Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[ZNP-TBA]

The method to 'measure mbti' is therefore self-evident and in line with what the MBTI is (a self assessment test).

Circular reasoning.On top of that there is no clear or universally agreed upon definition of intuitive or sensor.

I guess you can correlate anything really but that doesn't mean you're going to get any useful information.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Yes you can. Just like you can correlate association with political parties, eye color, height, country of origin, parental iq etc. These are split into two categories: objective-data (height...) and subjective-self-assessed-data (religion etc.)

The method to 'measure mbti' is therefore self-evident and in line with what the MBTI is (a self assessment test).

So if I can correlate IQ with religiosity, political affiliation and any such trait. I can certainly correlate it with MBTI as they are part of the same category.

*pats* Sorry you're going to have to try harder than that.

Forgot to mention, you are attempting to catagorize MBTI in subjective-self-assessed data. Ok, how many of the high IQ people self-assessed an actual MBTI type versus you actually typing them based on your best guess and your own subjective understanding of MBTI? What if I can construe a good argument to make someone a sensor instead of an intuitive and then claim that as workable data ( yep, shit I just made up)? You might have SOMETHING here if the a bunch of high IQ people self-assessed a certain MBTI type which they didn't.

Additionally, I'd love it if MBTI "Ns" were actually correlated with high IQ. I only stand to gain there. But I'm not going to make up data.

 

[Captain_Invincible]

To me, common sense, and logical thinking is more important than anything.

 

[Poki]

Forgot to mention, you are attempting to catagorize MBTI in subjective-self-assessed data. Ok, how many of the high IQ people self-assessed an actual MBTI type versus you actually typing them based on your best guess and your own subjective understanding of MBTI? What if I can construe a good argument to make someone a sensor instead of an intuitive and then claim that as workable data ( yep, shit I just made up)? You might have SOMETHING here if the a bunch of high IQ people self-assessed a certain MBTI type which they didn't.

Additionally, I'd love it if MBTI "Ns" were actually correlated with high IQ. I only stand to gain there. But I'm not going to make up data.

How many times is intellectual and high iq associated with N's and that in itself becomes an identifying factor in which we begin to usensure that as a method of determination. So correlation became causation due to statistics and once that is determined we begin to raise the percentage of N that are high iq because that is part of determining whether someone is N or not.

It's sad because we do this so much in so many other areas we create what we think due to how we begin to categorize things making things more statistically significant as they reach really high or really low percentages.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

How many times is intellectual and high iq associated with N's and that in itself becomes an identifying factor in which we begin to usensure that as a method of determination. So correlation became causation due to statistics and once that is determined we begin to raise the percentage of N that are high iq because that is part of determining whether someone is N or not.

It's sad because we do this so much in so many other areas we create what we think due to how we begin to categorize things making things more statistically significant as they reach really high or really low percentages.

Right but the criteria he used to show MBTI is reliable data is to categorize it as subjective self-assessment. This sort of falls apart when the high IQ people in question hardly self-assessed as an MBTI type. Their MBTI type is being super imposed on them by someone else which would fall in the realm of objective measurement yet there is no objective factor to measure.
His argument only holds weight if the high IQ people in question actually self-assessed as particular MBTI types. That's my whole problem with this claim.
From an abstract subjective view of my own I see it as theoretically possible that Ns are on the high end of IQ but I openly admit that there is no reliable data to say anything about it objectively. Thus the claim is as relevant as how many teeth can the tooth fairy collect on a chilly Wednesday night.

 

[EcK]

Forgot to mention, you are attempting to catagorize MBTI in subjective-self-assessed data. Ok, how many of the high IQ people self-assessed an actual MBTI type versus you actually typing them based on your best guess and your own subjective understanding of MBTI? What if I can construe a good argument to make someone a sensor instead of an intuitive and then claim that as workable data ( yep, shit I just made up)? You might have SOMETHING here if the a bunch of high IQ people self-assessed a certain MBTI type which they didn't.

Additionally, I'd love it if MBTI "Ns" were actually correlated with high IQ. I only stand to gain there. But I'm not going to make up data.

*reads first 10 words*
yeah that's what I suspected you'd say when I wrote my last post.
Now you are confusing the fact that we CAN correlate MBTI and IQ and the METHODOLOGY used to do so.

These are two different issues.

Try again.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

*reads first 10 words*
yeah that's what I suspected you'd say when I wrote my last post.
Now you are confusing the fact that we CAN correlate MBTI and IQ and the METHODOLOGY used to do so.

These are two different issues.

Try again.

Your categorization of MBTI as acceptable subjective self-assessed data falls on its face given the fact that almost all people who have tested with high IQs never self-assessed their own MBTI type. Rather YOU or maybe some mbti enthusiasts are trying to type THEM which means you must be using some objective methodology to do so (but you're not aside from armchair typing which is all you can do). Your 'data' is not actually data. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Maybe MBTI has some personal meaning to you I guess.

Tell you what go have 1,000 random people from diverse backgrounds self-assess on the same MBTI tests and then administer some credible IQ test to the same people and see the results and look for correlation. Maybe then you'll have something. ( Personally I'd love to do that but I don't have the resources to make it happen).

 

[EcK]

Your categorization of MBTI as acceptable subjective self-assessed data falls on its face given the fact that almost all people who have tested with high IQs never self-assessed their own MBTI type. Rather YOU or maybe some mbti enthusiasts are trying to type THEM which means you must be using some objective methodology to do so (but you're not aside from armchair typing which is all you can do). Your 'data' is not actually data. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Maybe MBTI has some personal meaning to you I guess.

Tell you what go have 1,000 random people from diverse backgrounds self-assess on the same MBTI tests and then administer some credible IQ test to the same people and see the results and look for correlation. Maybe then you'll have something. ( Personally I'd love to do that but I don't have the resources to make it happen).

This is getting tiring. Look I understand you are used to convincing classroom of children with your arguments but as far as this one goes, it is full of holes. This is nothing personal . I'm merely talking about the merit of your argument. I understand you are going to take it personally and make some ad hominem attacks but there's nothing I can do about that.

You are ASSUMING methodology. Again, your statement about methodology is NOT required for my previous statement to be correct (self assessed mbti type can be correlated with IQ).
In the same way we dont go and check if someone REALLY satisfies the 2015 definition of a republican. If it's self assessed, all we have to do is ask them.

Now , again, about methodology. While it's irrelevant to the point. Which I've already demonstrated... all you have to do if you want good methodology is administer the official mbti test with the help of an mbti practionner... then administer an official IQ test with the help of a practioner...
It's really not difficult

 

[ZNP-TBA]

This is getting tiring. Look I understand you are used to convincing classroom of children with your arguments but as far as this one goes, it is full of holes. This is nothing personal . I'm merely talking about the merit of your argument. I understand you are going to take it personally and make some ad hominem attacks but there's nothing I can do about that.

You are ASSUMING methodology. Again, your statement about methodology is NOT required for my previous statement to be correct (self assessed mbti type can be correlated with IQ).
In the same way we dont go and check if someone REALLY satisfies the 2015 definition of a republican. If it's self assessed, all we have to do is ask them.

Now , again, about methodology. While it's irrelevant to the point. Which I've already demonstrated... all you have to do if you want good methodology is administer the official mbti test with the help of an mbti practionner... then administer an official IQ test with the help of a practioner...
It's really not difficult

LOL, we're getting lost on each other here.

Again, your statement about methodology is NOT required for my previous statement to be correct (self assessed mbti type can be correlated with IQ).

I already said I agree that a correlation of data can be made IF you have a sample group of people that have both tested IQ and self-assessed MBTI. We are not in disagreement here. In other words in theory this works, I agree. The problem is that you can't make the claim that this data has already been looked at and assert correlations. You need to show me where high IQ people have self-assessed their MBTI in the same way people have registered as republican or described themselves as republican.

If you do not have that data of actual self assessment of MBTI by the same people that tested their IQ then you have no data to correlate. Is this really that hard to understand? Maybe you did post a credible source in which high IQ people have self-assessed their MBTI but I haven't seen it yet.

However, if you are trying to armchair guess high IQ people's MBTI then by definition it is not self-assessment and thus unreliable data because other peoples' types are being guessed at by enthusiasts. It's analogous to trying to guess a Pigmy political affiliation. My best guess isn't reliable data. If you are assessing them then you have to be using some methodology to determine their type ( rather than them self-assessing). In other words you imagine what they would score on an MBTI test rather than what they actually do or you imagine what their cognition would be rather than what their cognition actually would be. It's ok though. You're an intuitive like me and we easily fall prey to this mistake in reasoning. Often times we think our intuition is so astute that we confuse our abstraction of something with the thing itself. How old are you?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]

I'll give you this one though.

I did state:

You can't even really correlate IQ with MBTI because there's no actual method to measure MBTI's theory of cognition. Just about all of it is armchair guessing based on some stereotypical questions that have not been tested for thoroughness or reliability. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy brainstorming MBTI stuff but I pause to take it really seriously.

I retract this statement because I understand your point more clearly now. You can measure it in theory. I was under the impression that you already went ahead and made correlations between high IQ people and their MBTI types. I still hold my ground on that data isn't really available yet to correlate but it is possible to do so in the future.

Whether the MBTI is really a useful tool for measuring personality is still an open debate (among enthusiasts anyway) and not accepted by mainstream psychologists at the moment. I see serious flaws with MBTI as good measuring tool for cognition but that's a separate conversation.

IQ on the other hand is a very reliable predictor of many things and though its disputed socially its not really disputed scientifically.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Yeah see in the OP's link the people typed there never actually took a self-assessment. It's unreliable data thus nothing can be said yet about whether Ns are correlated to high IQ so why go on and on as if there some measurable reliable data to reference?

 

[EcK]

Yeah see in the OP's link the people typed there never actually took a self-assessment. It's unreliable data thus nothing can be said yet about whether Ns are correlated to high IQ so why go on and on as if there some measurable reliable data to reference?

Your point was already refuted.
Why do you keep repeating the same flawed argument?

I'd be more than happy discussing something else though.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Your point was already refuted.
Why do you keep repeating the same flawed argument?

I'd be more than happy discussing something else though.

I see no evidence how the info in that link qualifies as credible data. I only agreed with you that theoretically actual MBTI data and IQ data can be correlated. The problem is there is no actual data. Anyways. We'll leave it at that.

 

[reckful]

Just about all of it is armchair guessing based on some stereotypical questions that have not been tested for thoroughness or reliability.

Additionally, I'd love it if MBTI "Ns" were actually correlated with high IQ. I only stand to gain there. But I'm not going to make up data.

Just "armchair guessing" based on "questions that have not been tested for thoroughness or reliability"?

Personality psychologists working in the respectable districts of the field have been validating typologies by means of psychometric analysis of suitably large samples for many years now. McCrae & Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) long ago acknowledged that the MBTI's dichotomies (unlike Jung's original concepts) basically passed muster by modern standards, and a very large meta-review and supplemental study in 2003 found that the MBTI was more or less on a par with the Big Five in the validity and reliability departments.

And there's more discussion of those kinds of issues on this TC Wiki page if you're interested.

And speaking of large-sample studies, and for what it's worth, here's a study of 5,700 gifted adolescents where the self-selection ratios for the types (i.e., the ratio of their percentage among the gifted population to their percentage of the general population) were as follows:

INTP 3.4
INTJ 2.87
INFP 2.68
INFJ 2.67
ENTP 2.32
ENFP 2.03
ENTJ 1.49
ENFJ 1.26
ISTJ 0.99
ISTP 0.78
ESTP 0.49
ISFJ 0.40
ISFP 0.40
ESFP 0.28
ESTJ 0.26
ESFJ 0.24

That's what validity looks like, ZNP — and validity is what separates the respectable districts of the personality psychology field from astrology. The way the 16 types fall along the spectrum in that study strongly indicates that an N preference has the strongest influence on whether a child will be "gifted" in one or more of the ways (including IQ) defined in the studies included in that meta-review, and introversion has a significant (but less strong) influence.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Just "armchair guessing" based on "questions that have not been tested for thoroughness or reliability"?

Personality psychologists working in the respectable districts of the field have been validating typologies by means of psychometric analysis of suitably large samples for many years now. McCrae & Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) long ago acknowledged that the MBTI's dichotomies (unlike Jung's original concepts) basically passed muster by modern standards, and a very large meta-review and supplemental study in 2003 found that the MBTI was more or less on a par with the Big Five in the validity and reliability departments.

And there's more discussion of those kinds of issues on this TC Wiki page if you're interested.

And speaking of large-sample studies, and for what it's worth, here's a study of 5,700 gifted adolescents where the self-selection ratios for the types (i.e., the ratio of their percentage among the gifted population to their percentage of the general population) were as follows:

INTP 3.4
INTJ 2.87
INFP 2.68
INFJ 2.67
ENTP 2.32
ENFP 2.03
ENTJ 1.49
ENFJ 1.26
ISTJ 0.99
ISTP 0.78
ESTP 0.49
ISFJ 0.40
ISFP 0.40
ESFP 0.28
ESTJ 0.26
ESFJ 0.24

That's what validity looks like, ZNP — and validity is what separates the respectable districts of the personality psychology field from astrology. The way the 16 types fall along the spectrum in that study strongly indicates that an N preference has the strongest influence on whether a child will be "gifted" in one or more of the ways (including IQ) defined in the studies included in that meta-review, and introversion has a significant (but less strong) influence.

Excellent. Good stuff. This is far more informative than the OP's main article. I'll take the time to look through it. Thanks for the info! Thanks for understanding what I was asking for.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Double post

 

[EcK]

I see no evidence how the info in that link qualifies as credible data. I only agreed with you that theoretically actual MBTI data and IQ data can be correlated. The problem is there is no actual data. Anyways. We'll leave it at that.

Yes we'll leave it at: you were wrong.
I'm ok with that.

Also your whole point was that the two cannot be correlated. That is a wholy different issue than "how much correlation there is".

I understand you'd try and win an argument by changing it and making it seem like you've been misunderstood. However when the argument is in written form it's a bit of a weak way to try and wriggle out of being plain wrong.

I think [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] did a splendid job presenting a summarized version of an answer to "how much correlation there is". I'll refer you to his post.

 

[EcK]

To [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] (will delete it soon) as you rascal wont accept PMs.
It's well known you cant just make an entp shut up that way.

I appreciate the answer
I dont think NTs are known for "taking things personally".
I haven't read the post yet. Will do in a minute.

The reason for adding you as a friend is purely selfish: i like surrounding myself with intelligent people and you are one of those. Adding u as a friend will allow me to see your posts and therefore increase my chances at being somewhat intellectually stimulated, and even, touch the graal and actually learn something which i didnt already know from another huma being. Which happens awfully rarely. Sadly.

Ps: that post od yours leads to a password protected page. That's just evil.

 

[Starry]

ENTP 2.32
ENFP 2.03

wtf? [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Yes we'll leave it at: you were wrong.
I'm ok with that.

Also your whole point was that the two cannot be correlated. That is a wholy different issue than "how much correlation there is".

I understand you'd try and win an argument by changing it and making it seem like you've been misunderstood. However when the argument is in written form it's a bit of a weak way to try and wriggle out of being plain wrong.

I think [MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] did a splendid job presenting a summarized version of an answer to "how much correlation there is". I'll refer you to his post.

Yeah, I was wrong. So what? I didn't try to 'wiggle out' of anything since I already quoted myself and retracted a statement I made. Not sure where you're getting this impression that I am too disagreeable to reason with. Since when do you, as an ENTP, get annoyed by someone that is skeptical?

You can't seriously sit here and tell me that the OP's link was any kind of credible data. Apparently you pride yourself as highly intelligent so tap into that and understand why it's reasonable to be skeptical of the "data" that was initially provided.

My understanding was you were using that data to make all these claims that Ns are smarter than Ss which was the real focus of my skepticism. Winning arguments for the sake of pride really doesn't matter to me(that's ENTJ land) rather I'm a natural skeptic and challenge peoples' assertions to see if the thinking is sound and the evidence adds up.
[MENTION=18736]reckful[/MENTION] understood my argument and provided exactly what I was looking for (you didn't though). Now stop jerking him off because he did the work and found something credible and you didn't.