types?

I guess that depends on how you view MBTI theory. Some say type doesn't change, but if you are a behaviourist it does, and it would seem plausible people get more S-ish as they age. When we age, we gain more experience, and it does seem pretty plausible most of us will rely more and more on that experience–that as we gain experience, it will dominate us more and more.

 

[ptgatsby]

Does the Sensing preference increase with age? Would that not mean that older Intuitives who are close to the Sensing-Intuitive borderline would cross over the border and become Sensing types?

As splittet said, it depends on your view.

However, those that take MBTI at 50 are significantly more likely to be S than those that take MBTI at 16... and likewise, those at 25 are less likely to be S than those at 60.

 

[Recluse]

As splittet said, it depends on your view.

However, those that take MBTI at 50 are significantly more likely to be S than those that take MBTI at 16... and likewise, those at 25 are less likely to be S than those at 60.

That is interesting. So at some point, then, I should be living in reality. Nice!

 

[warick]

I find it interesting that by MBTI standards I's and E's are almost equal. I've heard statistics elsewhere that Introverts/Extraverts are about 30/70, but I'm assuming they're using a different standard.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I find it interesting that by MBTI standards I's and E's are almost equal. I've heard statistics elsewhere that Introverts/Extraverts are about 30/70, but I'm assuming they're using a different standard.

Introversion/extraversion lies in a continuum, and the division is where the test maker puts it.

 

[warick]

Good point.

 

[Eternue-MDL]

Correlating I.Q. with type makes little sense to me as it is quite possible the test was created by an Nx for purposes of research, categorization, self-reflection, etc. I'd expect to perform poorly (and feel bad for doing so) on an ST/J created test (no, I put Sx and fixed it because I could imagine the little chuckles).

Intelligence in general has so many forms and variety. Some people have such tactual intelligence (dance, mechanics, etc.) that I could simply watch them in awe of their technique and the fluidity with which they do what they do.

 

[xNFJiminy]

The more I read about related subjects, the more I suspect that IQ doesn't *have* to decrease with age. It may do in the Western world, in which over the years the majority of people are accumulating a great variety of neurotoxins in their bodies that they never get rid of, but I strongly suspect that just as 'senile dementia' and other new neurological conditions are not found in certain cultures or in individuals who minimise their toxicity levels, IQ could potentially remain unravaged too. I'm also reminded of the case study of a young man whose depression was treated with high quality EPA omega 3 supplements, and whose brain was actually found to grow from its unusually small size within the first nine months - a feat previously assumed impossible in adults.

I agree though, that this is little to do with type and that even non-toxic people's N score would probably tend to go down, as we collect more memories to reflect on in place of original, fantasy-oriented daydreams and have more facts to use instead of speculation. I'm not sure that our preference as defined by relative enjoyment of processes change, but frequency of use probably does.

 

[Hypomanic]

I can't post the study due to copyright restrictions, but I think this falls under fair use (And I hope this works )

Hey, not bad!

Note that CAPT has other studies that don't agree entirely with this, blah blah. There isn't a lot of research done with MBTI + IQ in the open field... so... YMMV.

For your specific questions;



Half of all people have IQ's in the top 50%, and half of these are N's, and half are S's. This is also true of the bottom half, except 3/4 of the S's in the lower half (so 3/8 of all S's total) are in the lowest 25%, and only 1/4 of N's in the lowest half are in the lowest 25% (so 1/8 of all N's total).


That would be roughly correct, although it wouldn't be 50/50 at IQ 100 (probably about 60/40 S/N). As above, about 85% of 89 IQ and lower are Ss, but it's an even split above 110.



If you were to take a sample of all the people in the top 50% for IQ, half would be N's and half S's. So 1/4 of the entire population in the top half are N's, and only 30% of the pop. are N's, then that would mean 5/6 of all N's are in the top half, and only 1/6 of all N's are in the lower half.


Top 25% in this case, half are Ns and Ss. Essentially, if this was normalised correctly, 12.5% of the population would be N and IQ>110... and 12.5% of the population would be S and IQ>110.

The sample is somewhat unevenly spread among IQ and N/S, so it's better to look at each as it's own set rather than relate it to the general population.

1) Cite your sources.
2) Was it a double-blind study? Prove it with a link.
3) Were the researchers competent?
4) What was the margin of error?
5) How many people from each type were polled?
6) Were they chosen at random?

Your chart means nothing. Inconclusive.

 

[ptgatsby]

1) Cite your sources.
2) Was it a double-blind study? Prove it with a link.
3) Were the researchers competent?
4) What was the margin of error?
5) How many people from each type were polled?
6) Were they chosen at random?

Your chart means nothing. Inconclusive.

The source was stated already ( http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/64599-post94.html ) You can answer the questions for yourself.

Less hip, more read.

 

[arcticangel02]

So what are the coresponding functions with intelligence/academia? Was someone earlier saying that people with a J tendancy often do very well in school? If that is true, it really wouldn't suprise me. School seems to have a judging thing going on as a whole -organised and structured, and very much NOT open ended and flexible.

This interests me.

The high school I went to required all of it's students to do a test prior to the first year in order to award a number of scholarships. There were about 200 students in our first year of high school, and likely more that had taken the test. But anyway, there were about 6 or 7 scholarships awarded, and both me and my INTP friend recieved one.

Now, I can't remember the test well enough to determine exactly what it was testing (I.Q. or otherwise), but regardless, we were both considered in the top 2 or 3 percent 'intelligence'-wise.

However, it's been interesting to see how our grades have been, right up until now (2nd/3rd year university level). My friend's grades have generally been consistantly high, but not usually enough to recieve any end-of-year academic awards. She's still achieving fairly formidable results. Mine, on the other hand, have fluctuated considerably. At the moment I'm hovering around average - I pass easily enough, but anyone looking at my grades would certainly not believe me to be as 'intelligent' as my I.Q. perhaps would indicate. (I've had tests that tell me I'm around 133. *shrug*)

So I would say that, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, although type might have an impact on I.Q., the way different types utilise that I.Q. also probably has quite an impact on something like grades, which one would naturally assume would correllate with I.Q.

 

[ptgatsby]

So I would say that, like someone mentioned earlier in this thread, although type might have an impact on I.Q., the way different types utilise that I.Q. also probably has quite an impact on something like grades, which one would naturally assume would correllate with I.Q.

Yup, both IQ and "J" are significant factors in school... and in work, but largely in school.

The theory I currently most subscribe to is that school does in fact act as a economic signal more than impart significant value. In almost every case, IQ is still a better predictor of ability. The difference is that J correlates well with certain ethics - work ethic to written corporate ethics. In short, more discipline = better marks = signal for good work ethic. It was only recently that I realised that this is probably true regardless of discipline (I would put research and theoretical aside) after meeting both educated engineers and pratically taught engineers - I was unable to sort them out at all by education level. For all intents and purposes they were the same... and natural intelligence didn't seem to correlate at all. Some were from poorer countries and didn't get a chance (and surely would of gone otherwise) while some chose not to go. They still needed liscences to work with machinery, so there were barriers of entry that may of required some basic learning - I'm unsure if they took classes just for that.

 

[Hypomanic]

The source was stated already ( http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/64599-post94.html ) You can answer the questions for yourself.

Less hip, more read.

Then link it.
I don't need another link to a post from you. You said this is the source and linked yourself. It sounds like you're not credible.
Link the study, that's a basic principle. Otherwise, you're committing plagiarism.

On a side note, the 16 types are not reflected on the functions alone. To depict intelligence on IQ is not conclusive. To link the function 'Ne' is not conclusive. In doing that, you are putting ENTP's and ENFP's in the same category.

Symbol Jungian Type Myers-Briggs Types
Fe Extraverted Feeling ESFJ ENFJ
Fi Introverted Feeling ISFP INFP
Ne Extraverted Intuition ENFP ENTP
Ni Introverted Intuition INFJ INTJ
Se Extraverted Sensing ESFP ESTP
Si Introverted Sensing ISFJ ISTJ
Te Extraverted Thinking ESTJ ENTJ
Ti Introverted Thinking ISTP INTP
Source: Functional Analysis of Psychological Types

They're different, obviously. Same goes for all of the other functions.. ESTJ's and ENTJ's are not alike.

Actually your study is worse than this. It lumps all Sensors and all iNtutives in one group. That's ridiculous, the reason why there are 8 sensing types and 8 intuitive types is that they are fundamentally different.

Also, the functions aren't singular identities, they all work together. Simply parts of a whole system. The parts are not representative of the whole. You've committed a fallacy. Splitting them apart lowers your accuracy in explaining a person's thoughts/behaviors. In short, your study is wrong.