# Some Personality Types Are Smarter Than Others



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Pay attention when people call someone "smart", or "intelligent". Pay attention to what particular qualities in that individual caused them to acquire that label. I would argue that there is a societally enforced understanding of what intelligence means, and that is the capacity for logic and abstract thought. This bias is further seen in the IQ test; it tests for one's capacity for abstract reasoning. When someone has an exceptionally high EQ we don't call them intelligent, we say they're good with people. When someone has an exceptionally high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence we don't call them intelligent, we call them athletic. When someone has an exceptionally high visual or musical intelligence, we tend to call them artistic or creative.

I propose we stop being politically correct sheep and acknowledge that some types are, on average, more intelligent that others. On average being the key words here, because yes you will have outliers such as genius ESFJs and retarded INTJs. A more accurate maxim would be no type is better than any other type, because each has their own unique aptitudes.


----------



## Messenger Six (Apr 12, 2016)

INTJs are seen as the smartest type I think because they are often able to apply their knowledge well in the real world. They all have strengths and weaknesses, but no personality type does everything better or worse than any other. For example, Te users may not have the off the wall inventive streak that Ti users do, but they make up for it by becoming complete masters in a field. You want a world with both.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I challenge this is *false* - the 'INTJ / INTP' are merely considered smart - because of other type(s) lack of interest. The INTJ appear(s) smarter because we are specialists, thus, acquire a Ni-Te karate-judo. 

A misunderstanding - I am not smart by birth; I am smart (via) developmental judo of INTJ-personality; that is, acquiring + absorbing + milking thing(s) // exhausting concepts // thinking // imagining to a weird degree. 

My personality was _nurtured_; not enabled (via) global complex _innately_ *INTJ*. Thus, ''naturally smarter'' - appear(s) false.

Any type, any degree - can accomplish that of another + fluctuate types + function(s) to any degree; I also posit this is* controllable* with practice; to disagree is laziness.

______________________________

An old explanation of ''understanding'' (via) INTJ - why we seem smarter than other(s) - I intend, type has no barring.





The description(s) of INTJ (Ni) make it sound like we are ''constantly'' theorizing + coming up w/ fairytales into the unknown - rather than ''scanning'' already theorized theories + utilizing them as ''endless'' possibilities - I ''come up with new ideas'', but not in the sense I create them. This requires the (Ni) 'daydream'. Unlike the INTP doing the same (via) differential method(s) of theorization. This is exactly why I would ''write'' + read often when younger; just as much as I derive pleasure in tech, as my (Ni) kept generating all this nonsense // random ideas + nowhere to put them.


From this, I arrive at my decisive + sure nature + innate confidence confused as ''arrogance'' - which is more of an open position (i.e., open for someone to show me flaws + the wrong + the challenge) rather than fixedly closed + arrogant, a wry misconception of other type(s) as well.


This ''throws'' off many (i.e., instills un/warranted doubt).

I contend that we are specialist(s) - that is, we master what we do + whatever we have interest in; whether that be science / advanced physic(s) or just pruning+ organizing + mastering how to grow FLOWERS all day long.


This is why when we ''enjoy'' something - our function(s) go to stress + obsession (via) a steady (Te) & have negative tendency to OVERKILL it (via) the (Se) - utilization of ''perfectionism'' to attain what we enjoy to excel at - the subject matter is irrelevant to discourse, interests are irrelevant to discourse.

It is not about ''math / science'' et al - it is about our hunger for growth + knowledge; this is why usually ''one thing'' is not enough + we derive multiple interest(s); to quench that thirst. Some stop of (2) things, other (10) things, some are satisfied with just (1) speciality. This can be anywhere, of anything, of any time. I never rejected a learning opportunity because it is purely ''non-science'' oriented. Never.

_________


It order to be a ''specialist'' (re: perfectionist / gain + attain knowledge / mastermind) of all thing(s) + what we do - it would require ''suspending'' my DOM-function(s) temporarily; (The ISTJ or another type would probably be less willing to do that.) -> to adhere to that of a (Se / Si / Fi ) - or that of another, I also posit this is why ''INTJ'' are so mistyped. Also, (Fe) less likely for me, as I despise that function + do not much give a shit about what it entails. It is a sacrifice which confuses or puts on the impression of ''another type''; which is false. 


My (home) function(s) never change - but I am willing to + can fluctuated (via) INTJ'ism to utilize other cognitive function(s) utilizing my (Te) to achieve maximum efficiency + best utility; it is not the same a ''strong'' (Te); per example --> but rather the GREASE turning the gear - rather then turning all the gear(s) 1st hand. That is why you see ''lazy INTJ'' or the ''emotional INTJ'' - it can be utilized anywhere, any way.

This would merely be my ''INTJ'' function(s) working - rather than a switch of dynamically static change of function. As a result, this does not change the fixed function(s) of my ''home'' (i.e., dormant + most utilized). I am merely using my function(s) to master / consider / stretch all possible angel(s) to master the game. I posit this is merely just an eptiome of the INTJ itself rather than a mistype (-- > strategist / innovative / mastermind / scientist).

Last edited by Catwalk; 04-09-2016 at 06:19 PM.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

(Text: What if I told you that the capacity for logic and abstract thought is not an NT thing)


----------



## star tripper (Sep 1, 2013)

So let society's interpretation of adjectives dictate. Edgy.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

There are 3 things that dictate intelligence. Talent, preference, and skill.
There's also this circle of talent, preference, skill, your children inherit your skill and it becomes their talent, preference, skill, an so forth. MBTI is also partially genetic.

Let's say there's an intelligent INTJ. He develops his functions, which become skills (Ni-Te), and let's assume the INTJ's child ends up being an ESTP. He will have talent in the functions (Ni-Te), but he wouldn't prefer them, so he's develop his Se-Ti instead, so he'd have good Ni and Te because he inherited it, and good Se-Ti because he developed it.

However, if the INTJ should have an INTJ child, this INTJ would develop his functions he's already talented in, and develop skill in these same functions, which make the functions even more powerful than from the previous generation.
Let's say there are 5 generations of INTJs. The 5th INTJ could probably have a Stephen Hawking-level intellect.

That's my theory, at least.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

this should be good
[sits back in chair, eats pop corn:do_not_feed_the_tro:winetime::Smilies3:


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

Messenger Six said:


> INTJs are seen as the smartest type I think because they are often able to apply their knowledge well in the real world. They all have strengths and weaknesses, but no personality type does everything better or worse than any other. For example, Te users may not have the off the wall inventive streak that Ti users do, but they make up for it by becoming complete masters in a field. You want a world with both.


I agree with you. You've essentially reworded the last sentence of my post.



Catwalk said:


> snip


For the record, I have a difficult time understanding anything you write, because you choose to write in such an abnormal manner. I would imagine an INTJ would desire to write in a way that achieves maximum comprehension, that would be most efficient. 

You say


> I challenge this is false - the 'INTJ / INTP' are merely considered smart - because of other type(s) lack of interest.


But then you say


> It is not about ''math / science'' et al - it is about our hunger for growth + knowledge


So you admit then that INTJs have an innate hunger for growth and knowledge. This innate hunger, this innate INTEREST you could say, then leads to them being more intelligent than most other types, on average. 



ElectricSparkle said:


> View attachment 508914
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What if I told you that I made no explicit claims on what types are smartest in my original post? The only implicit claim I made was that INTJs are smarter than ESFJs. My beliefs pretty much align with this graph.











star tripper said:


> So let society's interpretation of adjectives dictate. Edgy.


Yep, that is exactly what I am proposing. When we (we as in English speaking western society) refer to someone as intelligent, we are never, EVER referring to their emotional EQ. Yet all the time people on the forums use EQ as one example to disprove the notion that some types are smarter (on average) than others.



Vinniebob said:


> this should be good
> [sits back in chair, eats pop corn:do_not_feed_the_tro:winetime::Smilies3:


I appreciate your desire for a show, but I assure you I'm not trolling. I'm merely presenting an alternative viewpoint to the politically correct one that is currently most popular. I repeat, intelligence has an objectively used meaning, and trying to twist it to mean different things is nonsensical. Therefore some types are inherently more intelligent than other types. But I also reiterate, no type is inherently BETTER than any other type, because each have their own unique aptitudes.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

According to your OP, some types are PERCEIVED or SEEN as more intelligent than others. Doesn't mean they actually are, though.


----------



## AdroElectro (Oct 28, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> According to your OP, some types are PERCEIVED or SEEN as more intelligent than others. Doesn't mean they actually are, though.


This is true in my experience. To me it appears that ENFPs are generally PERCEIVED as more intelligent than INFPs for example, because they are more demonstrative. But INFPs are actually more intelligent overall. 

It appears that there has been some research showing a correlation between MBTI and intelligence however, such as in this infographic









I will do more research.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

AdroElectro said:


> What if I told you that I made no explicit claims on what types are smartest in my original post? The only implicit claim I made was that INTJs are smarter than ESFJs. My beliefs pretty much align with this graph.



Whenever one of these hypotheses comes around it's usually from either the "NT=intelligence" camp, or the "intuitives are smarter than sensors" camp. You seem to be part of the latter but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. And in any case, you still seem to be firmly in the "INT=intelligence" ideology. 

I actually agree with you that the whole modern day concepts of EQ and multiple intelligences are BS, but for a very different reason. Intelligence is raw capacity for thought and reasoning, nothing more, and so can be applied to _virtually anything_, including the things considered "multiple intelligences," including EQ, and including anything a Sensing type or Sensing aux. type may be interested.

So what of your handy statistics? Well for one thing lets get out of the way that IQ tests still suck, and the practice of selecting kids for gifted programs without bias is even more of an epic fail.

Now that that's out of the way, I've been seeing those same exact statistics being circulated and recirculated on these forums for _years_. And years. I'm talking like back to when they were myspace forums. Meaning that I suspect the whole "gifted kids are INTx" has been coming all these years from a single study, a study I still haven't been able to track down the methodology on. Which makes it pretty suspicious. 

While I award you for delving into one of the forum's popularly unpopular topics, the whole problem here is that _type has nothing to do with ability, and to interpret type through ability is to fundamentally misunderstand the theory_. This is the real reason why this discussion never goes anywhere.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Everyone is smart and dumb in some way. Unless you're Leonardo da Vinci.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

AdroElectro said:


> What if I told you that I made no explicit claims on what types are smartest in my original post? The only implicit claim I made was that INTJs are smarter than ESFJs.


What? So you were not being explicit? Damn! that changes everything, silly me. Here I was thinking you were being explicit when if fact you were being implicit, thus making your argument valid.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Now that that's out of the way, I've been seeing those same exact statistics being circulated and recirculated on these forums for _years_. And years. I'm talking like back to when they were myspace forums. Meaning that I suspect the whole "gifted kids are INTx" has been coming all these years from a single study, a study I still haven't been able to track down the methodology on. Which makes it pretty suspicious.


Here's a study of 5,700 gifted adolescents — actually a review of 14 previous studies, involving 19 independent samples — where the self-selection ratios for the types (i.e., the ratio of their percentage among the gifted population to their percentage of the general population) were as follows:

INTP 3.4
INTJ 2.87
INFP 2.68
INFJ 2.67
ENTP 2.32
ENFP 2.03
ENTJ 1.49
ENFJ 1.26
ISTJ 0.99
ISTP 0.78
ESTP 0.49
ISFJ 0.40
ISFP 0.40
ESFP 0.28
ESTJ 0.26
ESFJ 0.24

Assuming somebody isn't wearing politically correct blinders, it's hard to argue that there's no significant correlation between MBTI type and (_conventional measures of_) intelligence in the face of a 5,700-subject multi-sample pool where the INs, _on average_, had a self-selection ratio that was around _10 times higher_ than the ESFs.

And as further discussed in this post, the reported correlation of N (to a substantial degree) and introversion (to a lesser, but still significant degree) with (yes, again, _conventional measures of_) intelligence is consistent with the results of a large volume of previous studies.


----------



## Grandalf (Jun 7, 2014)

ElectricSparkle said:


> View attachment 508914


What if I also told you the capacity to have any discipline, commitment, or kinesthetic abilities is not a sensing thing?


----------



## Grandalf (Jun 7, 2014)

@AdroElectro I commend you tremendously for your statement and presenting evidence to support it.

If other types really have different abilities and different intelligences, please some me some studies. You would think that a community which presents 'studies' proving that leftists are smarter would easily prove that sensors are better at hell knows what this time (I've seen having discipline, loyalty, focus, acting, expressing their emotions, playing sports, common sense; well you get the idea).

*WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?*


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

AdroElectro said:


> This is true in my experience. To me it appears that ENFPs are generally PERCEIVED as more intelligent than INFPs for example, because they are more demonstrative. But INFPs are actually more intelligent overall.
> 
> It appears that there has been some research showing a correlation between MBTI and intelligence however, such as in this infographic
> 
> ...


I think you have a grander and distorted self perception of how your type is really viewed like really really among society. 

Even your assumption that by perception an enfp is perceived as smarter then infp. If we all have to not be politically correct and accept the reality of perception by majority you should accept that NF in a general bubble of perception are not seen as the brightest in the bunch. Because when they get stacked next to sensors perceiving them they often look very out of touch with reality same can be said when they are compared to NTs 

If I need to accept that the general perception of my type is a dumb jock as so not to be pc you should accept that your type is really not seen as well that bright by mass perception on average either. If we are not sugar coating anything that is.


----------



## Levitar (Jan 24, 2015)

@reckful I think the key is "conventional" measures of intelligence which has its limitations.

Not saying you're not acknowledging it but these discussions about "intelligence" really just go as far as the metric goes.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shorty Levi said:


> @reckful I think the key is "conventional" measures of intelligence which has its limitations.
> 
> Not saying you're not acknowledging it but these discussions about "intelligence" really just go as far as the metric goes.


Agreed, and as I noted in my previously-linked post, Isabel Myers herself actually took the position that S's were as intelligent _in their own way_ as N's but that American schools tended to favor N's — and she spent quite a bit of Gifts Differing discussing ways she thought education could be improved from the standpoint of a typical S's interests and learning styles.

But on the other hand, it's also true that the more "conventional" measures of intelligence that pretty significantly correlate with N (and to a lesser extent, introversion) aren't just IQ tests; they also include GPAs, SATs, and pretty much all other measures that fall in what you might call the "academic" category.

If there was a God, and she designed a perfect test that measured _all_ mental skills that deserve to be considered a kind of "intelligence" (in her perfect semantic wisdom), and I had to bet, I'd bet the test would reveal that Myers erred at least mildly on the side of political correctness (knowingly or not) when she said the average S was just as intelligent as the average N, but in different ways — but I'm open to the idea that at least some of our current measures of intelligence (e.g., IQ tests) reflect one or more kinds of bias that unwarrantedly favor "N skills" over "S skills."


----------



## Xyzzy (Sep 25, 2015)

As someone classified as "gifted" I can confirm that the forms of measuring intelligence are very conventionalized to a certain type of thinking.
The reason I'm saying something though is because I can't begin to think why a theory purely based on different forms of processing and function would be related to something as different as intelligence, especially when the data being used is likely to be somewhat unreliable.

tl;dr it's really late and I shouldn't be forming opinions cause I'm probably half-conscious and I might not know what I'm talking about


----------



## Ewok City (Sep 21, 2020)

_“The razor blade is sharp but can’t cut a tree.
The axe is strong but can’t cut hair.
Everyone is important according to their own unique purpose.
Never look down on anyone, unless you are admiring their shoes.”_


----------

