Having an IQ 2 standard deviations above the norm (130+ SD15) tends to attract problems/difficulty/friction in corporate environments. That is, companies are biased toward Te users (xxTJs) and extroverts + judgers (ExxJs) with IQs in the 115-125 range.
Synthesis usually starts at 130+. Companies either don't like it, or want it cheaper.
115-125 is also most common among students enrolled in big-name universities. They also get an edge in high school, as they are smart enough to be better, and yet, not smart enough to get bored or be seen as a threat.
Please stop giving MBTI mind share, it has repeatedly been proven to be non-scientific. The creators of the test had minimal to no training in psychology, the underlying basis of the test are not based on sound theory, and test results for a given person are not stable across multiple retakes over medium periods of time.
MBTI was sold to corporations as a psuedo-scientific way to make employment decisions. It explains everything in a nice, simple way, that makes everyone feel good about their "strengths".
> Synthesis usually starts at 130+. Companies either don't like it, or want it cheaper.
MBTI doesn't represent people's actual personality. I am supposed to be INTP, yet I enjoy managing teams of people, I am capable of standing up and entertaining a room full of people, and I am able to play long term internal politics to help ensure the project I am on can stay on track.
I also haven't seen MBTI used, anytime recently, by companies as a management tool. I have seen other pseudo-science hackery in place, but they almost always has the same attitude towards results MBTI does, all positives, no negatives.
Actually a friend's company did recently go through a corporate psych test that was brutal in its results. People got results back that said things like "you try to control and manipulate other people around you to get results" and "you are insecure in your work and that causes you to lash out at others."
It was hilarious to see honest results being given to people in a corporate setting, not what people are used to. :)
For an actual scientific measurement of personality, Big5 is where to go right now.
I'm really hoping you have some, because intuitively this seems very true for me.
Aside from that, the standard sources of psuedoscience woo debunking all have long articles
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221
and finally https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-personality-test-tha... has a brief bio on Katharine Cook Briggs
b) Most people here also probably know people who are every bit as intelligent as they are who have repeatedly had really shitty luck and zero success. Similarly, most people know someone who is successful, but at the end of the day is pretty stupid. Regardless of IQ, I think most people here recognize intellect as really helpful, but also as neither necessary nor sufficient for success, wealth, happiness, etc.
b. Those instances tend to stand out (especially the people smarter than you with miserable outcomes), but also tend to not be statistically relevant.
Everyone here probably isn't.
People who have a near-average (on either side) IQ are less likely to have it tested, and those with an average or below IQ less likely than those above the average to talk about their score.
Consequently, people who talk about their IQ score tend to have a higher than average score.
Being a competent professional engineer requires some raw intelligence, true, but also determination, interpersonal communication skills, organizational skills, time, training, resources, access to the infrastructure you want to work with, and no small amount of luck. Those all interact in complicated ways, and most can be used to buttress the others depending on where one's personal talents lie.
There's probably some minimum necessary raw intelligence necessary to become a hacker, but I suspect that bar is much lower than HN would like to admit. And I am very sure that there's no maximum past which the rest of the list ceases to matter.
I’d assume a similar distribution to the general population, actually. Why would I think otherwise?