to the blue- please explain, in stats speak, why you would NOT think that the margin of error on a self reporting survey over an ambiguous subject involving the test taker evaluating themselves honestly would NOT have a high margin of error? Do you really think that most people have the self knowlege and honesty to be RIGHT? Plus, the basic 4 letter test is very flawed and often gives people the wrong result... please say that you understand THAT?!!
Well, first of all, your use of the term "margin of error" is ambiguous in and of itself. Statistically speaking, a margin of error is simply the likelihood that a parameter will not fall within the confidence interval, which has little practical application to our discussion, especially considering that we have no sample. To further expand on margin of error, it is a value that is given to a probability sample to be used in the extrapolation of data to a greater portion of the population. None of this is relevant to the discussion, not least of which because, again, there is no sample. Not that a statistical survey is necessary to begin with, as we are only focusing on correlation, and not to acquire quantitative information about a given population.
Whether or not the test itself gives an accurate result is not my concern, since this can be mitigated by proper testing techniques, along with calibration experiments. What I am discussing is the archetypes of the given types, and their reflection in the real world.
It is ridiculous to think that type cannot be matched with intelligence (in this case, we could use IQ as a proxy for intelligence) simply because of some unsubstantiated basis for response bias in a test that carries little social stigma and would therefore be expected to entail relatively minor quantities of it. Could it be that, instead of selecting a particular type because people want it, they select it because it reflects their own natures, and they prefer it for this very reason?
Any correlation between personality types and intelligence is significant, provided that the standard deviation isn't absurdly high (and no evidence exists that it is), since it establishes, for
whatever reason, that a hierarchy of intelligence exists amongst personality types.
I realize that the greater population is constituted of little more than ignorant dimwits, but the test is relatively straightforward and only asks that you select the answer that best describes you. On top of this, the test can be simplified and broadened, along with being professionally administered, all of which could mitigate response bias. Of course, this would cost a sizable amount, so it is out of the question for me to conduct on such a scale.
and there's a difference between having a "smart person personality" and actually BEING smart :rolli:
Not really. "Smart person" personalities are considered smart for the very reason that they are. People associate them with intelligence because of the very fact that they meet the standard definition of "intelligence."
It is not a coincidence that the greatest scientists and philosophers in history have exhibited the personality traits of INTJs and INTPs. The clownish "genius" is a myth, or at the very least, a rarity on the fringes of the bell curve. I am afraid that if one scours the history books, he will not find many representations of ESTPs amongst the Great; be it military geniuses, political geniuses, mathematical/scientific geniuses, or even artistic geniuses.
You'd probably assume that I am kind of dumb if you met me- I laugh a lot, I love bad jokes, dumb movies and low society... I read tabloids in the checkout line and comment on them to other shoppers and can be entertained for hours with a bottle of bubble solution. I'm also a verifiable genius who got accepted to Harvard and can complete the NY Times Sunday Crossword in less than 8 minutes... and there's no way in hell that I'm an INTJ
And I can solve a Rubik's Cube in under two minutes.
What is your point?
I judge you by how well you establish and present your arguments, along with your ability to infer logically, which I have yet to see displayed from somebody who claims to be a "verifiable genius." I apologize, but once again, history doesn't furnish us with examples of "geniuses" who talked like "valley girls" and who "can be entertained for hours with a bottle of bubble solution."
as my ISTJ says "there doesn't appear to be a connection in personality and intelligence- most geniuses are complete and total idiots... just look at you!"
More anecdotal evidence. If we are to discuss statistics, then you must remember that we are always referring to averages. The
average INTJ will be more intelligent than the
average ESTP. Group aggregates, and not individual variables. As always, exceptions
prove the rule.
to use the definition of personality that we usually threw around in psych and social psych,
personality is the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual. Unfortunatly, behavior doesn't necissarily reflect a person's cognitive abilities- an IxxJ will ACT more prudently than an ExxP, but that's a result of being cautious and semi-paranoid, not a result of actual intelligence. If we judged intelligence by a person's behavior Einstein would be a complete idiot!
That's nonsense. Einstein was far from being the buffoon that he is made out to be by those who wish to associate their idiotic behavior with a genius. He was most certainly introverted and spent most of his time alone, pondering over his theories. The notion of Einstein as an "eccentric" originated in the fact that he did not assimilate well (or rather, he was often rejected) to the established intellectual institutions, particularly in Germany, and did not bother to don the "professional" appearance of the contemporary intelligentsia. He was certainly not the clown that you would make him out to be.
In other words, you're making a mistake of judging intelligence by a person's behavioral characteristics AND you're making a mistake by beleiving in a flawed study and bad research
Flawed study and bad research? Proof? Besides, no study that I have linked to was badly conceived.
Behaviour is almost certainly a reflection of intelligence, and certainly a reflection of accomplishment. IQ has been correlated with both criminality and social achievement. I only take this one step further and link personality with IQ.
In the end, there are reasons why ESFPs are typically portrayed as idiots: because their type is, by nature, idiotic.
