# Least intelligent NT type?



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Who is the least intelligent type?


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

You are, for creating this blatant flamebait thread.

I voted for all of them.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

How can there be an answer to this question? Every person is different.... Just because people of the same type might share some traits it doesn't mean that their IQ is the same.


----------



## ChocolateBunny (Aug 5, 2013)

Intelligence...what a nice topic with which to discriminate against people based on their type :dry:


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Agelastos said:


> You are, for creating this blatant flamebait thread.
> 
> I voted for all of them.


How can you vote for all of them when there's only an option to vote once? You can't do that unless you have multiple account which is against the rules.

Anyways this thread isn't much different from," Who's the most Intelligent NT type?"


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> How can you vote for all of them when there's only an option to vote once? You can't do that unless you have multiple account which is against the rules.
> 
> Anyways this thread isn't much different from," Who's the most Intelligent NT type?"


Because you created a multiple choice poll.

That thread is also stupid, yes, but there's a huge difference between asking people to single out the smartest group and asking them to single out the dumbest. The former might result in jealousy, but the latter can result in bullying and/or hurt feelings. That is, if people are stupid enough to take the poll seriously.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Agelastos said:


> Because you created a multiple choice poll.
> 
> That thread is also *stupid, yes, but there's a huge difference between asking people to single out the smartest group and asking them to single out the dumbest.* The former might result in jealousy, but the latter can result in bullying and/or hurt feelings. That is, if people are stupid enough to take the poll seriously.


Except I didn't ask who the dumbest who rather least intelligent. You can ask who had the worst grade and that doesn't necessarily mean you're asking for the stupidest. The worst grade in class can be a 90%. Anyways if the thread escalated to hurt feelings and bulling, than it would be closed by mods. I'm looking for objective assessment.


----------



## SherlockHouse (Jun 14, 2014)

Agelastos said:


> Because you created a multiple choice poll.
> 
> That thread is also stupid, yes, but there's a huge difference between asking people to single out the smartest group and asking them to single out the dumbest. The former might result in jealousy, but the latter can result in bullying and/or hurt feelings. That is, if people are stupid enough to take the poll seriously.


Well, to be fair, the type with the least number of votes on a most intelligent poll is in the same boat as the type with the most number of votes on a least intelligent poll.

Not that it isn't all ridiculous and stupid.


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

SherlockHouse said:


> Well, to be fair, the type with the least number of votes on a most intelligent poll is in the same boat as the type with the most number of votes on a least intelligent poll.


Not really. Having the least number of votes on such a poll just means that few people think that you're the most intelligent, not that all the other people who voted necessarily think that you're the least intelligent.


----------



## SherlockHouse (Jun 14, 2014)

Agelastos said:


> Not really. Having the least number of votes in such a poll just means that few people think that you're the most intelligent, not that all the other people who voted necessarily think that you're the least intelligent.


Kind of an arbitrary distinction don't you think? Hell, in the other one, not only is it implied that fewer people think you are intelligent, but you are also LOSING. At least here the winner gets to claim first prize in something!

But really, I get what you're saying. It's not exactly the same because at least in the other one it leaves room for the idea that more people think you are just in the middle, not necessarily at the bottom, whereas here they are explicitly calling you dumb. But still, same basic boat. And still an equally stupid concept for a poll.


----------



## Math geek (Jul 23, 2014)

Yeah, I agree with Agelastos. The other poll is going to dissatisfy people not in first. This poll is basically throwing an insult directly at them personally that is not assumed in the other poll. NTs really don't like to be called stupid, none of them, and if I see another thread like this I might have my annual anger nuke blow up. I really think this is directly at the heart of the self-esteem of NTs and is potential to emotional harm to less self-assured people. All for the purpose of trying to claim the title of smartest.


----------



## LetsHarmonize (May 29, 2014)

Can't we just look at this objectively? I don't see why everyone is getting mad at the OP. It'd be interesting to see honest answers. And I certainly wouldn't be upset if a lot of you chose INTP. 

I can't see why any NT would be upset by this. Other people's perceptions aren't necessarily right, so why would they bother you? I think it's fun to see what others think, even if they think I'm unintelligent. From there we could ask how they came to that conclusion.


----------



## Math geek (Jul 23, 2014)

LetsHarmonize said:


> Can't we just look at this objectively? I don't see why everyone is getting mad at the OP. It'd be interesting to see honest answers. And I certainly wouldn't be upset if a lot of you chose INTP.
> 
> I can't see why any NT would be upset by this. Other people's perceptions aren't necessarily right, so why would they bother you? I think it's fun to see what others think, even if they think I'm unintelligent. From there we could ask how they came to that conclusion.


Honestly, though, intelligence is much more than this. NTs who vote are more likely biased. Other people aren't going to take this objectively. Other things, maybe. This, too much on the line for most NTs to look at. I suppose, though, there are a lot of people who would take this well. However, this stirrs turmoil a lot, it's happened before on this forum. Points to ponder: why can't we word this in a way that isn't a contest? Like "Which NT fits your perception of an intellectual best?" or "Which NT is the best at _____?" I appreciate your view and agree, except I cringe at seeing people try to take it subjectively. It's nasty.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

.


----------



## vonunov (Sep 14, 2014)

You're not going to get an "objective assessment" from a poll, and there is no objective assessment here anyway because the MBTI isn't an intelligence test.


----------



## Petyr Baelish (Aug 13, 2014)

What type of intelligence are you referring to? This is too vague.


----------



## The Trollmaster (Feb 1, 2013)

OP is an INTP.

OP is trying to start a flamewar.

All INTPs must thus be trying to start a flamewar.

Flames are fires.

Fires need oxygen.

Elephants are now a complex metaphor for oxygen

Thus, I vote for elephants.

/thread


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

edit


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

SherlockHouse said:


> Kind of an arbitrary distinction don't you think? Hell, in the other one, not only is it implied that fewer people think you are intelligent, but you are also LOSING. At least here the winner gets to claim first prize in something!
> 
> But really, I get what you're saying. It's not exactly the same because at least in the other one it leaves room for the idea that more people think you are just in the middle, not necessarily at the bottom, whereas here they are explicitly calling you dumb. But still, same basic boat. And still an equally stupid concept for a poll.


Except it's not calling you dumb. You can be the least intelligence and still be smart. If I were in cross-country, and I singled out the slowest runner from the group who had a five minute mile time. Does that mean he's necessarily a bad runner? The most horrid runner in the world? No. The analogy here is that you can still be the least intelligence and still be smart just like how you can be the worst runner yet still have an impressive running time. Calling the type the least intelligence doesn't necessarily I'm looking to ridicule them.


----------



## vonunov (Sep 14, 2014)

I understand that you're trying to approach it in terms of relative intelligence instead of asking what the dumbest type is, but the basis of the whole thing doesn't make any sense. The MBTI indicates how you take in information and how you use it to make decisions. It doesn't really point to any sort of aptitude.

For what it's worth, I'm not mad. I'm just trying to tell you you're wasting your time. :3


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

vonunov said:


> I understand that you're trying to approach it in terms of relative intelligence instead of asking what the dumbest type is, but the basis of the whole thing doesn't make any sense. The MBTI indicates how you take in information and how you use it to make decisions. It doesn't really point to any sort of aptitude.
> 
> For what it's worth, I'm not mad. I'm just trying to tell you you're wasting your time. :3


Actually, I'm interested in who is perceived the least intelligent rather than who actually is intelligent. It doesn't matter if I used intelligent correctly or not because I'm more interested in who is perceived the least intelligent like I said before. That was my secret motive anyways. 
However as far as I'm concerned, I have did nothing wrong in this thread. I debunked all points against me. I never broke the rules nor resorted to insulted people. On the other-hand, I was actually called stupid and the post got thanked ten times. Hmm? Can you actually think a moment in real life whereas somebody send a thank you note for calling somebody stupid? Nope. To thank someone is to express gratitude for kindness. The total opposite of gratitude of you ask me. You guys thanked someone's post to be malicious where I have do no wrong? Who's really the stupid one here?


----------



## vonunov (Sep 14, 2014)

In that case you weren't looking for an objective assessment after all. If your motives are secret you can't be surprised when they're misunderstood. 

Some compartmentalization is in order here. This may have been a stupid thread, such as we all post from time to time -- or maybe we should be more precise and say "unproductive" -- but this doesn't make _you_ stupid.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

The immauturity among some NTs in this forum is both hilarious and tragic at the same time; I dunno whether to laugh, or facepalm.


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> Actually, I'm interested in who is perceived the least intelligent rather than who actually is intelligent. It doesn't matter if I used intelligent correctly or not because I'm more interested in who is perceived the least intelligent like I said before. That was my secret motive anyways.
> However as far as I'm concerned, I have did nothing wrong in this thread. I debunked all points against me. I never broke the rules nor resorted to insulted people. On the other-hand, I was actually called stupid and the post got thanked ten times. Hmm? Can you actually think a moment in real life whereas somebody send a thank you note for calling somebody stupid? Nope. To thank someone is to express gratitude for kindness. The total opposite of gratitude of you ask me. You guys thanked someone's post to be malicious where I have do no wrong? Who's really the stupid one here?


I didn't actually mean that you are stupid. I meant that you were [being] stupid for creating this thread. Big difference (at least to me).
But, I'm sorry! I shouldn't have said that.


----------



## Aiwass (Jul 28, 2014)

The least intelligent? None, the reason why I haven't voted on this poll. The NT type that seems to be the least motivated by intellectualism? ENTJ, but they compensate it by being the most socially skilled NT.


----------



## SherlockHouse (Jun 14, 2014)

hannahdonot said:


> The least intelligent? None, the reason why I haven't voted on this poll. The NT type that seems to be the least motivated by intellectualism? ENTJ, but they compensate it by being the most socially skilled NT.


How is ENTJ more socially skilled than ENTP? ENTJs are often like Eric Cartman - bullying dicks who are both unaware of and uncaring of the feelings of others. They just steamroll over people. People tend to like ENTPs better. We can be dicks too, but unlike the ENTJs, we don't actually mean it and people know it.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

ENTJs are the most intellectually lazy.
INTPs, the most all around lazy.
ENTPs can't focus long enough to become intellectual.
INTJs, the most narrow in focus.

So, pick your poison. We're all messes.


----------



## Nordom (Oct 12, 2011)

Unpossible to determine


----------



## The Trollmaster (Feb 1, 2013)

SherlockHouse said:


> How is ENTJ more socially skilled than ENTP? ENTJs are often like Eric Cartman - bullying dicks who are both unaware of and uncaring of the feelings of others. They just steamroll over people. People tend to like ENTPs better. We can be dicks too, but unlike the ENTJs, we don't actually mean it and people know it.


Yeah, but the ENTJ isn't quite as much of a social outcast as the ENTP is.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

INTJ... obviously.


----------



## SherlockHouse (Jun 14, 2014)

The Trollmaster said:


> Yeah, but the ENTJ isn't quite as much of a social outcast as the ENTP is.


The only reason I could see that being the case is if the ENTJ all but forces people to let him hang around, which is not uncommon it seems. ENTPs have generally been more legitimately liked in my experience. I don't really think most ENTPs are "social outcasts." This forum doesn't really represent the type as a whole. Just saying.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Great_Thinker said:


> Except it's not calling you dumb. You can be the least intelligence and still be smart. If I were in cross-country, and I singled out the slowest runner from the group who had a five minute mile time. Does that mean he's necessarily a bad runner? The most horrid runner in the world? No. The analogy here is that you can still be the least intelligence and still be smart just like how you can be the worst runner yet still have an impressive running time. Calling the type the least intelligence doesn't necessarily I'm looking to ridicule them.


... If you are taking all the runners in the world, and single out the slowest runner, then _yes_, that _does_ mean he is the most horrid runner in the world.

It's not as if you're talking about a group of geniuses and asking which one is least so. "NT" is an arbitrary group spanning hundreds of millions of people.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Great_Thinker said:


> I'm looking for objective assessment.





Great_Thinker said:


> I'm interested in who is perceived the least intelligent rather than who actually is intelligent.


----------



## Stendhal (May 31, 2014)

Great-Thinker is probably grateful almost nobody answer the question, because if they did, a moderator should likely shut this thread down for typism.


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

Dumb and unanswerable question


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

pernoctator said:


>


I don't know why you quote the word with a gif. It doesn't properly asses anything. You actually took my second quote out-of-context. I even admitted that was my secret motive. You didn't perceive my analogy well. My point was that singling out the slowest runner doesn't mean that I'm looking to ridicule them or if they're actually horrid at running.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

INTP's - Because their overthinking leads to paralysis.
INTJ's - Because their overconfidence leads to oversights.
ENTJ's - Because they are too focused on action and efficiency and make lots of logical inconsistencies.


ENTP's - Because they are just too amazing and intelligent for anyone else to comprehend so they all get jealous and team up to take the superior ENTP down.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Personally, I've often wondered how stupid NT's may be.

I value S and F type's intelligence. There's a rawness and simplicity I wish I could appreciate. In fact, I'm finding my adult life to be their discovery, and weaving them into my silly INTJ'ish comprehension.

You might say I'm jealous. Just a bit . . .


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Ephemerald said:


> Personally, I've often wondered how stupid NT's may be.
> 
> I value S and F type's intelligence. There's a rawness and simplicity I wish I could appreciate. In fact, I'm finding my adult life to be their discovery, and weaving them into my silly INTJ'ish comprehension.
> 
> You might say I'm jealous. Just a bit . . .


I can give you anecdotal examples on dumb NT's but they won't mean anything. Sure, everyone has a super-smarty pants ESFJ grandma who conducts research on the 10th quantum dimensions. However NT's tend to be attracted tend to be attracted to idea's and they're rationals due to having Te or Ti in their first or second function amplified to the tenth power by Ne or Ni.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> I can give you anecdotal examples on dumb NT's but they won't mean anything. Sure, everyone has a super-smarty pants ESFJ grandma who conducts research on the 10th quantum dimensions. However NT's tend to be attracted tend to be attracted to idea's and they're rationals due to having Te or Ti in their first or second function amplified by Ne or Ni.


I have a question though. If you have, lets say, an xSFP with well developed Te, does that make them a rational feeler?


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Great_Thinker said:


> I don't know why you quote the word with a gif. It doesn't properly asses anything. You actually took my second quote out-of-context. I even admitted that was my secret motive. You didn't perceive my analogy well. My point was that singling out the slowest runner doesn't mean that I'm looking to ridicule them or if they're actually horrid at running.


Did you really think it was useful to put your secret motive under the guise of asking for the literal opposite?

I did understand your analogy, and I was saying it doesn't work. The only reason calling someone the worst _isn't_ the same as calling them terrible is because it's limited to a group that is already universally _not_ terrible. That doesn't work when you're talking about an arbitrary group. You're not asking about the slowest runner in cross-country, you're asking about the slowest runner in _the_ country.

also, lol, you said "asses"


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Great_Thinker said:


> Can you actually think a moment in real life whereas somebody send a thank you note for calling somebody stupid?


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

When I drink E&J I get pretty damn stupid. Jus' sayin'.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

pernoctator said:


> Did you really think it was useful to put your secret motive under the guise of asking for the literal opposite?
> 
> I did understand your analogy, and I was saying it doesn't work. The only reason calling someone the worst _isn't_ the same as calling them terrible is because it's limited to a group that is already universally _not_ terrible. That doesn't work when you're talking about an arbitrary group. You're not asking about the slowest runner in cross-country, you're asking about the slowest runner in _the_ country.
> 
> also, lol, you said "asses"





pernoctator said:


> Did you really think it was useful to put your secret motive under the guise of asking for the literal opposite?
> 
> I did understand your analogy, and I was saying it doesn't work. The only reason calling someone the worst _isn't_ the same as calling them terrible is because it's limited to a group that is already universally _not_ terrible. That doesn't work when you're talking about an arbitrary group. You're not asking about the slowest runner in cross-country, you're asking about the slowest runner in _the_ country.
> 
> also, lol, you said "asses"


Well yes I thought it was useful. Those two posts were made in two different time frames. I'm asking for a cup of water but that doesn't mean I want it 4 hours later.Your point is right on this applies to a whole country. However that doesn't mean I'm looking to insult them which is why the thread was meant with opposition.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Intelligence is a word often used but never analyzed. When I see intelligence thread, everyone is considered with their own interpretation of the word. The actually definition is the world intelligence according to google is to learn and *apply* knowledge well. XNTJ's are the most intelligence because they care about *applying* theories and ideas more so than XNTP's. However, I wanted to see everyone's perception's the least intelligence type.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Great_Thinker said:


> Intelligence is a word often used but never analyzed. When I see intelligence thread, everyone is considered with their own interpretation of the word.* The actually definition is the world intelligence according to google is to learn and apply knowledge well. *XNTJ's are the most intelligence because they care about *applying* theories and ideas more so than XNTP's. However, I wanted to see everyone's perception's the least intelligence type.


What a very NTP manuver.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> The actual definition is the world intelligence according to google is to learn and *apply* knowledge well.


In that case, anyone can be intelligent. Not just the NT types. Knowledge isn't just about theories. It can include many different aspects practicality, general knowledge, people reading etc.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Wontlookdown said:


> In that case, anyone can be intelligent. Not just the NT types. Knowledge isn't just about theories. It can include many different aspects practicality, general knowledge, people reading etc.


Knowledge and intelligence are two different words with meanings. You can still be intelligent but still not care about knowledge.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> Knowledge and intelligence are two different words with meanings. You can still be intelligent but still not care about knowledge.


If you have no knowledge to apply, how can you show your intelligence on that subject in hand? This is like nothing coming from nothing to create something amazing. How is this possible? Something had to be there to display intelligence. Knowledge.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

Wontlookdown said:


> If you have no knowledge to apply, how can you show your intelligence on that subject in hand? This is like nothing coming from nothing to create something amazing. How is this possible? Something had to be there to display intelligence. Knowledge.


My point wasn't on displaying intelligence rather than auguring proper usage of the word.


----------



## Max (Aug 14, 2014)

Great_Thinker said:


> My point wasn't on displaying intelligence rather than auguring proper usage of the word.


Hey. This is just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I think it's dumb asking which type is the smartest, because you're gonna get intelligent, and less intelligent people from each type. You can't define a person's intelligence from their type. This is like asking which type of cow produces the best milk. All cows make milk. Milk is milk.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Great_Thinker said:


> Intelligence is a word often used but never analyzed. When I see intelligence thread, everyone is considered with their own interpretation of the word. The actually definition is the world intelligence according to google is to learn and *apply* knowledge well. XNTJ's are the most intelligence because they care about *applying* theories and ideas more so than XNTP's. However, I wanted to see everyone's perception's the least intelligence type.


MBTI defines how lazy you are as a person?
News to me.


Great_Thinker said:


> I don't know why you quote the word with a gif. It doesn't properly asses anything. You actually took my second quote out-of-context. I even admitted that was my secret motive. You didn't perceive my analogy well. My point was that singling out the slowest runner doesn't mean that I'm looking to ridicule them or if they're actually horrid at running.


>perception.
>objectiveness
>wat.
I was expecting a troll thread.
I am not amused.
A word of advice. 100 is an adequate sample size, this is not 100 people.
Not to mention you forgot to define and quantify intelligence, soo..
Before you ask, a google definition is not an objective definition, not to mention that isn't *your *definition.
Then again this is more like a census.
Then again you still forgot to define.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

aef8234 said:


> MBTI defines how lazy you are as a person?
> News to me.
> 
> >perception.
> ...


It seems he's quantifying intelligence as the inverse of laziness, and has linked laziness with Ti. What I don't understand is why he thinks he doesn't already have his answer... how can you have a model for who is _most_ intelligent but still not know who is _least_ intelligent? According to his model, clearly, ENTJs are most intelligent and INTPs are the least.

And yeah we're flip-flopping between subjectivity and objectivity again... Right after finally establishing that this is really about perception, we're back to looking up dictionary definitions? I don't get it.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

pernoctator said:


> It seems he's quantifying intelligence as the inverse of laziness, and has linked laziness with Ti. What I don't understand is why he thinks he doesn't already have his answer... how can you have a model for who is _most_ intelligent but still not know who is _least_ intelligent? According to his model, clearly, ENTJs are most intelligent and INTPs are the least.
> 
> And yeah we're flip-flopping between subjectivity and objectivity again... Right after finally establishing that this is really about perception, we're back to looking up dictionary definitions? I don't get it.


Even if there was some correlation of laziness and intelligence, it doesn't mean that lack of laziness is the source of intelligence.
I mean, look at celebrities, they change shit by sneezing, yet they aren't really that intelligent <from what you people see>.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)




----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Oh hey, it's our weekly incarnation of this topic, with the exact same arguments that are posted every week.


----------



## CCCXXIX (Mar 11, 2011)

aef8234 said:


> MBTI defines how lazy you are as a person?


MBTI defines absolutely nothing. It's a half-assed theory by some chic and her mother, with very poor scientific validity.

Though, that's probably news to you too.



> A word of advice. 100 is an adequate sample size, this is not 100 people.


Woah, woah, woah, how are you going to try sounding all smart by saying things like "quantify" and "census" and such, and then completely blackball your own argument, before you even make it?

Let's break it down...



> Not to mention you forgot to define and quantify intelligence, soo..


I mean, just so were clear, he did quantify. Not sure if you know what that word means, but I reread his post and he definitely did do that. He also defined it. Not sure what post you were reading.



> Before you ask, a google definition is not an objective definition, not to mention that isn't *your *definition.


Next time, please capitalize Google. Google is light, Google is life.

There technically is no such thing as an objective definition. That being said, a dictionary definition is about as close to objective as a person can get.

But answer me this. How would him making up his own definition be anything other than subjective inside any given context?



> Then again this is more like a census.


Survey says: SURVEY.
sorry, thanks for playing.



> Then again you still forgot to define.


If you're going to be a dick, you should get better at it.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

CCCXXIX said:


> If you're going to be a dick, you should get better at it


Seems to me you're trying a hell of a lot harder to be a dick than @aef8234 was, and you're pretty shit at it yourself. I enjoy how your whole post is pedantry about definitions, yet it begins with "MBTI defines nothing" when MBTI is literally purely descriptive. It _is_ the definition, and nothing but the definition. Whether you think its administration is scientific or useful is irrelevant. It does define things, and laziness and intelligence are not among those things. That's the whole point here. Sorry you wasted your time, dick.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

CCCXXIX said:


> Next time, please capitalize Google.


Here dipshit:










I mean, while we're all being dicks here.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

CCCXXIX said:


> MBTI defines absolutely nothing. It's a half-assed theory by some chic and her mother, with very poor scientific validity.


Because apparently being in an MBTI forum means I religiously study MBTI.
A bit hypocritical isn't it?

Though, that's probably news to you too.





> Woah, woah, woah, how are you going to try sounding all smart by saying things like "quantify" and "census" and such, and then completely blackball your own argument, before you even make it?


You think those two words make people smart?
I didn't turn it into Latin or anything.
BUT I guess pretending to white knight shit is some sorta new thing you're trying. Ahwell.




> Let's break it down...


Might as well have some fun.




> I mean, just so were clear, he did quantify. Not sure if you know what that word means, but I reread his post and he definitely did do that. He also defined it. Not sure what post you were reading.


1. He used some definition he found on the internet, not his own. He is trying to pretend research, might as well use the pretend rules.
2. Quantify means to put a number on something. I don't see numbers, only vague correlations.





> Next time, please capitalize Google. Google is light, Google is life.


That. Is. *Adorable*.



> There technically is no such thing as an objective definition. That being said, a dictionary definition is about as close to objective as a person can get.
> 
> But answer me this. How would him making up his own definition be anything other than subjective inside any given context?


If you have no idea how to argue, please stop arguing.
Actually nevermind, please continue, it's a bit fun.
Like watching a retarded puppy try to play with a dead horse.




> Survey says: SURVEY.
> sorry, thanks for playing.


Pretend sarcasm.
*How original.*





> If you're going to be a dick, you should get better at it.


If you see dicks everywhere.

I have some news for you....


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

CCCXXIX said:


> @vonunov
> 
> White people eat popcorn to you know.


It's 'too'. Sheesh man... don't go being all pedantic and then screw up basic grammar.


----------



## Dr Wahwee (May 2, 2012)

Holy shit this thread. Fucking apes and their fucking keyboards I swear.
@Great_Thinker 

I honestly don't think you intended anything bad with this thread, but this is an internet forum primarily populated by teenagers and young adults. Trying to be reasonable will result in your "arguments" being "teared down" by "inconsistencies".

OT: The least intelligent NT type are the types in this thread.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

confuddled said:


> Holy shit this thread. Fucking apes and their fucking keyboards I swear.
> @Great_Thinker
> 
> I honestly don't think you intended anything bad with this thread, but this is an internet forum primarily populated by teenagers and young adults. Trying to be reasonable will result in your "arguments" being "teared down" by "inconsistencies".
> ...


Like you. Also, if OP wanted to find out what people's perceptions were rather than start a shitstorm, maybe he should have... asked?


----------



## CCCXXIX (Mar 11, 2011)

Yomiel said:


> It's 'too'. Sheesh man... don't go being all pedantic and then screw up basic grammar.


icwutudidthur you clever little devil you.


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

confuddled said:


> I honestly don't think you intended anything bad with this thread, but this is an internet forum primarily populated by teenagers and young adults. Trying to be reasonable will result in your "arguments" being "teared down" by "inconsistencies".


So... are "arguments", "tear down", and "inconsistency" the buzzwords of teenagers these days? I seem to be out of the loop.




confuddled said:


> The least intelligent NT type are the types in this thread.


No. The least intelligent NT type is _your mom_.


----------



## Dr Wahwee (May 2, 2012)

pernoctator said:


> So... are "arguments", "tear down", and "inconsistency" the buzzwords of teenagers these days? I seem to be out of the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You little shit I'm gonna call the police!


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

in b4 shitstorm


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

Amine said:


> in b4 shitstorm


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

pernoctator said:


>


^Technically that is part of the shitstorm. THE SHIT STORM IS COMING 9/23/14


----------



## pernoctator (May 1, 2012)

_*1 week passes*_

that was pretty intense


----------



## starscream430 (Jan 14, 2014)

This question is subjective on the fact of one's definition of intelligence. To use the example of my MBTI classification INTJ, we may be adapt at academic intelligence, but we are poor in social intelligence.


----------



## Elistra (Apr 6, 2013)




----------



## jim87 (Apr 17, 2014)

Ah this is easy without a doubt XNTX's......


----------



## Sinister Magick (Sep 1, 2014)

What a joke, there's no such thing as a least intelligent type. Mbti can determine somethings, but it is not a definite means for such an assumption.


----------



## K3xP (Oct 29, 2014)

i am ashamed that there exists such a thread on an nt subtype forum about whos the least intelligent nt... smh...
i am also ashamed that i viewed this thread and voted for intp...

This is as stereotypical as you can get guys... i think...


... i like dots....


----------



## platorepublic (Dec 27, 2012)

Such an objective poll...


----------

