Information

Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality

Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality

Is there any relationship between intelligence and big five personality traits?


I suppose this needs a more in-depth answer, but a quick search found one twin study (Bartels et al. 2012), which not only correlated IQ with Big5, but also tried to determine how much of that has a shared genetic basis:

Significant positive phenotypic correlations with IQ were seen for agreeableness (r = 0.21) and openness to experience (r = 0.32). A negative correlation emerged for neuroticism and IQ (r = 0.10). Genetic factors explained (nearly) all of the covariance between personality traits and IQ. Genetic correlations were 0.3-0.4 between IQ and agreeableness and openness. The genetic correlation between IQ and neuroticism was around 0.18. Thus, personality and IQ did not appear to be independent dimensions, and low neuroticism, high agreeableness and high scores on openness all contributed to higher IQ scores.

That paper also serves as mini-review of prior works:

Openness to experience tends to correlate highest with intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Aitken Harris, 2004; Chamorro-Premuzic, Moutafi, & Furnham, 2005; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2006) [… ] Results for other personality traits are less clear. Some studies reported negative associations between IQ and neuroticism (Austin, Hofer, Deary, & Eber, 2000; Kyllonen, 1997). Occasionally, extraversion has been reported to correlate (positively and negatively) with intelligence (Wolf & Ackerman, 2005), and this relation has been moderated by the nature of the test and the context (Bates & Rock, 2004; Matthews, 1997; Rawlings & Carnie, 1989; Robinson, 1985). Correlations of intelligence with conscientiousness have been small and negative (Furnham et al., 2005). Moutafi et al. (2006) hypothesized that conscientiousness is a trait that less intelligent individuals can possess to compensate in a competitive environment. Conscientiousness, in contrast, has been positively associated with academic performance (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Lievens et al., 2002). Agreeable people tend to be pleasant and accommodating in social situations and this trait is rarely associated with intelligence. However, one study found a small positive relation with scholastic achievement in adolescent males (Peterson, Pihl, Higgins, Seguin, & Tremblay, 2003). Altruistic behavior, which is a small aspect of the construct of agreeableness, was associated with higher IQ scores in younger children (Kohlberg, 1964; Krebs & Sturrup, 1982)

Regarding the compensation hypothesis between conscientiousness and IQ, a more recent review-ish paper, Murray et al. is critical of it, considering it an artefact of twin studies. Nevertheless, there's a more recent study Rammstedt et al., which (using OECD's PIAAC - "PISA for adults" as substitute for IQ) again found in favor of that compensation hypothesis; it also confirmed the positive correlation between Openness and cognitive ability and found a negative correlation with Neuroticism. It also found some moderators for these:

  • The cognitive ability-Openness relationship is moderated by educational attainment.

  • The association with Conscientiousness is moderated by labor force participation.


Intelligence as measured by g is most associated with Openness, at modest levels, about r = .10-.15, meaning that only 1% of the variance of each is explained by the other.


Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality - Psychology

One of the main challenges to getting EQ (Emotional Quotient) recognized as a legitimate measurement of an individual's ability to function and interact on an emotional level is the role that personality plays in these types of actions. The study of personality examines the issue from the perspective of the Big Five personality traits commonly accepted in psychological circles. The Big Five are considered to include: openness, extroversion, agreeableness, neur otic ism, and conscientiousness . Virtually every personality test there is relies to some degree on these five characteristics whether or not they are predictive and broad-ranging enough is a common concern within the psychological community and, at times, come into conflict with the concept of EQ.

The Big Five are essentially broad scope characteristics that often represent an individual's personality. In turn, it is assumed that someone's choices -- and thus their future -- can be predicted to some degree by evaluating the Big Five in that person. The Big Five are as follows:

  • Openness to experience - Openness typically reflects an individual's willingness and predisposition to exploring a variety of experiences. This is often expressed through intellectual curiosity, a range of emotion, appreciation for art, a level of adventure-seeking, and so on. Generally speaking, someone who has a high level of openness will often seek new experiences, rather than engaging in a high level of routine. It is important to note that some experts classify openness relating more directly to intellectual stimulation, than general experiences.
  • Agreeableness – Someone who is described as being agreeable typically tends to be compassionate to others and cooperative, rather than antagonistic and suspicious. The people who tend to be agreeable are often trusting and helpful, as well as generally well-tempered. Someone with a low level of agreeableness may simply be hesitant to trust others, limited in their likelihood of compromising, and often assume that people are, by nature, unfriendly.
  • Conscientiousness - Although many people tend to think this particular personality trait relates to a person's social conscientiousness, it actually is about the decisions someone makes with regard to being conscientious about all aspects of their lives at any given time. This type of conscientiousness could include being highly scheduled, well organized, dependable, disciplined, and restrained. Consequently, those who are less conscientious tend to be highly spontaneous, easygoing, and sometimes careless.
  • Extroversion - Extroversion refers to an individual's likelihood to engage willingly in the company of others, and how comfortable they are doing so. Often, this characteristic goes along with whether the person tends to be energetic, positive, talkative, and generally seems to excel best when in the company of others. Those who are considered not to be extroverts are often introverts (meaning they value time alone and often prefer their own company to that of strangers or large groups). Being an introvert, however, doesn't indicate that an individual has no interest in social relationships, but rather that they are more likely to have a few close friends or relationships rather than enjoying a large group.
  • Neuroticism - Although the term neurotic is sometimes used unfairly, this aspect of personality does have a distinct role to play when considering the likelihood of someone's choices and certain types of success. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism tend to be more sensitive emotionally and are often more nervous by nature. People that are highly neurotic often struggle socially and tend to be challenged by their negative emotions. Anger, anxiety, vulnerability, and depression are all common concerns when dealing with neurotic individuals. The difficulties of someone who is more neurotic may include a level of emotional instability and impulse control. Those who are not neurotic or score low on this aspect of personality tests are typically much more emotionally secure and often have higher levels of self-esteem. Some researchers argue that those who demonstrate little neuroticism also enjoy a lower likelihood of depression and suicidal ideation during their lifetimes.

The Big Five model was initially discovered by several different scientists who were completing independent research into personality traits. The fact that the Big Five was determined by individual researchers, and has also been given credence by a number of researchers throughout the world, supports its validity in the psychological field. This measure of universality helps provide support for its use on an international scale, regardless of cultural differences. That said, there is also some dispute as to whether the Big Five is as significant as we have assumed it to be. Some researchers argue it is too narrow in scope, and lacks a number of other distinct personality characteristics, such as seductiveness, religiosity, honesty, thriftiness, conservativeness, gender stability, and so on.

So how does the Big Five impact EQ? In many ways, the two are closely related. Certain personality characteristics identified in the Big Five may have the ability to positively or negatively impact an individual's EQ. Likewise, the Big Five can typically predict a tremendous amount of information about an individual, such as their academic success and relationship patterns. In fact, some researchers and psychologists consider EQ to be useless or unnecessary compared to using the five-factor model. Nevertheless, there's one particular component of EQ that differentiates it from the Big Five in an important way: While our personality traits are generally set and can be documented by the time we are five or six, EQ you can be strengthened and developed as we grow older. Granted, we can also work to overcome any negative consequences of our basic five personality traits, but when the two are used in conjunction with each other, there is far more likelihood of success in implementing new patterns and learning Emotional Intelligence. Just as our IQ reflects our natural intellect, we are nevertheless given the capacity to learn in order to supplement our natural ability. Similarly, we are able to use information about our own personalities in order to supplement our natural Emotional Intelligence.

In fact, one of the main criticisms of Emotional Intelligence theory is that it is simply a repackaging of personality traits, rather than a true intelligence, and that some theories of Emotional Intelligence do integrate and rely heavily on personality traits. Proponents of Emotional Intelligence theory typically claim that while a person's personality, much like their IQ, dictates a certain level of potential, EQ is distinct from in that it measures how well a person is able to use their personality characteristics and traits when handling the emotions of themselves and/or others. Put simply, a person's IQ does not necessarily dictate what kind of grades they will get in school. Similarly, a person's personality does not dictate how well they interact with others and how well they are able to control emotions.


How Does IQ Relate to Personality?

Personality and IQ have traditionally been viewed as distinct domains of human functioning. However, research over the past three decades suggests that IQ is a personality trait.

Personality and IQ have traditionally been viewed as distinct domains of human functioning. However, research over the past three decades suggests that IQ is a personality trait. In an excellent book chapter in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, personality neuroscientist Colin DeYoung points out that many personality traits involve cognitive processes and abilities. It's just that IQ is primarily measured with ability tests, whereas personality tests are primarily measured with questionnaires. But this is more a reflection of a lack of ingenuity on the part of psychologists than a real difference in domain of human functioning.

It's theoretically possible to measure personality traits through ability tests. For instance, agreeableness could be measured through tests of perspective taking, conscientiousness could be measured through tests of self-control, and neuroticism could be measured through measures of emotional self-regulation. Viewing IQ as a personality trait is helpful because it puts IQ in perspective. We can take a birds eye view of all the many fascinating ways we differ from one another in cognitive processing, emotion, and motivation, while seeing where IQ fits into that bigger picture.

To help us see that picture, I analyzed data from the Eugene-Springfield community sample, which consisted of 478 mostly White participants from Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 85 years, and spanned all levels of educational attainment. The sample consisted of 199 males and 279 females. While the sample isn't ethnically diverse, it does have a pretty good range of IQ and personality, so we can get some sense of how IQ relates to personality in the general population. The IQ test that participants took consisted of 15 multiple-choice items that measured knowledge and abstract reasoning. The personality test measured 45 dimensions of human personality.

Consistent with prior research, IQ was most strongly related to openness to experience. Out of 9 dimensions of openness to experience, 8 out of 9 were positively related to IQ: intellectual engagement, intellectual creativity, mental quickness, intellectual competence, introspection, ingenuity, intellectual depth, and imagination. Interestingly, IQ was much more strongly related to intellectual engagement and mental quickness than imagination, ingenuity, or intellectual depth, and IQ was not related to sensitivity to beauty.

Out of 45 dimensions of personality, 23 dimensions were not related to IQ. This included gregariousness, friendliness, assertiveness, poise, talkativeness, social understanding, warmth, pleasantness, empathy, cooperation, sympathy, conscientiousness, efficiency, dutifulness, purposefulness, cautiousness, rationality, perfectionism, calmness, impulse control, imperturbability, cool-headedness, and tranquility. These qualities were not directly relevant to IQ.

8 dimensions of personality outside the openness to experience domain were positively related to IQ, including organization, toughness, provocativeness, leadership, self-disclosure, emotional stability, moderation, and happiness-- although the correlations were much smaller than with intellectual engagement and mental quickness. IQ was negatively related to orderliness, morality, nurturance, tenderness, and sociability, but again, the negative correlations were much smaller than the relationships among IQ, intellectual engagement, and mental quickness.

Given this data, where does IQ fit into the personality puzzle? While this is just a single dataset, it is consistent with other studies suggesting that the most relevant personality domain is openness to experience, particularly the dimensions that reflect the ability and drive for conscious exploration of inner mental experience. This is certainly an important slice of personality, but at the same time these findings illustrate that there are many more ways we differ from each other in cognition, emotion, and motivation that are not well measured by IQ tests.

Note: Thanks to Colin DeYoung for providing me with the Eugene-Springfield dataset. For more correlations between IQ and personality, see the supplementary data [1, 2] for the paper "From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domains as a paradoxical simplex", authored by Colin DeYoung, Rachael Grazioplene, and Jordan Peterson.

If you're interested in the finer details of my analysis, see below. Correlations with IQ in parentheses. * = p < .05 ** = p < .01. Note that I changed some of the IPIP AB5C facet names to better reflect the content of the items.


Big Five Openness, Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Intuition, & IQ Correlations

The Five-Factor Model, commonly known as “The Big Five,” is the leading academic model of personality. As I have noted elsewhere, the correlations between the Big Five and Myers-Briggs personality dimensions are surprisingly strong. This is particularly remarkable when considering that Jung developed his framework on a completely informal basis, without the aid of the massive data collection and complex statistics that birthed the Big Five.

In this post, we will explore what I feel are some interesting correlations between one of the Big Five’s factors—Openness (sometimes called Openness to Experience)—and the Myers-Briggs preferences. While numerous studies have demonstrated strong correlations between the Myers-Briggs and the Big Five, the material for this post is derived primarily from a large study (over 900 participants) done by Adrian Furnham and colleagues. 1 This study compared subjects’ MBTI results with those of the Big Five’s Revised NEO-Personality Indicator (NEO PI-R).

The Big Five exhibits many similarities with the Myers-Briggs, with four of its five factors showing strong correlations with certain MBTI preferences:

As we will see, Big Five Openness correlates strongly with Myers-Briggs Intuition, moderately with Perceiving and Extraversion, and mildly with Feeling. Based on this, we might suspect ENFPs to be the most open (in the Big Five sense) of the types, with ENTPs earning a close second.

The Openness domain is comprised of six facets—openness to actions, values, feelings, fantasy, aesthetics, and ideas. Before proceeding further, let’s consider the numbers. The following data set uses the typical Myers-Briggs nomenclature of Intuition (N), Perceiving (P), Feeling (F), and Extraversion (E). I’ve also bolded the stronger correlations for emphasis.


Lingering Taxonomic Issues

Although the Big Five is the dominant perspective on the organization of personality traits, there remain differences of opinion regarding some aspects of the taxonomy. Hans Eysenck (1992) and Auke Tellegen, for example, have argued that the highest level of the taxonomy should be represented by three rather than five traits. Eysenck has vigorously defended his position that the highest level of the taxonomy should be represented by the traits of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, a perspective that some have referred to as the Even Bigger Three. Although extra-version and neuroticism are defined by Eysenck in a manner that is consistent with the Big Five, he argues that psychoticism is made up of lower levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Tellegen has taken a position similar to Eysenck’s, arguing that the three traits of positive emotionality (extraversion and part of conscientiousness), negative emotionality (neuroticism and low agreeableness), and constraint (part of conscientiousness and low openness) should dominate the highest levels of the trait taxonomy.

Some debate also remains about the names and definitions of some of the Big Five traits themselves. For example, the agreeableness dimension has also been referred to as love, likability, and nurturance, each of which conveys a somewhat different interpretation. Oliver John has argued, in fact, that the term agreeableness is somewhat misleading, suggesting a submissive nature that would actually be located at the lower end of the extraversion trait. Although the term conscientiousness seems to be well accepted at this point in time, this trait has also been referred to by various authors as dependability, work, will to achieve, responsibility, and constraint. Perhaps the most controversy, however, has surrounded the nature of the openness dimension. In addition to openness, this dimension has been referred to as culture, intellect, and intellectance. The controversy stems from the apparent incorporation of aspects of intelligence into the factor. For example, in Goldberg’s work, the term intelligent was consistently an indicator of this dimension. Some researchers have been highly critical of the association of this dimension with intelligence, fearing that the dimension will be considered synonymous with intelligence as measured by IQ tests when, in fact, the dimension is much broader, encompassing artistic and creative aspects, a willingness to try new things, and a sense of open-mindedness.

It seems that much of the controversy surrounding the naming of the five dimensions is a result of their broad nature. Some clarity might be brought to the issue if there were to be consensus regarding the next lowest level of the trait hierarchy. Scant work, however, has been done to identify and define the traits at the level below the five dimensions. There is some consensus among industrial/organizational (I/O) researchers interested in personality that the trait of conscientiousness can be broken down into two dimensions of achievement striving and dependability. Also, Robert and Joyce Hogan have argued that extraversion can be split into sociability and ambition. It seems clear that research focusing explicitly on this level of the hierarchy is warranted.

One problem with establishing the lower levels of the trait hierarchy is that the hierarchy is likely to be reticulated. That is, many lower-level traits are liable to relate to more than one trait at the higher levels. Using studies of adjectives as a source of examples, some researchers have associated warmth with extra-version whereas others have associated it with agreeableness. Likewise, the characteristic of impulsiveness has been associated with neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness by various researchers. These cross-associations of traits at one level with traits at higher levels will make the process of achieving consensus at levels of traits below the Big Five difficult, but it would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor.

It is important to recognize that the Big Five taxonomy is simply descriptive and is not a theory. As such, it does not explain why people behave in the ways they do it is only a system for classifying behavioral tendencies. Although many have criticized the Big Five because it is not theoretical, others have argued that the taxonomy is necessary before theory can be developed. To this end, Paul Costa and Robert McCrea have proposed a five-factor theory of personality. Although the theory is broad in scope, at its core it suggests that the Big Five are a result of biological processes and influence people’s characteristic adaptations—the ways they think, feel, and behave in their unique environments.


Ackerman, P. L. (1996a). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.

Ackerman, P. L. (1996b). Intelligence as process and knowledge: An integration for adult development and application. In W. Rogers & A. Fisk (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications (pp. 139–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum.

Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, et al. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 437–462). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150–153.

Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfus, E. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314–330.

Anthony, W. (1973). The development of extraversion, of ability, and of relation between them. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 223–227.

Bayne, R. (2003). Love, money and studying. The Psychologist, 16, 529–531.

Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 287–409.

Blinkhorn, S. (1985). Graduate and managerial assessment manual and user guide. Dorchester: Dorset.

Blinkhorn, S., & Johnson, C. (1990). The insignificance of personality testing. Nature, 348, 671–672.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: Springer.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies British university students. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338.

Chamorro- Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic exam performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Intellectual competence. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: a third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251–267.

Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1999). Personality, disorder and personality disorder: Towards a more rational conceptualisation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 142–151.

Cook, M. (2004). Personnel selection. Chichester: Wiley.

Costa, P. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psychology, 45, 225–241.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Davito, A. (1985). A review of the MBTI. In J. Mitchell (Ed.), North Mental Measurement Yearbook.

Dobson, P. (2000). An introduction into the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test performance in selection. Applied Psychology, 45, 225–241.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Drasgow F. (2003). Intelligence and the workplace. In W. Borman, R. Ilgen & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, (Vol.12, pp. 107–129). New York: Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.

Furnham, A. (2002). Personality at work. London: Routledge.

Furnham, A. (2004) Personality and organisation: European perspectives on personality assessment in organisations. In B. Schneider & D. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations (pp. 25–59). Mahwah, NJ.: LEA.

Furnham, A. (2006). The personality disorders and intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 42–46.

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943–955.

Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 197–208.

Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993) Personality and work-performance: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial perfromance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145–153.

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEO––personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31, 577–584.

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Intelligence in relation to Jung’s personality types. Individual Difference Research, 3, 2–13.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552.

Gottfredson, L. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 70–132.

Heim, A. (1965). Tests AHS. London: NFER.

Huntz, E., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance. The big five resulted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.

Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, T. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

Judge, T., Martcchto, J., & Thoresen, C. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.

Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thorensen, C., & Barrick, M. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general metal ability and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

Jung, C. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kaufman, A., McLean, J., & Lincoln, A. (1996). The relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ level and the fluid and crystallized IQ discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Assessment, 3, 225–239.

Matthews, G. (1999). Personality and skill: a cognitive-adaptive framework. In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen & R. Roberts (Eds.), The future of learning and individual difference research (pp. 251–270). Washingthon DC: APA.

Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.

McDonald, D., Anderson, P., Tsagarakis, C., & Holland, J. (1994). Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 74, 339–344.

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality DSM-III: Axis II. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2002). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO-personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79–94.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is concientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 1021–1037.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait Neuroticism mediated by test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587–598.

Murphy, K. (2002). Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved. Human Performance, 15, 175–186.

Myers, I., & McCalley, M. (1975). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Nyhus, E., & Pons, E. (2005). The effect of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363–389.

Rice, G., & Lindecamp, D. (1989). Personality types and business success of small retailers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 177–182.

Salgado, J. (1997). The Five model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187–210.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Applied Psychology., 86, 162–173.

Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121–143.

Stankov, L., Boyle, G. J., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Models and paradigns in personality, intelligence research. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International Handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 15–43). New York: Plenum Press.

Van der Berg, T., & Feij, J. (1993). Personality traits and job characteristics as predictors of job experiences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 337–357.

Watson, G. & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. The Psychological Corporation/Marcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, San Antonio, TX.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. (1994) Watson-Glaser Cortical Thinking Appraisal ––Form S (WGCTA). Washington: Psychological Corportation.

Wolf, M., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543–555.

Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581–610). New York: Cambridge University Press.


On the so-called “Jewish Question”

The players of identity politics on the far right continue ever-so-pathologically to beat the anti-Semitic drum, pointing to the over-representation of Jews in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements). I’m called upon–sometimes publicly, sometimes on social media platforms–to comment on such matters, and criticized when I hesitate to do so (although God only knows why I would hesitate :)

So let’s take apart the far-right claims:

First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, then you require a victim (in the right-wing case, European culture or some variant) and a perpetrator (Jews). Otherwise you can’t play the game (a YouTube video I made explicating the rules can be found here). Once you determine to play, however, you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).

Second, in what manner (if any) are such claims true? Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence. New York Jews, in particular, snap up a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes (see this Times of Israel article), and Jews are disproportionately eligible for admission at elite universities, where they, along with Asians, tend to be discriminated against (see this Newsweek article). It’s possible that we should be happy about this, rather than annoyed: is the fact that smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement really something to feel upset? What, exactly, is the preferable alternative? In any case, the radical/identity-politics right wingers regard such accomplishment as evidence of a conspiracy. It hardly needs to be said that although conspiracies do occasionally occur, conspiracy theories are the lowest form of intellectual enterprise. Is there another, more credible explanation? Yes. Three well-documented factors in fact appear to be at play:

a) The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews (see this article in the Economist for a credible layman’s analysis for a scientific take (one of many) see Gregory Cochran’s work: abstract and full paper). Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence (my lab has published on this issue). Consider also that the effect of a mean or average difference in IQ is dramatically increased at the tails of the distribution, so that a 10-15 point difference produces increasingly large inequalities in group representation in proportion to the degree that a given job requires higher general cognitive ability. This means that proportional Jewish over-representation increases as the demand for IQ increases. Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.

b) The relationship between IQ and Big Five trait Openness to Experience . Openness to Experience is one of the five cardinal personality traits (Wikipedia will fill you in rapidly if you need more info). Openness to Experience has often been considered the reflection of general cognitive ability or intelligence in personality. It’s what you are referring to when you describe someone as thoughtful, smart, artistic or philosophical. People with high IQs tend overwhelmingly to be higher in trait Openness to Experience (particularly in the Openness to Experience aspect of Intellect (Dr. Colin DeYoung’s lab spearheaded a paper on this issue).

c) The relationship between Openness to Experience and political liberalism : Political affiliation is importantly associated with personality. Conservatives/right-wingers tend to be high in Conscientiousness (particularly in the Conscientiousness aspect of Orderliness) and low in Openness to Experience while liberals/left-wingers tend to have the reverse pattern (low Conscientiousness (particularly aspect Orderliness) and high Openness to Experience. The story is somewhat more complicated than that (which we also reviewed), but that covers the basics.

So, what’s the story? No conspiracy. Get it? No conspiracy. Jewish people are over-represented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ. The effect of this group difference (approximately the difference between the typical high school student and the typical state college student) is magnified for occupations/interests that require high general cognitive ability. Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence.

Readers interested in such issues may also be interested in a broader recent critique of the idea of Jewish conspiracy: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory

Update April 24 2018: A recent critic attempted to take my argument apart arithmetically:

He stated: Different ethnic groups act in a nepotistic manner at differing levels. Some do so more than others.

Your argument is essentially that identity politics does matter not. But it does to Jews, who’s religion and ethnic identity are especially important to them. They even base their whole identity around their victimization in the past by gentiles (Romen Empire, Christians, the Holocaust). Yet, you’re trying to tell us those who play into identity politics are losers? That’s the first problem I’m seeing because even Jews don’t believe that.

Second, if Jews are high IQ, and that means they are more likely to be in positions of power, that would explain their prevalence. Yet, there are VASTLY more white gentiles that have equal or higher IQs than your average Jews. We can do simple math to prove this. If there are 6 million Jews in the United States with an average IQ of 115 (so 3 million are 115+) and there are 200+ million white gentiles with an average IQ of 105 IQ (so roughly 30% are 115+ IQ). So 200 million x .30 gives us 60,000,000 whites with an IQ of 115+. So, we would think, if all things being equal, then that whites would proportionally represented in positions of power commensurate with their IQ and numbers. Jews should, according to the idea that IQ leads to representation in positions of power, should be 5% or so of millionaires (3 million Jews / 60 million gentiles at 115+). But this is not the case. Jews make up a disproportionate number of millionaires and billionaires (40% according to Forbes) according to the IQ theory Jordan B. Peterson is utilizing.

What explains this? Ethnic nepotism, i.e. identity politics. Jews priviliege others Jews with access to power, money, and positions to perpetuate Jewish influence in America.

Yet, Jordan Peterson is telling us there is no idea of Jewish power in America. That’s simply not true when we all know the world runs on money, and no one knows this better than the Jews. That’s why our foreign policy has been about securing Israel’s security. That’s why our politicians get money from AIPAC. Why we send billions to Isarel every year. Why our relationship with the Muslim world has declined because of this one-sided affair.

Your cutoff for high IQ is far too low. Try 145 (the figure I cite for serious intellectual advantage) and see how that works. That’s three standard deviations above the general population of mean of 100, not the 115 (one standard deviation) you used. One standard deviation above the average is helpful — it puts you in college — but it’s nothing compared to three standard deviations (in part because of the operation of the Pareto principle).

Three standard deviations advantage for the general population puts an individual at 99.9%. That’s .001 of the population, so .001 X 200,000,000 (using your figures) = 200,000 “white gentiles” with an IQ of 145 or more.

Two standard deviations advantage for the Jewish population (with an estimated mean IQ of 115) means an IQ above 97.7% of the Jewish population. That’s .023 of the population, so .023 X 6.000,000 = 138,000

138,000/(200,000+138,000) = 138,000/338,000 = 40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish. And you said 󈬘% of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish.”


Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality - Psychology

This is a basic look at the Big Five Personality Traits, also known as the Five Factor Model (FFM) and a quick comparison to the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI).

The big five personality traits, or the five factor model is a personality test created in-part to help companies find suitably productive people for particular job roles. It can be used by companies in the selection process, and also by individuals to help them select an appropriate career path for their temperament.

The big five personality test was developed by several psychologists and researchers. It includes research which dates back to the mid twentieth century from around the globe, spanning different cultures. It’s considered to be the most complete and accurate personality test currently available. Some of the traits do indicate differences between the sexes, with men and women scoring differently on the traits Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Orderliness.

The Big Five Personality Traits/Dimensions

The openness trait relates to having an open mind, open to new ideas and opportunities with a strong interest in abstraction, and seeking new experiences. It also covers imagination/creativity and adventurousness. Creative people have a strong interest in aesthetics and abstraction, abstract ideas and art.

People who have high levels of openness tend to have many interests and passions. Plus people with high openness tend to require more variety in their job roles and life in general. People who have low openness tend to be more close minded and conventional, supports traditions. Plus they tend to have fewer interests and passions, and are more likely to be content repeating the same learned skill or job over and over.

  • Artistic desires
  • Intelligence
  • Liberalism
  • Emotionality
  • Adventurousness

Conscientiousness

Highly conscientious people like to plan things and think carefully before acting. They’re very organized, disciplined, responsible and efficient in their work, they’re also hard workers that are often very punctual and pragmatic. People who are low on conscientiousness are often disorganized. They take a more laid back flexible approach to work, keeping to time scales is not so important to them.

  • Orderliness – Linked to obsessive compulsive personalities.
  • Disciplined
  • Cautiousness
  • Achievement seeking
  • Dutifulness
  • Industriousness

Highly extroverted people gain their energy from people and groups. They’re usually more sociable with better social skills. Extroverts are out going, more assertive and they thrive in group and social situations. Extroversion is also the trait most associated with general positive emotions. Introverts require and prefer less group work, more reserved in character, softer spoken and often work better in solitude.

  • Assertiveness
  • Activity level
  • Thrill seeking
  • Gregariousness
  • Friendliness

Agreeableness

People with high agreeableness are friendly, helpful, unselfish, sympathetic and compassionate. They will often place the needs of others before their own. They cooperate well with others and consider different points of views. These people are generally optimistic in nature. They also hate confrontation and will avoid it at all costs. People who score low on the agreeableness scale may lack compassion, prioritize their own needs first and more likely to be confrontational and competitive. Women on average tend to be higher on trait agreeableness.

This trait also seems to be connected to a difference in interests. Those high in agreeableness tend to have a stronger interest in people, rather than an interest in things or objects.

  • Sympathy
  • Cooperative
  • Morality
  • Trust
  • Modesty
  • Compassion
  • Politeness

Neuroticism – Emotional Stability

Those high on the neuroticism scale are likely to suffer with mood swings and general negative emotions. They’re generally less in control of their emotions. They’re more likely to get worked up, stressed and anxious more easily. The reverse is true for those scoring low on the neuroticism scale. Neuroticism is another trait where there is a difference between the genders, women on average are higher in aspects of trait neuroticism.

  • Anger
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • Self consciousness
  • Vulnerability
  • Immoderate

The big five personality traits test has some similarities with the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator.

Extroversion and introversion is of course there on the MBTI. However many of the introverted character traits can now be found on the openness trait on the big five traits dimension scale.

The agreeableness trait has some strong similarities to the thinkers and feelers scale on the MBTI system. Being high in Agreeableness has similarities to (Feeling) being a dominate function on the MBTI. For example, placing the needs of others before their own, and generally being more compassionate.

Neuroticism/emotional stability and negative emotion is given a priority here on the big five traits. Emotional instability could also be linked to an extremely introverted personality based on some research. MRI scans and studies in neurosciences have linked a high reactive Amygdala, part of the Limbic system in the brain to being introverted. This link gives an explanation of why many introverts tend to be more reactive and sensitive to stresses and anxiety.

The MBTI does place people into rigid personality groups which is one of the main criticisms of the model. The Big 5 on the other hand is a much less rigid model, and personality psychologists consider the big 5 to be much more accurate and useful in assessing personality.


The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space

Correspondence should be addressed to K. V. Petrides, Institute of Education, University of London, 25 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AA, UK (e-mail: [email protected] ).Search for more papers by this author

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to K. V. Petrides, Institute of Education, University of London, 25 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AA, UK (e-mail: [email protected] ).Search for more papers by this author

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Abstract

The construct of trait emotional intelligence (trait EI or trait emotional self-efficacy) provides a comprehensive operationalization of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions. In the first part of the present study (N = 274, 92 males), we performed two joint factor analyses to determine the location of trait EI in Eysenckian and Big Five factor space. The results showed that trait EI is a compound personality construct located at the lower levels of the two taxonomies. In the second part of the study, we performed six two-step hierarchical regressions to investigate the incremental validity of trait EI in predicting, over and above the Giant Three and Big Five personality dimensions, six distinct criteria (life satisfaction, rumination, two adaptive and two maladaptive coping styles). Trait EI incrementally predicted four criteria over the Giant Three and five criteria over the Big Five. The discussion addresses common questions about the operationalization of emotional intelligence as a personality trait.


Is the Theory of Emotional Intelligence a Scam?

What is more beneficial in life a high EQ or IQ? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, clinical psychologist, on Quora:

There is no such thing as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Let me repeat that: "There is no such thing as an EQ." The idea was popularized by a journalist, Daniel Goleman, not a psychologist. You can't just invent a trait. You have to define it and measure it and distinguish it from other traits and use it to predict the important ways that people vary.

EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't), it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure the same thing). Agreeable people are compassionate and polite, but they can also be pushovers. Disagreeable people, on average (if they aren't too disagreeable) make better managers, because they are straightforward, don't avoid conflict and cannot be easily manipulated.

Let me say it again: There is no such thing as an EQ. Scientifically, it's a fraudulent concept, a fad, a convenient bandwagon, a corporate marketing scheme. (Here's an early critique by Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, D. Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Here's a conclusion reached by Harms and Crede, in an excellent article -- comprehensive and well thought-through (2010):

Harms and Crede also commented:

IQ is a different story. It is the most well-validated concept in the social sciences, bar none. It is an excellent predictor of academic performance, creativity, ability to abstract, processing speed, learning ability and general life success.

Other traits are essential to overall success, including conscientiousness, which is an excellent predictor of grades, managerial and administrative ability, and life outcomes, on the more conservative side.

It should also be noted that IQ is five or more times as powerful a predictor as even good personality trait predictors such as conscientiousness. The true relationship between grades, for example, and IQ might be as high as r = .50 or even .60 (accounting for 25-36% of the variance in grades). Conscientiousness, however, probably tops out at around r = .30, and is more typically reported as r = .25 (say, 5 to 9% of the variance in grades). There is nothing that will provide you with a bigger advantage in life than a high IQ. Nothing.

In fact, if you could choose to be born at the 95th percentile for wealth, or the 95th percentile for IQ, you would be more successful at age forty as a consequence of the latter choice.

It might be objected that we cannot measure traits such as conscientiousness as well as we measure IQ, as we primarily rely on self or other reports for the former. But no one has solved this problem. There are no "ability" tests for conscientiousness. I am speaking as someone who has tried to produce such tests for ten years, and failed (despite trying dozens of good ideas, with top students working on the problem). IQ is king. This is why academic psychologists almost never measure it. If you measure it along with your putatively "new" measure, IQ will kill your ambitions. For the career minded, this is a no-go zone. So people prefer to talk about multiple bits of intelligence and EQ and all these things that do not exist.

There is also no such thing as "grit," despite what Angela Duckworth says. Grit is conscientiousness, plain and straightforward (although probably more the industrious side than the orderly side). All Duckworth and her compatriots did was fail to notice that they had re-invented a very well documented phenomena, that already had a name (and, when they did notice it, failed to produce the appropriate mea culpas. Not one of psychology's brighter moments). A physicist who "re-discovered" iron and named it melignite, or something equivalent would be immediately revealed as ignorant or manipulative (or, more likely, as ignorant and manipulative), and then taunted out of the field. Duckworth? She received a MacArthur Genius grant for her trouble. That's all as reprehensible as the self-esteem craze (self-esteem, by the way, is essentially .65 Big Five trait neuroticism (low) and .35 extraversion (high), with some accurate self-assessment of general life competence thrown in, for those who are a bit more self-aware). See: Self-Liking and Self-Competence Separate Self-Evaluation From Self-Deception: Associations With Personality, Ability, and Achievement.

In case I haven't made myself clear: there is no such thing as EQ, grit or self-esteem.

It's crooked psychology. Reminiscent of all the recent upheaval in the social psychology subfield: Final Report: Stapel Affair Points to Bigger Problems in Social Psychology.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.


The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space

Correspondence should be addressed to K. V. Petrides, Institute of Education, University of London, 25 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AA, UK (e-mail: [email protected] ).Search for more papers by this author

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Institute of Education, University of London, UK

Correspondence should be addressed to K. V. Petrides, Institute of Education, University of London, 25 Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AA, UK (e-mail: [email protected] ).Search for more papers by this author

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece

Abstract

The construct of trait emotional intelligence (trait EI or trait emotional self-efficacy) provides a comprehensive operationalization of emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions. In the first part of the present study (N = 274, 92 males), we performed two joint factor analyses to determine the location of trait EI in Eysenckian and Big Five factor space. The results showed that trait EI is a compound personality construct located at the lower levels of the two taxonomies. In the second part of the study, we performed six two-step hierarchical regressions to investigate the incremental validity of trait EI in predicting, over and above the Giant Three and Big Five personality dimensions, six distinct criteria (life satisfaction, rumination, two adaptive and two maladaptive coping styles). Trait EI incrementally predicted four criteria over the Giant Three and five criteria over the Big Five. The discussion addresses common questions about the operationalization of emotional intelligence as a personality trait.


Is the Theory of Emotional Intelligence a Scam?

What is more beneficial in life a high EQ or IQ? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jordan B Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, clinical psychologist, on Quora:

There is no such thing as an Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Let me repeat that: "There is no such thing as an EQ." The idea was popularized by a journalist, Daniel Goleman, not a psychologist. You can't just invent a trait. You have to define it and measure it and distinguish it from other traits and use it to predict the important ways that people vary.

EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't), it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure the same thing). Agreeable people are compassionate and polite, but they can also be pushovers. Disagreeable people, on average (if they aren't too disagreeable) make better managers, because they are straightforward, don't avoid conflict and cannot be easily manipulated.

Let me say it again: There is no such thing as an EQ. Scientifically, it's a fraudulent concept, a fad, a convenient bandwagon, a corporate marketing scheme. (Here's an early critique by Davies, M., Stankov, L. and Roberts, D. Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Here's a conclusion reached by Harms and Crede, in an excellent article -- comprehensive and well thought-through (2010):

Harms and Crede also commented:

IQ is a different story. It is the most well-validated concept in the social sciences, bar none. It is an excellent predictor of academic performance, creativity, ability to abstract, processing speed, learning ability and general life success.

Other traits are essential to overall success, including conscientiousness, which is an excellent predictor of grades, managerial and administrative ability, and life outcomes, on the more conservative side.

It should also be noted that IQ is five or more times as powerful a predictor as even good personality trait predictors such as conscientiousness. The true relationship between grades, for example, and IQ might be as high as r = .50 or even .60 (accounting for 25-36% of the variance in grades). Conscientiousness, however, probably tops out at around r = .30, and is more typically reported as r = .25 (say, 5 to 9% of the variance in grades). There is nothing that will provide you with a bigger advantage in life than a high IQ. Nothing.

In fact, if you could choose to be born at the 95th percentile for wealth, or the 95th percentile for IQ, you would be more successful at age forty as a consequence of the latter choice.

It might be objected that we cannot measure traits such as conscientiousness as well as we measure IQ, as we primarily rely on self or other reports for the former. But no one has solved this problem. There are no "ability" tests for conscientiousness. I am speaking as someone who has tried to produce such tests for ten years, and failed (despite trying dozens of good ideas, with top students working on the problem). IQ is king. This is why academic psychologists almost never measure it. If you measure it along with your putatively "new" measure, IQ will kill your ambitions. For the career minded, this is a no-go zone. So people prefer to talk about multiple bits of intelligence and EQ and all these things that do not exist.

There is also no such thing as "grit," despite what Angela Duckworth says. Grit is conscientiousness, plain and straightforward (although probably more the industrious side than the orderly side). All Duckworth and her compatriots did was fail to notice that they had re-invented a very well documented phenomena, that already had a name (and, when they did notice it, failed to produce the appropriate mea culpas. Not one of psychology's brighter moments). A physicist who "re-discovered" iron and named it melignite, or something equivalent would be immediately revealed as ignorant or manipulative (or, more likely, as ignorant and manipulative), and then taunted out of the field. Duckworth? She received a MacArthur Genius grant for her trouble. That's all as reprehensible as the self-esteem craze (self-esteem, by the way, is essentially .65 Big Five trait neuroticism (low) and .35 extraversion (high), with some accurate self-assessment of general life competence thrown in, for those who are a bit more self-aware). See: Self-Liking and Self-Competence Separate Self-Evaluation From Self-Deception: Associations With Personality, Ability, and Achievement.

In case I haven't made myself clear: there is no such thing as EQ, grit or self-esteem.

It's crooked psychology. Reminiscent of all the recent upheaval in the social psychology subfield: Final Report: Stapel Affair Points to Bigger Problems in Social Psychology.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.


Lingering Taxonomic Issues

Although the Big Five is the dominant perspective on the organization of personality traits, there remain differences of opinion regarding some aspects of the taxonomy. Hans Eysenck (1992) and Auke Tellegen, for example, have argued that the highest level of the taxonomy should be represented by three rather than five traits. Eysenck has vigorously defended his position that the highest level of the taxonomy should be represented by the traits of extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, a perspective that some have referred to as the Even Bigger Three. Although extra-version and neuroticism are defined by Eysenck in a manner that is consistent with the Big Five, he argues that psychoticism is made up of lower levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Tellegen has taken a position similar to Eysenck’s, arguing that the three traits of positive emotionality (extraversion and part of conscientiousness), negative emotionality (neuroticism and low agreeableness), and constraint (part of conscientiousness and low openness) should dominate the highest levels of the trait taxonomy.

Some debate also remains about the names and definitions of some of the Big Five traits themselves. For example, the agreeableness dimension has also been referred to as love, likability, and nurturance, each of which conveys a somewhat different interpretation. Oliver John has argued, in fact, that the term agreeableness is somewhat misleading, suggesting a submissive nature that would actually be located at the lower end of the extraversion trait. Although the term conscientiousness seems to be well accepted at this point in time, this trait has also been referred to by various authors as dependability, work, will to achieve, responsibility, and constraint. Perhaps the most controversy, however, has surrounded the nature of the openness dimension. In addition to openness, this dimension has been referred to as culture, intellect, and intellectance. The controversy stems from the apparent incorporation of aspects of intelligence into the factor. For example, in Goldberg’s work, the term intelligent was consistently an indicator of this dimension. Some researchers have been highly critical of the association of this dimension with intelligence, fearing that the dimension will be considered synonymous with intelligence as measured by IQ tests when, in fact, the dimension is much broader, encompassing artistic and creative aspects, a willingness to try new things, and a sense of open-mindedness.

It seems that much of the controversy surrounding the naming of the five dimensions is a result of their broad nature. Some clarity might be brought to the issue if there were to be consensus regarding the next lowest level of the trait hierarchy. Scant work, however, has been done to identify and define the traits at the level below the five dimensions. There is some consensus among industrial/organizational (I/O) researchers interested in personality that the trait of conscientiousness can be broken down into two dimensions of achievement striving and dependability. Also, Robert and Joyce Hogan have argued that extraversion can be split into sociability and ambition. It seems clear that research focusing explicitly on this level of the hierarchy is warranted.

One problem with establishing the lower levels of the trait hierarchy is that the hierarchy is likely to be reticulated. That is, many lower-level traits are liable to relate to more than one trait at the higher levels. Using studies of adjectives as a source of examples, some researchers have associated warmth with extra-version whereas others have associated it with agreeableness. Likewise, the characteristic of impulsiveness has been associated with neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness by various researchers. These cross-associations of traits at one level with traits at higher levels will make the process of achieving consensus at levels of traits below the Big Five difficult, but it would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor.

It is important to recognize that the Big Five taxonomy is simply descriptive and is not a theory. As such, it does not explain why people behave in the ways they do it is only a system for classifying behavioral tendencies. Although many have criticized the Big Five because it is not theoretical, others have argued that the taxonomy is necessary before theory can be developed. To this end, Paul Costa and Robert McCrea have proposed a five-factor theory of personality. Although the theory is broad in scope, at its core it suggests that the Big Five are a result of biological processes and influence people’s characteristic adaptations—the ways they think, feel, and behave in their unique environments.


Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality - Psychology

One of the main challenges to getting EQ (Emotional Quotient) recognized as a legitimate measurement of an individual's ability to function and interact on an emotional level is the role that personality plays in these types of actions. The study of personality examines the issue from the perspective of the Big Five personality traits commonly accepted in psychological circles. The Big Five are considered to include: openness, extroversion, agreeableness, neur otic ism, and conscientiousness . Virtually every personality test there is relies to some degree on these five characteristics whether or not they are predictive and broad-ranging enough is a common concern within the psychological community and, at times, come into conflict with the concept of EQ.

The Big Five are essentially broad scope characteristics that often represent an individual's personality. In turn, it is assumed that someone's choices -- and thus their future -- can be predicted to some degree by evaluating the Big Five in that person. The Big Five are as follows:

  • Openness to experience - Openness typically reflects an individual's willingness and predisposition to exploring a variety of experiences. This is often expressed through intellectual curiosity, a range of emotion, appreciation for art, a level of adventure-seeking, and so on. Generally speaking, someone who has a high level of openness will often seek new experiences, rather than engaging in a high level of routine. It is important to note that some experts classify openness relating more directly to intellectual stimulation, than general experiences.
  • Agreeableness – Someone who is described as being agreeable typically tends to be compassionate to others and cooperative, rather than antagonistic and suspicious. The people who tend to be agreeable are often trusting and helpful, as well as generally well-tempered. Someone with a low level of agreeableness may simply be hesitant to trust others, limited in their likelihood of compromising, and often assume that people are, by nature, unfriendly.
  • Conscientiousness - Although many people tend to think this particular personality trait relates to a person's social conscientiousness, it actually is about the decisions someone makes with regard to being conscientious about all aspects of their lives at any given time. This type of conscientiousness could include being highly scheduled, well organized, dependable, disciplined, and restrained. Consequently, those who are less conscientious tend to be highly spontaneous, easygoing, and sometimes careless.
  • Extroversion - Extroversion refers to an individual's likelihood to engage willingly in the company of others, and how comfortable they are doing so. Often, this characteristic goes along with whether the person tends to be energetic, positive, talkative, and generally seems to excel best when in the company of others. Those who are considered not to be extroverts are often introverts (meaning they value time alone and often prefer their own company to that of strangers or large groups). Being an introvert, however, doesn't indicate that an individual has no interest in social relationships, but rather that they are more likely to have a few close friends or relationships rather than enjoying a large group.
  • Neuroticism - Although the term neurotic is sometimes used unfairly, this aspect of personality does have a distinct role to play when considering the likelihood of someone's choices and certain types of success. Individuals with high levels of neuroticism tend to be more sensitive emotionally and are often more nervous by nature. People that are highly neurotic often struggle socially and tend to be challenged by their negative emotions. Anger, anxiety, vulnerability, and depression are all common concerns when dealing with neurotic individuals. The difficulties of someone who is more neurotic may include a level of emotional instability and impulse control. Those who are not neurotic or score low on this aspect of personality tests are typically much more emotionally secure and often have higher levels of self-esteem. Some researchers argue that those who demonstrate little neuroticism also enjoy a lower likelihood of depression and suicidal ideation during their lifetimes.

The Big Five model was initially discovered by several different scientists who were completing independent research into personality traits. The fact that the Big Five was determined by individual researchers, and has also been given credence by a number of researchers throughout the world, supports its validity in the psychological field. This measure of universality helps provide support for its use on an international scale, regardless of cultural differences. That said, there is also some dispute as to whether the Big Five is as significant as we have assumed it to be. Some researchers argue it is too narrow in scope, and lacks a number of other distinct personality characteristics, such as seductiveness, religiosity, honesty, thriftiness, conservativeness, gender stability, and so on.

So how does the Big Five impact EQ? In many ways, the two are closely related. Certain personality characteristics identified in the Big Five may have the ability to positively or negatively impact an individual's EQ. Likewise, the Big Five can typically predict a tremendous amount of information about an individual, such as their academic success and relationship patterns. In fact, some researchers and psychologists consider EQ to be useless or unnecessary compared to using the five-factor model. Nevertheless, there's one particular component of EQ that differentiates it from the Big Five in an important way: While our personality traits are generally set and can be documented by the time we are five or six, EQ you can be strengthened and developed as we grow older. Granted, we can also work to overcome any negative consequences of our basic five personality traits, but when the two are used in conjunction with each other, there is far more likelihood of success in implementing new patterns and learning Emotional Intelligence. Just as our IQ reflects our natural intellect, we are nevertheless given the capacity to learn in order to supplement our natural ability. Similarly, we are able to use information about our own personalities in order to supplement our natural Emotional Intelligence.

In fact, one of the main criticisms of Emotional Intelligence theory is that it is simply a repackaging of personality traits, rather than a true intelligence, and that some theories of Emotional Intelligence do integrate and rely heavily on personality traits. Proponents of Emotional Intelligence theory typically claim that while a person's personality, much like their IQ, dictates a certain level of potential, EQ is distinct from in that it measures how well a person is able to use their personality characteristics and traits when handling the emotions of themselves and/or others. Put simply, a person's IQ does not necessarily dictate what kind of grades they will get in school. Similarly, a person's personality does not dictate how well they interact with others and how well they are able to control emotions.


Big Five Openness, Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Intuition, & IQ Correlations

The Five-Factor Model, commonly known as “The Big Five,” is the leading academic model of personality. As I have noted elsewhere, the correlations between the Big Five and Myers-Briggs personality dimensions are surprisingly strong. This is particularly remarkable when considering that Jung developed his framework on a completely informal basis, without the aid of the massive data collection and complex statistics that birthed the Big Five.

In this post, we will explore what I feel are some interesting correlations between one of the Big Five’s factors—Openness (sometimes called Openness to Experience)—and the Myers-Briggs preferences. While numerous studies have demonstrated strong correlations between the Myers-Briggs and the Big Five, the material for this post is derived primarily from a large study (over 900 participants) done by Adrian Furnham and colleagues. 1 This study compared subjects’ MBTI results with those of the Big Five’s Revised NEO-Personality Indicator (NEO PI-R).

The Big Five exhibits many similarities with the Myers-Briggs, with four of its five factors showing strong correlations with certain MBTI preferences:

As we will see, Big Five Openness correlates strongly with Myers-Briggs Intuition, moderately with Perceiving and Extraversion, and mildly with Feeling. Based on this, we might suspect ENFPs to be the most open (in the Big Five sense) of the types, with ENTPs earning a close second.

The Openness domain is comprised of six facets—openness to actions, values, feelings, fantasy, aesthetics, and ideas. Before proceeding further, let’s consider the numbers. The following data set uses the typical Myers-Briggs nomenclature of Intuition (N), Perceiving (P), Feeling (F), and Extraversion (E). I’ve also bolded the stronger correlations for emphasis.


Relationship between intelligence (IQ) and Big 5 Personality - Psychology

This is a basic look at the Big Five Personality Traits, also known as the Five Factor Model (FFM) and a quick comparison to the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator (MBTI).

The big five personality traits, or the five factor model is a personality test created in-part to help companies find suitably productive people for particular job roles. It can be used by companies in the selection process, and also by individuals to help them select an appropriate career path for their temperament.

The big five personality test was developed by several psychologists and researchers. It includes research which dates back to the mid twentieth century from around the globe, spanning different cultures. It’s considered to be the most complete and accurate personality test currently available. Some of the traits do indicate differences between the sexes, with men and women scoring differently on the traits Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Orderliness.

The Big Five Personality Traits/Dimensions

The openness trait relates to having an open mind, open to new ideas and opportunities with a strong interest in abstraction, and seeking new experiences. It also covers imagination/creativity and adventurousness. Creative people have a strong interest in aesthetics and abstraction, abstract ideas and art.

People who have high levels of openness tend to have many interests and passions. Plus people with high openness tend to require more variety in their job roles and life in general. People who have low openness tend to be more close minded and conventional, supports traditions. Plus they tend to have fewer interests and passions, and are more likely to be content repeating the same learned skill or job over and over.

  • Artistic desires
  • Intelligence
  • Liberalism
  • Emotionality
  • Adventurousness

Conscientiousness

Highly conscientious people like to plan things and think carefully before acting. They’re very organized, disciplined, responsible and efficient in their work, they’re also hard workers that are often very punctual and pragmatic. People who are low on conscientiousness are often disorganized. They take a more laid back flexible approach to work, keeping to time scales is not so important to them.

  • Orderliness – Linked to obsessive compulsive personalities.
  • Disciplined
  • Cautiousness
  • Achievement seeking
  • Dutifulness
  • Industriousness

Highly extroverted people gain their energy from people and groups. They’re usually more sociable with better social skills. Extroverts are out going, more assertive and they thrive in group and social situations. Extroversion is also the trait most associated with general positive emotions. Introverts require and prefer less group work, more reserved in character, softer spoken and often work better in solitude.

  • Assertiveness
  • Activity level
  • Thrill seeking
  • Gregariousness
  • Friendliness

Agreeableness

People with high agreeableness are friendly, helpful, unselfish, sympathetic and compassionate. They will often place the needs of others before their own. They cooperate well with others and consider different points of views. These people are generally optimistic in nature. They also hate confrontation and will avoid it at all costs. People who score low on the agreeableness scale may lack compassion, prioritize their own needs first and more likely to be confrontational and competitive. Women on average tend to be higher on trait agreeableness.

This trait also seems to be connected to a difference in interests. Those high in agreeableness tend to have a stronger interest in people, rather than an interest in things or objects.

  • Sympathy
  • Cooperative
  • Morality
  • Trust
  • Modesty
  • Compassion
  • Politeness

Neuroticism – Emotional Stability

Those high on the neuroticism scale are likely to suffer with mood swings and general negative emotions. They’re generally less in control of their emotions. They’re more likely to get worked up, stressed and anxious more easily. The reverse is true for those scoring low on the neuroticism scale. Neuroticism is another trait where there is a difference between the genders, women on average are higher in aspects of trait neuroticism.

  • Anger
  • Anxiety
  • Depression
  • Self consciousness
  • Vulnerability
  • Immoderate

The big five personality traits test has some similarities with the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator.

Extroversion and introversion is of course there on the MBTI. However many of the introverted character traits can now be found on the openness trait on the big five traits dimension scale.

The agreeableness trait has some strong similarities to the thinkers and feelers scale on the MBTI system. Being high in Agreeableness has similarities to (Feeling) being a dominate function on the MBTI. For example, placing the needs of others before their own, and generally being more compassionate.

Neuroticism/emotional stability and negative emotion is given a priority here on the big five traits. Emotional instability could also be linked to an extremely introverted personality based on some research. MRI scans and studies in neurosciences have linked a high reactive Amygdala, part of the Limbic system in the brain to being introverted. This link gives an explanation of why many introverts tend to be more reactive and sensitive to stresses and anxiety.

The MBTI does place people into rigid personality groups which is one of the main criticisms of the model. The Big 5 on the other hand is a much less rigid model, and personality psychologists consider the big 5 to be much more accurate and useful in assessing personality.


How Does IQ Relate to Personality?

Personality and IQ have traditionally been viewed as distinct domains of human functioning. However, research over the past three decades suggests that IQ is a personality trait.

Personality and IQ have traditionally been viewed as distinct domains of human functioning. However, research over the past three decades suggests that IQ is a personality trait. In an excellent book chapter in The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence, personality neuroscientist Colin DeYoung points out that many personality traits involve cognitive processes and abilities. It's just that IQ is primarily measured with ability tests, whereas personality tests are primarily measured with questionnaires. But this is more a reflection of a lack of ingenuity on the part of psychologists than a real difference in domain of human functioning.

It's theoretically possible to measure personality traits through ability tests. For instance, agreeableness could be measured through tests of perspective taking, conscientiousness could be measured through tests of self-control, and neuroticism could be measured through measures of emotional self-regulation. Viewing IQ as a personality trait is helpful because it puts IQ in perspective. We can take a birds eye view of all the many fascinating ways we differ from one another in cognitive processing, emotion, and motivation, while seeing where IQ fits into that bigger picture.

To help us see that picture, I analyzed data from the Eugene-Springfield community sample, which consisted of 478 mostly White participants from Eugene and Springfield, Oregon. Participants ranged in age from 20 to 85 years, and spanned all levels of educational attainment. The sample consisted of 199 males and 279 females. While the sample isn't ethnically diverse, it does have a pretty good range of IQ and personality, so we can get some sense of how IQ relates to personality in the general population. The IQ test that participants took consisted of 15 multiple-choice items that measured knowledge and abstract reasoning. The personality test measured 45 dimensions of human personality.

Consistent with prior research, IQ was most strongly related to openness to experience. Out of 9 dimensions of openness to experience, 8 out of 9 were positively related to IQ: intellectual engagement, intellectual creativity, mental quickness, intellectual competence, introspection, ingenuity, intellectual depth, and imagination. Interestingly, IQ was much more strongly related to intellectual engagement and mental quickness than imagination, ingenuity, or intellectual depth, and IQ was not related to sensitivity to beauty.

Out of 45 dimensions of personality, 23 dimensions were not related to IQ. This included gregariousness, friendliness, assertiveness, poise, talkativeness, social understanding, warmth, pleasantness, empathy, cooperation, sympathy, conscientiousness, efficiency, dutifulness, purposefulness, cautiousness, rationality, perfectionism, calmness, impulse control, imperturbability, cool-headedness, and tranquility. These qualities were not directly relevant to IQ.

8 dimensions of personality outside the openness to experience domain were positively related to IQ, including organization, toughness, provocativeness, leadership, self-disclosure, emotional stability, moderation, and happiness-- although the correlations were much smaller than with intellectual engagement and mental quickness. IQ was negatively related to orderliness, morality, nurturance, tenderness, and sociability, but again, the negative correlations were much smaller than the relationships among IQ, intellectual engagement, and mental quickness.

Given this data, where does IQ fit into the personality puzzle? While this is just a single dataset, it is consistent with other studies suggesting that the most relevant personality domain is openness to experience, particularly the dimensions that reflect the ability and drive for conscious exploration of inner mental experience. This is certainly an important slice of personality, but at the same time these findings illustrate that there are many more ways we differ from each other in cognition, emotion, and motivation that are not well measured by IQ tests.

Note: Thanks to Colin DeYoung for providing me with the Eugene-Springfield dataset. For more correlations between IQ and personality, see the supplementary data [1, 2] for the paper "From madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domains as a paradoxical simplex", authored by Colin DeYoung, Rachael Grazioplene, and Jordan Peterson.

If you're interested in the finer details of my analysis, see below. Correlations with IQ in parentheses. * = p < .05 ** = p < .01. Note that I changed some of the IPIP AB5C facet names to better reflect the content of the items.


On the so-called “Jewish Question”

The players of identity politics on the far right continue ever-so-pathologically to beat the anti-Semitic drum, pointing to the over-representation of Jews in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements). I’m called upon–sometimes publicly, sometimes on social media platforms–to comment on such matters, and criticized when I hesitate to do so (although God only knows why I would hesitate :)

So let’s take apart the far-right claims:

First, psychologically speaking: why do the reactionary conspiracy theorists even bother? This is a straightforward matter. If you’re misguided enough to play identity politics, whether on the left or the right, then you require a victim (in the right-wing case, European culture or some variant) and a perpetrator (Jews). Otherwise you can’t play the game (a YouTube video I made explicating the rules can be found here). Once you determine to play, however, you benefit in a number of ways. You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution (see Germany, Nazi for further evidence and information).

Second, in what manner (if any) are such claims true? Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence. New York Jews, in particular, snap up a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes (see this Times of Israel article), and Jews are disproportionately eligible for admission at elite universities, where they, along with Asians, tend to be discriminated against (see this Newsweek article). It’s possible that we should be happy about this, rather than annoyed: is the fact that smart people are working hard for our mutual advancement really something to feel upset? What, exactly, is the preferable alternative? In any case, the radical/identity-politics right wingers regard such accomplishment as evidence of a conspiracy. It hardly needs to be said that although conspiracies do occasionally occur, conspiracy theories are the lowest form of intellectual enterprise. Is there another, more credible explanation? Yes. Three well-documented factors in fact appear to be at play:

a) The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews (see this article in the Economist for a credible layman’s analysis for a scientific take (one of many) see Gregory Cochran’s work: abstract and full paper). Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence (my lab has published on this issue). Consider also that the effect of a mean or average difference in IQ is dramatically increased at the tails of the distribution, so that a 10-15 point difference produces increasingly large inequalities in group representation in proportion to the degree that a given job requires higher general cognitive ability. This means that proportional Jewish over-representation increases as the demand for IQ increases. Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.

b) The relationship between IQ and Big Five trait Openness to Experience . Openness to Experience is one of the five cardinal personality traits (Wikipedia will fill you in rapidly if you need more info). Openness to Experience has often been considered the reflection of general cognitive ability or intelligence in personality. It’s what you are referring to when you describe someone as thoughtful, smart, artistic or philosophical. People with high IQs tend overwhelmingly to be higher in trait Openness to Experience (particularly in the Openness to Experience aspect of Intellect (Dr. Colin DeYoung’s lab spearheaded a paper on this issue).

c) The relationship between Openness to Experience and political liberalism : Political affiliation is importantly associated with personality. Conservatives/right-wingers tend to be high in Conscientiousness (particularly in the Conscientiousness aspect of Orderliness) and low in Openness to Experience while liberals/left-wingers tend to have the reverse pattern (low Conscientiousness (particularly aspect Orderliness) and high Openness to Experience. The story is somewhat more complicated than that (which we also reviewed), but that covers the basics.

So, what’s the story? No conspiracy. Get it? No conspiracy. Jewish people are over-represented in positions of competence and authority because, as a group, they have a higher mean IQ. The effect of this group difference (approximately the difference between the typical high school student and the typical state college student) is magnified for occupations/interests that require high general cognitive ability. Equal over-representation may also occur in political movements associated with the left, because high IQ is associated with Openness to Experience, which is in turn associated with liberal/left-leaning political proclivities.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented in any occupations/interests for reasons other than intelligence and the associated effects of intelligence on personality and political belief. Thus, no conspiratorial claims based on ethnic identity need to be given credence.

Readers interested in such issues may also be interested in a broader recent critique of the idea of Jewish conspiracy: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory

Update April 24 2018: A recent critic attempted to take my argument apart arithmetically:

He stated: Different ethnic groups act in a nepotistic manner at differing levels. Some do so more than others.

Your argument is essentially that identity politics does matter not. But it does to Jews, who’s religion and ethnic identity are especially important to them. They even base their whole identity around their victimization in the past by gentiles (Romen Empire, Christians, the Holocaust). Yet, you’re trying to tell us those who play into identity politics are losers? That’s the first problem I’m seeing because even Jews don’t believe that.

Second, if Jews are high IQ, and that means they are more likely to be in positions of power, that would explain their prevalence. Yet, there are VASTLY more white gentiles that have equal or higher IQs than your average Jews. We can do simple math to prove this. If there are 6 million Jews in the United States with an average IQ of 115 (so 3 million are 115+) and there are 200+ million white gentiles with an average IQ of 105 IQ (so roughly 30% are 115+ IQ). So 200 million x .30 gives us 60,000,000 whites with an IQ of 115+. So, we would think, if all things being equal, then that whites would proportionally represented in positions of power commensurate with their IQ and numbers. Jews should, according to the idea that IQ leads to representation in positions of power, should be 5% or so of millionaires (3 million Jews / 60 million gentiles at 115+). But this is not the case. Jews make up a disproportionate number of millionaires and billionaires (40% according to Forbes) according to the IQ theory Jordan B. Peterson is utilizing.

What explains this? Ethnic nepotism, i.e. identity politics. Jews priviliege others Jews with access to power, money, and positions to perpetuate Jewish influence in America.

Yet, Jordan Peterson is telling us there is no idea of Jewish power in America. That’s simply not true when we all know the world runs on money, and no one knows this better than the Jews. That’s why our foreign policy has been about securing Israel’s security. That’s why our politicians get money from AIPAC. Why we send billions to Isarel every year. Why our relationship with the Muslim world has declined because of this one-sided affair.

Your cutoff for high IQ is far too low. Try 145 (the figure I cite for serious intellectual advantage) and see how that works. That’s three standard deviations above the general population of mean of 100, not the 115 (one standard deviation) you used. One standard deviation above the average is helpful — it puts you in college — but it’s nothing compared to three standard deviations (in part because of the operation of the Pareto principle).

Three standard deviations advantage for the general population puts an individual at 99.9%. That’s .001 of the population, so .001 X 200,000,000 (using your figures) = 200,000 “white gentiles” with an IQ of 145 or more.

Two standard deviations advantage for the Jewish population (with an estimated mean IQ of 115) means an IQ above 97.7% of the Jewish population. That’s .023 of the population, so .023 X 6.000,000 = 138,000

138,000/(200,000+138,000) = 138,000/338,000 = 40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish. And you said 󈬘% of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish.”


Ackerman, P. L. (1996a). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.

Ackerman, P. L. (1996b). Intelligence as process and knowledge: An integration for adult development and application. In W. Rogers & A. Fisk (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications (pp. 139–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlhaum.

Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Traits and knowledge as determinants of learning and individual differences: Putting it all together. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, et al. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 437–462). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150–153.

Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfus, E. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314–330.

Anthony, W. (1973). The development of extraversion, of ability, and of relation between them. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 223–227.

Bayne, R. (2003). Love, money and studying. The Psychologist, 16, 529–531.

Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 287–409.

Blinkhorn, S. (1985). Graduate and managerial assessment manual and user guide. Dorchester: Dorset.

Blinkhorn, S., & Johnson, C. (1990). The insignificance of personality testing. Nature, 348, 671–672.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: Springer.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies British university students. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338.

Chamorro- Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic exam performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for understanding the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Intellectual competence. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: a third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251–267.

Clark, L., & Watson, D. (1999). Personality, disorder and personality disorder: Towards a more rational conceptualisation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 142–151.

Cook, M. (2004). Personnel selection. Chichester: Wiley.

Costa, P. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psychology, 45, 225–241.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

Davito, A. (1985). A review of the MBTI. In J. Mitchell (Ed.), North Mental Measurement Yearbook.

Dobson, P. (2000). An introduction into the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test performance in selection. Applied Psychology, 45, 225–241.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Drasgow F. (2003). Intelligence and the workplace. In W. Borman, R. Ilgen & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, (Vol.12, pp. 107–129). New York: Wiley.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.

Furnham, A. (2002). Personality at work. London: Routledge.

Furnham, A. (2004) Personality and organisation: European perspectives on personality assessment in organisations. In B. Schneider & D. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organisations (pp. 25–59). Mahwah, NJ.: LEA.

Furnham, A. (2006). The personality disorders and intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 42–46.

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 943–955.

Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 197–208.

Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1993) Personality and work-performance: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator correlates of managerial perfromance in two cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 145–153.

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Crump, J. (2003). The relationship between the revised NEO––personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31, 577–584.

Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Intelligence in relation to Jung’s personality types. Individual Difference Research, 3, 2–13.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552.

Gottfredson, L. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 70–132.

Heim, A. (1965). Tests AHS. London: NFER.

Huntz, E., & Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job performance. The big five resulted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.

Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, T. (2002). Five factor model of personality and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

Judge, T., Martcchto, J., & Thoresen, C. (1997). Five-factor model of personality and employee absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 745–755.

Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thorensen, C., & Barrick, M. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general metal ability and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.

Jung, C. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kaufman, A., McLean, J., & Lincoln, A. (1996). The relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ level and the fluid and crystallized IQ discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Assessment, 3, 225–239.

Matthews, G. (1999). Personality and skill: a cognitive-adaptive framework. In P. Ackerman, P. Kyllonen & R. Roberts (Eds.), The future of learning and individual difference research (pp. 251–270). Washingthon DC: APA.

Matthews, G., Deary, I., & Whiteman, M. (2003). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17–40.

McDonald, D., Anderson, P., Tsagarakis, C., & Holland, J. (1994). Examination of the relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the NEO personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 74, 339–344.

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality DSM-III: Axis II. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2002). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO-personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79–94.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is concientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2005). Can personality factors predict intelligence? Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 1021–1037.

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait Neuroticism mediated by test anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587–598.

Murphy, K. (2002). Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved. Human Performance, 15, 175–186.

Myers, I., & McCalley, M. (1975). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Nyhus, E., & Pons, E. (2005). The effect of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363–389.

Rice, G., & Lindecamp, D. (1989). Personality types and business success of small retailers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 177–182.

Salgado, J. (1997). The Five model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30–43.

Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187–210.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work. Journal of Applied Psychology., 86, 162–173.

Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121–143.

Stankov, L., Boyle, G. J., & Cattell, R. B. (1995). Models and paradigns in personality, intelligence research. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International Handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 15–43). New York: Plenum Press.

Van der Berg, T., & Feij, J. (1993). Personality traits and job characteristics as predictors of job experiences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 337–357.

Watson, G. & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. The Psychological Corporation/Marcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, San Antonio, TX.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. (1994) Watson-Glaser Cortical Thinking Appraisal ––Form S (WGCTA). Washington: Psychological Corportation.

Wolf, M., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543–555.

Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581–610). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Watch the video: The Relationship Between Intelligence, Conscientiousness, and Success (January 2022).