# Lowest to highest in regards to iq?



## Zeus (Oct 8, 2011)

Can’t seem to find the list. Can anyone conflrm or deny this?1. INTP 2. INTJ 3. ISTP 4. ENTP 5. ESTP 6. ENTJ7. ESTJ 8.ISTJ9. ISFJ10. INFJ11. ENFP12. ESFP13. ISFP14. ENFJ15. INFP16. ESFJ


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Who cares.
Does anybody legitimately think IQ means anything?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

*changes type to INTP to prove superiority*


----------



## Zeus (Oct 8, 2011)

Turi said:


> Who cares.Does anybody legitimately think IQ means anything?


I don’t know, maybe suitable to some.still surprised you internet in Russia? Thought it was outlawed there.haha.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

In Soviet Russia, the internet outlaws you.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Cognition is different with intelligence


----------



## Sybow (Feb 1, 2016)

I say bull. There is zero correlation between IQ and mbti type. Any mbti type can be intelligent and any mbti type can be stupid/dumb.


----------



## InfluxWaver (Nov 18, 2017)

There is a slight correlation between intuition/openness to experience and IQ but thats it.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

You know why most NT types have higher IQs than NF types? 

It's about Interests.

Most F types interests are socialization that's why they develop EQ more

While NT types interests are usually more on technical sides.. Thats why they practice computations more.

But it doesn't mean NF cannot compute.

Nor NT cannot socialize. 

It's just their interests differ.

And if an NF type would major in math and logic then he'll definitely be good at it.

While when NT are exposed on socializations, he'll look like a social butterfly. XD 

Well i actually exposed myself to socialization because it's my weakness. 

When i was in highschool I'm very anti social. XD and I'm very blunt as well.

But when i turned like 17, i became more sociable. Then i had a boyfriend which develops my feelings.

That's why i have practiced my emotions and feelings very well.

Before when i was like 17below. I hate romance, i never cry. Seriously xDDD 

I just learned to be more social and be more non-judgmental through socialization. 

You know what you do influences your habits, your interests..

But cognitive function wise, the way you think or process information is the same. That's why it never change.

Cognition is different than intelligence. 

Mbti sterotypes is really actually BULLShit. 

Why would they even put.. Oh well, that's sterotypes i guess. XDD what types likely to do. But it doesn't apply to everyone. 

It's like: 

1. You're a girl if you have long hair
2. You're a boy if you have short hair

- See? XD sterotype. Bullshit. XD so what's happening in mbti community now:

Guy who have long hair: i must probably be a girl!!!!!!!!  then they'll be gays.
Or
Girl with short hair: fuck.. I'm mistyped.. I always knew I'm a guy!!! XD then they will be lesbians. 

Cognitive functions is like your biological gender. You cannot change it. It's there 

(jk) i don't actually know about this. Because there's a lot of factors as well.

Like trauma. Mental illness. XD so cognition can be changed 

Okay we must all go home now

Because mbti is really bullshit xDDD 

Biology and cognition is different either.  

The brain can change  

We can lose memory. We can have stroke. XD we can.. Hmm.. Wait  

Probably cognition is different.. 

Like probably if you lose your memory, the way you handle stuffs like example: being left handed.

Yesss..

I knew it.

Cognitive functions are like it's already there.

Like why are you left handed? Why are you right handed??? XD 

It's cognitive functions


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

Turi said:


> Who cares.
> Does anybody legitimately think IQ means anything?


Unfortunately, a lot of people do.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Oooh you can think outside of the box and spend your time pondering theories, guess you _MUST _be an NT type! h:


----------



## Witch of Oreo (Jun 23, 2014)

Bull. All IQ tests I saw so far all rely on just finding patterns. Not sure how that is indicative in any way.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

It completely depends on the person. There's no correlation with MBTI.


----------



## isfpisfp (Sep 10, 2017)

1- isfp 2- intp 3- infp 4-istp 5-istj 6- esfj 7-entp 8-entj 9-estj 10-enfj 11-estp 12-infj 13- esfp 14- enfp 15-intj 16-isfj


----------



## metallic (Apr 29, 2017)

There is absolutely no correlation between MBTI and IQ. Both are examples of pseudoscience - pseudoscience does not have any correlations because it isn't determined to even exist. 

I have met extremely intelligent ESFJ's and INTP's as dumb as rocks. Just because the INTP has the natural thirst for knowledge does not mean they'll use it, and just because the ESFJ values social harmony and comforts does not mean they're as dumb as a box of rocks. Also, what kind of devil put INFP second to last? Plenty of famous geniuses have been INFP, close to the amount of INTP's - if you're gonna try to correlate pseudoscience to pseudoscience, might as well do it right.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

The question of whether the tests are measuring what they say they are measuring or not is separate from the fact that you can correlate the test results between the two tests.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Satan_Claus said:


> I say bull. There is zero correlation between IQ and mbti type. Any mbti type can be intelligent and any mbti type can be stupid/dumb.


says the ISFP
insert laugh emoji here


----------



## Sybow (Feb 1, 2016)

> says the ISFP
> insert laugh emoji here


 Yep, says the ISFP, and whats wrong with that?


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Intelligence according to MBTI fans be like.....




NT: Gifted

NF: Above average

ST: You should be okay

SF: You better find a rich husband


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Stevester said:


> Intelligence according to MBTI fans be like.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This made me crack up. Let it be known that my best friend, a self-identifying ESFJ, does much better academically than me and would probably completely beat me at an IQ test. I'm rather average when it comes to that stuff.


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Lolwut. IQ is a legitimate indicator. Truth is more important than your feelings towards the idea. Sure, you don't want to use IQ as any sort of filter in life -- not that you have to; it filters out anyway -- but that doesn't mean you can outright downplay the idea. It's definitely more accurate and more reliable than MBTI. Spare the politically correct bullshit and get down on the facts. Just say that no extensive and credible study has so far been done on the relation between the two. I have no idea why people feel the need to spit comforting platitudes when the truth is perfectly acceptable.



umm nope. is IQ a legitimate indicator for something? yes, but like everything else, people just love to destroy things. The IQ test was created in order to see which students struggled and needed more help, now people use it like a tool to measure how smart you are, which wasn't even the purpose of the IQ test. 

In the end of the day, everyone is talented or good at something, and some of them will even be considered genius in their own ways if they will work hard for it and believe in themselves.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

BlazerGun said:


> umm nope. is IQ a legitimate indicator for something? yes, but like everything else, people just love to destroy things. The IQ test was created in order to see which students struggled and needed more help, now people use it like a tool to measure how smart you are, which wasn't even the purpose of the IQ test.
> 
> In the end of the day, everyone is talented or good at something, and some of them will even be considered genius in their own ways if they will work hard for it and believe in themselves.


I do wonder then where the high correlation between IQ and academic/professional performance comes from (the inverse also holds). Must be an accident... hmmm, definitely an accident. 

(Before anyone pulls out the random correlations chart, let me remind you that this correlation between IQ and academic success has persisted across decades and cultures. Random correlations don't persist like that)


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> I do wonder then where the high correlation between IQ and academic/professional performance comes from (the inverse also holds). Must be an accident... hmmm, definitely an accident.
> 
> (Before anyone pulls out the random correlations chart, let me remind you that this correlation between IQ and academic success has persisted across decades and cultures. Random correlations don't persist like that)


 like i said before ( and you probably just ignored it ) people have different talents, not everyone is suited to be academically succesful, you can ask any musician, dancer, athlete and etc'.

and again, you ignore the fact the IQ was never meant* to be an indicator for how smart a person is.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

BlazerGun said:


> like i said before ( and you probably just ignored it ) people have different talents, not everyone is suited to be academically succesful, you can ask any musician, dancer, athlete and etc'.
> 
> and again, you ignore the fact the IQ was never meant* to be an indicator for how smart a person is.


Irrelevant. IQ indicates academic success and that's it. Whether it doesn't indicate other stuff or not is irrelevant. This is the standard for intelligence even in common discourse and connotation of that word. 

It wasn't meant to be but it has developed into this. Just as I wasn't meant to be debating with people online but here I am.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Oh shit, here we go again


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

> The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.
> 
> IQ tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence but they are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components, the study found.
> 
> ...


https://www.google.ca/amp/www.indep...-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

^found this study when I was younger.


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Irrelevant. *IQ indicates academic success and that's it*. Whether it doesn't indicate other stuff or not is irrelevant. This is the standard for intelligence even in common discourse and connotation of that word.
> 
> It wasn't meant to be but it has developed into this. Just as I wasn't meant to be debating with people online but here I am.


and where i said it didn't indicate academic success?


this is the standard for intelligence? for knowledge and education m. I'm sorry to say, but to think that academic success is the only way to measure intelligence is rubbish, this is atleast what i think.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stawker said:


> Irrelevant. IQ indicates academic success and that's it.


You have a wrong definition here


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

l’espirit rouge;39650026 said:


> You have a wrong definition here


Which one?



BlazerGun said:


> and where i said it didn't indicate academic success?
> 
> 
> this is the standard for intelligence? for knowledge and education m. I'm sorry to say, but to think that academic success is the only way to measure intelligence is rubbish, this is atleast what i think.


Yea, the next time I read the word 'smart' I'll definitely picture a brutish wrestler.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stawker said:


> Which one?


Jeez, what I quoted:
_ IQ indicates academic success and that's it._


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

l’espirit rouge;39650194 said:


> Jeez, what I quoted:
> _ IQ indicates academic success and that's it._


That's not a definition.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stawker said:


> That's not a definition.


It's still wrong


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Which one?
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the next time I read the word 'smart' I'll definitely picture a brutish wrestler.


it seems that stereotypes took over your mind, well, there is nothing i can do about it, unless you are a troll.

look, i also thought that i was smarter and better than anyone else, but i was too dumb and too ignorant that I couldn't accept the fact that there are things im very bad at, and other people, who i saw as inferior to me, excelled in those things. What im trying to say is that you shouldn't judge people based on things like this, whether it's MBTI, IQ, Workplace and more, you need to accept people as they are, everyone can be successful if they want to be, and there is no test in the world that can tell them they cant be.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

BlazerGun said:


> it seems that stereotypes took over your mind, well, there is nothing i can do about it, unless you are a troll.
> 
> look, i also thought that i was smarter and better than anyone else, but i was too dumb and too ignorant that I couldn't accept the fact that there are things im very bad at, and other people, who i saw as inferior to me, excelled in those things. What im trying to say is that you shouldn't judge people based on things like this, whether it's MBTI, IQ, Workplace and more, you need to accept people as they are, everyone can be successful if they want to be, and there is no test in the world that can tell them they cant be.


Strawman. Just because you aren't smarter than me doesn't mean you're incompetent across the board. You can still be better at playing piano even if you have an IQ of 100 because I've never played piano and there's a chance my hand-eye coordination might be poorer so even if I try I might fall behind. Still, no matter how hard you, the piano guy, try and as long as I'm making a minimal amount of effort, you can't beat me in academics. See how your argument also goes either way??

The only problem now is that people will call you 'skilled' or 'talented' for being good at piano while the word 'smart' would be reserved for me. You can change your skill set from piano to some kind of sport and my argument holds (because piano is a smart kid business -- in Asian countries anyway).


----------



## CultOfPersonality (Sep 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Strawman. Just because you aren't smarter than me doesn't mean you're incompetent across the board. You can still be better at playing piano even if you have an IQ of 100 because I've never played piano and there's a chance my hand-eye coordination might be poorer so even if I try I might fall behind. Still, no matter how hard you, the piano guy, try and as long as I'm making a minimal amount of effort, you can't beat me in academics. See how your argument also goes either way??
> 
> The only problem now is that people will call you 'skilled' or 'talented' for being good at piano while the word 'smart' would be reserved for me. You can change your skill set from piano to some kind of sport and my argument holds (because piano is a smart kid business -- in Asian countries anyway).


well, im not a parrot so i will not say the same things.

i hope you will succeed in life and that you will acheive your dreams, but, i really suggest you to see people as people and not as types or numbers only. good night.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

BiggyBigOne said:


> its pretty obvious intuitives would be more intelligent. they are more interested in discovering the world and think 3 steps ahead.


I've actually always argued that Intuition is probably heavily linked with intelligence, at least some forms of. Or perhaps a bit more insightful in the way it perceives information. But the way you just worded it right here, is _exactly_ the kind of crap that makes every John and Sally mistype themselves as N over S.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Stevester said:


> I've actually always argued that Intuition is probably heavily linked with intelligence, at least some forms of. Or perhaps a bit more insightful in the way it perceives information. But the way you just worded it right here, is _exactly_ the kind of crap that makes every John and Sally mistype themselves as N over S.


True, but then people don't get what "probabilistic connection" means, either; and have this weird drive to let themselves _be defined_ by types, instead of realising they are supposed to _define_ the type. So the problem goes both ways.

If on average, N types should be more intelligent than S types, and you encounter an S type, you have ... exactly zero useful knowledge of how intelligent they will be. Or, in one's own case, it says nothing at all about how intelligent you can be. It's a silly connection to make, based on a faulty understanding of statistics -- taking supposed averages and applying them individually. An S person might be less likely to be as intelligent as an N person (assuming the connection holds), but that statement is mathematically invalid and thus completely meaningless if your sample size is 1.

You are as intelligent as you are. A type doesn't somehow magically limit this (or boost it, for all the special N snowflakes out there).


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

isfpisfp said:


> 1- isfp 2- intp 3- infp 4-istp 5-istj 6- esfj 7-entp 8-entj 9-estj 10-enfj 11-estp 12-infj 13- esfp 14- enfp 15-intj 16-isfj


Wait 

:laughing:

Ok everyone proceed


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

BiggyBigOne said:


> can we all stop trying to be politically correct with the types and IQ crap. its pretty obvious intuitives would be more intelligent. they are more interested in discovering the world and think 3 steps ahead. Anyone who tells you a ESFJ has the same average IQ as a INTP is fake.



The world needs both whether you'd like to realize it or not. I just was in a minor innocent tiff with my big picture intuitive boss about this general point. He had devised a wonderful big picture plan. But as soon as he was confident about it he very abruptly jumped on it not thinking of the small picture

Let me just say after taking some time in reflection and studying mbti and communication I grasp big picture and even though I don't come up with it usually I can see it when pointed out. He was pretty stubborn about my pointing out common sense logistics in the small picture here and now that he overlooked rolling out some down the line awesome plans.

Let me define this clearer for you
I was able to prove to him after being stubborn and holding my ground the point of INTERNAL operations and not just the external. 

Go ahead and conflate your worth all you'd like but wise people understand the use of both.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

BiggyBigOne said:


> I didn't say that I just said that INTx types would normally be smarter than ESFx. I'm going by logical intelligence btw


Intuition doesn't even have to do with logical intelligence lmao


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

should also be noted that when I say intuitives are probably smarter as a whole, I mean NT types more specifically. Go ahead and throw stones, but I don't see how INFPs or ENFJs for instance would be smarter than ISTx types, given that the former have their thinking function as inferiors. So other than having a broader view of things, there's no legit reasons why they are automatically more intelligent than every S type by default. AND even in NT types, I have seen some dumbass ones. I mean, if we're going to use the stereotype that N is automatically superior to S, then I can use the stereotype of the typical INTP who is jobless and spends 24/7 playing XBox in their mom's basement. Not exactly the best image for a type that's supposed to have the highest IQ, right?

So in summary, can intuition be linked to broader intelligence? Probably, Does being an N automatically make you more special and intellectually superior? LOLno.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stevester said:


> I've actually always argued that Intuition is probably heavily linked with intelligence, at least some forms of. Or perhaps a bit more insightful in the way it perceives information. But the way you just worded it right here, is _exactly_ the kind of crap that makes every John and Sally mistype themselves as N over S.


I have never understood why Ns are supposed to be smarter. I always think that people don't really understand sensing well and beautiful it can be.

N is sure linked with something, just like S is, so highlighting it like that is wrong. Anyway MBTI is all about our preferences, not abilities.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Stevester said:


> I can use the stereotype of the typical INTP who is jobless and spends 24/7 playing XBox in their mom's basement. Not exactly the best image for a type that's supposed to have the highest IQ, right?


If IQ is a consideration, then the image is rather ok, if only people knew about gaming benefits more and stopped stereotyping.


----------



## Taileile (Jul 2, 2016)

This entire thread is full of stereotyping. Come on guys. :\

As far as I'm concerned, personality type is just that: personality type. It is not associated with intelligence. Until we reach a point where a) intuitive bias isn't as prevalent in the MBTI community as it is now and b) an actual study comes out that shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between personality type (as confirmed by another party, seeing as intuitive bias is so prevalent in those online tests) and intelligence, I don't see any real concrete argument for any of this.

('Intelligence' in and of itself is kind of a wishy-washy term, anyway. I appreciate that you used IQ which is at least measurable, but there are different types of intelligence.)

(Idk, in my experience threads like this are always a mess of people arguing with each other over who's smarter. It's really not that helpful.)


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

The sad and pathetic thing about this, is I'm still a firm believer that roughly 9 out of 10 N people are sensors who mistyped themselves, so I'm actually arguing against other sensors which is messed up in hindsight. A _real_ Intuitive wouldn't go around saying they have clairvoyance powers, can think 3 steps ahead and have higher IQ. That shit is definitely the likes of an insecure sensor with low self-awareness who bullshitted themselves into believing they are N. A real intuitive would appreciate sensing and maybe even somewhat envy its qualities just like I envy some intuitive qualities.


----------



## Sky_Nova_20 (Sep 10, 2017)

I haven't met many intuitives in my life, since I mostly lived in an environment mostly full of sensors. Finding intuitives in real life can be rather difficult. However, aside from that, I don't really know why people generally care about their intelligence. Is it really a big deal? It's just one trait, it's not like the entire aspect of your personality. I mean, really, many people I've seen around the Internet tend to stereotype MBTI types, especially when it comes intelligence and claiming that intuition/sensing is a 75%-80% comparison of your intelligence. How does that show you that intuition is a huge indicator for your intelligence? Does intelligence really matter? To a degree, I'd say, but why worry about something that claims that if you're an S, you're dumb? Is this the reason why David Keirsey separates the types into the 4 categories: NT, NF, SP, SJ? Or are there other reasons behind? I think the latter, but they're mainly stereotypes as well. Also, many people look at various information about N/S and they're like "oh I'm an N, so I'm intelligent" and others are like "Really, I'm an S? How can I become an N?". If you just want to keep stereotyping MBTI types, then I don't know how you're going to learn more about it. You would keep thinking about the same stereotypes everytime and believing that MBTI measures intelligence as a whole. It is merely about cognition/thought process/how you perceive the world.


----------



## metallic (Apr 29, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Lolwut. IQ is a legitimate indicator. Truth is more important than your feelings towards the idea. Sure, you don't want to use IQ as any sort of filter in life -- not that you have to; it filters out anyway -- but that doesn't mean you can outright downplay the idea. It's definitely more accurate and more reliable than MBTI. Spare the politically correct bullshit and get down on the facts. Just say that no extensive and credible study has so far been done on the relation between the two. I have no idea why people feel the need to spit comforting platitudes when the truth is perfectly acceptable.


An IQ test tells you absolutely nothing - most tests are based off of academic ability, which is not in any way a show of someone's intelligence, and each test can be easily manipulated or produce an inaccurate result depending on your circumstance the day you take it. Someone who is tired or dealing with stressors in life can very easily end up with a score 40 points or lower than their actual one. There is no IQ test out there that can provide better results than if you just went out there and displayed your intellectual ability to the world.

Seems to me like you've gotten yourself a bit too proud of your NTJ status. My argument was based off of facts, not feelings, although I'm sure the obvious prejudiced ways of thinking you displayed in the above post would make you think differently.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

metallic said:


> An IQ test tells you absolutely nothing - most tests are based off of academic ability, which is not in any way a show of someone's intelligence, and each test can be easily manipulated or produce an inaccurate result depending on your circumstance the day you take it. Someone who is tired or dealing with stressors in life can very easily end up with a score 40 points or lower than their actual one. There is no IQ test out there that can provide better results than if you just went out there and displayed your intellectual ability to the world.
> 
> Seems to me like you've gotten yourself a bit too proud of your NTJ status. My argument was based off of facts, not feelings, although I'm sure the obvious prejudiced ways of thinking you displayed in the above post would make you think differently.


As if people willingly walk to the Psychiatrist to take the IQ test specifically because they're stressed out right now. Actually, I'll cut to the chase, if IQ tests are that meaningless, then why is there such a high correlation between IQ tests and academic/professional success? 

I can agree to the argument that IQ tests are useless. But to say they are meaningless is just not true. And academic ability is not a show of someone's intelligence? The smart kid with bad grades is an exception, lady, not the norm. If your grades are good, it almost certainly means that you're smarter than the rest. I'll concede to your argument if I ever see an IQ 100 guy scoring a 4.0 GPA in a STEM major.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

I'm very old fashion and as of such, I believe anyone who's responsible, steady, pays their bills, raises their kids not to become hellspawns (if they have some), have good, healthy self-awareness, self-esteem and longing to expand their horizons and knowledge about their own lives are the smartest people of all. Whether IQ tests take this into account or not, I don't know.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Sky_Nova_20 said:


> I mean, really, many people I've seen around the Internet tend to stereotype MBTI types, especially when it comes intelligence and claiming that intuition/sensing is a 75%-80% comparison of your intelligence. How does that show you that intuition is a huge indicator for your intelligence? Does intelligence really matter? To a degree, I'd say, but why worry about something that claims that if you're an S, you're dumb?


No one claims that. At least, no one does that doesn't want to run into the grandiose irony of at once declaring himself dumb as a rock, thus invalidating his point.

I said this on the page prior:



Northern Lights said:


> True, but then people don't get what "probabilistic connection" means, either; and have this weird drive to let themselves _be defined_ by types, instead of realising they are supposed to _define_ the type. So the problem goes both ways.
> 
> If on average, N types should be more intelligent than S types, and you encounter an S type, you have ... exactly zero useful knowledge of how intelligent they will be. Or, in one's own case, it says nothing at all about how intelligent you can be. It's a silly connection to make, based on a faulty understanding of statistics -- taking supposed averages and applying them individually. An S person might be less likely to be as intelligent as an N person (assuming the connection holds), but that statement is mathematically invalid and thus completely meaningless if your sample size is 1.


Or to create an example, if the hypothetical statement is, "N types have a 10% higher IQ on average", and you have a room of 100 randomly picked Sensors, and 100 randomly picked Intuitives, you get two very broad bell curves, and the maximum of the N-type one is shifted slightly towards higher IQs, therefore shifting the average.

If you now pick any one random Sensor out of that group, and any one random Intuitive, you could make the assertion that if you measure their IQ, the intuitive has a higher probability of having the higher IQ of he two, for example, "in 60% of all cases, the N type will have a higher IQ than the S type". But this assertion (and that _is_ the assertion, nothing else is meant -- always) presupposes that you will pick more people of both groups, because the very statement "_... of all cases_" references large numbers -- _all_ probabilities do.

If all you do is pick a single person the assertion is meaningless, because it does _not predict the IQ of the individual_. There is no .6 figure anywhere, either the IQ of person A is higher or the one of person B. 1 or 0. Not .6. Only the group _as a whole_ displays certain trends, and if you picked a lot of people, you would notice. The individual can be anything under the sun. On the left edge of the bell curve or the right edge. The next Einstein or failing pre-school. It's impossible to predict.

So, like I said above: Applying statistical averages on single individuals, especially when the distribution is ridiculously broad, makes no sense. And people who claim "Intuitives are smarter" and deduct from that anything at all for their own person have shown only one thing, which is that they belong to the less intelligent part of either group.


As a side note, that is also the reason precipitation predictions are patently stupid, because giving me an information that says "a 30% chance of rain" -- meaning, "on 30% of all days just like this one it will rain" -- is just noise, it could be one of those 30%-days or it could not, no one knows. There is just this one day, I can't re-run it many times like the models where that figure came from, so in the end, I know as much about this particular day as I did before.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I've seen people who are incredibly book smart, have great study skills that improve their knowledge and skills, but really lack common sense or street smarts in real life. I've also seen the opposite. Both examples are forms of intelligence.


----------



## BiggyBigOne (Oct 22, 2017)

Stevester said:


> The sad and pathetic thing about this, is I'm still a firm believer that roughly 9 out of 10 N people are sensors who mistyped themselves, so I'm actually arguing against other sensors which is messed up in hindsight. A _real_ Intuitive wouldn't go around saying they have clairvoyance powers, can think 3 steps ahead and have higher IQ. That shit is definitely the likes of an insecure sensor with low self-awareness who bullshitted themselves into believing they are N. A real intuitive would appreciate sensing and maybe even somewhat envy its qualities just like I envy some intuitive qualities.


1. What makes you say that? I'd imagine the mistype being as likely as the other 2 categories ( aside from Extroversion and Introversion which has the most mistypes )
2. Not really. Sure I'm bad at memorizing simple facts but I have a book for that.

Please convince me that you're not secretly wishing you were an intuitive.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

metallic said:


> An IQ test tells you absolutely nothing - most tests are based off of academic ability


There are plenty of official tests for which this is not true. 


> which is not in any way a show of someone's intelligence,


Yes it is, if someone is not intelligent they're not going to be great at academics, its just that the reverse isn't necessarily true. 


> and each test can be easily manipulated or produce an inaccurate result depending on your circumstance the day you take it.


Nope not really, thats why they are administered by professional under strict conditions. 


> Someone who is tired or dealing with stressors in life can very easily end up with a score 40 points or lower than their actual one.


LMAO just no, 40 points is completely out of range of what stressors will do to someone's IQ score. That's over 2 standard deviations. 


> There is no IQ test out there that can provide better results than if you just went out there and displayed your intellectual ability to the world.


This is the only true statement of your whole post, next time instead of faking knowledge about a subject to make your opinion sound more important than it is, just state your opinion.



BiggyBigOne said:


> Please convince me that you're not secretly wishing you were an intuitive.


You're not a very good advertisement.


----------



## Donna88ENTJ (Dec 4, 2017)

Witch of Oreo said:


> Bull. All IQ tests I saw so far all rely on just finding patterns. Not sure how that is indicative in any way.


Identifying patterns and trends in data is pretty important in buisness strategy for example. I spot these easily. Is this because I am an NT? Is it because I have an above average IQ? Who knows? Maybe both? Maybe neither! I’m with the person who said it’s because of personality type interests. I like losing myself in data. I only know fellow ENTJS that feel this way about collating and interpreting data.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Donna88ENTJ said:


> Identifying patterns and trends in data is pretty important in buisness strategy for example. I spot these easily. Is this because I am an NT? Is it because I have an above average IQ? Who knows? Maybe both? Maybe neither! I’m with the person who said it’s because of personality type interests. I like losing myself in data. I only know fellow ENTJS that feel this way about collating and interpreting data.


Literally every type does this, it just depends on the type of data. I know plenty of people who are successful at business for the same reason and not not ENTJ. My aunt is a very successful investment banker and is ISFP as all fuck.


----------



## metallic (Apr 29, 2017)

Stawker said:


> As if people willingly walk to the Psychiatrist to take the IQ test specifically because they're stressed out right now. Actually, I'll cut to the chase, if IQ tests are that meaningless, then why is there such a high correlation between IQ tests and academic/professional success?
> 
> I can agree to the argument that IQ tests are useless. But to say they are meaningless is just not true. And academic ability is not a show of someone's intelligence? The smart kid with bad grades is an exception, lady, not the norm. If your grades are good, it almost certainly means that you're smarter than the rest. I'll concede to your argument if I ever see an IQ 100 guy scoring a 4.0 GPA in a STEM major.


I can tell you from personal experience that the majority of people I've met with an above-average level intelligence didn't progress further in their schooling - because they were too intelligent to desire it. They went onto different projects, which is what helped them succeed. There are so many examples of this in history and modern day society. You just have to look.

I've generally found that the people who are truly 'intelligent' are the ones who focus on the bigger aspects of life rather than dedicating their entire lives to their education.


----------



## metallic (Apr 29, 2017)

soop said:


> There are plenty of official tests for which this is not true.
> 
> Yes it is, if someone is not intelligent they're not going to be great at academics, its just that the reverse isn't necessarily true.
> 
> ...


Your post is a jumbled mess, but from what I took out of this you haven't sat down to consider anything I said, at all. Take some advice from your description and find a new way of seeing what I'm saying - I don't retract any of my statements.


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

High IQ dosen't seem to guarantee high income, but low IQ seems to be highly correlated with low income.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

metallic said:


> Your post is a jumbled mess,


No it's not, I clearly addressed your post point for point. Attempting to gaslight people for legitimately addressing your posts is incredibly dishonest. 


> but from what I took out of this you haven't sat down to consider anything I said, at all.


I took an official IQ test form a psychologist so I know how it works, your post was factually incorrect. 


> Take some advice from your description and find a new way of seeing what I'm saying - I don't retract any of my statements.


It doesn't matter how I see it and whether you retract it or not, what you said is factually incorrect. Stop lying.


----------



## Donna88ENTJ (Dec 4, 2017)

soop said:


> Donna88ENTJ said:
> 
> 
> > Identifying patterns and trends in data is pretty important in buisness strategy for example. I spot these easily. Is this because I am an NT? Is it because I have an above average IQ? Who knows? Maybe both? Maybe neither! I’m with the person who said it’s because of personality type interests. I like losing myself in data. I only know fellow ENTJS that feel this way about collating and interpreting data.
> ...


I’m not saying every type doesn’t. I do believe finding patterns is easier for some than others though-as per the original response.


----------



## Cinnamon Sugar (Dec 13, 2017)

I think once you reach a certain point in IQ scores the difference becomes negligible. I have seen studies demonstrating INTPs are more likely to have a gifted level IQ, but ENTJs to have the highest income. It's usually grouped as INTPs, INTJs, INFPs and INFJs at the top, then the extroverted versions of the same. More likely isn't a guarantee of anything either way.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I also think that there's definitely type bias. People probably get typed after assessing their intelligence instead of *before*. There's always those stereotypes. "You can plan ahead really well and you're really smart, oh guess you're NT then". Not true. There should be controls where people get typed first using a validated typing method (is there even one?), then get tested for intelligence.

If someone has a study proving this 100%, feel free to link it.


----------



## Kroel (May 22, 2021)

Aluminum Frost said:


> Introverts think more than extraverts and by the reasoning you just gave "thinking 3 steps ahead" Judgers would be smarter than perceivers. And thinkers are also smarter than feelers. Intuitives seem to conveniently only like to take intuition into consideration when it comes to intelligence. I think multiple intelligence is more valid. Idk how you can call INTx types geniuses and ESFx types idiots when INTx types aren't better at everything than ESFx types.


Judgers aren’t smarter than “PERCEIVERS”... You can’t say intx types aren’t better at everything than esfx types because, we are talking about “intelligence” not street smart abilities. if intx types were train to be street smart by maybe someone like the esfps then they will be really effective in dealing with everything and being tactical, both on people and relationships that you will never know when they are cheating.. trust me you won’t know...lol.. you can’t talk you can’t say a word


----------



## goodvibe (Aug 23, 2013)

Are intuitives better guessers, esp when it comes to multiple choice questions (if they are on the test)? Perhaps, that is a measure of intelligence, to be a good guesser, but is that overrepresented in the test scores? A couple of lucky guesses can make a huge difference in score once you get above 120. I would think Ni is particularly good at that. 


I know I am a good guesser, and I don't know how other than I can scan for anomalies very quickly and eliminate the least likely.


----------



## sheeeeeeeeeep (Jul 3, 2021)

Kaioken said:


> People are shit scared of IQ.
> Higher IQ means higher probability of success in life (in terms of money and career).
> And come on, there is a small correlation between MBTI and IQ, there are numbers, the highest ratio is for INTP INTJ and INFP in that order and the lowest is ESFJ.
> 
> ...


rip. i had a crush on a ESFJ :/ and i'm an INTP


----------

