# Mbti + iq ??



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity

I found this link, which says, that:
- I's have more probability to have higher IQ than E's
- N's have more probability to have higher IQ than S's
- T's have more probability to have higher IQ than F's
- J's have more probability to have higher IQ than P's

So highest probability of having high IQ have got J's.
But I warn you - even I don't believe it all, so if you are only starting with MBTI, don't say from now, that "INTJ's are smartest, ESFP's dumbest." This thread was created, because I want to find out how accurate it is.
Yeh, and mine one is 143. I am INTP. *whistling from Old Spice ad*


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I don't think these articles are reliable and IQ isn't a good way to measure intelligence in my opinion.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I know one or so INTJs and they're not super geniuses. And the ENTJ I know IRL is pretty vapid, I don't think these articles are reliable.


You meant to say "stupid"? Well, it is because it is ONLY probability. There is still probability bigger than 50% for ENTJ to be dumb like dirt. I don't know now how much it is, but I know the one for INTP - it's 80%. Aand I know that the one for ENTJ will be higher.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

darude11 said:


> You meant to say "stupid"? Well, it is because it is ONLY probability. There is still probability bigger than 50% for ENTJ to be dumb like dirt. I don't know now how much it is, but I know the one for INTP - it's 80%. Aand I know that the one for ENTJ will be higher.


I didn't mean to say "stupid", I used "vapid" because that doesn't insinuate someone is dumb. I know what words I'm using and I pick them for their meaning. I'm saying that they're not too interesting to talk to at length.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I didn't mean to say "stupid", I used "vapid" because that doesn't insinuate someone is dumb. I know what words I'm using and I pick them for their meaning. I'm saying that they're not too interesting to talk to at length.


Well, that may be caused by different themes you both like.
There is article about it. Articles - Effective way to spot an S or N


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

darude11 said:


> Well, that may be caused by different themes you both like.
> There is article about it. Articles - Effective way to spot an S or N


That's from loyalgirl, I don't take her stuff seriously. She's made far too many comments that show she has an obvious bias.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Fizz said:


> That's from loyalgirl, I don't take her stuff seriously. She's made far too many comments that show she has an obvious bias.


Yeah, but I think that there may be a bit of truth in it. I really don't see many S's and N's talking for long time, and if I even see, one is talking and other bored.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

darude11 said:


> Yeah, but I think that there may be a bit of truth in it. I really don't see many S's and N's talking for long time, and if I even see, one is talking and other bored.


I talk to @Zombie Jesus and I think we get along fine. There are plenty of Ns I talk to IRL that I get along great with. Some of the people I talk to the most are Ns. There isn't this huge "natural" divide, people force it when they learn about MBTI.


----------



## Penemue (Feb 23, 2010)

http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/14987-correlation-between-personality-type-iq.html

Sorry, beat you to it
But anyway, INTJ 160. (Forgoing all the criticisms of IQ and MBTI that happened on the above thread)

Note: This was a professional testing, NOT an internet test


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

I have tested (professionally...not the bullshit internet tests) at 138 and I am ISTP.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I talk to @Zombie Jesus and I think we get along fine. There are plenty of Ns I talk to IRL that I get along great with. Some of the people I talk to the most are Ns. There isn't this huge "natural" divide, people force it when they learn about MBTI.


Do we? :crazy:

I think so. I don't get why it's always thought that looking at things a different way is such a problem. It's really more a difference between sensory experience and non-sensory imaginative experience (not to say that S types have no imagination, I don't believe that is at all the case). As an example (which also goes against the can't get along for along time theory), my best friend, who I've known for 15 years, is (I am pretty sure after a several month long analysis) an ESTP. One thing I've noticed is he is extremely focused on sex, particularly the getting and experiencing of it. I on the other hand, like to think about it, but I couldn't really give a shit if I actually do it. I'm quite happy to fantasize about things. Maybe a poor example (I didn't sleep much and I am posting from my work bathroom, so be fair). 

The thing people should keep in mind about MBTI is that (other than the four letters are not as meaningful as the functions) is that it is about preferences. I tend to have more developed Ni than Ne, but I probably prefer to us the latter more (it varies though), which is consistent with being an INTP. It's quite possible for an S type to have well developed N functions, and vice versa. Making blanket assumptions about how different types will interract is ignoring alot of complexity in favor of a simple scheme of four polar opposites. 

And just to contradict myself, I'll say that in my experience F versus T is more a hindrance to effective communication and long term "getting along".

As for linking IQ with type, considering how IQ tests are designed, it's no wonder that INTP/Js are more likely to do better. If the questions were changed we could get ESFPs topping the scale.

But, as everyone seems to be showing off, I got 149, professionally administered.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Professionally tested twice 136, just to show off. 

Not sure about my type as it is liable to change through self discovery. I mostly seem INFP with a lot of ISFP tendencies.

IQ tests themselves are flawed by design and only measure a few capabilities. Testing is also influenced by a lot of external factors like what you ate, what your energy level is in that moment, how you feel...etc. As long as tests results are normal and not below 90  everything is fine.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

My test was done professionally when I was 14; my result was 144.

I don't feel smart because IQ doesn't make you intelligent. It just means you were able to perform well on the exam in front of you. In fact, I am extremely lazy when it comes to my mind. If the answer doesn't float in front of me like it usually does [thank you N], then I'm not interested in putting forth the effort unless I really like the topic.

I feel like my intelligence is withering away from lack of use.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

sanari said:


> My test was done professionally when I was 14; my result was 144.
> 
> I don't feel smart because IQ doesn't make you intelligent. It just means you were able to perform well on the exam in front of you. In fact, I am extremely lazy when it comes to my mind. If the answer doesn't float in front of me like it usually does [thank you N], then I'm not interested in putting forth the effort unless I really like the topic.
> 
> I feel like my intelligence is withering away from lack of use.


This sounds about right. I have to be interested, otherwise I just can't be arsed. Unfortunately, in my daily life, instances of intelligence-requiring challenges of interest are extraordinarily hard to come by, so the lack of use thing is something I definitely can relate to. I took that test when I was 17. I may have known less when I was younger, but I think I may have been smarter.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

Yeah...don't you feel as though you are starving....like you just don't have enough to eat? And when you come across something to feed on, it ranges from small morsels like popping candy to the rare all-you-can-eat-buffet?

Or am I weird for likening using my brain to eating? LOL.


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

I find IQ to be a rather poor measure of intelligence, more something for the youthful mind inflating its own sense of self-importance and potential. In fact, I don't take any intelligence assessment seriously. Multiple intelligence appears "realistic" and can be useful, but it's still garbage. It's all relative in my book.

INTJ and INTP being the most intelligent is ROFL!


----------



## Fleetfoot (May 9, 2011)

If what you say is slightly accurate, you have to consider other factors as to why it could be. Is it that INTJs have a higher probability of showing a lot of interest in these IQ tests, and because they may be more interested, they may score higher? Have the people taking the test been offered to understand the basic concepts the test is asking for (for example, can you ask an illiterate person or a 3 year old to take the same test and expect them to do well, even though they could be considered 'intelligent', they never had the learning opportunity to understand). 

Like any test, it has its flaws, and shouldn't be used to say INTJ>ESFP or Person A>Person B. It's only a small factor of who one person is. Maybe they're not good test takers, but they excel in other areas of life. 

BTW...IQ 139, ESTP...Do I care? No. It's what you do with it, which a lot of people who are _sooo_ intelligent seem to miss that point.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

sanari said:


> Yeah...don't you feel as though you are starving....like you just don't have enough to eat? And when you come across something to feed on, it ranges from small morsels like popping candy to the rare all-you-can-eat-buffet?
> 
> Or am I weird for likening using my brain to eating? LOL.


I thought it an apt metaphor. Sometimes I feel like the mental equivalent to a starving child on an African charity commercial.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I thought I remember reading maybe in "Gifts Differing" that type and intelligence quotients don't mix? It leads to misnomers that thinking equals intelligence and feeling equals emotions. Besides the book, if I recall correctly said based on their findings, feeling types seemed to have higher IQs than thinking types.


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

darude11 said:


> Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity
> 
> I found this link, which says, that:
> - I's have more probability to have higher IQ than E's
> ...


*Actually. INFP's + INFJ's score the highest in IQ test *of all types according to Gifts Differing. I don't think the difference between them, the 3'rd and 4'rth are big, she won't say in the book, which I find annoying.

I's score better. Just better focus and perhaps more depth in thinking, but not as good multitasking. Multitasking isn't such a big factor in IQ tests.

*N's score 7.8 points better than S's, also from Gifts Differing. *This number was taken from testing thousands so its pretty reliable. The N / S variable is by far the biggest different according to MBTI type, she says. 7.8 from ONE factor is a HUGE difference. IQ isn't a measurement of how smart we are, it's a measurement of how well we perform on an IQ test.

Although really smart overall people seldom have LOW IQ scores. There is some sort of connection.

*T's should have an advantage over F's. * Logic, HELLO?! Nothing else would make sense. But then again why do men/women have the same average IQ? 65% of men are thinkers, 65% of females are feelers. Many things do not make sense at first sight, and all sorts of interesting hypothesis can be built around them.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Tawanda said:


> Like any test, it has its flaws, and shouldn't be used to say INTJ>ESFP or Person A>Person B.


Hellooo! That is EXACTLY what I said I am not saying!



Mooncutter said:


> *Actually. INFP's + INFJ's score the highest in IQ test *of all types according to Gifts Differing. I don't think the difference between them, the 3'rd and 4'rth are big, she won't say in the book, which I find annoying.
> 
> I's score better. Just better focus and perhaps more depth in thinking, but not as good multitasking. Multitasking isn't such a big factor in IQ tests.
> 
> ...


First of all, I will start with your last paragraph.
Let's say, that the T-men and F-women will have value 2, and that T-women and F-men will have value 1.


> MEN AV. IQ = WOMEN AV. IQ
> (2x0.65+0.35)/2=(2x0.35+0,65)/2
> 1.3/2=1.35/2
> Whatev'=Whatev'


And now to site's informations.
I's have 8 times higher probability of having higher IQ than E's.
N's have 27 (from other site 25) times higher probability of having higher IQ than S's.
T's have 2.5 times higher probability of having higher IQ than F's
J's have 2 times higher probability of having higher IQ than P's.
The 6 most intelligent types* (according to sites) are these: INTJ, ENTJ, INTP, ENTP, INFJ, INFP.
*However, I don't say that those are most intelligent, even through the site called it exactly like that. I would call it "Types, that have the highest probability of having high IQ".

//EDIT
Yes, the formula I was counting up here is not exactly same on both sides. The right side is bigger. Left one is 0.65, right one 0.675. But I haven't counted it as such a difference.


----------



## Vtile (Feb 27, 2011)

Mooncutter said:


> *Actually. INFP's + INFJ's score the highest in IQ test *of all types according to Gifts Differing. I don't think the difference between them, the 3'rd and 4'rth are big, she won't say in the book, which I find annoying.
> 
> I's score better. Just better focus and perhaps more depth in thinking, but not as good multitasking. Multitasking isn't such a big factor in IQ tests.
> 
> ...


This isn't based on any fact, but could that N/S differentiation be partially explained by that if the IQ test are based on a studies made by N-type or build by N-type. So in this case N-types have some sort of better mental connection to the structure of the IQ test and therefore better/more clear track to follow. This is something I have been thinking in past and again this came to my mind.


----------



## Modesty (Aug 30, 2011)

INFP - 122. I'd score more like 140 if I wasn't entirely unable to decipher numeric patterns, so I suspect the INFP math hate might have something behind it


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

Vtile said:


> This isn't based on any fact, but could that N/S differentiation be partially explained by that if the IQ test are based on a studies made by N-type or build by N-type. So in this case N-types have some sort of better mental connection to the structure of the IQ test and therefore better/more clear track to follow. This is something I have been thinking in past and again this came to my mind.


*Yes. Isabel Myers also says exactly this in her book. *Rough guideline: N's are at disadvantage all through elementary school, (like all elementary school teachers are S) but begin to catch up during high school. In higher education N's gain about the same "advantage" S's had during elementary school. A large advantage. 

*To be specific: N's might not have greater trouble* writing & reading specifically, but they do not learn math well in a step-by-step formula. I always had trouble with this. I could only do it once I came home and had processed the "whole picture". Halfway into class, I had like 1/3 of the picture, and couldn't do anything, not even the simplest numbers. 

*There is also motivation problems *whenever an assignment is a mere "task" and does not encourage creativity. Repetition tends to yield mental unhealth to N's to a greater degree, but not sure about this.

*There are few to none sensors designing IQ tests. *Think about it: they are all about patterns. Who are good at patterns? N's. There are other ways to test intelligence than visual patterns recognition. But visual pattern recognition remains prevalent as ever as it is both a convenient and well-established way of testing.

Problem: We have let money define intelligence.

*Just because visual pattern recognition *is the most cost-effective way of testing, can be done online, across all cultures so on, it has BECOME the staple for intelligence. No one ever thinks about this.

*You know how some people are visual learners?* Good visual memory, fast readers, usually good at drawing etc. Other types are auditory learners. Guess who benefits from a VISUAL test?


----------



## Vtile (Feb 27, 2011)

It's good to see time to time that own thoughts are going in the right direction. 

"Just because visual pattern recognition is the most cost-effective way of testing, can be done online, across all cultures so on, it has BECOME the staple for intelligence. No one ever thinks about this." @Mooncutter 
..And how much potential we waste because of this.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

I'm a dumb INTP, here to lower the average IQ of our category.

(I actually have never been tested but considering that I am unable to function properly in society, have dyspraxia and a strong tendency to being unable to grasp word problems (maths) or to have the will to even count, I highly suspect that I would "fail".)


----------



## Jorji (Oct 24, 2009)

Infj - 144


----------



## Ziwosa (Sep 25, 2010)

Only done some online tests, usually scoring around 95.
Looks like I'm the dumbest around here, anyone beat me to it?


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

@StrixAluco
@Ziwosa

*Love people like you facing stark reality at the same time* being kind of ironic. Perhaps you gained more social intelligence than others


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

My IQ is 130, but I don't believe in IQ that much. It's a very narrow way of testing intelligence. It uses patterns and numbers. But it doesn't test other things like language, the arts, and other forms of intelligence.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

From what I've read, INTJs tend to score the highest on IQ tests, followed by INTPs, INFJs and INFPs.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm surprised that no one is Over 9000!!! yet.

I've been tested at 118. I guess my ExxPness won't let me be a genius 

Really, I could see a bit of a correlation with E/I and N/S and one's score. Es on average are going to be less likely to super focus on puzzles for the entire 2-3 hours in a quiet room with nothing else to do, and Ss on average are going to care less about getting the right answer on some silly puzzles that has no practical application whatsoever. But here's the big reminder here.... type =/= ability, and an even bigger reminder.... IQ =/= intelligence. There might be some correlations, but does it mean anything more than something like a few more of the Es got bored with the test and rushed through it to get back to recess? Probably not...


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

All I could see in that blog post the OP linked to was how the author was trying to evoke some outside authority to justify bragging about how 'intelligent' he is. Self-serving masturdebatory drivel.


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

Ubuntu said:


> From what I've read, INTJs tend to score the highest on IQ tests, followed by INTPs, INFJs and INFPs.


*J's are at advantage whenever there is time-constraint,* and fast decisions have to be made. They have practiced it their whole life. Today, managing time is a factor in IQ test resuts.

*Remove the time constraint, and suddenly P's shine.* Few researchers/professors are J's. Not sure whether P's make BETTER researchers/professors. Hard to know. It could only be a matter of preference. J's are too impatient; they want usable real world results. 

*Statistics published in Gifts Differing showing ratios* (relative to population) of nations TOP students, the highest achievers in america; show that being a J is neutral if you are T. And disadvantage if you are F. But we are talking high marks here, not intelligence of any kind.

*My take is that xxFJ's get exhausted from* studying long periods of time because they keep emotionally "reacting" to the information presented before them. An xxFP can kinda just sit there, and take it all in without reacting and without NEEDING the information to be of use in the real world. *In other words P's are experts in studying bullshit *

This time-constraint concept would also explain why INFJ's do WELL in IQ tests; but not as well in school relatively. Don't get me wrong, they are strong students, just not AS GOOD as when IQ tested.


----------



## neologismaker (May 19, 2011)

Kayness said:


> All I could see in that blog post the OP linked to was how the author was trying to evoke some outside authority to justify bragging about how 'intelligent' he is. Self-serving masturdebatory drivel.


I didn't click the link so I have absolutely no opinion, but I really wanted to find out what masturdebatory means xDDDD



> In other words P's are experts in studying bullshit


... We are not experts in studying BS! ... Ps don't study, silly~  

Honestly, the only people I know who are big into studying are Js. BS is BS and nobody likes studying things they aren't interested in. xDDDDD It seems to me that Js are more likely to try, but that's just from my experience. I do study, but I don't study for a set number of hours or at a set time. I study until I learn the material in front of me to my satisfaction. Either that, or I don't study at all because I've started playing Tetris. ;P The other perceivers I know, at least, are the same way. The idea that an INFP can sit in front of material without reacting does not compute; on the contrary, INFPs should be just as reactionary as INFJs. INTP or ENFP might be able to sit and take in information the way you've described, though, because Ne allows for many ideas to be juggled at the same time without being necessarily excluded until further explored.


EDIT ... Oh yea, my IQ. INXP, more likely INFP, professional test was 146.


----------



## Jamie.Ether (Jul 1, 2011)

Sooo it is my Feelings that make me dumb?

[jk]


----------



## Cherie19 (Sep 7, 2011)

This is very interesting. I wonder about the validity of it. I don't know my IQ (except via internet tests, so I won't bother mentioning it). I will say that certain types are probably better at test taking and the style of the IQ test, but that does not necessarily equate to intelligence in every way intelligence can be measured. I am an excellent test taker, known to break curves, but will say that does not mean I couldn't be "outsmarted" in some areas by someone with far worse grades or less education! My book smarts don't always transfer to the real world. Haha


----------



## Decay153 (Dec 31, 2009)

I've scored 130, INFP. I do believe there is no solid way to grasp somebody's intelligence with a number though, people just do what they can on what they're forced to measure themselves with. A basic gauge/thermometer cannot entirely reveal to you the weather, much less the climate.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

Mooncutter said:


> @_StrixAluco_
> @_Ziwosa_
> 
> *Love people like you facing stark reality at the same time* being kind of ironic. Perhaps you gained more social intelligence than others


To be honest, people on the Internet often use their IQ to show their intelligence but we could also make a thread about "IQ and depression" (since there is a correlation apparently) to sulk about how much life sucks, talk about unhealthy perfectionism, isolation not caused by introversion or own needs, underacheivement, overlaps with disorders, etc.

(And as with this thread, the correlation may exist but not necessary in everyone. Depressed isolated people don't necessary have a high IQ and people with a high IQ are not necessary depressed or isolated. It's even worse when it comes to the MBTI considering that the system in itself is hard to test accurately and some people may just score like some type without being this type, it could also be adaptation or similar skills found in people with a high IQ which is reminiscent of some cognitive functions. However, using this cognitive function will not result in developping incredible skills in this specific area.)

I personally do not think that IQ is a good way to determine someone's intelligence and definitely doesn't not turn anyone into a genius (real geniuses are rarer than people with a relatively high IQ and they are those who actually those who produce something, change our views or means, etc.). Being naturally skilled does help technically but there are more skills in real life than what an IQ test can measure.
I do believe it is useful to find some learning disorders or get to know some of our abilities but we acheive nothing by getting a high IQ on a test.

(Also, I value critical thinking more than IQ tests when it comes to intelligence, it is surely debatable but I've come across gifted people, including my best friend, who lack(ed) critical thinking and it is incredibly irritating and sometimes led to immature arguments, it can surely kill a debate and I love debates. Anyway...)

I'd like to say as well that there are many scales to test IQ therefore a given number does not necessary mean anything as long as the specific scale used is unknown. 
What could I tell? My father's IQ had been tested and is about 162. But what does it mean? Really? On another scale, it could easily be less than that.

Also, considering the overlaps with other disorders such as autism, would you feel intelligent if you felt that you had so many difficulties adapting socially? 
I, for one, feel completely dumb in society and it is a skill that is hard to develop. I have a permanent "where am I?" and childish look, like an alien. I can't tell when I am supposed to speak or what I am supposed to say so I am either quiet or too talkative. I can't even get the intention of people in front of me and I'm confused when what they say have various meanings and need to ask for definition. It is more than introversion in itself (or perhaps just an immature INTP thing) as many people in my family are "introverted" (even those who are quite social, in the MBTI system) and I can clearly see how it could be due to a lack of a certain form of intelligence. Because, clearly, that's stupidity on my part.
(To the point of having my mother yelling at me for "playing stupid" because I have some well developped skills and intellectual curiosity which make it seem weird for her. Plus, I'm a literary student who can analyse a text but can't communicate with real people.)

I'm also incredibly uncoordinated, clumsy and absent-minded. I'm the perfect candidate to win the Darwin Award, still I'm also the one with the highest level of education in my family and the only one pursuing a Ph.D. According to my friends, I'm more intelligent than my parents. Why? Because we have a different kind of intelligence and my friends are more sensitive to mine. Also, because society puts emphasis on academical success. And it's like an IQ number, it means absolutely nothing.

My brother has been less suspected of having a high IQ than I have (by non professionnal, mostly) because he's a manual worker (ironically, like my father, who never passed any kind of exams) and has no obvious problems in society or learning disorders. However, he is highly capable and quite intelligent (he's becoming more and more intelligent as he is now developing a taste for theories and critical thinking, he's also an ISTP -like my father) and it amazes me how he can actually do what he thinks about (he's building a robot, we're working on an artificial life program, etc.).
So, perhaps he's more average than I would think he is, I guess we'll never know since most people who get tested are getting tested because there is an IQ related issue but he's still quite intelligent and able. And not even an intuitive (though Ti may help).

Some people with a high IQ are incapable of functioning properly or be really autonomous, some aren't. The number mean absolutely nothing. We have various skills, some people are less able than others in various aspects of life and some may be gifted in almost everything but how many of those whose IQ is quite high would claim it to have improved their life?

(Interestingly, on the Internet, I've ranged from retardation to giftedness. I love how inaccurate these tests are. Well, at least when you're bored...)


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

StrixAluco said:


> Also, considering the overlaps with other disorders such as autism, would you feel intelligent if you felt that you had so many difficulties adapting socially?


I've heard people on the higher end of the autism spectrum tend to score high on IQ tests. 



> I, for one, feel completely dumb in society and it is a skill that is hard to develop. I have a permanent "where am I?" and childish look, like an alien. I can't tell when I am supposed to speak or what I am supposed to say so I am either quiet or too talkative. I can't even get the intention of people in front of me and I'm confused when what they say have various meanings and need to ask for definition. It is more than introversion in itself (or perhaps just an immature INTP thing) as many people in my family are "introverted" (even those who are quite social, in the MBTI system) and I can clearly see how it could be due to a lack of a certain form of intelligence. Because, clearly, that's stupidity on my part.
> (To the point of having my mother yelling at me for "playing stupid" because I have some well developped skills and intellectual curiosity which make it seem weird for her. Plus, I'm a literary student who can analyse a text but can't communicate with real people.)


I think it's the classic EQ/IQ thing. One may have very high IQ, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their EQ would be high as well. And even though EQ is horribly underrated compared to IQ, it is very essential in our daily life.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

*Yes. Isabel Myers also says exactly this in her book. Rough guideline: N's are at disadvantage all through elementary school, (like all elementary school teachers are S) but begin to catch up during high school. In higher education N's gain about the same "advantage" S's had during elementary school. A large advantage. 

*It might be an SJ advantage. I remember elementary school as being dull, dull, dull... except for art and music classes. I spent my time staring out the window, wondering why I was inside, instead of outside, where I really wanted to be. And, having an undiagnosed learning disability (central auditory processing disorder) didn't help. Every extraneous sound was a distraction so I couldn't concentrate on all of those words... and high school was even worse!!!

*To be specific: N's might not have greater trouble writing & reading specifically, but they do not learn math well in a step-by-step formula. I always had trouble with this. I could only do it once I came home and had processed the "whole picture". Halfway into class, I had like 1/3 of the picture, and couldn't do anything, not even the simplest numbers. *

Oh boy, math. All of those boring worksheets. I am a tactile learner. The worksheets didn't work for me, either. I needed lots of manipulatives to learn math. For a learner such as me, using art and music to teach math would have been truly wonderful.

*There is also motivation problems whenever an assignment is a mere "task" and does not encourage creativity. Repetition tends to yield mental unhealth to N's to a greater degree, but not sure about this.*

Repetition can be boring, although, when I'm practicing music, I don't mind practicing the same piece over and over again until I have it.

*There are few to none sensors designing IQ tests. Think about it: they are all about patterns. Who are good at patterns? N's. There are other ways to test intelligence than visual patterns recognition. But visual pattern recognition remains prevalent as ever as it is both a convenient and well-established way of testing.*

As an artist, I can appreciate patterns and design. It doesn't work for me for testing intelligence. Eventually, I grow bored with one pattern after the next. 

*Problem: We have let money define intelligence.

* *Just because visual pattern recognition is the most cost-effective way of testing, can be done online, across all cultures so on, it has BECOME the staple for intelligence. No one ever thinks about this.

* *You know how some people are visual learners? Good visual memory, fast readers, usually good at drawing etc. Other types are auditory learners. Guess who benefits from a VISUAL test?

*I am a TACTILE learner! Way out of the norm. I need to touch and I need to manipulate things. The speed element of the IQ test is an automatic bias against tactile learners. We aren't given enough time to touch, manipulate, and experience the joy of problem solving through our sensitive fingers!
I will never score above 110 on a professionally administered test. In fact, that is about what I scored. But the score is inaccurate because I was penalized for slowness.


----------



## StrixAluco (Apr 8, 2011)

walking tourist said:


> I am a TACTILE learner! Way out of the norm. I need to touch and I need to manipulate things. The speed element of the IQ test is an automatic bias against tactile learners. We aren't given enough time to touch, manipulate, and experience the joy of problem solving through our sensitive fingers!
> I will never score above 110 on a professionally administered test. In fact, that is about what I scored. But the score is inaccurate because I was penalized for slowness.


The thing is, if they allowed us to take our time or took into consideration the way we learn or handle problems, many people would end up having a high IQ.

The test is really just about certain skills, and it was only made to help children in difficulties at first (and well, there are correlations between a high IQ and social difficulties or boredom but to be honest, this can happen without and can also be linked to disorders, education, interests, etc.). The whole "IQ = intelligence" is something that is now very popular but it's a misunderstading of the test in itself (and, of course, is partly due to its name). When you look closely at the skills evaluated in these tests, you can surely realise that they are just academic skills. Once people start specializing or working, those skills may not even be necessary in their life because they will need to develop other skills.




> I think it's the classic EQ/IQ thing. One may have very high IQ, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their EQ would be high as well. And even though EQ is horribly underrated compared to IQ, it is very essential in our daily life.


I've often wondered how such thing as the EQ could be calculated. It seems rather subjective to me. It's probably why it is so much underrated. It is interesting, though, but I think that it's just as inefficient as IQ to determine some aspects of our lives.

What I mean is that some people will not necessary need to have a great EQ or IQ to succeed in what they are doing because it is not a required skill for them.


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

Jamie.Ether said:


> Sooo it is my Feelings that make me dumb?


*Your feelings give you intuition, which technically* is instant access to random and non-random layers of your brain. Through intuition, you can access a segment of your consious mind, and very large (relatively) segment of your subconscious mind at the same time. A thinker has strong constant access to their conscious mind at all times.

*Positive:* You have an "aid" in navigating unknown territories, great temporary bursts of insight and thought power
*Positive II:* It's instant, done in a flash
*Drawback: *You probably have less logical reasoning power. Not accounting for these "bursts" of insight feelers may have, you WILL have less overall reasoning power.
*Drawback II:* Intuition is unrealiable, unscientific, and temporary when it comes


----------



## Voldemort (Aug 24, 2011)

I just want to throw this out there, but IQ really doesn't matter. Nobody cares if you're an *insert MBTI type* and you got an *insert IQ score* in the grand scheme of things. Plus, what if you mistyped your MBTI in the first place? Or what if you really don't care about doing well on an IQ test? Its probably wise to take all MBTI and intelligence statistics with a grain of salt.


----------



## darude11 (Jul 6, 2011)

Kayness said:


> All I could see in that blog post the OP linked to was how the author was trying to evoke some outside authority to justify bragging about how 'intelligent' he is. Self-serving masturdebatory drivel.


Agree. It is just another "one-personality-is-better-because-it-is-me" sh*t. But you can still discuss possible correlations (if there... are some...).

And yes, the IQ system may not be accurate, because it is just "How much % old is your mind, if your body is 100% old."



Voldemort said:


> I just want to throw this out there, but IQ really doesn't matter. Nobody cares if you're an *insert MBTI type* and you got an *insert IQ score* in the grand scheme of things. Plus, what if you mistyped your MBTI in the first place? Or what if you really don't care about doing well on an IQ test? Its probably wise to take all MBTI and intelligence statistics with a grain of salt.


I use [insert random MBTI type]. It always works!


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

darude11 said:


> Agree. It is just another "one-personality-is-better-because-it-is-me" sh*t. But you can still discuss possible correlations (if there... are some...).
> 
> And yes, the IQ system may not be accurate, because it is just "How much % old is your mind, if your body is 100% old."


LOL! Well, there's nothing I have to say that everyone else here hasn't already said.
There are many other areas of intelligence that IQ doesn't measure that is as relevant/valid/useful as IQ.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Mine is over 9000. If you don't believe me it's likely that yours doesn't scratch the 9000 mark, which, as much as it pains me to say, is your problem.

/snob


----------



## Kriash (May 5, 2011)

My IQ (based on the professional test I was given in 5th grade lmao, so not probably correct) is 125. However, I'm not really a smart person, and I don't do well with a variety of subjects and things. I don't think it really means much because people are different in how they are smart, and the test fails at being able to tell that.


----------



## Destiny Lund (Sep 2, 2011)

darude11 said:


> Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity
> 
> I found this link, which says, that:
> - I's have more probability to have higher IQ than E's
> ...


Of course, even if the table you provided IS correct, it's simply a generality/majority.
I'm ENFP borderline ISFP. I took an IQ test 4 years ago when I was 16. My score was 116.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

darude11 said:


> Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity
> 
> I found this link, which says, that:
> - I's have more probability to have higher IQ than E's
> ...


So far, here's what I can state :

+intelligence = +N capacity (abstract thinking)
+N capacity => +N preference
+N preference ≠> +N capacity

------

+N capacity => + tolerance for uncertainty => +Ti preference => +P preference
+N capacity => +Ne preference => +P preference
+P/Ne/Ti preference ≠> +N capacity/intelligence (avoiding certainties ≠> not avoiding dilemmas)


And by the way, +IQ ≠> +intelligence


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

I've seen those statistics before. I've never been tested professionally, but I very much doubt it will be high, and maybe not even above average. 

I've read before that it only measures problem-solving intelligence, which is one type in at least 5.


----------



## Mooncutter (Jul 28, 2011)

walking tourist said:


> *Yes. Isabel Myers also says exactly this in her book. Rough guideline: N's are at disadvantage all through elementary school, (like all elementary school teachers are S) but begin to catch up during high school. In higher education N's gain about the same "advantage" S's had during elementary school. A large advantage.
> 
> *It might be an SJ advantage. I remember elementary school as being dull, dull, dull... except for art and music classes. I spent my time staring out the window, wondering why I was inside, instead of outside, where I really wanted to be. And, having an undiagnosed learning disability (central auditory processing disorder) didn't help. Every extraneous sound was a distraction so I couldn't concentrate on all of those words... and high school was even worse!!!
> 
> ...


*What you are saying here is super-interesting* and my mind shifted because of it. I too, think that SJ's are at that advantage I described, but not SP's.

*Going back to my childhood and my work as a teacher, *remembering the so energetic go-for-the-moment SP children. Running around creating general chaos. They were not at advantage at all. Actually, their behaviour closely mimics the symptons of ADD and ADHD.


----------



## Black Hole (Jun 9, 2011)

INTP and 146, professionally tested. I'm not too big of a believer in IQ tests, I think that actual effort and knowledge and experience are the main defining points of intelligence. I know people with very high IQs who are incredibly lazy and condescending *because* of their high IQ and constantly brag about it and how it makes them better than everyone else because they're special. I mean, if you're really so special then why don't you make any effort to do anything and make everything else a little more special? Those people are the dumbest people I know. I see IQ as a measure of potential, and while it may not be that good, if you have that much potential you might as well use it. I'm no fan of wasting potential, and it just makes me wonder why anyone would not try harder to actually do something right. And these people don't even put the _slightest_ bit of effort into anything. They get failing grades, skip school constantly, and don't pay attention and then justify it using their "intelligence". That's not intelligence, that's stupidity. The worst kind of stupidity. If you want respect for your intelligence, prove it. Make us really believe you're smart. Do something worth doing. Don't just mention your score on a questionable test. Because you're also the people getting 4% on a final. And many people who got lower scores on the IQ test are smarter, because they put in effort and know that their actions have consequences. I just don't really trust IQ. Intelligence is so much more complex than a score on a test.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Strictly speaking, N vs S is the only area where "IQ", by it's classic definition, is supposed to exhibit a strong difference.

Here are some facts:

 N enjoys several advantages in the standard schooling process. As well, it is generally hindered by the approaches that cater to Ss, who make up the majority of the population. For example, N generally recognizes the link between symbols and meanings quicker than S and continues to translate between them faster.

 N has a stronger desire to pursue formal education. In the age in which college was more optional, Ns were more likely to express plans to pursue education beyond high school than Ss were. Ns continue to outnumber Ss in graduate school, despite making up less of the population.

 N has tested far stronger than S on IQ tests, both in the past and present. The types that tend to score the highest on exams are pretty much all Ns.

 Ns tend to be faster than Ss in evaluating possibilities. They often have good hunches that lead to quicker problem solving than a slower, more methodical method would. In timed environments (and much about school and tests are), this gives N an advantage (by our own definitions).

However, a slight discrepancy between I and E, _on average_ was also observed.


 I more readily abstracts than E, and thus enjoys an advantage in areas that favor abstraction.

 E tends to be faster in new situations, however, than I. Introverted functions usually require time and lots of information to beat together a good model. Extraverted functions generally attain a feeling of competence in new situations faster.

 I favors depth over breadth, and often often pursues more education in a narrow field than E. In an area where depth of knowledge is equated with intelligence, I enjoys this advantage.

INs tend to be the abstracters and conceptualizers. They also tend toward depth of knowledge, making them more typically the experts in a field. It is rare to find an expert in a field who is not at least an I. Conversely, it is somewhat rare to encounter an IN who is considered to be wonderfully well-rounded and skilled a plethora of tasks. They exist, but are far rarer than the ES of that type.

Now, "intelligence" is a loaded word because at some point the idea of "intelligence" morphed into something closer to "competence" or "skill". Now every aspect of human life has a form of "intelligence", so that people are no longer skilled at something, they are instead "intelligent" at it. Now people will say that someone is "intelligent" with their hands, a concept that bears little to do with the definition of the word 100 years ago.

The meaning of "intelligence" once meant some combination of attributes, generally implying many of the following: quickness of thought, a reliable memory, ability to conceptualize, pattern recognition, ability to adapt, ability to compute, ability to reason, an exceptional insight to either the big picture or the minute details of a situation, etc. In essence, things you would consider associated with _higher education_. It was relatively rare to use the term for something that was unrelated to higher education, and also rare to not use the word for something very closely related to it.

But now the politically correct term just means being skilled in any area. We've essentially redefined it so as to leave very few people out of being "intelligent" in some way or another. Now, by definition, almost everyone is intelligent at something, and to be politically correct you dare not compare them.

Frankly, I like the original definition better. Intelligence doesn't need to mean skill, and there's good use for a word to describe someone who has many of the characteristics listed above. But whatever, as long as everyone uses the same definition, we're OK. But most people don't, and half of intelligence discussions are just mis-understanding of semantics, which is always wildly disappointing. (That's one reason I dislike re-defining terms, it takes decades for nearly everyone to slowly agree to think about the word differently. If semantic wars were eliminated, so would at least half of online debates.)

Among Myres-Briggs types, the INs tend to be more likely to exhibit the characteristics listed above than other types. It doesn't mean that INs are always more intelligent, but simply more likely to show signs of the "classic" definition of intelligence. And that applies more strongly to Ns than to INs, as the difference between N and S was noted to be very significant, as opposed to the difference between IN and EN which was somewhat mild.

So that's a synopsis of the official MBTI word on the subject.

It's worth noting that there's also a practical discrepancy between people who have ability and people who routinely exercise it. Specifically, most INTJs and INTPs apply their analysis to most situations simply out of enjoyment. Over many years, the build up of models, theories, and insights from years of practice can give the appearance of intelligence. (And, hey, maybe it is a form.)


----------

