# Have you ever met a dumb Intuitive?



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Killionaire said:


> Look at this web page of geniuses. Tons of intuitors. Only about 6 sensors. Case closed.
> 
> MBTI truths: The Nature of Intelligence


You're comparing geniuses. Most intuitives aren't geniuses. Most are average, just like most sensors are average.


----------



## Tynen (Aug 26, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I just looked in the mirror. I confirm.


I love you


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Not only this, but there exist auxiliary or dominant "feelers" who will be "dumber at feeling reasoning" than, say, tertiary ones.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Killionaire said:


> Look at this web page of geniuses. Tons of intuitors. Only about 6 sensors. Case closed.
> 
> MBTI truths: The Nature of Intelligence


IQ tests only measure a certain kind of intelligence, not to mention that the number is essentially meaningless after 130.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

There's a thread we had about smart sensors here and despite its title, it had a lot of pretty good posts in it.
I think quite a few teachers and scientists (practical application is Si+Te friendly and Si is pretty hands on) would fall into that category. It's not just in that.

As for the ones about post about dominant/auxiliary feeling, sometimes I feel that some higher thinkers have a too cut and dried logic and don't seem investigative enough with their reasoning (well, at least as far as looking for other sides of their reasoning).


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Killionaire said:


> Look at this web page of geniuses. Tons of intuitors. Only about 6 sensors. Case closed.
> 
> MBTI truths: The Nature of Intelligence


Your statement is full of fallacy.

1. So only a particular narrow type of intelligence counts?

2. A higher level of "genius" in a specific type of intelligence means that there aren't a high number of low IQ intuitives?

3. This says anything about the "average" IQ?

4. These people (mostly dead) took the MBTI and weren't typed by MBTI enthusiasts (who are N-biased)?

I'll stop now.



PaladinX said:


> _“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
> _
> - Einstein


Agreed.



skycloud86 said:


> IQ tests only measure a certain kind of intelligence, not to mention that the number is essentially meaningless after 130.


Agreed.


----------



## agamemnon (Oct 30, 2013)

Of course, types don't really correlate with intelligence. I think a dumb intuitive is the type of person who really likes abstract concepts and creating theories, but isn't actually good at it. A typical example is the guy who constantly wants to talk about quantum physics despite understanding nothing about it. This guy _thinks_ he's smart and he will tell you he's smart (red flag), but he actual doesn't know enough to have the deep conversation he craves. At least he tries.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

skycloud86 said:


> IQ tests only measure a certain kind of intelligence, not to mention that the number is essentially meaningless after 130.


Which kind?


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

@Killionaire 

No one likes a smug intuitive, this is exactly why i prefer having sensor friends to intuitives...


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Not going to say a lot but sometimes there's red flags for me deciding some "intuitives" are really sensors here. I can look away but the harder they try, the more obvious they are.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

it's hard to say what intuition actually is when one thinks they're seeing it--there's just so much room to actually be wrong about the pathways another person is using (you may very easily see their end-result, or you may even recognize that they seem to be using the same schema over and over, but to actually say what that mental experience is as defined by a theory--if it even fits into the theory to begin with--is very, very difficult). especially if we all decide to view any complex cognition as intuition (it can be as complex of a mental process as allowed for by the user: how the mind allows the insight to branch, or the individual ways one ferrets out more insights from the initial process... which would really be a combination of things, not just purely "intuition"). 

one my bosses is definitely Si-dominant. she'll always say things like, "oh, i'm not smart, i just work really hard"... but if you ever try to follow her directions and wade your way through the level of subjective convolution, it becomes apparent that it would take an above average mental process just to be capable of existing in that fashion (and being successful from it/having it actually work--i mean it's one thing to drone on and on with one's idiosyncrasies P), but wholly another to actually have them match back up with reality, to act as a subjective mirror). 

i guess i could go on to make the arguments that are always made in these threads, but it's kind of already been done. plus, i've given more than enough to actually "think" with so that "knowing better" is made possible. 

:tongue:


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Well in answer to the OP's question, i'm certainly not Einstein but i'm no Snooki either, i'm average or even below average, i have a younger cousins that are intuitive that are much smarter than me, which is a bit embarrassing tbh, since they are at least 5 years my junior, i'm 21.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

atypeofuser said:


> Not going to say a lot but sometimes there's red flags for me deciding some "intuitives" are really sensors here. I can look away but the harder they try, the more obvious they are.


Oh no! Intuitives steal all the good sensors and call them intuitives. You can't send us the intuitive rejects too. Keep your rejects.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Haha. Well some of them are considerably more innocent in that way; it's just that when some of them called to explain their intuition, it turns out to not be that.


----------



## Ice_Queen (Oct 10, 2013)

If I HAD to say a fellow intuitive was "dumb", I would have to say yes. But I don't think it's in the sense that a lot of others would understand the term. It's just that I found her extremely unrealistic, not giving the slightest consideration to how she was going to go from point A to point B. She wouldn't consider different perspectives; very close-minded in my opinion. And I found it amusing that she assumed that being an INTP made her naturally smarter/intellectually superior than the rest when I found she really had shallow knowledge of MBTI.

My nearly five-year-old son is an ESFP and I'm always fascinated by how smart he really is.


----------



## PeachyKeener (Mar 18, 2013)

monemi said:


> I've met intuitives who were absolutely convinced of connections that they had zero data to prove were connected. Which is fine, right up until these individuals expected everyone else to take their say so without any proof. Finding connections is junk unless you can prove it.
> 
> There are dumb N's and dumb S's. But you didn't really need a thread to know that right?


I'm lucky. I'm able to sit and have conceptions with no data, but chase after some data that might look like something, but then I feel if I were to do that I would be conjecturing or seeing bias from myself with the data because I may find data that supports my claim, instead of the other way around.

I would say I'm fairly heavy in the N (v. S) sort of thing, so it's interesting to me. However, does that mean my T or J is more developed somehow, even though I'm an ENFP... I would say that my F could almost be split and the J can be used to my advantage when actually consciously used (or try to do that -- or find someone who helps me who has that).


----------



## John Coltrane (May 11, 2013)

I've done some really dumb things in my life, so I'm checking in!


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> Which kind?


The kind that allows you to be good at IQ tests.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Being intuitive doesn't imply that you will be intelligent, so there are dumb intuitives and smart sensors, plus I don't consider myself to be too intelligent either, even if I never measured my IQ, I highly doubt that it will be above average. As others had stated, I also think that a dumb one would try to grasp lots of abstract concepts, but will fail in the process, or will have ideas that can be destroyed with a simple reality check.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Killionaire said:


> Look at this web page of geniuses. Tons of intuitors. Only about 6 sensors. Case closed.
> 
> MBTI truths: The Nature of Intelligence


I hope you are trolling.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

skycloud86 said:


> The kind that allows you to be good at IQ tests.


But what is it? You are giving vague answers that don't seem to mean anything. 

What would you call it or how would you define it? How do you know what "it" is? Your earlier comment implies that there are other intelligences. What are they? How would you distinguish this "intelligence" from the other "intelligences"?

I'm curious as to your meaning.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm more concerned about how the fuck you achieve a confirmed IQ score of 210. Gimme?


----------



## Calvin (Jun 21, 2012)

Only sensors are going to say yes.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

I think there might be covert-aggressive intuitives and if so... then they are the dumb ones.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

PaladinX said:


> But what is it? You are giving vague answers that don't seem to mean anything.
> 
> What would you call it or how would you define it? How do you know what "it" is? Your earlier comment implies that there are other intelligences. What are they? How would you distinguish this "intelligence" from the other "intelligences"?
> 
> I'm curious as to your meaning.


There's various ways of defining intelligence - you could say it is things such as creativity or athleticism, or you could say it is the ability to use new information efficiently and so on.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Calvin said:


> Only sensors are going to say yes.


Why? I implied it in my post, because if we consider "dumb" to mean below average intelligence, half of the world's population will be below average intelligence, and therefore be "dumb". Many of those people will be intuitives.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Yeah.

And plenty of unhealthy ones as well.


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

Let's take a slightly different tack: *Have you ever met a ******* intuitive?*


----------



## blood roots (Oct 29, 2013)

Many.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Meritocrat said:


> Let's take a slightly different tack: *Have you ever met a ******* intuitive?*


I've never met a *******. I have met intuitive chav's though.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

Meritocrat said:


> Let's take a slightly different tack: *Have you ever met a ******* intuitive?*


Are You Smarter Than An Intuitive Fifth Grader?

You Might Be A ******* lntuitive lf...


----------



## Ligerman30 (Oct 23, 2013)

Everyone uses intuition, it's just some people use it more then others. Those who use it every waking moment, especially Ni users, can come off as wackos.


----------



## HalfwayThere (Aug 30, 2012)

Yep, especially those intuitives who use their intuition for stupid things, or completely attach thoughts and ideas together wrong. I actually wish those people werent intuitive at all...


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Donovan said:


> it's hard to say what intuition actually is when one thinks they're seeing it--there's just so much room to actually be wrong about the pathways another person is using (you may very easily see their end-result, or you may even recognize that they seem to be using the same schema over and over, but to actually say what that mental experience is as defined by a theory--if it even fits into the theory to begin with--is very, very difficult). especially if we all decide to view any complex cognition as intuition (it can be as complex of a mental process as allowed for by the user: how the mind allows the insight to branch, or the individual ways one ferrets out more insights from the initial process... which would really be a combination of things, not just purely "intuition").
> 
> one my bosses is definitely Si-dominant. she'll always say things like, "oh, i'm not smart, i just work really hard"... but if you ever try to follow her directions and wade your way through the level of subjective convolution, it becomes apparent that it would take an above average mental process just to be capable of existing in that fashion (and being successful from it/having it actually work--i mean it's one thing to drone on and on with one's idiosyncrasies P), but wholly another to actually have them match back up with reality, to act as a subjective mirror).
> 
> ...


Take this quote as a double thank or something. I agree.


----------



## marsec (Nov 6, 2012)

I can be stupid as hell sometimes. For instance, just the other day I was trying to load a queen size mattress onto an elevator for about a full minute with someone when all I had to do was flip it on its side... /facepalm


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

agamemnon said:


> Of course, types don't really correlate with intelligence.


Come on now, are we going to deny that nine times out of ten an INTJ will be smarter than an ESFP?
Correlation does not imply causation, sure. Because you type as an INTJ doesn't definitively render you more intelligent than an ESFP, sure. But, frankly, the respective works of Isaac Newton and Nicki Minaj were partially influenced by their cognitive functioning.

Intuition is the ability to go beyond the surface, to see the big-picture - not what is, but what could be. It is, by nature and by statistic, the more 'intelligent' function and the single most correlative to intelligence, whilst not the most real-worldly operative, hence why STJs will excel more in the academic field.
Ti and Ni are more intelligent than Fe and Se, sorry folks.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Donovan said:


> it's hard to say what intuition actually is when one thinks they're seeing it--there's just so much room to actually be wrong about the pathways another person is using (you may very easily see their end-result, or you may even recognize that they seem to be using the same schema over and over, but to actually say what that mental experience is as defined by a theory--if it even fits into the theory to begin with--is very, very difficult). especially if we all decide to view any complex cognition as intuition (it can be as complex of a mental process as allowed for by the user: how the mind allows the insight to branch, or the individual ways one ferrets out more insights from the initial process... which would really be a combination of things, not just purely "intuition").
> 
> one my bosses is definitely Si-dominant. she'll always say things like, "oh, i'm not smart, i just work really hard"... but if you ever try to follow her directions and wade your way through the level of subjective convolution, it becomes apparent that it would take an above average mental process just to be capable of existing in that fashion (and being successful from it/having it actually work--i mean it's one thing to drone on and on with one's idiosyncrasies P), but wholly another to actually have them match back up with reality, to act as a subjective mirror).
> 
> ...


In other words, introverts are actually more intelligent than extroverts? Fuck yes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Come on now, are we going to deny that nine times out of ten an INTJ will be smarter than an ESFP?
> Correlation does not imply causation, sure. Because you type as an INTJ doesn't definitively render you more intelligent than an ESFP, sure. But, frankly, the respective works of Isaac Newton and Nicki Minaj were partially influenced by their cognitive functioning.
> 
> Intuition is the ability to go beyond the surface, to see the big-picture - not what is, but what could be. It is, by nature and by statistic, the more 'intelligent' function and the single most correlative to intelligence, whilst not the most real-worldly operative, hence why STJs will excel more in the academic field.
> Ti and Ni are more intelligent than Fe and Se, sorry folks.


Are you trolling or are you in fact... *drums roll* genuinely stupid? Because that is one stupid as fuck claim and belies a weak understanding of how the functions operate psychologically. They only infer where our psychological focus lies, but the real question is how a person regardless of intelligence, is able to abstract that information and make sense of it which is wholly independent of sensation vs intuition.

One can argue that intuition and sensation lead to different _kinds _of intelligences, but that's an entirely different claim.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Sometimes I think I am rather dumb, in a colloquial sense of the word.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Are you trolling or are you in fact... *drums roll* genuinely stupid? Because that is one stupid as fuck claim and belies a weak understanding of how the functions operate psychologically. They only infer where our psychological focus lies, but the real question is how a person regardless of intelligence, is able to abstract that information and make sense of it which is wholly independent of sensation vs intuition.
> 
> One can argue that intuition and sensation lead to different _kinds_of intelligences, but that's an entirely different claim.


Oh, I'm genuinely stupid.
I made several claims. Which of them do you find stupid?
1. An INTJ is often found to be smarter than an ESFP.
2. Intelligence is _partially influenced_ by our ability to perceive and interpret data (in fact, I might say that's the better half of it), which is classified well in Jungian terms.
3. Intuition is statistically and logically correlative to intelligence.

They only infer what?

Intelligence is by and large the "capacity to acquire and apply knowledge", which is definitionally appropriate to all 'intelligences'. I'm not hairsplitting textbook definitions with you and assigning them each to one and the other.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Oh, I'm genuinely stupid.
> I made several claims. Which of them do you find stupid?
> 1. An INTJ is often found to be smarter than an ESFP.


False. Except one study that I've seen cited on the MBTI places, there is no data to support this assumption and the results of that study is incredibly questionable. Actually, on this forum there are several very smart Se doms who are clearly of above average intelligence and I can think of several equally dumb intuitive doms here. Intuition is just a specific way of understanding data, but it does not make you smart because there is nothing about intuition that says how capable you will be able to understand the data you are intuiting. 



> 2. Intelligence is _partially influenced_ by our ability to perceive and interpret data (in fact, I might say that's the better half of it), which is classified well in Jungian terms.


Yes, and there's nothing that says that there is such a great difference between Se and Ni here in how it would aid or hinder an individual to abstract data. It only suggests what kind of data set we prefer. 



> 3. Intuition is statistically and logically correlative to intelligence.


I call those statistics bullshit in general because a) it questions how the people were typed and whether those typings were in fact accurate or not; b) how intelligence is defined; c) that it is in fact even possible to draw a correlation between the two. 



> They only infer what?
> 
> Intelligence is by and large the "capacity to acquire and apply knowledge", which is definitionally appropriate to all 'intelligences'. I'm not hairsplitting textbook definitions with you and assigning them each to one and the other.


Yep, meaning there is no such relationship to Jungian functions since they ultimately are meant to deal with psychology such as complexes, not measuring traits such as intelligence. 

You're applying cultural stereotypes and it's stereotypes like that that pain sensors as stupid even when it's not true. It's also stereotypes like these that make people mistype so much. 

Inability to see this cognitive bias in yourself can only suggest one thing to me: you're fucking dumb.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Come on now, are we going to deny that nine times out of ten an INTJ will be smarter than an ESFP?
> Correlation does not imply causation, sure. Because you type as an INTJ doesn't definitively render you more intelligent than an ESFP, sure. But, frankly, the respective works of Isaac Newton and Nicki Minaj were partially influenced by their cognitive functioning.
> 
> Intuition is the ability to go beyond the surface, to see the big-picture - not what is, but what could be. It is, by nature and by statistic, the more 'intelligent' function and the single most correlative to intelligence, whilst not the most real-worldly operative, hence why STJs will excel more in the academic field.
> Ti and Ni are more intelligent than Fe and Se, sorry folks.


You compare Newton with Minaj? How is that remotely fair? Try Newton and Picasso. Otherwise it's like comparing ESFP Pablo Picasso with INTJ Chevy Chase.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I am curious what makes you so equally sure of sensor brilliance? Are you sure that your assumptions are true (that there is no correlation), or just that you idealize the notion of equality? (quote didn't work properly @ephemereality)

To be honest, the definition of intuition is synonymous with the most traditional definitions intelligence. If you wish to redefine what intelligence means, add various type of intelligences (as many models have), go ahead. And I fully support this, as people are valuable and skilled for different reasons. But it won't change that a correlation exists in the traditional model.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I am curious what makes you so equally sure of sensor brilliance? Are you sure that your assumptions are true (that there is no correlation), or just that you idealize the notion of equality? (quote didn't work properly @_ephemereality_)
> 
> To be honest, the definition of intuition is synonymous with the most traditional definitions intelligence. If you wish to redefine what intelligence means, add various type of intelligences (as many models have), go ahead. And I fully support this, as people are valuable and skilled for different reasons. But it won't change that a correlation exists in the traditional model.


At the extreme ends of the scale, there are more extremely intelligent intuitives. But within the general population, there is a lot more overlap than some are willing to admit. Including within traditional measures of IQ. Most intuitives aren't genius's. Most are within the same ballpark as sensors. Hence there are dumbass intuitives out there. Too many N's presume sensors are automatically dumber than them. When most sensors and intuitives are of about the same intelligence by traditional measures.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I am curious what makes you so equally sure of sensor brilliance? Are you sure that your assumptions are true (that there is no correlation), or just that you idealize the notion of equality? (quote didn't work properly @ephemereality)


What is brilliance to you? I am not idealizing notions of equality, how can I, when I have engaged sensors well above average intelligence and those below just like I have engaged intuitives the same? skycloud89 outlined it perfectly already: on an average level, no one type will be better because that's not statistically possible. 



> To be honest, the definition of intuition is synonymous with the most traditional definitions intelligence. If you wish to redefine what intelligence means, add various type of intelligences (as many models have), go ahead. And I fully support this, as people are valuable and skilled for different reasons. But it won't change that a correlation exists in the traditional model.


Yes, and that's a problem with the MBTI in my opinion, since that definition of intuition has _nothing_ to do with the actual Jungian definition of the same as a psychic process. This leads to a lot of things:

1. People mistype because they identify with that definition because 
a) they think they are smart so therefore they are intuitives; 
b) people who take the test and happened to be intelligent will be mistyped;
c) people want to be intuitives because they want to appear smart.

An example: I was watching this live stream some time ago meant to discuss the notion of consciousness, what it is. You know what? There were only two intuitives in that discussion group. The two philosophers were xSTJs, the neuroscience person ESTP and what was left was an ENTP and an INFJ. I bet that if I hadn't typed those people with Flatlander, most people would quickly point out that all of them must be intuitives because of the content of the discussion and because they happened to be smart because clearly only intuitives in the stereotype MBTI sense would be interested to discuss the idea of consciousness to begin with. And therein lies the problem - people don't get what intuition is. Intuition is simply a way how one perceives reality but that's it. What separated people apart in that discussion was simply how they approached and understood the same subject. The ESTP did so from the basis of neuroscience. Consciousness occurred as a result of synapses in the brain. This is Se logic because it deals with something tangible to explain the intangible, and to support his case he brought numerous pictures and research data to exemplify. The philosophers on the other hand, argued consciousness based on empiricism and epistemology, that consciousness occurs based on what we've already experienced. This is Si, because it extracts the sensory experience and builds and epistemological model. None of these explanations are any less intelligent than the other. They are just simply different ways to approach the same subject. I would argue the ESTP had easily an IQ range of 150-170. I also bet that many people would mistype him as an ENTP or something else because of his preferred science. Therein lies the problem. People project their expectations on type. It's the same stupid shit like all NFs must be humanists and care about improving humanity and be all feeler mushy because of the stereotype, or all IxFPs are wounded artists. Then you create a pocket niche of the type not based on its actual cognition but based on behavior, and whatever people you type this way may fit your pocket niche of said type, but they will not actually represent the Fi dom cognitively. Chances are that you will mistype plenty of people this way.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

intelligence - Wiktionary
Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn andcomprehend.

intuition - Wiktionary


Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes.
A perceptive insight gained by the use of this faculty.

I only put up one definition of intelligence because some of those meant things used in a different sense (i.e. military intelligence). Comparing definitions, one of them is pure perception, while the other one is based off your understanding of things and applying them.


----------



## occasus (Oct 21, 2013)

Some of the dumbest people I know are indeed (or claim to be) intuitives.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

atypeofuser said:


> intelligence - Wiktionary
> Capacity of mind, especially to understandprinciples, truths, facts or meanings, acquireknowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn andcomprehend.
> 
> intuition - Wiktionary
> ...


And this is how Jung defined it:

Intuition in Jungian psychology[edit]In Carl Jung's theory of the ego, described in 1921 in _Psychological Types_, intuition was an "irrational function", opposed most directly by sensation, and opposed less strongly by the "rational functions" of thinking and feeling. Jung defined intuition as "perception via the unconscious": using sense-perception only as a starting point, to bring forth ideas, images, possibilities, ways out of a blocked situation, by a process that is mostly unconscious.
Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception. An extraverted intuitive type, "the natural champion of all minorities with a future", orients to new and promising but unproven possibilities, often leaving to chase after a new possibility before old ventures have borne fruit, oblivious to his or her own welfare in the constant pursuit of change. An introverted intuitive type orients by images from the unconscious, ever exploring the psychic world of the archetypes, seeking to perceive the meaning of events, but often having no interest in playing a role in those events and not seeing any connection between the contents of the psychic world and him- or herself. Jung thought that extraverted intuitive types were likely entrepreneurs, speculators, cultural revolutionaries, often undone by a desire to escape every situation before it becomes settled and constraining—even repeatedly leaving lovers for the sake of new romantic possibilities. His introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others and making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit.[SUP][8]
[/SUP]
Now compare to the MBTI when I just take one google example:

*People who prefer Intuition (N)*


Focus on the big picture and possibilities
Admire creative ideas
Are inventive--see what could be
Value novelty: approaches that stimulate the imagination
Live in the future, attending to future possibilities
Take things figuratively, looking for a deeper meaning
Have a memory recall that emphasizes patterns, contexts, and connections
Like to figure things out for themselves
Work in bursts of energy
Prefer to learn new skills
Are comfortable with ambiguous, fuzzy data, and with guessing its meaning
Are excited by future possibilities when considering change
May create their own instructions
Apply ingenuity to problems
Need to be inspired
Do you see how far removed the latter definition is from Jung's, and furthermore, how it seems to overlap more with the definition of the extroverted intuitive type more so than the introverted intuitive? Even this definition doesn't actually suggest that the intuitive type is more intelligent however, and Jung clearly made no such claims. 

Perhaps one could infer something concerning intelligence here:

*Intuition (N)*
People who prefer Intuition tend to pay attention to and trust interrelationships, theories, and future possibilities. They are drawn to the big picture.

In that there's a stereotype idea of what is already presented here that people who are capable of thinking abstractly e.g. in terms of theory, are more intelligent than those who do not. This again is a false assumption since sensation has nothing to do with ability to abstract data. It just suggests what kind of data you prefer.


----------



## agamemnon (Oct 30, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Come on now, are we going to deny that nine times out of ten an INTJ will be smarter than an ESFP?
> Correlation does not imply causation, sure. Because you type as an INTJ doesn't definitively render you more intelligent than an ESFP, sure. But, frankly, the respective works of Isaac Newton and Nicki Minaj were partially influenced by their cognitive functioning.
> 
> Intuition is the ability to go beyond the surface, to see the big-picture - not what is, but what could be. It is, by nature and by statistic, the more 'intelligent' function and the single most correlative to intelligence, whilst not the most real-worldly operative, hence why STJs will excel more in the academic field.
> Ti and Ni are more intelligent than Fe and Se, sorry folks.


I think _ephemereality_ already said it better than I could have, but like I said earlier about intuitives, while there are certainly a lot of smart INTXs out there, they are also more likely to _think_ they are smart. That doesn't mean they are smart. INTXs value intelligence so they are much more likely than other type to try to prove their intelligence. INTXs like to use their minds more, and they like to solve problems and this "shows off" their intelligence. Other types that are of above average intelligence don't really value it as much. They'd be less likely to try to impress you with they problem solving capabilities and they might not even _enjoy_ solving problems, despite being good at it.

The Newtons and Einsteins of the world (INTJ and INTP, respectively) made their discoveries both because of their intelligence and their natural desire to design systems that further their understanding the world. I'm sure their were many sensors and feelers who were just as smart, but they don't care about making those sorts of discoveries, hence we've never heard of them (or that's my hypothesis, anyway).


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> False. Except one study that I've seen cited on the MBTI places, there is no data to support this assumption and the results of that study is incredibly questionable. Actually, on this forum there are several very smart Se doms who are clearly of above average intelligence and I can think of several equally dumb intuitive doms here. Intuition is just a specific way of understanding data, but it does not make you smart because there is nothing about intuition that says how capable you will be able to understand the data you are intuiting.
> 
> Yes, and there's nothing that says that there is such a great difference between Se and Ni here in how it would aid or hinder an individual to abstract data. It only suggests what kind of data set we prefer.*
> 
> ...



* *





EDIT: I compiled about a dozen site sources over a half-hour to read "To be able to post links or images your post count must be 15 or greater". I'll have to get to this later.




MBTI is by no means a measurement of intelligence, but to deny any correlation whatsoever is grossly disproportionate. Each personality has it's associated strengths and weaknesses and it is, indeed, stereotypical to say an INTJ is oft smarter than an ESFP. But some stereotypes do possess a mild degree of accuracy.

Many studies and statistics might indeed be flawed, but when they collectively all point towards the same fucking conclusion, is it so brash to propose an educated guess?

Sensing is, according to the MBTI manual, defined as inferring information from the five senses; seeing what is. Intuition is nigh-synonymous with intelligence, according to that same source, in that it understands at depth and observes relationships between information.

Again, intelligence doesn't need to be defined any further than a 'capacity to acquire and comprehend knowledge'. Creative, intrapersonal, kinesthetic etc. intelligences all branch off that definition.

Cognitive bias? What? It is a cultural stereotype (I'm assuming that's what you meant) that INFJs will often possess more depth of emotion than an INTJ. But guess what, it's fucking true, and you don't need international studies to prove it, because it's the only logical conclusion, it's observable, and it's obvious.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

monemi said:


> You compare Newton with Minaj? How is that remotely fair? Try Newton and Picasso. Otherwise it's like comparing ESFP Pablo Picasso with INTJ Chevy Chase.


Two very different kinds of genius, and not the one that I'm addressing.



monemi said:


> At the extreme ends of the scale, there are more extremely intelligent intuitives. But within the general population, there is a lot more overlap than some are willing to admit. Including within traditional measures of IQ. Most intuitives aren't genius's. Most are within the same ballpark as sensors. Hence there are dumbass intuitives out there. Too many N's presume sensors are automatically dumber than them. When most sensors and intuitives are of about the same intelligence by traditional measures.


Look, no one is denying that. I'm in complete agreement with you. But when, despite composing 25% of the entire population, around 95% of all scientists and architects were Ns (according to a small scale study published in the MBTI manual), and a disproportionately large number of geniuses were Ns, it is not wholly unfounded to suppose that intuition is correlated with intelligence and that intuitions are generally, collectively, smarter.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

YouTube are also pretty bad with intuition bias. Most people with S in their MBTI somewhere are often stated to be an N, even if they're not. I think I'm guilty of this but with Ne-dom lens, sometimes I fail to realize how some Si-dom people are actually reacting to their inferior or dominant functions. It goes back to earlier when I suggested that ENxP and ISxJ are kind of on a continuum.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Two very different kinds of genius, and not the one that I'm addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, no one is denying that. I'm in complete agreement with you. But when, despite composing 25% of the entire population, around 95% of all scientists and architects were Ns (according to a small scale study published in the MBTI manual), and a disproportionately large number of geniuses were Ns, it is not wholly unfounded to suppose that intuition is correlated with intelligence and that intuitions are generally, collectively, smarter.


Biased flawed studies, as has already been pointed out. I'd agree that there are a disproportionate number of N scientists and architects. But the purported 95% just highlights the bias and frequency of mistyping.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

monemi said:


> Biased flawed studies, as has already been pointed out. I'd agree that there are a disproportionate number of N scientists and architects. But the purported 95% just highlights the bias and frequency of mistyping.


I would agree that it wasn't large enough to be representative, but when the ratio was to that extreme even in such circumstances, one can sketch the conclusion that most scientists and architects will be Ns.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I will accept a correlation when I see sufficient evidence to suggest there is one. 



> Each personality has it's associated strengths and weaknesses


Never denied this. 



> and it is, indeed, stereotypical to say an INTJ is oft smarter than an ESFP. But some stereotypes do possess a mild degree of accuracy.


And here we get to the gist of the problem - how people understand and arrive at someone's type. Something I've touched on numerous times already. If one thinks ESFPs are all party people with no brains, then one is creating a niche of the type without understanding how the type operates cognitively, and chances are that one will in fact stereotype a lot of people regardless of their actual type, into this very type. One of my docs at the hospital is likely an ESFP. How do you think she passed med school with its high accepting standards? Because she's fucking smart. 



> Many studies and statistics might indeed be flawed, but when they collectively all point towards the same fucking conclusion, is it so brash to propose an educated guess?


What other statistics is there aside the one you are citing?



> Sensing is, according to the MBTI manual, defined as inferring information from the five senses; seeing what is. Intuition is nigh-synonymous with intelligence, according to that same source, in that it understands at depth and observes relationships between information.


Please explain to me how this definition as taken from the official MBTI site becomes synonymous with intelligence:

*Intuition (N) *
Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.
The following statements generally apply to me:


I remember events by what I read “between the lines” about their meaning.
I solve problems by leaping between different ideas and possibilities.
I am interested in doing things that are new and different.
I like to see the big picture, then to find out the facts.
I trust impressions, symbols, and metaphors more than what I actually experienced
Sometimes I think so much about new possibilities that I never look at how to make them a reality.



> Again, intelligence doesn't need to be defined any further than a 'capacity to acquire and comprehend knowledge'. Creative, intrapersonal, kinesthetic etc. intelligences all branch off that definition.


Yes, and thus far, there seems to be little correlation between S/N and type of intelligence. I'm mostly auditory, does it make me a sensor? 



> Cognitive bias? What? It is a cultural stereotype (I'm assuming that's what you meant) that INFJs will often possess more depth of emotion than an INTJ. But guess what, it's fucking true, and you don't need international studies to prove it, because it's the only logical conclusion, it's observable, and it's obvious.


Lol, really. What does emotional depth even mean here in this context? Ask an Fi type what they think of Fe "emotional depth" and you will get your answer. I'm an INTJ and people who know me well have told me that I'm one of the most emotional people they've ever met. I may not show my emotion like an Fe type does but on the question whether I'm emotionally deep, the answer is actually fucking yes. Why? Because Fi. 

This just further proves your own cognitive bias here.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> I would agree that it wasn't large enough to be representative, but when the ratio was to that extreme even in such circumstances, one can sketch the conclusion that most scientists and architects will be Ns.


That still doesn't change that most intuitives and sensors are of average intelligence. Or the bias that every intelligent and creative person is stolen when typing on boards and presumed to be intuitives to the point that there is a clear bias to sensors being lessor. Nearly every superhero has been typed as an intuitive. Most of the heroes in most stories on here are presumed intuitives. The intelligence difference between intuitives aren't as drastic as ego driven intuitives wish to perpetuate.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I want to highlight another issue also, and that is where we look for "smart" people. What kind of people have been cited here? People active within the sciences and theoretical sciences more so than other forms of sciences e.g. physics. What kind of people would be more likely to be drawn into theoretical sciences? Intuitives. That in itself belies a bias of what intelligence is understood as, and a long cultural one to add in that sciences has always been seen as more intelligent than other forms of thinking e.g. the arts or humanities. 

Even so, I question how many people who are usually typed as intuitives on celebrity sites within the sciences are in fact intuitives as in _Jungian_ ones.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Some observations:

I think it's funny that most of these IQ debates are not actually about IQ, but the hint of value judgment that the level of IQ may indicate.

Secondly, to add a little absurdity, as I'm wont to do--IQ is a measure of one's reasoning ability. If Intuitives are scoring highly on an IQ test by means of Intuition, that doesn't prove that they are more intelligent, it only proves that they are cheaters and probably have a poor reasoning ability as a result. 

Otherwise, this debate has been hashed out a few times. Who gives a shit? Everybody's dumb.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> MBTI is by no means a measurement of intelligence, but to deny any correlation whatsoever is grossly disproportionate. Each personality has it's associated strengths and weaknesses and it is, indeed, stereotypical to say an INTJ is oft smarter than an ESFP.* But some stereotypes do possess a mild degree of accuracy.*
> 
> Many studies and statistics might indeed be flawed, but when they *collectively all point towards the same fucking conclusion, is it so brash to propose an educated guess?*
> 
> ...


All the bolded parts gave me cancer, as the amount of fallacies is over 9000. First thing, did you never read any comments about Fe being perceived as shallow and fake by Fi users? Well, even if mine it's supposed to be a crappy version of the Fi dom/aux of other people, I still get irked a lot by Fe users, as I think that they rely too much on external values and have no real idea about their own ethics nor have 'real emotions', as they can produce fake versions of it. Plus if you consider socionics, I'm really annoyed by them thanks to the good old Fe PoLR.

I already commented in other post which is my perception of a possible type of dumb intuitive. Now about statistics, they're useless if their methods weren't properly done and the population that was used for such purpose was already mistyped, so arriving at conclusions from such data is rather stupid, to be honest, as you would find a distorted view of reality.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

@ephemereality, that's just gold. Label me 'cognitively biased' and call for sufficient evidence right before employing an anecdote (EDIT: lol, make that two*). Well, sir, what if I was to say that of the 9 in my immediate family, 6 of them are likely ESFPs? Would you like to know about them? I can provide very intimate details.

*...in which you are repeatedly failing to accept that a) rules have exceptions, b) I have not openly conformed to the stereotype that ESFPs are 'party people', c) I have not stated that all INTJs are smarter than all ESFPs or that one directly eventuates to the other (in fact I have made painstaking efforts to clarify the distinction, apparently to no avail)

Did you bother opening that spoiler? It said "EDIT: I compiled about a dozen site sources over a half-hour to read "To be able to post links or images your post count must be greater than 15". I'll have to get to this later."
I would concede that I confused Jungian cognitive functions for MBTI. Substituting the two, would you agree that some types will correlate (correlation does not imply causation) more than others to intelligence, according to IQ, the Big Five etc.?

I would count intelligence as a likely strength to all IN types, and I would happily acknowledge an ESFx's superior sociability and emotional intelligence.

My analogy wasn't relevant to the context. It was relevant to your implying that stereotypes are necessarily false.
INFJ, F aux. INTJ, F tertiary, and commonly purported to be repressed by the overbearing NiTe pair. Hence, INTJs are _usually_ (key word here, pal) less emotionally responsive than INFJs. I thought it went without saying, but apparently not.



monemi said:


> That still doesn't change that most intuitives and sensors aren't of average intelligence. Or the bias that every intelligent and creative person is stolen when typing on boards and presumed to be intuitives to the point that there is a clear bias to sensors being lessor. Nearly every superhero has been typed as an intuitive. Most of the heroes in most stories on here are presumed intuitives. The intelligence difference between intuitives aren't as drastic as ego driven intuitives wish to perpetuate.


They _are_ of average intelligence. I posit that intuitors are, on average, generally, more intelligent than sensors. This does not mean that S's are collectively 'lesser', because superiority is not necessarily defined as higher intelligence.
Because intuitive characteristics are integral to most character development. Sensors are based externally. A character to the audience's favouring would be introspective and strong-willed, typical N traits.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> All the bolded parts gave me cancer, as the amount of fallacies is over 9000. First thing, did you never read any comments about Fe being perceived as shallow and fake by Fi users? Well, even if mine it's supposed to be a crappy version of the Fi dom/aux of other people, I still get irked a lot by Fe users, as I think that they rely too much on external values and have no real idea about their own ethics nor have 'real emotions', as they can produce fake versions of it. Plus if you consider socionics, I'm really annoyed by them thanks to the good old Fe PoLR.
> 
> I already commented in other post which is my perception of a possible type of dumb intuitive. Now about statistics, they're useless if their methods weren't properly done and the population that was used for such purpose was already mistyped, so arriving at conclusions from such data is rather stupid, to be honest, as you would find a distorted view of reality.


Yes, I have. Your point?
INFJs have more emotional depth than INTJs. I didn't say anything about INFP vs INFJ, Fi vs Fe. You're irrelevant.

Do you claim to have analysed all relevant studies? 

Nothing you're saying hasn't been said already by ephemereality or whoever. Bring something new to the table, or shoo.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Yes, I have. Your point?
> INFJs have more emotional depth than INTJs. I didn't say anything about INFP vs INFJ, Fi vs Fe. You're irrelevant.
> 
> Do you claim to have analysed all relevant studies?


As much as I'd love to believe I'm "deep": 

Define "emotional depth".

No in-depth analysis without defining the parameters first


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

I won't bother to reply to your other post, as you only stated a pile of BS, and dismissed my post because you think is a recycled version of other posts, while you didn't bother to get the message that tert Fi users consider fake Fe dom/aux people. I'm really surprised by your reading comprehension, my friend. You brain is wired towards a pile of stereotypes.



Rumpelstiltskin said:


> I would count intelligence as a likely strength to all IN types, and I would happily acknowledge an ESFx's superior sociability and emotional intelligence.
> 
> My analogy wasn't relevant to the context. It was relevant to your implying that stereotypes are necessarily false.
> INFJ, F aux. INTJ, F tertiary, and commonly purported to be repressed by the overbearing NiTe pair. Hence, INTJs are _usually_ (key word here, pal) less emotionally responsive than INFJs. I thought it went without saying, but apparently not.
> ...












No, seriously you are unable to grasp the ideas that are being repeated ad nauseam by other users. Being strong willed and introspective isn't a property of N, as you seem to be unable to recall that such thing could be attributed to any introvert, as they can be Si, Ti, Fi or Ni doms, and in the case of Ti and Fi, they can be sensors or intuitives. I would recommend to watch some anime or read manga where you can find TiSe and FiSe characters that are interesting protagonists.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

FallingSlowly said:


> As much as I'd love to believe I'm "deep":
> 
> Define "emotional depth".
> 
> No in-depth analysis without defining the parameters first


It doesn't matter. I can't think of any definition of emotional intelligence which would make a proportionate INTJ more emotionally intelligent than a proportionate INFJ.


----------



## Pyromaniac (Apr 2, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> I won't bother to reply to your other post, as you only stated a pile of BS, and dismissed my post because you think is a recycled version of other posts, while you didn't bother to get the message that tert Fi users consider fake Fe dom/aux people. I'm really surprised by your reading comprehension, my friend. You brain is wired towards a pile of stereotypes.
> 
> No, seriously you are unable to grasp the ideas that are being repeated ad nauseam by other users. Being strong willed and introspective isn't a property of N, as you seem to be unable to recall that such thing could be attributed to any introvert, as they can be Si, Ti, Fi or Ni doms, and in the case of Ti and Fi, they can be sensors or intuitives. I would recommend to watch some anime or read manga where you can find TiSe and FiSe characters that are interesting protagonists.


Yeah, people like this are going to be sort of distracting, so I'm calling it off until I have the resources (i.e. post count) to make my case in full. Cheerio!


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> In other words, introverts are actually more intelligent than extroverts? Fuck yes.


lol, that's not what i said, but we're all going to see what we'd like to, huh? :wink:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rumpelstiltskin said:


> @ephemereality, that's just gold. Label me 'cognitively biased' and call for sufficient evidence right before employing an anecdote (EDIT: lol, make that two*).


Because you too, provided with an example based on personal experience. I simply provided with an opposite experience to show you how it renders your experience untrue and is thus an example of your own bias. 



> Well, sir, what if I was to say that of the 9 in my immediate family, 6 of them are likely ESFPs? Would you like to know about them? I can provide very intimate details.


Really, and how did you arrive at that typing? 



> *...in which you are repeatedly failing to accept that a) rules have exceptions,


Yep, rules have exceptions but not such great exceptions where the rule is rendered useless, at which point it questions whether it is a rule to begin with since then the exception is the rule. 



> b) I have not openly conformed to the stereotype that ESFPs are 'party people',


You don't have to because you are arguing the MBTI definition because that is the only definition one can humanly draw from that ESFPs would naturally be dumber than INTJs. 



> c) I have not stated that all INTJs are smarter than all ESFPs or that one directly eventuates to the other (in fact I have made painstaking efforts to clarify the distinction, apparently to no avail)


You have not, but you have stated that they are in a general sense, and I cannot agree with that statement. 



> Did you bother opening that spoiler? It said "EDIT: I compiled about a dozen site sources over a half-hour to read "To be able to post links or images your post count must be greater than 15". I'll have to get to this later."


I did, and I don't give a fuck how many online sites you can find to support your subjective point of view when it's evident none of them use the same methodology of typing, likely don't share similarities in how they understand type and I could go on. Since methodology does not overlap the data is useless. And one can argue how they even arrive at those typings to begin with. 



> I would concede that I confused Jungian cognitive functions for MBTI. Substituting the two, would you agree that some types will correlate (correlation does not imply causation) more than others to intelligence, according to IQ, the Big Five etc.?


1. Big 5 fucking sucks donkey balls.
2. Jungian type can well be translated over into MBTI terminology if one simply views the type letters as such e.g. INFP really stands for an Fi dominant type with Ne auxiliary. 
3. No, I don't agree you can make such correlations at all. 



> I would count intelligence as a likely strength to all IN types, and I would happily acknowledge an ESFx's superior sociability and emotional intelligence.


But you just said that ESFxs are intelligent. Contradiction. 



> My analogy wasn't relevant to the context. It was relevant to your implying that stereotypes are necessarily false.
> INFJ, F aux. INTJ, F tertiary, and commonly purported to be repressed by the overbearing NiTe pair. Hence, INTJs are _usually_ (key word here, pal) less emotionally responsive than INFJs. I thought it went without saying, but apparently not.


But that is only in the perception of an Fe type seeking Fe reaction. Therefore I again call cognitive bias. An Fe type will think an INTJ is a stoneface but an Fi type will appreciate the logic and how emotion is withheld but not diminished in the INTJ. 



> They _are_ of average intelligence. I posit that intuitors are, on average, generally, more intelligent than sensors. This does not mean that S's are collectively 'lesser', because superiority is not necessarily defined as higher intelligence.
> Because intuitive characteristics are integral to most character development. Sensors are based externally. A character to the audience's favouring would be introspective and strong-willed, typical N traits.


What. Does not compute.

If we say that intuitives are on average, smarter than sensors, and we also assume that the statistics that intuitives are rarer than sensors, then the intuitives must be proportionally more intelligent than sensors for us to arrive at any meaningfully average score since the two must even out somewhere. By your logic this is not possible. 

Also, how are intuitive characteristics the most integral to character development? If we are going to go by what Jung wrote, Jung notes the importance of not over-relying on any specific function perspective and psychological maturity and development occurs as a reaction when one is capable of _balancing_ opposing psychological aspects within one's psyche. This means that a sensor matures when they integrate intuition, and an intuitive matures when they integrate sensation. Intuition cannot even de facto operate without sensation. Jung points this out as well. 

No, sensors are not based externally. Then how does Si operate? Si is internal sensory experience. One can argue that _all_ information resides outside oneself, but what separates introversion and extroversion is whether one is willing to understand it based on objectively or attempt to understand this information from a subjective perspective. 

Also, I fail to see how this: 



> A character to the audience's favouring would be introspective and strong-willed, typical N traits


Has anything to do with this:



> Intuition (N)
> Paying the most attention to impressions or the meaning and patterns of the information I get. I would rather learn by thinking a problem through than by hands-on experience. I’m interested in new things and what might be possible, so that I think more about the future than the past. I like to work with symbols or abstract theories, even if I don’t know how I will use them. I remember events more as an impression of what it was like than as actual facts or details of what happened.
> 
> The following statements generally apply to me:
> ...


or this:



> In Carl Jung's theory of the ego, described in 1921 in Psychological Types, intuition was an "irrational function", opposed most directly by sensation, and opposed less strongly by the "rational functions" of thinking and feeling. Jung defined intuition as "perception via the unconscious": using sense-perception only as a starting point, to bring forth ideas, images, possibilities, ways out of a blocked situation, by a process that is mostly unconscious.
> Jung said that a person in whom intuition was dominant, an "intuitive type", acted not on the basis of rational judgment but on sheer intensity of perception. An extraverted intuitive type, "the natural champion of all minorities with a future", orients to new and promising but unproven possibilities, often leaving to chase after a new possibility before old ventures have borne fruit, oblivious to his or her own welfare in the constant pursuit of change. An introverted intuitive type orients by images from the unconscious, ever exploring the psychic world of the archetypes, seeking to perceive the meaning of events, but often having no interest in playing a role in those events and not seeing any connection between the contents of the psychic world and him- or herself. Jung thought that extraverted intuitive types were likely entrepreneurs, speculators, cultural revolutionaries, often undone by a desire to escape every situation before it becomes settled and constraining—even repeatedly leaving lovers for the sake of new romantic possibilities. His introverted intuitive types were likely mystics, prophets, or cranks, struggling with a tension between protecting their visions from influence by others and making their ideas comprehensible and reasonably persuasive to others—a necessity for those visions to bear real fruit.[8]


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Donovan said:


> lol, that's not what i said, but we're all going to see what we'd like to, huh? :wink:


I know that; I was just poking fun out of what you said because it _was_ possible to interpret it that way and given the context of this thread, it was difficult to not point that out.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Killionaire said:


> Look at this web page of geniuses. Tons of intuitors. Only about 6 sensors. Case closed.
> 
> MBTI truths: The Nature of Intelligence


Maybe so. But the point is that nobody can take credit for other people's achievements just based on their type.
Just because lots of geniuses happen to be Ns, doesn't mean that any random N person is inherently superior to a random S person.
No such thing as vicarious intelligence exists.
That's like when people who don't play football themselves say "We won!" when the team they support won. 

And don't you dare argue with me. I am right because Captain Picard is an INTJ.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Meritocrat said:


> Let's take a slightly different tack: *Have you ever met a ******* intuitive?*


To pin it down even further: I've met a red-neck ENTP.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

I do not have anything overly awesome wow to add and I am not mentioning anyone in particular... but when someone says that "most scientists are N's" I begin to wonder if that person has ever had any experience in science at all, or how exactly they define 'scientific fields.'



Mathematics: Most graduate level mathematics is quite theoretical, with much of it being based off of handwritten proofs; I would say most are N's, very true. 
Physics: Slightly more applied than the above; quite a bit more interactive with technology. 
Engineering: All about real-life application; you cannot just say "hey I think this works" or operate off a hunch or list a bunch of equations and say "therefore, this must be true"; you need to prove it and build it. I would say there are certainly more sensors in this field. 
Biology: I will begin with the man often said to be the father of biology, Charles Darwin. How did he come up with his theory of evolution? It all started with very specific observations of animals in their habitat, over years... he did not just "get a hunch." At the moment, I can't think of anything in biology where one can just say "I think this causes cancer", write up some reasons why it makes sense, and have absolutely no concrete data to support it. Even many research grants will require some level of previous concrete data or you won't get money. 
Chemistry: Before microscopes and other technology could prove it, it is true that it was theorized that everything is based off of infinitely small matter called "atoms." A lot of early chemistry was based on things that could not be proven until later, and I would say much of that early thought was based on intuition. Some chemistry is still quite like this because as far as I know we still cannot see the little electrons switching around and there is this little thing called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... but certain applications, such as modern pharmacology, again, require very concrete data to ever be accepted by the scientific community. 

So my point: the modern scientific community is not particularly excited with "hunches" that are not supported by concrete, real-life data... which means they value "sensation" quite a bit (specifically, Se). Then how would it follow that "most scientists are intuitives"? Is that truly that accurate? How is intuition being defined - based merely on curiosity about how the world around you works? That is quite a limiting definition.

(And to answer the OP's question: yes, I have met dumb intuitives.)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

zinnia said:


> So my point: the modern scientific community is not particularly excited with "hunches" that are not supported by concrete, real-life data... which means they value "sensation" quite a bit (specifically, Se). Then how would it follow that "most scientists are intuitives"? Is that truly that accurate? How is intuition being defined - based merely on curiosity about how the world around you works? That is quite a limiting definition.
> 
> (And to answer the OP's question: yes, I have met dumb intuitives.)


Thanks for this! My two best subjects growing up were gym and science. Dissections being a particular favourite. Science is a very satisfying subject. I went into aviation and have a long standing fascination with aeronautics. So many things about it to entertain Se. And so many ISTP's and ESTP's engineers in aviation. I didn't observe many N's there.


----------



## GranChi (Jun 16, 2013)

Seriously, would Jung, Myers, or Briggs create a system with the intention of allowing people to discriminate about who's more intelligent than others?
You could say that sensors and intuitives have different types of intelligence. Sensors have more a practical intelligence, which some intuitives may lack. Intuitives have a more philosophical intelligence, which some sensors may lack. That's it.


----------



## Volant (Oct 5, 2013)

Have I ever met a dumb intuitive? Mmm, no, all the ones I know can speak quite well.


----------



## Ballast (Jun 17, 2013)

Yes, I've met dumb intuitives. I've met myself.

It's amazing how many things I'm unaware of or screw up on because I'm too busy following an abstract thought train and not _paying attention. _


----------



## King Nothing (Sep 8, 2013)

Many geniuses are intuitives.
Not many intuitives are geniuses.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

monemi said:


> Thanks for this! My two best subjects growing up were gym and science. Dissections being a particular favourite. Science is a very satisfying subject. I went into aviation and have a long standing fascination with aeronautics. So many things about it to entertain Se. And so many ISTP's and ESTP's engineers in aviation. I didn't observe many N's there.


Yeah... to me I found a lot of science to be in the realm of S and T once I had a better idea of what S and T actually were beyond the stereotyping.

The vast majority of my engineering professors I believe were S types. A couple were not, and they taught thermodynamics and biomolecular modeling (well, something like that, I forgot the actual name! LOL). There was also a mech engineering professor I believe was INTP, as well.

I was just watching a show called Bones and I started analyzing all the characters... the show's actual science is a bit horrible but two main characters - Temperance (ISTP?) and Hodgins (ESTP) - are portrayed as very intelligent scientists, and very much S types. I would say more scientists are actually like them than another character (Booth) who depends largely on gut instinct and holds beliefs that "not everything can be seen/is obvious"... much to the annoyance of the two mentioned previously, who demand material evidence for just about everything.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Being intuitive doesn't stop you from having verbal diarrhea and doing idiotic things, if that counts. This is an autobiographical post.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

The question should be "How many dumb intuitives have you met?".


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zinnia said:


> Yeah... to me I found a lot of science to be in the realm of S and T once I had a better idea of what S and T actually were beyond the stereotyping.
> 
> The vast majority of my engineering professors I believe were S types. A couple were not, and they taught thermodynamics and biomolecular modeling (well, something like that, I forgot the actual name! LOL). There was also a mech engineering professor I believe was INTP, as well.
> 
> I was just watching a show called Bones and I started analyzing all the characters... the show's actual science is a bit horrible but two main characters - Temperance (ISTP?) and Hodgins (ESTP) - are portrayed as very intelligent scientists, and very much S types. I would say more scientists are actually like them than another character (Booth) who depends largely on gut instinct and holds beliefs that "not everything can be seen/is obvious"... much to the annoyance of the two mentioned previously, who demand material evidence for just about everything.


Bones' type eludes me. In some scenes she's so sensory but in others clearly intuitive I think the issue is part bad writing. She is most definitely some kind of IxTJ however. Si or Ni seems to depend on episode. 

As for Booth, he's likely a feeler dom acting as if feeling is akin to intuition because feeling can provide emotional insight into how people think. I am not sure about his type but I am not sure I think he's an actual intuitive. He's definitely not an intuitive dom anyway. 

The problem with intuition is that there is the more general understanding of it such as gut feelings and hunches or even Eureka moments, but that doesn't describe intuition as a cognitive process. We actually find when comparing Brennan and Booth that she's more likely to deal with and think of the symbolic than Booth is, though he has a tendency to create what if scenarios she also dismisses. 

I would rather attribute this to devalued Ne in socionics and the way Booth is making fun of the mystical as devalued Ni for him. 

I think the best example of an intuitive type in Bones is the faculty leader, I forgot his name but he was into historical studies. Such a good example of an INFJ.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Many, typically those refusing to question knowledge or information presented to them i.e. how so many thought the Kony 2012 scandal was all true redistributing information without researching further, critical analysis or logical thinking when the information was 3rd hand at best, same thing with how only something like 12/36 regions of Africa are impoverished yet public opinion assumes the figure to be higher...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Biggest eyeroll ever incoming!
> 
> You have absolutely no clue what my statement actually meant, do you? I don't really mean that to sound derogitory, but the fact that you even said this is baffling to me. Completely flew over your head?


Apparently you don't quite understand that I responded half-sarcastically but still with the idea to retain to the source of my post. I do that a lot. People never get it.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Apparently you don't quite understand that I responded half-sarcastically but still with the idea to retain to the source of my post. I do that a lot. People never get it.


Maybe people never get it, because it doesn't make sense to do that. That's like saying "I drive on the left side of the road because both my house and workplace are on that side, and it's more efficient for me to do so. But oncoming traffic just doesn't get it."


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

The irony of this thread is over 9000. Seems like we have good evidence for supporting the thread title, but I won't conclude anything better until I get more proofs for my suspicions.


----------



## emmamadden (Jul 7, 2013)

OMG WTF BRO said:


> my mother is INFP and doesn't really have a sense of the way the world works. She isn't dumb, but she can't tell you anything but her own theories and since she's so uninformed, her theories aren't relevant.


That sounds a lot like an INFP that I used to be friends with (until I gave up on him). He used to also overthink everything and dig deep into superficial issues and it was hard to take his problems seriously.
I can complain about this kid all day tbh and he's my example of an unintelligent N. Your intelligence is definitely not determined by whether you're sensing or intuitive.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> I want to highlight another issue also, and that is where we look for "smart" people. What kind of people have been cited here? People active within the sciences and theoretical sciences more so than other forms of sciences e.g. physics. What kind of people would be more likely to be drawn into theoretical sciences? Intuitives. That in itself belies a bias of what intelligence is understood as, and a long cultural one to add in that sciences has always been seen as more intelligent than other forms of thinking e.g. the arts or humanities.


This may be the big problem here....... that people tend to consider theoretical physics as the pinnacle of intelligence and more lowbrow stuff as the definition of stupidity. 

Is theoretical physics really more intelligent than classic physics? 

Is Nicki Minaj automatically stupid for being a bit lowbrow? Does the mental quickness required to be a good rapper not count as a form of intelligence? (And is she really a sensor? A lot of people on here have guessed ENTP for her...)



Rumpelstiltskin said:


> Sensors are based *externally*.


This is simply not true.

It's funny how people who really think sensors are less intelligent on average nearly always mistake introversion with intuition. 

This disguises a lot of the real problem..... introverts can sometimes disvalue the external so much that extraverts are automatically more stupid for being involved in it more.



Frenetic Tranquility said:


> For an intuitive dominant, you sure need things spelled out for you.


I was starting to wonder why someone would even need make a thread to confirm the existence of dumb intuitives, now I remember.....


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

There's a lot of things I don't actually notice in real life that probably happen.
Even though I don't know irl Te-doms who are lazy, there probably are some.
(This pertains more to the OP).

One of the arguers is appearently ENTP, leading with Ne. Would an Se dominant be able to point out objectively present realities (which likely would fly over your head) and that would make them magically become more intuitive or something?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> This may be the big problem here....... that people tend to consider theoretical physics as the pinnacle of intelligence and more lowbrow stuff as the definition of stupidity.
> 
> Is theoretical physics really more intelligent than classic physics?
> 
> Is Nicki Minaj automatically stupid for being a bit lowbrow? Does the mental quickness required to be a good rapper not count as a form of intelligence? (And is she really a sensor? A lot of people on here have guessed ENTP for her...)


Exactly, and if we use IQ as the measurement of intelligence it says nothing about your kind of thinking or even occupation. 

To me IQ is clearly not tied to what people do as much as how capable they are to abstract information in a specific way. Common ways to measure IQ is visual-spatial pattern finding, logical problem solving, knowledge about vocabulary and so on. These skills clearly cannot correlate to any cognitive function in that one or a few are directly translatable into another. 

It is for example quite a common typing that Picasso is some form of xSFP. If we study some of the things he's said, it's clear that it's incredibly thoughtful and one of my favorite quotes is uttered by Picasso. Yet he's an artist and not a scientist, but I would be hard pressed to think of Picasso as anything average or below average intelligence by today's standards, that would be roughly around the 110-120 IQ range. I'm guessing that Picasso probably had an IQ around 140 based on what he's said and what he did during his life. 

And I could likely find numerous examples of these if I bothered to look among more famous people. Did you (general you) for example know that Britney Spears, yes, Britney Spears, is a fan of Marx and has been using his ideas symbolically in her songs for many years now? Probably not, because it's so contrary the idea people likely have been of her, thinking she's a dumb blonde. Not because I can do a good guesstimate about her IQ, but being an ESxP type an an artist, I think people underestimate her intelligence a lot especially and unfortunately also because she's blonde. 

I also think there is a bias among online typers to be more inclined to type smart people as intuitives even when they are not, though I cannot think of a good example right now.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Maybe people never get it, because it doesn't make sense to do that. That's like saying "I drive on the left side of the road because both my house and workplace are on that side, and it's more efficient for me to do so. But oncoming traffic just doesn't get it."


Clarification: it doesn't make sense to Fe types.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm a dumb intuitive. Sensors will say to me, "Wow, you are so smart and you know so much!" I'll be slightly taken off guard and say say, not really man...


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

monemi said:


> No, dumb intuitives are still seen as dumb. It's not that they're spacy or clueless. They make wild assertions from connections that don't exist and will throw a flying hissy fit when intuitives and sensors alike disagree with them. Because they're idiots.
> 
> Intuition can help heighten intelligence, but it doesn't make you intelligent. Intuition without sensing is useless. Both need balance.


I don't see the correlation between making wild assertions and being dumb. I can usually follow why the person thought what they did, and trace it to some factual oversight - hardly proof of being dumb, but it could be proof of being remiss. I also don't see the correlation between throwing a hissy fit and being dumb. But I suppose that the definition of dumb is just as subjective as the word smart.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Evidence please.


Google MBTI IQ tests? Surely you've done this before. Granted that is not "proof", but proof can't exist - because type is subjective and not an exact science. So it's the best you can get. Can you show a study where there is not any statistical correlation? I would be very interested to see this, and the parameters of the study.




> When I actively discussed their type with someone else whose typing opinions I agree with and he didn't openly disagree with me, I see no reason to question the typings. Since you haven't seen the show any further discussion about this is rather pointless.


Really? So you don't question yourself, and someone else didn't question you, therefore you are correct. That sounds more like pragmatism than logic, and it certainly doesn't even come close to proving anything. I agree that since I have not seen the show, I can't see if I agree or disagree on their type and why, not that my opinion would discount yours in any event. But the main point is that, while you might see questioning your beliefs to be a waste of time, that is your primary downfall. Sometimes an NTP can teach you a thing or two, hence why the two types are strong working together.



> Define intuition and what intuition means to you here, please.


Use any one of the definitions you posted, I don't mind. Any of them are acceptable to my chain of logic and thought process. But keep in mind that ultimately, those definitions were still written by some dude, and it's all just invented and nothing is proven. Hence why producing all these "facts" you seem to want, is largely futile.



> What jump? I'm not an Ne type. I don't do jumps.


Ni can make jumps too, it just requires alot more effort, because you have to distort an entire system of thought to accommodate new information. So perhaps investing the effort would be worth it. If you never invest time into pondering the information I pose, your Ni can never go to work assimilating the possible new system that could accommodate it.



> I don't think you and I understand this the same at all here. I understand what individuation is, and I do take things such as hidden desires into account. I however, do not seem to understand them the same as you do. I see them as seeking archetypes in one's environment. Specifically, socionics hidden agenda and dual-seek describes this very well. Also, I find it rather offensive that you think I only study the end product when it's the very thing I tend to shy against studying. I never am interested in studying end products, that is one thing you can be sure of.


Do you have any first hand experience, or even second or third hand experience, of the three persons you identified, when they were first learning about their subject matter of which you are basing their type? This is what I mean. End product is more of a euphemism for everything after the point that using one's dominant/auxiliary is preferred.

The use of Te might qualify facts as being reasonable by an externally defined standard, but it's certainly not how you take in factual information. After all, Te is a judgment process. So Te can only narrow the scope of the Se, it cannot BE the perceived facts. Of course, after your thought process has completed, you might think that Te is the facts, since that's the judgment filter you used on Se to acquire the facts you deem relevant. But it's not.



> Facts and sources please.


Again, it's a subjective field, and sources don't prove or disprove anything, even if I could go out and find them. This is a very intuitive thought, and therefore you are going to need to sit down and use your noggin to try and understand what I am saying. Perhaps to refute my claim, you should provide counterexamples, if you are so sure that I am incorrect. I have definitely read about the concept that people tend to use their inferior more when experts, so I am not the only one who believes this, but it's pretty difficult for me to just produce these works on call. Are you opposed to actually thinking about it? You've wasted so much time posting here all over the place, surely you won't be losing out on efficiency by considering the concept I have laid out.



> Or perhaps I care nothing about Ne leaps?


That's hilarious.



> I don't think you understand what I mean in individuals when complexes form. You didn't see the show so I cannot point out to you exactly why I think the way I do. He is not, and I stress, is _not_, an Ni type. That was extremely obvious from the get go. His cognition did not correlate, which just became even more evident when he conversed with his INFJ partner who had to explain things when he could not. The difference between the two was remarkable. The fact that he was working with an INFJ does however kind of give credence to what you were saying but in an entirely different way - he is seeking Ni in his life, but it is obvious he could not produce it on his own so he ended up seeking it in someone else who could.


So if this guy was unable to explain so many things, but you still see him as an example of the use of intuition not being a measure of intelligence? ESxP types who pair with INxJ types often rely on their SO to supply the perception they are poor with, which means they will struggle to individualize and use that perception process themselves.

If you merely mentioned this guy as proof that sensors can be in "smart" fields, well that's just a silly and self-evident. Lots of people work in fields that are not suitable for them, for the same reason people pair off with others of their opposite. However, my point that people overuse their inferior in their field of expertise is still very true and relevant.




> Of course they are similar sharing the same function axis, but they are not indistinguishable if we actually go by the idea of discrete types as is say, suggested in socionics. Being mistaken for one's quasi-identical is quite common in typing and I argue this is far more likely than it is being mistaken for one's dual or semi-dual, which is why some people think I'm an INTP. Sure, do I have moments of random Se? Yes, I do. Do they seem to precede my psyche? No, they don't. You can also study this in my cognition and overall reasoning process in that I do not first and of all focus on sensory content but intuitive.


What are you basing this off of? I don't think you have a field of expertise that could allow the over-use of Se. You might not have a true field of expertise at all, I can tell just from how you speak that you are young. Typing/cognition certainly can't count, since most things in this field aren't based on tangible facts (yet). When you have a profession and you have become an expert in it, I think you will find that you will prefer to glut people with information almost egregiously. My father, and ENTJ, loved to glut people with info in his profession, to the extreme, and he was definitely not a sensor. I have a good friend INFJ who is one year off her PhD in historical literature. She is very obviously INFJ, but even she herself knows that she can sometimes go off into "Se mode" and just spew an onslaught of facts on people, in her field of expertise. She doesn't even know she's an INFJ, as we haven't discussed typing, and she knows she does the "Se mode". In the rest of life, she is remiss about sensory information.



> lol, really. Way to pat yourself on the back there dude. Also, you have just successfully undermined your entire argument that intuitives would somehow be more linked to intelligence since if there is no real distinguishable way to discern the two, then the entire premise of what you are arguing for is rendered moot. If there is no real difference between sensors and intuitives that you describe here due to this cognitive balance, then this would also show in all other areas of life statistics being one, meaning people again, just end up being average. Arguing for that intuition leads to greater intelligence is only relevant if there is a clear distinguishable difference between types so we can tell what type is what. Then we actually have a correlation.
> 
> Last but not least, I find it curious you actually need to constantly validate your cognition throughout your post. Why would you do that if it's something your ego is comfortable with?


If you read what I wrote, you'd understand I explained exactly how to discern the two. You need to witness someone in a situation they are not familiar with, or at least not an expert. That is when cognitive preferences over-ride the desire to use the inferior in a productive way. So I did not undermine my argument at all, and your under-use of Se in this argument is glaring.

I am saying that you can't easily determine someone's "traditional intelligence" from watching them in their field of expertise. Again, if you wish to change the definition of "smart" to something more suitable, that values all type differences equally, go ahead - I fully support this. But if we use the traditional intelligence as a basis of argument, there is a correlation between intuition and intelligence, and thinking and intelligence, and even a smaller correlation between introversion and intelligence, that can be seen on any googled results of MBTI vs. intelligence, if we assume the necessary condition that all their typings are relatively valid.


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Meritocrat said:


> Let's take a slightly different tack: *Have you ever met a ******* intuitive?*


Two, good friends of mine are INFJs and they both happen to be really backwoods. Both are incredibly intelligent, imaginative, and friendly though. Because of the media here, many people tend to forget that rustic, white folks are human beings too. They're diverse in a lot of ways, just like other groups. 



Rumpelstiltskin said:


> INFJs have more emotional depth than INTJs.


A lot goes into someone having depth. You're cheating yourself out of a really cool experience if you're going to damn people to shallowness just because of one or two letters.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I am on my phone and too lazy to go to my desktop so I won't directly quote:

1: When I ask for evidence I am asking for several things:
1. For you to provide sources to back up very bold claims about your previous statement that you claim is pretty much a fact because you say it is; 
2. And/or validate your assumptions with some kind of reasoning that shows that the conclusion is likely or possible even if there is no real concrete evidence to support your cause. 

You have done neither, yet you insist I should believe you are right because "intuitive leaps", even though making such leaps may itself not even prove the fact that you are utilizing intuition as a cognitively more than how intuition is understood in common speech. And compared to the Ne type, I don't do "just because what if" for the sake of what if. That's pointless to me. This is essentially the only reason you are presenting and I should support you just because. No, validate it with sound reasoning and I might consider your point more seriously. 

As for asking for studies not showing a correlation is kind of silly. Good example of inductive reasoning fallacy as if the lack of studies showing a correlation proves a correlation. 

For one, it is not possible to do a meaningful study of this because the scope is too big, and there is the issue of data reliability because of the qualitative nature of establishing type. And this leads us back to the only study that I know is performed regarding this subject and how meaningful and reliable the results are. The answer to that question is simply not so much. Since this is the only study you can refer to in order to support your case, it's simply not very convincing because of the nature of the study. 

The lack of studies that would prove a lack of correlation is rather needless if the study meant to find a correlation to begin with is questionable.
This reveals how the methodology of such studies are and will be flawed in general, unless we find a statically viable means to type people and seeing how types are first of all psychological constructs, I don't see that as possible. 

In addition, based on my personal understanding of type and based on my own personal experience of engaging people of different types, I just personally fail to see a correlation between type and IQ. There are a lot of factors that play a role in someone's IQ development and potential such as health, age, education, how smart your parents are, your social class and the list goes on. Statistically speaking, we would find more average and below average people living in poor urban areas and unless you suggest poor people also are likely to be sensors (and honestly that line of thinking gets even more questionable as its suggesting things that are very discriminating) you really don't have a case. 

Furthermore, it is suggested that we tend to only have meaningful conversations with people around the score of 20 above and below our own median range, and in socionics duality suggests that we seek our inferior in others who have it as dominant and form relationships with these people, and again if you suggest is true, I don't think duality wouldn't be such an observed phenomenon since we would have issues finding duals who match our IQ. That duality is real is something I've noted in a lot of married people such as my dad and his current wife. 

There are sensors who have responded in this thread who are above average intelligence based on what I've seen, and I also talk to one daily. They just invalidate your argument right here. They aren't some weird lucky exception to the rule, because that assumes the rule works and is real. I really fail to see how that's difficult to comprehend. 

2: Why should I question myself when I experience myself as quite confident in my ability to type people? I can question my typings, not a problem, but I will if there are strong arguments to suggest I'm wrong. Since you haven't seen what I am talking about and I have no clue how to provide the necessary information to you to do so, you have no ability to provide with critique that I might consider as valid. 

And actually, socionics suggests that xTNPs and xNTJs don't work well with each other at all because of constantly clashing cognition, this conversation being case in point. We will never agree because we seek different goals in our thinking. At best you can form a somewhat neutral friendship with your quasi-identical and it works as long you don't try to theorize too much together at which point the different desires in cognition will create conflict because what one finds relevant and important is entirely dismissed by the other. Why do you think I don't care about your Ne? Irrelevant options with no practical applications on reality. 

Learning is more like learning to tolerate in the long run, and I think I'm quite tolerant of but only up to a point compared to an Se type in particular. 

3: but the way you fucking understand it matters since you even draw such a correlation to begin with, suggesting that you actually see some relevance, similarities or whatever between the two but based on the definitions I linked I utterly fail to see where you establish such a connection outside wishful thinking. 

And yes those definitions were written by some dude or dudette or neither, and that's why I am asking for *your* definition. Your refusal to provide just makes your entire reasoning more sketchy since you don't allow people to scrutinize how you establish the connection that intuition leads to higher IQ. 

4: You really don't understand Ni. Ni doesn't jump as much as it extrapolates further away from the core idea but it always goes back to the core being Pi. There is no need to rehaul models of thought to jump. Ni just dismisses Ne jumps which was my point. 

5: I don't think you know how Te works. Of course Te can take in information such as facts since Te naturally creates awareness of them. There is nothing sensory about the idea claiming the earth is round since I cannot first hand experience this roundness. Information does not only exist in the form of intuition and sensation. 

As for experiencing them first hand might be a valid point about how sure I can be of their types, but how they learned is quite irrelevant if their entire reasoning process is already laid out to bare which is quite simple to pick up once you know what to look out for. In this case, the pattern appeared strongly and I trust my intuition especially when it tells me such a strong message. I don't need to be with people or experience people in order to pick up their type. I can see people's reasoning processes in a forum post and extrapolate. The more I type and engage the raw data, the more accurate it becomes over time that is typical of Pi models. 

6: yes its a subjective field but that's why I want your reasoning and how you arrive at the conclusions you do instead of telling me you have no answers. 

As for the entire point about expertise, I don't buy it. I haven't seen it being true in people I've interacted with more than a specific profession might force someone to indulge more in a process that is not their dominant, but since this would cause a lot of psychic distress if it is in the inferior, they might seek another profession. People might seek outlets for their inferior in their lives in a way that they can engage it safely like how I love stupidly violent video games and movies, but this is different from trying to pat oneself on the back and try to shine with one's inferior. What you describe actually sounds more like socionics hidden agenda our possibly even some superego function like the PoLR, in that we do appreciate when people recognize our PoLR and tell us we did well. Since it is devalued however, I find it unlikely that people would try to do this unless they were in a situation that forced them to. 

Also, I find it funny you think I don't understand you because you seem to think that I don't get your intuition. I can't say I'm appreciative of the attempt to belittle my ability to reason, especially when you are the one who keeps evading. What counter-examples are you even looking for here? I can't logically counter fluff that most of your reasoning has thus far amounted to. 

7: Sigh. Here we get to the problem. Just because he cannot describe this particular idea in an eloquent way doesn't mean he's dumb. This is not a particularly good way to understand intelligence or even IQ. What about the act here suggested that he's dumb? That he doesn't understand? This goes back to the example I provided before about how cognition simply makes us perceive reality differently and that's all items does. Do you think monemi who has posted in this thread is dumb because she denies intuition? if you do, you don't need to define what you think why intuition makes people smarter because you already did and it shows that you don't understand what intelligence and more specifically, what IQ really is and what it represents. Ability to to say, generate ideas says nothing about your ability to abstract data. The more intelligent one is, the more capable one becomes to abstract. Not even theory is the same as abstraction. Intuition deals with information generated by the collective unconsciousness but nothing says these images have to be abstract. They can in fact be extremely simple like the kind you see in children, and Jung thought children in particular were more in tune with the collective unconsciousness because they had not yet formulated an ego. Saying that death is represented by the grim reaper is an example of very simple and in a sense concrete intuition, but we can abstract this and say that death is simply the end of life. This ability to abstract this way is related to IQ, but it doesn't necessarily relate to intuition though I cannot provide an example of abstract sensory thinking being an intuitive type. 

Another kind of abstraction is maths, but maths has nothing to do with intuition because it doesn't provide information created by the collective unconsciousness. 

So this really goes back to two problems:
A) you don't quite understand what intuition actually is;
B) you don't quite understand how to separate ability to abstract information from intuition.

8: so much patronizing its not even funny. 
A) we're of the same generation so I might be as old or older than you;
B) one doesn't need a field of expertise to tap into ones inferior. You don't know what I do and what I've done, so assuming such about me is quite flawed. Just because I don't share your view or your experiences doesn't mean your experiences should be given more credence than mine. I have a field of expertise very close to what typology is about and I have a masters degree if you are curious to know. I may not have an employment in it but I never spew Se facts when I work in it either which I always do to a degree, because it's the kind of degree you always have with you and always applies when understanding life. You want to know what facts I do spew when I start analyzing utilizing the tools it provided me? Ni. There is no reason to flaunt at that we suck at because it will become apparent to all that we do. I don't buy into your theory because I see absolutely no evidence of this thus far. If anything, people tend to seek a profession where they can indulge the dominant and maybe inferior if it's under "safe" conditions because we are compelled to do so. I have an INTP teacher in my current maths class. He tries to use Fe all right, because the idea of teaching maths in a classroom speaks to both Ti and in a more idealistic sense to Fe, but it fucking sucks and I can't say that he just randomly starts spewing Fe all sudden either. This guy is also well in his forties so it's not because he's young. He's just a typical and average example of his type in that he has to utilize Fe when engaging the students in the classroom once in a while but when he does it always fall flat. I have yet to see an example when he doesn't. So even though he's using his inferior he's clearly not good at it and that's one way we can tell it is of inferior nature. This guy has been teaching maths for some time as well I assume since it is his profession of expertise, but I see zero evidence in him to suggest your theory being valid for example. Jung even himself notes that people who differentiate an auxiliary is rare so for people to always differentiate the inferior the way you suggest just because they have a job isn't very likely. Also, differentiation would suggest that the inferior would take the same attitude as the dominant so we might not even think it is inferior then since the attitude isn't opposite. 

9: so my inability to remember and take note of everything you say has to do with Se? Nah. Sure, you said that but if you paid attention to my post, I was pretty clear on that I don't buy into your ideas of how to type to begin with or how type works because if someone is really and truly balanced they have no preference the way you seem to suggest, since balance would mean no real preference or it cannot be balanced. Therefore don't think familiar or unfamiliar situations matter. One can equally argue that the inferior is more likely to appear during times of stress and unfamiliar situations tend to be stressful. 

With that said I don't even think they work this way exactly, because I don't see functions in this particular manner as much as I see them as psychological constructs meaning that it's not a mechanism that turns on or off but is always there in some way, whispering things in people's ears. So what I look for are these whispers and they follow certain patterns and this appears quite clearly in most people even though I think Jung would disagree about them having a type. 

10: lolwat can be seen on Google?! You have to be kidding me. So you think Google sources are reasons to support such obvious superstitions? Introversion doesn't mean greater ability to have a higher IQ though the traditional definition of introversion is associated with artistic production. Similarly, nothing says that a thinker is more intelligent than a feeler just because they are capable of thinking impersonally. I know plenty of feelers and I wouldn't think many of them as stupid though I have met plenty of stupid thinkers. 

This isn't even about the traditional sense of what intelligence is, though I find this word extremely vague and thus not very useful to use as a standard, because intelligence is clearly more than how it has become culturally stereotyped over time and I would argue that the traditional form of intelligence if it is more like how it was understood some centuries ago very sensory. Women were irrational because they made intuitive leaps and read between the lines, hence the existence of the phrase women's intuition, whereas medln were rational and could see reality for what it is and logically reason around it without superstition. So unless you are referring to any other forms of traditional intelligence here you might as well just provide some definitions and not say just because Google says. You can't even logically justify these points so how do you expect me or others even think these exist? I personally fail to see them. 

And I missed the point you made about the se doms partner: socionics suggests the opposite you suggest concerning duality. Being in a dual relationship now I can attest that it works.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

http://www.darionardi.com/functions.html

This might be of interest to you, because he describes many theories in terms of the INTJ architype. In particular, he makes statements that are quite similar to what I have been trying to communicate in this thread, but he takes it one step further in a way that is very interesting.

His explanation for INxJ who overuse the inferior Se, is that Ni actually invents a metaphorical world in which Se can be experienced (but not experienced directly). As such, INxJ in particular will tend to act as if they are the experts in all sorts of areas, even when expertise may not be warranted or true. The extent to which the Se experience is true is entirely contingent upon how well the Ni can create a virtual world to replicate the experience. So it sort of turns into the liar that tends to give way too much information, cognitively speaking - the INxJ hasn't actually experienced the event, so to make up for this, will unleash a flurry of Se information that they have conceptualized to be true, to make themselves sound convincing. 

The overuse of the inferior can be transposed to other types too.

So this is as close to a "fact" as I can come up with to explain my own theory, that opposing types might overindulge the use of their inferior, especially in their fields of expertise where they feel as though they should know all.

For the record, according to Dario, INTJ do have access to Ne, but it must be replicated through the use of Ni. In other words, you witness Ne in action by the NPs, and after enough experiences with them, you can understand NP mental patterns and begin to use Ne yourself, through the lens of Ni. This is one reasons why many INxJ think of themselves as having many faces, because Ni allows a strong ability to copycat the preferences of other types by synthesizing experiences in the mind, at least to some rudimentary level. Dario himself can often come off as an SP, because he synthesizes their way of presenting through neural linguistic programming of metaphorical Ni experiences.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> http://www.darionardi.com/functions.html
> 
> This might be of interest to you, because he describes many theories in terms of the INTJ architype. In particular, he makes statements that are quite similar to what I have been trying to communicate in this thread, but he takes it one step further in a way that is very interesting.


I don't agree with Nardi's theory to begin with. Essentially, Se ramblings would be how you experienced such and such. This chair is such and such and honestly, I have yet to see this happen in any of my Ni friends or in myself. I am not even sure I think Nardi actually is an Ni type, which is why I think a lot of Ni types who read that part of his Ni description just go "wtf?". And by this I mean cognitively, not according to his own model. I think he's likely an actual cognitive ENTP or NeTi.



> His explanation for INxJ who overuse the inferior Se, is that Ni actually invents a metaphorical world in which Se can be experienced (but not experienced directly). As such, INxJ in particular will tend to act as if they are the experts in all sorts of areas, even when expertise may not be warranted or true. The extent to which the Se experience is true is entirely contingent upon how well the Ni can create a virtual world to replicate the experience. So it sort of turns into the liar that tends to give way too much information, cognitively speaking - the INxJ hasn't actually experienced the event, so to make up for this, will unleash a flurry of Se information that they have conceptualized to be true, to make themselves sound convincing.


I mean, honestly, what you describe sounds like Ne-Si to me, not Ni-Se. I can see how Ne-Si types might create these virtual worlds and explore that without direct experience because of the abstract nature of Si and the extroverted attitude of Ne. Ni that links itself to the archetypal, there is no "world" to explore per se, since all I experience are symbolically archetype images of more universal nature. 



> So this is as close to a "fact" as I can come up with to explain my own theory, that opposing types might overindulge the use of their inferior, especially in their fields of expertise where they feel as though they should know all.


I still utterly fail to see why someone would else try to flaunt their inferior in such a manner since it is the inferior and it will be painfully obvious to all that what you are doing is really fucking bad, area of expertise or not. 



> For the record, according to Dario, INTJ do have access to Ne, but it must be replicated through the use of Ni. In other words, you witness Ne in action by the NPs, and after enough experiences with them, you can understand NP mental patterns and begin to use Ne yourself, through the lens of Ni. This is one reasons why many INxJ think of themselves as having many faces, because Ni allows a strong ability to copycat the preferences of other types by synthesizing experiences in the mind, at least to some rudimentary level. Dario himself can often come off as an SP, because he synthesizes their way of presenting through neural linguistic programming of metaphorical Ni experiences.


Don't agree. My favorite cognitive model is this: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Model_A 

It proposes I have access to Ne, but just being around Ne types doesn't mean that I'll suddenly "activate" Ne, because in socionics Ne is a strong but devalued element, meaning it is not something I will do consciously, and when I am engaging others who utilize this kind of cognitive thinking I will shy away because I don't like what I see in them since it clashes with my own ego structure being NiTe. This makes much more sense and is congruent with reality the way I have observed it in other people as well. It for example explains why Se types are so sensitive to Ne, because it directly threatens their ego structure being oriented towards Se. While one can try to accommodate or express oneself through the other functions than the ego functions, this is not something that is desired to exist during a prolonged period of time because it's painful etc. 

Also, Ni doesn't mimic other functions through synthesization. That's just a poor understanding of Ni to begin with. The way I see how this works is that people just don't know what the functions are, and when they try to type others they sometimes mistake people for say, their quasi-identicals or perhaps mirror pair. They think someone is logical and it seems kind of subjective in how they reason so the person must be an INTP, forgetting to study what kind of subjectivity is being expressed etc. Subjective thinking is not the same as subjectively derived logic as is expressed with Ti. 

Also, I think the people who might be the most likely to experience themselves as having many faces are actually Fe types, especially Fe ego types. Why? Because Fe orients itself towards the externally emotional world, and is highly attuned and aware of how people are feeling and so on, and it constantly ethically evaluates this and tries to adapt itself or make others adapt in order to maintain a sense of what is experienced as a harmonious environment, because Fe is accompanied with the unconscious desires of Ti seeking the environment to be internally consistent. So one will see how Fe types will twist and turn themselves as if they have no real sense of ego in order to fit certain situations and they don't really mind, because to them twisting in this manner is the very real way of living, this is what their ego is oriented towards. Because ethical value exists outside of themselves as opposed to inside, they will therefore naturally override any personal impulses of what is valuable and orient themselves towards the external world and adapting those values as if their own, thus appearing as if they have no real sense of self to other people, especially Fi types.

One could also attribute this to enneagram type 3, 6 and 9, all possessing chameleon-like behaviors and traits and a poor sense of ego orientation. The image triad also tends to place emphasis on how they come across and twist themselves to fit a standard of how they should be, appear as or be read by others. 

The attribute you ascribe to Ni has nothing to do with Ni. My ability to mimic or copy other functions than my own comes from my innate understanding of them, which any person can do with some effort though they might experience it as psychologically painful if it is something they do not value e.g. Ti for an INTJ.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I don't see the correlation between making wild assertions and being dumb. I can usually follow why the person thought what they did, and trace it to some factual oversight - hardly proof of being dumb, but it could be proof of being remiss. I also don't see the correlation between throwing a hissy fit and being dumb. But I suppose that the definition of dumb is just as subjective as the word smart.


Using infantile logic and reacting to disagreement with about as much finesse as a constipated duck doesn't fit my definition of intelligent.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

monemi said:


> Using infantile logic and reacting to disagreement with about as much finesse as a constipated duck doesn't fit my definition of intelligent.


So you correlate immaturity with unintelligence? That's not something I can agree with.


----------

