# Reversing the Stereotypes - Smart Sensors, Dumb Intuitives



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

I realise this thread-title isn't especially politically correct but this is a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time, how do sensors and intutives defy their natural stereotypes?
I don't know any ultra-smart sensors and I don't know any dumb intuitives, however I do know types of both stereotypes, and I *really* don't want to have to accept that it's impossible for a sensor to be ultra-smart and an intuitive to be an idiot, however I'm at a loss personally because I have to admit, the portrayal of intuition as an innovative force makes it hard to conceive of how a person could have it and also be a moron. I can comprehend a smart sensor more easily, however they are supposedly less gifted at foresight and unifying abstract concepts, which seem to be the hallmark of the truly gifted intellectuals, does this mean they can't ever be more than just 'reasonably intelligent'? If a genius sensor can exist, how would this be?
I am reluctant to post this due to its inherently typist nature, but the burning curiosity to answer these questions is proving too much for me. Does anyone have an answer?


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

Dumb Intuition happens when you connect all of the wrong dots, it can also be a rather scatter-brained method. A dumb Intuitive will often talk nothing but nonsense, like, literal nonsense. Without a secret hidden meaning or truth.

Sensors do not have an inability to grasp the abstract, that's just a wrong portrayal. They build to an abstract conclusion, an intelligent Sensor can make strong concrete connections in abstract things. Straight-lines that connect, in a chaotic mess, Sensing is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Herp (Nov 25, 2010)

You'd have to take a step back from the descriptions and see the greater picture that a type is.

Any person is able to use intuition, sensing, thinking or feeling. They'll only do it in their way. So, if a intuitive wants is willing to let go of the prejudices, it will find itself working in the here and now. If a sensor wants to let go of the same prejudices, it will stop living in the moment to see what lies behind. No one is dumb, they're just afraid of going outside of their comfort zone.

And when we're afraid of something, we start downplaying that very thing. The intuitive is calling the sensor dumb because they're afraid to accept the reality, and may be prone to overanalyze everything. At the same time, the sensor is calling the intuitive dumb because they're afraid of seeing things over the surface, and may be prone to take things as they are.

Intelligence is an arbritary measure. A booksmart person could be not well versed in daily matters. A streetsmart person may not know theories written on books. When it comes to measure who's smarter, how do you know?

A 'dumb' intuitive is a person that cannot live in the moment. Ask him about quantum physics, and it'll explain you everything in depth. But ask it to set a lab experiment manually, and they may find themselves struggling with the job. A 'genius' sensor is a person that is able to perform a heart surgery easily, but find themselves struggling to explain how the amount of proteins in the blood may affect the blood pressure.

Of course, these are very lousy examples, but you get the point. Sensors aren't dumb just because they're more tied to reality than intuitives. And intuitives aren't smart because they're imaginative while sensors are pratical. Anyone is able to innovate if they want to.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

Scruffy said:


> Dumb Intuition happens when you connect all of the wrong dots, it can also be a rather scatter-brained method. A dumb Intuitive will often talk nothing but nonsense, like, literal nonsense. Without a secret hidden meaning or truth.
> 
> Sensors do not have an inability to grasp the abstract, that's just a wrong portrayal. They build to an abstract conclusion, an intelligent Sensor can make strong concrete connections in abstract things. Straight-lines that connect, in a chaotic mess, Sensing is a beautiful thing.


Interesting, I have met people who spout utter rubbish that I see no connection between it and their previous thought, I wondered if this could be faulty intuition early on but felt discouraged after I starting reading around and began to feel like this 'faulty intuition' was faulty because it was an underdeveloped tertiary/inferior function that they blunderingly used when there was nothing they could come up by their normal method. However, I should have considered the obvious fact that if sensors can be idiots because they get hung-up on details that aren't actually relevant to anything, then intuitives could similarly get the 'wrong' pattern.

Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?

I'm relieved to get this kind of response, some of the N vs S topics that start up around here truly worry me, I was afraid of adding another rotting carcass to the pile...


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

> Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?


Yeah, a Sensor doesn't even have to be a genius for that, just intelligent. A good deal of "Intuitives" are mistyped, due them believing if you have original thought, you must be an N. 

Being a small group of people, Intuitives like to self-pleasure for being special. It's a different way of thinking, it's not inherently smarter at all. People looking for groups to belong to, because being so different sucks; but again, don't assume different = Intuitive.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Sensing and intuiting are just two ways of taking in information, that can often come to the exact same conclusion. I am highly intuiting, and my partner is highly sensing. We both tend to come to the same conclusion on almost everything, and are both highly intellectual, but we use different tools to get to that point. He senses every detail of a situation and comes to a logical linear conclusion based off of these facts, while I use my intuition to feel out the connections between several details and choose one conclusion from several. There are many instances when he recognizes many subtle details that I completely miss, and other times when I consider a possible alternate explanation that he didn't think of.

Basically, neither is more intelligent, or more capable of understanding abstract concepts. In fact, I find that some Sensing types are more likely to see the extremely abstract concepts, because they are the only ones to find the more unusual details of a situation. Example:

N: "This person was forced out of office twice in his career, so he must be either a poor leader, unreliable or unpopular."
S: "This person was elected back into office after being forced out twice, so he must be pretty amazing."

"Which of these things is not like the other: cat, truck, snake?"
N: "The truck, because it's not an animal, not alive or not a predator."
S: "The cat, because it has fur."


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

You don't know any ultra-smart sensors? Really? Why the hell not?? Sensors are in positions of power the world over, run companies, and make up at least half of all public school teachers, and assuredly much of the armed forces, et al.

Many brilliant artists, musicians, and directors are Sensors.

What you seem to be confusing here is "average people" with "exceptional people." You're also making the mistake of thinking that big picture thinking is the ultimate measure of intellect. A person could lack your ability to see the big picture but memorize facts like a pro, notice details that you miss, be capable of physical feats you could never possibly accomplish (including saving lives...I could be wrong but I think a lot of EMTs are probably Sensing Thinkers), etc.

Many doctors, math and history professors, and politicians are SJs. Not to mention big business and the legal profession and its SJ dominance.

Genius is something rare and exceptional, and may be associated with Intuition because geniuses usually are severely lacking in a practical area and are only highly accomplished in their area of expertise. For example, Albert Einstein was thought to be retarded in elementary school and sometimes forgot to put his pants on. A psych prof I had in college told us we should think of "genius" as a sort of disability...


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I definitely know many very intelligent sensors. You can't only measure intelligence in the "N way". In reality, outside of MBTI forums, the N way is sometimes not even regarded as brilliant, but as just a bunch of BS :laughing:.


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

hziegel said:


> Sensing and intuiting are just two ways of taking in information, that can often come to the exact same conclusion. I am highly intuiting, and my partner is highly sensing. We both tend to come to the same conclusion on almost everything, and are both highly intellectual, but we use different tools to get to that point. He senses every detail of a situation and comes to a logical linear conclusion based off of these facts, while I use my intuition to feel out the connections between several details and choose one conclusion from several. There are many instances when he recognizes many subtle details that I completely miss, and other times when I consider a possible alternate explanation that he didn't think of.
> 
> Basically, neither is more intelligent, or more capable of understanding abstract concepts. In fact, I find that some Sensing types are more likely to see the extremely abstract concepts, because they are the only ones to find the more unusual details of a situation. Example:
> 
> ...


I can follow you on the second, and I find that creative, but the first is moronic, just saying. It's people like that sensor that get shitty politicians reelected, but that's neither here nor there.

Sensors and Intuitives would be inherently equal if the conclusions both sides came to were applicable and can be put to good use. Abstraction and Innovation are two very different things. Sure the Sensor can probably come up with an idea that no one has ever thought of (I'd say because it's ridiculous, but it's the foundation for innovation so it's necessary), but the Intuitive gives it purpose.

Like I'm pretty positive that sensors created adhesive glue but an intuitive turned it into a post-it note (Don't quote me on this, this was merely an example I created). They're both essential progress, but coming up with an idea completely different from everyone is not as useful as taking that idea and molding it and giving it purpose. Making the connections and applying them. 

This is where the dispute lies in my opinion. I'm sure that sensors are very intelligent in their own right. Capable of abstraction , but they're not capable of connecting large quantities of dots and streamlining them into a cohesive format. They're practical and do things out of practicality. They can practically entire the realm of abstraction, but that doesn't compare to the imaginative head first dive that intuitives take. 

I think of Sensors as do-er types and that bothers me because they don't explore all of their options before hand, they pick one and go with it. And Sensors view intuitives as people that spend their time in la-la land coming up with situations and never acting on them. Having no real world applications



fourtines said:


> Genius is something rare and exceptional, and may be associated with Intuition because geniuses usually are severely lacking in a practical area and are only highly accomplished in their area of expertise. For example, Albert Einstein was thought to be retarded in elementary school and sometimes forgot to put his pants on. A psych prof I had in college told us we should think of "genius" as a sort of disability...


Really gifted kids are misunderstood as children. Especially back when Einstein was a kid. I don't see what forgetting to put your pants on has anything to do with things. Genius is a blessing and a curse, I'll agree with you there, but I'll take unraveling the theory of relativity and laying the foundations for quantum mechanics over having practical intelligence any day. What's the point of being an intelligent sentient being without pursuing knowledge?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> I can follow you on the second, and I find that creative, but the first is moronic, just saying. It's people like that sensor that get shitty politicians reelected, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> Sensors and Intuitives would be inherently equal if the conclusions both sides came to were applicable and can be put to good use. Abstraction and Innovation are two very different things. *Sure the Sensor can probably come up with an idea that no one has ever thought of (I'd say because it's ridiculous, but it's the foundation for innovation so it's necessary), but the Intuitive gives it purpose.*
> 
> ...


I think you are associating all Sensors with inverted focus and all iNuitives with extroverted focus. ISTPs (my boyfriend's type) are extremely good at finding practical applications for things and connecting the dots, while INTPs (my type) are known to focus on individual details, but care nothing for the big picture or how things effect the rest of the world.

And calling Sensors do-er types? What does that have to do with how they process information? You really should look into all of the personality types and their different functions before you go grouping four completely different types of people into the same general personality type.


----------



## chaeriean (Jan 18, 2011)

i'm finding it hard to believe that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors when all of this "waow u are so simpul lol" comes from intuitives, based on the fact that many sensors find abstract thought ridiculous. abstract thought is not the defining characteristic of intelligence, and just because i prefer concrete reality doesn't make me incapable of doing it. basically: just because i prefer to think concretely doesn't mean i cannot think abstractly. and just because i am able to think abstractly does not mean i am an abstract person.

most of the standard definitions of intelligence cater to sensors, so i am not sure where you get the idea that the only standard of genius is an intuitive one. memory and recall are one of the most important aspects of a person's intelligence, the ability to understand and interact with your surrounding environment, the ability to assimilate and learn new information, the ability to practically survive, reading comprehension, visual perception, etc. you would see all of these things on the performance part of a legitimate i.q test. math, spatial perception, visual identification, memory/recall, understanding your environment, motor skills, etc.

i'm obviously not saying intuitives don't have any of these qualities, but these are generally qualities that sensors have even as a stereotype. how often have you heard of the guy who could solve complex math problems in his head? he was probably an istj. this isn't really an applicable definition of intelligence, but it seems to be the things that we base most of our perceptions of intelligence on. having a good memory can fool anybody into thinking they are intelligent. i know i do! 

the basic point of this is that if you notice the stereotypes regarding intelligence you will generally notice a lot of sensors fitting into those stereotypes. thus i find it difficult to comprehend you have never met an intelligent sensor, or a sensor you could describe as "intelligent". creativity is not the defining measure of intelligence, and neither are any of the qualities i have listed. intelligence is the ability to be complex, to gather data and interpret it adequately. intuitives and sensors are both capable of doing this.

pretty much i am getting the impression that these mbti tests place abstract thought into primarily intuitive domain, which it isn't. i am capable of abstract thought, but i _prefer_ realistic and concrete thought. in the sci-fi series _star trek_, i would say most vulcans would fit into the sensor stereotype quite nicely. and the entire race is viewed as intellectually superior by many people! (one of their most prized attributes is after-all their eidetic memory). what i am trying to get at is that i am getting the feeling that many sensors probably test as intuitives because they are capable of thinking abstractly and are good at it. it isn't a skill exclusive to those with an n. 

i am not the only intelligent sensor on this forum. and i am intelligent. you can argue with me all you want on that point but i know what i am. you would have to have a very skewed perception of what intelligence means in order to classify me as stupid. 

i am capable of seeing multiple perspectives, i am capable of thinking about non-concrete things. one of the questions on an mbti test i took was "do you often contemplate the fate of humanity, blablabla" and i answered yes, because i generally do tend to think about it. on that test i scored as an infj. i have scored as an infj multiple times because of tests that take "capability and activity of thinking about things that can't be seen" as "intuitive". and as i have said multiple times, it isn't exclusive to an intuitive mindset. it is just preferred by the intuitive mindset. 

this whole talk of sensors being simple and intuitives being smart because of their ability to connect the abstract dots is as ridiculous as saying introverts are incapable of talking to anybody and extroverts are the supreme life of every single party, or that thinking types are incapable of feeling any kind of emotion and feeling types are incapable of thinking logically. it's ludicrous. how many people have you probably mistyped because of this?


----------



## Mr.Xl Vii (Jan 19, 2011)

hziegel said:


> I think you are associating all Sensors with inverted focus and all iNuitives with extroverted focus. ISTPs (my boyfriend's type) are extremely good at finding practical applications for things and connecting the dots, while INTPs (my type) are known to focus on individual details, but care nothing for the big picture or how things effect the rest of the world.
> 
> *And calling Sensors do-er types? What does that have to do with how they process information? You really should look into all of the personality types and their different functions before you go grouping four completely different types of people into the same general personality type.*


To be fair that was a poor choice of words. My post in general is sort of all over the place, but it's like 4am and I realize that was a horrible way to describe my train of thought. I mean it more as a linear fashion. Like taking an idea and going with it full force in a line drive method. Not really exploring other veins of the idea. Whereas an intuitive type is more of a word cloud type of thinker. Exploring other avenues and adjacent ideas, etc.

What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.

That's also not to say that all intuitives are smarter, I've met my fair share of rather dumb intuitives and incredibly smart sensors.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Smart S types tend to have exceptional common sense that can seem almost mystical, and have a very powerful awareness of how things work. They can be good at understanding everything from complex mathematics to very subtle social intricacies that are totally lost on someone like me. It seems strange to me that in a world where sensing types are in the majority, a person could be so isolated from others that one would have never met an intelligent one. 

Dumb N types make the wrong connections between ideas, or lack the discernment to determine what is true. They might believe in things that are not scientifically possible because the ideas make sense in their heads without necessarily being based on reality. Again, it seems strange to me that a person could go through life without ever having met a stupid one. 

Maybe you misidentified the stupid intuitives as sensors, and misidentified the smart sensors as intuitives. We have had several people even here, at this forum, who fall into each of the categories you claim to have never encountered.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> To be fair that was a poor choice of words. My post in general is sort of all over the place, but it's like 4am and I realize that was a horrible way to describe my train of thought. I mean it more as a linear fashion. Like taking an idea and going with it full force in a line drive method. Not really exploring other veins of the idea. Whereas an intuitive type is more of a word cloud type of thinker. Exploring other avenues and adjacent ideas, etc.
> 
> What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.
> 
> That's also not to say that all intuitives are smarter, I've met my fair share of rather dumb intuitives and incredibly smart sensors.


Lol, I applaud you for not fighting what I said. x3 I've been getting tired of that lately.

I see what you mean, about the one-track mind. Sensors are definitely more linear in their thinking (by definition...) and it can seem to us iNtuiting types like they're just plain oblivious. But the way I think about it is in terms of balance. You know the old saying, "Measure twice, cut once" ? Sensing types consider all the information around them, think very slowly and deeply about that, and then come to one solid conclusion. Intuiting types pick out a few of the details they notice and come to several conclusions, then choose the one they believe is best. Both methods work when it comes to processing information, just in different ways. It takes both types to cover every possible option.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

IonOfAeons said:


> Interesting, I have met people who spout utter rubbish that I see no connection between it and their previous thought, I wondered if this could be faulty intuition early on but felt discouraged after I starting reading around and began to feel like this 'faulty intuition' was faulty because it was an underdeveloped tertiary/inferior function that they blunderingly used when there was nothing they could come up by their normal method. However, I should have considered the obvious fact that if sensors can be idiots because they get hung-up on details that aren't actually relevant to anything, then intuitives could similarly get the 'wrong' pattern.
> 
> Would genius be possible in that kind of making connections? Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?
> 
> I'm relieved to get this kind of response, some of the N vs S topics that start up around here truly worry me, I was afraid of adding another rotting carcass to the pile...


There are a lot of misconceptions about MBTI. The S/N issue is part of that.

I'm going to break the mold a little bit here as far as S vs. N. To answer your main question, yes there can be smart Sensors and dumb iNtuitives. *Disclaimer:* *The following does not harbor any ill or self glorifying intent...to put things in to perspective, I was called(and thought) I was stupid around 80% of my life. I'm only posting the following to aid the topic and break the stereotypical mold of Sensors.*

I'll spare you the details, but I was mostly an, "F" student my entire school career(school never interested me). I was thought to be stupid by students and teachers, alike. I even had a few teachers *tell* me I was stupid and would never amount to anything. One day, my 6th grade year, I got so tired of hearing that I was stupid, I decided to prove everyone wrong. I put my nose to the grindstone and ended up learning about 6 months of math within 15-20 minutes. A quiz was given on the same day and I aced it. Similar results occurred my other classes, as well. After a week, I lost interest in school and seeing I proved my point, I went back to doing nothing-getting, "F's."

Then came my freshman year of high school. I wound up having to take an IQ test and scored a 136...my sophomore year I ended up taking another and scored a 147(200 is the highest possible and 140+ is considered, "genius"). A year later I dropped out. About 6 months after I dropped out, I took the test required to acquire a G.E.D. without studying...keep in mind, I did nothing in school...hadn't learned a thing. I was still on Algebra I at the end of my sophomore year with an, "F"(the G.E.D. test covered Geometry which I had yet to learn, amongst other subjects). I ended up teaching myself how to do Algebra and Geometry during the testing period-passing all subjects with no less than an 83%(got 99% on Literature). So that goes to show you that Sensors can be smart.

As far as S and N dealing with theories, I'm going to break the mold a little bit here, too. There's this notion that Sensors can't understand theories or relate to anything abstract. I call bull on that stereotype, too. I've out-theoried(not a word) iNtuitives. I've listened to, "N" theories and had no difficulty understanding them, even at times pointed out flaws in their theories. Even abstractions and metaphors aren't a problem for me, I just prefer a more bold and concrete approach. I think as Sensors we just aren't as interested in theories(not that we can't understand them). We'd rather do and apply what knowledge we have towards something tangible, wielding results. We have a different perspective, if you will.

Ex: Naturally, when I read Chinese proverbs, I take them at face value. "A bit of fragrance clings to the hand that gives flowers." When I first read that, I immediately start getting pictures in my head of flowers and a hand picking them/giving them to another hand. I also picture different fragrances, while developing the smell of flowers in my nose and imagine my hand smelling like them(best way to describe it). A very concrete, literal interpretation of what was read... that is what's natural for me and if I didn't know that was meant to have a deeper meaning, I probably wouldn't look much deeper in to it(although I could). When I do look deeper in to it, I get "He who is good to others will receive goodness/goodness will become part of him." Again looking deeper in to it isn't my natural response, but I have no difficulty doing so, if needed.

*Being able to pick up details so quickly and build up a picture that they would seem abnormally intelligent and stereotypically 'intuitive' because they figured out the principles so quickly from speedy processing?* Yes. I used to think I was an iNtuitive because of this. I've often been able to figure things out long before some people do because of how quickly I pick up the pieces(details) and put them together. Ex: I remember my friend showing me an episode of, "Psych" and saying, "You'll never figure this out." (I don't know much about the show, but the episode I saw kind of had a detective feel to it..."X happened, Y happened, Z is happening what's going on?") I sat down and after about 10-15 minutes of the episode(long before the reveal) I said, "Schizophrenia." He said, "What? How did you know that? You've seen this before haven't you?" And then I explained. "No...etc...such and such happened etc." He couldn't believe it.

Think of Sherlock Holmes, even though he's fictional. Many mistake him for an INTP, when he's actually an ISTP. He picks up on details quickly and builds a picture very quickly. (Not comparing myself to him)

That's about it for my rant. Again, I wasn't intending to toot my own horn or brag or anything...I honestly wasn't even going to say anything until I saw this topic. I just wanted to clear the air a little bit, as far as this topic goes. I think intelligence or lack thereof has a lot more to do with mental barriers and false notions than anything else. Don't let type hold you back and stick you in a box...same goes for other people. You are who you are and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. And yes, we all have limits, but only you can find them...and I'm sure when you do, you'll find that you have a lot less than you think.

Edit:"*Smart S types tend to have exceptional common sense that can seem almost mystical, and have a very powerful awareness of how things work. They can be good at understanding everything from complex mathematics to very subtle social intricacies that are totally lost on someone like me. It seems strange to me that in a world where sensing types are in the majority, a person could be so isolated from others that one would have never met an intelligent one.*" (post from snail) I agree with this completely. There's more to it than that, but I'd say for what's written that's very accurate.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Mr.Xl Vii said:


> What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything. And sure big picture is not necessarily more correct, but I feel in a world that is becoming more globalized, and ideas are getting larger an intuitive thought process is "more correct". It's not necessarily better, but it is the one on the higher level. That doesn't take away the importance from practicality, but a big picture mindset is much more applicable to the growing big picture world we live in.


The way I see it, our preferences work in a circular way:
Every good trait we have also results in bad things happening "on the other side", and vice versa. A kind person might be easier to fool than a more cynical one - but the cynical one isn't likely to be as pleasant to spend time with, just to give an example of how I think.

So, to give you my view of things: Have you ever seen an INTP in analysis paralysis mode? In MBTI terms, that's probably caused by a dominant-tertiary loop, with Ti and Si ganging up on Ne, ignoring it's input. In effect, you get what is probably one of the most genius-prone personality types of them all, becoming a locked-down, turned-into-oneself, paranoid fool who takes no account of the actual situation but only sees everything that might go wrong ("and surely will", as the self-fulfilling prophecy goes).

The same could probably be said of "broken"/immature Sensor types, that don't take into account more than their acute needs and wants - young ESFPs are notorious for that. It's not that people with an ESFP personality are especially stupid - quite the opposite, actually, if you count street-smarts with the same scoring system as you count book-smarts. But no, it's not very likely that an ESFP will be the next physics or physiology/medicine Nobel prize winner...

So as has already been said: Having an S or an N (in any direction) as your primary data-gathering function doesn't say diddly squat about how intelligent you are or how useful your brain is in a certain situation, and most tests are pretty bad at measuring more than one application of your intelligence. 
Just for example, I (ISTP) soak up theoretical data as a sponge and make the necessary logical connections pretty fast, as long as I see the practical application for things. I got certified with a 93% score as an administrator for a system that we're about to start using, after reading through >500 pages of textbook material once in two evenings. The INTJ I went with didn't have any worse circumstances for taking the test, but flunked with a 62% score. How's that for big-picture thinking?
On the other hand, he has the ability to retain information that's plain boring and useless. Oh, and unlike him, I don't suck at skiing and surfing. :crazy:

So what I'm basically trying to say to the world in general, is this: Shut the hell up about "N"s and "S"s until you can present relevant big-picture data. :wink:


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm just going to reiterate what many other people here have said that it's not about N or S being more or less intelligent; it's about what process you choose to use to get to your conclusions. Like xReBoRN7 I tested really high at school (though unlike him I actually chose to work hard - at least in primary school. In high school I did cruise a bit because I was able to get decent grades without any effort). Our school system used to measure us against all the other students in the country and gave a score based on how many other students of your age you beat. I scored 95+ on all but maths (which I got 85 for) which means I was better than 95% of the other children in the country of my age (and 85% of them for maths). Ironically, until I came to this forum and came up against this attitude of 'sensors are only good at street smarts' or 'sensors are stupid' I never questioned my intelligence. In a way it's been good because I've had to really analyse myself and realise that, yes, I'm still intelligent; it's the people who think Ss can't be smart who have got things a bit screwed up. If we care about IQ I have a higher tested one than my ENFP husband. If we don't care about that, I can run rings around him intellectually because while he's definitely an N he doesn't really care about academics and theorising. He's not dumb but he values other things, whereas I value education and academia. Neither S nor N is more or less intelligent in and of itself; they are just different ways of approaching a topic.

And I agree with all those who say I don't believe someone can have never met a dumb N or a smart S. That seems incredibly statistically unlikely.



> What bothers me about their thought process is how one track it is. It's not necessarily accounting for outside factors and how they could affect other things in the grand scheme of everything.


I do have to disagree with this comment. My thought process isn't one-track at all. It pulls in a whole bunch of things from my past experiences and sees the possibilities in the connections between them. I often say to myself 'xyz is the usual thing to do with this bunch of ideas, but I want something new' and then I will consciously try and find something different to do with the connections I have a hold of. I have a really good solid grasp of the practicalities of whatever I'm thinking about, but I'm not at all restricted by them. I don't think I'm explaining this very well, but the idea that we don't account for outside things is rubbish. Every time I come up with an idea there is always a sense of 'but if a happens then that would change b and I'd have to incorporate c ...' it's just that the ideas that push those thoughts come from a logically connected pathway. That's not to say it's a one-track straight-down-the-road a to b to c to d path. My pathways have many detours to collect other information, it's just that they are all connected. I don't like 'holes' in my thought process, but that doesn't make it 'one-track' if that makes sense.


----------



## RemiX (Dec 6, 2010)

Everything that everyone said in here is BS. Why? BECAUSE MBTI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE. We are humans. All the same. There is no ISTP human, no ENTJ human, none of that bull. Do you have a brain? Then you do have intelligence, you are smart, only thing that might bother you is that not everybody perceives information the same way. I have no clue but am laughing at all of you for taking stereotypes way too seriously and juxtaposing MBTI with intelligence. Maybe you are dumb, and I am smart.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

RemiX said:


> Everything that everyone said in here is BS. Why? BECAUSE MBTI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE. We are humans. All the same. There is no ISTP human, no ENTJ human, none of that bull. Do you have a brain? Then you do have intelligence, you are smart, only thing that might bother you is that not everybody perceives information the same way. I have no clue but am *laughing at all of you* for taking stereotypes way too seriously and juxtaposing MBTI with intelligence. Maybe you are dumb, and I am smart.


You obviously didn't read anything that was posted here aside from maybe the OP. Most of what's been said in this thread is that MBTI has no correlation to intelligence...at least 3 posts just above you each state that.

*Maybe before commenting on an entire thread and all of its posters, you should take the time to read all of its posts.*


----------



## RemiX (Dec 6, 2010)

xReBoRN7 said:


> You obviously didn't read anything that was posted here aside from maybe the OP. Most of what's been said in this thread is that MBTI has no correlation to intelligence...at least 3 posts just above you each state that.
> 
> *Maybe before commenting on an entire thread and all of its posters, you should take the time to read all of its posts.*


You guys are discussing stereotypes. I think that is sillier than riding your motorcycle down a hill with a massive landslide.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

RemiX said:


> You guys are discussing stereotypes. *I think that is sillier than riding your motorcycle down a hill with a massive landslide.*


Again, maybe you should read all that is posted before posting yourself. IonOfAeons had a misunderstanding of MBTI, and the misunderstanding was due to stereotypes. If anything what was posted here was posted to combat stereotypes for the sake of clarity.

*P.S.- That actually sounds kind of fun.*


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

xReBoRN7 said:


> Again, maybe you should read all that is posted before posting yourself. IonOfAeons had a misunderstanding of MBTI, and the misunderstanding was due to stereotypes. If anything what was posted here was posted to combat stereotypes for the sake of clarity.
> 
> *P.S.- That actually sounds kind of fun.*


That does sound kind of fun.


----------



## Ray Mabry (Jun 6, 2010)

I don't think type has much to do with intelligence perse. Memory, self-awareness and many other traits lead to intelligence. So type doesn't really seem to be related because any type can use their functions in a meaningful and intelligent way provided they possess the tools to do so. But I will also point out that by Jung's original theory ESFP, ESTP, ISTJ and ISFJ are technically sensing types. Any type with a auxiliary sensing or intuitive function can use the function's opposite with far more ease and will than these types so in conversations about N vs S it would be more appropriate to talk about ESFP, ESTP, ISTJ and ISFJ against ENFP, ENTP, INTJ and INFJ.


----------



## Filigeedreamer (Sep 4, 2010)

I think what it really comes down to is, what is intellegence...how do we define it?

My personal belife is that there are multiple forms of intellegence, and they are all useful in different situations. 

Everyone knows the steriotype of the proffesor or grade A student with apauling common sense or organisational skills.

Intuitives only seem special because there are less of them, so what they do is considered more out of the ordinary. The more people who are good at something the less special being good at that thing seems. I think this is the problem some intelligent S types encountor, where as sometimes a less remarkable intuitive might be seen as brighter purply because they _are_ inuitive. 

My ex was very very intelligent. This was part of his apeal to me. While we were together we both took IQ tests, because of learning difficulties we both have. His IQ was higher than mine over all, and in many of the individual test areas. He scored high enough to be considered gifted. He is an ESTP. 

He just does not come across as inteligent as me, and lacks the skills to make effective use of what he knows. My Ne lets me draw upon a much smaller pool of resources with greater affectivness. My emotional intelligence (Fi) is also significantly higher, he has next to no self awairness. He lacks the ability to foward plan, or think ahead, where as that's totally my thing. 

He ended up dropping out of university, but not because he was not bright. His intelligence was just not suited to that sort of enviroment, and is better deployed elsewhere. He'd be an excellent police officer, I think. I could never be good at that. 

Another example would be the incredibly intelligent grammar school girl I know, who decided to try to pet a dog who was growling and snapping at her. Oddly she got bitten. Idiot...yet she will do far better than me educationally, dispite me having far better common sense and the ability to deal with animals in an emaphic/logical way. 

I think an intelligent sensor and an intelligent intuitive are intelligent in different, but equally valid, ways. People are all intelligent and stupid at different things, but society values certain forms of intelligence more than others, which I feel leads to a great deal of waisted potentual. I'm a more extream case, manifesting in areas of disabilty and giftedness...(dyslexic, cannot spell for toffee, and ten year olds have better basic maths skills...yet abvanced algibra and interpreting the meanings of complex lituratary works are no problem...when I can read them.) but I think everyone is like that to a degree.

I belive there are very few truly uninteligent people in the world. Even the most aparently intellectually deprived individuals can have remarkable skills in certain areas. Just look at autistic savents, and it's more common for those with over all very low IQs or educational/social abnormalities to be Hyperlexic (the oposite to dyslexic, increadible and early readers.)


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Ray Mabry said:


> so in conversations about N vs S it would be more appropriate to talk about ESFP, ESTP, ISTJ and ISFJ against ENFP, ENTP, INTJ and INFJ.


Thank you. This would be relevant big-picture data.


----------



## Flamethrower (Aug 3, 2009)

I know many highly intelligent sensors. My best friend is ESTJ. We did an IQ test together one day and both got high scores within 2 points of each other. The only difference in how we answered the IQ test was that she found the questions that require recalling details from memory really easy and the ones where you have to extrapolate the answer from an example of previously unknown data much harder. I was exactly the other way around. But the overall scores we got were almost identical. 

I know many sensors who score very well on IQ tests like this and I've come to the conclusion that intelligence has less to do with whether you are a sensor or an intuitive and more to do with how quickly you can piece information together to come to an intelligent conclusion. Ns and Ss just take a slightly different preferred route.

It seems to me that whenever I meet people who appear "stupid" it is really that they are not very motivated to think about anything with much interest. They simply have a narrow way of thinking and don't put much effort into it. It rarely seems to have anything definitive to do with their MBTI type.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

I'm really happy with the way this thread is turning out :happy: The stereotypes have always bugged me because it seemed odd to imagine that intuitives would arbitrarily be smarter. I was in a more desperate mood when I made the thread, feeling somewhat 'Pleeeease somebody help me out here??' at the time :bored:

I think I should keep in my mind that my typing skills are probably mediocre or worse, I find it hard to discern between intuition and sensing because I feel like a lot of people use both (I certainly feel like I do) and sometimes it's tough to tell which is their preference. So I definitely note the point that it's unlikely I haven't met a dumb intuitive or ultra-smart sensor in my life, you are most probably right that I just haven't been able to tell.

I'm glad to hear from some intelligent sensors on their perspective, I also don't understand why we shouldn't be able to understand the abstract, I certainly know I'm capable of it and you have presented many of your own well-thought out theories and insights which should prove the point that we're perfectly capable of understanding the abstract.

I can't remember who it was who posted the point about sensors thinking only linearly but I'm sure I've seen talk around the forum about Ni-types who think in a linear fashion. On top of that, and the fact that sensors in this very thread have disputed this, I don't think linearly, understanding for me can happen in different orders. One of the troubles I have frequently is losing my place when I'm posting here, I can't remember what I was getting at until I drag myself back from some other thought or I start out with something and it changes by the time I get to the end of the post.

Thank you to all for your posts, they've been very helpful! roud:


----------



## Napoleptic (Oct 29, 2010)

Of the few sensors I know, maybe half of them have as deep a love of intellectual discussion as I do, and they are far more well-rounded in the variety of things they're willing to talk about - which would make the intuitive (me), *not* the sensor, the more limited party. In that respect, the sensors I know seem to be much more well-rounded than the intuitives I know.

A lot of it seems to stem from the fact that intuitives seem to be fixated more on topics classically considered to be intellectual whereas sensors don't seem to have it as much in terms of it being a driving need, and that not having a strong interest in a subject is not the same as being incapable of discussing it (I really wish I could explain what I'm thinking better, but at this point it's really not even a fully formed concept, so forgive me if it doesn't make any sense). I knew that doesn't even begin to explain the stereotype/bias and it's somewhat silly, but I hadn't come up with anything further, so thank you @IonOfAeons for working up the nerve to address a potentially sensitive subject! It has really been bugging me lately.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Ignorance is unintelligent. 

I never have believed that IQ tests are a great source to see if someone is intelligent. It's one way, yes, and yes show it off. :tongue: I just don't think IQ tests get you through life. Unless your life includes to take a constant IQ test and you need to do it, to survive. So when people have said that I am a smart Sensor because I have an IQ of... a billion doesn't mean you are intelligent, per say. It just means you are good at that sort of problem solving. Again, not a bad thing.

To me, I usually think someone who is intelligent is someone with a vast amount of life experience who can at any moment know what to do. That's who I wish to be.


----------



## MrSmashem (Aug 25, 2010)

firedell said:


> Ignorance is unintelligent.
> 
> I never have believed that IQ tests are a great source to see if someone is intelligent. It's one way, yes, and yes show it off. :tongue: I just don't think IQ tests get you through life. Unless your life includes to take a constant IQ test and you need to do it, to survive. So when people have said that I am a smart Sensor because I have an IQ of... a billion doesn't mean you are intelligent, per say. It just means you are good at that sort of problem solving. Again, not a bad thing.
> 
> To me, I usually think someone who is intelligent is someone with a vast amount of life experience who can at any moment know what to do. That's who I wish to be.


I disagree. You don't need a vast amount of life experience to know what to do at any given moment. There are many ways to gain that knowledge. One person can learn many lessons from one experience(causing them to learn much more at a younger age), where as another person who's been through it all only learned one or two valuable lessons from their experiences. You can also learn from other's mistakes and even reason your way through something so you don't end up having to experience it(although some things you just have to experience). You're basically claiming that I'm unintelligent because I'm young and haven't had much life experience, yet(again, not bragging) I've made much wiser choices than adults who have been through the worst of the worst.

Intelligence is a measure of mental competency(acquiring and applying information gathered) and experience has nothing to do with that. Think of how many people know others that have died due to drunk driving, yet they still do it themselves...I haven't ever known someone who has died in a drunk driving accident and I've never been in one myself, but I know it's a stupid idea. On top of that, "knowing what to do" is very subjective...what is right to you might be wrong to me...so there's no way of knowing in most gray, on the line situations what is really the, "right" thing to do.

I agree that IQ tests aren't an end-all type of thing, but there is definitely accuracy to them. I don't think it's any coincidence that most of the more successful and intelligent people I know, score higher on IQ tests than most(skilled at life, not necessarily books). You have to realize, IQ tests test many different areas of the human mind and most of those areas are used in day to day life. Even the areas that aren't, measure basic problem solving abilities that you would use in most any problem solving situation thrown at you in real life. Again, not an end-all type of thing, but it definitely doesn't mean nothing in relation to life.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to show off...I have only told a few people irl about my IQ(family and a few close friends when the topic arose). I only posted my score to aid the topic. I'm not a book smart guy, I can be, but I have to adjust to it. I'm more of a street smart guy. And I took the IQ test with little book knowledge...so that goes to show IQ tests aren't all about book smarts, they are used to measure your mental capabilities(which are not set in stone, they can be improved over time). I even read a story about an ESTP, who was thought to be mentally handicapped by one of his college professors. So he took an IQ test and scored in the 130's(highly gifted, borderline genius). He rarely kept up with school.

Not to bash your opinions or anything, but I just think saying you're only intelligent if you've had life experience is a little silly...you're basically calling anyone young, sheltered, etc. stupid and everyone old, active, etc. intelligent.


----------



## Balancebread (Jan 29, 2011)

IonOfAeons said:


> I realise this thread-title isn't especially politically correct but this is a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time, how do sensors and intutives defy their natural stereotypes?
> I don't know any ultra-smart sensors and I don't know any dumb intuitives, however I do know types of both stereotypes, and I *really* don't want to have to accept that it's impossible for a sensor to be ultra-smart and an intuitive to be an idiot, however I'm at a loss personally because I have to admit, the portrayal of intuition as an innovative force makes it hard to conceive of how a person could have it and also be a moron. I can comprehend a smart sensor more easily, however they are supposedly less gifted at foresight and unifying abstract concepts, which seem to be the hallmark of the truly gifted intellectuals, does this mean they can't ever be more than just 'reasonably intelligent'? If a genius sensor can exist, how would this be?
> I am reluctant to post this due to its inherently typist nature, but the burning curiosity to answer these questions is proving too much for me. Does anyone have an answer?


dude you being an ISTP, you have Introverted Thinking as a primary attribute, the only difference between you and an INTP is that your type think about thingies you can apply and build while an INTP thinks about thingies that are not necessarily practical at all. Besides the whole intelligence thing is totally subjective. Here i will use the example that a person will score poorly on an IQ test that is written in a language they do not know. 

as far as i know, the difference between intuition and sensing is that Intuition is the collection (Ni)/expression (Ne) of ideas while sensing is the collection of past experiences(Si) / concrete data of the moment(Se). An intuitive senses Ideas while a Sensing senses thingies. my that's a lot of sensing in a sensetence there. 

the reason for the stereotype to exist is because an intuitive simply deal with ideas more often. we got jock nerds over here where i live that are NTs, and theey specialize in butt kicking :laughing:


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

Napoleptic said:


> Of the few sensors I know, maybe half of them have as deep a love of intellectual discussion as I do, and they are far more well-rounded in the variety of things they're willing to talk about - which would make the intuitive (me), *not* the sensor, the more limited party. In that respect, the sensors I know seem to be much more well-rounded than the intuitives I know.
> 
> A lot of it seems to stem from the fact that intuitives seem to be fixated more on topics classically considered to be intellectual whereas sensors don't seem to have it as much in terms of it being a driving need, and that not having a strong interest in a subject is not the same as being incapable of discussing it (I really wish I could explain what I'm thinking better, but at this point it's really not even a fully formed concept, so forgive me if it doesn't make any sense). I knew that doesn't even begin to explain the stereotype/bias and it's somewhat silly, but I hadn't come up with anything further, so thank you @IonOfAeons for working up the nerve to address a potentially sensitive subject! It has really been bugging me lately.


It does make sense! I think:crazy: Perhaps it's more of a resilience nature? That intuitives are happy to go deeper and deeper and deeper. I enjoy atypical discussions, some of which might be thought of as 'intellectual' because I don't see a great deal of need to talk about real-life things that have already happened, unless it has emotional significance to the person talking about it. Listing stuff you've done is something I've never been able to engage in.

My problem with discussions is that I need to process things a little before discussing further. Sometimes people move too quickly with the conversation and I don't know what to add because I haven't had time to form another idea or response. It's one of the reasons I prefer online interact and somewhat limit my day-to-day interaction with people.

Sorry, I'm meandering from your point a little... >_> Not sure if it is specific to the S/N divide though, I relate to your feelings on the matter more than what you suggest of your sensor friends. There are certain areas I like to discuss more, whereas others I don't really know where I stand so I kind of muddle along with it and feel, as you were alluding to, 'less-rounded' than my preferred areas.


----------



## vellocent (Dec 18, 2010)

Sensors can be very bright. Great artists are the ones who have both a well developed sensing ability and keen intuitive function to back it up. A younger me has seemed very dumb to people, because I follow my feelings so intently.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

I know plenty of smart sensors. If you are around a bunch of engineers you are certainly around a bunch of bright ISTPs and ISTJs. There are plenty of xSFJ doctors


----------



## kibou (Apr 22, 2010)

Many people identified as sensors are actually intuitives; for example, many ENFJs with tertiary Se emphasized will look very much like a sensor, or a sensor that identifies with N. In general, on the behavioral level I feel NJs often get mistaken for SPs as well as SJs.


----------



## PaintMyNocturneBlue (Nov 3, 2009)

Isn't Bones a sensor?


----------



## BeanDelphiki (Oct 20, 2010)

The ISTP and ISFJ I know aren't book smart, but are _really _good at things that actually matter.

The ISTJ I know has a much better memory than I do and makes fewer mistakes in abstract thought. It's just statistical trade-offs.


----------



## yellowrose (Feb 8, 2011)

I know sensors who are extremely intelligent: one can speak several languages; one studies physics and chemistry; one has amazing business skills. Sensors are capable of coming up with new theories and ideas, just as I'm sure many intuitive people are capable of acting on their ideas. The stereotypes may be true for some, but what about someone who is 55% sensing, 45%intuitive? A person like that surely would not be so limited in their abilities, would they? Also, I don't think it makes sense to talk about this in terms of intelligence. A sensor can be just as "smart" as an intuitive, and vice versa.


----------



## Akbar2k7 (Oct 23, 2011)

Intelligence is dynamic


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> Eh, sensors can be knowledgeable, but rarely are wise. They are about 1000 times more likely to follow norms, as far as intuitives are game changers. That being said, there are many brilliant sensors, but they aren't very innovative and lack imagination. I think this is why intuitives are known or are considered smarter. They think on a different level than sensors who just live in the immediate.
> 
> Either way, it's an interesting concept that two brains can think so differently. Because I used to always think people had the same thought patterns as myself, but realize I live on a completely different plain than my sensor buddies.  I couldn't imagine focusing on the now, with out putting the future into consideration. I'm always futuristic and am always connecting the dots. This means this. So this means this. If I do this, this means this. I think sensors just go about their day living and not imagining what the future might hold. Maybe this is why great discoveries are found by intuitives, while sensors just take the creators ideas and output the information.


 You really haven't read the posts in this thread, have you?


----------



## yumchesspie (Jun 30, 2014)

I agree that type doesn't truly determine how smart you are. However, I would disagree that the ability to solve math problems in your head is connected to being a sensor. This could be true if you've practiced, but if you can just automatically do that even if the nature of the problem is new to you, then I would guess intuition is responsible. Solving a problem in your head instead of by making it tangible is leaving it abstract. I think the reason INTJs supposedly score higher on IQ tests is because real IQ tests involve finding THE single intended meaning or pattern in one sequence or picture, etc, and with a time limit. They basically expect you to apply laser focus and pull out one and only one solution (if it's multiple choice). It's also typically not something you've necessarily experienced in real life before. Well, to my best knowledge, that's pretty much Ni. But if intelligence is supposed to measure the ability to learn and understand than how quickly you solve the problem, how tangible you prefer it to be, and whether or not you only see one possible answer should not necessarily determine how intelligent you are. A focused sensor could and does score quite highly, especially with the mindset that there's one answer more realistic and logical than the others.


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

There are lots and lots of dumb intuitives. The types who believe in paranormal bullshit and woo. The types who will jump hastily to conclusions based on hunches despite a total lack of evidence. The types who cling to their ideas in spite of the facts. The types who will ramble incoherently about abstract things that have no substance backing them up. The delusional types who mentally masturbate so much that they just ignore reality completely and convince themselves that what's in their heads is all that matters. The types who overcomplicate things unnecessarily when a much simpler solution would be more efficient. The types who believe and try to do impossible, completely impractical things. The pretentious types who believe their intelligence or ability is far superior to what it actually is, because they imagine themselves to be the way they wish they were and ignore the reality.

Yeah, the idea that intuitives are somehow inherently smarter than sensors is just total bullshit. Even Jung - who was pretty far out there and intuitive himself - didn't believe that at all. Yes, sensors may be more prone to exclusively literal, concrete thinking and may be more prone to only concerning themselves with what is immediate, being unable to see past the end of their noses, analyze complex issues, or effectively plan for the future. This is also a major type of stupidity, one that is perhaps more prevalent among the general populace (seeing as the majority of people have a sensing preference), and that is a major reason why I think sensors get stereotyped as being more stupid. Those dumb intuitives are a much smaller segment of the population, and tend to be written off as wackos, eccentrics, etc. But in reality I think a healthy balance of both sensing and intuition is the most intelligent, and that being too extreme on either side will result in equal amounts of stupidity, just different kinds of stupidity. I also think the ratio of dumb to smart people in both types is about even. It's just that the sensing type is a lot larger and the dumb people within it stand out a lot more.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

IonOfAeons said:


> I don't know any ultra-smart sensors and I don't know any dumb intuitives?


That right there is an exhibit of a dumb intuitive. Why because its a showcase of limited intelligence in perspective and depth, by simply measuring ones own sort of intelligence and understanding as intelligence. 

Scruffy's comment .....


> Dumb Intuition happens when you connect all of the wrong dots, it can also be a rather scatter-brained method. A dumb Intuitive will often talk nothing but nonsense, like, literal nonsense. Without a secret hidden meaning or truth.


So true.


----------



## yellowtoccata (Jun 17, 2015)

I am always rather astounded at how many people immediately think of sensors as stupid! I always wished I could be MORE of a sensor!!


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

this again???? :shocked::shocked:


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Well I'm pretty sure my uncle is ISTJ and he has a PhD in Chemistry. He said he just worked his ass off and complains a lot about how lazy I am, and get confused when I jump all over the plans with random dots. He is incredibly intelligent- and pretty much raped me in Trivia Crack. He simply prefers not to deal with abstract thinking unless it has a practical purpose. By his logic, I'm wasting my time by trying to find loopholes when I should just being doing the best I can right now. One of my smartest friends is ISTP- he invented a flamethrowing machete with no formal schooling on it, and when he _was_ in school he would ace Calculus and whatnot.

I also know a few INTP's who are dumb as fuck. They believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories and talk about the "truth" while using inaccurate vocabulary and convoluted logic. They'll ramble about how "college is BS" because they keep flunking out and now they can't get in. One of them is 23, still living with his parents and working at a grocery store, has no driver's license, and is still convinced that he has "discovered a brand of mathematics".


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> One of them is 23, still living with his parents and working at a grocery store, has no driver's license, and is still convinced that he has "discovered a brand of mathematics".


LMFAO. See this is what I meant by "The delusional types who mentally masturbate so much that they just ignore reality completely and convince themselves that what's in their heads is all that matters" and "The pretentious types who believe their intelligence or ability is far superior to what it actually is, because they imagine themselves to be the way they wish they were and ignore the reality." Also known as crazy, schizo people.


----------



## peter pettishrooms (Apr 20, 2015)

Well my father sure as hell isn't a dumb sensor. The man is a hard-working ISTJ with two engineering Master's degrees. Then there's my INFP brother who flunked his first semester of college as a music major.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

Let me tell you, one of the reasons I've been considered stupid throughout my life is that people don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying something that tries to relay this big concept, understanding, that I have, but the words don't work and even my instructor misinterprets my words and thinks I'm saying something I'm not. And dismisses me for it. 

And that's in the _classroom_, where I have the best chance at shining. Just think how stupid I seem when my inability to interact physically with the world comes out, when I fail to even sit down in an un-awkward way. Imagine me during Girl Scout activities, or sports as a kid when I was just a Tiny And Especially Unbalanced Intuitive. 

I am convinced that well, first, everyone is equally brilliant (which is one of my illogical 'NF convictions,' I've been told). But secondly, I think Intuitives tend to look the fool _a lot_. Many of those identified as Smart in my experience are those who are Sensors. My teachers would tell me that they found my "unique perception" inspiring, yet I wasn't the one who always scored high on assignments that wanted us to do it a certain way that I had such trouble mastering.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

Pressed Flowers said:


> But secondly, I think Intuitives tend to look the fool _a lot_. Many of those identified as Smart in my experience are those who are Sensors. My teachers would tell me that they found my "unique perception" inspiring, yet I wasn't the one who always scored high on assignments that wanted us to do it a certain way that I had such trouble mastering.


Ni is a lot harder to put in words compared to Ne unfortunately. 

I also agree that Sensors appear smarter on a day to day basis, especially Si-doms and their accumulated knowledge. iNtuitives tend to be either seen as ridiculously smart or just insane/eccentric. I remember my ISTJ pal complaining about how his brother (an IN of sorts) got a higher GPA then him while also doing drugs frequently lol. But if he hadn't gotten a higher grade, my ISTJ friend would've seen him as a moron for doing drugs.


----------



## cloudpuffballz (Sep 18, 2014)

One time after my ISTP mom and I were done shopping we went back to the car to go home. The thing was, our car key's automatic unlock button wasn't working so I started panicking. I quickly formulated a way to get the key fixed asap by going back to the mall to buy some batteries, but my mom took the key from me and unlocked the door MANUALLY. So yeah I didn't see that coming... 

Sensors are better at finding practical solutions


----------



## ENTPness (Apr 18, 2015)

cloudpuffballz said:


> One time after my ISTP mom and I were done shopping we went back to the car to go home. The thing was, our car key's automatic unlock button wasn't working so I started panicking. I quickly formulated a way to get the key fixed asap by going back to the mall to buy some batteries, but my mom took the key from me and unlocked the door MANUALLY. So yeah I didn't see that coming...
> 
> Sensors are better at finding practical solutions


LOL that's a derp moment for sure. More about us forgetting how to survive without modern technology than anything though. Your story is why the world would collapse if the internet, let alone all electric power, suddenly stopped working.


----------



## Monty (Jul 12, 2011)

it depends on what your definition of intelligence is. some sensors may think intuitives are not as intelligent because we dont seem as grounded.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

*Smart Sensor:*

The brilliant poker player who doesn't even need a real job because he gambles so well. (Stu Ungar maybe?)

Your borderline-sociopath friend who's burned down abandoned buildings and caused chaos throughout the town but always escapes the police.

The hardworking manager of a successful firm.

An enlisted soldier who worked his way up to Colonel.

*Dumb Intuitives*:

The weird conspiracy theorist who lives in his Mom's basement.

The guy who rambles inane BS about politics and pseudo-science on Facebook all day.

That lazy gap-year student who never came back.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> *Smart Sensor:*
> 
> The brilliant poker player who doesn't even need a real job because he gambles so well. (Stu Ungar maybe?)
> 
> ...


...let's not forget the brilliant and successful engineer who uses his experience and in-depth knowledge of components and systems (from the oldest to the latest) to develop unique and appropriate solutions to match his clients' needs and expectations.
:wink:


----------



## Popinjay (Sep 19, 2011)

There's a difference between the confidence of knowing something and the reality of knowing something.
Anyone is capable of original, intelligent thought. Anyone can suffer from torsonic polarity syndrome.
Sometimes those two coexist.


----------



## myrsky (Apr 29, 2014)

I think it's incredibly ironic that the people implying that iNtuitives are more intelligent than Sensors are mostly iNtuitives. This sort of thinking itself shows certain limitations... that being said, anybody with a minimum of life experience knows one's level of intelligence isn't determined by type. Perhaps the bias of thinking Sensor are dumber than iNtuitives causes some to mistype smart sensor for iNtuitives and vice-versa.


----------



## WhatIsYourConfirmationBias (May 10, 2018)

The Necromancer has returned...I'm reanimating this thread because I find it's revelant once again on PerC..Herp the statement you made on the first or second page of this thread was pure Gold. Not sure if you're still a member of this community, but your statement was pure Gold, but I cannot quote it because I haven't upgraded to Tapatalk yet and as a consequence can't use this site properly...

That said, a lot of revelant points were brought up here ...There are a lot of idiotic Intuitives, and brilliant Sensors, and I think it's time we put these stereotypes to bed already.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

cloudpuffballz said:


> One time after my ISTP mom and I were done shopping we went back to the car to go home. The thing was, our car key's automatic unlock button wasn't working so I started panicking. I quickly formulated a way to get the key fixed asap by going back to the mall to buy some batteries, but my mom took the key from me and unlocked the door MANUALLY. So yeah I didn't see that coming...
> 
> Sensors are better at finding practical solutions


Also an age thing, Cloudpuffbalz. I've owned 7 cars in 28 years. Of those cars only two had keyless entry. The rest were manual key entry. Hell, my first car had a separate key for the doors and trunk, and another key just for the ignition. 

I don't know how to compare this. Sensors are smart in different ways than intuitives. The system subconsciously favors intuitives in some aspects of academics and the creative arts, but in the rest of the world, it's the practical knowledge that really counts.


----------



## Jeffrei (Aug 23, 2016)

There’s the online descriptions and stereotypes and there's the way the types play out in real life. 

There's also practical smarts, and conceptual smarts.


----------

