# IQ is a measure of which cognitive function?



## hapyoutdoors (Dec 31, 2010)

My assumption is Ti?


----------



## rockface (Dec 8, 2011)

ti is just the development of information using all the imformation you percieve to be a building block to eventualy make a building of knowlege although it is a good way to keep knowlage stored however not the only way it depends on the how the info is percived aswell


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

IQ is a measure of nothing so much as the ability to take IQ tests. It's not connected to cognitive functions.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Intelligence has nothing to do with cognitive functions.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

I hate to be "that kid", but I once did a lot of searching through scholarly articles to determine this very question. And he who searches will find.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-021508-211201/unrestricted/IQP_JMW.pdf
Pages 31-41 are especially pertinent, didn't read the rest, I got bored.

It seemed that Js had the highest grades, especially SJs.
P's were the "least acheiving", however INxPs were considered to be the best prepared for college.
Thinkers were better at mathematics than the feelers.
Sensors were less intelligent than the Intuitives.
Thinkers are no smarter than feelers.


There are more articles than just this one to back up this post. I'm not trying to be stereotypical, but there IS hard data for this sort of thing. Data never lies, people do.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

In my experience IQ tests are skewed heavily towards what we would call Te with a minority of questions masquerading as Ti (but you can't really quantify Ti as it is experienced subjectively). Like @Stephen pointed out the IQ test really only identifies how well you can understand the concepts presented on the page. I think of myself as a fairly intelligent and capable person in most thinking aspects, but I do horribly on IQ and standardized tests because I might understand the question on a conceptual level but not be able to apply that knowledge into anything tangible. Also in Jungian terms IQ tests basically confuse Thinking for Intelligence because the tests are so oriented to empiricism, demonstrable logic and accepted methodology. The test may measure how you go about problem-solving, but this is based on the rules of the test administer who determines what is proper logic and what isn't 

When my brother was a kid he was given a standardized test in grade school where one of the questions was 'what two things do you need to wash your hands?' Now the proctor was looking for soap and water as the answer, but my brother answered 'both hands.' Technically speaking my brother wasn't wrong, but because it didn't fit the framework of the test this was marked against him. This is why I think people who aren't oriented toward strong Te (or don't have a storehouse of knowledge or facts) may get tripped up on these types of tests.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> I hate to be "that kid", but I once did a lot of searching through scholarly articles to determine this very question. And he who searches will find.
> 
> http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-021508-211201/unrestricted/IQP_JMW.pdf
> Pages 31-41 are especially pertinent, didn't read the rest, I got bored.
> ...


In other words the ESFP was right on par with Forest Gump?


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Wow I got disoriented as soon as I came in the thread for some reason...

*catches breath

Certain tests are more concrete than others. Each test could probably be speculated on.

GL!


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

IQ tests demonstrate but a tiny slice of all that "intelligence" encompasses.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Perhaps I should define my stance a bit more. I, like Spades, am more of the opinion that the things that an intelligence test tests for is not all that there is to being smart. I believe that there is a certain level of intelligence for all the processing functions, Se Si Ne Ni. It would be naive to say that any single one was "worth" more than any other.

I do, however believe there is a hierarchy within each group. There would have to be, because some are "more talented" at Se, Ne... etc. I'm not sure how that works, but for whatever IQ tests for, be it some combination of the functions, people do score better in certain aspects. It is just a fact of the matter that those people are typically not sensors. That does NOT mean that sensors are dumb or invaluable as some people seem to mistake them to be. It simply means they are less intelligent. I also made a pretty clear point that Thinkers are not necessarily smarter than feelers, they just perform better in math. Much like how sensors perform better in sports, or intuitives perform better on IQ tests. You have to take it all with a grain of salt.

The reason we are free to make this sort of generalizations is because the MBTI is a science and as such, knowing trends, without bias EITHER WAY is essential to understanding the types and ourselves.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Sensors were less intelligent than the Intuitives.


No, we aren't. That study was using probably using the pop-psych ignorant stereotypes of N and S.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> That does NOT mean that sensors are dumb or invaluable as some people seem to mistake them to be. It simply means they are less intelligent.


No. It simply means they performed, as a whole, slightly worse on IQ tests.

Plus, I have no reason to believe the study was free of error or bias. It is an undergraduate project after all 

I don't make my friends take IQ tests. I talk to them, I listen for wisdom, life experience, critical thinking, creative thinking, and open-mindedness. To me, that is intelligence.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Spades said:


> It is an undergraduate project after all


Confirmation bias.

Why do people fight this so much? Oh and I meant intelligence as defined by those tests, not any alternative definitions we may come up with here. Those tests ARE useful for something, am I wrong? They DO measure something right?

I seriously think people are fighting this for ethic's sake, that people should somehow be sheltered from the truth. Yes sensors have been correlated with lower IQs. Does it matter? Probably not. Should we deny facts simply because we want to be more humanitarian? Definitely not.

This is probably my last post in this thread. There is no fight to be won here.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Confirmation bias.


Irrelevant. The paper was difficult to read and results weren't presented clearly, but I have seen a paper on this topic and it seems to suggest the same. I'm just saying that there are major factors that can influence results. For example, how was MBTI type determined? Who made the MBTI test? Were the questions misleading? Who made the IQ test? Were the questions specifically intuition-based? So on and so forth.



Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do people fight this so much? Oh and I meant intelligence as defined by those tests, not any alternative definitions we may come up with here. Those tests ARE useful for something, am I wrong? They DO measure something right?
> 
> I seriously think people are fighting this for ethic's sake, that people should somehow be sheltered from the truth. Yes sensors have been correlated with lower IQs. Does it matter? Probably not. Should we deny facts simply because we want to be more humanitarian? Definitely not.
> 
> This is probably my last post in this thread. There is no fight to be won here.


Nothing to do with ethics here. Though at this point I'm derailing the thread. If we find a way to measure cognitive functions directly using brain scans, it would be an easy task to answer the OP's question. Since we do not have a scientific definition of them, such a comparison cannot be made.

i.e. Testing as an INTP does not imply you have "Ti", which is an abstract concept.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Perhaps I should define my stance a bit more. I, like Spades, am more of the opinion that the things that an intelligence test tests for is not all that there is to being smart. I believe that there is a certain level of intelligence for all the processing functions, Se Si Ne Ni. It would be naive to say that any single one was "worth" more than any other.
> 
> I do, however believe there is a hierarchy within each group. There would have to be, because some are "more talented" at Se, Ne... etc. I'm not sure how that works, but for whatever IQ tests for, be it some combination of the functions, people do score better in certain aspects. It is just a fact of the matter that those people are typically not sensors. That does NOT mean that sensors are dumb or invaluable as some people seem to mistake them to be. It simply means they are less intelligent. I also made a pretty clear point that Thinkers are not necessarily smarter than feelers, they just perform better in math. Much like how sensors perform better in sports, or intuitives perform better on IQ tests. You have to take it all with a grain of salt.
> 
> The reason we are free to make this sort of generalizations is because the MBTI is a science and as such, knowing trends, without bias EITHER WAY is essential to understanding the types and ourselves.


Yeah, but what explains the differences between, say, a bunch of Ne doms in IQ if the functions play so much of a role in intelligence (would this mean that the smarter Ne doms use their S functions more or less than the dumber ones?)...


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yeah, but what explains the differences between, say, a bunch of Ne doms in IQ if the functions play so much of a role in intelligence (would this mean that the smarter Ne doms use their S functions more or less than the dumber ones?)...


I'm still posting here... but oh well, this question is a bit intriguing: cognitive theory.
I think that intelligence tests probably can be answered by a wide range of the functions. I'm sure there are many problems that can be answered through the N's as well as the S's, just in different ways. It is possible that a "smarter" Ne dom uses more functions. I often wonder how easily I can memorize certain subjects, and yet be an Si inferior, yet be completely oblivious about other simple facts. I don't know, I feel like a "smarter" individual could utilize all of his functions effectively. I'm not sure how it goes for other types, but perhaps a smarter ENTP still expresses all of his functions according to how an ENTP should express his functions, but he just also can use his functions more effectively.

In my example, even though I often can't remember "unimportant" details (Si inferior), I can still use my Si very effectively when necessary. Cram studying might be an example of this, but it also might be confusing two schools of thoughts.

And perhaps a smarter ENTP could use his Fe more effectively.

But if these are true, who knows what in the world intelligence actually is.




Spades said:


> Irrelevant. The paper was difficult to read and results weren't presented clearly, but I have seen a paper on this topic and it seems to suggest the same. I'm just saying that there are major factors that can influence results. For example, how was MBTI type determined? Who made the MBTI test? Were the questions misleading? Who made the IQ test? Were the questions specifically intuition-based? So on and so forth.


Surprisingly, I find this line of thinking common to Fi dom/aux types. To this, I can best answer that if we are to accept science, we should accept the studies done by the scientists, and hope that the peer-reviews (such as this one) are effective. Otherwise, knowledge would not continue.



Spades said:


> Nothing to do with ethics here. Though at this point I'm derailing the thread. If we find a way to measure cognitive functions directly using brain scans, it would be an easy task to answer the OP's question. Since we do not have a scientific definition of them, such a comparison cannot be made.
> 
> i.e. Testing as an INTP does not imply you have "Ti", which is an abstract concept.


This idea fascinates me. I would like to see more neuro-biological studies into correlating these concepts of Jung and Freud into something substantive. I feel like we could solve this problem pretty easily if there was more research into this sort of thing.


----------



## brianstorm (Dec 20, 2011)

IQ is useless and mostly bullshit
Does it make you happier?
Does it make you succesfull?
Do you ask in a date "what's your iq" ?
Einstein was a shitty father. Axl Rose (ESTP) haves a average-high IQ. Jim Morrison 149 and a ENFP. And me.... Well im kinda dumb and ISFP 


Every cognitive function can have a high IQ.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> It is possible that a "smarter" Ne dom uses more functions.


Sure. It's also possible that a smarter Si dom uses more functions as well. So is it the functions used that produce the higher intelligence, or the higher intelligence that causes the person to be more adept with their functions? Or, do the functions have little to nothing to do with intelligence at all? And btw, Si is not memory. It has a particular way of memorizing and filtering data, etc., but it isn't memory.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> And btw, Si is not memory. It has a particular way of memorizing and filtering data, etc., but it isn't memory.


I was going to say exactly this before, but I didn't want to derail the thread. I might as well clarify it though:

Si is relating to past experience. So, say you are memorizing "Fe = Iron". An Si user might think, "Well I've heard of ferrous materials, which are those containing iron". Or, "I use Fe, and I have an iron will" (haha). These give a solid association when trying to remember what "Fe" is. An Ne user might come up with some trick, like "Fe Fi Fo Fum, I'm building an iron castle", or who knows what. An Ni user might find an underlying pattern, like "*Fe*males need to take iron supplements". An Se user might repeat to themselves, or write out "Fe = Iron" until it sticks. Whatever the method is, if it works, it works.

Excuse my horrid examples.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i don't think intelligence is measurable.

if it were measurable, i don't think it would correlate with certain functions as in only these types will be smart.

a legitimate test may correlate with 'degree of function use' or 'use of multiple functions. say, people who score high on a test that accurately measures "intelligence" may be using one function in the 98th percentile, or, may be using a multitude of functions in combination to a certain degree that mimics the effects of using one at a high level, which allows for birth of creative perspectives/problem solving. 

if it only came down to certain stereotypically smart functions such as T and N, then then would it only be NT's? are Si and Se not valuable in perspective? my cousin is IS-something and he'll constantly catch on to things quicker that call for taking in information in a visual sense... so you could argue that those with dominant T that had the luxury of possessing two P-functions in the middle of their make-up would be the best since they deal in logic and can flow between "perception shifts" more fluidly, more naturally. and in that case, it would ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTP, and INTP, two of which are sensors--all of which have access to various ways of tackling a project/problem due to two tools instead of being limited to one, and filtering all of the information through logic. 

that was a hypothetical scenario based on an assumption to show that the S v.s. N line wouldn't be the deciding factor. the above (first actual paragraph), if anything, i believe to be closer to the truth


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

@Staffan, yes, I was thinking about that while writing my post. Jung viewed type as something that changes throughout life. One interpretation I've made of this is that it ties to functional development. In other words, as an ISTP, he would have developed the way he accessed his Ni. This is, however, only a way of tying his theories into those that followed by Myers-Briggs. I think the common thought now is that type is static.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> There are exceptions to most rules I guess. I liked the post that some made about gifted to normal people, and I'd like to point out that the sensors, though lower than most, still could have as much as a .5 ratio. So for that particular group of sensors (ISTJs ) one out every two were "gifted". These is not a matter of "every sensor is stupid". I have an ISTP girlfriend who is a sensor and also extremely smart.
> 
> Oh and I was trying to say that SJs did the best in school, which would make sense no? I dated an ISFJ once who was as smart as many of the intuitives I know. And of course IQ tests only measure how they take their test, but when I was talking about intelligence in that first post and in later posts, I was talking about IQ as the tests tested it. Though I don't think I actually was able to make that clear until about my third or fourth post.


You have no way of knowing how valid these things are from behind your computer screen, since you weren't involved in the IQ studies (in fact, there's no evidence that these studies ever took place, since I've found no scientific publication on them). IQ statistics are more-than-willing to lie to make points and support faulty systems, like MBTI typing. Think about it: IQ tests have a higher reliability in predictive psychology than MBTI tests do, which are currently about 50% accurate. Before MBTI came along, personality and IQ had nothing to do with each other. Jung never made a single correlation between IQ and personality either, and he was the true expert on type, since he came up with it. As I said before, the population of individual types is going to have a huge impact on how many end up in the top tiers of IQ or the bottom tiers, since the IQ bell curve becomes less-and-less varied near the top (which would only contain 1% of the population), so, since INTJs are really rare in the population relative to ESFPs, more INTJs within a given selection of INTJs are going to constitute a higher population of highly intelligent people, since, rare as high IQ is, there are so many less INTJs within any random selection group, but, as in every group, there's always a fairly consistent intelligence bell-curve distribution that resembles the IQ bell curve (it was modeled off of parameters that exist within every population - otherwise, it wouldn't be an accurate test). For instance, since 90% of the population is about average (IQ about 100), 90% of a population of INTJs is going to be a lot less than 90% of a population of ESFPs, while 1% of INTJs has a greater chance of representing a larger # of INTJs within their own "selected" population representing the type. So, the chances of finding more intelligent INTJs will be greater within a population of selected INTJs, assuming that the IQ bell curve is consistent, which it pretty much is. However, any correlation between N and high IQ will be weakened further by the fact that MBTI isn't very accurate, so most intelligent people who do well on IQ tests might think that they're N types, since the tests make N out to be rather Einsteinian (see the INTP type descriptions) or, well, masterminds (INTJ descriptions), which are descriptions synonymous with high IQ. I've seen many smart S types mistype for this reason.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

huiwcleon said:


> I agree that there's a correlation between IQ and personality types. But cognitive functions are not personality types. A lot of INTP and INTJ, as shown in your statistical data, are gifted and the ratio is indeed higher than other types. My INTP friend and I are both the top in our own class, and I think gifted people do have a high probability to be INTP or INTJ. But the cognitive functions of INTJ are totally different from INTP. There's no evidenence showing a certain cognitive function relates to IQ score or giftedness.
> 
> The existence of both gifted INTP and ISTP are good counter-examples showing that correlation does not show cognitive functions relate to IQ. Both have Ti as dominant function but there the ratio differs a lot. There's no relationship because IQ is about quality while cognitive functions is not about the quality, it's about preference.


I think this is the main point here people are forgetting. Testing an MBTI type does not imply you use those functions! That's common sense, right? MBTI tests are based off dichotomies. JCF's are...a little more difficult to measure. One who tests INTP wouldn't blindly accept they use Ti dom without reading up in detail on the functions. Even then, the Forer Effect plays a part.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> You have no way of knowing how valid these things are from behind your computer screen, since you weren't involved in the IQ studies (in fact, there's no evidence that these studies ever took place, since I've found no scientific publication on them). IQ statistics are more-than-willing to lie to make points and support faulty systems, like MBTI typing. Think about it: IQ tests have a higher reliability in predictive psychology than MBTI tests do, which are currently about 50% accurate. Before MBTI came along, personality and IQ had nothing to do with each other. Jung never made a single correlation between IQ and personality either, and he was the true expert on type, since he came up with it. As I said before, the population of individual types is going to have a huge impact on how many end up in the top tiers of IQ or the bottom tiers, since the IQ bell curve becomes less-and-less varied near the top (which would only contain 1% of the population), so, since INTJs are really rare in the population relative to ESFPs, more INTJs within a given selection of INTJs are going to constitute a higher population of highly intelligent people, since, rare as high IQ is, there are so many less INTJs within any random selection group, but, as in every group, there's always a fairly consistent intelligence bell-curve distribution that resembles the IQ bell curve (it was modeled off of parameters that exist within every population - otherwise, it wouldn't be an accurate test). For instance, since 90% of the population is about average (IQ about 100), 90% of a population of INTJs is going to be a lot less than 90% of a population of ESFPs, while 1% of INTJs has a greater chance of representing a larger # of INTJs within their own "selected" population representing the type. So, the chances of finding more intelligent INTJs will be greater within a population of selected INTJs, assuming that the IQ bell curve is consistent, which it pretty much is. However, any correlation between N and high IQ will be weakened further by the fact that MBTI isn't very accurate, so most intelligent people who do well on IQ tests might think that they're N types, since the tests make N out to be rather Einsteinian (see the INTP type descriptions) or, well, masterminds (INTJ descriptions), which are descriptions synonymous with high IQ. I've seen many smart S types mistype for this reason.


To say that there is no evidence that the studies ever took place since you haven't found the sources is making your personal experience the determining factor on what is scientific. Which is weird. The MBTI manual is easily found and contains lots of stats on type and IQ and SAT scores. 

It's true that Jung never made this connection but then again did he ever do studies of that sort? Anyway, I don't think he is the true expert just because he came up with the theory. In his Psychological Types he claims that thinking types and feeling types are almost without exception male and female. I think few would agree with that today.

It may be that some people who score high on IQ tests see themselves as INTJ or INTP and affect their MBTI result. But the MBTI is taken by over a million people every year in America alone and most people don't seem very familiar with the theory.

I think a likely reason why sensors on average score less is because they are more meticulous than intuitives and are disadvantaged by the time limit. Which of course is a weakness in the IQ concept if the purpose is to predict things like work performance, since few jobs need to be carried out at a blistering pace and many jobs require attention to detail.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> You have no way of knowing how valid these things are from behind your computer screen, since you weren't involved in the IQ studies (in fact, there's no evidence that these studies ever took place, since I've found no scientific publication on them).


 I'll tell you what, I'm not happy you made me look these up myself. I feel like, based on my search material on the front page you could have found these in ~15 minutes.

Relationship between personality type and achie... [Am J Physiol. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI
http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/asb-7.pdf

There are more, but this is all *I'm* going to find for you.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Well, you didn't have to do this at all, as I've looked a lot of stuff on this up on my own. I appreciate the effort anyhow. From reading them, I still have no idea how these pertain to the IQ "claims" that are being discussed in this thread, which have do with which individual types have the highest IQs and which have the lowest. Actually, it sounds as if the one on achievement in an undergrad physiology course is suggesting that IJ types have the highest IQs, but this would be in the context of just this field of study, which isn't directly related to standard IQ tests. Also, F types don't appear to be represented in this, which is quite different from the IQ "claims." All along, I was wondering where the actual study that produced the results for the popular IQ ranking claims of types come from, since I've never found it anywhere (those rankings put INTJs or INTPs at the top, and ESFPs or ESFJs at the bottom).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> To say that there is no evidence that the studies ever took place since you haven't found the sources is making your personal experience the determining factor on what is scientific.


No. This is a common practice in science. If you can't find the source of the results on type and IQ, then you have to be skeptical about it. Anyone could easily make up a list and post it on the internet, but researchers would be hard-pressed to release their work online without some kind of documentation, so their work doesn't get stolen by others. I've never found the exact source for the studies that claim that INTJs or INTPs are at the top, along with other IN types, while ES types are at the bottom. Most of the claims about this seem like intuitive guesses based on knowledge of only the type codes, rather than the cognitive functions.



> It's true that Jung never made this connection but then again did he ever do studies of that sort?


Well, the problem with the determination of IQ based on like S/N, for instance, is that Jung defined them not as abilities, but as ways of perceiving the world. IQ tests, as far as I'm aware, are not modeled off of these ways of seeing the world as described by Jung so far as I know (if so, the psychology textbooks have been keeping secrets from us for a loooooong time). So how can IQ tests have any idea that they are testing for cognitive functions? That's why being able to find the study behind these claims would be so important.



> It may be that some people who score high on IQ tests see themselves as INTJ or INTP and affect their MBTI result.


Indeed. This is a huge problem even on these forums.



> But the MBTI is taken by over a million people every year in America alone and most people don't seem very familiar with the theory.


Well, then that's a good reason for researchers not to be conducting these studies, since the MBTI tests are pretty unreliable, according to numerous studies. Just google "Problems with the MBTI" to see what I mean.



> I think a likely reason why sensors on average score less is because they are more meticulous than intuitives and are disadvantaged by the time limit.


I highly doubt this. I'm an extremely, notoriously slow and meticulous test-taker, and I'm an INTJ. I know a ton of S types who are extremely fast test takers relative to the N types just from school alone. What you said is just speculation.



> Which of course is a weakness in the IQ concept if the purpose is to predict things like work performance, since few jobs need to be carried out at a blistering pace and many jobs require attention to detail.


Yes. But the IQ stuff in MBTI plays no role in determining work performance so far as I know (unless there really was a study done on IQ and the types, which I can't find any for), while how fast you can do something as no bearing on how intelligent a person is (e.g. Einstein was considered "slow" back in his day - it obviously took him years to write his famous works).


----------



## TheOperator (Feb 11, 2012)

celticstained said:


> i'll agree that brain size and intelligence may have a link just as running fast and having long legs go together, but either can exist without the other being present.
> 
> i saw a documentary about a guy who had an IQ of about 160. he was a successful wall street trader at a very young age. he always spoke about how quickly and easily he seemed to do the calculations and then judge which/when to buy/sell. they did a scan of his brain and the section of tissue that deals with that line of thinking was actually quite a bit smaller than that of the average person--weird huh?
> 
> having a big brain may help, but there have to be factors that we haven't taken into account such as the brain being able to "wire" itself more effectively--the need for volume would go down, would it not?



I would very much appreciate you finding out more about that documentary and maybe PM'ing me the info. You so, neuroscience is one of my hobbies (hopefully profession in the not too distant future) and I am very curious how long ago this documentary was help, what type of IQ test they administered, what portion of his brain they claimed was smaller, if they used MRI's, ect...


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No. This is a common practice in science. If you can't find the source of the results on type and IQ, then you have to be skeptical about it. Anyone could easily make up a list and post it on the internet, but researchers would be hard-pressed to release their work online without some kind of documentation, so their work doesn't get stolen by others. I've never found the exact source for the studies that claim that INTJs or INTPs are at the top, along with other IN types, while ES types are at the bottom. Most of the claims about this seem like intuitive guesses based on knowledge of only the type codes, rather than the cognitive functions.
> Well, the problem with the determination of IQ based on like S/N, for instance, is that Jung defined them not as abilities, but as ways of perceiving the world. IQ tests, as far as I'm aware, are not modeled off of these ways of seeing the world as described by Jung so far as I know (if so, the psychology textbooks have been keeping secrets from us for a loooooong time). So how can IQ tests have any idea that they are testing for cognitive functions? That's why being able to find the study behind these claims would be so important.



Yes, but denying the existence of evidence is going a step further than that. Anyway, I remember reading about this in the MBTI manual (I don't have a copy of it sorry) and it had loads of stats on this which suggested that N-types were scoring higher on IQ than S-types. It also makes sense in view of that Big Five's Openness correlates strongly both IQ and N. 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I highly doubt this. I'm an extremely, notoriously slow and meticulous test-taker, and I'm an INTJ. I know a ton of S types who are extremely fast test takers relative to the N types just from school alone. What you said is just speculation.


Sure it's speculation. Just like your idea that Jung would be the true expert because he was the first to formulate the type theory is also specualation. I don't think any thread has ever been spun here with all posts backed up by scientific studies. So we throw in a little of our experience as well. In your experience there are plenty of really fast sensors and in mine there aren't. And doesn't it make more sense that a type known for being meticulous, careful and with a good sense of detail would have to be a bit slower than others who cut corners here and there?




JungyesMBTIno said:


> Yes. But the IQ stuff in MBTI plays no role in determining work performance so far as I know (unless there really was a study done on IQ and the types, which I can't find any for), while how fast you can do something as no bearing on how intelligent a person is (e.g. Einstein was considered "slow" back in his day - it obviously took him years to write his famous works).


By definition speed is relevant to IQ since there is a pretty narrow time limit on IQ tests. Einstein may have been though of as slow but he was contemplating very complicated issues. So his lack of speed may be illusory. Yes, I speculated that : )


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> Yes, but denying the existence of evidence is going a step further than that.


I'm not denying the existence of evidence. I've looked everywhere for it and can't find any scientific peer-reviewed studies on this. I might ask a professor at my university about studies, but I highly doubt they'll have any. The stuff in MBTI manuals is probably some kind of propaganda, because, as I've said before, the validity of MBTI tests is pretty inaccurate, so relative to IQ tests, which have a better validity track record than MBTI (last I read, MBTI's was about 50% accurate in a study on it by many workplaces), I have no idea how any researchers can expect anything conclusive from these.



> Sure it's speculation. Just like your idea that Jung would be the true expert because he was the first to formulate the type theory is also specualation.


Jung was more of an expert on his own ideas than Myers and Briggs and whatnot, because they lightly based their own off of his extensive work. All of the theorists out there basically use Jung as their source, except for Keirsey, who hijacked personality types to create his own sorter. None of their ideas were original except for the J/P stuff, which still ultimately relates back to his original theories. I did read in one study that Myers believed that there was an IQ correlation, but she never tested this herself, so I have no idea if any of this stuff was ever really tested. Jung worked with mental patients to try to apply and derive his ideas, for which he noted some type correlations. A lot of his original theories were a lot like Freuds, which didn't relate their concepts of psychology to intelligence, EQ, etc. Testing IQ and type would most certainly bring Jung back into the equation, since he was the originator of most of the ideas behind personality typing that the modern theorists work with today. My issue with it is that making intuitive guesses is a dangerous thing to do with no evidence of the correlation, since people will latch onto these ideas as if they're valid since they were stated on an intellectual internet forum, even though there's the good chance that they may not be, which results in needless persecution and whatnot (it's obvious that IQ matters matter in the real world - for instance, think of all of the controversies when the topic of race and IQ come up IRL - why should this be expected to be any different with type?).



> I don't think any thread has ever been spun here with all posts backed up by scientific studies.


No, but that's the danger in people stating their opinions as fact, which a lot of people do here. People reading these posts are going to fall for this stuff, unless they are fairly well-educated in this stuff and start spreading misinformation. Intellectual integrity is certainly allowed on this forum as well as mere speculation.



> By definition speed is relevant to IQ since there is a pretty narrow time limit on IQ tests.


It's controversial really. Different tests have different speeds for which they make their determinations and calculations, which really doesn't help to settle the issues of how this really has any bearing on IQ. Some intelligent people over-think questions or come up with different ways of solving some that take longer than other ways. This is really the least relevant aspect of IQ testing from what I've read about it. Einstein was actually a very low learner in school relative to his peers based on a biography I read 4 years ago, due to his distinctive thinking style.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, you didn't have to do this at all, as I've looked a lot of stuff on this up on my own. I appreciate the effort anyhow. From reading them, I still have no idea how these pertain to the IQ "claims" that are being discussed in this thread, which have do with which individual types have the highest IQs and which have the lowest. Actually, it sounds as if the one on achievement in an undergrad physiology course is suggesting that IJ types have the highest IQs, but this would be in the context of just this field of study, which isn't directly related to standard IQ tests. Also, F types don't appear to be represented in this, which is quite different from the IQ "claims." All along, I was wondering where the actual study that produced the results for the popular IQ ranking claims of types come from, since I've never found it anywhere (those rankings put INTJs or INTPs at the top, and ESFPs or ESFJs at the bottom).


 I'd like to apologize for my tone in the post right above this. I read through the second source I quoted and it wasn't what I thought I had posted. This is the study that the paper cites, but it seems they didn't source what they should have. Obviously that second source has nothing to do with the relationship between personality and intelligence. I'll keep searching.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

Like some others have said, IQ has little to nothing to do with cognitive functions in of themselves, but I think some types like TJs can place more emphasis on IQ tests because it is a relatively objective measure of certain mental abilities that alot of experts agree on(Te). 

Other types can have many different motivations placing a high emphasis on IQ tests though.


----------



## allisreal (Mar 23, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> As I said before, the population of individual types is going to have a huge impact on how many end up in the top tiers of IQ or the bottom tiers, since the IQ bell curve becomes less-and-less varied near the top (which would only contain 1% of the population), so, since INTJs are really rare in the population relative to ESFPs, more INTJs within a given selection of INTJs are going to constitute a higher population of highly intelligent people, since, rare as high IQ is, there are so many less INTJs within any random selection group, but, as in every group, there's always a fairly consistent intelligence bell-curve distribution that resembles the IQ bell curve (it was modeled off of parameters that exist within every population - otherwise, it wouldn't be an accurate test). For instance, since 90% of the population is about average (IQ about 100), 90% of a population of INTJs is going to be a lot less than 90% of a population of ESFPs, while 1% of INTJs has a greater chance of representing a larger # of INTJs within their own "selected" population representing the type. So, the chances of finding more intelligent INTJs will be greater within a population of selected INTJs, assuming that the IQ bell curve is consistent, which it pretty much is.


I'm a little confused with what you're trying to argue here. Because INTJ's make up so little of the population in comparison to ESFPs, it only makes sense that they constitute a larger proportion of the Top 1% of most intelligent people? If there really isn't a correlation (which I'm not saying there is necessarily) between MBTI and IQ, we should still expect to see the proportion of INTJs in the top 1% to be equal to that of INTJs in the general population. Consider a hypothetical world of a 100,000 people who have all taken an IQ test and where 2% are INTJs and 10% are ESFPs. Assuming no correlation there should be 100 ESFPs and 20 INTJs in the top 1% (of 1000) of intelligent people. 

By your reasoning couldn't one easily make the case for finding a large proportion of INTJs in the Bottom 1% of intelligent people simply because they're rare? 



> However, any correlation between N and high IQ will be weakened further by the fact that MBTI isn't very accurate, so most intelligent people who do well on IQ tests might think that they're N types, since the tests make N out to be rather Einsteinian (see the INTP type descriptions) or, well, masterminds (INTJ descriptions), which are descriptions synonymous with high IQ. I've seen many smart S types mistype for this reason.


I do however agree with this point.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Yeah, I think venturing into statistics made this argument a bit difficult to follow (I'm still re-thinking what I said about it). I'm not really sure how the lowest quartiles would play out...I guess this would depend on how far the IQ falls below 100? I'm not even sure how this would be able to be compared relative to each other's populations. How does relativity in statistics work between different populations? I think, ultimately, having the actual study on this type and IQ ranking stuff would be very helpful, where ever it is...It's hard for me to even determine how this would play out, since I don't even know if such studies take type population into account. I don't think it's not possible that INTJs can have a higher IQ on average than ESFPs (IRL, I've found this to be generally true), but I have a feeling that most of the assumptions are way over-exaggerated, for reasons based on sample-sizes (I like to think of it as "fishing" for types, where in a huge pool of ESFPs, the probability increases that picking out a smart one is harder, while in a smaller pool, picking out the smart INTJs would be easier??) I think I'll give this up for now, since I can't even follow my own reasoning at this point. =P I appreciate input though.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, the problem with the determination of IQ based on like S/N, for instance, is that Jung defined them not as abilities, but as ways of perceiving the world. IQ tests, as far as I'm aware, are not modeled off of these ways of seeing the world as described by Jung so far as I know (if so, the psychology textbooks have been keeping secrets from us for a loooooong time). So how can IQ tests have any idea that they are testing for cognitive functions? That's why being able to find the study behind these claims would be so important.


Yes, so I would hope that we have at least established that IQ tests don't literally measure cognitive functions, as they are very abstract sort of mindsets, not quantifiable abilities. 



LiquidLight said:


> In my experience IQ tests are skewed heavily towards what we would call Te with a minority of questions masquerading as Ti (but you can't really quantify Ti as it is experienced subjectively). Like Stephen pointed out the IQ test really only identifies how well you can understand the concepts presented on the page. I think of myself as a fairly intelligent and capable person in most thinking aspects, but I do horribly on IQ and standardized tests because I might understand the question on a conceptual level but not be able to apply that knowledge into anything tangible. *Also in Jungian terms IQ tests basically confuse Thinking for Intelligence because the tests are so oriented to empiricism, demonstrable logic and accepted methodology. The test may measure how you go about problem-solving, but this is based on the rules of the test administer who determines what is proper logic and what isn't.* When my brother was a kid he was given a standardized test in grade school where one of the questions was 'what two things do you need to wash your hands?' Now the proctor was looking for soap and water as the answer, but my brother answered 'both hands.' Technically speaking my brother wasn't wrong, but because it didn't fit the framework of the test this was marked against him. This is why I think people who aren't oriented toward strong Te (or don't have a storehouse of knowledge or facts) may get tripped up on these types of tests.


This is exactly why I don't see IQ becoming a true "intelligence quotient" any time in the near future. 



Tainted Streetlight said:


> Data never lies, people do.


True, but data can still be misleading. 



Tainted Streetlight said:


> Surprisingly, I find this line of thinking common to Fi dom/aux types. To this, I can best answer that if we are to accept science, we should accept the studies done by the scientists, and hope that the peer-reviews (such as this one) are effective. Otherwise, knowledge would not continue.


I haven't seen this specifically with Fi types. It is also crucial in the pursuit of solid knowledge that we don't simply accept these studies at face value without asking the sort of questions that LiquidLight did. If we are to equate this with functions at all, wouldn't Ti be more likely to nitpick at what exactly we are measuring here to make a decision on it, or for any sort of intuitive to desire the full context of this?



Staffan said:


> It may be that some people who score high on IQ tests see themselves as INTJ or INTP and affect their MBTI result. But the MBTI is taken by over a million people every year in America alone and most people don't seem very familiar with the theory.


This is a big problem with taking these results too seriously, I think. There's only about 50% reliability on the instrument itself, and people often don't understand the theory well enough to recognize that something is off. And yeah someone who is caught in between two enough might think something like "oh I read somewhere that the INTJ is the one that's good at chess and ISTJ is the one that's good at following orders, me=good at chess so I'll pick INTJ" 



> I think a likely reason why sensors on average score less is because they are more meticulous than intuitives and are disadvantaged by the time limit.


I'm not sure how "more meticulous" would make any difference whether it's related to sensing or not. IQ tests don't have the sort of problems that would have meticulousness as a variable but instead measure _pure processing speed_ by having a time limit in some sections. Processing speed is much more neurological and has nothing to do with cognitive functions. My absolute worst, totally abysmal score, was in the section specifically measuring processing speed, and my second worst were all the timed sections. 



Smileygirl said:


> I'm not a Ti user and my IQ is approx 131. So maybe it's a combination of Tx and Nx functions.


I am not only a Ti user but very much a combination of Nx and Tx function, and my IQ is far below 131. So maybe it's a combination of nothing :tongue:



JungyesMBTIno said:


> (it's obvious that IQ matters matter in the real world - for instance, think of all of the controversies when the topic of race and IQ come up IRL - why should this be expected to be any different with type?).


It's only obvious that people _think_ IQ matters in the real world. Until the general population stops taking IQ as some sort of statement of what we generally consider "intelligence" to be, or worse, take it as some sort of statement of "personal worth" (seriously?!) it'll be extremely difficult to get to an honest discussion connecting IQ to _anything else_ without it completely trainwrecking.


Now that I've said all this, I still have a bag of chips and the change that is in my pocket on the wager that Ne types are generally better at the verbal comprehension sections than the short-term memory and processing speed ones. Take that as you will


----------



## myexplodingcat (Feb 6, 2011)

TheOperator said:


> Sorry for any rudeness, I just recently was in debates with very opinionated people over IQ and how IQ can be linked to brain size and genetics. (which they appear to be) and the people I were debating were OBVIOUSLY egalitarians who refused to accept the data because it was not 100% conclusive, and implied some people were inherently "smarter" then others.


I'd just like to make it clear that this has nothing to do with INFJs. I don't want to be too blunt, but I'd rather not introduce any new stereotypes or prejudices. We have enough of those already.


----------



## huiwcleon (Dec 30, 2011)

Kayness said:


> intelligence quality...haha that's funny...if it was a joke.


My bad. IQ is intelligent quotient. Okay. I just interpreted it as a measure of quality. Now I want to cry.

IQ is intelligent *quotient*. I will remember that forever.:laughing:


----------



## huiwcleon (Dec 30, 2011)

Staffan said:


> What do you mean by "that" - the value of IQ or the correlation? And what logical explanation would make more sense than that the preference for N gives an N-ability that in turn correlates to IQ?


"That" is the connection. Preference doesn't equal to development. The correlation shows the preference match IQ score, but can't explain IQ score.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Stephen said:


> And for god's sake, let's stay away from that idiot Keirsey. That's an example of another problem: if we're going to tie anything to type, we can't group by dichotomies reliably. The functions vary too much.


Why don't you like Keirsey, because you feel the functions vary to much for individual types to be put in groups? I'm just trying to get some clarity on what you mean.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 17, 2011)

thor odinson said:


> Why don't you like Keirsey, because you feel the functions vary to much for individual types to be put in groups? I'm just trying to get some clarity on what you mean.


The type descriptions from Keirsey read like bad stereotypes. I think a major reason for this is, as you've said, because the functions vary too much among the groups he decided on.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

Stephen said:


> The type descriptions from Keirsey read like bad stereotypes. I think a major reason for this is, as you've said, because the functions vary too much among the groups he decided on.


Ok that's fair enough. 

As I've said to many others before a type description is great because it tells what an ENTP is, but Ne Dom and Ti Aux is even better because it tells you why an ENTP is the way they are.

Why is more important than what in understanding. And I think it was a bad move on his part to throw out the functions and dismiss them as mere guesswork.

But I still feel his 4 temperaments are adequate. I still feel much closer to an ENFJ than an ISFP personally despite the fact the former has 2 letters the same and the latter 3, and even despite the fact the latter has the same Dom function as me Fi.

He's also accurate I think in saying NFP's are advocates of causes one doing more so privately than the other and that NFJ's are mentors one more of a teacher and the other more of a private counselor. But thats just my 2 cents


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

TheOperator said:


> I would very much appreciate you finding out more about that documentary and maybe PM'ing me the info. You so, neuroscience is one of my hobbies (hopefully profession in the not too distant future) and I am very curious how long ago this documentary was help, what type of IQ test they administered, what portion of his brain they claimed was smaller, if they used MRI's, ect...


here you go .

Battle of the Brains | Watch Free Documentary Online

or just google "battle of the brains" for a better version.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

huiwcleon said:


> My bad. IQ is intelligent quotient. Okay. I just interpreted it as a measure of quality. Now I want to cry.
> 
> IQ is intelligent *quotient*. I will remember that forever.:laughing:


Sorry I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

huiwcleon said:


> "That" is the connection. Preference doesn't equal to development. The correlation shows the preference match IQ score, but can't explain IQ score.


Sorry you lost me there. How do you explain the correlation? If preference doesn't equal development (which I find hard to believe, the kid who just loves to play the trumpet is just as good as the kid who never plays it?) why would there even be a correlation?


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I'm not denying the existence of evidence. I've looked everywhere for it and can't find any scientific peer-reviewed studies on this. I might ask a professor at my university about studies, but I highly doubt they'll have any. The stuff in MBTI manuals is probably some kind of propaganda, because, as I've said before, the validity of MBTI tests is pretty inaccurate, so relative to IQ tests, which have a better validity track record than MBTI (last I read, MBTI's was about 50% accurate in a study on it by many workplaces), I have no idea how any researchers can expect anything conclusive from these.


I've found one study here, Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: a study using the Neo Personality Inventory and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Moutafi - 2002 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library with 900 participants, in the European Journal of Personality which compares both Big Five and MBTI with IQ. It doesn't say in the online abstract but the N preference correlated 0.22 and the S -019 to general intelligence. If the main function was measured instead of the dichotomy it would no doubt be a higher correlation but is still a clear connection. The article also reviews similar studies, several have found a correlation to Openness which is similar to N.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Staffan said:


> It doesn't say in the online abstract but the N preference correlated 0.22 and the S -0.19 to general intelligence. If the main function was measured instead of the dichotomy it would no doubt be a higher correlation but is still a clear connection. The article also reviews similar studies, several have found a correlation to Openness which is similar to N.


 That's actually really interesting. A spread of .4 is probably enough to be statistically significant, but a .22 and -.19 are not strong correlations at all. Thus the moral of the story is, having the N preference does not mean you will be smart, and vice versa for the S preference. Not sure what else it suggests... I don't want to overstep the data like I did on the first page.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

These IQ tests just take a particular cognitive ability (abstract logical problem solving), and call it "intelligence". People of certain types tend to have different talents that relate to their type, though there is some variation here (ie., people accomplishing the same tasks in different ways). So of course there is a correlation between type and "intelligence" - but I ask, what is intelligence?

I've also got to echo the concerns of others about just how sure we are that the "INTP's" etc. that they tested were really the type they claimed they were. Perhaps people who liked school, or were good at it, were more likely to answer yes to the "N questions" or no to the "S questions" on personality tests, since many of the "N answers" relate to liking theoretical thinking. But perhaps the test makers were wrong here. What you like isn't necessarily what you're good at, and sometimes, what you're good at isn't who you really are, at your core.

For that matter, they layperson isn't as educated about what type is as most members of this forum (many don't even know about the cognitive functions). Perhaps they have misconceptions about what type is. And even if they don't, there is the assumption that people are even _capable_ of evaluating themselves honestly. In my experience, most people simply do not have the courage to do so. I don't blame them. Reality can be downright depressing. But lying to yourself does nothing to change it. Lying will, however, do murder to the data in these "studies".

Until science learns how to tell what a person's type is empirically (and personally I'm confident it will), we should refrain from doing empirical tests based on the unempirical MBTI. There is far too much uncertainty to be able to say anything for sure.


----------



## Boxter9 (Dec 30, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> When my brother was a kid he was given a standardized test in grade school where one of the questions was 'what two things do you need to wash your hands?' Now the proctor was looking for soap and water as the answer, but my brother answered 'both hands.' Technically speaking my brother wasn't wrong, but because it didn't fit the framework of the test this was marked against him. This is why I think people who aren't oriented toward strong Te (or don't have a storehouse of knowledge or facts) may get tripped up on these types of tests.


YES. xD

When I was in kindergarten one question on a test was: "Which of the following comes in dozens?" Several items were listed, one of them was eggs. I didn't choose eggs. Why? Because my family didn't buy eggs in dozens.

Faaail.


----------



## huiwcleon (Dec 30, 2011)

Staffan said:


> Sorry you lost me there. How do you explain the correlation? If preference doesn't equal development (which I find hard to believe, the kid who just loves to play the trumpet is just as good as the kid who never plays it?) why would there even be a correlation?


Sorry for the messy wordings. I just mean your have that cognitive function doesn't necessarily mean you use well. You love to play triumpet doesn't mean you play well, right? :crazy: Your example is also right though. You don't have the function in highest order, means you're less likely to do it well.

I can't really explain the correlation. A proper research need to be done before any conclusion is made. I do want to know the reason, but blindly saying certain type is smarter *based on its order of cognitive functions* is not right.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

thor odinson said:


> Why don't you like Keirsey, because you feel the functions vary to much for individual types to be put in groups? I'm just trying to get some clarity on what you mean.


Keirsey totally ignores the Jungian basis of MBTI and is the source of many of the bigoted Sensor stereotypes.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

nevermore said:


> These IQ tests just take a particular cognitive ability (abstract logical problem solving), and call it "intelligence". People of certain types tend to have different talents that relate to their type, though there is some variation here (ie., people accomplishing the same tasks in different ways). So of course there is a correlation between type and "intelligence" - but I ask, what is intelligence?
> 
> I've also got to echo the concerns of others about just how sure we are that the "INTP's" etc. that they tested were really the type they claimed they were. Perhaps people who liked school, or were good at it, were more likely to answer yes to the "N questions" or no to the "S questions" on personality tests, since many of the "N answers" relate to liking theoretical thinking. But perhaps the test makers were wrong here. What you like isn't necessarily what you're good at, and sometimes, what you're good at isn't who you really are, at your core.
> 
> ...


The stereotype that S = concrete and N = abstract leads to a lot of mistypes. As does the confusion between F with emotion.

The way tests determine P vs. J is idiotic and has no connection to the functions.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Tainted Streetlight said:


> That's actually really interesting. A spread of .4 is probably enough to be statistically significant, but a .22 and -.19 are not strong correlations at all. Thus the moral of the story is, having the N preference does not mean you will be smart, and vice versa for the S preference. Not sure what else it suggests... I don't want to overstep the data like I did on the first page.


I’m no statistics expert but I’m pretty sure a small correlation can be statistically significant. At least the writers of the article say so claiming that both of these had a p<0.01 which seems a very reasonable level. So these are small but significant correlations. And surely of practical importance, since even a small correlation, positive or negative, means a lot on a scale where every point close to the average has a measurable effect in terms of income and education levels.

And here are their conclusions,

“The third hypothesis (H3) expected Sensing to be a negative predictor of g [general intelligence], as previous research has shown that Intuition is positively correlated with intelligence, and Sensing is the opposite end of the same dimension. The results supported this hypothesis, in line with previous research (Agor, 1985; Kaufman et al, 1996). Furthermore, Intuition itself was found to have the highest correlation among the eight MBTI dimensions and the two intelligence measures, as well as g. The sign of the coefficient was positive, indicating that more Intuitive types score higher on intelligence measures.”

This of course does not mean that the N or S preference will make any single individual “smarter” (if by that we mean g) since statistical laws don’t apply to individuals. It just means there is a higher or lower probability.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

huiwcleon said:


> Sorry for the messy wordings. I just mean your have that cognitive function doesn't necessarily mean you use well. You love to play triumpet doesn't mean you play well, right? :crazy: Your example is also right though. You don't have the function in highest order, means you're less likely to do it well.
> 
> I can't really explain the correlation. A proper research need to be done before any conclusion is made. I do want to know the reason, but blindly saying certain type is smarter *based on its order of cognitive functions* is not right.


Well, one explanation that I can think of is that sensors are slower and get in trouble with the narrow time limit because they are more likely to get bogged down by details.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Intelligence is the ability to make predictions. That is what IQ tests measure. It's always a variation of some sequence and you have to tell what comes next.

All cognitive functions exist in all people. However, some are preferred by the brain and so they will be used even when they´re not really good for the problem at hand.

Most IQ tests measure the ability to predict in objective cases. If you would have an IQ test that would ask to predict things on social levels, IQ levels would be similar, but you will find some small differences, similar to what Tainted Streetlight described.

These differences are related to interest I think. When you really like the questions, you'll do slightly better than when the questions are totally boring to you.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Another thing that is important to understand is that the cognitive functions aren't a parallel set of functions of which only one can be switched on at once. All 8 of them are "on" all the time and if you could analyse them in real time, knowing exactly what's going on (an impossibility) you will find that you can't really determine which function is doing what. All you can do is analyse input and output and conclude that the end result is the result of a process that matches closest to a certain function, or a loop of various functions, or....etc. etc. etc.

In the end a cognitive function is just a concept that helps us understand and predict what is going on in the brain and in the end, the behavior and interests of a person. It specifically is not some part of the brain that has a specific function. (like an area for seeing, an area for hearing, an area for speech, etc.)


----------



## Staffan (Nov 15, 2011)

Peter said:


> Intelligence is the ability to make predictions. That is what IQ tests measure. It's always a variation of some sequence and you have to tell what comes next.
> 
> All cognitive functions exist in all people. However, some are preferred by the brain and so they will be used even when they´re not really good for the problem at hand.
> 
> ...


True, it is a lot about connecting the dots, something that would appeal more to the intuitive mind with its association and pattern detecting skills.


----------

