# Genius level IQ and cognitive functions



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Stephen said:


> Well, that's obviously because vampires are INTJs.


Obviously the vampires were pretty dumb to think they're vampires so that's not exactly a compliment for the poor INTJs crying over my posts .



ConsumateEngineer said:


> It sounds very logical to me. Looking at the I vs E, wouldn't a person that is thinking deeply (exercising the mind I call it) most of the time prefer the quite of a library or home verses the distraction of a public event? The social game is like learning little curtsies for interacting with other people that have learned the little techniques for interacting with you. Though the quote is something and INTJ would want to think. I see logic in each of the ratios.
> 
> Intuition really helps to continue the progression of thought.


See, this right here is an example of INTJ idiocy. 

Extroversion = you're outgoing and don't think about things enough, while thinking about things that are irrelevant to reality or the outside world is obviously what clever people do! Uselessness = intelligence, duh.

And intuitiveness helps because everyone knows sensors are fucking dumb because they only think about boobies and food. DUH. Your thoughts do not "progress" this way, take notes!


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

I love how you're on a mission against the INTJ's haha! Go girl, some of them do have to wake up because that last comment lacked the depth of thought that INTJ's always preach they have. Irony.


----------



## ConsumateEngineer (Jul 14, 2011)

It is only a probability type of look at it. It makes the extroverted genius an even more precious jewel. Even as an INTJ I think it would be a lesser world if there were no extroverted geniuses. I think we may need more...


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

Ozymandias said:


> "That is if it is true that an N is 28 times more likely to have a genius-level IQ than an S, and an I 8 times more likely than E, T 2.5 more likely than F, and J twice as likely as P."
> 
> An INTJ posted these stats on an other forum. What do you all think of this?


Nope. An N has an advantage because IQ tests require N as well as lots of T. If IQ tests just measure Thinking ability it would not matter.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

ConsumateEngineer said:


> It is only a probability type of look at it. It makes the extroverted genius an even more precious jewel. Even as an INTJ I think it would be a lesser world if there were no extroverted geniuses. I think we may need more...


The Perseus System has Genius as a TP trait. Or perhaps a PT trait.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

I'v only been registered for a week so I can't say much about the different types. However I would like the idea that my kind are naturally inclined to be smarter:tongue: (just a joke don't take it seriously, I've seen many a conversation ruined by the missinterpretation of a joke).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

_Seriously?_

Goddammit people. Page one, FIRST POST, this is a confirmed troll thread. Three pages later, people are being typist and making sweeping generalizations about the intelligence of entire archetypes.

IRONY?

More like DESTINY.

/thread PLEASE.

EDIT:

Definition *typism (adj. n.)*: 1. A pejorative where a person is denied a service or opportunity based on their personality type. 
2. A form of discrimination and an attempt to explain, validate and excuse their negative behavior. 
3. Taking a personality type based on Meyers-Briggs Temperament Indicator and assigning negative stereotypes to a personality type with little to no verification.
4. Assigning stereotypes to a particular type with little to no verification

SOURCE:

PERSONALITY CAFE FORUM RULES


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> This entire forum is mostly a joke.
> 
> I mean, fucking really? Another "which type is teh smartest" thread?
> 
> ...


Whoa whoa whoa can we please all keep our cool here. Thank you

The title of this thread is -Genius level IQ and CF's- I was merely looking to get some insight into how the functions themselves relate to intelligence. Only to learn from what others have to say. Again we aren't singling in on any type in particular, understand this.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ozymandias said:


> Whoa whoa whoa can we please all keep our cool here. Thank you
> 
> The title of this thread is -Genius level IQ and CF's- I was merely looking to get some insight into how the functions themselves relate to intelligence. Only to learn from what others have to say. Again we aren't singling in on any type in particular, understand this.


Bullshit.

@absentminded is making blatant attacks against the intelligence of INTJs as a category which is _definitive_ of typism here on PerC and should not be allowed.

This thread is done, and should be either locked or removed.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

I disagree that there's nothing of worth to be salvaged here. Of course, I'm also an optimist .

The way I see it, as was hinted at a bit in above posts, we could try and understand how IQ testing works in relation to cognitive functions, without identifying the results with intelligence or any other 'real' trait. Focus on IQ, what the test represents and in a sense 'really tests.' Extract any possibly interesting bias, connect that with perceptions/understanding of intelligence as intelligence, and we can have a fun discussion on intelligence, 'intelligence' testing, and associated successes and pitfalls.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> @absentminded is making blatant attacks against the intelligence of INTJs as a category which is _definitive_ of typism here on PerC and should not be allowed.
> 
> This thread is done, and should be either locked or removed.


Hold on there, before you do something you might regret. I think absentminded was only pointing out that typist remarks generally come from INTJ's and she isn't wrong. I see it a lot, not only on this forum but others too.

A quote I was told as a kid always stuck with me: True intelligence is expressed in those that know that they know nothing at all. 

Moral of the story- be modest-, we can all have an intellectual discussion here without it turning into an all out type war. We have to come to agreements not by force, but by reason and understanding. Understanding that we are all different and that this is the primary reason we are all here... To understand ourselves and each other.


----------



## ALNF1031 (Jul 27, 2011)

Absentminded? I don't see a single post here from him. Do you mean Aßbiscuits?


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Alddous1031 said:


> Absentminded? I don't see a single post here from him. Do you mean Aßbiscuits?


I knew it wasn't just me...


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

L_Lawliet said:


> I knew it wasn't just me...


Yes i was going off his comment sorry about that.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Introverts, iNtuitives, Thinkers and Judgers are more likely to have the branches of intelligence that is measured by an IQ test.

Which is to say; INTJs are geared towards traditional esteems of 'intelligence', but lack highly in others.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ah, my bad @absentminded. I meant @Aßbiscuits


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ozymandias said:


> Hold on there, before you do something you might regret.


No, I really don't regret it.

I'm sick of logging into PerC and seeing this shit.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 6, 2011)

MissJordan said:


> Introverts, iNtuitives, Thinkers and Judgers are more likely to have the branches of intelligence that is measured by an IQ test.
> 
> Which is to say; INTJs are geared towards traditional esteems of 'intelligence', but lack highly in others.


I'll agree to that! And it must also be said that IQ isn't the sole determining factor in measuring ones success in society. Those other functions where INTJ's lack also come in to play there

Can we all agree with ^that^?


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Dibbs for team INTJ.


I know you were joking, but anyone who thinks that boy is anything but INTP is going to face one of my walls of text explaining how very wrong they are.:wink:


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> @absentminded is making blatant attacks against the intelligence of INTJs as a category which is _definitive_ of typism here on PerC and should not be allowed.
> 
> This thread is done, and should be either locked or removed.


I'm mostly joking. But I think intelligence has no direct correlation with types and I'm mocking the idea. If I was pushing it I'd say INTPs have an advantage what with their eagerness to learn and explore (TiNe), still doesn't make them more naturally intelligent.

I said already I'm an INTJ. What I hate is fucking intuitives hating on sensors and extroverts and having huge egos with nothing to back it up. 

Btw, I'm currently dating an INTJ and she's a fucking genius. I love her. I don't have any kind of angry bias (like many INTJs seem to have against sensors). If you want to accuse someone of being a typist, accuse your fucking idiot INTJ friends who think they're smarter and better than other types.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

nevermore said:


> I know you were joking, but anyone who thinks that boy is anything but INTP is going to face one of my walls of text explaining how very wrong they are.:wink:


Challenge accepted!

Proceed, sir.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

@Abraxas, if you're going to cry and complain and demand for this thread to be closed because you're butthurt by something I've said that wasn't even about you, you can at least reply. You called me here, if you called me here to waste my time with an explanation then you can forget about me replying again.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

If you think that you can argue that you or your type is smarter than someone else and their type:

Then you are _certainly _not a genius.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Aßbiscuits said:


> @Abraxas, if you're going to cry and complain and demand for this thread to be closed because you're butthurt by something I've said that wasn't even about you, you can at least reply. You called me here, if you called me here to waste my time with an explanation then you can forget about me replying again.


You are being offensive on purpose, and rude as fuck.

I have nothing to say to you. And I have no interest in anything you have to say to me.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> Challenge accepted!
> 
> Proceed, sir.


Okay. A few reasons why I suspect he is INTP.

First, the speed at which he is talking, while obviously. He seems to put a technical understanding of all things first and foremost and is relating that to the watcher. Ni tends to do it more slowly and Te tries to present it in an organized and specific manner, whereas Ti is lightning fast and Ne is just constantly popping out abstractions for him to say.

Secondly, his sing song voice. The INTJ voice tend to have more of a flat affect to it, since you guys use Te to express your thoughts externally. The INTP uses Fe for this same talk, and since it is in a low position many young INTP's have an immature grasp of it and tend to have up and downy speech instead of putting the emotion in more gracefully.

INTP's also have a greater tendency to overarticulate than many other types due to the precise thought and again a low command on Fe...we just go for as precise/technical an expression of the word as possible...you notice him really emphasizing the T in "spo*t*" and "square roo*t*", which stands out in American dialects especially. This will sound weird and doesn't apply to every INTP of course but it's an undeniable pattern if you've met enough INTP's (especially younger ones) and paid attention to the way they talk.

His perfectionistic speech is full of caveats "well, actually", which implies the presence of Ti-ish perfectionism. He needs to get it as precise as possible.

Why do you suspect INTJ? (Actually a few more videos and a bio might be a help for both of us to examine).


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Whatever haha. 



nevermore said:


> I know you were joking, but anyone who thinks that boy is anything but INTP is going to face one of my walls of text explaining how very wrong they are.:wink:


I agree, though not with INTP, with Pe. The kid, from that video, is not any sort of Je user. He's Ne dominant, he'll probably grow up to be an ENFP or an ENTP. Over articulation is an JiNe thing I don't know why of course but it's definitely not a Te trait. INTPs do it especially and INFPs next, they fall in love with the words they come up with. The kid, you can see, likes the words he's using because of their specific meaning. This is pretty Ti. 

I still wouldn't call him an ENTP yet, he's too young. Ne dominant it is.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

nevermore said:


> Okay. A few reasons why I suspect he is INTP.
> 
> First, the speed at which he is talking, while obviously. He seems to put a technical understanding of all things first and foremost and is relating that to the watcher. Ni tends to do it more slowly and Te tries to present it in an organized and specific manner, whereas Ti is lightning fast and Ne is just constantly popping out abstractions for him to say.
> 
> ...


I don't suspect he is an INTJ.

When I 'claimed' him for team INTJ, it was a joke really.

I was just curious as to why you suspect he is an INTP, and I figured whatever you had to say would be potentially interesting to read.

It was.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Abraxas said:


> I don't suspect he is an INTJ.
> 
> When I 'claimed' him for team INTJ, it was a joke really.
> 
> ...


OK, thanks and thanks for clarifying.  Thanks too to @Aßbiscuits for her interesting thoughts.


----------



## whytiger (Jul 17, 2010)

I find that the more intelligent a person is the harder they are to type because they tend to be good at things that their type isn't normally good at and also have a host of traits that all gifted people seem to share such as emotional intensity, sensitivity, and self-absorption. It's only after working with the person for a while that you get a sense of what their type is.

I've certainly encountered unintelligent examples of all the types though. I find that unintelligent S's tend to be very set in their ways and almost immovable in their opinions. Unintelligent N's tend to have formed a lot of odd, illogical, and sometimes paranoid theories that they believe and foist on others at every opportunity.

One of the surest signs of intelligence is the ability to keep an open mind.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

whytiger said:


> One of the surest signs of intelligence is the ability to keep an open mind.


I have said that exact same thing in the real world too many times lol.


----------



## JoniF (Jan 7, 2010)

whytiger said:


> *I find that the more intelligent a person is the harder they are to type because they tend to be good at things that their type isn't normally good at and also have a host of traits that all gifted people seem to share such as emotional intensity, sensitivity, and self-absorption. It's only after working with the person for a while that you get a sense of what their type is.*


Highly, highly agree. Keep these people in your lives!


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

@Abraxas

How on earth does *absentminded* look anything like @Aßbiscuits? :tongue:

Aßbiscuits

First, the stereotype that sensors are stupid is annoying, bothersome and childish. Anyone that understands MBTI doesn't believe this tripe.

Second, your judgement of the INTJ forum's denizens is unfair. They don't come to act smart for you, they come to have fun amongst like-minded people. They aren't members of a side-show, on display for everyone to see. (You haven't given me specific instances, so I can only reason generally.) Perhaps some of them like exaggerating the stereotype for humor's sake?

Third, you've somehow gotten it into your head that IQ = Intelligence. IQ is defined as a normalized inventory of an individual's ability to process certain types of data in a fairly sterile setting. Any psychologist/brain scientist worth their weight in any terrestrial material will never try to equate an IQ score with intelligence. Under optimal conditions, IQ scores *at best* correlate with the intelligence of the test-taker.

Fourth, given that "sensing" is *defined* as a world-view and processing method that more readily sees the trees, it makes sense that they wouldn't do as well in an academic event that requires them to see the forest.

/thread


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

I actually never said anything about IQ meaning intelligence,_ not once_ or sensors being stupid. In fact I've said nothing but the opposite. I'm fucking thick as shit in a lot of ways and I scored so high in IQ tests teachers were shocked and it earned me a lot of hype, I was skipped up a year. I was upgraded from Autism to Asperger's syndrome. Teachers nagged me for years for not living up to my potential unaware of the fact I was actually just fucking stupid (in the conventional sense). 

I was on the INTJ forum for a year, all they did was complain about fucking sensors and talk about how tough it was to be intelligent among all the dumbass sensors. They weren't joking. Neither am I. I'm just being fucking honest. I didn't expect any sort of show, I didn't expect to be met with the enormous amount of stupidity I was met with either. And what's wrong with having expectations anyway? They're the ones saying they're smart, it stands out like a _sore thumb_ if they're actually not. I'm not saying INTJs are stupid, I'm saying there's really fucking stoopid ones here despite the image they try to cast. If you think I'm insulting now you don't want me to start seeking out specific examples. 

And well done, thread is over now because of that post. You saved the day. Let's stop making dumb as shit correlations......please.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I personally believe that the INTJ is probably the most mistyped type on the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least half of the INTJs turn out to be a different type. They are drawn to the stereotypes of the type.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Ozymandias said:


> I guess IQ fails to take into account ambition and enormous success that this man demonstrated...


LOL IQ fails to take into account a lot of things. Dare I say George Dubblya Bush?


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

bethdeth said:


> LOL IQ fails to take into account a lot of things. Dare I say George Dubblya Bush?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> I personally believe that the INTJ is probably the most mistyped type on the forum. I wouldn't be surprised to see at least half of the INTJs turn out to be a different type. They are drawn to the stereotypes of the type.


There have been a few. Half of them might be going a bit to extreme though. You can usually tell by the way they don't understand INTJ humour too well. They are under the impression that the rest of us are being serious with the majority of our posts.....it's pretty funny.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

absentminded said:


> How on earth does *absentminded* look anything like Aßbiscuits? :tongue:



It's the Se inferior function! I'm sorry! *wince*

I actually like your posts! I've seen you around and you always have something interesting to say.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

Abraxas said:


> It's the Se inferior function! I'm sorry! *wince*
> 
> I actually like your posts! I've seen you around and you always have something interesting to say.


And obviously I have not one good post though I nearly have 3000 and I never have anything interesting to say.

My God. I wish I could get away with being as insulting as you are.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

Aßbiscuits said:


> I actually never said anything about IQ meaning intelligence,_ not once_ or sensors being stupid. In fact I've said nothing but the opposite. I'm fucking thick as shit in a lot of ways and I scored so high in IQ tests teachers were shocked and it earned me a lot of hype, I was skipped up a year. I was upgraded from Autism to Asperger's syndrome. Teachers nagged me for years for not living up to my potential unaware of the fact I was actually just fucking stupid (in the conventional sense).


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you subscribed to the dumb-sensor stereotype. I was agreeing with you. Additionally, my comments about the difference between IQ and intelligence were meant as a base-line to avoid criticism. I should have clarified better in both instances.



> I was on the INTJ forum for a year, all they did was complain about fucking sensors and talk about how tough it was to be intelligent among all the dumbass sensors. They weren't joking. Neither am I. I'm just being fucking honest. I didn't expect any sort of show, I didn't expect to be met with the enormous amount of stupidity I was met with either. And what's wrong with having expectations anyway? They're the ones saying they're smart, it stands out like a _sore thumb_ if they're actually not. I'm not saying INTJs are stupid, I'm saying there's really fucking stoopid ones here despite the image they try to cast. If you think I'm insulting now you don't want me to start seeking out specific examples.


Don't worry, I'm not insulted. I agree with the majority of your comments. I'm not particularly surprised that there are a large number of people that want to be INTJs to the point of self-deception.



> And well done, thread is over now because of that post. You saved the day. Let's stop making dumb as shit correlations......please.


Agreed.



Aßbiscuits said:


> And obviously I have not one good post though I nearly have 3000 and I never have anything interesting to say.
> 
> My God. I wish I could get away with being as insulting as you are.


I honestly think he was trying to apologize to me, rather than insult you. I could be wrong, though.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

TheBoss said:


> I tried to recall if I too, was royally declaring exits when I was a child and had ran out of arguments but has been so long, I can't remember anymore.
> 
> As you probably know, neuroscience's development was boosted by the work of Wiener, Cybernetics. The options are countless. The currently used topography of brain, includes indeed the 4 lobes but neuroscience also emphasizes the significance of corpus callosum (eg the cybernetics ref) - let's not forget the glia here - and brain studies on it keep gaining attention (it is not a new idea of course). Hyperthreading in parallel processing (though I believe stroop effect is concurrent rather than parallel) has very much to do with corpus callosum.
> Theories may be proven wrong but it is usual, for well addressed theories to provide insights, or correct concepts that will lead to a solid theory or new discoveries. Two inspirational lectures about it are easily found online: Feynman's Nobel lecture of Dec 11, 1965 - particularly about wrong scientific theories - and J.K Rowlings's lecture at Harvard - generally on mistakes.
> ...


I can appreciate that you might think that arguing with me isn't over but I am not even sure what you are trying to say in the scheme of this thread. This quote does not actually provide any counter argument to what was previously stated. I have no idea why you are making personal attacks. 



fourtines said:


> There was a study done where they can connect Fi dominance to two particular parts in the brain, et al. Just because people weren't aware of it while you're in college, or it wasn't accepted *officially* by academics doesn't mean it isn't real.
> 
> Linear thought - like the kind of thought prioritized in logic sections of IQ tests - really is most likely to be scored well upon by IxTx types...I think NTs may be more interested in the abstract parts of it...and Si is one of the most linear functions, which is why stereotypically SJs on average do well in school.


Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the scheme of things. since I was arguing against the idea of NTs being superior to other types in intelligence. Saying et al at the end of a sentence doesn't provide existence of the studies....since it refers to authors which are non-existent. 

I don't wish to argue over what is blatantly obvious with minute details which don't actually pertain to what I was talking about. It's just as simple as that. I thought I would explain as it seems that I was misconstrued somehow. 

I won't respond to any more quotes.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the scheme of things. since I was arguing against the idea of NTs being superior to other types in intelligence. Saying et al at the end of a sentence doesn't provide existence of the studies....*since it refers to authors which are non-existent. *


Wut? The authors aren't non-existent. Are you calling me a liar because I didn't list the details of the study? I'm talking about Dario Nardi's Neuroscience of Personality. 



> I don't wish to argue over what is blatantly obvious with minute details which don't actually pertain to what I was talking about. It's just as simple as that. I thought I would explain as it seems that I was misconstrued somehow.
> 
> I won't respond to any more quotes.


LOL. K.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

wandai said:


> I'm sorry but could you have a reference of that? What study?


Didn't see this comment.

Here: INTJ Personal Growth


----------



## TheBoss (Oct 27, 2011)

bethdeth said:


> I can appreciate that you might think that arguing with me isn't over but I am not even sure what you are trying to say in the scheme of this thread. This quote does not actually provide any counter argument to what was previously stated. I have no idea why you are making personal attacks.


I on the other hand recognize my post had one the effects I expected, that you would understand talking neuroscience requires more familiarity with the subject. And I wouldn't be as eager as you were to throw unsubstantiated accusations about people making non existing "personal" attacks. I am personally offended you resolved to such and since the right to derive and express opinion is still free, I genuinely consider your attacks as merely poor discourse skills.



fourtines said:


> LOL. K.


Best response (and thanks for the handy reference! )



JohnGalt said:


> Those of you who were told you had "genius-level" IQs at a young age:
> 1. do you find people think you're smarter than you actually are/see yourself,
> 2. or that you lack intelligence in many relevant areas and feel undeserving of such a label?
> 3. Or do you find that label has negatively impacted your work ethic?


1. I find they expect way too much. No dammit, I don't have to remember every single date in human history! I am still a human, not a data storage server. :frustrating: It is only damaging or frustrating if you prefer, that we are loved for that ability as children and the expectations get higher and higher to the point of unattainable. We want to remain loved so we keep doing greater feats. If care exists to have higher expectations and boost the tangible effects of that IQ but, with care to remember every IQ has limitations, things will be great.
2. No, not anymore.
3. No. How could it. Any high IQ has some brain efficacy to dispute & analyze and as ENTJs we question authority, so sooner or later we will investigate how valid the IQ tests are, where they come from and what they TRULY tell us. And what it tells us, is we are able to perform better in very particular areas as well as better to respond they way the test-makers hoped for. Which in the end, does not makes us smarter than the next person.  
Is the difference between a great electrician and a great mother, or a great farmer and a great painter. If we have tests to measure "superb motherhood", but not "superb farming/electricians/etc", a super mom will top the scores, but does that make the painter/electrician/etc a lesser person? a sillier person? 

A small note about IQ tests: take an amazing genious child that never went to school and an average child that did, The later will outperform our genious. The tests often include Fibonacci sequences, primes and their squares, and taught in school maths, even language problems are bound into this bias. What they actually tell us, is that a child learnt those things and MAYBE that the child also has a better or superior ability to brake these particular mental things to pieces and recombine them.
But that, as important it is, ignores areas that people excel and are vital and as "high IQ" worthy, like deep empathy, or excellent physical and manual abilities (after all, it is our brain that controls the body! So this is a form of IQ as well). I may be typically an amazing IQ but how does that make me better than the uneducated sailor who will save my life in a sea accident? How does that make me better than an uneducated grandma that knows all those lil things that make the difference in upbringing a child? How does that make me "street smart"?? 
It doesn't. 

How does that make me better from people so caring, feeling and trying inspite of zero or low end education, that try to make this world a sentimentally better place? The Feeling part of humanity is an IQ of its own, inspite of it being harder to test and be assigned a number.
Imho, there are many geniouses out there and would be a poor humanity if we only had strictly intellectual ones.


----------



## birthday (Feb 6, 2011)

I'm highly gifted (and yes it is official) and you know what? It means nothing. It's only a number. The true measure of intelligence should be how the person develops in life and how they go on about doing things. It's a pitiful crime to say "Gee, kid! You're really smart!" It does nothing for the child.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

The IQ test is garbage!

From the creator Alfred Binet:



> Some recent thinkers…[have affirmed] that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that cannot be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing.


I believe that I'm an INTJ btw.
What I saw in the INTJ forum confused me.
I now understand that it is my focus that matters and not the various hangups that some try to pass of as INTJ traits that matter.
Seeing INTJs in fiction made it much more clear to me.
Contrasting my own way of thinking with others around me helped even more.


----------

