# Intelligence regarding S and N



## Proxybitch (Jul 28, 2015)

If intelligence is defined by the ability to learn, recall, and detect patterns, 
isnt the notion of Sensors and iNtuitives being equally intelligent *wrong*? 

Definitions!:

*Sensing*: "_perception of physical stimulus, senses and tangible surroundings_."
*iNtuition*: "_perception of the unseen or abstract (imagination, introspection, inspiration, ideas and concepts)_."
http://3dpsyche.com/conversions/jung/intuition-vs-sensing

*Intelligence*: "_has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving.

It can also be more generally described as the ability to perceive information and retain it as knowledge for applying to itself or other instances of knowledge or information, thereby creating referable understanding models of any size, density, or complexity, due to any conscious or subconscious imposed will or instruction to do so_."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

So say you have two men are both intelligent. One is S, the other N.

*Since only one of the two has a natural state of abstract ability and pattern seeking, he would be considered the "more mentally able" of the two. 
*


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

For what I see,the obly correlationI can see is "anstract thought".
Also, we can't just devide in iNtuitives and Sensors. We all have iNtuition on four different places. So, if this is true, which I don't think, the N-doms (INxJ and ENxP) would be the most intelligent, followed by N-aux, N-tert and lastly N-inferior. 
One of the smartest persones I know is an S-dom, aka N-inferior, so according to this, the least intelligent type. 
Also, being an iNtuitive is, if connected to abstract thinking at all, which I'm not sure of, more of a prefference rather than what they can do.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Proxybitch, if I agreed with those definitions of Sensing and Intuition, perhaps I'd agree. And if I agreed with that definition of intelligence. However, I do not.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

that's a bunch of lies


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

Proxybitch said:


> If intelligence is defined by the ability to learn, recall, and detect patterns,
> isnt the notion of Sensors and iNtuitives being equally intelligent *wrong*?
> 
> Definitions!:
> ...


Bolded section sounds like it could be referring to N or S.
Nothing in the definition of S that precludes pattern spotting.
Also, it is the way that your functions combine that give different intelligences types - TJs are strategists, SPs are tacticians for example.


----------



## Proxybitch (Jul 28, 2015)

Julia Bell said:


> @Proxybitch, if I agreed with those definitions of Sensing and Intuition, perhaps I'd agree. And if I agreed with that definition of intelligence. However, I do not.


Mmk, so what is your understanding of S and N and intelligence? 
I tried to leave it as general as possible for a reason. Contribute and help to expand it?


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Ah, Here we go again.


----------



## Proxybitch (Jul 28, 2015)

Ghostsoul said:


> Ah, Here we go again.


:wink:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

So the difference between S and N is everything in the outer world vs everything in the inner world? What does Extraversion and Introversion mean?

where do you get pattern-seeking from your definition of N or intelligence? The logic doesn't seem to follow.

Why focus on only abstract thought and pattern seeking out of all the other qualities listed?


from my understanding, Intuition is about hunches and possibilities and intelligence is about one's reasoning ability.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

if both have 9000 IQ then it depends on the job they have to do as for any other human being.


----------



## ObservantFool (Apr 1, 2015)

I fail to see where being a sensor in itself contradicts that definition of intelligence, or why intuitives are given a free pass because the word "abstract" is in there, when it is possible that some may not be savvy in those other areas mentioned. I don't think sensing is limited to the 5 senses, as it is also related to perceiving present realities and experiences in a more nuanced way, which can be abstract observations that individual intuitives may not pick up on themselves because they are attuned to other _sorts_ of patterns. Intuition is nothing more than a different angle of perceiving reality where the focus is broader and information serves a more abstract _purpose_. That is how I see it, anyway.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Geveerda said:


> I fail to see where being a sensor in itself contradicts that definition of intelligence, or why intuitives are given a free pass because the word "abstract" is in there, when it is possible that some may not be savvy in those other areas mentioned. I don't think sensing is limited to the 5 senses, as it is also related to perceiving present realities and experiences in a more nuanced way, which can be abstract observations that individual intuitives may not pick up on themselves because they are attuned to other _sorts_ of patterns. Intuition is nothing more than a different angle of perceiving reality where the focus is broader and information serves a more abstract _purpose_. That is how I see it, anyway.


The word _abstract_ is an interesting word. At its root meaning, it merely conveys the idea of taking something away, or separating. So, abstraction can be used as a synonym for extraction. But at its core, it means the separation from something else. Jung, in his wisdom, understood this, and the ego functions are considered to be abstract, regardless of the function. They are abstract because they are capable of separating what is real and vital to the individual's perspective/needs, from that which is non-vital. A jungian synonym for this would be "differentiated." So, all dominant functions in an individual are abstract functions, and NOT just intuition. 

The word _abstract_ today carries the connotation of _conceptual_, i.e. not related to the material, but that is not really the meaning that would or should be connected to the concept of intelligence. Intelligence is being able to abstract what is truly important, at least from a certain perspective. So, each function, in each of its orientations, has the ability to abstract, and do it rather well, when it is in the ego of the individual. This does not mean that all individuals will be equally capable at all kinds of abstractions. In fact, the opposite is true. 

I'll give an example of Se. Se is very good at sizing up a situation, on the fly, and quickly abstracting from it a good/better/best case scenario for taking full advantage of it. Take driving. I can always tell if my passenger is an Se type, or some other type. Almost always, Se passengers are totally unfazed by my driving. As I drive, they are also taking in the same data, and processing it in a similar manner. They judge speed, trajectories, threats, and are able to, equally quickly, or even better than i, make a judgment. When an Se type gives me a head's up when i'm driving, I listen. On the other hand, other types tend to be to one degree or another, nervous when riding with me. I notice that they will point out ridiculous things to my attention--things that are in no way a threat. But they are incapable of making that judgment on the fly. They lack the ability to abstract things like trajectory or speed, etc. on the fly, to the same degree. This does not mean that these types cannot be good drivers, or be good sportsman, but we are talking about skills here, and muscle memory, not an off-the-cuff, tactical intelligence. And I'll allow that word "tactical" to segue me to my next point. 

Keirsey talks about four kinds of intelligence, Tactical, logistical, Strategic and diplomatic. He corresponds these four intelligences--of course--to the four temperaments: SP, SJ, NT and NF. In his book, he talks about how each temperament is naturally best at their particular intelligence, but each can develop all four intelligences, but they are not all equally easy to develop. For instance, for the SP temperament, our order would be tactical, logistic, strategic and lastly diplomatic (and I add, of course) intelligence. NFs are the exact opposite. SJs go in the order of L,T,D,S, and NTs are the opposite of them. 

I don't know, but I think he's pretty close, if not spot on. For instance, NTs I know are better at diplomacy than tactics, and I'll be honest, logistics are like the death of them--kills their brain cells. It's their kryptonite. ;-) (not, mind you, that they can't develop it, or utilize it, but it's as dull as can be, and brain deadening.)

So, really, before we talk about intelligence, we need to know what the playing field is, and what the rules of engagement are.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

As other posters have already noted, different people define "intelligence" in different ways. But if what you're talking about is something you'd tend to associate with standard academic-oriented concepts of "intelligence" (IQ scores, SATs and GPAs), there's actually quite a lot of MBTI data on the subject.

Much of the early development of the MBTI happened during a period when the Educational Testing Service was assisting Isabel Myers in multiple ways, and the kind of correlational data that the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual had more of than any other kind was correlations of type with all kinds of academic-related stuff. The MBTI has been administered to many thousands of students over the years (high school and college both), and my copy of the MBTI Manual has page after page of statistics correlating MBTI preferences with measures of scholastic aptitude and achievement. When it comes to grades, N's consistently score higher than S's, and the differences are more often what you'd call substantial than minor. (Hopefully needless to say, this is _average N_ and _average S_. It's certainly possible to be an S near the top of your high school class or an N near the bottom, for any number of reasons.)

And introverts typically score higher than extraverts, although the introversion advantage is significantly smaller than the N advantage.

Whereas the I and N advantages apply to _both_ scholastic aptitude (e.g., IQ tests and SATs) and achievement (i.e., grades), J/P is more complicated. P's typically outscore J's in aptitude (although the magnitude of the differences are often relatively small), but J's typically outscore P's when it comes to grades — prolly onnaccounta we got discipline and better attitudez and stuff.

There's a chart in the Manual that plots GPA against IQ for the 16 types — to show who tends to "underachieve" and who tends to "overachieve" — for a sample of 3,503 male college prep students from 27 high schools. As the Manual notes, "all of the J types but ESFJ are above the line and all P types but INTP are below the line." Lest the INTPs get too smug, the Manual also notes that "both INT types are high, but INTJ is three times as far above the line as INTP." 

The INTJs in that particular sample had the highest IQs, with the INTPs close behind, followed by INFPs and ENTPs.

N's are supposedly around 30% of the general population, but as I understand it, the most academically-selective colleges tend to be majority-N. As Isabel Myers noted: "The proportion of intuitives varies widely from one educational level to another. It is particularly low among students in vocational and general high-school courses, and at least twice as high in academic high-school classes and still higher in college, especially in very selective colleges. A sample of National Merit Finalists was 83 per cent intuitive."

Here's a study of 5,700 gifted adolescents 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

So there are gifted ESFs, just as there are not-very-bright INs — and I'll refrain from mentioning any names... :tongue:

Buuut assuming you don't have politically correct blinders on, it's hard to argue that there's no significant relation between MBTI type and (conventional measures of) intelligence in the face of a 5,700-subject study where the INs, _on average_, had a self-selection ratio that was around _10 times higher_ than the ESFs. And yes, that's one study — albeit a large-sample study with very dramatic results — but as noted above, the correlation of N (to a substantial degree) and introversion (to a lesser, but still significant degree) with intelligence is consistent with the results of a large volume of previous studies.

As a final note, Myers said she thought 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.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

reckful said:


> As a final note, Myers said she thought 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.


I think that in the primary and secondary schools, education is geared more towards SJ types, and it's not until higher education that the NTs come to the fore. SPs just get the shaft all around. 

I remember when I was in early elementary, we had to take a test. When all was said and done, I remember being taken out of class--the only one, and I was given more tests, people asked me questions, and I could tell they were all excited. In third grade, they split our class into two groups. One group got a progressive, open classroom type class, where the teacher took a more directing role than a teaching role, and the other was a traditional classroom. At the time, they explained that our class was too big so they split it, but the progressive class was also smaller, IIRC. That year, I had all kinds of special things, including the privilege of being able to borrow books from the school library for the upper elem. side of the library. I was the only 1-3 grader allowed to do this. However, I balked at some of the things they wanted me to do--like give oral reports, and other things. I didn't like standing in front of people, and the other things struck me as dull and boring. 

The next year, they did a test again on our entire class, and once again, I got singled out by a bunch of excited adults, who did the same thing with me. I remember that time, that they mentioned IQ, and how mine was supposedly really high. I thought all of it stupid and banal, to be honest, and I absolutely did not cooperate with their little games. I purposely put wrong answers in, and stuff like that. They never came back, but when I went to middle school, I was stuck in what was called the "gifted and talented" homeroom. There were two of them in our school, but it was quickly evident that ours had the more "gifted and talented" of the two. I was in that group for two or three years, but by tenth grade, I was sick of the whole thing, and bailed entirely. I took remedial English instead of the literature class, and took the easier geometry class, because the teacher was the basketball coach, and during season, he wouldn't pay a lot of attention to the class. ;-) I did stay in my lab and then advanced lab biology courses, because they were fun, and I loved dissecting things like sharks, pigs, etc. and breeding things. I got straight As in that and in English. (I'm actually glad I took that class. The teacher loved, loved, loved grammar, and gave me a solid foundation I would not have gotten otherwise, as well as an appreciation for grammar that has stood me well all these years). 

But honestly, I hated school. I couldn't stand it. I never put any effort into anything I didn't want to do, but despite that, I got Bs and As. I don't honestly know how, because I almost never did homework. (I got terrible grades in PE, because I hated how they did things--mostly bombardment or other violent things--although I was a killer at fencing).

My point is this, it didn't matter what my theoretical IQ was. School was murder to me. Nothing I was ever actually taught in class--with the exception of my one year of grammar and biology ever stuck. I read widely and vociferously, and learned by doing what I read about. In college, I was similar. I didn't really get excited about doing the assigned work, unless it was writing a paper. I loved doing research, but always ended up writing them frantically at the last minute. I seldom got a bad grade on them, however, which always helped overcome my low marks for un-done "busy" work. I have never really enjoyed school. I love learning, and enjoyed college lectures, and could take copious notes on topics that interested me, and I always would go into the stacks in the library, and look up everything I could on topics that were interesting to me, but I also spent tons of time in the photography, art and design magazines--too much time, really.... I should have let that tell me something, but I never did catch that aspect. 

But I guess all that to say this. None of the stats really mean anything other than what you said at the very end. All the correlations, statistics, etc. All they really tell us is that our schools and universities fail a huge chunk of our society. Let's not pretend that it's about IQ or intelligence. It's about the failure of an educational system to understand that people are different, and to take that into consideration.

On the other hand, it could all be on purpose. You need a working class and an elite for a socialistic society. You need people to be dumb and to have no expectations in order for them to remain docile. Our educational system seems to work quite adequately for such a system. Why change things? Who knows, really? (I suppose I could recommend reading the book "Underground history of Education in America" by Gatto)


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

Sensing types are definitely better at functioning in the real world.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

You have an interesting opinion, but I would urge you not to expect anyone to agree. First of all, the definition of intelligence is indeed defined differently from person to person. Secondly, there's no measurable way to put your theory to the test. Thirdly, everyone has some sort of intelligence he/she can contribute to society. Fourthly, I literally came in here thinking this would be an interesting conversation emphasizing the types of intelligence that both sensors and intuitives can bring to the table, but then I read the OP. It's kind of funny because... the thread title, what I was hoping to read, and what I ended up reading, lol... it's just ironic. 


* *













I feel like everyone that opened this thread is Luke Wilson, and the OP is the dude closely inspecting something that doesn't need inspecting.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Proxybitch said:


> If intelligence is defined by the ability to learn, recall, and detect patterns,
> isnt the notion of Sensors and iNtuitives being equally intelligent *wrong*?


How much of the function definitions have you read?

Se is the best type at detecting patterns in their immediate surroundings. Se will detect patterns much quicker than other functions. Ne is also very strong at detecting patterns but will take a bit longer and the patterns they find will be more abstract with greater distance between the things they are connecting.

Anyways, intelligence can't just be defined by ability to abstract, or ability to detect patterns. Intelligence is extremely varied, people can be intelligent in many different ways.


----------



## Proxybitch (Jul 28, 2015)

lel and I thought my smiley at the end of my initial post would give me away. Apparently not.

Success!


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Proxybitch said:


> Mmk, so what is your understanding of S and N and intelligence?
> I tried to leave it as general as possible for a reason. Contribute and help to expand it?


Sensation, I would say, is just the function that tells you What Is in any given situation. Via your five senses. It is like pure awareness, almost, of the things present before you. What is happening. What people are doing. Stuff like that. 

Intuition is just that function that focuses on where something may have come from, where it might be going. It is just the function that allows you to focus on What Could Be. I do not see Intuition as having to do with imagination (Note: most Sensors I met are imaginative - humans are imaginative creatures. How they are imaginative is different) or introspection. Or even abstraction, really. Jung attributed "abstraction" more to Introversion than anything else. 

Intelligence is a strange thing. It's a hard thing to pin down. Where is the line between wisdom and intelligence, for one thing? Although perhaps that's a discussion topic for another time. 

Loosely, I've understood intelligence to be ones' ability to acquire and apply new knowledge and skills. What knowledge or what skills I do not specify. I think it is simply anything. Some people are ridiculously good at acquiring knowledge and skills when it comes to certain things. Like sports or dancing or drawing or something. But my brain sets up a fine mental block for me when it comes to stuff like drawing or sports. I simply cannot acquire and apply knowledge of those things like others can right off the bat. 

Also, I'm not intelligent if we're considering how intelligence is tested for currently. I'm not academic. I'm ridiculously bad at any visual problem solving things or visual pattern recognition - or even "normal" pattern recognition. I don't focus on categorizing things in my mind. I don't care much to differentiate one thing from another thing. I simply don't think like that. Since it's considered intelligent, I feel envious of those who do. People get excited when someone can do these things. When they're intelligent like this. But take someone who just plays with ideas or is good at seeing patterns in people and guessing what they think. Patterns that aren't found by looking at a thing's components. That's not tested for. @_ferroequinologist_, I understand what you say about school. Mine was simply the opposite experience. 

Yet here I am, the Ne-dom, and I'm supposed to be more "intelligent" somehow. I'm average. Probably below average in intelligence according to IQ tests. Even if I agreed with the more typical definition of intelligence and how to test it, I don't see how Intuition at all correlates with it. And my ESTJ sister was always the gifted one in school. And has an above average IQ score. So there you have it.

@Proxybitch, I imagine the reason why people are taking this seriously is many others have asked this question and actually meant it. Not just trying to play devil's advocate. Many people on this site used to hold the opinion that somehow Intuition really did mean one was more intelligent. 

The conversation many want to have now is in what ways do those with a Sensation preference tend to be intelligent and how does that differ from the ways in which those with a preference for Intuition are intelligent?


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

@Proxybitch, I just have one question, why are you so concerned with proving that your personality type is smarter? If you're worried about how smart you are, prove that _you are_ smart- don't just make some argument that your type is smarter, therefore you _must_ be smarter. 

I'm not at all worried about whether Sensors or Intuitives are smarter, because I know _I'm_ smart, so what else matters to me?


----------

