EcK
The Memes Justify the End
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 7,707
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 738
noActually N has been found to correlate with religious beliefs.
noActually N has been found to correlate with religious beliefs.
What is the average of 90 and 110?Thar 90-109 tier is both under and above average iq..
No shit. Not the point, either.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.
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.S people are actually N types
What does that have to do with anything? All tests were passed at the time of the studyand like everyone propably knows, iq tests has gotten harder and bla bla bla
What is the average of 90 and 110?
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
Oh, you have stats. Where might those be? I didn't see a link.
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)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.
Sure, and athletic competition favor athletes. Any other empty statement to add?
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'.No but your graph is useless and doesn't say anything really important.
It does say alot about your subjectivity. That by itself would make it interesting.
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?No its says that there are too many variables to consider within the graph to determine anything actually pertaining to reality.
Too funny. Speaking of IQ's off the charts. What a novel suggestion. Where were you a couple of hours ago?G-O-O-G-L-E
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'.
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.
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?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.
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.Lots of 'feel good' going on here.
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?