5 ms·

Corporations and schools are biased toward IQs in the 115-125 range, so it is likely predictive of advancement. On the other hand, even higher IQs are associate

Corporations and schools are biased toward IQs in the 115-125 range, so it is likely predictive of advancement. On the other hand, even higher IQs are associated with greater earnings. Corporations (and schools) are also biased toward Te users (ENTJ, ESTJ, INTJ, and ISTJ) and extrovert + judger types (ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, and ESFJ).

jrs95 8y ago
Those personality types are a lot more pseudo-scientific than IQ
- jhbadger 8y ago
  Yes, the story of Myers-Briggs is really amazing -- how a system developed by two people with no training in psychology just invented a system with no more basis than astrology and convinced the corporate world to use it. There was a recent book "The Personality Brokers" by Merve Emre that tells the story.
bjoli 8y ago
The jung/MB tests are probably the most unscientific drivel that is in wide use. It is insulting to human intelligence that is given any significance at all.
- andrewingram 8y ago
  I've often wondered about this, because I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific. It's just categorisation, it doesn't make predictions. I enjoy reading the different type descriptions, unlike horoscopes (which are basically barnum phrases) they do seem to describe me with a high degree of accuracy. Then again, I stopped at this point, and never dived deeper into all that Jungian shadow self stuff which I fully accept started to sound like pseudo-scientific drivel.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    > I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific. If you pick the axis on scientific criteria, then it can be scientific. If you just make them up, then it's not. Myers-Briggs is the latter.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >It's just categorisation, it doesn't make predictions. If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. The Big Five model of personality is reasonably scientific, because it has some predictive power. If you give someone a standardised test to measure their Big Five traits, you can make better-than-chance predictions about their behaviour in the real world. If they're high on openness to experience, they're more likely to vote Democrat. If they're low on agreeableness and conscientiousness, they're more likely to have a criminal record. The MBTI has a tiny little bit of predictive power, but it's grossly inferior to most psychometric instruments with similar aims. IMO the biggest problem with the MBTI is that it presupposes false dichotomies. Most psychological traits are approximately normally distributed, with most people being somewhere near the average. It makes no sense to categorise people as either "Thinking" or "Feeling" while excluding the middle. Knowing that someone is ESTJ or ISFP tells me almost nothing about them; they might be almost completely average on every domain, or they might be extreme on one of them. This false dichotomy also gives the MBTI very poor reliability - someone who is very slightly above average on extraversion might be slightly below average next week or next month.
    - andrewingram 8y ago
      > If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. This was kind of my point, if it's not science, criticising it as unscientific doesn't seem to be a particularly meaningful activity. One has to consider how MBTI is used by people in the real world, I've come across two scenarios in my own life: 1) A business does it during some form of team day or off-site. The main purpose is to highlight that people think/operate in different ways and have different value, and an effective team is sensitive to this and works within it rather than trying to fight it. My comment is that the _specifics_ are kind of irrelevant, as long as the message that people are different is communicated effectively. 2) People use it in their personal lives as a form of reassurance, they've found something that they feel describes themselves and perhaps is useful in explaining themselves to others. This won't happen for the people who are close to the centre of the various axis, because they'll feel that more than one of the "types" could apply to them. But for the people who are closer to the extremes (like myself) find them to be rather accurate. And we're the people who'll find value in it. So my comment here is simply that if someone thinks their MBTI type is meaningful, it probably is -- because for the purposes they care about (how do I explain myself to others, or similar), it actually is pretty helpful.
afpx 8y ago
Maybe the high IQ-ers just work harder because there’s higher expectation?
- sintaxi 8y ago
  Its true that IQ is only one of many important factors that lead to success. However IQ on its own turns out to be an excellent predictor of success and also happens to be easy to measure. Most other traits are extremely difficult to quantify.
  - afpx 8y ago
    But, how does one remove the bias introduced by the subject (and their social group) knowing of their high IQ score? For an objective analysis, wouldn’t some of the low-IQ kids have to believe they are high-IQ and vice versa? That is, how much does the act of labelling someone low or high IQ influence their results?
    - sintaxi 8y ago
      Good question. I suppose to test that you would have to give "placebo" scores to some people to see what impact knowing your score has - if any.
- baccheion 8y ago
  At 115-125, there is an edge over other students. On the other hand, it's not strong enough for others to notice. Also, the typical curriculum is challenging enough to prevent boredom. Then a bias appears to have been institutionalized, as according to corporations, 115-125 equals capable enough to do the job + not smart enough to synthesize (ie, parrot).

jrs95 8y ago

Those personality types are a lot more pseudo-scientific than IQ

jhbadger 8y ago
Yes, the story of Myers-Briggs is really amazing -- how a system developed by two people with no training in psychology just invented a system with no more basis than astrology and convinced the corporate world to use it. There was a recent book "The Personality Brokers" by Merve Emre that tells the story.

bjoli 8y ago

The jung/MB tests are probably the most unscientific drivel that is in wide use. It is insulting to human intelligence that is given any significance at all.

andrewingram 8y ago
I've often wondered about this, because I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific. It's just categorisation, it doesn't make predictions. I enjoy reading the different type descriptions, unlike horoscopes (which are basically barnum phrases) they do seem to describe me with a high degree of accuracy. Then again, I stopped at this point, and never dived deeper into all that Jungian shadow self stuff which I fully accept started to sound like pseudo-scientific drivel.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  > I can't see how simple categorisation across 4 axis can be either scientific or unscientific. If you pick the axis on scientific criteria, then it can be scientific. If you just make them up, then it's not. Myers-Briggs is the latter.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >It's just categorisation, it doesn't make predictions. If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. The Big Five model of personality is reasonably scientific, because it has some predictive power. If you give someone a standardised test to measure their Big Five traits, you can make better-than-chance predictions about their behaviour in the real world. If they're high on openness to experience, they're more likely to vote Democrat. If they're low on agreeableness and conscientiousness, they're more likely to have a criminal record. The MBTI has a tiny little bit of predictive power, but it's grossly inferior to most psychometric instruments with similar aims. IMO the biggest problem with the MBTI is that it presupposes false dichotomies. Most psychological traits are approximately normally distributed, with most people being somewhere near the average. It makes no sense to categorise people as either "Thinking" or "Feeling" while excluding the middle. Knowing that someone is ESTJ or ISFP tells me almost nothing about them; they might be almost completely average on every domain, or they might be extreme on one of them. This false dichotomy also gives the MBTI very poor reliability - someone who is very slightly above average on extraversion might be slightly below average next week or next month.
  - andrewingram 8y ago
    > If it doesn't make predictions, it isn't science. This was kind of my point, if it's not science, criticising it as unscientific doesn't seem to be a particularly meaningful activity. One has to consider how MBTI is used by people in the real world, I've come across two scenarios in my own life: 1) A business does it during some form of team day or off-site. The main purpose is to highlight that people think/operate in different ways and have different value, and an effective team is sensitive to this and works within it rather than trying to fight it. My comment is that the _specifics_ are kind of irrelevant, as long as the message that people are different is communicated effectively. 2) People use it in their personal lives as a form of reassurance, they've found something that they feel describes themselves and perhaps is useful in explaining themselves to others. This won't happen for the people who are close to the centre of the various axis, because they'll feel that more than one of the "types" could apply to them. But for the people who are closer to the extremes (like myself) find them to be rather accurate. And we're the people who'll find value in it. So my comment here is simply that if someone thinks their MBTI type is meaningful, it probably is -- because for the purposes they care about (how do I explain myself to others, or similar), it actually is pretty helpful.

afpx 8y ago

Maybe the high IQ-ers just work harder because there’s higher expectation?

sintaxi 8y ago
Its true that IQ is only one of many important factors that lead to success. However IQ on its own turns out to be an excellent predictor of success and also happens to be easy to measure. Most other traits are extremely difficult to quantify.
- afpx 8y ago
  But, how does one remove the bias introduced by the subject (and their social group) knowing of their high IQ score? For an objective analysis, wouldn’t some of the low-IQ kids have to believe they are high-IQ and vice versa? That is, how much does the act of labelling someone low or high IQ influence their results?
  - sintaxi 8y ago
    Good question. I suppose to test that you would have to give "placebo" scores to some people to see what impact knowing your score has - if any.
baccheion 8y ago
At 115-125, there is an edge over other students. On the other hand, it's not strong enough for others to notice. Also, the typical curriculum is challenging enough to prevent boredom. Then a bias appears to have been institutionalized, as according to corporations, 115-125 equals capable enough to do the job + not smart enough to synthesize (ie, parrot).