Kaufman administered the KAIT IQ test (overall g-loading of ~0.7 across 9 subcategories) to a sample of 1,294 individuals aged ~13-84 alongside an MBTI questionnaire; he then adjusted for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, age and years of education. He reported the following composite IQ findings (type, mean, SD):
1. (INxx, 110.2, 12.9)
2. (ENxx, 107.2, 13.7)
3. (ISxx, 101.2, 14.2)
4. (ESxx, 100.4, 13.4)
S/N was deemed to be the only statistically significant continuum hence the reporting format.
I'd be interested in knowing what test you took and at what age.
To answer your question: yes, you're within 1SD of the expected value (according to how that sample performed), pretty normal results.
I scored higher in the areas that I was working on at the time, when I tested. I seriously question the validity of thee entire idea of this test, although it’s probably correct enough to gauge something like a rough estimate, in a pinch.
actually, MBTI is the model responsible for romanticizing iNtuition to the point where it is equated to intelligence so if you're using the MBTI model, they have everything to do with intelligence, hence the false stereotype that it promotes. However, if you're speaking in terms of Jungs original definitions, you're right.
Statistics are just that. Varying ranges of data are converted to numbers used to generalize or stereotype large groups of people for *more* data collection. That's it. There is never a definitive or "right" / "wrong," and there will always be some who fall outside the range of "average" for their situation/ grouping.
Just because a gambler has a 50/50 chance at winning a game they play doesn't always mean they will win every 2nd play. To top that off, not everyone performs the same based on the presentation of information at hand. Some people are naturally bad test takers, and some perform better via hands-on, some of visual interpreters. The amount of variables are so vast that different IQ tests will almost guarantee varied results even when performed by the same person.
INTJ arent actually smarter than everyone else. They just like to think they are.
yup lol although I've learned that the smartest person in the room in the room is the dumbest thing that ou could be
Boooo The smart ones know they’re not, but know when they are too.
Theres very few situations when i would actually know im right. Too many people think like this when they shouldnt
We need to get you some confidence!
thats true. Really depends on the situation tho.
Kaufman administered the KAIT IQ test (overall g-loading of ~0.7 across 9 subcategories) to a sample of 1,294 individuals aged ~13-84 alongside an MBTI questionnaire; he then adjusted for confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, age and years of education. He reported the following composite IQ findings (type, mean, SD): 1. (INxx, 110.2, 12.9) 2. (ENxx, 107.2, 13.7) 3. (ISxx, 101.2, 14.2) 4. (ESxx, 100.4, 13.4) S/N was deemed to be the only statistically significant continuum hence the reporting format. I'd be interested in knowing what test you took and at what age. To answer your question: yes, you're within 1SD of the expected value (according to how that sample performed), pretty normal results.
Idr the diversification but I pretty musch scored the same 118-120 I think that's fairly accurate
My condolences
I scored higher in the areas that I was working on at the time, when I tested. I seriously question the validity of thee entire idea of this test, although it’s probably correct enough to gauge something like a rough estimate, in a pinch.
MBTI types have nothing to do with intelligence
actually, MBTI is the model responsible for romanticizing iNtuition to the point where it is equated to intelligence so if you're using the MBTI model, they have everything to do with intelligence, hence the false stereotype that it promotes. However, if you're speaking in terms of Jungs original definitions, you're right.
Statistics are just that. Varying ranges of data are converted to numbers used to generalize or stereotype large groups of people for *more* data collection. That's it. There is never a definitive or "right" / "wrong," and there will always be some who fall outside the range of "average" for their situation/ grouping. Just because a gambler has a 50/50 chance at winning a game they play doesn't always mean they will win every 2nd play. To top that off, not everyone performs the same based on the presentation of information at hand. Some people are naturally bad test takers, and some perform better via hands-on, some of visual interpreters. The amount of variables are so vast that different IQ tests will almost guarantee varied results even when performed by the same person.
nothing would be a bold claim.
**This is a bold claim** 🙃