# Is there any merit to X type is Smarter than Y?



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

Another point to mention is that argument doesn't even fit Jung's cognitive functions theory very well. According to that theory, everyone has an N function, an S function, and F function, and a T function in the top four functions in their cognitive stack. It's not as if an "S" type lacks intuition, but they do prioritize the S function.

For example, this is my function stacking as an ENFP:

Ne Fi Te Si

I still have a thinking and sensing function in my top four functions. It is not at all true that I would only use extroverted intuition and introverted feeling. It's wholly inaccurate to claim that a sensor cannot be "intuitive." Everyone uses all eight cognitive functions according to the theory, but ones that are not in the top four are used less frequently and are considered "shadow functions." Here's a good link about the function theory: The 16 Type Patterns.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sadist said:


> *Iq tests tend not to take into account environmental factors and tend to be culturally subjective.*
> There is a reason that the measures of the test are disputed. Statistics can be easily be manipulated as their often meant to serve the means of the one asking the question.
> 
> Do you know what else correlates with race? Wang size.
> ...


It probably is.

IQ has been a subject of research and controversy for a long time and criticisms such as you made above are not new. Suffice it to say tests have been devised to address these concerns. I'm not aware of any that don't point to correlations between IQ and race that are not statistically significant.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ti is logic? Ok. This is a good test of a concept: What does the concept of Ti explain, that is not already explained by something else? Particularly within the framework of cognitive science? Where does it fit? You are saying that Ti is the mechanism of logical cognition?


Where does logic fit in cognitive science? Are you suggesting it has no place? Ti is just a label for logic. Jung didn't invent logic when he gave it this label. It was there long before him.



> Obviously science totally ignores those ideas of Jungian cognition. Modern philosophers of the mind don't even use them.


Does science ignore logic? It ignores Jung. But why can't Jung and science talk about the same thing, namely, logic? Do you see a contradiction?



> If you want to actually make those kind of claims about human action, like rational decision making, you need emotion. Other things. Nobody could do anything on an IQ test without emotion. I would actually say the very need to make your type look smart, or even take an IQ test, or care about one's IQ, is an emotional need.


I didn't create MBTI or IQ testing. And the correlation between the two is a matter of fact. What do any of these things have to do with my emotions or desires?


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> It probably is.
> 
> IQ has been a subject of research and controversy for a long time and criticisms such as you made above are not new. Suffice it to say tests have been devised to address these concerns. I'm not aware of any that don't point to correlations between IQ and race that are not statistically significant.


No, my point was you can use science and manipulate it to say anything in your favor.
Psychology is founded upon science right?
Look up Drapetomania 

Drapetomania is a disease that forces slaves to free captivity. 

What if we were to do a survey of drivers and it showed where we took 40 people of different ethnicities if in the study more drivers of X race tend to drive slower, can we deduct that they have slower reaction time and are less equipped to drive? Or is this merely a coincidence that we are only looking at from a narrow angle? 

I'm going with the latter.


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Where does logic fit in cognitive science? Are you suggesting it has no place? Ti is just a label for logic. Jung didn't invent logic when he gave it this label. It was there long before him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, see. The thing your not understanding is humans are not completely rational creatures, regardless of how much one would like to believe. If you took an iq test clearly you had a reason to do so. People don't do things for no reason. He's saying you had a reason to do so that was based in desire, which is not rational. You took the iq test because you wanted to do something with the information afterwards. Many people don't care about iq tests as they don't find validation in paper tests, telling them how well they can do in life. You clearly find satisfaction in that. Your satisfaction is not rational, as it fills a desire which is not rational,you needed to prove this to yourself for whatever reason.
Please don't pretend that all of your reasons are logical. No human is logical, you are clearly human.

I'm TI DOM TI dom is logic at it's best. I am logical for I am Ti.

I hope we're not going there, because the issue with many Ti doms who think this way is they can be oblivious to their own motivations. Don't believe me? Almost fought an INTP who kept being passive aggressive trying to dismiss their own emotions which were rooted in vengeance, coming up with psuedo logical conclusions for foul behaviors. 

Please, let's not play this.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sadist said:


> No, my point was you can use science and manipulate it to say anything in your favor.
> Psychology is founded upon science right?
> Look up Drapetomania
> 
> ...


Your point was that there are extraneous factors distorting reported IQ scores that are responsible for their correlation to race. You didn't challenge IQ testing, per se, only the process of controlling for these factors. Now you are claiming IQ testing was misused to achieve a desired and invalid result. Do you have any evidence to support your belief? And why does the correlation exist even after the factors you mentioned have been accounted for?

Your example of 40 people would be too small to draw conclusions. Including the one you drew. And I doubt size of test samples in studies of IQ were an issue. There are statistical techniques social scientists use to ensure their studies are statistically sound.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sadist said:


> No, see. The thing your not understanding is humans are not completely rational creatures, regardless of how much one would like to believe. If you took an iq test clearly you had a reason to do so. People don't do things for no reason. He's saying you had a reason to do so that was based in desire, which is not rational. You took the iq test because you wanted to do something with the information afterwards. Many people don't care about iq tests as they don't find validation in paper tests, telling them how well they can do in life. You clearly find satisfaction in that. Your satisfaction is not rational, as it fills a desire which is not rational,you needed to prove this to yourself for whatever reason.
> Please don't pretend that all of your reasons are logical. No human is logical, you are clearly human.
> 
> I'm TI DOM TI dom is logic at it's best. I am logical for I am Ti.
> ...


Where did I say I took an IQ test? And what does that have to do with MBTI, IQ testing, and the correlations between the two?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

I notice the people here who like to argue the loudest but have no sound arguments to speak of are Ni-doms. They may relate to this video:


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

@ae1905

It's also about the way stuff is framed. @Sadist's example "study" could have come to an opposite conclusion. For example, if you think slower drivers are safer drivers who obey traffic laws, those "races" that drive slower could be considered better drivers than the "races" that drive more quickly. We would need to look at the study to see what they designate as safe driving and consider if that is a valid definition of the term. People shouldn't just believe a study or the result of a test without examining the methodology and possible biases in the study.


----------



## Grain of Sugar (Sep 17, 2013)

Your intelligence: xMine: y= x+ 10 so yeah..Is like children saying they are always better at counting than the other one. Or older, or better at knitting (maybe I confuse children with my grandma) ^^Seriously, how do we measure intelligence? with lame IQ tests on the internet? if so, with or without time limit. If with(out) time limit, what about people who can (only) /can't think under time pressure? ..


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Your point was that there are extraneous factors distorting reported IQ scores that are responsible for their correlation to race. You didn't challenge IQ testing, per se, only the process of controlling for these factors. Now you are claiming IQ testing was misused to achieve a desired and invalid result. Do you have any evidence to support your belief? And why does the correlation exist even after the factors you mentioned have been accounted for?
> 
> Your example of 40 people would be too small to draw conclusions. Including the one you drew. And I doubt size of test samples in studies of IQ were an issue. There are statistical techniques social scientists use to ensure their studies are statistically sound.





I did. But my phone deleted it as I had to reply to re-do my message 3 times in order for it to go through.
I had initially said, that it doesn't take into account culture. I'm using a study I borrowed. 
The IQ tests mention golf. Why golf? Golf is commonly something associated with the upper class of certain groups.
Why not use something like 'dancing' or 'the electric slide' in a iq test.
My issue is that everything surrounding IQ tests are biased, skewed, and the testing is inadequate.
This guy sums it up in better words.
Are IQ Tests Biased? 





ae1905 said:


> I notice the people here who like to argue the loudest but have no sound arguments to speak of are Ni-doms. They may relate to this video:



Are you going to say anything of substance or attempt to retaliate in childish displays? I'm not here for that. You can do that on your own time. I find the fact that you make the comment about NI doms and derail the conversation ironic. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> If you want to actually make those kind of claims about human action, like rational decision making, you need emotion. Other things. Nobody could do anything on an IQ test without emotion. I would actually say the very need to make your type look smart, or even take an IQ test, or care about one's IQ, is an emotional need.


You clearly didn't understand this point, which at least 3 other people understand.






ae1905 said:


> Your example of 40 people would be too small to draw conclusions. Including the one you drew. And I doubt size of test samples in studies of IQ were an issue. There are statistical techniques social scientists use to ensure their studies are statistically sound.


Incorrect, or science would not be constantly evolving. You don't think the scientist from older times who came out with outdated studies on marijuana thought that their studies were sound? 
If science were sound there would be no room for growth and their would be no dispute about iq.
How about you give me proof that the measurements in which they were using were sound or are you just going to retort using inferior fe again?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

TurtleQueen said:


> @_ae1905_
> 
> It's also about the way stuff is framed. @_Sadist_'s example "study" could have come to an opposite conclusion. For example, if you think slower drivers are safer drivers who obey traffic laws, those "races" that drive slower could be considered better drivers than the "races" that drive more quickly. We would need to look at the study to see what they designate as safe driving and consider if that is a valid definition of the term. People shouldn't just believe a study or the result of a test without examining the methodology and possible biases in the study.





Sadist said:


> I did. But my phone deleted it as I had to reply to re-do my message 3 times in order for it to go through.
> I had initially said, that it doesn't take into account culture. I'm using a study I borrowed.
> The IQ tests mention golf. Why golf? Golf is commonly something associated with the upper class of certain groups.
> Why not use something like 'dancing' or 'the electric slide' in a iq test.
> ...


Again, IQ tests have been around for a long time and have faced a lot of criticism just like yours, so what makes you think the people who design and administer these tests haven't taken these criticisms into consideration and modified their work to remove these difficulties? Particularly since many test designers are academics whose work has to be reviewed by peers before being accepted for publication?



> Are you going to say anything of substance or attempt to retaliate in childish displays? I'm not here for that. You can do that on your own time.


"Susbstance"? Like your attributions of hidden and even nefarious motivations to IQ researchers and to me? INTJ, you're wasting our time. When you have an argument that relies on facts and sound reasoning rather than Ni paranoia, come back. Until then, watch the video and do some soul searching.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Again, IQ tests have been around for a long time and have faced a lot of criticism just like yours, so what makes you think the people who design and administer these tests haven't taken these criticisms into consideration and modified their work to remove these difficulties? Particularly since many test designers are academics whose work has to be reviewed by peers before being accepted for publication?


I think that anybody who cares about accurately and scientifically measuring something should be open to criticism. I.Q. tests may have improved over time, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be improved even more. An attempt to correct a problem doesn't mean that the problem no longer exists. Peer review doesn't always remove bias, and a criticism from someone outside the academic peer group of test designers is still a criticism worthy of consideration.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

I agree with @Grain of Sugar , maybe a _tiny bit_ influenced by the cute dog avatar X3. 

What's all the fuss over a silly IQ test? Say someone takes the test and finds out they have a high IQ. For the rest of the month they sit on the couch watching tv with a smug smile on their face because they are smart! What's the point if not going to use it?

Also, should we consider an expert on a specific topic intelligent? I would! But isn't it true that they could use hard-work and dedication to get there? Also, isn't the brain like a muscle and the more we use it the more intelligent we become? So aren't there other significant factors important to intelligence than IQ?

Also, I'm glad for this post! It is necessary for the health of the forums! I often feel that many users are pre-disposed to respond to certain types in a certain way, with hostility for some but favoring for others. Would be interested in seeing if one gains different reception if they create a new account as a different type!


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Again, IQ tests have been around for a long time and have faced a lot of criticism just like yours, so what makes you think the people who design and administer these tests haven't taken these criticisms into consideration and modified their work to remove these difficulties? Particularly since many test designers are academics whose work has to be reviewed by peers before being accepted for publication?
> 
> 
> 
> "Susbstance"? Like your attributions of hidden and even nefarious motivations to IQ researchers and to me? INTJ, you're wasting our time. When you have an argument that relies on facts and sound reasoning rather than Ni paranoia, come back. Until then, watch the video and do some soul searching.


See what you said does not even negate my point. Taking things into consideration and actually solving things are entirely different. Because something has been around for a long time it is not always accurate or useful. I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you and you keep childishly derailing this conversation into an attacks. I already told you I do not have time for that.


Honestly, you're going to tell me that this is a some of your sound argument?



ae1905 said:


> I notice the people here who like to argue the loudest but have no sound arguments to speak of are Ni-doms. They may relate to this video:







ae1905 said:


> "Susbstance"? Like your attributions of hidden and even nefarious motivations to IQ researchers and to me? INTJ, you're wasting our time. When you have an argument that relies on facts and sound reasoning rather than Ni paranoia, come back. Until then, watch the video and do some soul searching.


Shit like this does nothing for the discussion and I have addressed all of your points and you are failing to do so. Don't malign me with inferior Fe in place of actually debating the topic which you are now deflecting from.
This is why I am calling your attitude childish. Because it is, and you are wasting my time, you even resorted to maligning an entire cognitive type, blaming what you don't know on Ni.


Children get angry, kick their feet, and hurl insults when not satisfied. You are doing this and have not answered anything I have said since the last post.
This is the crap I'm talking about with the hyper logical TI b/s. Nothing you have said in your last post has covered new ground in this discussion. 

If your not going to address what I have said don't even bother responding

You are wasting my time.
You're attitude is immature when you resort to maligning cognitive types.

You can't tell me to do soul searching when you don't even realize that the crap you spewed in the last message is not logical facts, when I even asked you for a source. I at least gave you a source but you did nothing but continue to denigrate the conversation.


The fact that you think some random ass girl who happens to share the same four letters as me on a personality theory should represent me, and is supposed to represent my insights is entirely asinine. Do you even read what you write?


----------



## 1yesman9 (Jul 10, 2014)

Sadist said:


> Yeah, but my issue is. IRL this does not always apply, due to individuals having been raised in different circumstances.
> I'm not able to relate to all the threads with clumsy clutsy intx types because I have always been athletic. Those years of martial arts and having trainers in my family have taught me how to generate power using gravity and form.
> Or an ESTJ friend of mine, she's extremely good at anything theoretical, and has a compendium of knowledge on psychology, and many other topics simply because she has a hunger for knowledge.


It's never implied that this will apply to individuals in all circumstances. All behavioral manifestations in MBTI do not apply to individuals in all circumstances, because this is a cognitive, not behavioral theory. For example, due to a preference to make feeling judgments on the basis of the object ( Fe ), the observable behavior of actively displaying and seeking warmth might be corrected with the ENFJ/ESFJ types. Does this mean that dominant Fe users cannot be cold? No, the behavior of warmth will manifest when that cognition is put under a certain situation, while the opposite behavior, coldness will manifest when that cognition is put under a different situation. Fe dominance might make them much more pre-dispositioned to a need social warmth and validation that certain other types. If an INTJ is in a situation where he's been able to make himself athletic, then the more typical un-atheletic disposition of an INTJ is denied in this situation. The cognitive theory never implied the cognition couldn't manifest like this, and it's a misrepresentation of cognitive theory to think that they did.



Sadist said:


> For you to say "x type is good with their hands" is overly simplistic and seems like you misunderstand the types.


People seem to be focusing on the validity of saying "an se dom is good with his hands", and missing what I actually meant. There's a reason I said, "if I were to say..." The point isn't that Se doms are better with their hands, that's an obvious over simplification. The point is that if I were to highlight the proficiency of one type, it would not suddenly negate the proficiencies of other types. Saying that one type is better than another type at something does not imply that the other type is less proficient at everything. Again, the fact that people are connecting saying "this type is smarter than that type" ( subject to the implied definition of smarter ) to saying "this type is wholly better than this type" is evidence of a personal association with the claim of being smarter/more intelligent, that results in these people naturally seeing smartness as a far more important quality than other qualities. If they didn't see being smarter as more important than other things, then they wouldn't think a comparison of smartness equated to a comparison of worth.



Sadist said:


> You don't think these individuals have thoughts and greater insight into certain situations that you don't? If you do, then yes it sound like you are saying you are better than X type because if your just smarter than them in every way, then you would be as you'd be more competent then them enabling you to learn their skillsets more efficiently than them. If you relate a theoretical concept to something an esfp is interested in, they will catch on.


Firstly, don't represent a possible definition of smartness I set up: "If someone has the capacity to understand concepts in their entirety more quickly" as my definition of smartness. Secondly, it's dependent on the definition of smartness that the person who claimed "x type is smarter than y type" is going by. This thread asks if there is any merit to that claim. In the process of falsifying that claim, you would have to figure out wether or not the types that person relates to his definition of intelligence are reasonably relatable. This means you'd have to be subjective to his definition, and if you weren't then you wouldn't be able to argue him because your terms were different. You could of course claim that his definition of intelligence is irrelevant to what we meant by intelligence, but that wouldn't negate his argument. To say "you're smarter than them in every way" would be to imply multiple definitions of smartness. The recognition if multiple types of smartness is contradictory to what the question seeks to answer. It's the same as recognizing a different definition of smartness in response to one's claim that 1 type is smarter than the other.

Anyways, no, if the given definition of smartness is: "If someone has the capacity to understand concepts in their entirety more quickly", this would not imply that they are more proficient than another type in every way. While one type might understand a concept they're learning quicker, another type might be able to emotionally manipulate people more easily. Different proficiencies, and one being more pre-dispositioned to be effective at one proficiency is not evidence that other proficiencies exist. Yes, if you give a theoretical concept to an ESFP that's interested, they may catch on. But, there might be another type, that due the nature of that theoretical concept, is more pre-dispositioned to understand that theoretical concept than the ESFP. If smartness in this case is then related to understanding of that theoretical concept, then that type is more predisposition than the ESFP to be smart. 

Again, the claim is that there is no merit to claims that one type is smarter than the other. I am stating that it is logical reasonable to believe that if your definition of smartness is observing a manifestation of cognition ( which is what observations of smartness observe ), then it is going to be linked to a specific cognitive makeup ( mbti type ).



Sadist said:


> To base intelligence only on type is akin to basing intelligence on race a far as I'm concerned. Many users on here have said thee is a correlation between higher iq and those with a cognitive preference of perceiving. If this seemed to always be the case I wouldn't be dealing with a jealous intp who is 3 years older than myself irl.


No one implies 1 type will always score higher on intelligence types than another type. They imply that there is a statistical relationship between types, and their scores on IQ tests. This is an average. Obviously the study is falsifiable, but that's irrelevant, because MBTI in itself is not an empirical theory. Like I said earlier:



1yesman9 said:


> The incapacity for the methods used in a survey to effectively show correlation between type and personality doesn’t mean there’s no relationship between type and personality. It just means the methods we have aren’t able to generate a perfectly acceptable statistical representation of that relationship. Jungian Typology in itself is a conceptual and theoretical model, and if an attribute of what we’re defining as intelligence is directly relatable to a cognitive function, then Jungian Typology is related to intelligence.





1yesman9 said:


> This doesn’t apply to a theoretical ideology like Typology. This is not an empirical mode of thought, what directly constitutes whether or not intelligence is relatable to the 16 types would be whether or not certain cognitive functions highlighted by Jung lead to behavioral manifestations that we associate with our definition of “smartness” or “intelligence”.
> 
> For example, if good usage of the function Ti was theorized to lead to a lessened ability to associate personally with others, or express feeling with others, then it would be reasonable to say: Ti doms are more predispositioned to lack warmth than Fe doms. If one’s definition of smartness is associated with warmth, then Ti doms are predispositioned to be less intelligent than Fe doms.
> 
> ...





Sadist said:


> I also find it strange that it seems to be the intp's on here who are quick to defend the notion that x type is smarter than y.


This thread has also shown plenty of INTPs doing the opposite, and plenty of other types defending it.



Sadist said:


> intelligence clearly is what society defines it as which is why iq tests have questions about golf.


IQ tests do not define intelligence. Intelligence is defined by what the person who says it means to suggest, like all words. If you're using the word smart or intelligent in a general context, then you probably mean to imply what society usually means to imply when they use the world "smart"/"intelligent". In the end, it's irrelevant what the definition is in the falsification of the argument "type x is smarter than type y", because they define the terms. Still, society does determine the meaning of the general usage of a word. It doesn't matter what an IQ organization calls intelligence, if that's not what the far majority of society means when they call someone smart. If someone then says type is related to what society means by "smart", then what an IQ test defines would be irrelevant, because the test was dealing with what society meant when they said "smart".


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

sure, if I am X and everyone else is Y


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

1yesman9 said:


> It's never implied that this will apply to individuals in all circumstances. All behavioral manifestations in MBTI do not apply to individuals in all circumstances, because this is a cognitive, not behavioral theory. For example, due to a preference to make feeling judgments on the basis of the object ( Fe ), the observable behavior of actively displaying and seeking warmth might be corrected with the ENFJ/ESFJ types. Does this mean that dominant Fe users cannot be cold? No, the behavior of warmth will manifest when that cognition is put under a certain situation, while the opposite behavior, coldness will manifest when that cognition is put under a different situation. Fe dominance might make them much more pre-dispositioned to a need social warmth and validation that certain other types. If an INTJ is in a situation where he's been able to make himself athletic, then the more typical un-atheletic disposition of an INTJ is denied in this situation. The cognitive theory never implied the cognition couldn't manifest like this, and it's a misrepresentation of cognitive theory to think that they did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, since you've elaborated. I can agree with most of what you're saying, and I guess I should have elaborated more on the vague definition of 'smart' 



There's only one thing....




1yesman9 said:


> Again, the claim is that there is no merit to claims that one type is smarter than the other. I am stating that it is logical reasonable to believe that if your definition of smartness is observing a *manifestation of cognition* ( which is what observations of smartness observe ), then it is going to be linked to a specific cognitive makeup ( mbti type ).


Hold, on though.... Isn't this actually not the case, because cognition manifests differently in every type. Do you have an explanation for that? 

An INTP, and and ESFP are going to show their knowledge in very different ways. 

An ESFP who is good in mathematics is probably going to use it in a very different way than an INTP who is good in mathematics. It just seems that the INTP has the one that is more easily measurable because of the nature of the functions used. If that is the case then wouldn't that make tests of cognition biased or inaccurate.





johnson.han.3 said:


> sure, if I am X and everyone else is Y


I notice this seems to be the case.











1yesman9 said:


> This thread has also shown plenty of INTPs doing the opposite, and plenty of other types defending it.


Hey, man I didn't mean to come off a certain way toward your type. I'm more involved on Personality Cafe more now than I was before, and am taken by surprise by the attitudes of a certain group of INTP on here. 
I've been on INTJF so I know ridiculousness is not limited to INTP, and I don't want to give off the impression, that I think all INTPs are X, or Y, or even that their cognition is lesser. I am against that.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

johnson.han.3 said:


> sure, if I am X and everyone else is Y


then I'm Y and everyone else is X


----------



## 1yesman9 (Jul 10, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Sorry for being pedantic, but dichotomy means two things, not 16, 'whether' isn't spelled that way, and I think you mean 'idea'. Anyhow (now that my ego is properly inflated), I appreciate the point, but MBTI also is meant to describe inclinations towards certain behaviors, which doesn't necessarily translate to aptitude; It's quite possible to be emotional and highly analytic (IQ smart, more or less).


Yes, but are those analytical types not more pre-dispositioned to use the functions that make them analytical more maturely than the emotional types? In that case, if being highly analytical is related to smartness, then wouldn't those types be more pre-dispositioned to fit that definition of smart?

and, thank you for the corrections. i'm a horrible person tears***


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sadist said:


> See what you said does not even negate my point. Taking things into consideration and actually solving things are entirely different. Because something has been around for a long time it is not always accurate or useful. I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you and you keep childishly derailing this conversation into an attacks.
> 
> I already told you I do not have time for that.
> 
> Honestly, you're going to tell me that this is a some of your sound argument?


you: but things like socio-economic status can affect IQ scores!

Me: that's old criticism and has been addressed by academic researchers 

you: mommy! he's picking on me again! why won't he answer my question?

your mom: shut up johnny, and stop bothering the nice man

Me: that's OK mrs sadist, I'll humor johnny. johnny, that page you linked concluded:



sadist's link said:


> So are IQ tests biased? It depends. The answer is likely *"No" if you limit interpretations to IQ scores and what they are shown to be*, but "Yes" if you extend interpretations to "intelligence," whatever that is.


Me: so even your link concluded there was probably no bias when the interpretation of results is confined to IQ, the quantity measured by the tests. And IQ _is _the quantity I have been talking about it here, isn't it, johnny? Now go back to your mommy and be a good little sadist.



sadist said:


> Shit like this does nothing for the discussion and I have addressed all of your points and you are failing to do so. Don't malign me with inferior Fe in place of actually debating the topic which you are now deflecting from.
> This is why I am calling your attitude childish. Because it is, and you are wasting my time, you even resorted to maligning an entire cognitive type, blaming what you don't know on Ni.


You accused the researchers of hiding a political agenda. You also claimed I did an IQ test and that my score was the "real reason" I believe there is a correlation between IQ and type and IQ and race. THAT is Ni paranoia. It's right there on this thread for everyone to read.



sadist said:


> Children get angry, kick their feet, and hurl insults when not satisfied. You are doing this and have not answered anything I have said since the last post.
> This is the crap I'm talking about with the hyper logical TI b/s. Nothing you have said in your last post has covered new ground in this discussion.
> 
> If your not going to address what I have said don't even bother responding
> ...


You have no insights. Only Ni paranoid suspicions. Your points are silly, like your example of a study using only 40 test subjects each of a different ethnicity. That by itself proves you don't know anything about science or statistical methods.


----------



## 1yesman9 (Jul 10, 2014)

Sadist said:


> There's only one thing....
> 
> Hold, on though.... Isn't this actually not the case, because cognition manifests differently in every type. Do you have an explanation for that?
> 
> ...


I meant that the observable manifestations could be linked to cognitive functions in certain positions ( cognitive makeup ). Like if your definition of smart was related to mathematics, and a certain type was more pre-dispositioned to be proficient at mathematics, then that type would be more "smarter" than a type that was less pre-dispositioned to be proficient at mathematics. Not that one type's knack for mathematics will be more recognizable than another's. That the proficiency for math is more easily related to one cognitive makeup than another. It's not about the means for observing that proficiency, because wether or not that correlation exists isn't verified externally, but verified theoretically, but the theories of Jung, since that's what we're relating it to.

I also didn't take offense to anything you said about INTPs. I just gave reasoning to why it might not define the entire type. 

There probably is a connection somewhere between being X, and defending X, I just don't really think that's relevant. If people are supporting the idea because of ego, then at least that idea is getting more lawyers. If the idea is wrong, then it will become apparent, and if the idea is right, then it will become apparent. Giving each idea fair representation only helps in the process of coming to that truth.


----------



## Sadist (May 23, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> you: but things like socio-economic status can affect IQ scores!
> 
> Me: that's old criticism and has been addressed by academic researchers
> 
> ...



Your so hypocritical till its hilarious.

Again. You;ve addressed nothing.
WHAT I SAID WAS THAT ANYONE WHO TAKES AN IQ TEST HAS AN EMOTIONALLY BASED REASON BUT APPARENTLY THAT FLEW OVER YOUR HEAD. EVEN WHEN I CORRECTED MYSELF THE POINT STILL STANDS! DO YOU NEED ME TO RE-PASTE THE CONVERSATION FOR YOU? You have yet to refute anything only throw around petty insults. Just stop if you have nothing to add.

I don't care what you think of my opinion you can't even defend your own.




Sadist said:


> I did. But my phone deleted it as I had to reply to re-do my message 3 times in order for it to go through.
> I had initially said, that it doesn't take into account culture. I'm using a study I borrowed.
> The IQ tests mention golf. Why golf? Golf is commonly something associated with the upper class of certain groups.
> Why not use something like 'dancing' or 'the electric slide' in a iq test.
> ...






Sadist said:


> No, see. The thing your not understanding is humans are not completely rational creatures, regardless of how much one would like to believe. If you took an iq test clearly you had a reason to do so. People don't do things for no reason. He's saying you had a reason to do so that was based in desire, which is not rational. You took the iq test because you wanted to do something with the information afterwards. Many people don't care about iq tests as they don't find validation in paper tests, telling them how well they can do in life. You clearly find satisfaction in that. Your satisfaction is not rational, as it fills a desire which is not rational,you needed to prove this to yourself for whatever reason.
> Please don't pretend that all of your reasons are logical. No human is logical, you are clearly human.
> 
> I'm TI DOM TI dom is logic at it's best. I am logical for I am Ti.
> ...


What do you know, look which TI user is calling their bullshit 'logic' 
If my points were so invalid you'd be able to invalidate them instead of the 3rd grade emotional displays that I'm seeing.

You act like it's so far fetched for a study to not take into consideration the cultural differences of its people. Science is not perfect. If you think that is far fetched, sir please take a social science class. I Didn't only imply socio-economic YOU DID. see that? See how you keep putting words in my mouth I didn't say? That how logical you are? All you've proved is that you can type like your full of turkey. That's not logic either.

No one implied being picked on. You just make direct insults as you cannot defend your point so you derail it into "OH YEAH WELL YOU DON'T KNOW THIS" Seriously, Do you really have the right to insult anyone else's thought process Mr. superiority complex? ISTJ's aren't smart? YOU said that in another thread You implied ISTJ's an entire cognitive type were unintelligent based off of the fact that YOU have never met any intelligent one. Clearly YOU and solely you get to make decisions of what type is intelligent Clearly you don't know how people work, if you think you can generalize an entire cognitive type like you continue to do in absence of an argument? The 40 people was an extreme example made for a point, but your just being nit-picky because you have nothing of substance to say.


Drapetomania, and willy lynch were political studies based on psuedo science which occurs everyday. How does IQ correlate you may ask? Because one could just as easily use the test to determine since X group of people are less apt than Y. Than we should Z with them. Can you really tell me it's paranoia when the certain society in question has a long complicated history with race? Honestly, to call this paranoia is an oversimplification.

My whole basis was not that IQ was used to malign a marginalized group, you are missing one of the key points and misconstruing what I'm saying to serve your own ends, I also mentioned that they don't take into account cultural difference, which will produce different results and the "objective measures" are only based upon certain mainstream groups way of life, which is not an objective way of measuring people who come in a wide spectrum.

You malign me and dismiss what I'm saying and over simplify it with your Ti-god complex, that's visible from a mile away, and even try and define me, and even attempt to tell me of my own mentality (NI paranoia) you try to define me some faceless dude on the internet with some silly ass video, and call it logic. Every time you reply you just appear more and more petty and the conversation drops one tier at a time. Just stop.

Do you talk to people like this in real life?
The same way I represent myself online is the same way I represent myself in person.
can you say the same? Or is all this random baseless insult throwing easy for you because your online fighting faceless people. I can handle myself in real confrontations so I don't need to lash out online at those with no faces.

Look dude, I'm just going to say this and be done. You've been in an emotional hissy-fit for about a page now. You can justify it in your head as much as you want that your being rational, but I want you to calm down, and come back tomorrow and see if that's the case.


"That's old criticism and has already been addressed by researches"
You give no evidence of your claims. Just because researches have discussed it does not make it final, if you dispute that science is still evolving then clearly you don't know shit about science.
Can you articulate your point for me as to why it's valid or am I asking you too much?
"Minority children may not appreciate the demands, achievement stimuli, time pressures, competitive edge required… and may not see the test in the same way. Sattler says there may be something to this, but* we need data for it*." 

The tests not applying to everyone says a lot about the test in itself.


"*Sattler also discusses differences in norms. The correct answer to the wallet question is "return it," and some say this is a cultural value that is consistent with religious, legal, and moral codes of conduct. If a different culture doesn't hold that value, then it isn't an issue of test bias that they differ on their score, but of cultural differences*."

Regardless if it says it isn't bias. It is bias if it does not measure everyone objectively. Shouldn't IQ tests be as objective as possible? Blaming cultural difference on a test that claims objectivity is bias. Sorry, but it is.


here's another source
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/ford5.html

Dude, my point is the framework in which IQ tests are measured is flawed.

IQ is how societies determine what they value as "intelligence" and that is a flawed way to look at things, as it does not take into account many factors, if you look at it from that perspective then intelligence should be something objectively measurable not subjectively measurable.



Am I really so paranoid because I don't agree with your point or are you just being bigoted?

To design truly "culture free" tests would be to design tests that don't measure anything.
But to assign so much value to a test that measures an intelligence based on a culture that is not fully agreed upon is biased in itself. Two guys from different sides of the track should not be expected to conform to the same standard of culture, and an IQ test that is so culturally exclusive is one not worth putting too much stock into. 
" intelligence tests also carry the burden of being associated with innate ability, particularly by laypersons and those unfamiliar with the purposes and limitation of test;"


Since I'm so paranoid. Go read this: He agrees with me, and what I've been saying all along.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html



1yesman9 said:


> I meant that the observable manifestations could be linked to cognitive functions in certain positions ( cognitive makeup ). Like if your definition of smart was related to mathematics, and a certain type was more pre-dispositioned to be proficient at mathematics, then that type would be more "smarter" than a type that was less pre-dispositioned to be proficient at mathematics. Not that one type's knack for mathematics will be more recognizable than another's. That the proficiency for math is more easily related to one cognitive makeup than another. It's not about the means for observing that proficiency, because wether or not that correlation exists isn't verified externally, but verified theoretically, but the theories of Jung, since that's what we're relating it to.
> 
> I also didn't take offense to anything you said about INTPs. I just gave reasoning to why it might not define the entire type.
> 
> There probably is a connection somewhere between being X, and defending X, I just don't really think that's relevant. If people are supporting the idea because of ego, then at least that idea is getting more lawyers. If the idea is wrong, then it will become apparent, and if the idea is right, then it will become apparent. Giving each idea fair representation only helps in the process of coming to that truth.


Yeah, I can agree with that.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Lol. The author of the article is most likely a feeler. Not only did he equate intelligence with "influence over others" and "having other people rely on you", but proceeded that he did so because "feelers know that they aren't stupid", "intelligence is a hard thing to define and even harder to measure" and "our society leaves out many of the important emotional and personal aspects when measuring intelligence" concurrently arguing that S vs. N is an evident criterion of intelligence.:frustrating:

No offence meant, but logic of this guy is derp.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Where does logic fit in cognitive science? Are you suggesting it has no place? Ti is just a label for logic. Jung didn't invent logic when he gave it this label. It was there long before him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Logic already has a label. Did you not get that? What does it explain, that is already not explained? 

You didn't create MBTI or IQ testing, yet you continue to try to make yourself look intelligent because of them. Another emotional breakdown of yours, when you attack others and types, pigeonhole them. You are totally frivolous.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Sadist said:


> Your so hypocritical till its hilarious.
> 
> Again. You;ve addressed nothing.
> *WHAT I SAID WAS THAT ANYONE WHO TAKES AN IQ TEST HAS AN EMOTIONALLY BASED REASON *BUT APPARENTLY THAT FLEW OVER YOUR HEAD. EVEN WHEN I CORRECTED MYSELF THE POINT STILL STANDS! DO YOU NEED ME TO RE-PASTE THE CONVERSATION FOR YOU? You have yet to refute anything only throw around petty insults. Just stop if you have nothing to add.


Assuming that is the case, why wouldn't it apply to the "disadvantaged" types and races, too?

And these are scientific studies, not tests random people take on the internet. Researchers CHOOSE the test subjects on the bases of the study and statistical criteria. If motivation is a factor, it can be controlled for, too.



> Am I really so paranoid because I don't agree with your point or are you just being bigoted?


You are paranoid because you claimed the IQ studies are politically motivated WITHOUT presenting ANY EVIDENCE to back up this claim. You are paranoid because you claimed my supposed IQ score is the reason I stated IQ is correlated to type and to race. Again, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. You are paranoid because you claim all statements, even statements of FACT, are motivated by emotions. Again, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE.

You believe things that you have no evidence for. You are fucking Ni paranoid. Get it?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Logic already has a label. Did you not get that? What does it explain, that is already not explained?


Precisely. Nothing. Jung's idea of _archetypes _and Ti was WRONG and therefore added NOTHING. Ti is just logic. "Ti" is just another label for logic. I said that here. I said that in the other thread where _you tried to argue Jung's idea of Ti and archetypes was right_. So now you're blowing it out of both holes in your head.

Hypocrite.



> You didn't create MBTI or IQ testing, *yet you continue to try to make yourself look intelligent because of them. Another emotional breakdown of yours, *when you attack others and types, pigeonhole them. You are totally frivolous.


More Ni paranoid personal attacks. You have a habit of replying to my posts and always in this irrational, illogical, nonsensical, personal, resentful manner. Let me suggest you stop. You're not only wasting my time but the time of others reading this.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Assuming that is the case, why wouldn't it apply to the "disadvantaged" types and races, too?
> 
> Do you know what at scientific study is? Apparently not. Researchers CHOOSE the test subjects on the bases of the study and statistical criteria, NOT because the subjects want to take a test. These are CONTROLLED studies. Not tests people take themselves on the internet.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> no evidence of emotions. lol. I called it.


These are ad hominem arguments, personal attacks. They are the debate form of the low blow, used often as a last resort when a person has been backed into a corner and has no real arguments left to deliver. 

Ni-doms, in particular, have a tendency to cheat in this way. You have two examples right here. Study them. You will encounter it again both here and irl.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> no evidence of emotions. lol. I called it.


What does my contempt for you and INTJ here have to do with the FACT that IQ is correlated to both type and race? Only a paranoid Ni-dom could imagine there is a causal connection.


----------

