# SAT Scores Correlated to Personality Type?



## alexlovesrock (Mar 21, 2010)

Dear All,

I wanted to ask this question because I have found no information on google or wiki about this so far. 

I was thinking whether SAT scores and a personality type are correlated. I once read that there was in fact a link between being an T instead of F and IQ scores, but I can't find that statement. 

For example is a person with a 800 on critical reading but a comparatively lower 650 on math more likely to be a certain type like INTP or ESTJ or ENFP etc... 

so... is there a link between certain abilities- verbal-mathematical-logical-etc, and your personality type?


thanks!

Alex


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

Your MBTI type is the measure of your preference, and thus theoretically, should have no effect on your abilities (and thus the test scores).

As for your other statement, I don't believe that being a T is correlated to your IQ type either (it's a judging function, being a T does not mean you can think better); again, your type is not the measurement of your abilities, nor do they have anything to do with it.
However, there may be correlation between the type that prefers certain activities and how good they are at said activity. For example, if theoretically, Ts prefer activities that involves puzzles and problem solving, etc. naturally, through practice and exposure, they may score better at tests that takes such activities in account.

Long story short, no, SAT scores are not correlated to your type.


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

Arioche said:


> Your MBTI type is the measure of your preference, and thus theoretically, should have no effect on your abilities (and thus the test scores).
> 
> As for your other statement, I don't believe that being a T is correlated to your IQ type either (it's a judging function, being a T does not mean you can think better); again, your type is not the measurement of your abilities, nor do they have anything to do with it.
> However, there may be correlation between the type that prefers certain activities and how good they are at said activity. For example, if theoretically, Ts prefer activities that involves puzzles and problem solving, etc. naturally, through practice and exposure, they may score better at tests that takes such activities in account.
> ...


Why do you act like you hate thinkers or something?

Even though I agree I think some types have personality wise tools to make them thirst for knowledge.
An ESFJ can be smarter then An INTP and vice versa.


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

NearsToys said:


> Why do you act like you hate thinkers or something?
> 
> Even though I agree I think some types have personality wise tools to make them thirst for knowledge.
> An ESFJ can be smarter then An INTP and vice versa.


I hate thinkers? D: Two of my closest friends are thinkers, and I am in relationship with one as well.
Also, my love for INTJs are notorious. :wink:

What I do hate, however, is when someone has a wrong definition of what "thinkers" are, a.k.a. believing that "think" in thinker actually point towards their ability to think.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

I took the old SAT. I'm an INFP and I got 800 on verbal and in the 600s on mathematics. I think it was 650. I can't really remember, it was a while back.


----------



## alexlovesrock (Mar 21, 2010)

not so sure about that...
some evidence like

there are links between atheism and intelligence and between T types and atheism 
and if t types arent smarter why do they count among their ranks bill gates, einstein, milton friedman, etc

also so in your "long story short" comment do you have evidence to back up that they are not correlated or are you just saying you personally believe there is not a correlation cause those are two very different things 

---- furthermore my question was also dealing not with just iq but specific skill sets like being very good at math or very good at critical reading etc

----- other thing to note there is a correlation between extremely high intelligence and depression/low quality of life, and i believe introversion as well.... in that study apparently they found that it is extremely difficult for people to relate to others who are 30 or more points below them


----------



## alexlovesrock (Mar 21, 2010)

timeless said:


> I took the old SAT. I'm an INFP and I got 800 on verbal and in the 600s on mathematics. I think it was 650. I can't really remember, it was a while back.




damn same score as me........ this is a good test case for me...... how F are you?


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

alexlovesrock said:


> damn same score as me........ this is a good test case for me...... how F are you?


I'm pretty F'ed up.

Oh, you meant in MTBI. I'm 58% F. I think it should be higher than that though.


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

alexlovesrock said:


> not so sure about that...
> some evidence like
> 
> there are links between atheism and intelligence and between T types and atheism
> ...


First of all, please note that correlation does not equal causation. Also by only listing the names of T "geniuses" you are disregarding the fact that there has been many F's who has been considered "geniuses" as well (Disregarding the fact that handpicking such sample of to try to represent the whole is simply ridiculous.) And to back up my claims, it should be pretty much self explanatory by studying the MBTI that this system has nothing to do with one's personal abilities, this is a personality test - a test of one's _preference, _after all. I have, however, already mentioned that preference for certain activities may account for one to score better in certain tests. Of course, what I mean to point out in this statement is that this does not mean that just by being a certain type, your ability is determined (just in case I was not making myself clear). And I also was not making a statement regarding only that of IQ types, I merely singled it out as it was part of your question.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

If it helps for other standardized tests, I got a 168 on the LSAT.


----------



## Grey (Oct 10, 2009)

Please keep your statements clear before this turns into a fight.

I don't believe there are many studies done on this, no - at least, not that I've seen. From personal opinion, however, I would have to argue that there might be a slight favouring of interests that could _lead_ to higher scores, but not guarantee them. Additionally, it's another thing to consider how these people taking the SAT would test on the MBTI. I'm sure many of them, even if they were not, would test as Thinkers simply due to the environment they're in. 

For the celebrity argument, I don't think that's reliable - how can we know who Bill Gates and all of these supposed Thinkers really are? We don't know them personally, and even if you rely on what they share in interviews, it's likely cut and edited by both themselves and those giving the interview. Bill Gates could be an ISFP, for all we know.


----------



## fn0rd (Mar 21, 2010)

Short answer: No

Longer answer: from Arioche "correlation does not equal causation."


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

There might be some correlations, but it does not reflect inherent intelligence or aptitude. As the David Myers' _Psychology _ demonstrates, SAT and GRE correlate better with each other than actual college success. I mean. Come on. A 650 on the math section and an 800, what does it really matter? Because college success is made of more things than simply being able to churn out answers on the SAT within a specific amount of time; most of Gardner's multiple intelligences are involved as well, and the SATs is horribly one-sided. 

ENFPs probably would score higher, on average, on interpersonal intelligence, while ISTJs would probably score higher on mathematics. If you're naturally predisposed to social intelligence, you might like socializing. As most people would tell you, if you socialize more, you get better at it. It's not to say ISTJs can't be as good, but due to their natural disposition to doing math and logic puzzles, they may gain an edge here and the ENFP may have an edge in social skills. It's quite impossible to test divergent thinking and social skills on paper.

That's why, in college admissions these days, the interview and essay are paramount. Numbers don't say much about a person (and given that my SAT scores are abysmal, I might have to rely on those. Everyone who has read my writing agree that I can be quite charismatic on paper). And -gasp-. I'm an INTJ who isn't good at math. What a surprise -eyeroll-


----------



## Korvyna (Dec 4, 2009)

I never took SAT, I took ACT instead.... And my friend that is an F scored higher on ACT than I did, And my T is one of the the only functions I'm positive about these days... I don't know exactly where she excelled, but I know overall she did have a higher score on ACT than I did.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Intelligence has nothing to do with, what your type is. It's how that person approaches the subject.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

I do not understand why so many people are quick to dismiss the original poster's theory. He was asking if there exists any CORRELATION, yet so many people immediately assume that there is no correlation or something along the lines of "correlation does not mean causation (I think this is pretty obvious)." I do not at all believe that one's personality type determines their intelligence, as different people with different types can have the same type of intelligence. This however does not rule out the possibility of correlation between one's type and one's intelligence.

While I do believe there could be a correlation, I do not believe my personal scores go towards supporting that :blushed:. I am INFP and I received Critical Reading: 650, Math: 800, and Writing: 640.


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

allisreal said:


> I do not understand why so many people are quick to dismiss the original poster's theory. He was asking if there exists any CORRELATION, yet so many people immediately assume that there is no correlation or something along the lines of "correlation does not mean causation (I think this is pretty obvious)." I do not at all believe that one's personality type determines their intelligence, as different people with different types can have the same type of intelligence. This however does not rule out the possibility of correlation between one's type and one's intelligence.
> 
> While I do believe there could be a correlation, I do not believe my personal scores go towards supporting that :blushed:. I am INFP and I received Critical Reading: 650, Math: 800, and Writing: 640.


I brought out the statement precisely because it was not being understood (correlation being used as an "evidence" and causation).

Also, I think other posters and I have agreed that there is a possibility that preferences in type's activities may account for some sort of correlation between certain type and certain type of tests -- only thing we "quickly dismissed" was details pertaining to the ability-type link, more precisely this statement: "so... is there a link between certain abilities- verbal-mathematical-logical-etc, and your personality type?"-- which is something that is denied by the MBTI system itself.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

Arioche said:


> I brought out the statement precisely because it was not being understood (correlation being used as an "evidence" and causation).
> 
> Also, I think other posters and I have agreed that there is a possibility that preferences in type's activities may account for some sort of correlation between certain type and certain type of tests -- only thing we "quickly dismissed" was details pertaining to the ability-type link, more precisely this statement: "so... is there a link between certain abilities- verbal-mathematical-logical-etc, and your personality type?"-- which is something that is denied by the MBTI system itself.



Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you all mean by the word "link". It seems that you are implying "link" to mean causation and I can see how it can be interpreted this way. I assumed that because the original poster initially used the word "correlation", he was making reference to the same word when talking about "a link between certain abilities- verbal-mathematical-logical-etc, and your personality type." I do believe there could be in fact a correlation between certain abilities and personality type, but I do not think that implies causation (or direct link). One cannot say conclusively that there is no correlation (not that I can say as of now that there is but I wouldn't be surprised). All correlations are meant to show are trends.


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

allisreal said:


> Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you all mean by the word "link". It seems that you are implying "link" to mean causation and I can see how it can be interpreted this way. I assumed that because the original poster initially used the word "correlation", he was making reference to the same word when talking about "a link between certain abilities- verbal-mathematical-logical-etc, and your personality type." I do believe there could be in fact a correlation between certain abilities and personality type, but I do not think that implies causation (or direct link). One cannot say conclusively that there is no correlation (not that I can say as of now that there is but I wouldn't be surprised). All correlations are meant to show are trends.


Yes, I think we took the context of the word "link" in a different way. Although I still believe that the OP has used link as a direct-causation (especially after looking at his reply to me), I can see how you could have taken the world in accordance with the initial correlation as well.


----------



## Blackened Marxist (Oct 26, 2010)

Not to brag but *rub knuckles on his chest* 2300.


----------



## Phoenix Down (Jul 2, 2010)

BS
That test can be learned.


----------



## Blackened Marxist (Oct 26, 2010)

Phoenix Down said:


> BS
> That test can be learned.




Easily, I suggest you get the giant book with the tests in it, do the problems _carefully._


----------



## SubterraneanHomesickAlien (May 16, 2010)

The SAT is the worst conceivable method of measuring intelligence I can think of. Even IQ tests are more accurate. 

Essentially, anybody can study SAT prep resources for months and get a _perfect_ or near perfect score on the test. That doesn't take intelligence in the slightest.

_"Mistaking knowledge for intelligence is like mistaking a glass of milk for a cow."_


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

Very interesting topic. Alone, the mbti has no possible indication of anyone's level of abilities. But the mbti considered with other factors like what you're exposed to, or expose yourself to, can indeed harbor some correlation of what you are skilled at. I agree with the last few posts, too. What is the most accurate indicator of someone's strongest inherent capabilities? Does such a test exist? How accurate is an iq test, really? What should be measured is someone's capacity to learn and in what direction it goes.


----------



## SarahWilliams (May 5, 2010)

timeless said:


> I took the old SAT. I'm an INFP and I got 800 on verbal and in the 600s on mathematics. I think it was 650. I can't really remember, it was a while back.


im infj. and ditto timeless.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

Persephone said:


> ENFPs probably would score higher, on average, on interpersonal intelligence, while ISTJs would probably score higher on mathematics. If you're naturally predisposed to social intelligence, you might like socializing. As most people would tell you, if you socialize more, you get better at it. It's not to say ISTJs can't be as good, but due to their natural disposition to doing math and logic puzzles, they may gain an edge here and the ENFP may have an edge in social skills. It's quite impossible to test divergent thinking and social skills on paper.


Honestly, I don't think you can make this generalization and I even see it as a little unfair and offensive. You're indirectly implying that an ENFP (or other similar types) would, on average, perform worse than an ISTJ on a test like the SAT since it doesn't test "social skills," also implying that we lack intelligence in other, more traditional, areas. Not to burst your bubble, but without being too specific, let's just say I scored above a 700 on all 3 sections of the test. That was without preparation. Personality type has nothing to do with intelligence, test-taking capability, or math and logic skills. Just because someone is an ISTJ does not mean they will be naturally gifted at math, and just because someone is an ENFP does not mean they will be only blessed with the gift of gab.


----------



## minavanhelsing (Aug 31, 2010)

Hmm...I agree that type has nothing to do with intelligence, but the SAT is primarily a measure of how well you _test_, (source: personal experience) and it would be interesting to see if certain types were predisposed to _testing_ better than others.

For example, I have an ENFP friend who is absolutely brilliant--straight-A student, APs, awards, etc, etc. I scored about one question higher on the SAT (we both got excellent scores), and I consistently score higher on _standardized_ tests (the PSAT and the easy ones the state gives out). However, she is better at non-multiple choice things like the AP tests, and scores higher than I do on upper-level math and science exams.

I'd say we study about the same amount (not very much) and probably have similar IQs, for all that's worth. Could personality type have anything to do with our differing strengths in testing?


----------



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

ISFP here. (supposedly one of the ones that hate school the most)

I love school and learning.
My IQ scores were high enough to get me into gifted classes starting in elementary school.
I got a 1920 on my SATs, although I don't know if thats considered high, low, or average.
It got me a scholarship though.


----------



## saturnne (Sep 8, 2009)

> That test can be learned.


Yep! I studied for it and got a 99.88 percentile.


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

The Seminal work on Myers Briggs Type, "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Myers (1980) gives statistics on the numbers of National Merit Scholars based on SAT tests. The SAT test clearly favors the "N" iNtuitive student, and "NPs" particularly. For national merit finalists, the percentage of "N" students was 82.7% compared to 17.3% for "S' sensing students. The highest proportion of Merit finalists who were male was INTJ=16.4% INTP= 15.9% INFP= 12.1% ENTP 11.6% and ENFP = 9.2% ENTJ 8.7% ENFJ 4.2% Of the sensors, ISTJ= 5.4% and ESTJ=3.5% ISTP= 3.1% all other S types were about 1% each. For women, the highest percentage of National Merit finalists were ENFPs=18.5% I have always found it interesting that women with an "F" preference accounted for the largest percentage of national merit scholars! 

More recent Myers Briggs Research published by Pyane & VanSant in the book "Great Minds Don't Think Alike" (2009) presents findings from High School Counselors, the the ACT is primarily a test of what has actually been learned which employes the Sensing function. Students with a preference for sensing performed better on the ACT than the SAT and the reverse was true for students with a preference for Intuition.(p. 83)


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

Your personal examples are confirmed by the research. Top scorers on the SAT are ENFP females!

The Seminal work on Myers Briggs Type, "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Myers (1980) gives statistics on the numbers of National Merit Scholars based on SAT tests. The SAT test clearly favors the "N" iNtuitive student, and "NPs" particularly. For national merit finalists, the percentage of "N" students was 82.7% compared to 17.3% for "S' sensing students. The highest proportion of Merit finalists who were male was INTJ=16.4% INTP= 15.9% INFP= 12.1% ENTP 11.6% and ENFP = 9.2% ENTJ 8.7% ENFJ 4.2% Of the sensors, ISTJ= 5.4% and ESTJ=3.5% ISTP= 3.1% all other S types were about 1% each. For women, the highest percentage of National Merit finalists were ENFPs=18.5% I have always found it interesting that women with an "F" preference accounted for the largest percentage of national merit scholars! 

More recent Myers Briggs Research published by Pyane & VanSant in the book "Great Minds Don't Think Alike" (2009) presents findings from High School Counselors, the the ACT is primarily a test of what has actually been learned which employes the Sensing function. Students with a preference for sensing performed better on the ACT than the SAT and the reverse was true for students with a preference for Intuition.(p. 83)


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

*Intuitives outperform Sensors on the SAT--ENFP females top the charts!*

The Seminal work on Myers Briggs Type, "Gifts Differing" by Isabel Myers (1980) gives statistics on the numbers of National Merit Scholars based on SAT tests. The SAT test clearly favors the "N" iNtuitive student, and "NPs" particularly. For national merit finalists, the percentage of "N" students was 82.7% compared to 17.3% for "S' sensing students. The highest proportion of Merit finalists who were male was INTJ=16.4% INTP= 15.9% INFP= 12.1% ENTP 11.6% and ENFP = 9.2% ENTJ 8.7% ENFJ 4.2% Of the sensors, ISTJ= 5.4% and ESTJ=3.5% ISTP= 3.1% all other S types were about 1% each. For women, the highest percentage of National Merit finalists were ENFPs=18.5% I have always found it interesting that women with an "F" preference accounted for the largest percentage of national merit scholars! 

More recent Myers Briggs Research published by Pyane & VanSant in the book "Great Minds Don't Think Alike" (2009) presents findings from High School Counselors, the the ACT is primarily a test of what has actually been learned which employes the Sensing function. Students with a preference for sensing performed better on the ACT than the SAT and the reverse was true for students with a preference for Intuition.(p. 83)


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Also from Gifts Differing, page 66:

“Conventional measures of mental ability, such as intelligence tests and scholarship, show some of the very highest records belong to INFP and INFJ types, who relegate thinking to last place or next to last. [I left out a sentence here since it’s another issue.] It would seem, therefore, that the mark of a thinker is not so much the possession of greater mental powers but having them run on a different track. Thinkers are at their best with the impersonal, and they are the most able to handle things that need to be done impersonally.”


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

A couple of facts. Micro Soft and Apple Computer are big users of Myers Briggs for many reasons, one of which is for team building and job satisfaction. If teams contain people of F and T, S and N--then the team has a whole brain!

The issue of SAT and Myers Briggs involves the design of the test first--the SAT contains a lot of inferential type questions which are cat nip to iNtuitives. Therefore the test favors intuitives and penalizes Sensing test takers. Another factor related to intuition is speed. In timed tests, the person who is intuitive can 'decide" (use their F or T judging function) faster because Intuition is faster--it needs fewer data points to "decide" which is the right answer. It's more helpful to think of F and T as "judging" functions and S and N as perception dimensions. T is considered more impersonal but not necessarily a more "decisive" preference. Sensing people are at a decided disadvantage in timed testing because they need more data to come to a conclusion. Intuition is like a short hand and amazingly accurate and fast in standardized testing.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Margaret McIntyre said:


> A couple of facts. Micro Soft and Apple Computer are big users of Myers Briggs for many reasons, one of which is for team building and job satisfaction. If teams contain people of F and T, S and N--then the team has a whole brain!
> 
> The issue of SAT and Myers Briggs involves the design of the test first--the SAT contains a lot of inferential type questions which are cat nip to iNtuitives. Therefore the test favors intuitives and penalizes Sensing test takers. Another factor related to intuition is speed. In timed tests, the person who is intuitive can 'decide" (use their F or T judging function) faster because Intuition is faster--it needs fewer data points to "decide" which is the right answer. It's more helpful to think of F and T as "judging" functions and S and N as perception dimensions. T is considered more impersonal but not necessarily a more "decisive" preference. Sensing people are at a decided disadvantage in timed testing because they need more data to come to a conclusion. Intuition is like a short hand and amazingly accurate and fast in standardized testing.


That may be the case, but that test is a bunch of bullshit. 5 hours of testing and I wanted to shoot myself. I stopped caring about half way through. I began to care about everything other than what I was supposed to be doing.

I'm honestly surprised I did pretty decent. I got like a 660 on Reading, 640 on Math, and 550 on Writing. I should have taken the test again when I was a little older. I was like 15 when I took the test. My attention span was horrendous back then.


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

I've been a certified Myers Briggs consultant for over 20 years and this type of "better than other types" question is irrelevant. Usually we are looking at Myers Briggs for understanding of the developing--maturing personality and how the component functions are working for us. My ENTJ type works best in analytical situations.


----------



## Margaret McIntyre (Jun 23, 2011)

Administration of the MBTI should take less than an hour.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

Margaret McIntyre said:


> Administration of the MBTI should take less than an hour.


SAT takes like 4-5 hours. That's the test I was referring to.


----------



## KosmoKnot (May 3, 2012)

*Yes, SAT scores *are* correlated with type, but not 'total intelligence'*



Arioche said:


> Your MBTI type is the measure of your preference, and thus theoretically, should have no effect on your abilities (and thus the test scores).
> 
> As for your other statement, I don't believe that being a T is correlated to your IQ type either (it's a judging function, being a T does not mean you can think better); again, your type is not the measurement of your abilities, nor do they have anything to do with it.
> However, there may be correlation between the type that prefers certain activities and how good they are at said activity. For example, if theoretically, Ts prefer activities that involves puzzles and problem solving, etc. naturally, through practice and exposure, they may score better at tests that takes such activities in account.
> ...


In Gifts Differing, there's a table showing standardized test scores with Type and although I don't have it in front of me, it basically came out in the following order (approximate order from my memory):

INTJ (top)
INTP
ENTJ
ENTP
INFJ
INFP
ENFJ
ENFP
ISTJ
ISTP
ESTJ
ESTP
ISFJ
ISFP
ESFJ
ESFP (lowest)

From this it appears, as expected, that N over S is the most important dimension to score relatively high on a standardized test, followed by T over F, then I over E, then a preference for J over P.

...and really this is about what I'd expect. I would expect a similar relation to IQ because of the similar enough construction of the tests. Are NTs "smarter" though? Of course not. There are simply different dimensions of intelligence. This is, in fact, precisely what we learn from Type Theory and it applies to various tests of cognition like any other domain. That there's a relation between Type and IQ, to me, shows that IQ tests are lacking adequate representation in a number of intelligence dimensions.

I'm an INTP and have a number of NF friends whom I intuit possess a comparable 'General Cognitive Power' to my own, although I'm confident I could outperform them on a number of 'abstract thinking' tests even though I'm certain their capacity, albeit in the more difficult to measure NF-realm, is equal to my own. It's just convenient at times for NTs that our particular brand of cognition can manifest as an aptitude for pencil and paper problems over the relatively difficult to measure facility with the manifold life-embedded dynamical grokking wherewithal exhibited by NFs.

Long story short, yes, your SAT scores are correlated to your type, but type is not correlated with 'total intelligence' (my hypothesis)

Although, I've always wondered...what would an iq160+ ESFJ look like?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Margaret McIntyre said:


> A couple of facts. *Micro Soft and Apple Computer are big users of Myers Briggs for many reasons, one of which is for team building and job satisfaction. * If teams contain people of F and T, S and N--then the team has a whole brain!
> 
> The issue of SAT and Myers Briggs involves the design of the test first--the SAT contains a lot of inferential type questions which are cat nip to iNtuitives. Therefore the test favors intuitives and penalizes Sensing test takers. Another factor related to intuition is speed. In timed tests, the person who is intuitive can 'decide" (use their F or T judging function) faster because Intuition is faster--it needs fewer data points to "decide" which is the right answer. It's more helpful to think of F and T as "judging" functions and S and N as perception dimensions. T is considered more impersonal but not necessarily a more "decisive" preference. Sensing people are at a decided disadvantage in timed testing because they need more data to come to a conclusion. Intuition is like a short hand and amazingly accurate and fast in standardized testing.


Cliffs: corporations run by rationals. :tongue:


----------



## Tyrant (Mar 8, 2012)

Took the test in 10th grade. Going to take it again later.

680 Critical Reading
580 Math
620 Writing

My parents were pretty darn pissed off, but I suck at math and have no idea what to do about it.


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

New SAT (March 2016 -)

740 Evidence-Based Reading and Writing
670 Math

Overall Score: 1410


It kinda proves nothing though


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I sure hope not. I think SAT is based upon schooling and test taking skills, not actual education.

Verbal: 670
Math: 300

I barely graduated high school and joined the Navy directly afterwards. I went to college after that. Funny thing, I didn't even need to take the SAT. Colleges didn't ask for them for veterans. All I needed was proof I graduated high school (which I had).


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Phoenix Down said:


> BS
> That test can be learned.


I knew someone who did exactly that, then went bragging about the score 🙄 (not a SAT, an online IQ test though)


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I sure hope not. I think SAT is based upon schooling and test taking skills, not actual education.
> 
> Verbal: 670
> Math: 300
> ...


The SATs and ACTs have been shaped by Common Core, which focuses on applicable, ‘real-world goals’ that prepare students to enter the workforce. Because of this, there’s lower emphasis on critical thinking (highly correlated with Ti and both Intuitions) in favor of data-analysis, strict application of concepts, and observational skills

Ironically enough, this was the exact opposite of what colleges wanted. Professors became frustrated that most students couldn’t think critically, nor could they engage in problem-solving outside of what they were concretely taught. If anything, the intuitive- and Ti- mindset was frowned upon in high school only for it to be glorified in college.

The SAT unfortunately focuses on your ability to read back the material they give you, and expects students to use nothing outside of what’s provided in the curriculum itself. Students are no longer able to think for themselves - nor do they try to. God forbid if a student questioned what was being taught, or attempted to look at the bigger picture.

What’s even more hilarious is that, for a school system that emphasizes ‘real-world goals’ and skills, it forgets to teach kids how to write a check.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

mino said:


> The SATs and ACTs have been shaped by Common Core, which focuses on applicable, ‘real-world goals’ that prepare students to enter the workforce. Because of this, there’s lower emphasis on critical thinking (highly correlated with Ti and both Intuitions) in favor of data-analysis, strict application of concepts, and observational skills
> 
> Ironically enough, this was the exact opposite of what colleges wanted. Professors became frustrated that most students couldn’t think critically, nor could they engage in problem-solving outside of what they were concretely taught. If anything, the intuitive- and Ti- mindset was frowned upon in high school only for it to be glorified in college.
> 
> ...


1. I was a public school teacher back in the late 90s. 

2. I took the SAT in 1991, LONG before the common core.


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

tanstaafl28 said:


> 1. I was a public school teacher back in the late 90s.
> 
> 2. I took the SAT in 1991, LONG before the common core.


Fair enough. I was not aware of this - so I apologize if I got off subject.


* *




Unfortunately, the education system has a history of being oriented against Ti. With the implementation of CCSS, however, it’s gotten pretty ridiculous. Kids don’t even know how to think for themselves anymore.




Even then, I guess the SAT/ACT was an awful way to test intelligence long beforehand. All it’s really testing is your ability to copy-and-paste information.


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

Electra said:


> I knew someone who did exactly that, then went bragging about the score 🙄 (not a SAT, an online IQ test though)


That sounds like the IQ-equivalent of getting INFJ on the 16Personalities test.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

mino said:


> That sounds like the IQ-equivalent of getting INFJ on the 16Personalities test.


It would be hard to say what their type was... I think a lot of people favor INFJ and "get it" on purpose tho...😄


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

Electra said:


> It would be hard to say what their type was... I think a lot of people favor INFJ and "get it" on purpose tho...😄


In that same way, a lot of people favor high IQ results and look up the answers.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

mino said:


> In that same way, a lot of people favor high IQ results and look up the answers.


Bingo!


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Terrible reasoning in this thread.



KosmoKnot said:


> That there's a relation between Type and IQ, to me, shows that IQ tests are lacking adequate representation in a number of intelligence dimensions.


Yes, clearly IQ tests are lacking if they don't conform to your expectations.


----------



## mino (Jul 20, 2020)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Terrible reasoning in this thread.
> 
> Yes, clearly IQ tests are lacking if they don't conform to your expectations.


Intelligence itself is really hard to define unless you get more specific, so a test which assesses your ‘intelligence’ can go wrong if it defines intelligence under one lens.

If it was a street-smarts test, it would probably be accurate. The same could be said if it was testing you for perfect pitch, or for other specified areas. “Intelligence” alone, however, is pretty vague.


----------

