Does Religion Encourage an Intuitive Mindset?

[EcK]

Actually N has been found to correlate with religious beliefs.

no

 

[Randomnity]

Thar 90-109 tier is both under and above average iq..

What is the average of 90 and 110?

Also its irrelevant wether you have same chances of getting over 110 iq from random sample if you compare S vs N iq, because there are more S types around.. you need to have same amount of S and N people in the group where random samples are taken for you to be able to compare S vs N iq statistically from that study.

No shit. Not the point, either.

 

[EcK]

S people are actually N types

Not according to the study. But I assume you know best. Also if you accept that 'some S could score N' then the opposite is true. Are you talking about some test uncertainty that would tend to underestimate the number of Ns. More S than Ns and an equal uncertainty per individual who are borderline S\N leading to a higher number of S types? That sort of things is bound to happen, that's why btw the researchers did not focus on slight statistical tendencies but only the much stronger S\N to IQ correlation.

and like everyone propably knows, iq tests has gotten harder and bla bla bla

What does that have to do with anything? All tests were passed at the time of the study

 

[INTP]

What is the average of 90 and 110?

Same as the average of 0 and 200. You cant say that everyone with 0 to 200 iq has average iq, even tho everyone(okay few people in the world has over 200iq, but you should get the point) stands in the range of 0-200 and average of 0 and 200 is 100..

 

[EcK]

^^ guys i don't think that's the point of the thread. I just meant to say that there are NUMEROUS studies showing a high negative correlation between iq and religiousness and a high negative correlation between N and IQ hence my statement of a negative correlation between N traits and religiousness.
Please note that i'm talking about religiousness and members of religious institutions in particular rather than the belief in the metaphysical and all the less easily quantifiable and standardized data relating to such wide range of beliefs.

 

[INTP]

Not according to the study. But I assume you know best. Also if you accept that 'some S could score N' then the opposite is true. Are you talking about some test uncertainty that would tend to underestimate the number of Ns. More S than Ns and an equal uncertainty per individual who are borderline S\N leading to a higher number of S types? That sort of things is bound to happen, that's why btw the researchers did not focus on slight statistical tendencies but only the much stronger S\N to IQ correlation.


What does that have to do with anything? All tests were passed at the time of the study

Well i have seen few studies that show correlation with religious beliefs and N. But do show the studies that show otherwise

And for that other part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Flynn_effect and read that age thing also.

 

[Ginkgo]

Oh, you have stats. Where might those be? I didn't see a link.

G-O-O-G-L-E

 

[EcK]

Well i have seen few studies that show correlation with religious beliefs and N. But do show the studies that show otherwise

And for that other part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Flynn_effect and read that age thing also.

Well possibly. But that is made unlikely by the well documented double correlation I mentioned. Are you sure they mean MBTI N (very different from 'intuition' aka 'i can't prove it but i just feel it' generally observed in cases of religious delusion)

I know about the flynn effect, thank you. It also fits with the raise in 'N' types in more recent generations and the N\iq correlation. I had thought about all that already. Ne, ya know.

 

[jixmixfix]

Sure, and athletic competition favor athletes. Any other empty statement to add?

No but your graph is useless and doesn't say anything really important.

 

[EcK]

No but your graph is useless and doesn't say anything really important.

It does say alot about your subjectivity. It directly addresses a point the OP raised. You on the other hand stated the usual feel good politically correct statement of 'x doesnt mean anyything if it doesn't say we are all exactly the same'.

 

[jixmixfix]

It does say alot about your subjectivity. That by itself would make it interesting.

No its shows that there are too many variables to consider within the study to determine anything actually pertaining to reality.

 

[EcK]

No its says that there are too many variables to consider within the graph to determine anything actually pertaining to reality.

So... if I presented the same data without its surrounding then it would be relevant ? Applied to every day experience you're telling me that nothing pertains to reality as soon as you take it out of an idealized experimental box containing the bear minimum information?

 

[A window to the soul]

G-O-O-G-L-E

Too funny. Speaking of IQ's off the charts. What a novel suggestion. Where were you a couple of hours ago?

Hereyago...
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53719&p=1782239&viewfull=1#post1782239

 

[jixmixfix]

It does say alot about your subjectivity. It directly addresses a point the OP raised. You on the other hand stated the usual feel good politically correct statement of 'x doesnt mean anyything if it doesn't say we are all exactly the same'.

Oh wow a group of people who consider to themselves "N" but are in low population count have a higher Iq than a higher population group "S". It must mean N have higher Iq or maybe people are really "S" and just say they are "N". Maybe older people magically change from "s" to "N" when they reach 50. Too many variables the graph is a joke.

 

[INTP]

Well possibly. But that is made unlikely by the well documented double correlation I mentioned. Are you sure they mean MBTI N (very different from 'intuition' aka 'i can't prove it but i just feel it' generally observed in cases of religious delusion)

I know about the flynn effect, thank you.

Yea they were about MBTI. What studies did you found the negative correlations from?

If you already knew that because of flynn effect they need to raise iq about 3 points every 10 years to get the average(by making the test harder) to stay in 100, which means that older people have lower iq in average by nature, but also iq lowers by age. Which also means that when there are many old people in the S category(propably due to test fails), they would naturally put more S types in the retard or mid categories, who might actually be from either mid N types or retard N types..

You do know that openness to experience(in big5) lowers by age and is correlated to N. But its not the N that goes down, its simply that N types answer to those tests to more S type as they age.

Did i really have to explain this if you already knew about flynn effect?

 

[EcK]

Oh wow a group of people who consider to themselves "N" but are in low population count have a higher Iq than a higher population group "S". It must mean N have higher Iq or maybe people are really "S" and just say they are "N". Maybe older people magically change from "s" to "N" when they reach 50. Too many variables the graph is a joke.

You're having repeated knee jerk reactions that are basically void of any data, it's a bit hard to answer your statements because you're turning stats into some kind of ad hominem scenario. You do realize that statistics don't attack you personally right?

If there is less N than S it's only natural that their population in the studied population will be smaller. It's just as self evident that on a base 100 test people scoring above 110 would be found with less frequency than people scoring above 100. And you mentioned the flynn effect yourself damn it, (sorry, that was [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION]) if N is correlated with IQ it's only natural that a rise in average IQ would lead to a raise in Ns. That's just the data, not some wild interpretation.

 

[A window to the soul]

Lots of 'feel good' going on here.

 

[miss fortune]

Lots of 'feel good' going on here.

everyone always goes and finds the most controversial posts in a thread and then argue back and forth... polite discussion isn't everyone's cup of tea I guess

however, on the whole S and N thing, it's more of a false dichotomy in the way of letting some people in either "group" feel superior to those in the other even though everything is more like a dual sliding scale where it's quite possible to effectively use both at the same time People will ALWAYS have to argue about one being smarter on this forum just to feel better about themselves or something and they'll always find a way to drag it into other discussions... there should be a name for a law applied to that something like Godwin's law

 

[EcK]

Lots of 'feel good' going on here.

I do not understand. Statistics are NOT about any individual. They are about, statistics: problem solving tools that are as far removed from positive or negative ad hominem as any information about people can possibly be.
I stated correlations to answer the OP. I do think that religious people are mentally insane but that is irrelevant to the data I mentioned.

 

[jixmixfix]

You're having repeated knee jerk reactions that are basically void of any data, it's a bit hard to answer your statements because you're turning stats into some kind of ad hominem scenario. You do realize that statistics don't attack you personally right?

These states hardly even prove anything concrete let alone hold any sort of relevance to reality you must be joking.