Not as smart as I think I am.

[meheez]

I think that being smart has nothing to do with being good at some subject. I think emotional intelligence is what matters.

[Garnier Fructis]

Seeing as it's real psychologists that developed that system using real psychological scientific methods and seeing as real psychologists use it to this day, it's not pseudo-science. You might as well call the entire field of psychology pseudo-science if you're so eager to call its individual areas of study pseudo-scientific just because they don't fit well with you.

Briggs and Myers (the mother and daughter who developed this) were never actually trained as psychologists. Briggs came up with this after reading a book by Carl Jung at the age of 48. Myers was an author. So your first assertion that it was developed by real psychologists flies out the window. Second, Briggs developed the system by reading biographies. That's not a scientific method.

Actual psychologists spend more time questioning it's validity and reliability than they do using it. Businesses use it because they can't tell what's actually psychology and what's pop psychology. Many people end up with different types when taking it again after a period of time. On top of that, only the Introversion Extroversion scale matches anything close to reality, the other 3 scales are barely valid.

Unfortunately, psychology is riddled with too much pseudo crap like this. Real psychology should be based in experimental observation, not the "psychology" of Freud and Jung.

[semaphore]

I'd be lying if i said i wasn't basing the correlation between intelligence and how introvert or extrovert someone is on anecdotal experience. There's a point where you've got a big enough data sample where it doesn't matter if it's just from one person to draw conclusions on statistical evidence, even if personal.

Not really. Anecdotal evidence is inherently biased because human beings are terrible at evaluating their own selective memory.

Seeing as it's real psychologists that developed that system using real psychological scientific methods and seeing as real psychologists use it to this day, it's not pseudo-science. You might as well call the entire field of psychology pseudo-science if you're so eager to call its individual areas of study pseudo-scientific just because they don't fit well with you.

Well, this particular psychometric IS somewhat pseudo-scientific, in that it's not particularly well-received in mainstream psychology*. That it was developed by "real psychologists" 70 years ago (which renders the label rather dubious in meaning) isn't much of a measure of it's scientific merit. For instance in this thread Dhrizzle argued a nonsensical crackpot pseudoscientific theory - that was put forward by real scientists too. And it turned out to be complete garbage. Bottom line is, science is a living body of work. A particular theory lives or dies on its subsequent validation, not on the authority of who or what proposed it.

*Lloyd, J. B. (2012). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and mainstream psychology: analysis and evaluation of an unresolved hostility. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 33(1), 23-34.

---------- Post added 2013-01-01 at 03:56 AM ----------

Unfortunately, psychology is riddled with too much pseudo crap like this. Real psychology should be based in experimental observation, not the "psychology" of Freud and Jung.

To be fair they contributed a lot. But lay people really has to stop treating 80 years old research published during birth pains of a nascent scientific field as some sort of inerrant gospel.

[smelltheglove]

well, it's fine to acknowledge your intelligence and be happy about it imo. just dont mistake it for accomplishment. there are people that would be considered dumb as hell by many that have become millionaires due to a bolt of inspiration, luck, hard work, or any combination thereof. meanwhile there have been genius level intellects that did jack shit and died homeless and penniless. intelligence only matters if it is applied, otherwise it's just a useless feelgood stat

[Sam the Wiser]

Not to be mean but you have made similar threads like this at least half a dozen times....

[TequilaFlavor]

I am a engineering student at my local community college and will be taking calculus one next semester. I always get A's and B's in my class and have not received a C yet. I also am a math tutor at my college. I thought I was pretty smart, actually I thought I was genius.

But now I realize that everyone probably thinks they are smarter than they actually are. After all, there are probably countless other people around the world that are thinking exactly the same thing. What makes me better than them? Upon understand this I know think that I am not special, nor am I gifted in any fashion.

We desperately try to out do one another without realizing that the main purpose is simply to stroke our own ego.

Don't just assume that "we" try to out do others using broad generalizations - and don't throw the term "genius" around like it's nothing !

One of how many billion people is born a genius ? How many geniuses can you recall in the recorded history of mankind ? For me, I can hardly think of more than 10.

10 of probably hundreds ob billions of people born . . .

A genius is someone who is gifted beyond your wildest dreams and excells at his/her chosen subject far beyond their peers seemingly effortless.

A genius is someone who has a deeper understanding and connection to his/her subjects than his peers could ever achieve in 100 or even 200 years without even receiving a lot of proper training in his subjects, if any training at all.

For me, Einstein was a genius because he calculated theories far beyond anything that was meassureable at the time. Da Vinci was a genius because he mastererd every subject he took interest in with extreme effortlessness and perfected it far beyond what his peers could achieve.

Scoring As and Bs in school/college makes you a slightly above average student - there is absolutely no indication that you are a genius at all.

Regarding your generalization: Intelligent people will always see their flaws, always be insecure about their knowledge and always try to better themselves.

There is a saying (not sure about the author at this time of the day, 6:20 AM where I live) that goes along the lines of this: "Why are the intelligent people allways so insecure, yet the dumb people allways so full of themselves ?"

[Unclekreepy]

I am a engineering student at my local community college and will be taking calculus one next semester. I always get A's and B's in my class and have not received a C yet. I also am a math tutor at my college. I thought I was pretty smart, actually I thought I was genius.

But now I realize that everyone probably thinks they are smarter than they actually are. After all, there are probably countless other people around the world that are thinking exactly the same thing. What makes me better than them? Upon understand this I know think that I am not special, nor am I gifted in any fashion.

We desperately try to out do one another without realizing that the main purpose is simply to stroke our own ego.

are you Atheist? ... then you are smarter than 85% of America

Received infraction.

~Badpaladin

[endersblade]

As much as everyone loves to wallow in their own ego (including me), this is true

I have thankfully never suffered much of an ego.

I know my limits, as far as mental capacity is concerned. I have no problems admitting when either I'm wrong or I don't fully know something, so I never argue a point if I have doubts that I could be right or wrong. If I get into an argument, and prove that I'm right, I don't rub it in. I've never been arrogant, thankfully. I know plenty of people who are, and I would HATE for people to think of me the way I think of them lol. I am a bit self-centered, but that's only because I've been more or less all by myself for so long, that 'me' is all I think about most times. I find it rather hard to partake in a conversation that doesn't eventually lead to me talking about myself, or my past experiences. Definitely something I'm not proud of.

I know that, on a general level, I'm pretty damned stupid. I have select fields I feel that I'm pretty adept in, but outside of those, I know I fail pretty hard. Math is the worst - I'm so bad at it that, at several grade levels, I was failing the course so hard that it almost held me back. Algebra I in High School was broken down into Algebra I-A and I-B for retards like me lol. I don't know why, but math and I just don't get along -_-;

I tend to look for friends who are strong in the areas that I am weak. To me, at least, it makes us fit together on a whole different level. The 'best friends' I've had throughout my life have been almost like my second half; we form a really close bond.

And for the love of all that is English, it's 'an engineer/engineering course' ><

[xylophone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

HISSSSSSSSSS!!!! That is the stuff of nightmares!!! I'm always paranoid I have that. I wonder if that disqualifies me? /crossfingers

[Xevan]

Most people experience a drop in grades when going to college. It's normal.

[Garnier Fructis]

To be fair they contributed a lot. But lay people really has to stop treating 80 years old research published during birth pains of a nascent scientific field as some sort of inerrant gospel.

That's true. My assessment was a bit harsh I guess. They're influential, if anything.

Most people experience a drop in grades when going to college. It's normal.

My chemistry class last quarter is a testament to this statement. Huge curve and lots of extra credit and the average was still a low C.

[Badpaladin]

My chemistry class last quarter is a testament to this statement. Huge curve and lots of extra credit and the average was still a low C.

Sounds about right. As far as I'm concerned, the class average should be around a C, B should truly mean above average, and A should truly mean exceptional. Unfortunately there's serious grade inflation going on in high school and GenEd classes in college.

[Garnier Fructis]

Sounds about right. As far as I'm concerned, the class average should be around a C, B should truly mean above average, and A should truly mean exceptional. Unfortunately there's serious grade inflation going on in high school and GenEd classes in college.

Grade inflation was the whole reason my class even got a C average. An "A" was 87 and above, and he gave extra credit on every test and quiz, as well as the homework problems. We even had these clicker problems, and you got 70% minimum just for being there and clicking a random answer.

[yurano]

Sounds about right. As far as I'm concerned, the class average should be around a C, B should truly mean above average, and A should truly mean exceptional. Unfortunately there's serious grade inflation going on in high school and GenEd classes in college.

It depends on where you go. Generally speaking, class average for a research university is a B since academic probation is a C average.

Some colleges inflate their grades so their average is an A (eg. Stanford).

[Kurioxan]

In my view, there is no such thing as "more intelligent" that someone else.

There is this thing i call a brain budget, your brain... lets put it into RPG terms because it is easier to explain.

You have 100 points of Cognitive Power (awesome name uh? rpg ftw) to distribute among many skills, such as math, literature, art, social skills blablabla.

Every person due to mainly life style and choices (not genetics :P although those contribute to it) allocates those points, the one with the most points are usually their main skills, where they are better than people who havent allocated as many points there.
In other parts, they are inferior to other people, who do you think has more social points? an engineer or a socialite? easy answer, dont ask a socialite to solve your math problems, dont ask an engineer to organize a party.

Some people are jack of all trades, and have no high skills but are decent at everything, this is normally the "common" person, that is why they dont excel at anything in particular, but you can rely on them to do calculus more than a socialite and to organize a party more than a engineer.

Then, you have the extremes, this are usually genetic or "abnormalities", autism is such a case where almost all the brain budget goes to a single skills, thus they seem "retarded" but the truth is, they are absolute geniuses in a single area, most of them sadly never find it.
Then you have geniuses, which are in a way inferior in potential to "different neural configuration" people such as autists, but realistically due to not having ALL of the budget allocated to a single thing, they can cross skill which can give them an edge, also this people usually arent necessarity "smarter" than everyone else, they are in most cases simple "highly motivated".

Einstein is considered one of the greatest geniuses, yet his IQ wasnt that high and using his own words "It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."
Almost everyone can be an Einstein, the truth is, most people cant be arsed, have no motivation to be so and much prefer to enjoy their lives doing things they enjoy instead of dedicating it to science, but time to time, a person is born that actually enjoys it and more, is obsessed with it (just enjoying doesnt cut it, will make you more knowledgeable than most, but no where near an obsessed person)

Anyway... it is normal, dont get down about it.
Also yes, as first poster pointed out, people tend to overestimate their own habilities, one of the reasons i love to argue and use arguments that i dont even agree with, it helps me improve and realize my own faults.

And i have a smile in my face already, as i know that the elitists "omg intelligence is genetic" people are coming :3
Usually those are the very conceited "geniuses" that think their intelligence and thus superiority is innate, they are a fun bunch <3

[madokbro]

What do you think of the relation between IQ score and intelligence? Do you think IQ tests are reliable methods?

[Dezerte]

What do you think of the relation between IQ score and intelligence? Do you think IQ tests are reliable methods?

Define intelligence.

It's a bit debatable that there are other kinds of intelligence, as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_..._intelligences