Let's "level" about type issues

[The_Liquid_Laser]

When: Colonel Mustard is accused of murder
I feel: that he did it in the Conservatory
Because: he did it with the lead pipe, and if I were to kill someone with a lead pipe I believe the Conservatory would be the appropriate place.

 

[htb]

There are improper abstractions, abstractions taken too far in particular contexts, etc. But "excesses of abstraction"? That to me is an improper abstraction of abstractions.

By excesses, I do mean "too far in particular contexts," bringing at the very least bad ideas and the worst, solipsism. With your other points, I see we are closer than I first thought. I'll give you the last word.

 

[ptgatsby]

My apologies for what has been inadequate appreciation of your contributions to the discussions. I have indeed unfairly discriminated people based on their assumed functions. I have not adequately considered each individual, but I have been combative in order to "get even" with a group of people.

We all do it Little groups with little tags... it's a convenient way of labeling. It's a small issue, but one that grows into serious issues, like stereotypes, dismissal, etc.

"I could never date a S" was the most common type comment in the dating arena on INTPc, for example. Broad label, broad group (ie: 70% of the damn population) and completely pointless. Even I said that... *shrug*

We create groups to put people in but we have more in common than we realise. The mere grouping and association is a creation of this - for example, Ss that read S descriptions are happy with it. So are Ns reading N descriptions. But you make them read the other side and they both see it as negative - if they know that it's a different "group". It's created, not intrinsic.

This happens when people are separated by eye color even! It's a human dynamic and it transcends type.

I have especially liked your statistical analysis of various psychometric measures, among others. I had, until now, neglected to notice it. I had felt S as glamorizing for their supposed use of facts and yet, as I felt, evasive and defensive to what they accept as a fact.

But are you wrong? Ss are bad that way. Facts, but "their facts". Is it any different than the Ns, though? Theories, but "their theories". It's just people being people... we all do it, it's just how we do it!

I would not have guessed that your feelings of being ununderstood were so much like mine in such a similar manner. Why the non-understanding, then?

We are both human, we both have the same needs, we even have the same approach. Preference is weak, but it is enough to trigger conflict. Why? Because we are more the same than different.

MBTI should be used to help cross over those differences. I know that Ns like theories and all that... but there is a point where theories cease to be healthy. Likewise, I know that Ss like fixed ideas, but there is a point where it ceases to be healthy.

The approach is just different and so there will be conflict. Both gain when there is dialogue and both lose when the argument is reduced to type. Functions are supportive of each other!

Listening to what may seem unprovable and unbelievable is thus an exercise in giving the other person a benefit of doubt.

I agree, but only up to a point. For example;

N says something about Ss that isn't backed up.
S responds saying that the N is wrong.
N says S can't understand because S is stupid/something.

(This happened recently, so I'm using it as an example.)

Benefit of the doubt goes both ways, all the time. The way we deal with the conflict is what is valuable and that transcends type.

I think it is simple - if you can't answer "Why" you believe something as an N, then the N theory is unbalanced. Likewise, if the S can't answer "what does that mean?", then the S isn't balanced.

If either side reacts to that kind of a question by dismissing the other, etc, then communication breaks down, conflict starts and the groupings become a weapon.

Fortunately we have all the possibilities to master those interpersonal issues too, which opens up the chance of enriching our world views.

Absolutely, that's why MBTI exists... or why it should exist. To help us understand the other person.

Everytime MBTI is used to dismiss rather than explain, everytime MBTI uses a stereotype rather than an exploratory tool... a small part of MBTI dies and causes it to head where IQ tests headed - eugenics, dominance of traits, etc. Division for division sake.

-

I am guilty of doing what I talk about here, even though I try to control it. Everyone here that I have read does it to some degree. I'm prone to one particular type, others to others.

Oh, and to be clear... understanding why Ns think the sky is red isn't going to make me stop telling them it isn't.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I think it is simple - if you can't answer "Why" you believe something as an N, then the N theory is unbalanced. Likewise, if the S can't answer "what does that mean?", then the S isn't balanced.

People sometimes decide that the question was not answered, without hearing the other party. If that person doesn't wish to continue the discussion, it would be courteous to restrain from claims that the issue was left "unanswered".

If a person doesn't need some conclusion, he/she can take a "prove me" -attitude and be however demanding on the quality of explanation given. Now there's a practical truth that I try to remember more often.

The discussion context affects the burden of proof in other ways, too. Judical systems place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and scientifical systems place it on the one presenting hyphothesis. This is motivated by the potential damage caused by unsubstantiated claims and the needs for stability.

I may have the problem of considering some question on a whim, without understanding how question would affect the other party. If I would see that the other party would indeed suffer from adopting (or considering) erroneous views, I would recognize that the burden of proof lies on me. Having to use unfamiliar functions to solve the case can be a mild source of suffering, too.

I am starting to like the relativistic view more, in the meaning that perhaps both parties are right if neither are proven wrong. It has the practical use of maintaining a measure of peace.

 

[ptgatsby]

I am starting to like the relativistic view more, in the meaning that perhaps both parties are right if neither are proven wrong. It has the practical use of maintaining a measure of peace.

How horribly P of you I think this is just transferring one form of conflict to another. People will generally get just as irritated if you approach it this way (ie: "I hear you, but I think the sky is red, no matter what you say... and that's ok, because it's personal").

But that might be me. Ts would likely take it worse than Fs

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

How horribly P of you I think this is just transferring one form of conflict to another. People will generally get just as irritated if you approach it this way (ie: "I hear you, but I think the sky is red, no matter what you say... and that's ok, because it's personal").

But that might be me. Ts would likely take it worse than Fs

Wouldn't suggest that as the first option, would I? Have I?

 

[cafe]

When: Ss are not atheletes. We are not mechanics. We are not insipid. We aren't conflict driven. We do analyze. We can think. We can see the big picture. We can understand you.

I feel: Not much, except sadness.

Because: Closing the mind is dangerous. Assumptions are dangerous. You hurt yourself more than others, but it is a net-negative scenario.


When: I take my time to pull up a whole lot of research, data and so forth contradicting your theory... and the response is a nice version of "you can't understand because you are <x>".

I feel: Well, you say you want to learn and grow, but if you are going to waste my time with closed minded certitude (thank you econ!), I'd rather you say that you won't consider anything that condicts your views.

Because: It wastes my damn time.

PT, I like the way you post, FWIW. I may not comment, I may not always read an entire post or thread, I may not agree with your conclusions, but I recognize the thought and effort that you put into things. I find your posts more logical and less reactionary than many of those by some of the NTs. I can see why you would find dismissive attitudes frustrating.

 

[ptgatsby]

Wouldn't suggest that as the first option, would I? Have I?

Well, I dunno Seriously though, I have a harder time understanding your posts, so my own limitations might be preventing me from really explaining myself. Regardless, no, I don't think you are like that at all. I have the same problem with members of my family (I'm also scandinavian), so I can't help but wonder if it is cultural too!

PT, I like the way you post, FWIW. I may not comment, I may not always read an entire post or thread, I may not agree with your conclusions, but I recognize the thought and effort that you put into things. I find your posts more logical and less reactionary than many of those by some of the NTs. I can see why you would find dismissive attitudes frustrating.

Awwwwww Thanks.

It's alright though, I'm not really complaining... In most cases I don't mind people not responding.

The two irritations that I do have are stereotypes that just won't go away, no matter how many times I attack them... and the extension of that, the dismissal of words based upon type/other unimportant factors (but that's pretty rare overall... although I realise it's not as rare as I thought before). A lack of response to me indicates reflection or a dead end... an empty response is a disjointed dialogue. It means I didn't get through, it means it was a waste of time - a for sure waste of time.

 

[lastrailway]

.... A lack of response to me indicates reflection or a dead end... an empty response is a disjointed dialogue. It means I didn't get through, it means it was a waste of time - a for sure waste of time.

Well, being the person wasting your time lately, in these IQ related threads...
I think I have generally a hard time on understanding psychology things, for one, and a complete ignorance on IQ stuff for another.
I don't do it because I don't read through your -and anyone else's- posts

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I have a harder time understanding your posts, so my own limitations might be preventing me from really explaining myself.

Well, I write contrived sentences automatically and I sometimes get the word order incorrectly. I am also not sure about always using the most proper word to convey my message.

 

[ptgatsby]

Well, being the person wasting your time lately, in these IQ related threads...
I think I have generally a hard time on understanding psychology things, for one, and a complete ignorance on IQ stuff for another.
I don't do it because I don't read through your -and anyone else's- posts

No no, don't get me wrong! If anyone at all has a question or doesn't understanding, please do say something. Hell, even "I disagree because I just don't see how IQs relate to job performance" might drive me nuts (dammit you Ns, the link exists... accept it and move on! ), if you mean it sincerely, I'll try to answer/explain... and I'll enjoy doing it.

And of course, if you don't answer, I don't mind at all I'll assume you aren't interested and/or took something away. But goading me into doing the work for nothing, that irritates the hell out of me!

 

[cafe]

The two irritations that I do have are stereotypes that just won't go away, no matter how many times I attack them... and the extension of that, the dismissal of words based upon type/other unimportant factors (but that's pretty rare overall... although I realise it's not as rare as I thought before).

I have experienced this and it is not fun. When it is at the hands of those who pride themselves on being logical and objective and they can't see past the letters in your profile it's . . .

 

[ygolo]

No no, don't get me wrong! If anyone at all has a question or doesn't understanding, please do say something. Hell, even "I disagree because I just don't see how IQs relate to job performance" might drive me nuts (dammit you Ns, the link exists... accept it and move on! ), if you mean it sincerely, I'll try to answer/explain... and I'll enjoy doing it.

And of course, if you don't answer, I don't mind at all I'll assume you aren't interested and/or took something away. But goading me into doing the work for nothing, that irritates the hell out of me!

As one of the people who disagree with you on the fundamental use of corellations in a predictive manner, I wonder how you react to my skepticism.

My take on IQ (and gF in particular) is that it is an unfasifiable construct that keeps its corelations by modifying the very construct of what constitutes an IQ (by changing the test). A little like people who believe in God of a particular kind keeps modifying the concept to keep the connections that are important to them, while letting go of untennable versions.

I think if someone got a copy of WAIS III (latest one right?) and practiced on it continually, they could obtain a high score on that test.

 

[ptgatsby]

As one of the people who disagree with you on the fundamental use of corellations in a predictive manner, I wonder how you react to my skepticism.

I'd agree with you.

I think what we do have an issue over is the validity of data. You come from a field where data is absolute, whereas the datasets that use people are not.

To you, the IQ must represent something... I don't worry about what it represents. If it was shown that high IQ people can run fast, I'd nod, review the research and include that in my mental filing cabinet. When I go to do something, I use what information I have to predict. I also tend to say something is predictive when it isn't - otherwise it isn't predictive (the old example we had was that ADD -> J with confidence, but Js -> ADD very very weakly). That is to say, I would say that since you have ADD, it is very predictive that you are a J. However, if you are a J, it is not predictive that you are ADD.

A phrase I use a lot of - Ask the questions you want answered. MBTI isn't about being I/E - it's simply a collection of questions that were averaged out. It's like a Kakuro puzzle.

My take on IQ (and gF in particular) is that it is an unfasifiable construct that keeps its corelations by modifying the very construct of what constitutes an IQ (by changing the test). A little like people who believe in God of a particular kind keeps modifying the concept to keep the connections that are important to them, while letting go of untennable versions.

I'd agree if you hadn't used the g part. g is the methodology and theory behind being able to improve IQ test without invalidating them... IOW, they are measured against each other to find out their g-loading, to see how they compare.

Nothing's perfect - we can't give the same SAT test either. Things do change... Still, I am among the first to say "depends what test you took" when talking about IQ.

I think if someone got a copy of WAIS III (latest one right?) and practiced on it continually, they could obtain a high score on that test.

No doubt. But that is akin to saying that if someone reconfigured the entry parameters, it would no doubt differ from the model. It's not relevent to the application of the test.

(Except in cases where it could be used as an entry to school... like say... studying for a SAT? It's not that uncommon to have it happen but in the big picture, it doesn't really matter.)

 

[ygolo]

I'd agree with you.

I think what we do have an issue over is the validity of data. You come from a field where data is absolute, whereas the datasets that use people are not.

I will firmly say that the data in my field is not "absolute", most if it is statistical in nature. Though I am starting to wonder what you mean by "absolute".

To you, the IQ must represent something... I don't worry about what it represents. If it was shown that high IQ people can run fast, I'd nod, review the research and include that in my mental filing cabinet. When I go to do something, I use what information I have to predict. I also tend to say something is predictive when it isn't - otherwise it isn't predictive (the old example we had was that ADD -> J with confidence, but Js -> ADD very very weakly). That is to say, I would say that since you have ADD, it is very predictive that you are a J. However, if you are a J, it is not predictive that you are ADD.

A phrase I use a lot of - Ask the questions you want answered. MBTI isn't about being I/E - it's simply a collection of questions that were averaged out. It's like a Kakuro puzzle.

I definitely need more clarification on this point. Can you rephrase? My current interpretation of what you wrote seems to indicate a lack of understanding behind the math of correlations, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'd agree if you hadn't used the g part. g is the methodology and theory behind being able to improve IQ test without invalidating them... IOW, they are measured against each other to find out their g-loading, to see how they compare.

My understanding of g, is that it is simply the factor that corellates most of the IQ tests. In which case, I would call it unfalsifiable, since you are very likely to find this sort of thing in random data sets. Use a random number generator, do factor analysis on it and pick out the factor that correlates best with the other factors. See how good you corellations are. If the p-values aren't good enough, re-factor ad try again. Eventually you'll find what you're looking for.

Nothing's perfect - we can't give the same SAT test either. Things do change... Still, I am among the first to say "depends what test you took" when talking about IQ.

No doubt. But that is akin to saying that if someone reconfigured the entry parameters, it would no doubt differ from the model. It's not relevent to the application of the test.

(Except in cases where it could be used as an entry to school... like say... studying for a SAT? It's not that uncommon to have it happen but in the big picture, it doesn't really matter.)

I think I understand. But I was actualy trying to say is that the parts of IQ important to job function are incredibly learnable things, not innate to the individual.

As someone who reccomends candidates of positions, I actually see these "IQ related" traits as being important (and incredibly learnable).

1) Critical thinking skills. I give the Wason card problem on my interviews. Only one person has ever gotten it right (which came as a shock to me). But after some thought almost anyone can understand it. That sort of correction in thought transfers really well to critical thinking on the job.

2) Remaining calm under pressure. Some times people get panicky in test or evaluation situations. Simple breathing/minfulness techniques is all it takes to reverse this.

3) Following a predetermined course of action. i.e. reading and following directions, creating a plan and working your plan, etc. This comes from a good understanding of what sorts of plans can be executed, and practice executing plans. Sometimes, people, in the middle of solving a problem, will lose track of what they tried, and what to do next and can go in circles. People with a good "inference engine" may need to do less of this, since they solve problems on instinct, but once the inference engine runs its course a more systematic problem-solving aproach is needed. Hence, I put really open-ended difficult design problems on interviews and ask candidates to "talk it out". This is also a very learnable trait, and comes with practice.

Am I, in effect, giving my own IQ test? Perhaps. But one thing, I am sure of, is that the three traits I listed above are incredibly learnable.

 

[Cindyrella]

When people tell me my argument isn't valid because it's based on emotion/feelings and not logic, I feel irritated because I'm a freakin' NF, that's why!

 

[Ivy]

Sorry to derail, but that Wason Card problem is hard. I'm still not quite sure of the answer.

This was my thought process: I wanted to turn over the A and 4 card because those seemed like the obvious answer. But then I thought to myself those can't be the answers because it's too obvious and it wouldn't be a problem otherwise. So then I switched to the B and 7 cards because those seemed right because I thought/think my first impulses are incorrect since this must be a trick.

What's the answer????

Ack, we need spoiler tags here! I will PM ya

 

[ptgatsby]

I will firmly say that the data in my field is not "absolute", most if it is statistical in nature. Though I am starting to wonder what you mean by "absolute".

I thought you were in a physics field where you are effectively modelling rather absolute outcomes (that despite random variances in the physics that affect the objects, the actual physics is pretty much the end all of everything). People are horribly removed from the nature of the universe, if you will

I definitely need more clarification on this point. Can you rephrase? My current interpretation of what you wrote seems to indicate a lack of understanding behind the math of correlations, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The exact correlations are maintained within the dataset but psychology deals in pools of traits. it is critical to see where the pool is coming from to understand the results.

Consider a case of;

10000 that test 1% ADD (100). The 10,000 group is 50/50 J/P.

You take the 100 ADD patients and give them the MBTI. 100% of them test J. It is not accurate to say that Js are likely to be ADD (ie: there are 5000 Js, but only 2% of them are ADD... while it is quite accurate to say that ADDs are Js.

Within that dataset, people say ADD -> J, and J -> ADD... in reality, ADD-> is very strong while J->ADD is very weak.

Of course you are right - the ADDs are all contained in the set of Js and there is a correlation... so it is predictive, if very weakly so. Problem is, people see numbers like IQ being correlated to high income when it is actually higher income being related to IQ. It's simply a barrier of entry. High IQ sure helps but it isn't all that predictive.

I shorthand that into predictive and not predictive, although both are truly predictive - it's just a matter of strength.

For example, it is very rare that upper managers have IQs below 110. However, the majority of 110 IQs do not become upper managers. People, however, assume that the two are equal. In this case the explanation is about barriers of entry, similar in academics and such.

Yes, technically it is a bit fuzzy, but I'm not a professional doing research. People misinterpret the results by not looking at the fundamental biases in the selection.

My understanding of g, is that it is simply the factor that corellates most of the IQ tests. In which case, I would call it unfalsifiable, since you are very likely to find this sort of thing in random data sets. Use a random number generator, do factor analysis on it and pick out the factor that correlates best with the other factors. See how good you corellations are. If the p-values aren't good enough, re-factor ad try again. Eventually you'll find what you're looking for.

If I understand this correct and translating this to IQ tests... you are saying, take the WAIS (for example), create a new test, give it to 1000 odd people, check to see if it is g loaded, and if not sufficiently so, write a new test and do it again? Eventually the random test giving will generate a random result that emulates a sufficiently loaded g score?

Am I, in effect, giving my own IQ test? Perhaps. But one thing, I am sure of, is that the three traits I listed above are incredibly learnable.

So are marks. SATs. GREs. So are sports, running... everything is. Skills are important. It's just another form of test. Not everyone can score 1600 (is it 2400 now?) scores on the SATs, etc and that determines your entrance into school. And not surprisingly, those that score lower on SATs tend not to do well in school.

 

[Maverick]

When: people talk shit about ENTJ's
I feel: amused
Because: they're just jealous because we're awesome

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

When: people use an argument that someone's motivation was based in insecurity or feelings of inferiority
I feel: dumbfounded
Because: I can't figure it out whom of those two - or both - really were motivated by insecurity, and I feel it's prudent not to read such motivations into person's actions too stricly, even when suspected. I also find such argumentation to be an attack against the person, intellectually lazy, emotionally defensive, patronizing, avoiding the topic and distracting from the conversation.