You raise an interesting point about agreeableness.
Actually, you wrote that "
varying levels of agreeableness improve results". So in some situations, more agreeableness improves results, while with some other situations, less agreeableness improves results.
But can you show that NJ's are more agreeable or less conscientious?
There's a high correlation between Big Five and MBTI.
But I don't need to, and nor do you.
Openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and anti-neuroticism would only improve results, if we're only talking about the types of openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and anti-neuroticism, that would improve results and not make them worse.
Someone who is so equally open to so many experiences that they can never make up their mind, is not likely to experiment improvement in their results.
Someone who is so obsessed about conscientiousness that they make their subordinates' lives a living nightmare, is likely to have a department with a very low productivity rate.
Someone who is agreeable to a fault, will always bend for others, but never stand up for themselves.
Someone who is completely fearless and has no neuroses whatsoever, will probably jump off a tall building and kill themselves.
You're only talking about when it improves results, and in those cases, they will improve results, because you assume they do.
Now, if you wish to talk about trends, then we need to talk about the people who do those things to a fault, and yet you'd still say those who exclusively do X to a fault get much more improved results than those who do exclusively Y to a fault.
1.Let's look at wealth as a cognitive task and leadership task both. I'd argue that wealth is one of the metrics of success but not everything.
It was a point, though, which is the point. Evidence. Not something to be dismissed out of hand.
2. How can you be certain that an ENTJ won't test as ESTJ under Sensory task regime?
As certain as i can be that an ESTJ will test as ENTJ under Intuitive task regime.
3. How were these wealthy people tested to get their MBTI type?
I don't know. But if I'm going to be picky, how were the subjects chosen in your study? How were their Big Five results determined, and can we really be sure that the Big Five questionnaires they were given, were not biased and/or unclear?
4. What comes first? Is it that participation in concrete and competitive business settings brings more wealth, or that people who operate in these settings are predominantly SJ?
That's more of a philosophical "chicken or egg" question, not a question about types and trends. You can't move the goalposts.
If participation in concrete and competitive business settings brings more wealth, then intuitives are less likely to participate.
If people who operate in these settings are predominantly SJ, then we need to consider that for most of human history, interview processes haven't been asking for your official MBTI type, unlike most documents. So the employers didn't know they were SJs. They just found certain types of people were better at those jobs, and employed those types of people, and in your observation, those people happen to be SJs.
So if people who operate in these settings are predominantly SJ, it's probably because SJs are better at those things.
What I think is happening is that people in competitive business settings think of themselves as concrete minded and Sensors. They'll test as sensors because their workload is oriented towards the physical world rather than abstract ideas, or rather it's the bridge between the two where they realize ideas in the world.
If that was true, then all those INTPs on this and other sites who do menial & physical jobs like toll collector, would score as Sensors.
Individuals with high IQ, hight conscientiousness and low agreeableness will outperform everyone else.
If that was true, then Nikola Tesla would have easily outperformed Thomas Edison.
There's a much simpler explanation. Ever since the class system was abandoned, and lots of different minorities have been encouraged to have their own opportunities equal to the mainstream's opportunities, opportunities have become homogenised somewhat.
As a result, who does better in the current cultural moment, is a question of who grabs more opportunities. In terms of income, that's who grabs more opportunities and turns them into more ways of making money.
Js are people who self-report consciensciousness. They are people who want to be thought of as conscienscious. They wish to get ahead, and are very focussed on achieving their personal goals.
In a world of opportunities waiting to be grabbed, the more focussed on your goals, the further you will get towards your goals. Those who are less ambitious and more willing to flow with the system, are less likely to grab as many of those opportunities.
Ts think in terms of practical, physical, logical. TJs in particular talk about tangible results. Money is a tangible result.
It seems like high IQ is a bit of a curse. People with good IQ tend to have below average conscientiousness.
For a low IQ person, the expectation is low. So even if they do really bad, they're still seen as high in consciensciousness.
For a high IQ person, the expectation is high. So even if they do really well, they're still seen as low in consciensciousness.
That can give the high IQ person the false impression that they're low in Consciensciousness. So they're more likely to answer questions about their Consciensciousness as if they are poor at it, and thus likely to answer questions in such a way as to score low in Consciensciousness, even when they're very high in it.
These days, a lot of people talk about Consciensciousness as if it's a personality trait, not a skill.
That can give the high IQ person the false impression that their low Consciensciousness score cannot be changed by simply learning new skills, and would require a change of their personality, which would be a significant upheaval of their psyche, which would probably require a lot of therapy.
But until very recently, the vast majority of therapists would point-blank refuse to give any indications to people with issues, that their issues would ever be resolved.
So then the high IQ person can end up thinking that they are low in Consciensciousness, with no clue on how to change it, and with the expection that even if they could change, it, it would require a superhuman feat to do so.
There's also another factor: boredom. Most jobs and lessons bore people to tears. Teachers and employers do lots of things to keep their employees interested, including holding teamworking exercises, and social events.
Today, the social culture is to help minorities and the disabled, and to avoid any class-style distinctions. There's a tendency to encourage people to develop better IQs, by teaching more maths and science. However, there's not really much encouragement for high IQ people to be engaged, except by moving to a different school and losing all their friends.
High conscientiousness is needed to capitalize on IQ.
But in reality, consciensciousness is a matter of knowing certain things, understanding certain things, and learning certain skills and attitudes that make it easier to get things done. It's a skill that can be taught in schools.
The people who get all of their big 5 traits right and also have great IQ will be at the top with the help of luck.
Those of us with high IQs like to think so. But I don't think anyone thinks that Genghis Khan or the owner of Walmart had to have a high IQ to be so successful.
There is even book "The curse of the high IQ" I recommend to every INTP this book
www.proquest.com
