EPTENFP
Zerg
Diamond
Myers Briggs personality & SC2 player data - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
theBlues
El Salvador638 Posts
ENFP Zerg Diamond | ||
|
Malminos
United States321 Posts
ISTJ Zerg | ||
|
Atarbomachos
3 Posts
ENTP Zerg Diamond | ||
|
stupidhydro
United States216 Posts
ENTP Random Masters I don't really know how to interpret the results and what this strength of preference percentage means but... yea... there you go. | ||
|
theBullFrog
United States515 Posts
Masters zerg | ||
|
Daimai
Sweden762 Posts
INTJ Protoss Diamond | ||
Phinix
United States116 Posts
On February 04 2011 06:00 theBullFrog wrote: INTJ Masters zerg Need character codes to be able to use data, please. :-) You can submit via E-Mail if you want info kept private: Phinix@sc2persona.com | ||
|
SwirlyRolls
United States15 Posts
ESFP zerg masters | ||
|
Silmakuoppaanikinko
799 Posts
On February 04 2011 00:55 Erandorr wrote: Also, as you might expect, the more IQ test you've made, the better you're becoming at it. Does making IQ tests make you 'smarter'?Well to be fair you can learn for IQ tests. I had to do one ( it was not called that but it esentially was) for a college aplication and a friend recommended to me to do a few and it really improves the results, because you see the thoughpatterns required etc. An IQ test just measures what its designed for, which is basicly measuring how quickly and correctly you can understand and apply certain patterns in different categories. There are quite a few people who just train a lot for the test and then score high results based on training not "intelligence" whatever that even is and noone would ever think them to be of high intelligence. Of course if you are really smart you will get through those tests without much preparation but i would never value someones intelligence by that standart Imagine if weighing the mass of some object increased its mass after multiple measurements, not really a reliable method eh? :') On February 04 2011 01:58 Beyonder wrote: Yeah, there are 'measures', which make large assumptions, personal interpretations, subjective analyses, and what the one psychologist considers 'successful' the other disagrees with.You can debate, but yes there are measures that tell us how well one does in a job or in an educational setting. Not that unthinkable is it? There's entire sub-field of psychology dedicated to it. I want hard, cold units. Which do exist in psychology by the way, a simple example of a hard, cold, unit used in psychology is a sentence like this: 'Of all people in the group investigated, the median amount of REM sleep per night in the experimental condition was 5 cycles' This is a hard unit, there is no disputing it. No they are not, they are not ridiculously poor. Actually, the correlation between measures of IQ and job and educational performance is quite high (= a good predictor). Additionally, IQ is ideally measured more than once. However, a good intelligence test will report a confidence interval scale... And although there is variation, this variation is not nearly as high as what youve written. The correlation between intelligence tests at the beginning and at the end of youth are really high as well, for example, indicating the strength of the measurement even over the course of the development. Dude, I'm used to apparatus that measure stuff up to femtometric precision, I find a confidence interval of 5 points (which is precise for an IQ test) unacceptable noise. You realize that is one-third of a standard deviation right? There are barely any good research articles done on EQ, while there are tons for IQ. Throwing these two in one sentence is a sign of being uneducated on this subject. Additionally, of course there are exceptions, but population wise it's a good indicator. Be less vague with 'they are not ridiculously poor', I want some hard numbers, what are the confidence intervals, what are the average standard deviations of test. What's the expectancy value for a test to deviate when you take it the next day? And yes, there is more research done on IQ I give you that, and it all should show for any scientific mind that IQ is bollocks. They are completely unreliable, it's quite the norm that it can differ 5 points if you take it the next day, 10 is not exceptional, and 15 is quite possible, this is completely unreliable and unacceptable to me as a tool. And then comes the validity, I mean, what the fuck is 'intelligence', to begin with? The pompous ridicule of it, psychology freely, and correctly, admits that the term 'intelligence' is vague, and il-defined, how can you even begin to test the validity of a test then? It even remains to be proven that this elusive concept of 'intelligence' even exists. I for one am very, very, sceptical towards its existence. And the list goes on. Really, get off your high exact science horse. There's a reason why we call these social sciences. And yes, they work differently from what you are used to. But if you really want to say something on this topic, I suggest reading some. Social sciences are a joke compared to actual sciences. My elitism is fully justified considering the rigour I was trained at and the precision my instruments were required to have compared to this ridiculous anything-goes reasoning of social """research""", please, I read enough, and I think you need to read more about actual sciences and its methodology and realize just how much different it is and how much higher the standards are.I mean, psychological research is subject to different interpretations, the interpretation of the data collected can be criticized as much as the conclusions drawn from it, that is completely unacceptable in an actual rigorous science. Anyone must come to the same conclusion from the same data or the methodology used is severely flawed. You can debate the construct, but you can not really debate how useful it is when large populations need to be assessed on how well they will do for a certain job, or a certain education. And this is what it was designed for, and it does the best job possible. 'useful'?Yeah, it does the best job at the current point, and that's the worst of sins and flaws that are continued to be made 'Ohh, it's clearly lacking in precision, has huge uncertainties, but there's nothing better so we'll just take it.', grow some standard man. If there's nothing better than bad, what is bad is still bad, there's just nothing good around. And the reason that nothing good is around could very well be that this 'intelligence' as a metre does not even exist. Anyways, im quitting derailing this thread now. Nice initiative and I in no way mean to criticise this. I just hate the ignorance on this topic. Bold of you to speak of ignorance.We have hardly even quantified our statements and it should be clear that my demands on precision are higher than yours and what you call 'precise' I call unacceptable unreliability. I'm pretty sure we can both agree that it's far from exceptional that an IQ test taken again the next day shows a 5 point deviation. If you want to call that an acceptable reliability, or a confidence factor of 5 acceptable than that's your own prerogative, it's just absurd to call an uncertainty of 1/3 of a standard deviation acceptable. And that still ignores the philosophical issue of the existence of 'intelligence' or a metre thereon. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Stereotype
United States136 Posts
ENTP Zerg Diamond Looking at all the data so far as updated on google docs, I find it kinda funny that ENTPs (15/247 entries if I add myself) all seem to be the following: League: 4 Unlisted, 7 Diamond, 4 Masters Race: 11 Zerg, 1 Protoss, 1 Terran, 2 Random ENTP = FOR THE SWARM! | ||
|
Giwoon
Korea (South)431 Posts
ENFP Zerg 2.2k Diamond | ||
|
dogbreath48
Canada23 Posts
INTJ terran bronze  Strength of the preferences % 44 38 75 22 re took the test Extraverted (E) 61% Intuitive (N) 68% Thinking (T) 75% Perceiving (P) 77% i am in silver now | ||
|
BordZ
Australia118 Posts
Intj Silver Zerg | ||
|
Mkoms
United States128 Posts
Mkoms.944 NA ENTP Diamond Zerg | ||
|
Tekst
United States14 Posts
INTP / ISTP slightly more INTP Terran Bronze for now, just getting serious though. I feel like both INTP and ISTP make a lot of sense. | ||
|
Assymptotic
United States552 Posts
INTP Protoss Diamond note that I've been inactive from SC2 for several months | ||
|
Quochobao
United States350 Posts
INTP Protoss Diamond | ||
|
MalMal
Canada94 Posts
ENTJ Zerg Diamond | ||
|
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
On February 04 2011 06:15 Stereotype wrote: Stereotype.788 NA ENTP Zerg Diamond Looking at all the data so far as updated on google docs, I find it kinda funny that ENTPs (15/247 entries if I add myself) all seem to be the following: League: 4 Unlisted, 7 Diamond, 4 Masters Race: 11 Zerg, 1 Protoss, 1 Terran, 2 Random ENTP = FOR THE SWARM! I find it odd, as i was reading what ENTP means (The visionary type) i would assume that most people would pick. a) Random (the most options, i used to do that) b) Protoss (race with a lot of options and spells, like Nal_Ra. the dreamer) Zerg is a very mechanical race (or it was in SC:BW, in SC2 there is no mechanical races as it's easy to macro) so it just doesn't add up. dunno. Hope i will not be the only Protoss. | ||
|
Mokaccino
Australia4 Posts
INFJ Protoss Platinum | ||
| ||
