# Does Being and NT Guarantee Intelligence?



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> There are good reasons to disagree with this progressive dogma, but we shall let that egalitarian prejudice slide unmolested.


As there are good reasons to agree as well. Passive-aggression isn't exactly leaving something "unmolested," sir.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> There are good reasons to disagree with this progressive dogma, but we shall let that egalitarian prejudice slide unmolested.


There is a ubiquitous phobia of social differences in our present day, it seems...


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

It depends on what your definition of intelligence is, there are many types.


----------



## PorlockVisitor (May 18, 2010)

Troisi said:


> And what would that be exactly? I'm no psychologist but is there another personality typing system I'm not familiar with?


I'm saying, does it have to be defined by a typing system?
Myers Briggs lacks certain aspects of the personality, and in the case of mentally handicapped people it may cover a section of the personality that is not present in the person at all.

In the case of my aunt, I don't think we could determine if she was an F or a T. Or if she is a P or a J.
Yet she still HAS a personality.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Azrael said:


> There actually _are _correlations between personality type and IQ.


I am curious to see them, but the thing with IQ, I think it is a certain type of intellect. Or to be more precise people who can be arsed reading those questions and actually, think about them.


----------



## PorlockVisitor (May 18, 2010)

inebriato said:


> It depends on what your definition of intelligence is, there are many types.


I suppose I'm referring to intelligence as defined by the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
Intelligence in academic matters...


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

*Myers-Briggs correlation with IQ*



_From_: [email protected]
_Date_: 26 Jan 2007 10:37:58 -0800
 I was searching for information on the correlation of MBTI
types/subsypes to IQ. I came accross the following page:
Liberty Corner: IQ and Personality
Unfortunately there is no reference or e-mail address - but overall the
blog seems very competent.
----------------------
* Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person
(one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more
likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on
sensory details and the here-and-now).

* Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is
8 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a
Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 2.5 times more likely to have a
high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person
(one who seeks closure) is about twice as likely to have a high IQ than
a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).

* Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive,
Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him
in the top 2 percent of the population. The probability is 20% for an
INTP, 15% for an INFJ, and 8% for an INFP. These four types account for
66% of the high-IQ population but only 6% of the total population.
---------------------

Does anybody have references to correlations between IQ and MBTI
types/subtypes?

Who knows what to make of this. All I'll say about it is, I once met a guy who was the smartest I ever knew. He was a lawyer, studying to be a judge in an incredibly competative country where about 1% of people were "smart" enough to make it. His IQ? 95.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

No personality type guarantees anything.


----------



## Lucretius (Sep 10, 2009)

Proteus said:


> No personality type guarantees anything.


This I completely agree with.

Correlation does not imply causation, nor can a generality evaluate an individual.


----------



## dude10000 (Jan 24, 2010)

> Passive-aggression isn't exactly leaving something "unmolested," sir.


You damn well better call me sir!

:crazy:


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

JHBowden said:


> There are good reasons to disagree with this progressive dogma, but we shall let that egalitarian prejudice slide unmolested.


Hahahahaha


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Of course not, there are no guarantees about any one unit with any type of categorization. You can draw correlations however, and Intuition alone is actually a very good predictor of intelligence. In one study students who tested as Ns were 72 times more likely to have better grades than students who tested as Ss (Wish I could find that article, but will post a different one instead). I/E is the next most important letter in drawing correlation. Introverts were shown 7 times more likely to have higher grades than extroverts, all other factors held even. Next comes T/F. Thinkers were shown to be 3 times more likely to have higher grades than feelers. With J/P, Judgers were shown 1.5 times more likely to have higher grades than percievers (but depending on the type percievers may have a higher chance of being more intelligent, so as far as intelligence goes MBTI is especially shaky in the J/P area).

Myers-Briggs correlation with IQ

As for ENTJs, they were one of the types who didn't show up more intelligent than their P counterparts, pretty low among intuitives (again, on average. Bill Gates is supposed to be an ENTJ)


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

That articles says Ns are 27 times more likely, not 72 lol

On this subject, gifted-ness matters more to me...


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Anti-Helena said:


> That articles says Ns are 27 times more likely, not 72 lol
> 
> On this subject, gifted-ness matters more to me...


that was just one study. others have put it lower, but in all cases outweighing the other 3 letters combined... it was only one school used in that study. I can't remember how many people.


----------



## entplay (Feb 6, 2010)

The reason introverted N types score the highest on IQ test is simple. Who do you think makes up a test of boring puzzles? Those with the same personality type as the test makers will, naturally, on average, score the highest.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

I think IQ is only 1/3 or 1/4 of the equation. IQ means someone has the _potential_ to reach a certain... intellectual status. However, I think this potential must be cultivated. I think personality plays a huge role (emotional intelligence and ability to relate to people as well); and I think hard work are absolutely necessary.

If someone has an average IQ for example, but they study hard, work hard, have a lot of life experience and an open mind; they would, IMO be more "intelligent" and more successful than someone with a genius IQ, who does nothing with it, but brag about how easily he can remember things.


----------



## autumn potential (Mar 7, 2010)

I have an INFP friend who is a valedictorian (after taking all AP classes her high school career)
She got some scholarship for having a 2200 something SAT 

0.o 

Intelligence is based on how hard you work at it, just like anything else. Somethings come easier to some types I think, but I think the learning can be adjusted for all types, just like we have visual learners and oral learners and hands-on learners, we have different types. One is not smarter than the other just different


----------



## agokcen (Jan 3, 2010)

Being "intellectual" just means that NTs are nerds, be it openly or secretly.

Intelligence sold separately.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

autumn potential said:


> I have an INFP friend who is a valedictorian (after taking all AP classes her high school career)
> She got some scholarship for having a 2200 something SAT
> 
> 0.o
> ...


Yeah, I totally agree with you. People with high IQ's tend not to have to work as hard as people with a lower IQ but they can end up in the same place with the same knowledge and skills. Sometimes, things come too easily to people with unusually high IQ's and they never learn to work hard.

My IQ is above average, but my sister's is a few points from literal genius (the bitch  one year we were in the same course at college together, when we studied for an exam she would take a very short amount of time to memorize things and I would say to her, "you can't know it already!" I'd test her and she would, maybe miss one or two answers after reading over the material once and rather quickly.
She always beat me on the tests. But one time I studied hard for a certain exam and she didn't and I got the higher grade.
O, she was furious! lol. I'll never forget it.

When she was studying for the Provincial exam to become a nurse, she studied maybe two weeks, didn't make notes, just read the book and I'd ask her questions. Her friends in the same program had to study for months and a lot of them failed or just passed (some did rather well) whereas she got a high grade.

Things come easily to people with higher IQ's it seems. However, those other people in the class are also nurses with the same skills. They learned the material, it just required more effort on their part.

On the flip side, it's hard to compete with a person with an unusually high IQ who works really hard and love what they do. However, people with unusually high IQ's are only about 2.3% of the population :crazy: so there's really no reason a person with an average one cannot do extremely well in life or any field they find interesting and they very well may be the "better" person for it, because they had to work harder, thus producing character and good work ethics; are generally more humble and open minded.

Also, intelligence is not the same as wisdom. And I'd much prefer to be wise than "intelligent". Though to a certain extent wisdom requires a level of intelligence.

For instance, my INTJ father was told by his math teacher that, "there's no reason he shouldn't be top of his class" if he applied himself, after checking his IQ scores (my father had disagreed with the teacher about something). But he didn't do anything with his "gift" and ended up working at a steel factory his whole life. Whereas many people with lower IQ's went to university, studied, learned, tried, applied themselves and in the end gained more knowledge. Now, who is more "intelligent?"


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

Intuitives have been proven to be 27% more intelligent compared to Sensing individuals based on empirical evidence concerning the IQ test thingy... okay I'm gonna go to sleeps now.


----------



## heartturnedtoporcelain (Apr 9, 2010)

I can sometimes be somewhat elitist about the N/S divide (I don't feel like I've missed out on T - I have enough to keep me happy) then I remember that my dad and one of my best friends are S and they are two of the most intelligent and competent people I know (especially my dad - he's like ridiculously intelligent). And when I start thinking too highly of Ns, one of my friends always reminds me of the wacked out, ridiculous Ns who think they're being deep when they're really talking crap (this actually offends me more than dumb Ss).


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

thewindlistens said:


> The whole concept of multiple intelligence is a very feelery, let's-affirm-that-everyone-is-special kind of thing. It's changing the meaning of the word intelligence, not where the old concept of intelligence is found.


That isn't a very intelligent thing to assert - it's plain wrong. There's nothing about having a preference for subjective logic that inevitably results in a person feeling a need to "let's-affirm-that-everyone-is-special kind of thing". Someone already touched on the reason why 'NT' type intelligence is rated highest in IQ tests - 'NT' types design the tests. 

If the top 100 scorers in an IQ test are immediately taken from the site of their monumental intellectual achievement and dropped in a tropical jungle. the outback or the tundra, with equivalent tooling to the indigenous peoples of those places, they will very quickly be in a world of trouble. Many will die. This tells us that IQ tests have a very narrow, very specific domain. "Intelligence", as it is defined by the "NTs", is a self-serving, self-reaffirming definition, a localised definition, a narrow, restricted academia-focussed definition. 

If an Aborigine was made to do a western IQ test, that person would be found "wanting" in intellligence, they would be awarded a low IQ. In the same way a bunch of up-themselves-geeks would find they actually had near zero intelligence if they were put in the Aboriginal daily frame of reference.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

whisperycat said:


> That isn't a very intelligent thing to assert - it's plain wrong. There's nothing about having a preference for subjective logic that inevitably results in a person feeling a need to "let's-affirm-that-everyone-is-special kind of thing".


Yeah, actually, I think it's in most descriptions of 'feeler' that I've read. And you're doing it, heavily, in your post. You can read about it here: *Link.* Point 5 specifically relates to what I was trying to say regarding affirmation and intelligence.



whisperycat said:


> Someone already touched on the reason why 'NT' type intelligence is rated highest in IQ tests - 'NT' types design the tests.


IQ tests measure NT-ness, not the other way around. Because that is what intelligence means, when it comes to classical IQ tests. NT-ness is what classical intelligence *is*. You can name *other* things "intelligence" if you feel the need to affirm your feelings, but you're changing the definition of intelligence in the process. *That* is what I have a problem with here, nothing else.



whisperycat said:


> If the top 100 scorers in an IQ test are immediately taken from the site of their monumental intellectual achievement and dropped in a tropical jungle. the outback or the tundra, with equivalent tooling to the indigenous peoples of those places, they will very quickly be in a world of trouble. Many will die.


You're doing it wrong. Surviving in the wilderness has nothing to do with intelligence. The skills needed to survive in the wilderness should not be called intelligence - they have other names, while classical intelligence doesn't.



whisperycat said:


> This tells us that IQ tests have a very narrow, very specific domain. "Intelligence", as it is defined by the "NTs", is a self-serving, self-reaffirming definition, a localised definition, a narrow, restricted academia-focussed definition.


That is because the definition of intelligence *is* an academia-focused definition. Because *intelligence itself* is an academia-focused concept. The entire issue the two of us are discussing right now comes from the fact that people said _"It sure would be nice to be able to call ourselves intelligent. But we don't fall under that definition. Let's invent 'other' types of intelligence and chage the entire meaning of the word."_ This is because intelligence is considered one of the most positive attributes a person can have these days. And so we come full circle to that affirmation thing...

You see what I'm trying to say?

If you get the feeling that someone is trying to appear superior by showing how much more intelligent they are than others, then it would be best for you to simply remember how many successful people who are not considered intelligent exist, and how many intelligent failures you can find everywhere. This, however, still doesn't change which ones are "intelligent."


----------



## Jonny0207 (Apr 27, 2010)

whisperycat said:


> That isn't a very intelligent thing to assert - it's plain wrong. There's nothing about having a preference for subjective logic that inevitably results in a person feeling a need to "let's-affirm-that-everyone-is-special kind of thing". Someone already touched on the reason why 'NT' type intelligence is rated highest in IQ tests - 'NT' types design the tests.
> 
> If the top 100 scorers in an IQ test are immediately taken from the site of their monumental intellectual achievement and dropped in a tropical jungle. the outback or the tundra, with equivalent tooling to the indigenous peoples of those places, they will very quickly be in a world of trouble. Many will die. This tells us that IQ tests have a very narrow, very specific domain. "Intelligence", as it is defined by the "NTs", is a self-serving, self-reaffirming definition, a localised definition, a narrow, restricted academia-focussed definition.
> 
> If an Aborigine was made to do a western IQ test, that person would be found "wanting" in intellligence, they would be awarded a low IQ. In the same way a bunch of up-themselves-geeks would find they actually had near zero intelligence if they were put in the Aboriginal daily frame of reference.


 
When compared to the locals, not many of any type would actually survive, not just NT's. And stop being Elitist about you NF, you're no better than NT's. IQ tests a certain part of what you'll call "wisdom", spatial reasoning, problem solving skills, ect. They're just a small part of the wider spectrum, call it how you want to, the exact wordings for this concept is of ill-importance.

In any case, MBTI is trying to tell you the preference of your thoughts, not your ability. This is a misunderstanding of the system that leads to racism, and racism to combat that racism (like I saw in your post) in these forums.

And another thing, *everyone is different*, none types are clones of their own type, some are very different from one another. In addition, *stereotypes are in many cases false, for the individual*. S's can be idea-people, F's can be very logical, and P's very organized. In fact, it's rare that all the common traits are in a single person.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

There's a problem about the theory that intelligence is due to NT tendencies. In my family, I'm outclassed academically b my brother (ISFJ, he says he's a T, but he is too unsteady and gets too strongly into moods to be a T) and my dad (INFJ, who is quite honestly, a potential genius.) My mom (ESTJ) is also rather smart, although in terms fo the family, the lowest one on accademic smarts, but the best in street smarts. My ISFJ brother has a 4.0 G.P.A. in one of the hardest school districtcs in the country, and getting a 4.5 this year. My dad was perennially top of his class till he got to Oxford and Merton College. I'm the dumb one, and I'm achieving around a 3.5 G.P.A.


----------



## thewindlistens (Mar 12, 2009)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> There's a problem about the theory that intelligence is due to NT tendencies. In my family, I'm outclassed academically b my brother (ISFJ, he says he's a T, but he is too unsteady and gets too strongly into moods to be a T) and my dad (INFJ, who is quite honestly, a potential genius.) My mom (ESTJ) is also rather smart, although in terms fo the family, the lowest one on accademic smarts, but the best in street smarts. My ISFJ brother has a 4.0 G.P.A. in one of the hardest school districtcs in the country, and getting a 4.5 this year. My dad was perennially top of his class till he got to Oxford and Merton College. I'm the dumb one, and I'm achieving around a 3.5 G.P.A.


That's not very surprising. I know tons of sensors and feelers who are very smart, and pretty much all of them outperformed me in school. I can think of a few NFs who would score higher on an IQ test than me for sure. I was always the one who just breezed along without ever opening a book and got above-average grades anyway, to the envy of everyone who worked hard for it.


----------



## Pyroscope (Apr 8, 2010)

Since NT measures a preference to tend towards intellectual pursuits, surely it follows that they would become more intelligent through more frequent learning and abstraction/theorising than others? Given that learning has been suggested to at least correlate to intelligence then you would expect NTs to increase more than other types who have less of the desire to learn and therefore don't 'practise' as much


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

*Light on elite*



Jonny0207 said:


> And stop being Elitist about you NF, you're no better than NT's.


I've never asserted that NFs are better than anyone. I know that they're not. All my PC posts on the theme of type elitism will confirm this. How do you infer any such thing? 

Seems to me this is an argument of semantics and the precise definition of the word "intelligence". My definition of 'intelligence', up to the point of this thread's creation, had been a lot wider. 

In summary, what is being said here? That NTs are automatically intelligent because intelligent is what NTs are, according to a very precise definition of the word "intelligence"? Fair enough.


----------



## Jonny0207 (Apr 27, 2010)

whisperycat said:


> I've never asserted that NFs are better than anyone. I know that they're not. All my PC posts on the theme of type elitism will confirm this. How do you infer any such thing?
> 
> Seems to me this is an argument of semantics and the precise definition of the word "intelligence". My definition of 'intelligence', up to the point of this thread's creation, had been a lot wider.
> 
> In summary, what is being said here? That NTs are automatically intelligent because intelligent is what NTs are, according to a very precise definition of the word "intelligence"? Fair enough.


Whether or not what you said about the narrowness of intelligence is true or false, being an NT doesn't guarentee you'd do good in it. I repeat, MBTI is tool for PREFERENCE, not CAPABILITY. There are other tests for that.

T/F---->T's like to believe their head, and believe only in RATIONAL information. F's think with their heart, and listen to IRRATIOAL feelings. The only difference between F's an T's is that F's care more about ethics and what they think is right, while T's try to ignore those feelings and look at it from an objective point of view. So, F=listen more to feelings, T=listen more to logic.

S/N---->N's like complex ideas and concepts, and allow themselves to get lost in thought and ponder things. S's like to work for realistic goals and reach concrete goals. They tend to do stuff that are efficient and that yield concrete results, and don't care about what they think is meaningless abstract thought. They like to see results, and, between us, they are the ones that actually get things done. Because they think about relevant stuff, they like to keep things simple. Also, psychologists say that people with different N/S factors (or openness, or whatever names you want to call it) is the biggest difference between people, more than J/P (or conciousness), I/E, T/F (agreeableness, head or heart, whatever), neurotism, or whatever other factors other personality psychologists use. 


So... as you can see, it's a measure of what a person prefers doing. It's OK to say "Kelvin has a CERTAIN preference for I over E.", but wrong to say "James has a STRONG preference for F", or "My left ball has a stronger P than my right ball". It's a measure for PREFERENCE, and it's possible (and even common) that *an S might have stronger S AND N than an N type*. You also have to remember that people differ in tons of ways from other people from their type. That's what makes us human.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

No. Promise.


----------



## RhoAlphaNuAlpha (May 23, 2010)

Jonny0207 said:


> Whether or not what you said about the narrowness of intelligence is true or false, being an NT doesn't guarentee you'd do good in it. I repeat, MBTI is tool for PREFERENCE, not CAPABILITY. There are other tests for that.
> 
> T/F---->T's like to believe their head, and believe only in RATIONAL information. F's think with their heart, and listen to IRRATIOAL feelings. The only difference between F's an T's is that F's care more about ethics and what they think is right, while T's try to ignore those feelings and look at it from an objective point of view. So, F=listen more to feelings, T=listen more to logic.
> 
> ...


This is so well said. Kudos


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

There is SOME correlation with MBTI types and results of intelligence TESTS (standard IQ-tests). Just google it. 
INTP I believe is supposed to be the smartest in IQ. In general: Introverts smarter, Ns smarter (yay!), T(smarter?Well, logical, predictable and as such derive at correct TEST conclusions easier). P I think was a bit smarter as it observed without judging and you were more open minded. But perhaps not in standard IQ tests....

Otherwise, I would say that since NTs have a driving goal of understanding everything around them and being competent at many things, including theories and models, that it would "train" those parts of the brain that we define as intelligence. An ESFJ or ESTP might not be interested in the deep, underlying principles of what they encounter, but in their own "pool" they might be the smartest duck. Smarter than the NT, if we define smartness as efficiently functioning in and exploiting the environment.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Also, I believe NT is the "normalcy" part of one of the paths that after a while goes past ADD, ADHD and ends up with Schizophrenia and other mental disorders, some correlating with creativity and other stuff. It is a sliding scale.


----------



## midnightblonde (Aug 12, 2010)

ENTPreneur said:


> There is SOME correlation with MBTI types and results of intelligence TESTS (standard IQ-tests). Just google it.
> INTP I believe is supposed to be the smartest in IQ.



If this source is reliable, it's INTJ.




> In summary, here's what the statistics* indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:
> 
> Other personality traits being the same,* an iNtuitive person* (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) *is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ* than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).
> 
> ...


Sauce


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

midnightblonde said:


> If this source is reliable, it's INTJ.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok... Nice to get self-affirmed, aye? 

I believe I read another one somewhere (not a blog). Or it was some personality consultants whom I talked to. But It was a couple of years ago. And INTJ are by no means unintelligent. 

I must say that I am puzzled by the notion that I gives more IQ than E, and J more so than P. That it might yield better RESULTS in an IQ-test I can imagine. I types surely have more time and interest for test-like puzzles. But J vs P? Hmmm. Well, J types seem to like the notion that there exists ONE solution to things (most often THEIR solution and viewpoint). Perhaps that can give some advantage when doing the tests; that the "mainstream solution" is THE ONE,. Whereas the P personality weighs several solutions? 

I have (in another thread) berated the fact that the IQ-testmakers have so little imagination. You only get "points" for THEIR solution when there can be several, fully logical, solutions to the stated problem. 

IQ tests are flawed, that is my opinion. But that of course depends on the definition of intelligence, once again.


----------



## Heuristyx (Sep 20, 2010)

Personality type does not indicate intelligence. Period.


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

Thank you thewindlistens, great contributions. It annoys me so much how many here keep posting their opinion without clearly explaining what they're trying to say. This won't move forward if everyone keeps using their own definition of words such as intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with ability, success, income, being skilled, being awesome. Nothing at all.



> from _Mainstream Science on Intelligence_ (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:
> 
> A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.


Source



> The Intuitive mind is sensitive to the motion component. Even static objects, when integrated into the matrix, must be associated with past experience, and therefore take the form of motion and process. Ideas, theory, and possibilities are then more appealing than facts and actualities. How something works, or what it does, is more important than the thing itself.
> 
> Surface appearance is not sufficient to enhance the Intuitive reality structure. The Intuitive must be aware or work out the processes associated with an object or event. Only then can it be connected with past experience and integrated into the matrix. This mental activity often provides intelligence and the ability to understand complex ideas and relationships. Furthermore, as facts per se do not provide security, the Intuitive function brings about an original mind that is always eager to further develop its understanding of reality.
> 
> ...


Source


See any correlation? "_Does being an NT guarantee NT-nes?_"


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

str1nger said:


> Thank you thewindlistens, great contributions. It annoys me so much how many here keep posting their opinion without clearly explaining what they're trying to say. This won't move forward if everyone keeps using their own definition of words such as intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with ability, success, income, being skilled, being awesome. Nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Source


Re-writing definitions to suit oneself is not a correct use of the language. Saying "intelligence" is "NTness" is not a reliable working definition. Intelligence is a broad term, but in it's most basic definition, it is the ability to acquire knowledge.

I'm not sure if you read the entire wiki article that you quoted as your source, but it would be good to do so. From the same source:



> *Factors affecting intelligence*
> 
> Intelligence is an ill-defined, difficult to quantify concept. Accordingly, the IQ tests used to measure intelligence provide only approximations of the posited "real" intelligence. In addition, a number of theoretically unrelated properties are known to correlate with IQ such as race, gender and height but since correlation does not imply causation the true relationship between these factors is uncertain. Factors affecting IQ may be divided into biological and environmental.[edit]
> 
> ...





str1nger said:


> Source
> 
> 
> See any correlation? "_Does being an NT guarantee NT-nes?_"


And this source linked to a text on PerC about the Perceiving function. And the actual source? A blog by an INTJ named Mark Bruzon that works with computers and has "interests in photography, psychology, and everything to do with computers." Hardly a reliable source on which to base claims of NT superior intelligence.

I keep seeing the tired Liberty Corner blog which states that intuitives are 27% more likely to have an high IQ than a sensing person. Please read all of the blog if you are going to cite it as your proof. He does comment on the IQ test being designed by intuitives for intuitives. He also mentions that he can't find the source for his numbers. Personally, I like my sources cited more accurately than "I can't find them."

It is true that the KAIT did find that composite scores of intuitives were higher than those citing a sensing preference, in spite of there appearing to be no correlation between type and scores in the Crystal-Fluid sub-tests.

And the KAIT is really a good IQ test. But being an IQ test, it still has critics and detractors, some of whom point out that measuring a person's intelligence is much to complex to allowed it to be represented by one single number.

*I* believe that intuitives would excel at some types of tests and benefit from teaching styles that embrace their preferences, while sensors would excel at other types of test and benefit from teaching styles embracing their preferences.

*I* know that this continual arguing of S vs. N is divisive and does nothing to promote harmony on the site. Intuitives or Sensors that are arrogant or typist are gradually taking the joy out of self-discovery and learning about one's type. It would do us all good to take a reality check and realize that regardless of our MBTI type, there is someone somewhere on this planet that is smarter/dumber, sweeter/meaner, prettier/uglier, faster/slower, or whatever you want to compare yourself to, than we are on any given day.

Somebody else can have the soapbox now.:dry:


----------



## str1nger (Sep 24, 2010)

All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense if 20 people in this thread post regarding intelligence, using 20 very different definitions. If I believe that intelligence is all about drawing green spiders on a red carpet and post like everyone is using that definition, nothing is ever going to be resolved. Of course a big word like intelligence is hard to define. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to find some sort of consensus. In my opinion, debates are there to really get to the ground of a topic and get as close to the truth as possible. That won't happen if everyone just shouts out their opinion instead of listening to others. And the definition I cited, which is basically an expanded version of what you said was "the ability to acquire knowledge", seems to be the most commonly used. 

I'm so not dissing other types as being dumb or whatever. Each type has a certain potential for getting good at certain tasks. My best friend's an ISTP. He knows pretty much everything about every Mercedes that was ever built. He knows how to fix them as well. That's a giant amount of knowledge that I will never acquire because I don't care about cars as long as they have a stereo and don't smell. My granddad's an ESTJ and he has probably won every single Trivial Pursuit game he's played in his long life. His memory for facts is mind-blowing and something I will never come even close to. I'm super jealous of my ENFJ friend and his sick people skills. I could give many more examples of any type, but everyone has a certain potential that is determined by genetics, including type. 

How said potential is reached is obviously determined by the environment. Malcolm Gladwell gives an excellent example of this in _Blink_, where he compares Christopher Langan and Robert Oppenheimer. I could write more on this topic but it belongs in a different thread. My point is that if you want to call these potentials intelligences then fine, by all means go ahead. But if someone uses the word intelligence in this world, without further explanation, they usually won't refer to musical intelligence. They will use a different word for that. Like ... musical.


About the source, I just looked at the first definition of N I could find on this forum. You can question that source all you want, it's completely besides the point. I just cited the first thing about N I could find so people can see how similar it is to said definition of intelligence. There are hundreds similar definitions on the web, I'm sure you'll recognise some of them as valuable sources. Also, I completely agree with your posting referring to that blog entry, but the numbers are fairly similar to the numbers I quoted in a similar topic. I therefore think that it would be "okay" to link it on a forum like this to answer basic questions. 





> It would do us all good to take a reality check and realize that regardless of our MBTI type, there is someone somewhere on this planet that is smarter/dumber, sweeter/meaner, prettier/uglier, faster/slower, or whatever you want to compare yourself to, than we are on any given day.


Signed. If you understand what likelyhood means, you're much more likely to accept differences in people that are being pointed out by NTs like me. It's a nice, handy word that gets overlooked way too often.


On a slightly different matter, here are graphs from TC picturing the likelyhood to be "gifted". Data is taken from the study that I linked at the bottom. 



















Source


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

@str1nger--

Thanks for the reply. I now understand your POV better than I did.

Yes, I was familiar with that study.


----------

