# ESFPs with high intelligence



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

What are they like? How they are different from normal ones? Are they super rare?

I just wanna know more about that and understand this type well.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Probably just as rare/common as INTJs with high intelligence.


----------



## Kampuchea (Jan 29, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> (...) Are they super rare? (...)


Giftedness by MBTI type:

INTP - 3.40
INTJ - 2.87
INFP - 2.68
INFJ - 2.67
ENTP - 2.32
ENFP - 2.03
ENTJ - 1.49
ENFJ - 1.26
ISTJ - 0.99
ISTP - 0.78
ESTP - 0.49
ISFJ - 0.40
ISFP - 0.40
*ESFP - 0.28*
ESTJ - 0.26
ESFJ - 0.24


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

mikiofpersia said:


> Giftedness by MBTI type:
> 
> INTP - 3.40
> INTJ - 2.87
> ...


Are those percentages?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

mikiofpersia said:


> The red spirit said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Are they super rare? (...)
> ...



Where did this come from??? Cite your sources!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

charlie.elliot said:


> where did this come from??? Cite your sources!


exactly


----------



## Kampuchea (Jan 29, 2017)

qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-079e6a767be6a7bcf578084cfad22b60-c


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

mikiofpersia said:


> qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-079e6a767be6a7bcf578084cfad22b60-c


For the record, although the self-selection ratios in that table (the second column from the right) were properly calculated, the last column ("% Gifted per Type") is based on a truly boneheaded calculation that does _not_ reflect the percentage of each type that qualified as "gifted."

For anyone who's interested, that table — or rather the non-boneheaded parts of it — reflects the results of this study of 5,700 gifted adolescents.


----------



## Miss Bingley (Jun 28, 2013)

intelligence is in no way correlated to mbti, in my opinion. i know a lot of super smart esfps.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

You have to specify what "high intelligence" means. Otherwise people are liable to start posting about their own personal ideas about intelligence just like they do every time someone makes a thread about intelligence.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

There are some extremely intelligent esfps right on this site.

Btw my mother is a rather simple intj. What I mean is her education was primitive. I still consider her intelligent. But in regards to academia she is sort of limited. In her case I totally think it was environmental and her true strengths not in a place to be properly fostered. 

There is too much weight which gets put in mbti and not enough in outside factors. 

I would even guess a level of aptitude and adapting for things has to do with parental function combos and outside environment and resources a child is exposed to. For example two s's raising and N. Two N's raising an S its likely these combos challenge the off spring or could be adverse or both. All three in common might make for a super power any given direction but less versatility. Then outside all those weird combos theres demographics etc as far as resources. S & N combo parents with either might also go any given direction. 

Too much goes in. Even if certain types have an inclination in capacity.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

mikiofpersia said:


> Giftedness by MBTI type:
> 
> INTP - 3.40
> INTJ - 2.87
> ...


And, what about ("unknown")-types. I reckon they've broken the "IQ [giftedness]" scale at a_ staggering_ 4.00.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Miss Bingley said:


> intelligence is in no way correlated to mbti, in my opinion. i know a lot of super smart esfps.


May you describe the difeference between them and normal ones?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

reckful said:


> For the record, although the self-selection ratios in that table (the second column from the right) were properly calculated, the last column ("% Gifted per Type") is based on a truly boneheaded calculation that does _not_ reflect the percentage of each type that qualified as "gifted."
> 
> For anyone who's interested, that table — or rather the non-boneheaded parts of it — reflects the results of this study of 5,700 gifted adolescents.


Turns out ESFPs with high IQ are rare (15th)


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

bentHnau said:


> You have to specify what "high intelligence" means. Otherwise people are liable to start posting about their own personal ideas about intelligence just like they do every time someone makes a thread about intelligence.


Traditional IQ, not emotional one. Those with scores of higher than average.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Sensational said:


> There are some extremely intelligent esfps right on this site.


This is me? :kitteh:

(There aren't many ESFPs, so that could equal to all ESFPs on this site)


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

bentHnau said:


> You have to specify what "high intelligence" means. Otherwise people are liable to start posting about their own personal ideas about intelligence just like they do every time someone makes a thread about intelligence.


As I was typing my own idea about intelligence I read your post.

My life is now in a never-ending stasis on repeat. Thanks...

But seriously, ESFPs are plenty "smart" by the generic understanding of the term. A lot of them just give off the impression that they aren't. There's no way to tell unless you get to know them though, as is true for anybody.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> But seriously, ESFPs are plenty "smart" by the generic understanding of the term. A lot of them just give off the impression that they aren't. There's no way to tell unless you get to know them though, as is true for anybody.


I kinda expect very unique thinking pattern of ESFPs due to their rarity or at least statistical rarity. All intelligent people are like ilness of humanity. They are not needed in normal society, something must have happened in evoliution, something really weird.


----------



## Statecraft Demystifier (Dec 12, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> I kinda expect very unique thinking pattern of ESFPs due to their rarity or at least statistical rarity. All intelligent people are like ilness of humanity. They are not needed in normal society, something must have happened in evoliution, something really weird.


I don't follow any of that. ESFPs aren't rare by any statistics that I know of. They range anywhere from 7-12% of the population. 

And you're saying that intelligent people aren't needed in normal society? You need to define "intelligence" and "normal society" or your words will just fall into obscurity. 

I think that entire human neocortex is pretty weird. There's nothing else like it on the planet. No ape or dolphin holds a candle to it, contrary to popular belief.

What I'm getting at is, intelligence, vaguely defined, is a choice. People can use the "product of your environment" BS all day long (which includes genetics) but until you sit down and relentlessly read books for years, you're going to be an average joe susceptible to Alzheimer's and popular opinion for the rest of your life.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

That's me


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Miss Bingley said:


> intelligence is *in no way* correlated to mbti, in my opinion. i know a lot of super smart esfps.


Bold statement. I see a lot of correlations in terms to mbti. But that depends of course on how one measure intelligence.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

If by intelligence we mean things like comprehension, mental receptiveness and responsiveness, good reasoning skills and so forth, anyone can be intelligent no matter how they gather and process information.

Tests that supposedly measure intelligence are more likely to measure how you have been conditioned to think.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Statecraft Demystifier said:


> I don't follow any of that. ESFPs aren't rare by any statistics that I know of. They range anywhere from 7-12% of the population.


I was refering to bright ESFPs (intelligence wise), not ESFPs in general



Statecraft Demystifier said:


> And you're saying that intelligent people aren't needed in normal society? You need to define "intelligence" and "normal society" or your words will just fall into obscurity.


I'm saying, that there's no need for intelligent people to exist in aspect of evoliution, but for some reason they exist. Why do I have to define something? Basically thinking abilities, reasoning and other stuff like that, excluding emotional intelligence. Just general intelligence, nothing too specific.



Statecraft Demystifier said:


> I think that entire human neocortex is pretty weird. There's nothing else like it on the planet. No ape or dolphin holds a candle to it, contrary to popular belief.


Why did humans appear? Seems bit pointless, we could have stayed in ape's form and just enjoyed simpler life, why we had to improve? 



Statecraft Demystifier said:


> What I'm getting at is, intelligence, vaguely defined, is a choice. People can use the "product of your environment" BS all day long (which includes genetics) but until you sit down and relentlessly read books for years, you're going to be an average joe susceptible to Alzheimer's and popular opinion for the rest of your life.


If you only read books, then it's only your memory, not thinking. Maybe I should say, that what I meant with intelligence isn't remembering stuff.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Actually, humans in general, regardless of personality type, have a high IQ. Nearly 70 percent have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only 2 percent have an IQ over 130 and only one-quarter of one percent has an IQ over 140.



The red spirit said:


> Turns out ESFPs with high IQ are rare (15th)


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Garden Gnome said:


> Actually, humans in general, regardless of personality type, have a high IQ. Nearly 70 percent have an IQ between 85 and 115. Only 2 percent have an IQ over 130 and only one-quarter of one percent has an IQ over 140.


Doesn't mean something if you don't provide numbers of dumb people. They exist and that means, that humanity doesn't have a lot of highly intelligent people. i love how you mentioned "in general" and "only 2%" in same reply.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

How do you define "dumb people"?



The red spirit said:


> Doesn't mean something if you don't provide numbers of dumb people. They exist and that means, that humanity doesn't have a lot of highly intelligent people. i love how you mentioned "in general" and "only 2%" in same reply.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Garden Gnome said:


> How do you define "dumb people"?


Lower than average, on your scale it would be someone with IQ lower than 85


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Here you go, the distribution.
Under 70, which is considered mental retardation: 2.2 percent
70-80, which is considered borderline retardation: 6.7 percent
80-90, considered to be low average: 16.1 percent
90-110, considered to be average: 50 percent
110-120, considered to be high average: 16.1 percent
120-130, considered to be superior: 6.7 percent
130 +, considered to be very superior: 2.1 percent

This is considered to be the standard of testing intelligence. The test, however, has been questioned for being culturally biased, for testing only a few intelligences, thus favoring people who are gifted in only certain areas. I just read an article, which indicates that the IQ test really tests only two types of intelligence: language and logical thought. There are six others that are not tested for: musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal, intrapersonal.




The red spirit said:


> Lower than average, on your scale it would be someone with IQ lower than 85


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Garden Gnome said:


> Here you go, the distribution.
> Under 70, which is considered mental retardation: 2.2 percent
> 70-80, which is considered borderline retardation: 6.7 percent
> 80-90, considered to be low average: 16.1 percent
> ...


Well, then those people aren't super rare according to this table. BTW multiple intelligence theory isn't accepted as valid thing in psychology, so it is questionable by itself.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

1) Intelligence is highly subjective

2) ESFPs have Dom-Se and Tert-Te which together can be very sharp

3) this threads reeks of stereotypical judgement (i.e. ESFs are the low functioning frat boys and dumb blondes of the MBTI community)


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stevester said:


> 1) Intelligence is highly subjective
> 
> 2) ESFPs have Dom-Se and Tert-Te which together can be very sharp
> 
> 3) this threads reeks of stereotypical judgement (i.e. ESFs are the low functioning frat boys and dumb blondes of the MBTI community)


1)So, I just asked to describe, nothing more.
2)Oh, something on the point of this thread
3)Maybe, I don't want stereotypes, but if it's raw truth, then say it.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stevester said:


> 1) Intelligence is highly subjective
> 
> 2) ESFPs have Dom-Se and Tert-Te which together can be very sharp
> 
> 3) this threads reeks of stereotypical judgement (i.e. ESFs are the low functioning frat boys and dumb blondes of the MBTI community)


1)So, I just asked to describe, nothing more.
2)Oh, something on the point of this thread
3)Maybe, I don't want stereotypes, but if it's raw truth, then say it.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Garden Gnome said:


> This is considered to be the standard of testing intelligence. The test, however, has been questioned for being culturally biased, for testing only a few intelligences, thus favoring people who are gifted in only certain areas.
> I just read an article, which indicates that the IQ test really tests only two types of intelligence: language and logical thought. There are six others that are not tested for: musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal, intrapersonal.


At least some IQ tests include tests of spatial ability. The Wechsler, for example.

This comment you've made illustrates why (productive) discussions about intelligence must always begin with a specific criterion of intelligence. There are several. Intelligence is not an objective thing; it is a concept, a construct that exists only in the human mind. All concepts of intelligence are the result of *a priori* decisions about which cognitive abilities to consider as constituting intelligence. Some people choose to include memory, some don't, for example.

As such, no *concept* of intelligence is _inherently_ more representative of human cognitive ability than any other. The system of multiple intelligences isn't necessarily any more representative than a concept of intelligence that is based on fewer types of intelligences. The only meaningful way to judge or rank concepts of intelligence is according to their utility (in psychological evaluation, gifted academic programs, etc.). There is no other basis upon which to argue that a concept of intelligence should or should not include, for example, musical ability.

As far as I know, the Multiple Intelligences system isn't the basis of any serious intelligence test. One therefore has no basis upon which to rank it with respect to any other concept of intelligence. It is merely another construct. More "intelligences" isn't inherently better than fewer.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

The red spirit said:


> Traditional IQ, not emotional one. Those with scores of higher than average.


IQ is a test score. Most people haven't taken a real IQ test, and, of those who have, most don't know anything about typology. Answering your question would require tracking down data on the small subset of people who actually have an IQ score *and* a known type.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

bentHnau said:


> IQ is a test score. Most people haven't taken a real IQ test, and, of those who have, most don't know anything about typology. Answering your question would require tracking down data on the small subset of people who actually have an IQ score *and* a known type.


Don't you feel smart people around you sometimes? Sometimes you can't help, but feel the aura of them, those gut feelings rarely lie.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Don't you feel smart people around you sometimes? Sometimes you can't help, but feel the aura of them, those gut feelings rarely lie.


I know what you mean, but that has nothing to do with IQ.

How about you, have you noticed that these people who seem smart to you are also usually some specific type?


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

@The red spirit the problem with IQ is that people who created it have made the presumption to measure intelligence even if we don't have a definite definition of what intelligence is. Does anybody find it weird to be able to measure something without knowing what exactly this thing is ?
The concept of intelligence is always subject of debate, some says that it exist multiples intelligence (Howard Gardner theory) and some other says that there is only one intelligence (IQ) and that you are either intelligent or not.
I see a lot of problems with IQ test and one of this is the fact that we think that someone with a high IQ would have more *worth* than someone with a low IQ. The test create a ranking of worth between people based on their intelligence.
The other problem is that it presume to *quantify* intelligence like it's something precise while it's just a ranking within a sample.
The test is good to predict if someone will be good at academical field because the components (memory, linguistic, logical and spatial) are the same as what we learn in school, but we know now that some people with high IQ don't do well in school because of *other factors * such as stress, problem in life, etc...
We can imagine also that it exist people with high IQ who are dumb because "intelligence" include other factors than what the test provide.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DOGSOUP said:


> How about you, have you noticed that these people who seem smart to you are also usually some specific type?


Not really, human that I suspect is INFP and some others, that I have seen in my life. One drunk ENTP man at bus, he was very smart and funny, I could see his briliant thinking, too bad, he was homeless and fucked up in his life. Anyway, I mentioned such thing, not because of my own observations, but because ferroequinologist mentioned that to me. Initial idea wasn't mine at all. I can have some of these thoughts too, but I'm myself too skeptical about those.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Plumedoux said:


> @The red spirit the problem with IQ is that people who created it have made the presumption to measure intelligence even if we don't have a definite definition of what intelligence is. Does anybody find it weird to be able to measure something without knowing what exactly this thing is ?
> The concept of intelligence is always subject of debate, some says that it exist multiples intelligence (Howard Gardner theory) and some other says that there is only one intelligence (IQ) and that you are either intelligent or not.
> I see a lot of problems with IQ test and one of this is the fact that we think that someone with a high IQ would have more *worth* than someone with a low IQ. The test create a ranking of worth between people based on their intelligence.
> The other problem is that it presume to *quantify* intelligence like it's something precise while it's just a ranking within a sample.
> ...


Initially it was created to detect retarded students at school, not to measure prodigy's abilities. how well it works, I don't know, but it's used as tool.


----------



## Plumedoux (Aug 16, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Initially it was created to detect retarded students at school, not to measure prodigy's abilities. how well it works, I don't know, but it's used as tool.


Yes I know Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon were the first to create such test and it was not a result with a number but with age, but now it's used to detect people who have high IQ, thanks to David Wechsler.


----------

