...

[ptgatsby]

Ok, fine. But I still have my doubts. I mean everyone wants to appear better than they are. How do you know I didn't lie, about my score? and it's really 90?

Oh, it doesn't really matter. I was just saying that if you have a 110 IQ, you are above average. It really doesn't matter to me. IQ is just a construct; it rarely imparts knowledge levels, skills or anything else.

It influences how quickly you can gain knowledge and (some) skills, but that's about it... well, it also probably puts a cap on being able to understand some genius level abstractions, like theoretical math...

My IQ is 121. I always thought 120 was average, and anything below 100 was mental disability. How does it work, anyway?

100 is average, SD is 15. Half the population scores under 100 and half above 100.

For example, if you take an IQ test and normalize it (you get 1000 people to take it), most will score (x) out of . If that is the average, then if you score less than (x), your IQ is lower than 100... if you score higher than (x), then greater than 100.

It tells you, more or less, how well you can answer the questions relative to the general population.

And I hardly equate 120's-130's to genius-- in fact, that just makes me laugh, because I feel like a total moron in certain areas of life. For me personally, the only reason I posted my number in another thread was because it was kind of an -A-HA moment - in that it explained why I've had so many social issues growing up. I actually think it can be rather an impediment for real-world stuff, so count yourself lucky!!

I think that most of us view IQ as a "norm" around 110-120. It's not. Having an IQ of 110-120 puts you in a pretty professional and relatively small group.

If you look at it from an economics term, being "richer" than 75% or 90% of the population is huge. Yes, genius may be top 1% or whatever, but I think people understate the value of a 110+IQ in general. You rolled the dice and won. Those in the bottom 25% will have a very hard time and it is equally likely to be in either.

Most overstate their IQ when they are in the 110-130 range, maybe perhaps because once they are in that range, they identify with being "smart" and need a higher IQ to validate it for themselves...

Honestly though, IQ is irrelevent at the individual level. I don't know why so many people waste time worry about it. You can't change it, really, and it isn't going to get you a job, money, love or happiness. If you want those things, you go out and get them yourself.

 

[Splittet]

My IQ is 121. I always thought 120 was average, and anything below 100 was mental disability. How does it work, anyway?

100 is average. Here you can see the distribution: Image:IQ curve.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

70 (-2 SDs) = bottom 2 %
80 = bottom 10 %
90 = bottom 25 %
100 = top 50 %
110 = top 25 %
120 = top 10 %
130 (+2 SDs) = top 2 %

(This depends on the standard deviation (SD) though, here it is 15. If it is 16, the numbers would be 68-100-132 at the ends, if it was 24, it would be 52-100-148. Most common is 15 or 16 though.)

 

[Athenian200]

100 is average, SD is 15. Half the population scores under 100 and half above 100.

For example, if you take an IQ test and normalize it (you get 1000 people to take it), most will score (x) out of . If that is the average, then if you score less than (x), your IQ is lower than 100... if you score higher than (x), then greater than 100.

It tells you, more or less, how well you can answer the questions relative to the general population.

So in other words, I shouldn't feel stupid for not having an IQ of 130 or higher? I always have, because I thought 120 was barely in the middle of average. I'm glad I found this out. (But I still think I would have done better if I'd known what a "prime" number was. Darn.)

 

[cascadeco]

Honestly though, IQ is irrelevent at the individual level. I don't know why so many people waste time worry about it. You can't change it, really, and it isn't going to get you a job, money, love or happiness. If you want those things, you go out and get them yourself.

Definitely true!! Drive and personal motivation is all that's necessary for most things.

 

[The Ü™]

Keep a good thought that people with IQs below 20 are rare, too. And the scientific community calls these people "idiots."

 

[nightning]

Keep a good thought that people with IQs below 20 are rare, too. And the scientific community calls these people "idiots."

*blinks* I thought IQ of 40 already corresponds to severe mental retardation clinically... that means they can't care for themselves at all and need constant supervision. IQ of below 20?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Honestly though, IQ is irrelevent at the individual level. I don't know why so many people waste time worry about it. You can't change it, really, and it isn't going to get you a job, money, love or happiness. If you want those things, you go out and get them yourself.

Because women can't compare penis size. Comparing IQ size is gender neutral and therefore everyone can play.

 

[ptgatsby]

So in other words, I shouldn't feel stupid for not having an IQ of 130 or higher? I always have, because I thought 120 was barely in the middle of average. I'm glad I found this out. (But I still think I would have done better if I'd known what a "prime" number was. Darn.)

130+ is doctorate level+. Well, technically, 120+ or so for the lighter doctorates and 140+ for the hard core doctorates, but 130 puts you in a very very small group. 120 is very high.

If you feel bad at 120 IQ, it's just ego (well, now that you know 100 is norm I meant if you aren't satisfied being in the top 10% or so, then... well... humbug).

 

[The Ü™]

*blinks* I thought IQ of 40 already corresponds to severe mental retardation clinically... that means they can't care for themselves at all and need constant supervision. IQ of below 20?

A person who is in any mentally retarded range is (or has been) called a cretin.

Other terms within cretinism:

A moron is one whose IQ is in between 51 and 70.

An imbecile is a person whose IQ is in between 26 and 50.

And an idiot is a person whose IQ is 25 and below. I was five points off, so shoot me.

Isn't this fascinating?

 

[Blackwater]

Ok, this is a very long thread and I don't have time to read it all. Can anybody please supply me with the study that supposedly documents that there are more average to low IQ sensers than there are average to low IQ intuitards? Via PM, please

 

[The Ü™]

Ok, this is a very long thread and I don't have time to read it all. Can anybody please supply me with the study that supposedly documents that there are more average to low IQ sensers than there are average to low IQ intuitards? Via PM, please

PM as in Public Message. I'd love to know this, too.

 

[ptgatsby]

The one normally being referred to is probably;

The relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ level and the fluid and crystallized IQ discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT).

(Same I referred you to in http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/52087-post19.html )

 

[hotmale]

A person who is in any mentally retarded range is (or has been) called a cretin.

Other terms within cretinism:

A moron is one whose IQ is in between 51 and 70.

An imbecile is a person whose IQ is in between 26 and 50.

And an idiot is a person whose IQ is 25 and below. I was five points off, so shoot me.

Isn't this fascinating?

Actually, an idiot is typically referred to a man with an apparent social disease, like epilepsy or tourette's. A moron is an individual who don't understand social cues, like a racist cop who feels big around others when he has no real social power; an imbecile is an uneducated person who is only aware of his own culture within a 20 mile radius.

Hope that clarifies your understanding of the Bell Curve.

 

[warick]

From the link on PT's thread.

...
The thing to note, for those that aren't able to read it, is that it is more accurate to say that Ss compose a large percentage of lower IQs than Ns, not that Ns are "smarter"... although they are significantly over represented.

This is another one of those data problems... it is correct to say that if you take a random N and a random S, the N is very likely to be smarter than the S. However, if you take a random smart person, they are not significantly more likely to be a N than a S (about 50/50, despite the 30/70 mix).
...

Correct me if I'm wrong here:
If there are more S's in the lower IQ's, then the N's would have to be in the higher IQ's, which the study says is not the case. So to make the numbers work, for instance:

Half of all people have IQ's in the top 50%, and half of these are N's, and half are S's. This is also true of the bottom half, except 3/4 of the S's in the lower half (so 3/8 of all S's total) are in the lowest 25%, and only 1/4 of N's in the lowest half are in the lowest 25% (so 1/8 of all N's total).​

Assuming you can sort through and understand my confusing scenario, this doesn't seem likely. So N's are 30% of the population and S's are 70%, and according to PT "...if you take a random smart person, they are not significantly more likely to be a N than a S...".
Does this mean?:

If you were to take a sample of all the people in the top 50% for IQ, half would be N's and half S's. So 1/4 of the entire population in the top half are N's, and only 30% of the pop. are N's, then that would mean 5/6 of all N's are in the top half, and only 1/6 of all N's are in the lower half.​

I would like to see the original study, this is all very interesting.

 

[ptgatsby]

I would like to see the original study, this is all very interesting.

I can't post the study due to copyright restrictions, but I think this falls under fair use (And I hope this works )

Hey, not bad!

Note that CAPT has other studies that don't agree entirely with this, blah blah. There isn't a lot of research done with MBTI + IQ in the open field... so... YMMV.

For your specific questions;



Half of all people have IQ's in the top 50%, and half of these are N's, and half are S's. This is also true of the bottom half, except 3/4 of the S's in the lower half (so 3/8 of all S's total) are in the lowest 25%, and only 1/4 of N's in the lowest half are in the lowest 25% (so 1/8 of all N's total).


That would be roughly correct, although it wouldn't be 50/50 at IQ 100 (probably about 60/40 S/N). As above, about 85% of 89 IQ and lower are Ss, but it's an even split above 110.



If you were to take a sample of all the people in the top 50% for IQ, half would be N's and half S's. So 1/4 of the entire population in the top half are N's, and only 30% of the pop. are N's, then that would mean 5/6 of all N's are in the top half, and only 1/6 of all N's are in the lower half.


Top 25% in this case, half are Ns and Ss. Essentially, if this was normalised correctly, 12.5% of the population would be N and IQ>110... and 12.5% of the population would be S and IQ>110.

The sample is somewhat unevenly spread among IQ and N/S, so it's better to look at each as it's own set rather than relate it to the general population.

 

[cascadeco]

That would be roughly correct, although it wouldn't be 50/50 at IQ 100 (probably about 60/40 S/N). As above, about 85% of 89 IQ and lower are Ss, but it's an even split above 110.

I'll have to trust you on all of the stats!! No time/desire to delve into them too deeply!!

I just have a general question...just thinking out loud... how *would* one determine whether someone was an S or N, say with IQ's of 75 or lower??

I ask, because last night I was thinking about a former coworker/friend who is part of a Lifeworks program, which places adults with learning disabilities, or who are marginally retarded, into the workforce. This woman is someone I've gotten to know fairly well, and I'm quite surprised by some of the insights she has, and her ability to follow more of your emotional/social type conversations, and participate, and empathize. She's actually quite...awesome. Intellectually, she is a higher functioning person, and once she learns how to do a certain task/basic office work, she is quite good at it. Her emotions/way of communicating, though, remind me of someone in 7th or 8th grade, though -- but again, she can be quite insightful. I'm certain she's IxxJ, and I think IxFJ, but there's no way I feel I can 'guess' the S/N.

If I were to give her the mbti test (which I never would, because I see no need to, and I don't want to make her uncomfortable), I don't think she'd be able to answer all of the questions, because she wouldn't know what the word 'abstract' meant, for example, and would be confused by many of the questions. And I'm not sure she has the ability to think abstractly in the way we talk about it on this site - but she very well might, she just doesn't verbalize it, as she has trouble sometimes explaining what she's thinking. And I don't mean to sound insensitive, I'm just throwing some of my thoughts out there.

Basically - how would we know an N vs an S at the lower IQ's anyway?? Do N and S become meaningless at the lower IQ's??

I read somewhere that in human development, the N/S and T/F traits don't necessarily even start surfacing until later years - so as a toddler, you might only reliably be able to type E/I X X J/P.

Would those with lower IQ's (as in, those needing some sort of assistance in the real world) even be at the developmental point (for lack of a better term) where you can even know S/N and F/T?? I know absolutely nothing of this subject, so would be curious to hear from those who actually know what they're talking about, regarding adults with learning disabilities/brain development/etc - and please correct any completely inaccurate/ignorant things I might be saying. Again, they're just my questions/thoughts.

I know this is a delicate subject - hopefully I don't offend anyone. I'm just throwing some of my weird musings out there.

 

[ptgatsby]

Basically - how would we know an N vs an S at the lower IQ's anyway??

Good question... and I don't know. I would think that below 60 or so it would be impossible to properly administer MBTI... but I haven't ever dealt with people lower than that so I have no idea.

Chances are the division (40 / 160) is the floor and ceiling of the KAIT (I haven't checked). Since it works out to roughly 50% in the middle and 25% above and below, it was probably chosen just on that division.

(The other questions are hard for me to answer within MBTI )

 

[warick]

Thanks for the reference PT.

Basically - how would we know an N vs an S at the lower IQ's anyway?? Do N and S become meaningless at the lower IQ's??

I would imagine that even if we couldn't administer a formal test, that a psychologist that does write them could give them an oral ad hoc test and get a rough gauge of where they were at.

 

[The Ü™]

It's interesting how F's are slightly higher than T's in the higher IQ range.

Funny, because IQ questions are both abstract (N) and logical (T).

 

[Splittet]

It's interesting how F's are slightly higher than T's in the higher IQ range.

Funny, because IQ questions are both abstract (N) and logical (T).

And I have seen studies conclude the opposite. However, basically all studies show there is almost no correlation between the T/F dichotomy and IQ. But yeah, personally I would be very interested in studying MBTI function theory in light of IQ tests.