• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Doesn't it depress you that the course of someone's life is set by biological variables like IQ?

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 1:40 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,999
-->
Location
crib
Discrete chunking. That's all it is.
Abstract like math where a function is equal to a bunch of equations. (transforms)

So you take some chucks and abstract them. Bam IQ.
Big short tern memory spaced into long-term memory = high IQ.

 

Puffy

Inner mounting flame
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
3,194
-->
Location
Right here
I guess IQ tries to define what intelligence looks like and thus how you score is determined by how you perform in that predetermined framework.

I know a few people who are exceptionally gifted at comprehending people, seeing more of a person and their situation than that person sees of themselves. I’d consider this people comprehension a form of high intelligence yet it’s not a part of what defines IQ. Maybe it’s called EQ yet people tend to treat IQ as more important when I’m not sure that’s true.

My feeling taking the test was that it’s too narrow in scope, focused on logic problems. If I was to take the test now I’d probably do poorly. Yet I have self-taught myself to code before to junior developer level and had to practice logical skills a lot as a part of that. If I took the test then I’m sure my IQ would be higher.

How about the ability to learn independently, or how quickly someone can pick up new concepts and apply them, or the ability to synthesise information from different fields and come up with new ideas. How about originality in thinking. I’d consider these intelligent traits yet again I’m unsure if IQ really reflects this.

I knew someone in school who had an IQ of 140+. But he never did anything with it, so who cares? Intelligence isn’t what you score on a test, it’s a lot more than that and owes mostly to hard work, practice, motivation and determination (as I think BurnedOut said) in the pursuit of something that you’re deeply passionate about.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 1:40 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,999
-->
Location
crib
I guess IQ tries to define what intelligence looks like and thus how you score is determined by how you perform in that predetermined framework.

A frame can either get a complete picture if the right shape and size. Or be the wrong shape/size. A blogger told me that 70 subtests instead of 12 would be needed to measure acuratelly IQ on the wais 4. 0.99 instead of 0.71 - Then no doubt it would work 100 percent. But only under the sample construct. Where you take samples.


No test is good enough. But probabilities are still reliable. Because it's math. Math doesn't lie. It just has degrees of accuracy.

I find that when I think straight I handle more complexity. Maybe the tests don't measure complexity like social skills. It may be that perspectivism is absent in tests as well.

Of course, we cannot confuse content with structure. Intelligence is a box with contents. Either big small odd shaped. it holds things and takes them places.

180 regions in the cortex. They probably develop based on front-to-back reflection. Based on that we are not using 100 percent of our brains symetrically. If we did that would maximize intelligence.

 

Glaerhaidh

straightedgy
Local time
Today 9:40 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,582
-->
Location
someplace windswept
Wait... why would anyone become a medical doctor if it pays less than engineering and is allegedly represented by people with higher IQ? If doctors have the highest IQ on average then they make terrible career choices that tells me that their intelligence isn't great.

Believe what you like but its impossible to argue against the fact that conscientiousness and perseverance are a far better predictors of success than high intelligence. If you don't put in the work and if you allow yourself to become depressed then you will become what you already are, not what you could be.

If you work two shifts as a janitor or any other low paying profession, save money in a pension fund then you will earn more than a lazy medical doctor who works for 2 hours and goes on vacation all the time. You will actually be able to retire much sooner than retirement age and enjoy your life and that lazy doctor won't.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,334
-->
View attachment 5864

IQ is totally dividing people! Most research I've read about IQ's correlation with profession (The credible ones, like this) have been nearly unanimous. IQ also correlate positively with test scores and SAT which, guess what? determine which profession you can apply for.
More importantly education sets people apart more than IQ.
IQ is correlated with the ability to do mental arithmetic, the higher your IQ is it is only natural that it also correlate with higher educational achievement.
The vast majority of Europeans and Chinese people have been little more than pig farmers for the past several thousand years. If IQ was significantly hereditary, then the vast majority of Westerners and people of Chinese ethnicity would have extremely low IQs.
Nonono, IQ is genetics, you can be a farmer, an ironsmith, or a Lawyer but external circumstances (unless extreme) doesn't change IQ, the great thing about modern society is that it gives High or Moderately High IQ people the chance to socially climb the capitalistic ladder, if a thousand years ago I'm a farmer with an IQ of 130 I'd probably won't amount to much, if I ask the local parish to teach me to read or lent me books they'd refuse under the obligation of feudalism, but today I can be a lawyer or a Scientist, yet if my IQ is low there's a glass ceiling preventing me to be what my alternate intelligent self could be.
1,000 years ago, when a Feudal lord's doctor was getting old, he'd pick the smartest and most conscientious of his serfs to be taught medicine by his doctor, so he'd get the best doctor.

Today, anyone can apply to be a doctor, however stupid, incompetent and negligent they are. If one medical school refuses them, they can just apply to another school, and another, until they get accepted. If they kill too many patients in one hospital until they get sacked, they just apply to other hospitals to work as a doctor there.

If no-one in their country, or the entire continent will hire them, they can go work for Doctors Without Borders in the middle of Africa for a few years, until the heat had died down, and then use DWB as a reference to get a high-paying job again.

Proof?

1) The average IQ of scientists is 125. IQ by rarity: There are 17 people for every person with an IQ of 125 or above.

There's 8.8 million scientists in the world. There's 7.8 billion people in the world. So there's 1 scientist for every 886 people.

So that means that for every scientist, there's 52 people who have the IQ to be a scientist, or even smarter.

So the non-IQ related factors that determine who would be a scientist, have 3 times the influence that IQ has on someone becoming a scientist.

2) 1) The average IQ of scientists is 125.
IQ by rarity: There's 741 people for every person with an IQ of 148 or above.
There's 911 people for every person with an IQ of 149 or above.
If we picked the smartest people to be scientists, every scientist would have an IQ of 148 or above. So even the scientists with the lowest IQs would still have an IQ that is 23 points higher than the average scientist right now.

So in reality, IQ is a minor factor in determining who would become a scientist, doctor and lawyer.

If IQ was the major factor, then most of doctors, lawyers and scientists would be as smart as Einstein and Feynman.

INTPs have a higher IQ than INTJs and most other types, but are the 2nd lowest earners.

That alone should tell you that IQ doesn't correlate well with income.
Well the correlation isn't perfect, a low IQ people can work hard, while a High IQ people can be an utter failure, INTPs are less industrious but if they aren't they can earn more.
Miners are far more industrious than doctors, lawyers and scientists.

The whole point of hiring people with a high IQ for certain jobs like being an architect, or a lawyer or a doctor or a scientist, is they think up the best ways to do things and then tell the people who are very industrious how to do things well, so billions of humans maximise the results of their efforts.

So we want the stupid people to be the industrious ones and the smart people to be the thinkers.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 1:40 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,999
-->
Location
crib
I discovered something.

attention = intelligence

specifically internal attention.

Functional surface area is important to this.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 1:40 PM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,999
-->
Location
crib
Stability and attention.

One is mental health, the ability to control one's self. To make a sustained effort.

The second is expanded awareness/retention. Ability to combine.

The bible says to be sober-minded. That does not mean creativity has to be reduced. But that balance is in one's control. Expanded awareness and to combine is attention. Together one is trying to think about something, pay attention, glue together. All at once. We are cogitating several at the same time.

Working memory is a bottleneck. It is RAM. I can think of 3.5 things at once. Think of it as 3 puzzle pieces. I can do no more. So I pause. Think about what comes next. It's not easy. I want to go fast but I forget if I speed up. I have to be 2D instead of 1D when thinking. 1D is just speed and I crash.

Right now I have the problem of not being able to solve problems. I sit here and listen to music but I feel bad not doing anything. I just don't know what to do. I need a new dimension to my problem-solving. I need to find the problem to solve for a.i. but was not successful. The new problem is finding help. I can get help solving a.i.

First I need to think about what questions I need to ask. Who to ask. Think about the results I hope to achieve.
 

lillith

Redshirt
Local time
Today 9:40 PM
Joined
Jan 29, 2022
Messages
6
-->
IQ is not really that important really, just look at your goverment do you really think that most of these people have IQ above 110 ? Connections, sociability, determination, dilligence, conformity are far more important that high IQ. Most INTP have high IQ but they alienate people. This is still SJ world. I can't find a job having 128 IQ according to the test, other test gave me over 130 so I don't know really but I am not stupid. I didn't finish college because it sucked and now I am fucked I am working in my family business selling books. Maybe 1 in 7 job interviews someone actually checked my skills. They make interviews for extroverts like what do you want to do for 5 years etc. Bullshit retarded questions which I have problem to answer or think too long or I stress too much because I know I think too long... so at the end I am not good enough for position and because I am a woman my sociability is far more important that my skills. Sad world. Or maybe I am making a mistake applying for corporations INTP and corporation doesn't match I think... they can feel that I am weirdo even when I am trying to be normal. But in my country only in corporation you can make normal money. I would post a link to website that claims that people above 140 IQ are actually excluded from society (and probably even people with 120+ IQ are excluded when they applying for bullshit corporation job) but I can't because it is considered as a spam. Just google "The inappropriately excluded". I can tell you higher IQ is rather curse I personally overanalyze everything it is just tragic and people think you are know-it-all by stating just facts or you are weird, cold etc. even when I use my inferior extroverted feeling it is not enough for people. Much better to be 98 iq ESFJ :D There is even book "The curse of the high IQ" I recommend to every INTP this book
 

BurnedOut

Prolific Member
Local time
Tomorrow 1:10 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
1,144
-->
Are rats or mice weaker than say badgers or squirrels.
I should have been clearier. I was referring to the animals of the same species who should in theory fail at the test of natural selection but somehow slough through it by chance or rare moments of genius or lack of initiative by the dominant one of the same species.

Humans today have a much weaker and smaller hip socket than their hunter-gatherer ancestors. Similarly, instead of unintelligent populations (because of poverty and lack of opportunities) getting slowly dwindling and getting wiped out, they manage to simply grow in number and there is a greater danger of population being torn into highly intelligent and the impoverished but eternally persisting and refusing to be wiped out. Natural selection is assumed to be beneficial for the stronger animal of the same species to propagate themselves via their progeny but sometimes natural selection ends up wiping the whole species out despite its high adaptability like humans who might not survive after another ten-tenty millon years or so like bacteria.
 

Glaerhaidh

straightedgy
Local time
Today 9:40 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,582
-->
Location
someplace windswept
There's research showing that all BIG 5 traits and IQ play a role in professional success or other measures of success.

All personality traits affect success. IQ is negatively correlated with Conscientiousness, the smarter you are the lazier, less resilient and more disorganized you generally are. Openness to experience, lower neuroticism and varying levels of agreeableness improve results.

If I were to give it an arbitrary score I'd say that:
- IQ only matters with sufficient conscientiousness
- higher IQ improves success by 40% or 0.4 with average conscientiousness
- above average conscientiousness improves success by 20%/0.2 with average IQ
- Low neuroticism improves success by 10% or 0.1
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 2:40 PM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,039
-->
Location
Narnia
Important to note that most of our Western psychology, theories and verified models alike fall apart when applied in the East.

Personality thus does play a huge role but these inducted principles are only true in certain contexts.

Dude from Kazakhstan, scored very high in openness and consciousness and didn't really have an explanation, and it came to my attention from a family member studying psychology that most of our studies are on college students which isn't a perfect picture for all adults.

IQ is dumb. I can have an IQ of 145, be a expert Go player since the day I was born and become a master, and then be shit at everything else in life. Maybe they learn faster, but that can probably be measured better with other cognitive tests.

It's like building an RPG character. Sure having higher stats in an area is great if you can pull off a strategy that gets returns, but to what avail if you aren't going to use those stats to their fullest, which I'm sure many high IQ individuals do not. Depression is likely inevitable in a situation like that, with a scrambling to find the source of that pain yet a human inability to actually see the problem clearly considering the scaling complexity the phaneron produces relative to the machinery that perpetuates it.

Personality is the key to happiness, intelligence probably makes that easier to see, but you don't need intelligence to have that particular personality
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,988
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Some guy on youtube said it best, you have height and width as potential.
Then that size of picture during life gets sprinkled with chemicals that make the picture colorize and recall the shape of what was taken.
Sometimes you get lots of chemicals and most of the picture gets visible.
Othertimes you get the chemicals here and there and some of it is visible and some is not.
That is what he called talent.
The height and width are inborn qualities.

So yes, there is a case for what it really means.
IQ was measured as an experiment to see who can become literate and pass and who will strain the school system and is essentially retarded and won't benefit.
This was during the height of school system being reformed to better fit the needs of industrial society using contemporary scientific psychology.

OVer the years IQs have been misused or misattributed not just in psychology, but commercial arena.

Realistically IQ is solid number, but stand alone it means nothing, in complete vacuum.

Pilots astronauts test pilots get their IQ tested including other psychological attributes the best fit for job.

Because these professions know exactly what the requirements are to weed out those who cannot cut it.

In military its the same thing. Private pile is dead weight from day one. Sorry private pile, but that is true, you can actually train these guys, but the effect is miserable.

IQ is for example important in many professions simply because you need expedience.
Not smart, but expedient. Thus a pilot is training for test pilot needs to learn real fast.
Faster than usual, because he needs to know in flight and before flight more information than regular pilot.
If he fails, he is liable to die, or not get the information needed for test flight.
This is very specific context.

Then you have professions that are only viable on market through quick learning to be commercially meaningful.
Even in science expedience can be more important for commercial purpose than pure science where precision is more important.

You can however have professions where merely quick learning, but precision and IQ are moot.
Ergo sales people need to learn constantly, in competitive markets, but IQ may not be key quality.

IN astrophysics its the sheer quantity of knowledge that makes a good scientist.

There is only fairly limited use for higher intellect.
Realistically you only need few scientist per 1000 people, you need only few 1000 economists, mathematicians etc.

Interestingly statistically IQ bell curve is exactly the way youd expect according to necessity.

In that we really need few of them and indeed there are only few of them.

Even more interestingly modern education systems have pushed more towards mass education/ higher education and so invariably most people in college are not of super high IQ.
Previously this was normative, today its normative that most people are of fairly average intellect.
Because most countries are pushing most people towards higher education this means it has gone from high quality to higher quantity and comparatively very limited quality.

You simply don't need 1000s of economist per nation every year.
You need 1000s of accountants, but not economists.
That is how you get high IQ economists with great theoretical grasp of economics essentially earning a pay on par with McDonalds employee of the month.
 

EndogenousRebel

We're all trying our best. Aren't we?
Local time
Today 2:40 PM
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
1,039
-->
Location
Narnia
Read a behavioral modification textbook. Apparently people who are "profoundly retarded" are better taught tasks in reverse. I don't really understand the logic of why it's easier then straightforward.

"Let's brush our teeth" puts away toothbrush (the steps are extended very much depending on the person)

Backward chaining is the term. I suppose when you're at that level of disability, it becomes costly to have people trained that are specialized for your needs. But by that same token, someone who is profoundly gifted also needs someone who is specialized to care for their needs. Though I guess those are the people you put in higher ranking positions.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,334
-->
There's research showing that all BIG 5 traits and IQ play a role in professional success or other measures of success.

All personality traits affect success. IQ is negatively correlated with Conscientiousness, the smarter you are the lazier, less resilient and more disorganized you generally are. Openness to experience, lower neuroticism and varying levels of agreeableness improve results.
From the article:
In contrast, the combination of GMA and three of the Big Five Personality traits, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, is significantly associated with greater early career success and has incremental predictive validity.
Thus, according to the article, NJs ought to be the top 4 of MBTI by income.

Now look at the reality:

1) The top 4 earners are TJs.
2) For every N-type with a high level of openness, their equivalent S-type with a low level of openness, outperforms them, except for the IxxPs, who are the bottom 4.

So quite clearly:
1) low agreeableness and high conscientiousness are the main indictors for success, along with IQ/GMA.
2) If you're doing better than the bottom 4, then those with high openness perform worse than those with low openness.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,988
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
So quite clearly:
1) low agreeableness and high conscientiousness are the main indictors for success, along with IQ/GMA.
2) If you're doing better than the bottom 4, then those with high openness perform worse than those with low openness.
Yet that is the problem with capitalism.
Companies know what they want, based on what makes profit.
But how do they make profit and how they know what they want?
Well capitalism is very unpredictable.
You can never predict anything, and even if you can the best of people can only predict things short term, but anything beyond that is just crystalballing it.

So why people who stick to work and and aren't so smart make more money?
First because they are cheap, second, because most companies, especially larger work on fordism.
They are all made into small cogs in machinery that are easily replaceable.
Why conscientious and obedient people work best?
Well because they stick to rules, even if they don't make sense. This is also why schools focus on learning not through understanding, but blind obedient model.
Obedients and sticking to work is basically how schools look for talents.
Forward that to larger scale, you have drones for the job market.

But why drones and not smart people?
Well smart people get in the way one way or another.
Its also pointless since smart people tend to be more expensive.
If they are cheap they might not know their market value, but they still might get in the way.

Its not just smart people though.

If you look at jobs as is, most of them are rather one sided.

SO what companies need in people who work.
They need someone who does it whether it makes sense or not.
Whether they like it or not, and preferably someone who is in debt and has no choice regardless.

Now this is not necessarily true on individual level, but on average you simply don't need education at all or some knowledge.

The know how today focus on people skills and productivity, because these are cheap people and reliable workforce for companies.

They also overall generate more wealth due to market models.
Since you have unpredictable market economy, you really cannot have someone smart, with ton of knowledge that is useful if tomorrow you need completely new set of skills.

The other problem is with COVID you had airline pilots who trained their whole life to have a secure and well payed job, only to end up working low wage jobs.

So even for smart people its bad news to invest into knowledge or smarts.
You don't really need it because it does not pay.
Skill and talent also don't necessarily pay, unless there is demand.
That means you can have lots of abilities, but its like playing a game with 100 ability points spent on skills you never use.

What is more with todays world changing rapidly what we learn today might be directly against us tomorrow.
Essentially some philospher said it well we might be entering and era where what you learn might be useless, and we might be unlearning things as part of learning.

IN the past learning was the key, but he says unlearning might be also asset in an of it self.

So if your mind is primed to be physicist, your knowledge may have value, but essentially for companies your mind might be actually a liability in the long run.
 

Glaerhaidh

straightedgy
Local time
Today 9:40 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,582
-->
Location
someplace windswept
There's research showing that all BIG 5 traits and IQ play a role in professional success or other measures of success.

All personality traits affect success. IQ is negatively correlated with Conscientiousness, the smarter you are the lazier, less resilient and more disorganized you generally are. Openness to experience, lower neuroticism and varying levels of agreeableness improve results.
From the article:
In contrast, the combination of GMA and three of the Big Five Personality traits, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, is significantly associated with greater early career success and has incremental predictive validity.
Thus, according to the article, NJs ought to be the top 4 of MBTI by income.

Now look at the reality:

1) The top 4 earners are TJs.
2) For every N-type with a high level of openness, their equivalent S-type with a low level of openness, outperforms them, except for the IxxPs, who are the bottom 4.

So quite clearly:
1) low agreeableness and high conscientiousness are the main indictors for success, along with IQ/GMA.
2) If you're doing better than the bottom 4, then those with high openness perform worse than those with low openness.
You raise an interesting point about agreeableness. But can you show that NJ's are more agreeable or less conscientious?

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.
2. How can you be certain that an ENTJ won't test as ESTJ under Sensory task regime?
3. How were these wealthy people tested to get their MBTI type?
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?

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.

I don't think what you've shown disagrees with what I'm saying. Both S and N types can have high IQ. Individuals with high IQ, hight conscientiousness and low agreeableness will outperform everyone else.

It seems like high IQ is a bit of a curse. People with good IQ tend to have below average conscientiousness. High conscientiousness is needed to capitalize on IQ. 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.
 

Glaerhaidh

straightedgy
Local time
Today 9:40 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,582
-->
Location
someplace windswept
@scorpiomover
It would be helpful to look at wealth brackets. Top earners are usually CEO's with leadership and concrete oriented roles which favors Sensing and Extraversion.

What about high earning specialists, artists, medium entrepreneurs?

We should look at top income, high income, medium income brackets and compare how people with different OCEAN traits do and what's their IQ.

I'd agree with @ZenRaiden that corporate and competitive large scale business environment rewards concrete focus, consistency over experimentation and leadership over technical competence. So it favors Sensing and Extraversion plus conscientiousness, low agreeableness, low neuroticism and maybe lower than average openness.

I think most NTJ's in this setting would test as ESTJ.


There's an issue that sneakily creeps behind this discussion and that's the biased perception that Sensing is somehow inferior to Intuitive work, or that concrete problems are necessarily less cognitively demanding or engaging.

This isn't true and could actually mean the opposite; that Intuitive or abstract thinkers can't focus on a big and important class of problems and tasks that pays the best.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,334
-->
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.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 8:40 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,334
-->
I think its simple. The job market wants drones. Question is if that graph includes all quadrants of jobs.
The want bees? Bees are an orderly society.

But humans aren't bees.

@scorpiomover
It would be helpful to look at wealth brackets. Top earners are usually CEO's with leadership and concrete oriented roles which favors Sensing and Extraversion.

What about high earning specialists, artists, medium entrepreneurs?

We should look at top income, high income, medium income brackets and compare how people with different OCEAN traits do and what's their IQ.
Yes, it would be a good idea to look at multiple factors in greater detail.

But that's what makes studies in this area so confusing, because they sound good, until you start looking at different sectors and realise that those trends aren't true everywhere, and are only true in certain sectors.

I'd agree with @ZenRaiden that corporate and competitive large scale business environment rewards concrete focus, consistency over experimentation and leadership over technical competence. So it favors Sensing and Extraversion plus conscientiousness, low agreeableness, low neuroticism and maybe lower than average openness.
In that case, Big Five and MBTI measure what job you're in, not your personality.

I think most NTJ's in this setting would test as ESTJ.
In that case, any people who are NTJs who work in corporate and competitive large scale business environments, don't exist. Or, they deliberately overstress their I-ness and N-ness, to make their employer fire them, because they don't want the job.

There's an issue that sneakily creeps behind this discussion and that's the biased perception that Sensing is somehow inferior to Intuitive work, or that concrete problems are necessarily less cognitively demanding or engaging.

This isn't true and could actually mean the opposite; that Intuitive or abstract thinkers can't focus on a big and important class of problems and tasks that pays the best.
Sensors tend to deal with the conventional, the traditional, the known and the familiar. Those things have been done for a long time by a lot of people. So we have a huge amount of empirical data regarding those tasks. In those fields, it's easy to see which methods work and which don't, because so many tried each one, and yet one works well in most of the cases where it was used, and one worked poorly in most of the cases where it was used.

That means they have a higher degree of success, by sticking to the methods they know work.

But equally well, that also means that if they deal with the unknown, their high success rate will fall dramatically, because (a) the unknown is unknown and much can go wrong with it, (b) the unknown is unknown, and so we often don't even know what to look out for that might be going right or wrong, and (c) they're not used to dealing with the unknown, and so are greenhorns at it.

So they are more successful by avoiding the unknown.

But then if everyone was like that, then society would eventually stagnate. If a volcano started erupting, everyone would probably keep doing what they'd been doing, because they didn't know what else to do.

That happens often with animals. Some of the animal packs die. Some of the animal packs run away, and get to reproduce, and so pass on their genes.

So for human society to adapt, some of them need to be exploring the unknown.

Humans have an additional thing called "intuition". They get impressions about things that suggest directions and ideas. But they don't know where those suggestions and ideas came from, or why they might be true.

Such ideas are less useful with the known, because we already know them. The ideas are likely to either be redundant or wrong.

But when it comes to the unknown, intuitions are better than a blank screen, and better than random on average. So there, intuitives fare better than the average person.

So then if we have iNtuitives exploring & mapping the unknown, while Sensors are doing most of the known work, we have a highly productive workforce in a society that is still able to adapt to upcoming changes.

It's also somewhat true that concrete work is less cognitively demanding. Take the job of a plumber. He has to check all the pipes that there are no leaks. Not really like solving differential equations.

But if the plumber doesn't keep his attention on every inch of those pipes, then before long, one of the pipes will spring a leak and the guy can end up knee deep in sewage water, which ruins his home and might even cause his family to become sick and need to be in hospital.

Good or bad, your great thinkers are not going to be able to think all that clearly, if they're living in a house that is full of dirty water.
 
Top Bottom