# Are IQ tests tilted in favor of Intuitive types



## Jeremi (Jan 23, 2017)

From my understanding IQ tests have multiple answers, some obvious and others more hidden.
The more hidden answers you get the higher your IQ is, so it would seem that if you're naturally intuitive the test would be in your favor while someone who naturally looks for the fastest solution would get a lower IQ.
Is this really true?
If so why don't they tell you this?


If this was already discussed, sorry I couldn't find it using the search button.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

I can't take IQ tests seriously to begin with.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Shiver said:


> I can't take IQ tests seriously to begin with.


psychologist I knew said, that it's very reliable thing and it's almost impossible to fake high scores (for real test)


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Reliable at _what_ is the question. I don't doubt that they get consistent results, I doubt that what is being measured is necessarily valid or useful.


----------



## Jeremi (Jan 23, 2017)

I would love to take an IQ test, but I'm honestly afraid that I'll score really low and feel bad about myself.
I tend to choose whats most obvious when I'm taking these kinds of tests, and tend to feel unsure when I look for "hidden" answers as tend to feel that the most obvious answer should be the correct one.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Shiver said:


> Reliable at _what_ is the question. I don't doubt that they get consistent results, I doubt that what is being measured is necessarily valid or useful.


well my scores were ranging from average to very high (due to multiple intelligences being tested)


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

IQ-Tests, if anything, favor Ni.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

As an adult timed tests penalize cautious and creative thought processes. Adults just need enough intelligence and knowledge to complete most items and enough stupidity to do it like a robot. It can tell reliably if a kid is intellectually precocious or retarded. It was designed for that purpose anyway.

For adults, life is the test. If you can solve what no one solves, if you can invent what no one invents, you're smart. Or else you're average. And if you think you're smart despite not achieving any creative greatness, you're most likely below average.

Quite a few decades ago, a bunch of american savant idiots did a large scale IQ experience and kept track of the young students whose score was above 130. It occurs that many years later, two nobel prize winners who participated to that experience scored a tad BELOW 130, barely failing the test, and none of those above achieved anything significant.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Jeremi said:


> From my understanding IQ tests have multiple answers, some obvious and others more hidden.


Which tests are you talking about? 



> Is this really true?


I don't know about IQ tests in general, but test takers can score more points on one of the verbal subtests of the adult Wechsler if they give more than one definition of the given word. 



> If so why don't they tell you this?


Speaking of the example I gave above, the test administrator asked me if I had more to add to my answer, but didn't say anything about the scoring specifically.

I assume that would defeat the purpose of the test in some way.


----------



## elop (Jul 24, 2016)

It's in favor of the rational thinking types. I think IQ is bs in the sense that it's not a "static" thing, and there's plenty of science to back that up Intense prep for law school admission test alters brain structure | Berkeley News


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

elop said:


> I think IQ is bs in the sense that it's not a "static" thing, and there's plenty of science to back that up Intense prep for law school admission test alters brain structure | Berkeley News


Is this article supposed to represent some of the science that backs it up? It doesn't back it up.


----------



## elop (Jul 24, 2016)

bentHnau said:


> Is this article supposed to represent some of the science that backs it up? It doesn't back it up.


uhh did you read the article


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

elop said:


> It's in favor of the rational thinking types.


What he said.

Plus I'm not a huge fan of the IQ test. We can do without it.


----------



## Maybe (Sep 10, 2016)

I have won, for test I've done.


----------



## Jeremi (Jan 23, 2017)

IDontThinkSo said:


> For adults, life is the test. If you can solve what no one solves, if you can invent what no one invents, you're smart. Or else you're average. And if you think you're smart despite not achieving any creative greatness, you're most likely below average..


Sorry if this is a bad argument but here we go.

If you had 2 people and they had the same intelligence, but different personalities, one believes the more obvious choice is the most correct, while the other believe the more complex is the best, and because of that he would get a higher IQ score no?
If the first person knew the more complex the better he would get the same score, no?

then again I don't have any experience with taking IQ tests or how they work for the most part, this is just a thought that came to mind.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

@*Jeremi* intelligence (inter legere) is not solely the ability to find the right answer, but to ask the right question and identify the superior issue. If I had to design an IQ test, instead of presenting one issue at a time, I would present many and ask people to analyze and decide which one is more fundamental. Because that's where all the genius lies.

That is an epistemological aspect of intelligence which is a product of our personalities, or two aspects of a same function. So different personalities cannot perform the same. There is only one epistemologically optimal personality, and a vast array of deviances. Different personalities cannot perform the same when it comes to ask the right question. At best, they can fail at the same point for opposite reasons. The more an issue is fundamental, the more apparent it is.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

IDontThinkSo said:


> optimal personality


lol

Also, solving and inventing as criteria for intelligence is a flawed concept. Those things only display what a person chooses to do with their mind, they don't measure it. Extremely different things, not to mention slanted to a very specific type of intelligence, it would seem. Creating something for society doesn't make me more intelligent, it just makes me _useful_. But since people are fundamentally selfish creatures, I'm not at all surprised at this type of judgement.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

elop said:


> uhh did you read the article


I skimmed it. As the title indicates, the article is about test preparation affecting brain structure; it makes no firm statements about IQ not being static.


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

*Are IQ tests tilted in favor of Intuitive types?*

Whether the answer is yes or no; it doesn't matter. (So you can jumble up a few words, and remove the question mark from the sentence in bold)


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Jeremi said:


> If you had 2 people and they had the same intelligence, but different personalities, one believes the more obvious choice is the most correct, while the other believe the more complex is the best, and because of that he would get a higher IQ score no?
> If the first person knew the more complex the better he would get the same score, no?


Then they would both score the same, because it doesn't matter what conclusion they gonna reach, it matters why they reach it and how they do that, also in what period of time.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

mytinyheart said:


> Plus I'm not a huge fan of the IQ test. We can do without it.


How boring. Yes you can do without it, but isn't it interesting?


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Shiver said:


> lol
> 
> Also, solving and inventing as criteria for intelligence is a flawed concept. Those things only display what a person chooses to do with their mind, they don't measure it. Extremely different things, not to mention slanted to a very specific type of intelligence, it would seem. Creating something for society doesn't make me more intelligent, it just makes me _useful_. But since people are fundamentally selfish creatures, I'm not at all surprised at this type of judgement.


What you decide to do with your brain is relative to the pertinence of your decision and how well you understand your issues, meaning, how intelligent you are. The choice IS the measure. The more you're able to focus on fundamental issues, the smarter. Because that is how intelligence develops. It doesn't develop out of being sarcastic on the internet. Intellectual revolutions come with those who find the more fundamental issue nobody conceptualized before. That is remarkably smart. Your IQ isn't.

Because reality is one and lies are legion, intelligence is a bottleneck. Many ways to stay in the bottle and pretend you could escape, only one to get out of it.


----------



## Jeremi (Jan 23, 2017)

I might as well start some threads asking whether or not art shows favor isfps and estps have an unfair advantage in sports.
Joking aside I gained some useful knowledge from everyone, thanks


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

IDontThinkSo said:


> What you decide to do with your brain is relative to the pertinence of your decision and how well you understand your issues, meaning, how intelligent you are. The choice IS the measure.


That's _your_ measure and _your_ subjective conclusion. A person who is intelligent enough to perform a task but who chooses not to do it is not suddenly rendered less intelligent for that choice. A top of the line car does not lose its capabilities simply because it is sitting parked.



> The more you're able to focus on fundamental issues, the smarter.


What are these fundamental issues? Who are they fundamental to? Being able to focus on these issues and choosing to contribute something to society is not a measure of intelligence, it is only the product of it. I don't define myself by what I do or create, but rather what happens behind those things.



> Because that is how intelligence develops.


Do you have a definition for your "intelligence" in this case? What's being "developed"? Skills are developed over time, certainly. If you're trying to say that intelligence grow in the same way, some recent evidence for that would be interesting. Probably relevant for the psych subforum as well.



> It doesn't develop out of being sarcastic on the internet. Intellectual revolutions come with those who find the more fundamental issue nobody conceptualized before. That is remarkably smart. Your IQ isn't.


If that was intended to say that IQ is not the equivalent of intelligence, go back and read my first posts in this thread. I'm not a big fan of IQ. Otherwise, it's not really doing more than arguing your premise...?



> Because reality is one and lies are legion, intelligence is a bottleneck. Many ways to stay in the bottle and pretend you could escape, only one to get out of it.


Flowery, but this doesn't really contribute to your argument I don't think. :|


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> How boring. Yes you can do without it, but isn't it interesting?


Interesting unless you grew up observing how more "intelligent" children get better, special treatment vs. "intellectually-challenged" or "non-gifted" kids.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

mytinyheart said:


> Interesting unless you grew up observing how more "intelligent" children get better, special treatment vs. "intellectually-challenged" or "non-gifted" kids.


IQ =/= success or treatment


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

I cannot read this thead without listening to this


----------



## Jeremi (Jan 23, 2017)

LOL thank you


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> IQ =/= success or treatment


What I mean is I see the IQ test as one of the tools used in a society where we're conditioned to hold in higher esteem the more intelligent or seemingly special people. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's an observation I've made all my life of how people are treated. And then it's also about what is considered "intelligence" and how it is thought to be far superior to any other type of intelligence a person may have. If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid. The IQ test fails to catch intelligent people that are not within the spectrum the test is intended for. Someone could score average or slightly lower and still be capable of great things we accredit to brilliant minds. Not everyone can live up to the precocious standard of the genius that the IQ test searches for, and so we must come to the conclusion that we are seeing intelligence the wrong way. That is also why I would see the IQ test as useless, or at the very least, discriminate and subpar. It could perhaps be reformed, or perhaps we should question our act of trying to quantify something immeasurable. 

And I don't wish to use solely IQ, but simply noticing talent, giftedness, skill, brightness in a person...we _do_ give these people special treatment. And they may or may not become successful, but we _do_ push that idea that they will vs. someone in whom we see nothing in particular. The IQ test is not to blame for this, not at all, but I repeat it is a tool used in this manner of thinking.


----------



## HGy (Jul 3, 2016)

I think an intelligent person will do well on an IQ test no matter their type. IQ tests are not all created equally but the ones who measure multiple types of intelligence are the best. 

I watched a documentary about 5 years ago about IQ and they theorized that people who are very gifted at one thing generally score high in every area intelligence. They proved this by having a group of diversly brilliant people take the same series of tests that measure critical thinking, problem solving, math, language, artistic ability and even kinesthetic intelligence. In the end, the same 2 guys scored the highest across the board in every area.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Formal IQ tests are tools of neuropsychological evaluation. I am so goddamned sick of people ranting about them as if they are primarily for sorting people into social hierarchy or as if everyone's personal idea of intelligence is relevant. Ok, we got it, you're only the millionth person to smugly parrot that IQ scores don't predict your capitalistic, class-biased idea of "success." *They aren't meant to.* Since the vast majority of people have not and never will take a real IQ test, how is this even an issue? There isn't enough data to even rank people with.

When you come up with a concept of intelligence *and* a standardized way to operationalize it for determining whether kids need special education services or may have autism (the stuff that IQ tests are actually used for), then you can legitimately compare your concept of intelligence to the one that's tested on IQ tests. Vague, purely philosophical notions about what intelligence "really is" are not a legitimate basis upon which to judge any formal IQ test.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

To my understanding IQ results favor NTs as the majority of questions are based in abstract logic. 

There has been increased effort to expand applicability across cultures because results were demonstrating favoring certain cultures and countries (Western European, US), but it seems like the tack they are taking is to make questions even more abstract and logic-based, which has its own issues. 



bentHnau said:


> Formal IQ tests are tools of neuropsychological evaluation. I am so goddamned sick of people ranting about them as if they are primarily for sorting people into social hierarchy or as if everyone's personal idea of intelligence is relevant. Ok, we got it, you're only the millionth person to smugly parrot that IQ scores don't predict your capitalistic, class-biased idea of "success." *They aren't meant to.* Since the vast majority of people have not and never will take a real IQ test, how is this even an issue? There isn't enough data to even rank people with.
> 
> When you come up with a concept of intelligence *and* a standardized way to operationalize it for determining whether kids need special education services or may have autism (the stuff that IQ tests are actually used for), then you can legitimately compare your concept of intelligence to the one that's tested on IQ tests. Vague, purely philosophical notions about what intelligence "really is" are not a legitimate basis upon which to judge any formal IQ test.


I don't disagree with you in theory but the problem of false social hierarchy based on IQ doesn't not exist just because it's a misuse and the people discussing it are often uninformed. It still has tangible impacts on people's lives.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

angelfish said:


> It still has tangible impacts on people's lives.


I don't think so, people don't talk about IQ where I live.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> I don't think so, people don't talk about IQ where I live.


And because the people in your area don't talk about it to your personal knowledge, it doesn't have any impact on anyone anywhere? 

People on this site have vocalized that their feelings about themselves and others have been impacted by it. I'm not really sure how you can therefore say that no one is impacted.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

angelfish said:


> And because the people in your area don't talk about it to your personal knowledge, it doesn't have any impact on anyone anywhere?
> 
> People on this site have vocalized that their feelings about themselves and others have been impacted by it. I'm not really sure how you can therefore say that no one is impacted.


but that number doesn't even mean 0.1% of human population


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> but that number doesn't even mean 0.1% of human population


.1% of the population is still seven million four hundred thousand people... 

I don't mean to just tit-tat quarrel with you. I just do think it ends up having a systemic impact. For example - some schools identify "gifted" children based on IQ testing, test performance, etc. I was in a "high achieving" program in a public high school and it was almost entirely composed of middle-to-upper-class white students... you know there is something wrong with that in a public school that is at least half minority and low income. The amount of minority and low income kids in "vocational" or non-honors classes was also clearly overrepresented. I think there are a lot of problems that end up feeding into that and misinterpretation of intelligence testing can be one of them.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

angelfish said:


> .1% of the population is still seven million four hundred thousand people...
> 
> I don't mean to just tit-tat quarrel with you. I just do think it ends up having a systemic impact. For example - some schools identify "gifted" children based on IQ testing, test performance, etc. I was in a "high achieving" program in a public high school and it was almost entirely composed of middle-to-upper-class white students... you know there is something wrong with that in a public school that is at least half minority and low income. The amount of minority and low income kids in "vocational" or non-honors classes was also clearly overrepresented. I think there are a lot of problems that end up feeding into that and misinterpretation of intelligence testing can be one of them.


maybe only where you live


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

The red spirit said:


> maybe only where you live


I'm not really sure what the point of shrugging it off is. Regardless of how tiny or widespread the issue may be anyone can be part of the solution very easily by simply not using or advocating usage of IQ where it doesn't apply. This seems like what should be done anyway.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

I score pretty poorly in IQ tests (119 last test). I seem to score highest in linguistics and pattern recognition but suck in general in the numerical component. I've never had any kind of affinity for math. I can do all the usual mid-level university math but it doesn't come easily nor do I find it particularly interesting. Where I'm 'exceptional' though is distinguishing between extremely close hues, but that isn't a skill that's useful for anything. So I can tell if a paint tint is every so slightly off....big deal. What real world application does that relate to?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

angelfish said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of shrugging it off is. Regardless of how tiny or widespread the issue may be anyone can be part of the solution very easily by simply not using or advocating usage of IQ where it doesn't apply. This seems like what should be done anyway.


Why should we care about issue, that almost no one has and it's only linked to some people, that cannot understand what IQ means (they have name imbecile).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

bentHnau said:


> On what do you base the assertion that Intuitives do particularly well on IQ tests? And which IQ tests are you talking about?


and you can easily find blogs that talk about iq and mbti like this:

https://politicsandprosperity.com/2011/01/04/intelligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/


> politicsandprosperity.com Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness by Thomas
> 
> _This post __is a collection and refinement of related posts at my earlier blog, _Liberty Corner_ (with updated links). Each section of this post carries the same title as the original post at _Liberty Corner_. “IQ and Personality” is and has been, by far, the most popular of my _Liberty Corner_ posts, so I give the eponymous section the place of honor in this post.
> _
> ...


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

bentHnau said:


> On what do you base the assertion that Intuitives do particularly well on IQ tests? And which IQ tests are you talking about?


and you can easily find blogs that talk about iq and mbti like this:

https://politicsandprosperity.com/2011/01/04/intelligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/


> politicsandprosperity.com *Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness*
> 
> by Thomas
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ae1905 said:


> and you can easily find blogs that talk about iq and mbti like this:
> 
> https://politicsandprosperity.com/2011/01/04/intelligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/
> 
> ...


This is hilarious in how poor the author's reasoning is. Including his jump in logic to conclude that Republicans are smarter than Democrats. :laughing: Does the guy not understand that real libertarians wouldn't vote Republican either? Real libertarians in the US are disenfranchised voters who usually end up disavowing politics. So the ideology is kind of dead these days and has been since it's heyday in the early 2000s. I won't deny that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals though. Idealism tends to turn a person cynical when reality gets in the way of ideals.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Why they should be tilted to something?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Scoobyscoob said:


> This is hilarious in how poor the author's reasoning is. Including his jump in logic to conclude that Republicans are smarter than Democrats. :laughing: Does the guy not understand that real libertarians wouldn't vote Republican either? Real libertarians in the US are disenfranchised voters who usually end up disavowing politics. So the ideology is kind of dead these days and has been since it's heyday in the early 2000s. I won't deny that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals though. Idealism tends to turn a person cynical when reality gets in the way of ideals.


I cited the blog for its discussion of iq and mbti, not for his conjectures about iq and politics...I agree, however, that libertarians are not republicans...libertarian "small government" includes small militaries, not something republicans want...libertarians are also socially liberal, so a democrat could just as eaily claim them as their own and flip the argument


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

ae1905 said:


> I cited the blog for its discussion of iq and mbti, not for his conjectures about iq and politics...I agree, however, that libertarians are not republicans...libertarian "small government" includes small militaries, not something republicans want...libertarians are also socially liberal, so a democrat could just as eaily claim them as their own and flip the argument


Yes and thank you for posting those articles. I found them to be informative but I balked at the author's assumption that libertarians vote Republican. Some do but most are politically disenfranchised voters and judging from how many people voted for Gary Johnson the US Libertarian movement seems to have fizzled out with Ron Paul. His views on returning to the gold standard was never a viable policy. Unfortunate as that reality is.

Plus yes, Republicans are only faux libertarians when it suits their rhetoric. The huge military spending to play world police is NOT a libertarian view.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> from sources like these:
> 
> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
> http://www.psytech.com/Content/Research/Intelligence-2009-08-11.pdf
> Intelligence Test Performance and Myers Briggs type | Personality Research


Third link's data is based on self-reported Myers Briggs type and the results of an online IQ test. Not reliable at all.

Second link's data is based on the Critical Reasoning Test Battery 2, which only tests verbal and numerical reasoning. I'm just mentioning that because testing a narrow range of skills is what people have taken issue with in pretty much every discussion of IQ tests, this one included.

The KAIT (link 1), seems to be a much more comprehensive IQ test, but "fine motor coordination and motor speed are not emphasized," (KAIT - Psychological Resources Center), thus presumably disadvantaging sensors.

I've never heard of these tests; I wonder how commonly they are used.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> and you can easily find blogs that talk about iq and mbti like this:https://politicsandprosperity.com/2011/01/04/intelligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/


Uncited statistics and irrelevant political commentary is not helpful and does not address my question.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

bentHnau said:


> Third link's data is based on self-reported Myers Briggs type and the results of an online IQ test. Not reliable at all.


it is an example of the anecdotal evidence that is available online...while it isn't a part of a formal study, I will point out that its results, nevertheless, agree with academic research, like the first two links



> Second link's data is based on the Critical Reasoning Test Battery 2, which only tests verbal and numerical reasoning. I'm just mentioning that because testing a narrow range of skills is what people have taken issue with in pretty much every discussion of IQ tests, this one included.


I believe the original iq test and many online tests today only assess reasoning skills...language skills are actually a more recent expansion of iq testing...kait, for example, includes an evaluation of verbal skills (along with reasoning and short term memory)



> The KAIT (link 1), seems to be a much more comprehensive IQ test, but "fine motor coordination and motor speed are not emphasized," (KAIT - Psychological Resources Center), thus presumably disadvantaging sensors.
> 
> I've never heard of these tests; I wonder how commonly they are used.


what do "fine motor coordination and motor speed" have to do with iq?...if you test for motor skills and call it "athletic iq", some sensors may do better...but having a high athletic iq will not change results of reasoning and language skills--ie, it won't make anyone smarter as measured by the current iq


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@bentHnau

even if you expand the test of iq, you will still have a distribution, with some people on the high and low ends and everyone else somewhere in between

you can't make everyone equally "smart" just by playing around with iq tests


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> from sources like these:
> 
> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
> http://www.psytech.com/Content/Research/Intelligence-2009-08-11.pdf
> Intelligence Test Performance and Myers Briggs type | Personality Research


Third link's data is unreliable and there are no percentages, just numbers. Overall, all data given is hardly understandable. I dislike it. Plus it's only about visual pattern intelligence and it's stated, so it's not full IQ. That means, that correlation isn't between IQ and types. So that link is bad to strenghten your statement.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Nopes. It's in favor of Ti users


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

I got 135 btw


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

I'd say IQ tests are in favor of _specifically *Ni*_.



atamagasuita said:


> Nopes. It's in favor of Ti users


While it's easy to think so, that's definitely not the case.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Endologic said:


> I'd say IQ tests are in favor of _specifically *Ni*_.
> 
> 
> 
> While it's easy to think so, that's definitely not the case.


Please explain why.


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

Don't even bother arguing with ae1905. He doesn't engage with anything resembling coherent thought when pressed, despite his apparently constant agenda to somehow "prove" that his self-identified type is the most intelligent type - likely because some part of his core self rests with this notion. Save yourself pages of wasted time and wasted effort trying to be polite and just block him like I did. >_>



Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, IQ mainly determines a person's ability to problem solve. Whether you consider that to be valid or useful would be subjective but seriously, the PC nature of downplaying intelligence is so 2010.
> 
> Someone with a lower IQ won't be able to life very well which people don't like to talk about because sensitive feelings and offended. IQ on its own is completely meaningless as a determinant of success though. Fun fact: Most millionaires have an IQ in the 120 range.


I gave some more complete thoughts about why I don't consider IQ to be a "good enough" measure yet in another thread. I don't care about being PC.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

bentHnau said:


> That problem is in their heads. They can always take responsibility for their own feelings and stop paying so much attention to IQ tests. It's not like people are being sorted into college and careers based on IQ tests (not in any place I know of, anyhow), and even if they were, that's not a problem with the tests themselves. No one can force anyone to feel bad about her IQ or what they assume her IQ would be.


I don't disagree with you, though unfortunately I don't think the average person has typically developed that level of ego transcendence, either.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Shiver said:


> Don't even bother arguing with ae1905. He doesn't engage with anything resembling coherent thought when pressed, despite his apparently constant agenda to somehow "prove" that his self-identified type is the most intelligent type - likely because some part of his core self rests with this notion. Save yourself pages of wasted time and wasted effort trying to be polite and just block him like I did. >_>


Hm, I don't think ae1905 to be that bad but I suppose you have your reasons.



Shiver said:


> I gave some more complete thoughts about why I don't consider IQ to be a "good enough" measure yet in another thread. I don't care about being PC.


lol Sorry. That statement wasn't directed at you. That was more my disliking of PC culture the past few years completely downplaying intelligence so that some people aren't offended. From what I can tell, IQ tests test mainly for Ti, Ne, Ni, Te and proctored versions also test for Se and Si to some degree by including a performance (which is timed) and memory section.

It doesn't measure creativity, reaction time, hand-eye-coordination and kinesthetic intelligence at all. So yes Shiver, you are correct that IQ only measures a narrow aspect of intelligence but it is valid in measuring the types of intelligence it tests for. Real IQ tests aren't as limited as internet only ones since you can only test so much over the internet. I was tested when I was young for high aptitude and some IQ tests aren't even a pen and paper type test. I think adding in people skills such as some measure of EQ also needs to be included if IQ is ever to be a valid measurement of anything positive. Because as of right now, most psychologists only test for IQ to find out if a person has a learning disability of some sort.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

atamagasuita said:


> Please explain why.


First off, the IQ measures learning aptitude - perception.

Ni is great at sucking in information, finding and continuing patterns, good with numbers, etc., things that require learning power.

Ti, on the other hand, is a judgement function, not designed for said things. It takes what it knows and works with it. In IQ tests, you're always greeted with new information, hence your perception is always stimulated first. If you can't absorb the new information, Ti is useless.


----------



## tinyheart (Jun 17, 2016)

Not sure if I commented the same thing before but I'm pretty sure IQ tests could also be said to be tilted in favor of thinker types.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

@The red spirit the point is, you don't drive functions, they drive you.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

IDontThinkSo said:


> @The red spirit the point is, you don't drive functions, they drive you.


Car drives you? You see there are many physics stuff going on in the cars, that just don't let you drive as you want. One of those things could be limited grip. Also in case of having to drive, it looks like a never ending task.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> The difference between cars is that mx5 is rwd and 3 is fwd. You have to change your driving to almost opposite. FWD naturally understeers, while RWD naturally oversteers. It's opposite. To me it looks like a good example.


Ok but developing the skill to drive one doesn't force a person to focus less on the skill required to drive the other.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> Ok but developing the skill to drive one doesn't force a person to focus less on the skill required to drive the other.


The point is that skills are independent of what is prefered. Mazda 3 driver as much as he loves drifting would need to learn a lot before doing it properly.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Shiver said:


> You quoted a post that is nearly six months old to say that...?


Obviously if I had thought it that old when I first saw it, I wouldn't have quoted it.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> The point is that skills are independent of what is prefered. Mazda 3 driver as much as he loves drifting would need to learn a lot before doing it properly.


Yes, but there is more to the functions than preference. The preference starts early in life, then we develop the preferred functions to the exclusion of the non-preferred functions for years. The years of experience operating with the preferred functions, not the preference itself, is where the greater skill presumably comes from.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> Yes, but there is more to the functions than preference. The preference starts early in life, then we develop the preferred functions to the exclusion of the non-preferred functions for years. The years of experience operating with the preferred functions, not the preference itself, is where the greater skill presumably comes from.


Skill maybe come and don't matter much in typology. It's all about energy or in other words preferences ir what gets our emotional stuff in good shape.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> Skill maybe come and don't matter much in typology. It's all about energy or in other words preferences ir what gets our emotional stuff in good shape.


I don't understand half of what you've posted here. I wasn't saying that skill matters _in typology_, I was suggesting that skills related to preferred/developed functions might give people an edge in IQ testing.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Benty Fagatronicus said:


> I don't understand half of what you've posted here. I wasn't saying that skill matters _in typology_, I was suggesting that skills related to preferred/developed functions might give people an edge in IQ testing.


And my point is that dominant function is not always skillful and inferior not always left out without skills. Does it make sense?


----------



## Shiver (Nov 10, 2016)

King of Cups said:


> Obviously


_Hmm..._


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

No, their skewed in favour of intelligent people  That's the whole point.

On a more serious note, IQ tests normally comprise several components, such as verbal, numeric and non-verbal. The non-verbal part doesn't actually mean "an easy task to include those who can't read", it's an entirely separate skill in itself... it's related to spacial perception, holistic perception, etc. It is said that dyslexics are very good good at this. Is anyone complaining that the non-verbal test favours dyslexics? 

Some people do well in one dimension but not the others. Also, if you are a sensor _and_ you are truly good at practical, hands-on tasks, as sensors are stereotypically reported to be, that will be reflected somehow in your IQ scores, e.g. by exceptional spatial rotation skills. It's not like your hands could be good at doing things without your brain being involved.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

^ shit, I misspelled "they're" as "their" in a thread about IQ. I blame this on native speakers. I never had this problem when I still lived in my home country.


----------



## SoCalDave (Jul 15, 2017)

PiT said:


> I do agree that the N/S dichotomy probably introduces error in the results, but the way you talk about it makes it sound like it is some sort of plot to keep sensors down.


A glitch in The Matrix. I like plots. Anyway as far as I understand, an IQ test measures your ability to recognize patterns. Well in the real world or The Matrix as you will you have to be able to do something with the patterns your recognize.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> And my point is that dominant function is not always skillful and inferior not always left out without skills. Does it make sense?


Yes, it makes sense, but it's still tangential to my point. Skillful and without skill are extremes; I was talking about *relative levels* of skill.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

All these people talking about IQ tests without any idea about what is on them is ridiculous.



SoCalDave said:


> Anyway as far as I understand, an IQ test measures your ability to recognize patterns.


IQ tests measure all kinds of things beyond this; at least, they are intended to measure other things, and different tests measure different things.


----------

