# Intelligence and MTBI.



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

I don't understand why introversion would make someone smarter. I really don't understand why introversion would make someone more likely to change the world, since by definition introverts spend less time in the world, and generally care about it less. Does anyone have an explanation for why this would be?


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> Well, you're certainly understanding the data wrongly. If you're trying to figure out which types are more likely to be gifted, the relevant ratio is %gifted/%norm.
> 
> The relevant ratio is (for example) 3.4 for INTPs and 0.27 for ESFJs.
> 
> ...


yup, according to that introverted intuitives are gifted :tongue: the only problem is that it was done using the four letter code MBTI way and not the cognitive function way... when i took the mbti test at school i scored INTJ, but i am actually a sensor


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

idoh said:


> yup, according to that introverted intuitives are gifted :tongue: the only problem is that it was done using the four letter code MBTI way and not the cognitive function way... when i took the mbti test at school i scored INTJ, but i am actually a sensor


It depends what you mean by "actually" and "sensor."

See this post for more.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> It depends what you mean by "actually" and "sensor."
> 
> See this post for more.


i got "openness" and "extraversion" tied for 8 
Dr. Phil.com - The Big Five Test

welp...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

idoh said:


> i got "openness" and "extraversion" tied for 8
> Dr. Phil.com - The Big Five Test
> 
> welp...


I don't know anything about Dr. Phil's test. The Big Five test I usually point people to is described and linked to in this post (which also includes a link to the official "Step I" MBTI).


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

Big Five Test Results


Extroversion||||||||||||50%Orderliness||||||||||36%Emotional Stability||||||||||34%Accommodation||||||||||34%Inquisitiveness||||||||||||||58%




The Big Five is currently the most accepted personality model in the scientific community. The Big Five emerged from the work of multiple independent scientists/researchers starting in the 1950s who using different techniques obtained similar results. Those results were that there are five distinct personality traits/dimensions. Here are your results on each dimension:


*Extroversion* results were medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being assertive and social and being withdrawn and solitary.
*Orderliness* results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly flexible, random, scattered, and fun seeking at the expense of structure, reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.
*Emotional Stability* results were moderately low which suggests you are worrying, insecure, emotional, and anxious.
*Accommodation* results were moderately low which suggests you are, at times, overly selfish, uncooperative, and difficult at the expense of the well being of others.
*Inquisitiveness* results were moderately high which suggests you are intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical.
Your *Global5/SLOAN* type is *RLUEI*
Your Primary type is *Egocentric*
(the hyperlinks above contain more thorough descriptions including preferred/dispreferred careers)


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

There was a discussion on the Mensa forum about intelligence and MBTI. One participant had this set of claims, and I have not checked them.

I'm also an INTJ. I found this article: Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity

In summary, here is what the statistics indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:


Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 25 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).
Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is 2.6 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 4.5 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person (one who seeks closure) is 1.6 times as likely to have a high IQ than a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).
Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ, there is a 22% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population. (Disclosure: I am an INTJ.) Next are INTP, at 14%; ENTJ, 8%; ENTP, 5%; and INFJ, 5%. (The next highest type is the INFP at 3%.) The five types (INTJ, INTP, ENTJ, ENTP, and INFJ) account for 78% of the high-IQ population but only 15% of the total population.**


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ApostateAbe said:


> There was a discussion on the Mensa forum about intelligence and MBTI. One participant had this set of claims, and I have not checked them.
> 
> I'm also an INTJ. I found this article: Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity​


Well, if you'd bothered to check that source, you would have found this at the bottom of the page:



> I apologize for not having documented the source of the statistics that I cite here. I dimly recall finding them on or via the website of American Mensa, but I am not certain of that. And I can no longer find the source by searching the web. I did transcribe the statistics to a spreadsheet, which I still have. So, the numbers are real, even if their source is now lost to me.


That's the kind of blog post that does _not_ deserve to be passed around.


----------



## spiderfrommars (Feb 22, 2012)

A good point there about the fact this tests for 4-letter code. I can't help but wonder if academics/intellectuals/brainiacs are more likely to score N on a casual test, because the N choices are phrased in such a way that any open-minded, curious person would pick them. Just like how somebody on the job might score J, even if they aren't. And those same people might be likely to test higher on those IQ tests, because they're intellectuals who spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff and building up their skills.

The I/E thing is interesting, I see no reason why either would be smarter but would expect smart Es to make more of an impact than smart Is. Doesn't answer the question, though.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

spiderfrommars said:


> A good point there about the fact this tests for 4-letter code. I can't help but wonder if academics/intellectuals/brainiacs are more likely to score N on a casual test, because the N choices are phrased in such a way that any open-minded, curious person would pick them. Just like how somebody on the job might score J, even if they aren't. And those same people might be likely to test higher on those IQ tests, because they're intellectuals who spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff and building up their skills.


Um, yeah, "academics/intellectuals" who "spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff" are quite a lot "more likely to score N," because — wait for it — they're quite a lot more likely to _be_ N's.

Now, turning to that sub-group of people who consistently get relatively clear N scores on the official MBTI and other dichotomy-based tests but classify themselves as S's based on "cognitive functions analysis"... I have a label I like to use for those people, and I've put it in the spoiler.


* *




N


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

reckful said:


> Well, if you'd bothered to check that source, you would have found this at the bottom of the page:
> 
> I apologize for not having documented the source of the statistics that I cite here. I dimly recall finding them on or via the website of American Mensa, but I am not certain of that. And I can no longer find the source by searching the web. I did transcribe the statistics to a spreadsheet, which I still have. So, the numbers are real, even if their source is now lost to me.​
> That's the kind of blog post that does _not_ deserve to be passed around.


Yes, thank you for looking into it. It was a response to a thread I made in the Mensa forum, where I queried the Mensan participants of their MBTI type with a forum poll. Part of the results of that unscientific poll was 42.6% INTJ, the top result. As far as I know, there is no scientific data on MBTI and IQ, so this kind of data may be the best we have, unfortunately.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

Here is a screen capture of the MBTI poll results of the American Mensa Community Forum:










There is almost certainly some degree of bias in that an INTJ and other types are more likely to participate in a web forum.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ApostateAbe said:


> As far as I know, there is no scientific data on MBTI and IQ, so this kind of data may be the best we have, unfortunately.


The MBTI Manual has quite a bit of data correlating type with various measures of intelligence (including IQ) and academic achievement. See this post.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

reckful said:


> The MBTI Manual has quite a bit of data correlating type with various measures of intelligence (including IQ) and academic achievement. See this post.


I stand corrected, thank you.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

So, the conclusion is fairly certain that either INTJ or INTP has the greatest IQ advantage of the 16 types. This brings to mind a potential dodge for employers. Employers have an incentive to hire the applicants with higher IQ because they tend to be more productive, but it is illegal in America for employers to test a job applicant's IQ. So, why not test for MBTI instead? They would use the excuse that some personality types are more suitable for some jobs.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ApostateAbe said:


> So, the conclusion is fairly certain that either INTJ or INTP has the greatest IQ advantage of the 16 types. This brings to mind a potential dodge for employers. Employers have an incentive to hiar the applicants with higher IQ because they tend to be more productive, but it is illegal in America for employers to test a job applicant's IQ. So, why not test for MBTI instead? They would use the excuse that some personality types are more suitable for some jobs.


As the official MBTI folks explain here:



> It is unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants. The administrator should not counsel a person to, or away from, a particular career, personal relationship or activity based solely upon type information.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

I always wonder how 'capacity for reasoning, remembering' and so on are measured in different subjects, or if intelligence can even be measured under an umbrella in a precise amount or description...like with a single number or word. Also with factors like personal drive to succeed, health, time of day or night, laziness, sensory perception, planning and organization, current status of that person's society/home/family/economic environment, weather, etc., how can intelligence look constant? At its most precise, intelligence might look like a window or an area, with elastic laffy-taffy margins. 



ApostateAbe said:


> Here is a screen capture of the MBTI poll results of the American Mensa Community Forum:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think INTJs more than any other type have tendencies to embrace and champion their own intelligence, too. Some to the point of shoving it or their academic achievements overtly into the self-identified spotlight.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

reckful said:


> As the official MBTI folks explain here:


I don't challenge the point that such a suggestion is unethical. But would not such a hiring tactic be in the interests of an employer's bottom line?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ApostateAbe said:


> I don't challenge the point that such a suggestion is unethical. But would not such a hiring tactic be in the interests of an employer's bottom line?


Theoretically, yes, but... if it's high-IQ folks you're looking for, those people generally have academic records that you can look at that are reasonably likely to reflect IQ pretty well and may well be a better predictor of job performance than a raw IQ score (or MBTI test result) would be.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

@reckful umm what would these results mean 

*Cognitive Process**Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*extraverted Sensing (Se) ************************ (24)
limited useintroverted Sensing (Si) ********************************* (33.4)
good useextraverted Intuiting (Ne) *********************************** (35.1)
good useintroverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************** (29.1)
average useextraverted Thinking (Te) ************************************ (36.5)
excellent useintroverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************ (36.1)
excellent useextraverted Feeling (Fe) ********************** (22)
limited useintroverted Feeling (Fi) ************************ (24)
limited use


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

I've made some research and these ressults are quite interesting. The full study is here: 
A Synthesis of Research on Psychological Types of Gifted Adolescents « SENG

The major points of the study results are:

- Introverts are overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.
- Intuitives are strongly overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.
- Thinkers are slightly overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.
- Perceivers are overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.

INTPs were the most overrepresented type in the gifted population, being approximately 3.4 times as common among the gifted population than among the normal population. INTJs were 2.87 times as common. INFPs and INFJs were 2.67 times as common. INTPs, INTJs, and INFP/Js were, statistically, the most likely to be identified as gifted. 

Other interesting things: 

- Intuitives were overrepresented among the gifted population.
- All types of sensors were underrepresented.
- Ps do better on aptitude tests, but Js do better in school.
- stronger N may be associated with stronger verbal ability while a stronger T may be associated with stronger math ability.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

monemi said:


> High IQ is worth shit if no one will work with you. :laughing:
> 
> EQ is a money maker. It goes into advertising and making business associates. The best is high IQ and good EQ. They're an unstoppable force to be reckoned with. Shame you don't see too many of those about. Optimally, I'd want both.


That was sort of my point. People put too much weight on irrationality and being coddled and too little on rationality and what's actually correct. So, from a pragmatic perspective the combo of high IQ and high EQ is ideal, however in a rational world a high EQ would be worth about as much as ice-cubes in Antarctica.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> That was sort of my point. People put too much weight on irrationality and being coddled and too little on rationality and what's actually correct. So, from a pragmatic perspective the combo of high IQ and high EQ is ideal, however in a rational world a high EQ would be worth about as much as ice-cubes in Antarctica.


Nah... I wanna have some fun. Life would be too effing boring if we were all the same. Give me that mixed bag that cause chaos and disorder.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

reckful said:


> Um, yeah, "academics/intellectuals" who "spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff" are quite a lot "more likely to score N," because — wait for it — they're quite a lot more likely to _be_ N's.
> 
> Now, turning to that sub-group of people who consistently get relatively clear N scores on the official MBTI and other dichotomy-based tests but classify themselves as S's based on "cognitive functions analysis"... I have a label I like to use for those people, and I've put it in the spoiler.
> 
> ...


N does not mean intellectual. N does not mean academic. N means a certain way of taking in information that is more abstract but at its core more _inaccurate_. Therefore here is a short list of types of academics/intellectuals who I would either expect to be majority sensing or equally split: historians; scientists who deal in any way with anything I can see, touch, taste, smell or hear; mathematicians; anyone who creates computers or software; economists; doctors; engineers; and all form of inventors. I guess it depends on what you consider intellectual stuff. 

And are tests are the end all be all here? Because that seems pretty simplistic. A lot of people (me included) learn from understanding a system in all it's complexities and then applying it to ourselves. Tests like that are going to have to be a great deal more generalized than in depth discussion between people who've studied something.

Tests have very little space to get into the nitty-gritty of how someone actually thinks, so they have to use shorthands. This leads to things like overtyping I and N based on level of curiosity and/or interest in reading, neither of which necessarily indicate those types.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> N does not mean intellectual. N does not mean academic. N means a certain way of taking in information that is more abstract but at its core more _inaccurate_. Therefore here is a short list of types of academics/intellectuals who I would either expect to be majority sensing or equally split: historians; scientists who deal in any way with anything I can see, touch, taste, smell or hear; mathematicians; anyone who creates computers or software; economists; doctors; engineers; and all form of inventors. I guess it depends on what you consider intellectual stuff.
> 
> And are tests are the end all be all here? Because that seems pretty simplistic. A lot of people (me included) learn from understanding a system in all it's complexities and then applying it to ourselves. Tests like that are going to have to be a great deal more generalized than in depth discussion between people who've studied something.
> 
> Tests have very little space to get into the nitty-gritty of how someone actually thinks, so they have to use shorthands. This leads to things like overtyping I and N based on level of curiosity and/or interest in reading, neither of which necessarily indicate those types.


My post wasn't about typing based on tests vs. typing based on reading good typology sources. I'm with you there.

My post was about people who basically concede they're N's based on that Myers woman's silly dichotomies but understand themselves to be S's _because functions_ — and, if you're interested in a long explanation of why I'm a "dichotomies guy," you can find it in this long INTJforum post.

And meanwhile, FYI, the majority of scientists who "deal in any way with anything you can see, touch, taste, smell or hear" are MBTI N's — and that's just a statistical fact, Jack (and that's notwithstanding that N's are just 25-30% of the general population).

The official MBTI folks put out Career Reports that show the popularity for each type of "22 broad occupational categories," based on "a sample of more than 92,000 people in 282 jobs who said they were satisfied with their jobs." The sample included 4,190 INTJs and 11,410 ISTJs, and the "Life, Physical and Social Sciences" category was at the top of the INTJ list, with a score of 100, but in the middle of the ISTJ list, with a score of 64.

As for academics/intellectuals, the "Education, Library Sciences, and Training category" (further described as "School teacher, librarian, school administrator, university faculty") ranked fifth (out of 22) for the INTJs (with a score of 60) but 16th (out of 22) for the ISTJs (with a score of 43).

The "Architecture and Engineering" and "Computers and Mathematics" categories were more evenly split, and in the top tier of "Most Attractive Job Families" for both types. "Architecture and Engineering" was No. 2 on the INTJ list (with a score of 92) and No. 4 on the ISTJ list (with a score of 84); and "Computers and Mathematics" was No. 3 on the INTJ list (with a score of 76) and No. 6 on the ISTJ list (with a score of 78).

---------------------------------------

ADDED: Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in the post I linked to above:

McCrae & Costa article
Reynierse article​


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Connections and correlations between them. Has intelligence anything to do with MTBI ? is it closely related or just akin ? Who are the types with the best scores overall at IQ tests ? The IQ has to do with the exact percentage between your E-I , S-N, T-F, J-P or not ? What do you know about intelligence and MTBI ?
> 
> _Just to make sure:_
> *Intelligence:* The capacity for understanding, ability to perceive and comprehend meaning.
> ...


Just looking at the dictionary definitions I don't think they are related to types.

It seems to me that in real life, knowledgeableness and intelligence don't necessarily relate to each other either, and IQ tests don't reflect the two, imo. I think one of the more effective way to evaluate intelligence is to give the person some really difficult readings like philosophical text or critical theories and ask them what they think.

They may have something to do with S/N and T/F, but absolutely not E/I or J/P.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

reckful said:


> Um, yeah, "academics/intellectuals" who "spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff" are quite a lot "more likely to score N," because — wait for it — they're quite a lot more likely to _be_ N's.


It doesn't matter whether academics tend to be N or not. The reason why they are intelligent is that they "spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff." Their intelligence comes from the effort of study and thinking, not N/S.

There is one thing I think related to types though--critical thinking skills. It seems to me that Ns would generally value critical thinking skills and even develop them, while Ss would often overlook the value of critical thinking. And Ns probably have a easier time developing critical thinking as well.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

uncertain said:


> It doesn't matter whether academics tend to be N or not. The reason why they are intelligent is that they "spend a lot of time doing intellectual stuff." Their intelligence comes from the effort of study and thinking, not N/S.


This becomes one of those chicken and egg arguments. Are people intelligent because they hone those skills, or do they hone those skills because they are intelligent?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Connections and correlations between them. Has intelligence anything to do with MTBI ? is it closely related or just akin ? Who are the types with the best scores overall at IQ tests ? The IQ has to do with the exact percentage between your E-I , S-N, T-F, J-P or not ? What do you know about intelligence and MTBI ?
> 
> _Just to make sure:_
> *Intelligence:* The capacity for understanding, ability to perceive and comprehend meaning.
> ...


What IQ tests specifically test for is the ability to make predictions which tends to be an N thing more than an S thing and also it tends to be more an T thing than an F thing. What that means is that NT's will be the types that like IQ tests more than other types. Also they will be more likely to find IQ tests important.

NT's will do a test with the goal to get the highest score possible while other types will do an IQ test just because they have to, or out of curiosity, etc.

So it's not so strange that NT's tend to do a little better on IQ tests.


There is the interesting effect, call the flynn effect that describes the increase in average IQ scores over time. If you compare 100 years ago with today, the difference is a good 30 points. Does that mean the average person 100 years ago was a total retard (IQ 70)?.... No it doesn't. It just means that the way people think today is different from the way people thought 100 years ago. We now approach life in a more scientific way than 100 years ago and that translates into IQ scores.

Just the fact that the flynn effect exists shows that how people think is related to IQ scores. And one of the things that different cognitive functions describe is how people think. Thus you will find a difference in IQ scores between types.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> This becomes one of those chicken and egg arguments. Are people intelligent because they hone those skills, or do they hone those skills because they are intelligent?


I go with "intelligent because they hone those skills."


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I go with "intelligent because they hone those skills."


You are more than welcome to, as long as you realize that it's an entirely value-based judgment about causality.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

uncertain said:


> I go with "intelligent because they hone those skills."


It doesn't have to be a mere matter of opinion. Studies of identical twins reared apart (raised in separate households) show an IQ correlation of about 70%, whereas unrelated people reared apart have an IQ correlation close to 0%. It is a confirmed result of many studies, starting with Cyril Burt and established again Thomas Bouchard and others, and it means that IQ variation from the mean has about a 70% genetic component.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

It is an interesting subject. The Wall Street Journal has a blurb about it:

Matt Ridley on Twins and the Question of Inherited IQ | Mind & Matter - WSJ.com


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> A certain type will feel the need to join Mensa for validation. Not everyone that qualifies for Mensa would be interested in joining Mensa.


Yeah, I think I would rather beat myself senseless, with a rubber mallet, than have to endure a group of self righteous windbags that such clubs/societies tend to attract (and that is coming from somebody who could qualify too).


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

monemi said:


> High IQ is worth shit if no one will work with you. :laughing:
> 
> EQ is a money maker. It goes into advertising and making business associates. The best is high IQ and good EQ. They're an unstoppable force to be reckoned with. Shame you don't see too many of those about. Optimally, I'd want both.


I'd have to agree with this. If you're smart, but everybody thinks you're a jack ass; few are going to want to pay you anything (despite what you see on TV, I highly doubt House would be working where he is, for long, by the way he often acts).


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> That was sort of my point. People put too much weight on irrationality and being coddled and too little on rationality and what's actually correct. So, from a pragmatic perspective the combo of high IQ and high EQ is ideal, however in a rational world a high EQ would be worth about as much as ice-cubes in Antarctica.


That is a kind of narrow way to look at it.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> It doesn't have to be a mere matter of opinion. Studies of identical twins reared apart (raised in separate households) show an IQ correlation of about 70%, whereas unrelated people reared apart have an IQ correlation close to 0%. It is a confirmed result of many studies, starting with Cyril Burt and established again Thomas Bouchard and others, and it means that IQ variation from the mean has about a 70% genetic component.


But MBTI doesn't have a genetic component.

To note, the studies pulled up to prove that certain types are more likely to be intelligent weren't very good. I'd need to see better studies before I concluded that certain types have higher IQ's.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> But MBTI doesn't have a genetic component.


_Au contraire!_ Decades of twin studies strongly suggest that genes account for around half (or more) of the kinds of relatively stable personality dimensions measured by the MBTI and Big Five. But the genetics is complicated: an introvert's twin brother would probably be an introvert, but they might have two extraverted parents.

The most counterintuitive conclusion that's been drawn from the cumulative data is that _how your parents raise you has almost no influence on your basic temperament_ — e.g., whether you'll end up an INTJ. Identical twins raised in the same household are not significantly more alike (in terms of temperament) than identical twins raised in separate households.

For more, see this post.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> _Au contraire!_ Decades of twin studies strongly suggest that genes account for around half (or more) of the kinds of relatively stable personality dimensions measured by the MBTI and Big Five. But the genetics is complicated: an introvert's twin brother would probably be an introvert, but they might have two extraverted parents.
> 
> The most counterintuitive conclusion that's been drawn from the cumulative data is that _how your parents raise you has almost no influence on your basic temperament_ — e.g., whether you'll end up an INTJ. Identical twins raised in the same household are not significantly more alike (in terms of temperament) than identical twins raised in separate households.
> 
> For more, see this post.


That doesn't make it entirely hereditary. As something passed from parent to child. It does suggest that something happens to babies while still in the womb. But where's the evidence that your parents types are relevant to what type you are?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> That doesn't make it entirely hereditary. As something passed from parent to child. It does suggest that something happens to babies while still in the womb. But where's the evidence that your parents types are relevant to what type you are?


As I said, and like many characteristics that genes contribute to, it's not a case where what's relevant is a _single gene_ that you inherit from one of your parents (and therefore match that parent on).

It could theoretically be the case that introversion, for example, was 90% dependent on your genes, but it could simultaneously be the case that an introvert might have two extraverted parents. That's why twin studies are so important when you're trying to figure out how much influence genes have.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

monemi said:


> But MBTI doesn't have a genetic component.
> 
> To note, the studies pulled up to prove that certain types are more likely to be intelligent weren't very good. I'd need to see better studies before I concluded that certain types have higher IQ's.


Being twins they have the same MBTI type too.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Being twins they have the same MBTI type too.


No, twins don't always have the same personalities.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

uncertain said:


> No, twins don't always have the same personalities.


Not always, but there seems to be relatively strong correlations. According to the abstract of one study:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was administered to a sample of 61 monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA), 49 dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA), and 92 spouses, who participated in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA) from 1979 to 1995. Twins' scores on the continuous scales were subjected to behavior genetic model-fitting procedures. Extraversion-Introversion and Thinking-Feeling yielded heritabilities of about .60, consisting largely of nonadditive genetic variance. Sensing-Intuition and Judgment-Perception yielded heritabilities of about .40, consisting largely of additive genetic variance. Spouse correlations for three of the four scales were near zero and not statistically significant; one spouse correlation (Sensing-Intuition) was modestly positive and statistically significant.​
Source: Genetic and environmental influences on the continuou... [J Pers. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Gore Motel said:


> I think INTJs more than any other type have tendencies to embrace and champion their own intelligence, too. Some to the point of shoving it or their academic achievements overtly into the self-identified spotlight.


Are you talking about the NiTe type or the INTJ type? They aren't the same. The latter does this, the former has nothing to do with this at all.

As for the OP, I think these conclusions are fucking dumb and shows poor insight into actual Jungian theory.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> As I said, and like many characteristics that genes contribute to, it's not a case where what's relevant is a _single gene_ that you inherit from one of your parents (and therefore match that parent on).
> 
> It could theoretically be the case that introversion, for example, was 90% dependent on your genes, but it could simultaneously be the case that an introvert might have two extraverted parents. That's why twin studies are so important when you're trying to figure out how much influence genes have.


90%? If they had proven odds like that this would be huge news. You're pulling numbers out of your arse or relying on shaky studies. This is theory, not proven. You talk about this stuff as though it is fact. It is not fact. It is still highly theoretical. Much like MBTI is still highly theoretical. There is no way in hell, they're proving anything about genetics and MBTI when MBTI is a long way from proven. 

Let's stay grounded here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> Not always, but there seems to be relatively strong correlations. According to the abstract of one study:
> The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was administered to a sample of 61 monozygotic twins reared apart (MZA), 49 dizygotic twins reared apart (DZA), and 92 spouses, who participated in the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA) from 1979 to 1995. Twins' scores on the continuous scales were subjected to behavior genetic model-fitting procedures. Extraversion-Introversion and Thinking-Feeling yielded heritabilities of about .60, consisting largely of nonadditive genetic variance. Sensing-Intuition and Judgment-Perception yielded heritabilities of about .40, consisting largely of additive genetic variance. Spouse correlations for three of the four scales were near zero and not statistically significant; one spouse correlation (Sensing-Intuition) was modestly positive and statistically significant.​
> Source: Genetic and environmental influences on the continuou... [J Pers. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI


Correlation isn't proof. We know this right?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> 90%? If they had proven odds like that this would be huge news. You're pulling numbers out of your arse or relying on shaky studies. This is theory, not proven. You talk about this stuff as though it is fact. It is not fact. It is still highly theoretical. Much like MBTI is still highly theoretical. There is no way in hell, they're proving anything about genetics and MBTI when MBTI is a long way from proven.
> 
> Let's stay grounded here.


I'm grounded. You're not reading my posts.

I said, "It could *theoretically* be the case that introversion, for example, was 90% dependent on your genes, but it could simultaneously be the case that an introvert might have two extraverted parents."

What the twin studes have (so far) pretty well established is that introversion is at least half (or so) genetic. As explained in my linked post, the genetic contribution _might_ be substantially higher but masked (at the present time) by all the noise in the data resulting from typing errors, etc.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

monemi said:


> Correlation isn't proof. We know this right?


Correlation is proof of correlation. What manner of proof do you have in mind?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> Correlation isn't proof. We know this right?


I'm at a loss as to what your statement can possibly mean in this context.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is, as Wikipedia explains, "a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."

It applies in cases where the causation could flow in either direction, or where both of the correlated items might be caused by one or more additional factors.

Buuut... If identical twins raised in separate households are found to be substantially more likely to match on extraversion/introversion than less genetically similar pairs, it can't be the case that their introversion — or any other outside factor that might contribute to their introversion — _caused them to be twins_.

So I fail to see how, in this particular case, the correlation could be explained in any other way than by the increased probability of an E/I match being _caused_ by the fact that they're identical twins.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> Correlation is proof of correlation. What manner of proof do you have in mind?





reckful said:


> I'm at a loss as to what your statement can possibly mean in this context.
> 
> "Correlation does not imply causation" is, as Wikipedia explains, "a phrase in science and statistics that emphasizes that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other."
> 
> ...


It takes a lot more than correlation to deem this as proven fact. If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, a correlation in twins isn't proof. Firstly because twins don't all have the same personality. Secondly because it's not unreasonable to consider that their development in the uterus played a part in their personality. Thirdly, 90% genetic is an unrealistic claim for personality and no geneticist would ever say that. Nature vs nurture is still largely debated even in personality type. Scientists wouldn't have such a huge ongoing debate going on if anything had been proven. 

You don't need to explain 'correlation does not imply causation' to me. It was unnecessarily arrogant and pointless.


----------



## OldManRivers (Mar 22, 2012)

idoh said:


> when i mean math, i don't just mean the arithmetic. roud: the word problems are the most fun. physics doesn't really require any memorizing either; in a lot of schools they provide the formulas and it's up to you to apply them to the problem.


Analytical Geometry - an old pre-calculus course (yeah, I am that old) was the most interesting math course I took until thermodynamics. That was an application of partial differential equations, pure math, and beautiful - I has the only A in class.
Word logic problems stump me - I am dyslectic, which may have something to do with that.

IQ is a narrow measure of test taking and problem solving, culturally dependent (not intelligence - the particular test - taking skills) and too much is read into the scores. Before WW II, the official policy of the US Government was that African Americans had an IQ average of 90, and American Indians, 70. That is because of the cultural factor. Government policy was based on this erroneous thinking, and as a result Indian schools were limited to 8th grade at tribal locales, and boarding school for any student who wanted to go. In 1962 I was on a reservation where a new school (1 to 8th grade) had been built: a very nice modern brick building with outhouses behind it. The kids were not expected to learn how to use flush toilets.
IQ numbers can cause grievous harm when not understood within a cultural framework.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

I'm an ISTP and score in the mid 130 with my IQ score.

In fact, many of you high IQ NT's are probably mistyped sensors.

Saying NTs are more likley to have an IQ because IQ is "abstract in nature" and about conceptualizing and logic is pretty wrong.

That's like saying "I have a high IQ because I am naturally predisposed to conceptualizing and logic. It makes me more likely to be better at it than a sensor."
The truth is, somebody with a high IQ can do these things DESPITE maybe not being naturally predisposed to it.
Could Einstein spell? Was he stupid?

I know plenty of NTs with average intelligence who still conceptualize, use fancy words, and theorize. They still get flaunted as intellectuals because of it, despite being far from it.
I know enough intelligent sensors who, going by the above, you would never guess they are in the gifted region at all.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

If there was a vast super-intelligence, what MBTI type would it have? I bet it would get INTJ on the tests, even if it wasn't really an INTJ.

My theory is that as general intelligence increases, the test results simply end up saying "INTx" regardless of type. When these people look deeper into their nature they may find that was just their "general intelligence" and not N/T functions they were using.

I think a lot of the "INTx" people at the top end of the IQ score are not really INTx. I even got INTJ and INTP in some of the first times I did the test, but after more study assessed myself as ESTP just with high intelligence.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Just when I was looking for a reason why I would never want to be part of a 'high IQ' society people go and join; this thread comes up and gives me perfect reasons I would rather endure Chinese water torture. Thanks again guys!


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> Just when I was looking for a reason why I would never want to be part of a 'high IQ' society people go and join; this thread comes up and gives me perfect reasons I would rather endure Chinese water torture. Thanks again guys!


What do you expect is so bad? I expect you would fit in perfectly.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> What do you expect is so bad? I expect you would fit in perfectly.


You mean beyond the pompous bragging about how somebody is better then another because of an arbitrary measurement of ones intelligence?


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

lilpixieofterror said:


> Just when I was looking for a reason why I would never want to be part of a 'high IQ' society people go and join; this thread comes up and gives me perfect reasons I would rather endure Chinese water torture. Thanks again guys!


I remember coming across a particular place on INTP central, only for users with a high IQ.

There was a particular thread talking about if a sensor would ever be part of their forum, or if it were even possible for a sensor to have a high enough IQ.

high IQ societies have too much circle jerking and contempt towards those who don't act as pompous as themselves.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> I remember coming across a particular place on INTP central, only for users with a high IQ.
> 
> There was a particular thread talking about if a sensor would ever be part of their forum, or if it were even possible for a sensor to have a high enough IQ.
> 
> high IQ societies have too much circle jerking and contempt towards those who don't act as pompous as themselves.


People do love to find ways to make themselves feel better about themselves by picking some random elements and declaring themselves better then others because they don't have these elements. Sensor or intuitive, high IQ or low IQ, why does it matter so much? We had a neighbor, whose son was very physically and mentally handicapped, but he was such a sweet kid; who could get mad at them? I don't care, find a common ground and go from there.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

lilpixieofterror said:


> People do love to find ways to make themselves feel better about themselves by picking some random elements and declaring themselves better then others because they don't have these elements. Sensor or intuitive, high IQ or low IQ, why does it matter so much? We had a neighbor, whose son was very physically and mentally handicapped, but he was such a sweet kid; who could get mad at them? I don't care, find a common ground and go from there.


Self awareness and humility are just some more of those measures of intelligence that aren't accounted for with an IQ test.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> Self awareness and humility are just some more of those measures of intelligence that aren't accounted for with an IQ test.


Indeed. I do admit that I sometimes have a difficult time understanding the point of view of a sensor, but it doesn't mean I can't make an attempt to get along.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> You mean beyond the pompous bragging about how somebody is better then another because of an arbitrary measurement of ones intelligence?


No, and there really isn't much of that in high-IQ societies, but there is plenty of rivalry and condemnation of other members.


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> No, and there really isn't much of that in high-IQ societies, but there is plenty of rivalry and condemnation of other members.


And why would I want to be a part of that either?


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

lilpixieofterror said:


> And why would I want to be a part of that either?


I think it would suit you. There is a probably a chapter of Mensa close to you. Take the test and be a part. Seriously, I think you will love it


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> It takes a lot more than correlation to deem this as proven fact. If you don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, a correlation in twins isn't proof. Firstly because twins don't all have the same personality. Secondly because it's not unreasonable to consider that their development in the uterus played a part in their personality. Thirdly, 90% genetic is an unrealistic claim for personality and no geneticist would ever say that. Nature vs nurture is still largely debated even in personality type. Scientists wouldn't have such a huge ongoing debate going on if anything had been proven.
> 
> You don't need to explain 'correlation does not imply causation' to me. It was unnecessarily arrogant and pointless.


For the second time, I _never claimed_ — or said that anyone else has ever claimed — that any of the MBTI preferences are "90% genetic." In trying (unsuccessfully, perhaps) to explain to you that the fact that something is substantially genetic doesn't mean a child will necessarily match either parent, I said that, speaking hypothetically, the genetic influence could be "90%" — and I could just as well have said "100%" since I was just speaking hypothetically — and a child could still fail to match either parent.

I agree that "development in the uterus" (as I understand it) can have a significant influence on personality, but I personally don't view the genetic/uterus distinction as particularly meaningful when you're talking about the issue of how _hardwired_ the MBTI dimensions are. Two points come into play here:

1. To the extent that you're talking about conditions in the uterus that are _the same_ for identical twins, and those conditions can contribute to introversion, and such twins (even when raised in separate households) are statistically found to match (on E/I) to a substantially greater degree than non-twins, etc., then those uterus conditions simply get added to the genetic factors as another reason introversion tends to be _set at birth_.

2. To the extent that you're talking about conditions in the uterus that can be _different_ for identical twins (and there are some, as I understand it), and those conditions can contribute to introversion, and such twins (even when raised in separate households) are statistically found to match (on E/I) to a substantially greater degree than non-twins, etc., then those _differing_ uterus conditions are another element of the kind of _noise_ in the data that I discussed in that linked post (like type testing errors), and the presence of such noise is reason to expect that the relevant study results will _understate_, rather than overstate, the contribution to introversion by way of genes and any other factors that are identical for the twins.

When people talk about "nature" vs. "nurture," they're generally talking about the extent to which someone's personality is influenced by conditions that were _set at birth_. From that standpoint, the difference between genes and uterus conditions isn't really relevant.

You say nothing's been proven in this area and "nature vs. nurture is still largely debated," but those are both overstatements. _How many_ aspects of personality are significantly influenced by nature, and the _relative influence_ of nature and nurture, are certainly subject to debate. But the data support for the notion that introversion and the other Big Five (and corresponding MBTI) dimensions are significantly influenced by genes (and/or uterus conditions that are the same for both twins) is pretty overwhelming at this point, and the correlations established by decades of twin studies are a big part of that.

Here's Hans Eysenck, writing over 20 years ago on the subject of parental influence on Neuroticism and the other core dimensions of temperament:



Eysenck said:


> *Eysenck, H.J., "Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Individual Differences: The Three Major Dimensions of Personality."* Journal of Personality, 58, 245, 1990.
> 
> "Six major recent studies, all of which are characterized by being based on sufficiently large numbers of twin pairs, as well as being analyzed by means of modern statistical methods, provide more reliable evidence for genetic influence on personality change." (248)
> 
> "[T]he data show that the family environment, ... as distinct from the unique experiences of the individual, makes only a trivial contribution to personality differences. ... If correct (and there seems little doubt about a conclusion replicated so many times, on so many large samples and using many different methods of testing and analysis), these close correlations disprove the importance of family environmental influence on personality and call into question the validity of traditional personality theories discussed by Hall and Lindzey (1970) and in personality textbooks in general." (251)


And here's a study from 1990 that may have been one of the six Eysenck mentioned and that notes that its findings "extend and support those from numerous other twin, family and adoption studies." And @ApostateAbe has already linked you to a recent MBTI-specific study that showed strong correlations on all four dimensions.

You say "a correlation in twins isn't proof" and you chided me for explaining "correlation does not imply causation" to you, but you've failed to answer the question I posed in my previous post. In the specific case of identical twins raised in separate households who turn out to be substantially more alike on E/I (for example) than less genetically-similar pairs, how could their genetic similarity be anything but a _cause_ rather than an effect?


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

OldManRivers said:


> *Analytical Geometry - an old pre-calculus course (yeah, I am that old) was the most interesting math course I took until thermodynamics. That was an application of partial differential equations, pure math, and beautiful - I has the only A in class.*
> Word logic problems stump me - I am dyslectic, which may have something to do with that.
> 
> IQ is a narrow measure of test taking and problem solving, culturally dependent (not intelligence - the particular test - taking skills) and too much is read into the scores. Before WW II, the official policy of the US Government was that African Americans had an IQ average of 90, and American Indians, 70. That is because of the cultural factor. Government policy was based on this erroneous thinking, and as a result Indian schools were limited to 8th grade at tribal locales, and boarding school for any student who wanted to go. In 1962 I was on a reservation where a new school (1 to 8th grade) had been built: a very nice modern brick building with outhouses behind it. The kids were not expected to learn how to use flush toilets.
> IQ numbers can cause grievous harm when not understood within a cultural framework.


wow! precalculus is my favorite math course too


----------



## lilpixieofterror (Oct 24, 2013)

ApostateAbe said:


> I think it would suit you. There is a probably a chapter of Mensa close to you. Take the test and be a part. Seriously, I think you will love it


No it wouldn't. The only competitions I take part in is the one against my own idealism and inner views.


----------



## 2human4human (Dec 7, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> I don't understand why introversion would make someone smarter. I really don't understand why introversion would make someone more likely to change the world, since by definition introverts spend less time in the world, and generally care about it less. Does anyone have an explanation for why this would be?


Remember introversion does not merely imply how adept or confident you are in social situations, it is in it's own right a whole different thought process and way of thinking about the world. An example is that a lot of ENTP's tend to be more practical than INTP's, because their thoughts tend more to the actual outside world than ours does, this itself does not imply intelligence at all, but just to show that it has an effect on your thoughts. 
Maybe it's because introverts tend to spend more time theorizing and reading/ doing problem solving activities than extroverts do, because ENTPS's get out more (very stereotypical of me, but can probably be proved). IQ can change, although some people are just born more gifted than others intellectually. Especially at a young age doing mental activities on a regular basis can improve your IQ as an adult. 
Just as a note, I wrote this reply assuming that you meant IQ and the traditional IQ test when you said "smarter". IQ also doesn't necessarily mean success in life, as I'm sure many of us INTP's can attest to, there are many other factors that may even be more important, like having the actual drive to do something about a situation.

Anyone can correct me here if I'm wrong, but from personal experience with friends that are E/I it always seems I's sometimes solve problems on a grander scale than E's, sometimes even when it isn't necessary, just because we tend to like to think. This can lead to strange, yet world changing knowledge/ideas. I don't know whether more I's really changed the world than E's, most likely there won't be any significant difference. Just trying to think of possible scenarios why this would be the case.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Carmine Ermine said:


> If there was a vast super-intelligence, what MBTI type would it have? I bet it would get INTJ on the tests, even if it wasn't really an INTJ.
> 
> My theory is that as general intelligence increases, the test results simply end up saying "INTx" regardless of type. When these people look deeper into their nature they may find that was just their "general intelligence" and not N/T functions they were using.
> 
> I think a lot of the "INTx" people at the top end of the IQ score are not really INTx. I even got INTJ and INTP in some of the first times I did the test, but after more study assessed myself as ESTP just with high intelligence.


How could someone not know whether he is Introvert or Extrovert. I find this the thing easiest to see in people.

_Do you like more speding time alone or spending time with people ?
Social interactions drain you after a while ?
Do you tend to talk more or listen more ?_

These 3 questions should be enough in order to determine one's type. And besides that the questions based on introversion and extroversion has nothing to do with the way you're making decisions or thinking so the questions can't be affected by one's intelligence _(even if they would have anything to do with decisions and thinking I think they still wouldn't be affected)_. Just curious how did you get INTP and INTJ on the personality test from this site.



Splash Shin said:


> Self awareness and humility are just some more of those measures of intelligence that aren't accounted for with an IQ test.


Those things you talk about are ethics, learn the difference, lQ tests does measure intelligence, the deffiniton is on the first post.



randomshoes said:


> I don't understand why introversion would make someone smarter. I really don't understand why introversion would make someone more likely to change the world, since by definition introverts spend less time in the world, and generally care about it less. Does anyone have an explanation for why this would be?


Well, I think it could be because introverts tend to focus more on the inner world rather than on the outside and more in their heads, and even if they spend less time in the world, and generally care about it less this is probably the main reason introversion could make them smarter and make them more likely to change the world, I find it hard to explain and I don't mean to make a stereotype but extroverts tend to like more being with people while introverts being alone dwelling on their thoughts or feelings or inner world which could make them to wish for an improvement in the world while extroverts generally like the world as it is.



ephemereality said:


> Are you talking about the NiTe type or the INTJ type? They aren't the same. The latter does this, the former has nothing to do with this at all.
> 
> As for the OP, I think these conclusions are fucking dumb and shows poor insight into actual Jungian theory.


Please, enlighten me, why are these conclusions "fucking dumb" _(this time with actual proof if you don't mind)_ and why wondering if MTBI has anything to do with one's IQ shows poor insight into Jungian theory ?










Proof MTBI has anything to do with intelligence: 


> A Synthesis of Research on Psychological Types of Gifted Adolescents « SENG
> 
> The major points of the study results are:
> 
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Please, enlighten me, why are these conclusions "fucking dumb" _(this time with actual proof if you don't mind)_ and why wondering if MTBI has anything to do with one's IQ shows poor insight into Jungian theory ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is not proof of anything because:



> - Introverts are overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.


How is introversion defined here? Being socially introverted and cognitively introverted is not the same thing.



> - Intuitives are strongly overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.


Being a Jungian intuitive and scoring as an N type is not the same thing as there is very little that is suggestive on the MBTI test to strongly correlate with Jung's definition of intuition and that the MBTI test is also able to aptly measure this in some shape or form. One might even surmise that the understanding of cause and effect is flawed here, as one can equally argue that higher intelligence tends to, as a result, lead people to be more likely to score as an N regardless of whether they cognitively orient themselves towards intuition or not. 



> - Thinkers are slightly overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.


How is thinking defined? As others have already pointed out in this thread, thinking and feeling is poorly delineated on the MBTI tests, often confusing feeling with Fe. Furthermore, the Jungian dominant feeler will experience feeling to be as rational as any other form of logic because it is a rationalizing and reasoning process as opposed to a process that deals with the feeling of feelings; thus, it is very easy for the dominant feeler to think of themselves as logical and logically detached the same way we usually associate thinkers to be and mistype themselves as thinkers when they are clearly not so. Similarly, Fi types might do this because Fi is poorly represented in the MBTI question items.



> - Perceivers are overrepresented in the gifted population compared to the normal population.


I opine that the J/P letter dichotomy is the most useless out of the entire MBTI code because it is based on what Jung would consider persona. Furthermore, it makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct simply because of how complex people's actual psychological type can be. 



> INTPs were the most overrepresented type in the gifted population, being approximately 3.4 times as common among the gifted population than among the normal population. INTJs were 2.87 times as common. INFPs and INFJs were 2.67 times as common. INTPs, INTJs, and INFP/Js were, statistically, the most likely to be identified as gifted.


Yes, and INTP is not the same as TiNe. 



> Other interesting things:
> 
> - Intuitives were overrepresented among the gifted population.


Again an error of cause and effect. Or is it simply that people who are gifted are more likely to mistype as an N?



> - All types of sensors were underrepresented.


No surprise because unfortunately there is a biased overlap between sensation and concrete logic that is not necessarily true.



> - Ps do better on aptitude tests, but Js do better in school.


Quite meaningless again because how do we know whether someone is a J or P? I tend to score P unless the test is designed to consider the interest or potential in order which not every test does. One might argue that one reason for this is because it is an expression of inferior Se being Pe or in other words, a P function. Yet, according to actual type code, I'm a J. Similarly, an INFP with inferior Te might score J because the definition of J on the MBTI test best corresponds with the general definition of Te. 



> - stronger N may be associated with stronger verbal ability while a stronger T may be associated with stronger math ability.


This is extremely dubious for the same reason it's dubious to claim that intuition is somehow linked to right brain activity. There is nothing inherent when it comes to thinking that suggests a thinker would be good at maths because thinking is not so much a form of logic contrary to how MBTI tends to depict it, as much as it is a form of categorization. Jung actually linked thinking activity more so with people interested in say, philosophy, since what philosophers tend to do for most of the part is to categorize various phenomena such and such way. He specifically linked it with Ti, whereas he found the natural sciences be more based on Te. Again, because it categorizes the world.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Dezir said:


> Those things you talk about are ethics, learn the difference, lQ tests does measure intelligence, the deffiniton is on the first post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You think they are ethics? Just goes to show how low you must be on the EQ scale. There is nothing moral about being self aware. humility, yes. I probably used the wrong word, but I really don't care.

IQ is irrelevant if you don't use it. It alone is one form of intelligence.

There is fuck all evidence to prove IQ in relation to type. Over representation of introverts, and specifically, N types on a IQ survey on the internet. It's bound to have a massive over representation.

Until MBTI can be more proven concretely to be genetic or environmental, and until IQ in relation to MBTI tests can be refuted on a larger more public scale than the internet, there is no conclusive evidence.

The over representation of introverts and N types on the IQ surveys over the internet are proof of the bias of the surveys environment, rather than anything else.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Splash Shin said:


> There is fuck all evidence to prove IQ in relation to type.


Oops. It looks like you must have missed a post.



Splash Shin said:


> Until MBTI can be more proven concretely to be genetic or environmental...


Oops. It looks like you must have missed a post or two.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

reckful said:


> Oops. It looks like you must have missed a post.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. It looks like you must have missed a post or two.


I saw them. They just seemed way to far in the field of theory for me to take as evidence for a link between mbti type and IQ.
It was just hypothesis from inconclusive data.


I think you missed the part about the bias of some of these studies. particularly the manual one.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Splash Shin said:


> I saw them. They just seemed way to far in the field of theory for me to take as evidence for a link between mbti type and IQ.
> It was just hypothesis from inconclusive data.
> 
> I think you missed the part about the bias of some of these studies. particularly the manual one.


There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.

Bias in the MBTI Manual? Isabel Myers said she thought S's were as intelligent in their own way as N's — and she went on at length in Gifts Differing about the fact that (as she saw it) S's got the short end of the stick in the American educational system, and about the ways she thought education could be improved from the standpoint of a typical S's interests and learning styles.

If the IQ/MBTI data showed no N advantage (or an S advantage), nobody would have been more eager to publicize that result than Myers.


----------



## Moonrise (Mar 22, 2013)

reckful said:


> There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.
> 
> Bias in the MBTI Manual? Isabel Myers said she thought S's were as intelligent in their own way as N's — and she went on at length in Gifts Differing about the fact that (as she saw it) S's got the short end of the stick in the American educational system, and about the ways she thought education could be improved from the standpoint of a typical S's interests and learning styles.
> 
> If the IQ/MBTI data showed no N advantage (or an S advantage), nobody would have been more eager to publicize that result than Myers.


In what way did she feel the education system favoured Ns? If anything, I'd have thought it favoured Ss.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Moonrise said:


> In what way did she feel the education system favoured Ns? If anything, I'd have thought it favoured Ss.


More specifically it is run by and heavily favors SJ. SP get the short end as well.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

reckful said:


> There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.
> 
> Bias in the MBTI Manual? Isabel Myers said she thought S's were as intelligent in their own way as N's — and she went on at length in Gifts Differing about the fact that (as she saw it) S's got the short end of the stick in the American educational system, and about the ways she thought education could be improved from the standpoint of a typical S's interests and learning styles.
> 
> If the IQ/MBTI data showed no N advantage (or an S advantage), nobody would have been more eager to publicize that result than Myers.


We just see it differently. I don't think it gets more empty than endless theory.

I'm trying to draw all of this together without anything being left to theory. Which is the entire point, right? I'm not leaving any stone unturned.

If Ns advantage was the IQ department of intelligence(which is what the MBTI Manual implies?), Why do we even see other types with a higher IQ than an N? The S type who out performs the Ns natural advantage despite having a different natural intelligence advantage that they use (primarily?) seems a bit off to me.

Let me clarify what I meant by study bias: How reliable are they? 
It may be in the MBTI Manual, but does that take into account the individual testing? Some of the Ns may in fact be mistyped S types who believe they are Ns because they are capable, and even enjoy using the natural advantage that N types tend to have (IQ). more common than you might think. Especially among those who don't understand how the tests work.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

reckful said:


> There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.
> 
> Bias in the MBTI Manual? Isabel Myers said she thought S's were as intelligent in their own way as N's — and she went on at length in Gifts Differing about the fact that (as she saw it) S's got the short end of the stick in the American educational system, and about the ways she thought education could be improved from the standpoint of a typical S's interests and learning styles.
> 
> If the IQ/MBTI data showed no N advantage (or an S advantage), nobody would have been more eager to publicize that result than Myers.


This is not what was being suggested though. The bias runs deeper than this. You are looking at superficial and superfluous sentiments from Myers. The _real_ bias in terms of method is whether people score Ns because they are intelligent or not regardless of whether they actually _are_ cognitive Ns. This is a point you have yet to address with something else than mere circular reasoning i.e. they are Ns because Ns are intelligent so they are Ns because Ns are intelligent.



arkigos said:


> More specifically it is run by and heavily favors SJ. SP get the short end as well.


Are you talking about Keirsey temperaments here?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Moonrise said:


> In what way did she feel the education system favoured Ns? If anything, I'd have thought it favoured Ss.


She devoted two chapters of the book to "Type and Early Learning" and "Learning Styles," and spent almost all of the Learning Styles chapter talking about S/N differences. She said it was typical for school lessons to be delivered with the emphasis at the abstract level — "the principle, the theory, the why" rather than "the practical application, the what and the how." She said N's were quicker to understand various things and that the speed of lessons tended to be paced better for N's than S's; and likewise that tests where speed was overly rewarded gave N's an inappropriate advantage. She said that S's (and especially ESs') lesser facility with symbols wasn't appropriately taken into account in the ways reading and early arithmetic were taught.

And here's some of what she had to say about intelligence tests in the "Effect of the SN Preference" chapter:



Myers said:


> Sensing children ... make lower scores on the average than intuitive children on intelligence tests and scholastic aptitude tests. It would be grossly mistaken but easy to conclude that sensing types are less "intelligent"; such tests do not take into account the legitimate choice between two rival techniques for the application of intelligence to life.
> 
> The sensing child's native language is the reality spoken by the senses. The intuitive's native language is the word, the metaphor, the symbol. ... Most mental tests are of necessity couched in the intuitive's language. The sensing child has more translating to do, and translating takes time.
> 
> Although intelligence tests are usually speed tests for the sake of convenience, it is debatable whether speed has any rightful place in the basic concept of intelligence. Intuitives tend to define intelligence as "quickness of understanding" and so prejudge the case in their own favor, for intuition is very quick.


----------



## Frog (May 11, 2011)

One thing to remember is that although IQ may be the best way we currently have to measure "intelligence," it's really not a very good indicator of one's mental capability. There are far too many things that can skew the results.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> This is not proof of anything because:





ephemereality said:


> How is introversion defined here? Being socially introverted and cognitively introverted is not the same thing.


You get lost in the details, this is a study not some sort of theory. 
Introversion is defined as the first letter being "I" from XXXX code.



ephemereality said:


> Being a Jungian intuitive and scoring as an N type is not the same thing as there is very little that is suggestive on the MBTI test to strongly correlate with Jung's definition of intuition and that the MBTI test is also able to aptly measure this in some shape or form. One might even surmise that the understanding of cause and effect is flawed here, as one can equally argue that higher intelligence tends to, as a result, lead people to be more likely to score as an N regardless of whether they cognitively orient themselves towards intuition or not.


You are off-topic.
*This study talks only about intelligence and MTBI types.*
Not about common mistakes made on online suveys etc.
This study talks only about intelligence and MTBI types, not your knownledge about jungian intuitive and scoring as an N type nor the incorrect type people get from MTBI test, you might want to keep them as different things.

If you want to research and decode you're my guest.
But my argument is based on a study made by professionals.
And your argument based on your opinion only.
It's your subjective word against my proof.



ephemereality said:


> How is thinking defined? As others have already pointed out in this thread, thinking and feeling is poorly delineated on the MBTI tests, often confusing feeling with Fe. Furthermore, the Jungian dominant feeler will experience feeling to be as rational as any other form of logic because it is a rationalizing and reasoning process as opposed to a process that deals with the feeling of feelings; thus, it is very easy for the dominant feeler to think of themselves as logical and logically detached the same way we usually associate thinkers to be and mistype themselves as thinkers when they are clearly not so. Similarly, Fi types might do this because Fi is poorly represented in the MBTI question items.


Thinkings is defined as the third letter from XXXX code, you can find many definition of Thinking preference online, you're welcome. Dude, there's a big hole in you reasoning, not only in this case but overall for example now you're assuming _Feeling is often confusing Fe_, *how do you know for sure this was the case ?*, your statement is pure subjective and not evidence-based stable _(which makes him even more subjective)_. The study was made by people who know what they are talking about, you aren't the expert in MTBI you know ? I'm don't claim I am, but other people are.



ephemereality said:


> *I* opine that the J/P letter dichotomy is the most useless out of the entire MBTI code because it is based on what Jung would consider persona. Furthermore, it makes a lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct simply because of how complex people's actual psychological type can be.


You opine, exactly. Only an assumption, subjectivity. Here's that hole again in your reasoning I've been talking about, you try to beat something objective based on proof with a subjective that is not based on evidence ideea. *You disclaim the study based on your personal subjective belifs rather than logic and reason*. _"How complex people's actual psychological type"_, really ? you find the people's psychological type complex ? well you can't explain it simple if you can't understand it well enough I suppose.



ephemereality said:


> Yes, and INTP is not the same as TiNe.


Never mentioned anything about TiNe..... :| dunno why you've said that...... :|



ephemereality said:


> Again an error of cause and effect. Or is it simply that people who are gifted are more likely to mistype as an N?


People might mistype as an N but the description of his type won't so you can know for sure if that's your type based on the description.



ephemereality said:


> No surprise because unfortunately there is a biased overlap between sensation and concrete logic that is not necessarily true.


Intuition =/= Concrete Logic :|



ephemereality said:


> Quite meaningless again because how do we know whether someone is a J or P? I tend to score P unless the test is designed to consider the interest or potential in order which not every test does. One might argue that one reason for this is because it is an expression of inferior Se being Pe or in other words, a P function. Yet, according to actual type code, I'm a J. Similarly, an INFP with inferior Te might score J because the definition of J on the MBTI test best corresponds with the general definition of Te.


How do we know whether someone is a J or P ? this is how we know:

*Judging (J) * =I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible.

*Perceiving (P)* = I use my perceiving function (whether it is Sensing or Intuition) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a flexible and spontaneous way of life, and I like to understand and adapt to the world rather than organize it. Others see me staying open to new experiences and information.

I preffer order too but I'm a P, you should have known how these things works.
Funny, I even considered you're actually an INFP, Scelerat too, this would explain many things.



ephemereality said:


> This is extremely dubious for the same reason *it's dubious to claim that intuition is somehow linked to right brain activity* (*triple facepalm*). There is nothing inherent when it comes to thinking that suggests a thinker would be good at maths because *thinking is not so much a form of logic* (*facepalm*) contrary to how MBTI tends to depict it, as much as it is a form of categorization. Jung actually linked thinking activity more so with people interested in say, philosophy, since what philosophers tend to do for most of the part is to categorize various phenomena such and such way. He specifically linked it with Ti, whereas he found the natural sciences be more based on *Te. Again, because it categorizes the world.* (and Ti doesn't right ? *facepalm")


So much logical errors, prejudices, and wrong assumptions I don't even know what to start with, you can't be an INTJ for sure, there are so many reasons for which you can't be an INTJ headed by your way too high level of subjectivity, intially I thought it's the INTJ arrogance but you really don't know you're subjecitve
In this argument I use logic you use your personal belif system, you're an F with no doubt.
There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.
You've probably red a lot about MTBI, you're a good source of wisdom.
But you lack logic so hard you should only keep to definitions.
This is probably why you mess many of these things.

_So yeah, I just found an explanation because I can't say counter since you're arguments weren't even true arguments and my point, the study still stands. I assume you're too narrow-minded in order to even belive that and you claim your "arguments" as being good since your friend gave you thanks but I've already proven to people that matters a point. Keep your thanks I'll have my objective truth. And with this I'm done arguing with you no matter what you say next cause you have way too many logical problems in order to have a constructive and rational argument with._




Splash Shin said:


> You think they are ethics? Just goes to show how low you must be on the EQ scale. There is nothing moral about being self aware. humility, yes. I probably used the wrong word, but I really don't care.
> 
> IQ is irrelevant if you don't use it. It alone is one form of intelligence.
> 
> ...


People put too much weight on irrationality and being coddled and too little on rationality and what's actually correct. So, from a pragmatic perspective the combo of high IQ and high EQ is ideal, however in a rational world a high EQ would be worth about as much as ice-cubes in Antarctica. 

The evidence was in that study not internet survey.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Are you talking about Keirsey temperaments here?


Specifically, no. Effectively? Yes. Rather, SJ as I understand it, and in this case that would effectively correlate with Keirsey, if only by coincidence. Why?


----------



## DJeter (May 24, 2011)

MBTI* ... ten chars


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Dezir said:


> Well, I think it could be because introverts tend to focus more on the inner world rather than on the outside and more in their heads, and even if they spend less time in the world, and generally care about it less this is probably the main reason introversion could make them smarter and make them more likely to change the world, I find it hard to explain and I don't mean to make a stereotype but extroverts tend to like more being with people while introverts being alone dwelling on their thoughts or feelings or inner world which could make them to wish for an improvement in the world while extroverts generally like the world as it is.


A couple things:

A) I'm still not clear on why being away from the world would make someone smarter. I don't think it would affect someone's intelligence at all, just on what sort of things their intelligence focuses on.

B) If the majority of the things you interact with and/or care about are in your head, it's a big jump to wanting to spend your energy on changing things in the outside world (something that would take more energy for an introvert anyway). Maybe you mean because they're more removed from the world they can see things some people can't? Because I agree with that, but I also think being really connected with the world helps you to better see a whole set of other things that could use changing. Additionally, extroverts have a better natural motivation to change the world, because we have to live in it. We have no choice. In fact, it's harder for extroverts to ignore problems in the world, just like it's harder for introverts to ignore problems inside themselves. 

C) This:


ephemereality said:


> How is introversion defined here? Being socially introverted and cognitively introverted is not the same thing.


If you asked someone I know who doesn't know about type, they would say I am "introverted," by which they mean I am not particularly social (AKA don't much like large groups). I do however get all of my energy from the outside world in some way, be it talking to friends, reading and watching things, walking in the woods, whatever. I don't just sit by myself and think. However....

D) Hanging out with people is not mutually exclusive with thinking. Far, far from it. Most of what I do is discuss ideas and feelings and people with others. And I don't mean debate, I mean tell each other things we think and know and bounce them off each other and come to conclusions and create new ideas. Exactly what I imagine you're doing in your head when you sit and think about ideas/feelings. If someone is intelligent, they will be intelligent in the sphere in which they feel comfortable. If they are not intelligent, they will be not intelligent in that that same sphere. 

E) Extroverts do not inherently like the world as it is. Just because I live somewhere doesn't mean I think it's great, or even good. If the plumping is broken I want it fixed. I don't want human waste all over my floor. If my house is falling apart I'll tear it down and build a new one. There's absolutely no cognitive reason why extroverts would like the world as it is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> Specifically, no. Effectively? Yes. Rather, SJ as I understand it, and in this case that would effectively correlate with Keirsey, if only by coincidence. Why?


Relevant in the sense that I understand your statement better though I am unsure if I actually agree with it. It holds true only according to Keirsey's definition. What I personally observed however, is that I have failed to see a correlation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> You get lost in the details, this is a study not some sort of theory.
> Introversion is defined as the first letter being "I" from XXXX code.


But the study is based on the theory. They don't exist in two separate bubbles. The letter code "I" means something. It is defined according to the theory that it is developed for. It is therefore extremely relevant when it comes to understanding the validity of any study to study the methodology of the study e.g. how something is defined. That is not made clear in the study itself.


> You are off-topic.
> *This study talks only about intelligence and MTBI types.*


You always pull that card because you can't see the connections between one subject and another and because you think it gives you some form of logical upper hand. It doesn't. MBTI is built upon Jung, and the theory of the MBTI is heavily derived from Jung. It is therefore very reasonable to discuss the letter code in relation to Jung and how this reflects the definition of the N letter code in relation to how intelligence is defined in this study. Again, because without good definitions it is not a good study. 



> Not about common mistakes made on online suveys etc.
> This study talks only about intelligence and MTBI types, not your knownledge about jungian intuitive and scoring as an N type nor the incorrect type people get from MTBI test, you might want to keep them as different things.


Yes, it is an MBTI study, but it doesn't exclude the relevance of comparing Jungian theory with MBTI, since the MBTI after all builds on Jungian theory. If someone cannot acknowledge the theoretical roots of an established theory and calls it off-topic in discussion, I would say that's a serious issue of intellectual dishonesty, especially when the comparison of the two is actually relevant when understanding the validity of the study results. 



> If you want to research and decode you're my guest.
> But my argument is based on a study made by professionals.


A professional doesn't necessarily have more knowledge than a lay person about a certain subject. In this case, the study is also poorly conducted as it does not allow people to get a good grasp of the underlying foundation of the study itself meaning the theory and the study material it refers to, in this case the people it used to collect this statistic. 



> And your argument based on your opinion only.
> It's your subjective word against my proof.


And your argument is not? Regardless, my argument is not based on opinion since the premise itself is that the study result and the attempt to connect to the MBTI type and intelligence is of highly questionable nature. An opinion is a value judgement but to logically conclude that a study's results are questionable because the methodology of the study is flawed is not. It's a logical proposition. 



> Thinkings is defined as the third letter from XXXX code, you can find many definition of Thinking preference online, you're welcome.


Yes of course. But that is my entire critique against the study itself - it does not seem to actually quantify Jungian Thinking as much as it seems to offer its own definition of what Thinking is, which I already addressed and others have too in this thread, is poorly delineated. Then it is natural to question whether the MBTI study is actually trying to quantify Thinking at all, or is it quantifying something else? Since the MBTI builds upon Jungian theory and often claims that it is capable of providing someone with the information about their Jungian type, then it is a matter of poor methodology again if the theory cannot live up to such expectations. It is one thing if we were discussing Keirsey that builds upon the MBTI but in the end developed his own theory not linked at all to Jungian cognition, but this is not the case with the MBTI. 

If the definition of MBTI's definition of Thinking does not strongly correlate with Jung's definition, as can be evidenced by simply judging the nature of the MBTI T question items on the questionnaire, then the test does a poor job at being able to type other people according to Jungian cognition in the first place. Hence, the results cannot be trusted to be relevant or valid in relation to this subject. 



> Dude, there's a big hole in you reasoning, not only in this case but overall for example now you're assuming _Feeling is often confusing Fe_, *how do you know for sure this was the case ?*, your statement is pure subjective and not evidence-based stable _(which makes him even more subjective)_. The study was made by people who know what they are talking about, you aren't the expert in MTBI you know ? I'm don't claim I am, but other people are.


This is not pure subjective conjecture. Far from. Just because your narrow mind dismisses it doesn't make it subjective. Your logic is hardly objective either. The fact that you assume my logic is subjective here proves the point that you are equally subjective in your thinking.

With that said, we can simply cross-compare many of the MBTI F question items in order to be able to actually logically deduce such a conclusion. Many of the F questions tend to focus on sociability, interest in social norms and values, to care about other people, be emotionally expressive and so on. Attributes that are commonly associated with the Jungian definition of Fe more than it is Fi. Jung himself notes that the Fi type is very often misunderstood exactly because the Fi type is not very emotionally expressive and may come off as grouchy and so on, because feeling resides within the subject, the self. Therefore as he aptly put it and I'm paraphrasing, "still water runs deep in the Fi type". Furthermore, if we then study how Jung defines the Feeling dominant, again, as I already outlined, they tend to see themselves as highly rational and logical people and this is usually what is stressed as T on the MBTI tests, we can immediately see that what the MBTI test is measuring when it comes to type is not so much Jungian type but something else. What this "else" is can be discussed further, but if the MBTI test cannot test someone's Jungian type in any precise measurement, then it is simply not a good test if this is the supposed function of the test. If we then apply this to this study, then the entire study result becomes extremely dubious since we can then safely assume that many people likely scored as an MBTI type they are likely not in terms of actual Jungian cognition. 



> You opine, exactly. Only an assumption, subjectivity. Here's that hole again in your reasoning I've been talking about, you try to beat something objective based on proof with a subjective that is not based on evidence ideea. *You disclaim the study based on your personal subjective belifs rather than logic and reason*. _"How complex people's actual psychological type"_, really ? you find the people's psychological type complex ? well you can't explain it simple if you can't understand it well enough I suppose.


If you actually bothered to understand and study the theory which is surprisingly complex since it after all deals with people's psyches and people are, unless you actually think otherwise at which point I might question your ability abstract information (actually, I already do), complex beings. 



> Never mentioned anything about TiNe..... :| dunno why you've said that...... :|


Of course you didn't but that was besides the point. The point goes back to my original critique of how the MBTI test fails at measuring one's psychological type. I merely pointed out this discrepancy. 



> People might mistype as an N but the description of his type won't so you can know for sure if that's your type based on the description.


If you think that one can find one's type simply by reading a description then you're sorrily deluded. If that's the case, then I'm as a matter of fact an INTP, since that is the description that describes me the best. 



> Intuition =/= Concrete Logic :|


Based on what definition? Intuition is, at its simplest sense, simply a way to apprehend data, to see what is beyond the corner without actually seeing it. It can come in concrete ways just as it can come in abstract ways. 



> How do we know whether someone is a J or P ? this is how we know:
> 
> *Judging (J) * =I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible.
> 
> *Perceiving (P)* = I use my perceiving function (whether it is Sensing or Intuition) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a flexible and spontaneous way of life, and I like to understand and adapt to the world rather than organize it. Others see me staying open to new experiences and information.


Except then you are clearly not typing people's psychological type but something else. 



> I preffer order too but I'm a P, you should have known how these things works.
> Funny, I even considered you're actually an INFP, Scelerat too, this would explain many things.


Contradiction. If you prefer order, then how can you be a P since P is the opposite of desiring order according to these definitions you just yourself provided? 

And if you think Scelerat and I are INFPs, it goes to say how poorly you understand psychological type and the theory as a whole. Also explains why you yourself is seemingly lacking self-awareness about many things, but one of them being your own type. For one, you fail to see how you derive your thinking from the concrete as is world which would even according to your own definition of N and S, be categorized as S. 



> So much logical errors, prejudices, and wrong assumptions I don't even know what to start with, you can't be an INTJ for sure, there are so many reasons for which you can't be an INTJ headed by your way too high level of subjectivity, intially I thought it's the INTJ arrogance but you really don't know you're subjecitve


No? What about you? What about you deriving value judgements here about my character instead of attacking my arguments? Is this what you think is being logical means? Declaring the character of another person? 



> In this argument I use logic you use your personal belif system, you're an F with no doubt.


Your argument is not at all based on logic since what you did in the above was very much in the line of making value judgements. Value judgements can be of logical in that we can derive logical conclusions from them, but they are themselves not logic in the commonly understood way of how the word is applied. Logic is the ability to draw impersonal or logical conclusions based on a premise. You didn't do that. You created value judgements. 



> There's really no substance to anything in your post. It's just empty words.
> You've probably red a lot about MTBI, you're a good source of wisdom.
> But you lack logic so hard you should only keep to definitions.
> This is probably why you mess many of these things.


Actually, I think the problem here is that you lack depth and understanding of the theory but most importantly, you lack an ability to think critically and independently though you think that you do. You also highly over-estimate your own intelligence and your own logical capabilities, likely because you fall within such an intelligence range where you are actually having difficulties grasping your own limitations and capabilities which by the way, is factually proven to be true so don't try to pull that subjective card, it won't work. The end conclusion is that you cannot grasp what I am actually trying to express to you because it lies outside of your range to do so, so instead you innately assume the problem is that I am not logical and I am stupid, without you ever reflecting whether it could be the other way around. 



> _So yeah, I just found an explanation because I can't say counter since you're arguments weren't even true arguments and my point, the study still stands. I assume you're too narrow-minded in order to even belive that and you claim your "arguments" as being good since your friend gave you thanks but I've already proven to people that matters a point. Keep your thanks I'll have my objective truth. And with this I'm done arguing with you no matter what you say next cause you have way too many logical problems in order to have a constructive and rational argument with._


Objective truth huh? Right back at you there with all that you claim in this paragraph. And you just yourself admitted you can't argue with me because my logic is actually superior to yours but you can't admit it. Good job.



> The evidence was in that study not internet survey.


But the study wasn't conducted in a vacuum hole, was it? They had to gather information from somewhere and that somewhere was the internet.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Poor you...

Whatever, if you want to have arguments with me, learn logical deduction first because your understanding is so low I have to explain you everything very detailed so that you won't misinterpret, and even so you still do misinterpret a lot of things, it's hard with you.

PS: By Scelerat too I meant that he thinks you're an INFP too genius. If you really are an INTJ the whole theory with INTJ being smart falls, which could mean that the type doesn't have anything to do with one's intelligence, but I don't think that's true since you most likely aren't. It's hard with you and besides that it's not my responsability to explain your stupidity when it comes to understanding, figure out yourself.



> how can you be a P since P is the opposite of desiring order according to these definitions you just yourself provided?


Very simple  you wouldn't understand anyway. In order to see how "good" your logical deduction is those definitions never mentioned anything about being P means you dislike order. Sure they aren't as orderly as J but that doesn't mean P can't be orderly except they don't tend to be orderly, like being T doesn't mean you don't have feelings or you can't be a poet. Being P means that they are more lazy and disorganized than judgers according to how much of their P-J ratio is, but that doesn't mean they can't get to work or they can't be orderly nor that they dislike order I like order when it comes to cleaning my room except I don't really do it and I hate having too many organized plans and to do lists, as a P I'm more spontaneous than planned but that doesn't mean I can't be planned, except I won't feel very confortable having a to do list. It's hard to explain this to you that's why I don't want to argue with you. You probably misread 90% of this anyway.




randomshoes said:


> A couple things:
> 
> A) I'm still not clear on why being away from the world would make someone smarter. I don't think it would affect someone's intelligence at all, just on what sort of things their intelligence focuses on.
> 
> ...


Well, neither to I, but studies proves it as being true, It ain't the main factor of intelligence but there seems to be a connection between being introvert and being smarter, but that doesn't mean all introverts are smarter than extroverts. Maybe the reason is the functions, I'll check it out later. Being introvert doesn't really mean how social you are, it means what's your favourite world, where you take your energy from.

_(to ephemereality: that was only an assuption that turned out wrong, I used the word "I think", I know is obvious but you don't seem to get these things at all and I didn't want you to comment something like "You said that you know why, now you're saying you don't know, how poor your logic is mister")_


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

the confusion here is obvious, to a person of such (an insufferably) high IQ as myself. i've sat here, watching the back-and-forth--seeing everyone get so close to the answer... i've cheered silently, hoping, trying to angle my mind powers into a direction that would coerce you all back along the path. instead, i give you this--the answer--you've all been looking for...

without further adieu:


* *









this thread was missing quite a bit of portishead


 


seriously though, this topic and debate is pointless. it's a detraction away from an initial theory, where what we call "X" does not represent "X" any longer, but a combination of "X+Y+Z" with a few common (to the "high-IQ-people") behavioral patterns thrown in. at this point, we don't have any idea what's actually being measured, we just say that we do and exclude every other possibility from sight until we have a working theory that shows us what we'd like to be shown... really? 


and all this intellectual circle-jerking can become a very sticky situation if y'all aren't careful. :tongue:


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

Dezir said:


> PS: By Scelerat too I meant that he thinks you're an INFP too genius. *If you really are an INTJ the whole theory with INTJ being smart falls, which could mean that the type doesn't have anything to do with one's intelligence, but I don't think that's true since you most likely aren't. It's hard with you and besides that it's not my responsability to explain your stupidity when it comes to understanding, figure out yourself.*


so now you are insulting him and calling other types dumb. maybe _you're_ an infp, because you can't seem to argue without getting personal


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

mabye i'm a special case, but i know SJ's that are smarter than me, i'm an NF and i've never come across a dumb NT so it might be true, that they're the child prodigies of the temperaments.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Poor you...
> 
> Whatever, if you want to have arguments with me, learn logical deduction first because your understanding is so low I have to explain you everything very detailed so that you won't misinterpret, and even so you still do misinterpret a lot of things, it's hard with you.


Then please show me how I misinterpret you. 



> PS: By Scelerat too I meant that he thinks you're an INFP too genius. If you really are an INTJ the whole theory with INTJ being smart falls, which could mean that the type doesn't have anything to do with one's intelligence, but I don't think that's true since you most likely aren't. It's hard with you and besides that it's not my responsability to explain your stupidity when it comes to understanding, figure out yourself.


Since when did Scelerat express such sentiments about me? And there's nothing about INTJs needing to be smart just because they're INTJs. That's circular reasoning. Actual logic dictates that the way intelligence is measured over the population according to the bell curve, we would see an even spread of intelligence even within the range of types, meaning that there must be dumb INTJs for the statistics to hold unless you opine that every person above average intelligence is an NT with a few NFs, which again doesn't hold based on your own premise which is that Ns are smarter than Ss since you would then have to make exceptions for NF types, which means if you allow exception for one group, you will have to make exceptions for another. While it's true that NTs according to official MBTI statistic makes up the smallest portion of the population, I don't think we can directly extrapolate that statistic directly and claim all gifted people are NTs. Nevermind other complex sociopolitical and socioeconomic factors that play a role in determining someone's intelligence such as education. How can you separate this from MBTI type? You have again yet to address the answer where people who are intelligent are likely to mistype as an N simply because they are intelligent. 



> Very simple  you wouldn't understand anyway. In order to see how "good" your logical deduction is those definitions never mentioned anything about being P means you dislike order. Sure they aren't as orderly as J but that doesn't mean they hate order, being open to new doesn't mean you hate all the old things, it's hard to explain this to you that's why I don't want to argue with you. You probably misread 90% of this anyway.


So why don't you try to explain to me and show me what it is I don't understand instead of claiming I won't understand and thus failing to refute the argument completely?


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

idoh said:


> so now you are insulting him and calling other types dumb. maybe _you're_ an infp, because you can't seem to argue without getting personal


All I meant to say is that he doesn't seem to fit at all the description of an INTJ, I've never said other types are dumb. Sorry if I have offended you somehow, I never said INFP are dumb or something only that he fits INFP more than INTJ because of his subjectivity, feelings over thinking. Maybe I am INFP, who knows, except I don't fit that type's desciption because of the personality traits like having so much attention on feelings for example.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

I've read the types that are the smartest are INTP's and INFJ's. Yes. INFJ's. You read correctly.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

So many unzipped flies and rulers in this thread.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Dezir said:


> How could someone not know whether he is Introvert or Extrovert. I find this the thing easiest to see in people.
> 
> _Do you like more spending time alone or spending time with people ?
> Social interactions drain you after a while ?
> ...


_Do you like more spending time alone or spending time with people?_
Sometimes it's mis-written "do you spend more time alone or with people" to which I would answer alone. But written the way above ("do you like more"), I would say with people.

_Social interactions drain you after a while?
_I don't like social interactions at least at the start, but thinking about it more deeply, I find by the end of the interaction everyone else is more drained and I want it to continue._

Do you tend to talk more or listen more?
_I tend to want to hear what other people have to say and downplay the importance of what I want to say, plus my extremely introverted brother is a "motor-mouth", so I would therefore conclude if this has anything to do with E/I then the Extravert listens more the Introvert talks more. (of course I'm more of the view that there is no correlation with this point, since a lot of "extraverts" stereotypically walk the streets shouting at stuff loudly so they're unable to hear anything even if they did care about listening... but then again, are these really extraverts or just people conforming to a model that is independent of their personality?).


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

*Question One shows you're extrovert, question two shows you're extrovert, question three shows you're introvert*. Actually introverts are those who tends to listen more than talking and extroverts tends to talk more than listening. 

Are you sure your brother's an introvert ? _"Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days but otherwise they won't talk very much."_ Your brother is unlikely to be introverted.

You are an extrovert but my opinion is that you're a shy extrovert, of course not all extroverts are chitty-chat but they are much more talkative than the average introvert or at least they feel the need, shyness isn't something specific to introverts only contrary to what many believe. Your brother might be depressed, anti-social or shy maybe but he's less likely to be an introvert just for the fact that he feels the need to externalize his thoughts, something that isn't specifc to introverts.

*A single letter makes a big difference, which of these describes you ?*

_"As an ESTP, your primary mode of living is focused externally, where you take things in via your five senses in a literal, concrete fashion. Your secondary mode is internal, where you deal with things rationally and logically."_

_"As an ISTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in via your five senses in a literal, concrete fashion."_


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Dezir said:


> Well, neither to I, but studies proves it as being true, It ain't the main factor of intelligence but there seems to be a connection between being introvert and being smarter, but that doesn't mean all introverts are smarter than extroverts. Maybe the reason is the functions, I'll check it out later. Being introvert doesn't really mean how social you are, it means what's your favourite world, where you take your energy from.


I'm aware that introversion doesn't mean how social you are. I believe I was making that point. And I was attempting to discuss reasons why there would be a relationship between introversion and intelligence because I think this is a common assumption that people make, and I think that intelligent people often mistype as introverts, and most importantly: correlation is not causation. If we have found a correlation between these two things--and I'm not convinced we have--I'd like to come up with an explanation for why introversion causes intelligence, or visa versa. I'm more interested in theory than data. I was under the impression that that was the definition of intuiting.


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

Dezir said:


> Are you sure your brother's an introvert ? _"Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. *Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days but otherwise they won't talk very much*."_ Your brother is unlikely to be introverted.


Admittedly he's usually very quiet around strangers, but I guess he was thought of as having the gift of the gab because he couldn't stop about some things, entire lectures/seminars would just flow from him at times when he noticed people were listening (especially me because my usual automatic response to people telling me stuff is to show interest and listen, which encourages him to continue).


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

IQ has it's places, but I don't believe this theory is one.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> I'm aware that introversion doesn't mean how social you are. I believe I was making that point. And I was attempting to discuss reasons why there would be a relationship between introversion and intelligence because I think this is a common assumption that people make, and I think that intelligent people often mistype as introverts, and most importantly: correlation is not causation. If we have found a correlation between these two things--and I'm not convinced we have--I'd like to come up with an explanation for why introversion causes intelligence, or visa versa. I'm more interested in theory than data. I was under the impression that that was the definition of intuiting.


Could be due their dominant introverted functions, introverted functions are better at their respective function but they can't gather informations. For example Ni is better than Ne at intuition and Ti is better than Te at thinking but Ne and Te gather informations while Ti and Ne are unable to do this, you can't gather informations from the outside while being in your own head. I know they are sepparate things like Ne predicts in the present and Ni predicts in the future, Ti thinks in his head while Te thinks in the outer world but Ni's predictions and Ti's thinking are more advanced. Extroverts are more efficient at gathering any kind of informations from other people because their main function is an extroverted one, introverts are better at processing. That could be an explanation.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Dezir said:


> Could be due their dominant introverted functions, introverted functions are better at their respective function but they can't gather informations. For example Ni is better than Ne at intuition and Ti is better than Te at thinking but Ne and Te gather informations while Ti and Ne are unable to do this, you can't gather informations from the outside while being in your own head. I know they are sepparate things like Ne predicts in the present and Ni predicts in the future, Ti thinks in his head while Te thinks in the outer world but Ni's predictions and Ti's thinking are more advanced. Extroverts are more efficient at gathering any kind of informations from other people because their main function is an extroverted one, introverts are better at processing. That could be an explanation.


Hmm, okay, so you're saying IQ doesn't test for what extroverts are good at (gathering information)? That's an interesting point. It makes sense that IQ would be a measure of processing capability, but I wouldn't say better processing would be a tendency of introverts, I would say it would be a tendency of people who lead with judging functions (Te, Ti, Fe, Fi) rather than perceiving functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Si). Perceiving functions by definition gather information, judging functions process it. So by that logic (and I'm not sure I believe this part I'm just following it through), Ti and Fi would be "better" at thinking and feeling, but Ne and Se would be "better" at intuiting and sensing. I don't think I believe that's true in any real life sense, (Ti and Te are doing such different things that I don't know what "better" means there), but it's possible it's a testing bias. However, that would seem to imply a bias towards perceiving people, which I'm not sure pans out in reality. 

I will say from experience that I test very well in general (not speaking just of IQ tests) and so does my INTP girlfriend, my ISFP brother (he tests incredibly) and an ESTP friend, but my xNFJ friends, despite being conspicuously intelligent in person and in class, have a lot of trouble with tests. Perhaps perceiving people are better at adapting to the information right in front of them, whereas judging people have trouble getting rid of the information they already have and so can't soak up new information as quickly, but once they do they keep it. However, I am personally definitely a case of does better in school than in life, and my ENFJ friends in particular have already done an incredible amount to affect the world, so I'm inclined to believe that judging people are more likely to be world changing.

I'm still voting for intelligent people tend to identify as introverts, rather than tend to BE introverts, but it's an interesting notion. Either way I'm not really a fan of IQ tests in general, but it's interesting to try to parse out what's actually being tested there.


----------



## Courtalort (Jun 29, 2013)

Donovan said:


> and all this intellectual circle-jerking can become a very sticky situation if y'all aren't careful. :tongue:


that pun is amazing.


----------

