# Intellects to intellectual wannabes.



## CCCXXIX (Mar 11, 2011)

At least that's what I think it should be changed to, because a lot of the people on here aren't to bright.

Always talking about S types like they're a curse? I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here. And multiple S types that are able to think on a deeper level.

The misconception is N is automatically more intellectual than S. When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition.

/discuss


----------



## The Bastard Snow. (Oct 17, 2011)

The problem -- I think you'll find -- is your dictionary.


I'm saying that you're using the incorrect definition of 'intellectual'.
It is a type of intelligence, not a synonym for intelligence it's self.


----------



## Arbite (Dec 26, 2010)

CCCXXIX said:


> I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here.


Well, thats a generalization and a half.


----------



## Ngg (Jul 22, 2010)

"When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition." 

This statement makes no sense. If you are more 'N', then by MBTI definitions you rely on your intuition more, and are more likely to have a well developped one.

Whether or not your intuition is valid and you have the intelligence to generate valuable insights from it is a different matter, not related personality type. I'm personally willing to admit that I come up with dumb ideas from time to time.
You have smart Sensors and dumb Intuitives, that doesn't change the fact that Intuitives have by definition a more developped intuition and ability to grasp abstract concepts.

Based on personal experience, I also believe that N's are more likely to be intellectuals. 

Yes I'm sure your ISTJ has a great business sense, but that doesn't illustrate anything. In fact, I'd think Sensors are more prolific in business, especially when it comes to managing finances and client relations, than Intuitives.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> At least that's what I think it should be changed to, because a lot of the people on here aren't to bright.
> 
> Always talking about S types like they're a curse? I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here. And multiple S types that are able to think on a deeper level.
> 
> ...


I thanked this post simply because I agree with one of your statements, that some N's think S's are a curse, not all but some. I was just wondering why?


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> /discuss



I like rainbows


----------



## kinetickyle (Feb 27, 2011)

If you want to be perceived as an intellect, then you are an intellectual wannabe. I'm no different.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> At least that's what I think it should be changed to, because a lot of the people on here aren't too bright.
> 
> Always talking about S types like they're a curse? I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here. And multiple S types that are able to think on a deeper level.
> 
> ...


"Those guys are such cretins." said, the cretin ;P 

Now for some clarity. 

Everyone has varying thoughts and acumen to be appreciated. At the same time, I haven't seen anything brilliant in any type compared to who I work alongside with; but is that a fair comparison? I also know that I'm usually here to chill and that when my neurons must fire off about a topic, I simply dive in, hopefully encountering adequate intellectual (I hate that word) intensity—what makes *you* any different?


----------



## Juan M (Mar 11, 2011)

Judging and generalizating... you are Te/Ni dont you?, you maybe should develop your Ni more, its healthy for understanding the world around you.


----------



## CCCXXIX (Mar 11, 2011)

The Bastard Snow. said:


> The problem -- I think you'll find -- is your dictionary.


The problem is that instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack my intelligence. Well played?



Arbite said:


> Well, thats a generalization and a half.


I didn't take the time to elaborate, and I wont. Basically anything related to creating a successful business and running it. Creating functional teams, foreseeing market conditions, conceptualizing and applying new ideas, fixing problems as they arise, etc...



Ngg said:


> "When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition."
> 
> This statement makes no sense. If you are more 'N', then by MBTI definitions you rely on your intuition more, and are more likely to have a well developped one.
> 
> ...


Finally someone that knows how to make a point instead of posting drivel.

It does make sense, I don't disagree with the fact that the majority of intuitives have developed a superior intuition. But you just clarified my point, there are smart sensors and dumb intuitives. 

On this part of the forums, people are always posting about "sensors this" or "sensors that" putting intuitives on a pedestal. I've seen them called "lowly" I've seen them called "unimaginative" I've seen them called "stupid" I've seen them called "short-sighted". 

Many self-labeled intuitives on this part of the forum fit the very characteristics that they're sticking to others. A bit hypocritical in my opinion.

Also, you're correct that MBTI is about preferencing, and you are correct about the overall theory. However, all of your cognitive functions develop over time regardless of what you prefer. There are people that have a sensory preference, but they are also able to use their intuition when a situation arises that requires it. 

So IN THEORY (and also from what I have seen) there are sensors out there that have such a strongly developed intuition, it compares with the intuitive "class".

Sensors are more prolific in certain aspects of business, but well-rounded individuals are more prolific in all aspects... That was my point, that your overall development determines who you are and what you become, not your MBTI type.



L_Lawliet said:


> I thanked this post simply because I agree with one of your statements, that some N's think S's are a curse, not all but some. I was just wondering why?


Because when insecure people find out that they make up just 25% (intuitive, NTs make up even less) of the population they think they're sooo special and get this thing called superiority complex. It's just masking the fact that they are insecure and mad at the world.



sly said:


> I like rainbows


Then research them, the science behind them is actually extremely interesting. 



kinetickyle said:


> If you want to be perceived as an intellect, then you are an intellectual wannabe. I'm no different.


Wanting to be perceived as an intellect? Alright Al Gore.



Tendency said:


> Everyone has varying thoughts and acumen to be appreciated. At the same time, I haven't seen anything brilliant in any type compared to who I work alongside with; but is that a fair comparison? I also know that I'm usually here to chill and that when my neurons must fire off about a topic, I simply dive in, hopefully encountering adequate intellectual (I hate that word) intensity—what makes you any different?


I don't know what you were getting at, but whatever it was you failed.



Juan M said:


> Judging and generalizating... you are Te/Ni dont you?, you maybe should develop your Ni more, its healthy for understanding the world around you.


My preference order is Te>Ni yes... I should actually develop all my cognitive functions more, they are all helpful for understanding the world around me.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> .....


 What should be done to prevent being/becoming a wannabe intellectual(instead of intellectual wannabe?)?
What are the traps, that NT's might walk into(s-n perception)?
Why have you chosen to reveal this in the INTP board?
In your honest opinion, do you think INTPs have a superiority complex?
What are good ideas to start a successful business on?


----------



## kinetickyle (Feb 27, 2011)

Hmm...someone seems defensive.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Perhaps something that would be a bit more constructive would be to make a post that focuses on the positive aspects of sensors with the big picture in mind. If you think you have a good understanding of something, you see that others don't have that level of understanding, and you notice that this is a problem, wouldn't it be better to try and fix the problem rather than calling people dumb?


----------



## M1R4G3 (Aug 21, 2011)

I don't really think there is much to discuss here. Intelligence isn't determined by your type, because no one type is smarter than any other. People who argue EVERY intj is smarter than EVERY esfp is a moron. Generalizing intelligence based on only type? Please. I think there might just be a few teensy-tiny more factors to be taken into account. Like maybe that persons entire past.


----------



## Bazinga187 (Aug 7, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> At least that's what I think it should be changed to, because a lot of the people on here aren't to bright.


Should all of the genuinely intelligent NTs be penalised because some aren't clever? Besides, there are many forms of intelligence. A lot of NTs seem to be proficient in their own areas of interest, while not necessarily being academic. The groups are a generalisation. Nobody said it would be true for every one. It doesn't mean that all NTs are more intelligent than all other types. The SPs are called "creators". Does that mean other types can't create or aren't as adept at it? No. The same applies for SJs being called "overseers" and NFs being "dreamers". I would imagine that the concept comes from the fact NTs are rather introspective with their theories and ideas. They enjoy pondering things, and intuition allows them to think beyond what's in front of them. Again, I'm not saying that sensors can't do that. Just because one type can do something, doesn't mean another can't.



> Always talking about S types like they're a curse? I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here. And multiple S types that are able to think on a deeper level.


That sort of prejudice depends upon the person. We all know some very intelligent sensors. We probably all know some stupid intuitives. Not all Ns have the superiority complex that you spoke of previously. You're generalising as much as you're telling us not to.



> The misconception is N is automatically more intellectual than S. When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition.


The same could apply to any type and their functions. It's based on the assumption that types actually use their dominant and auxiliary functions. They are the way we perceive the world, so are likely to be more developed. Like I've already said, just because one type can, doesn't mean another can't.


You can't accuse us all of pseudo-intelligence because you know some intellects that aren't clever and you know some other groups that are.


----------



## Waiting (Jul 10, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> The problem is that instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack my intelligence. Well played?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are way too angry. You are claiming others to be insecure and mad at the world, but your post is full of anger, and the vast majority of apposing views you attacked showing hypocrisy in your chastising of others for the same. Calm down, you'll make better points, though I'd say that the main idea you're trying to convey should be self evident to most and I believe it is to be honest.


----------



## kudi (Sep 27, 2011)

In other words you are saying..


> At least that's what I think it should be changed to, because a lot of the people on here aren't to bright.


I'm smarter than most people. 



> Always talking about S types like they're a curse? I know an ISTJ that's smarter business wise than anyone here. And multiple S types that are able to think on a deeper level.


Other nt's need to stop saying they are smarter than most people.



> The misconception is N is automatically more intellectual than S. When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition.


And that your frustrated and probably looking for support to validate your feelings. 

I don't see what there is to discuss. I can agree that type simply shows preference and is no guarantee of anything. Nor does type prevent a sensor from accessing intuition or vise versa. There are also many types of intelligence and just like their are many roads to one destination there are many ways to use your preference to conclude at the same correct or 'intelligent' conclusion.


----------



## Juan M (Mar 11, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> My preference order is Te>Ni yes... I should actually develop all my cognitive functions more, they are all helpful for understanding the world around me.


Yeah, do it and then comeback in 1 or 2 years... and you will understand what is going on here.


----------



## The Bastard Snow. (Oct 17, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> The problem is that instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack my intelligence. Well played?


No, but by responding like that, I wouldn't have to.
Well I was saying that there's a difference between what society calls an 'intellectual' and what is classically believed to be an 'intellectual'.

In the classical sense (think Plato, etc); intellectual simply means thinking what others do not. Thinking clearly, but in an abstract manner.

In the modern sense; intellectual means to think better than others.



So I was saying that we aren't necessarily any smarter than other people, but NTs are known to think in ways different than others.


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

I think it's just backlash because S types rub us the wrong way and are always on our case about how we have to change, be more "down to earth". Which wouldn't matter so much except that there are so many of them! 

Of course no type is more or less intellectual -- unless you limit "intellectual" to the Humanities Department to which "N's" are drawn.


----------



## Aaron Boal (Jun 2, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> When your intuitiveness could suck so much ass, that it's weaker then most S types intuition.


Almost choked while drinking at how funny this is. "Could" is the key word there. Our intuitiveness doesn't "suck ass" as it is highly developed.


----------



## Tendency (Aug 18, 2011)

CCCXXIX said:


> I don't know what you were getting at, but whatever it was you failed.


Well, I got at something, but you didn't get the point. I'll concede to say that we both failed.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

CCCXXIX said:


> The problem is that instead of attacking my argument, you decide to attack my intelligence. Well played?


And your original post attacked the intelligence of a ton of the people on this forum. 

You don't know these people very well obviously. Some of the most intelligent and interesting people I know post here. Its a great group. I don't know where you are getting that sensors are looked down on here. Typism is actually against the rules, because the community accepts all types as equals. 

Anyway, I'm closing this thread because its mean and nasty.


----------

