# MBTI and IQ



## bubbamamma (Feb 21, 2012)

Do you think that any specific type is smarter than another, or that people with any specific letter have higher IQ than those with the opposite? Opinions, please, preferably with examples or statistics.


----------



## funcoolname (Sep 17, 2011)

1996 study abstract. 

The Relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ Level and the Fluid and Crystallized IQ Discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT)

2005 study.

http://www.psytech.com/Research/Intelligence-2009-08-11.pdf

I think both generally come to the conclusion that introversion, intuition, thinking (relating to low neuroticism?), and perceiving tend to correlate with IQ (fluid, not crystallized intelligence, I think..). OCEAN-test wise, low neuroticism, high openness, and low conscientiousness has been correlated. It's a bit of a double-edged sword because while low conscientiousness is related to a higher IQ, high conscientiousness is a strong predictor of how much an individual might achieve academically.. Crystallized intelligence can be increased over time, fluid intelligence tends to decrease with age


----------



## Recalibar (Feb 20, 2012)

Oh, well, don't I feel special. xD *had a 132 IQ*


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I wouldn't invest too much hopes in these, since they don't test for cognitive functions and instead focus on letters, which often don't represent the actual types accurately (and the MBTI has a 50% accuracy rate, since it is a self-reported test, unlike IQ tests). I mean, would the J/P axis be accounting for only the J/P functions of extroverts accurately, since the J/P functions only really accurately correspond to the extroverted types (e.g. IXXJs are actually dominant P types, but the MBTI doesn't account for this, due to these labels). I wouldn't be surprised if smarter S types often mistype as Ns.


----------



## Saira (Feb 2, 2012)

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to make an accurate correlation between the two, there are just too many factors to consider. Besides, IQ is overrated. I score ~145 but I sometimes act as if my IQ is 70, I'm emotionally retarded and I'm certainly not an academic type, so it's very possible that I'll end up a beggar or marry a guy named Billy O'Naire.

Raw intelligence can be similar to NT, but that certainly doesn't exclude SFs. After all, MBTI is about preferences, not abilities. I think comparison with cognitive functions makes much more sense. In my opinion, those with higher IQ are able to use more functions, or they use a few but know how to make the best of them. Like Es who superficially concentrate on lots of things and Is who concentrate on one very deeply.



funcoolname said:


> Low neuroticism, high openness, and low conscientiousness has been correlated. It's a bit of a double-edged sword because while low conscientiousness is related to a higher IQ, high conscientiousness is a strong predictor of how much an individual might achieve academically.


Hahaha, this is so true, at least in my case. Studying is a torture, because most of the things I have to study don't interest me a bit. It's really funny how ADHD-like I become in class when I become bored.



JungyesMBTIno said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if smarter S types often mistype as Ns.


I still wonder if this might be my case, cause I score very high in both Ne and Se. I identify with both ENTP and ESTP.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

Anecdotal comment:
I'm a fairly good troubleshooter, if I may say so myself, but I'm not fit to perform well in the environment/situation required for an IQ test: 
a) I simply lose interest when problems are purely hypothetical in nature, and b) I see possible solutions that aren't "allowed". 

If I took the time to actually prepare for such a test, I would rank pretty high, but as I'm way too lazy to actually to that, my professionally measured IQ would probably suck, even though I perform well in real-life problem solving situations.


----------



## Recalibar (Feb 20, 2012)

Saira said:


> I'm emotionally retarded and I'm certainly not an academic type, so it's very possible that I'll end up a beggar or marry a guy named Billy O'Naire.


Hah, "Emotionally retarded" is a good way to see it. As to where I see myself if I did give up academically, if you've ever seen "Miike Snow - Black and Blue" That would fit me pretty well I think. Anyway, who says you can't be both a N and an S?


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I wouldn't invest too much hopes in these, since they don't test for cognitive functions and instead focus on letters, which often don't represent the actual types accurately (and the MBTI has a 50% accuracy rate, since it is a self-reported test, unlike IQ tests). I mean, would the J/P axis be accounting for only the J/P functions of extroverts accurately, since the J/P functions only really accurately correspond to the extroverted types (e.g. IXXJs are actually dominant P types, but the MBTI doesn't account for this, due to these labels). I wouldn't be surprised if smarter S types often mistype as Ns.


\

My X was mistyped as an INFP. But the more I got to know him I realized he was DEFINITELY an S. He is extremely intelligent. Aced the math portion of the SAT without a calculator. And while he only got a 510 on the English portion (back when it was on the 1600 scale) English is not his first language.


----------



## Nicole Hobbs (May 31, 2012)

My IQ is 120...
My SO's IQ is 132.

We're INFJ and INTJ respectively.

Though I think that any type can have a high IQ.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

Those of you who know your IQs did you actually take it with a practitioner or are you trusting on-line results. While you can kind of trust, MBTI online - such as I always get ENFP except a few times i have gotten ENTP. So I consider myself an ENXP - there is a lot to an actual IQ test such as what are your strengths, what is your processing speed and open ended answers. 

I had my IQ taken by a practitioner after I was in a car accident to see if it differed at all from a test I took a bit before when testing for ADHD in high school. 

Both turned up that I have an IQ of 116. And they both came up with the same weaknesses. 

I would have a 132 IQ if I wasn't below average in spatial relationships. I can never find keys and always get lost.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

We should request this topic gets pinned; it comes up a lot.


----------



## elehaym (Feb 12, 2013)

As cliche as it sounds, what defines "intelligence?" Is it the knowledge of facts? Is it how you use those facts in real life?

Is someone whose specialty in mathematics more intelligent than one who understands the law? Or other subjects?


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

bubbamamma said:


> Do you think that any specific type is smarter than another


For types _in avarage case_ it is, but it's not about general IQ, it's about specific sections of IQ. For example, T-men should do better mathematical part of IQ tests, while F-men linguistic parts, something like this.


----------



## LittleMissCurious (Jul 1, 2012)

Nicole Hobbs said:


> My IQ is 120...
> My SO's IQ is 132.
> 
> We're INFJ and INTJ respectively.
> ...


I agree.



elehaym said:


> As cliche as it sounds, what defines "intelligence?" Is it the knowledge of facts? Is it how you use those facts in real life?
> 
> Is someone whose specialty in mathematics more intelligent than one who understands the law? Or other subjects?


What "IQ" generally refers to is someone's ability to assimilate information. There's a concept out there called the "G Factor" which is almost like computer processing speed: how much info can you take in and organize at one time, and how fast can you do it? That's my own paraphrase of the concept, but I think that's the underlying gist of it. 

Anyway, I think that IQ in that sense can be high or low regardless of type. A lot of people with higher IQs get by on gift and ingenuity, and a lot of people with average or low IQs rely more on diligence, persistence, etc. You see this in school, those who study for a week to pull a B versus those who study for a couple of days to pull an A. But even so, IQ doesn't mean you know things you never take the time to learn, so a high IQ person could definitely perform poorly in school, or less than optimally, if they don't put forth the requisite effort (even if only a small amount is needed). And an average IQ person could excel by sheer determination and logging lots of study hours.

I think IQ also determines the upper limits of how much complexity one can grasp, but I highly doubt that most people ever reach the limits of their intellectual potential. More often, we reach the limits of our persistence in trying to understand or our willingness to do what it takes to master certain material.

Also, regarding "multiple intelligences" as it's discussed in social science circles, it's a little bit of a distraction, imo, because IQ is measured in a positive sense--it's always about how _full_ the glass is, not how empty. Meaning that every person alive has _a _measure of intelligence that can and will manifest itself in different ways. How deep or high it goes is another question, as is what a person's particular strengths will be. IQ tests have been criticized for only measuring certain manifestations of intelligence, and I think there's some fairness in that. But again, the concept of IQ itself transcends any particular type of intelligence. 

Interestingly, my ESFP mother (strong on all points) used to do Mensa brain teasers for fun. She's also a computer programmer and is good at what she does. It's atypical for her type, but I think she's just a smart person. I think she would have made a fantastic salesperson, or even better, a PR rep/spokeswoman--but she's still capable when it comes to typical Ti activities.

For my part, I'm undoubtedly an INFP, but testing-wise, you couldn't say I'm weak in math--not objectively. But you _could_ say that I'm clearly stronger in reading and writing, both objectively and relative to my math scores. So, I think that *type* will tell you how strong your intelligences will be relative to one another, but it won't tell you what you are capable of overall. That's more of an *IQ* thing (and again, I'd reiterate that I don't think most people ever actually reach the limits of their intelligence, however much they have, only the limits of their ability or willingness to persist). 

So, someone who is more of a "math person," if they have an overall high IQ, will not be dumb in reading. They might not be as awesome in that subject, but it's not going to be an either-or. Or if they have an overall average IQ, they might be a difference between the scores, but it's not like all of their IQ is harnessed in one area. 

Also, at the risk of going on way too long, I think that if people look up more of the Jungian theory stuff, particularly with shadow processes, there's some good insight into how the ordering of one's cognitive processes impacts a person's psychological makeup regardless of their level of intelligence. Linda Berens has some short booklets that are really good.


----------



## Meltboy (May 14, 2013)

I have *little evidence* to base this on but I would *assume* T's would correlate highest with IQ.


I by no means have a particularly high IQ and I'm an ENTP (AFAIK).

My IQ is somewhere around 120 maybe a _little _higher or lower.
Last time I took an IQ test it was a "Test the nation" programme and I was about 13 or so I think.
I got 118 then but I was comparing my self to the youngest given scores, which was around 16/18 (I forget the exact age) so I should have technically had a higher score based on my actual age.

My INTx friend (I can't decide if he's J or P atm) is one of the most intelligent people I know and IOFTEN go to him for advice and debates and other such things. He told me his IQ is about 132.

My Dad is an xxTJ (those 2 letters are obvious for him) and he's another guy I trust and respect in regards to intelligence. He tested around 130 last time.



My closest friend is an INFP (most probably) and while she's more intelligent than the average person, she consistently needs either me (ENTP) or her boyfriend (another of my closest friends, who is most likely ESTP) to help her out with college work or her CV, etc...
I almost always go to her when I need to talk about emotional things though and will turn to her first when I need advice with more emotional things.


These are just examples from my very limited experience and not something to be taken as evidence imho.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

My edition of the MBTI Manual (not the latest) has page after page with tables of statistics relating to IQ tests, scholastic aptitude tests and scholastic achievement. In the vast majority of cases, where what's being measured is something you'd tend to associate with standard academic-oriented concepts of "intelligence" (rather than something like, _e.g._, emotional intelligence), N's score higher than S's, and the differences are more often what you'd call substantial than minor.

And introverts generally score higher than extraverts, but the I/E differences are typically significantly smaller than the S/N differences.

J/P is more complicated. Differentiating _aptitude_ (_e.g._, IQ tests and SAT scores) from _achievement_ (_e.g._, school grades), P's most often outscore J's in aptitude (although the magnitude of the differences is often relatively small), and J's typically outscore P's in achievement.

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

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


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

reckful said:


> There's a chart that plots GPA against IQ for the 16 types — to show who tends to "underachieve" and who tends to "overachieve" — for a sample of 3,503 male college prep students from 27 high schools. As the Manual notes, "all of the J types but ESFJ are above the line and all P types but INTP are below the line."


What is the line in this case? Some sort of linear fit to the scatterplot?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

My IQ is within the 98th percentile, with a potential for 99.9 percentile according to my psychologist's report. I have moderate to severe learning disabilities (ASD, ADHD Combined Type, Disorder of Reading and Written Expression) that hold me back a bit. For now... 

Though I often wonder what kind of smart I am. I am not good at retaining facts, and thus not very book smart. I am often too naive to be street smart. Where does that leave me? What I have concluded thus far is that I'm smart on paper, but dumb at life.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Teybo said:


> What is the line in this case? Some sort of linear fit to the scatterplot?


To quote the Manual, "the regression line is drawn to represent the correlation of .47 between grades and IQ in the total sample."

I'm no statistics expert, but I can report that the line has a mild upward slope and basically divides the scatterplot in half.

Also: It may interest you to hear that INFJs were #2 in the GPA department — behind the INTJs, natch :tongue: but ahead of the INTPs.


----------



## ubergeek (Feb 5, 2013)

I think the standard IQ tests are widely acknowledged to test a very specific types of intelligence, as pointed out very eloquently by LittleMissCurious, they essentially test introverted thinking (raw computing power/logic) and perhaps also extroverted intuition (pattern recognition) and the ability to sustain these in an exam situation, anyone with these in dominant positions in their cognitive stacking are naturally going to fare very well. The G.P.A plotted against IQ is only meaningful if the INTP/ENTP types I.Q. score is testing the same parameters as G.P.A. Performance at school is also to do with memory, recall, creativity, how much the teachers like you?? I'm not American so not sure exactly what is involved. These things can also be considered brain power, without even taking into account motivation, perseverence etc, so perhaps G.P.A is a better guide. I for example, breeze through the theory of nearly anything and do truly understand it, but you wouldn't necessarily want me applying that knowledge, especially if power tools are involved. Take for example the time I rewired a stainless steel dimmer light switch. My logic and understanding of the wiring were faultless, the execution of it however was ... not. Nor was the time of day I decided to try it but we live and learn (To get an electrician in) That's why humans specialise.

I did a Mensa IQ test a few years ago, the do at home and send off one, not the sit with an invigilator one. However I did adhere to the guidelines and times, so I guess it's still valid. I got 155. I did the semi formal test because I tested very high on the freebie online version. Subsequent online attempts at various different tests have been between 130 and 155 so I guess I'm somewhere in between)

Ironically I originally did an IQ test, because I was genuinely worried I wasn't normal. I felt bright enough and always got good grades at school and Uni without trying too hard, but out in the working world It took me a while to find my stride. I was always so out of step with everyone, particularly at work. I was 24, in a new proffesion and was having a few issues with a difficult line manager. She was a ESTJ (I think) and we had a very different way of approaching things. It was a very structured environment and she made me feel really stupid. I lost all confidence in myself. I was stressed and kept doubting myself and forgetting really basic stuff, after a while I even became physically clumsy, I would walk into things, drop stuff, pick it up and bang my head that sort of thing. I was primed to believe I was stupid and for a while I fullfilled that assumption. Anyway I am fully aware how flawed IQ tests can be, but inteligence and competance are important to me and that lovely big number helped pull me out of a confidence tail spin. I pulled myself together, removed myself from the toxic situation I was in and have never really looked back. I flatter myself I am fairly well respected now in my chosen field, certainly competent and have likely made more of a difference than my silly old trout of a boss ever has. Though I do still sometimes walk into things for no reason


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ubergeek said:


> The G.P.A plotted against IQ is only meaningful if the INTP/ENTP types I.Q. score is testing the same parameters as G.P.A. Performance at school is also to do with memory, recall, creativity, how much the teachers like you?? ...
> 
> I for example, breeze through the theory of nearly anything and do truly understand it, but you wouldn't necessarily want me applying that knowledge, especially if power tools are involved. Take for example the time I rewired a stainless steel dimmer light switch. My logic and understanding of the wiring were faultless, the execution of it however was ... not. Nor was the time of day I decided to try it but we live and learn (To get an electrician in)


The point of the plotting was not to compare two purported measures of the same thing. It was to see to what extent discrepancies (in either direction) between _aptitude_ (as measured by IQ tests) and _scholastic achievement_ (as evidenced by GPA) correlated with MBTI preferences. And the finding was that the J's tended to be overachievers and the P's tended to be underachievers, by those measures.

Since broken light switches can interfere with doing homework, perhaps that was a factor for some of the P's.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

reckful said:


> The point of the plotting was not to compare two purported measures of the same thing. It was to see to what extent discrepancies (in either direction) between _aptitude_ (as measured by IQ tests) and _scholastic achievement_ (as evidenced by GPA) correlated with MBTI preferences. And the finding was that the J's tended to be overachievers and the P's tended to be underachievers, by those measures.
> 
> Since broken light switches can interfere with doing homework, perhaps that was a factor for some of the P's.


I've noticed whenever IQ tests on PerC are advertised, perceiving types tend to have a wider margin between scores than judging types. For instance, it's not uncommon for xNTP types to score as low as in the 120s, or as high as the 140s, while xNTJ members more-or-less score in the mid 130s. Why do you think this is, assuming there are no mistypes and everyone is giving it some thought and effort?

And yes, my brother consistently outscores me in the academic realm, but I would *not* consider him an intellectual at all. :tongue:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

My response to topics like this, and it's never really answered well, is what's the intent? Are we talking pissing contest, point of self-development, awareness, or something else?

When it's a competition, it's a moot point because while certain types may overall score higher than others in samples in which everyone's taken an IQ test, there is no reason to think "I'm an ABCD, I must have this level of intelligence," since there is no real causality between type and IQ. It's a correlation at this point, and therefore beats around the bull way too much to make a lot of practical sense in comparison between types. If we're talking self-development or awareness, there are A.) much better ways to become aware of your degree and nature of intelligence than MBTI, and B.) being intelligent per IQ is only a fraction of what matters when you have to deal with the real world. 

The classic story "I found out I was a P and that explains why I didn't like the structure of school despite being really intelligent" (and its variations) is about the only thing statistics like these support, and even then we don't need them. People don't seem to get how useless each claim on top of claim really is when the original claim, type, is not a concrete thing to begin with.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Oh this topic again...

IQ is as penises, it grows considerably on the internet. Some chump takes a bullshit online tests that says they have an IQ of 150, and they believe it...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Figure said:


> My response to topics like this, and it's never really answered well, is what's the intent? Are we talking pissing contest, point of self-development, awareness, or something else? ...
> 
> The classic story "I found out I was a P and that explains why I didn't like the structure of school despite being really intelligent" (and its variations) is about the only thing statistics like these support, and even then we don't need them. People don't seem to get how useless each claim on top of claim really is when the original claim, type, is not a concrete thing to begin with.


First, as an aside, let me begin by saying — since you seem inclined to cast aspersions on the motives of anyone who'd participate in a thread like this — that, as I've already noted in a previous thread:



reckful said:


> I don't personally find the issue of MBTI correlations with intelligence particularly interesting. I'm a veteran at another MBTI forum where the issue comes up periodically, and I have a copy of the MBTI Manual, so I'd posted that information in a previous thread or two and had the relevant paragraphs available.



But, that said, I disagree with you that the typical participant in a thread like this is somebody looking to have a pissing contest or obtain some other dubious gratification and, more importantly, I disagree with your assertion that no thread with type and measures of intelligence as its topic can possibly lead to any worthwhile discussion because "the original claim, type, is not a concrete thing to begin with."

Just in case it's news to you, the standard way personality psychologists go about trying to determine whether a type dimension is a real thing is by testing what's known as its "validity," and validity basically refers to whether the type category as _theoretically_ formulated (and tested for) actually seems to meaningfully correlate with other independent and measurable things out there in the world.

It may be that you're so dismissive of "topics like this" that you didn't make it as far as post 16 but, if you take a look at that post, you'll read about a study that involved 3,500 subjects — which is a pretty big sample by personality-psychology standards — and that looked at how the ratio of two things that can make at least some claim to "reality" out there in the real world (IQ and GPA) corresponded to the MBTI J/P dimension.

And the results were arguably pretty dramatic by most standards (never mind "personality-psychology standards") in the sense that _seven out of the eight J types_ in that 3,500-student sample were above (and in several cases substantially above) the mean-regression line and _seven out of the eight P types_ were below (and in several cases substantially below) the line.

Never mind what anyone thinks about how much IQ scores and/or GPAs have to say about anyone's "intelligence," or how many different kinds of "intelligence" there may be, or whether participating in an internet forum thread about type and intelligence indicates a lack of intelligence (as your post seems to suggest) — the results of that study are certainly of possible interest to anyone pondering the issue of whether the J/P dimension corresponds to a significant, real dimension of personality (as Myers believed) or whether (as many internet forumites seem to think) J/P is just a pointer to someone's top extraverted function and it's silly for anyone to be purporting to describe significant things that _all J's_ or _all P's_ tend to have in common.

As a final note: In case you're inclined to think that Myers and her data-gathering goons, like us silly thread participants, must have had some kind of illegitimate motives for exploring correlations between type and measures of academic aptitude and achievement, you should be aware that educational reform was one of Myers' greatest passions. She basically took the view that each type was intelligent in their own way, and spent a significant chunk of Gifts Differing discussing the unfair advantage certain types had in what she viewed as a biased educational system. Talking about the S/N dimension (which has the most dramatic impact on both aptitude scores and grades), she wrote:



Myers said:


> Sensing children ... make lower scores on the average than intuitive children on intelligence tests and scholastic aptitude tests. It would be grossly mistaken but easy to conclude that sensing types are less "intelligent"; such tests do not take into account the legitimate choice between two rival techniques for the application of intelligence to life.


----------



## Praying Mantis (Nov 14, 2012)

I have a nagging suspicion that the OP started this thread because he's an INTJ. 

Actually just remove "nagging", and "suspicion"... and "have". Also "I", "a", and "that".


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

funcoolname said:


> 1996 study abstract.
> 
> The Relationship of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to IQ Level and the Fluid and Crystallized IQ Discrepancy on the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT)
> 
> ...


You can't see the results for the first study, but you can for the 2005 study. If you look at the correlations between MBTI and IQ in the 2005 study, they are significant, but very slight. They had a very large sample size, and I think that with very large sample sizes, you have a lot of statistical power and you can detect very slight, yet significant, relationships between variables. Since the relationship is so slight, I think that makes it a lot less meaningful.


----------



## Meltboy (May 14, 2013)

If xNTJs do generally score higher (I may have totally made this up and thought I remembered reading it but in any case I can't be bothered to go back and re-read) than xNTPs, then is it possible that xNTP's are more often seeing alternatives that aren't considered and thus struggling to choose an answer when they feel the answer might not truly be there? (Multiple choice questions)


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

At any given moment, there will be an active thread about IQ started by an NT around here .

I don't have the links (although many have been posted on this board before), but several studies have shown the main correlation with high IQ was iNtuition. Generally, the INxx types score the highest. Some have INPs as highest & others had INJs, and a few had ENPs in the top 4. There is little correlation with the other letters though. ENxx types were not far behind INxx types when those types took the top. F/T and J/P made little difference. I want to say STJs were the highest of the S types, but I don't remember that clearly...

When it comes to an individual, of course any type can have a high, average or low IQ.

I like when people bring this up though, because it usually dispels a lot of silly ideas about INFPs .


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> First, as an aside, let me begin by saying — since you seem inclined to cast aspersions on the motives of anyone who'd participate in a thread like this — that, as I've already noted in a previous thread:


Yeesh, someone's butthurt. Don't take it personally, it was just a question.



> As a final note: In case you're inclined to think that Myers and her data-gathering goons, like us silly thread participants, must have had some kind of illegitimate motives for exploring correlations between type and measures of academic aptitude and achievement, you should be aware that educational reform was one of Myers' greatest passions. She basically took the view that each type was intelligent in their own way, and spent a significant chunk of Gifts Differing discussing the unfair advantage certain types had in what she viewed as a biased educational system. Talking about the S/N dimension (which has the most dramatic impact on both aptitude scores and grades), she wrote:


Look, I'll have a debate with you over this, but you're going to have to actually read my post first for what it is, not what it "suggests." I'm sure you have your facts straight with tests made through on the basis of MBTI. The question isn't "are there results," but "why discuss it?" I'm looking for a reason in your post as to why it's important, and don't see it. It's true that things like this give me a reason to be suspicious - there have been threads here that literally rank types from most to least intelligent, and that isn't happening this time. But for now, the question is "what value is knowing the connection between MBTI and IQ?"

Whether or not Myers cared about the school system is irrelevant to this. Most everyone, high IQ or not, uses it. The only way I can see this having worth to the education system is if we make assumptions as to who is what type, even if it's based on a test, and the test is not particularly accurate. Again, asking the students directly, without the mediation of type, would carry fewer assumptions.


----------



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

Praying Mantis said:


> I have a nagging suspicion that the OP started this thread because he's an INTJ.
> 
> Actually just remove "nagging", and "suspicion"... and "have". Also "I", "a", and "that".


Truth. The two real-life INTJs l've known for sure both had gifted IQs. Did they give, uh..._any fucks_, whatsoever? No. 

INTJs as a whole, do tend to score high more consistently. 

l think what happens within the online MBTI community is that people who are firstly obsessed with intelligence and sadly, IQ take an internet test(which you will inevitably score highly on) and then decide to label themselves as INTJ because they see it as the most intelligent and thus the only truly acceptable type.


----------



## sloth (Apr 1, 2013)

I got tested at school. I'm an INFP, my IQ is about 135.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Figure said:


> Whether or not Myers cared about the school system is irrelevant to this. *Most everyone, high IQ or not, uses it.* The only way I can see this having worth to the education system is if we make assumptions as to who is what type, even if it's based on a test, and the test is not particularly accurate. Again, asking the students directly, without the mediation of type, would carry fewer assumptions.


I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. If by "most everyone, high IQ or not, uses it," you're implying that schools are using MBTI results to rank students' intelligence for some purpose or other, I've never heard of that and I'd be pretty shocked.

As for what "worth to the education system" correlations between MBTI and IQ (and other indicators of aptitude and achievement that schools _do_ pay attention to) might have, I'd say part of Myers' answer would be that they could help lead to a better understanding — on the part of the people making decisions about curriculums and teaching methods — that, to take just two examples, (1) there are (as Myers saw it) multiple "types" of intelligence, and (2) that substantial differences in people's favored "learning styles" argue against one-size-fits-all approaches in the classroom


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

reckful said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. If by "most everyone, high IQ or not, uses it," you're implying that schools are using MBTI results to rank students' intelligence for some purpose or other, I've never heard of that and I'd be pretty shocked.


No, I mean the education system. Most everyone uses the education system. 



> As for what "worth to the education system" correlations between MBTI and IQ (and other indicators of aptitude and achievement that schools _do_ pay attention to) might have, I'd say part of Myers' answer would be that they could help lead to a better understanding — on the part of the people making decisions about curriculums and teaching methods — that, to take just two examples, (1) there are (as Myers saw it) multiple "types" of intelligence, and (2) that substantial differences in people's favored "learning styles" argue against one-size-fits-all approaches in the classroom


That's a bit more to work with. I agree that type has a connection to learning style, and therefore praxis. As does IQ - but not together. Point blank "does a claim that INT_ have higher IQs than other types matter when talking about ways to use type to improve the education system." Even if it's true, no. What would be helpful to high IQ people of one type wouldn't necessarily not be helpful to high IQ people of another type; what is helpful to one type as a whole would not necessarily benefit high IQ people of that type. 

Type deals with birds of a feather, and you cannot tie type and IQ together in the way above without making assumptions as to any one person's IQ intelligence. There isn't a worthwhile connection here, and it's about time such ridiculous assumptions and comparisons meet an end.


----------



## 2GiveMyHeart2 (Jan 2, 2012)

Spiritual intelligence, Emotionally somewhat smart, but intellectually stupid.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Figure

You're skirting over the issue of academic achievement. Is it not important, or at the very least, interesting and suggestive, to find that there may be temperament-related reasons, not accounted for by IQ (and without collecting that data it'd be impossible to tease those two factors apart) that some children excel in school while others struggle? Is that not a worthwhile data point to consider when thinking about how we go about educating children and the possibility of education reform?


----------



## LittleMissCurious (Jul 1, 2012)

Regarding whether the question is meaningful, it seems to be about as meaningful as psychological type theory is. Forget IQ, why talk about type? It's just discussion that might help some people to have a greater understanding of themselves.




PaladinX said:


> Though I often wonder what kind of smart I am. I am not good at retaining facts, and thus not very book smart. I am often too naive to be street smart. Where does that leave me? What I have concluded thus far is that I'm smart on paper, but dumb at life.


Do you think it's possible that you don't retain facts because they may not seem significant to you? I'm not an ISTP, but I do notice that I've never been particularly good at academic-type trivia, mainly because I've never been interested in information that I could not find relevant or meaningful.


----------



## sly (Oct 8, 2011)

This seems about accurate...









_Politically correct:_
Gifted people can be found in all types, this test in meaningless!

_Politically incorrect: _
Yeah..but you should take probability in account...you have better odds finding a chunk of gold in the goldman's cave than in the arabian desert.

_
Personal experience(which is possibly even more politically incorrect):_
I would have expected the ESTPs in a higher place. But it seems about accurate and I can relate to this based on my experience. I did expect to find the ESFJ at the bottom though, all the ones I have met and lived with show an exceptional lack of intelligence. To be completely honest, I avoid sensory types as much comfortably possible, perhaps not because of their type, but of their _expected_ intelligence. I find myself unable to communicate efficiently with them, their inability to ''see'' the ''grand paranoramic view'' of everything and anything makes them dull and uninteresting.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Teybo said:


> @_Figure_
> 
> You're skirting over the issue of academic achievement. Is it not important, or at the very least, interesting and suggestive, to find that there may be temperament-related reasons, not accounted for by IQ (and without collecting that data it'd be impossible to tease those two factors apart) that some children excel in school while others struggle? Is that not a worthwhile data point to consider when thinking about how we go about educating children and the possibility of education reform?


You're telling me about the labor, I'm telling you about the baby in a different room. Find something concrete and neurological to support "temperament" and we may have a game, but as to now, those assumptions are theory off of theory. Some NT types, for example, think very differently, and in fact prefer opposite cognitive functions, but they're in the same temperament - and I can attest, having not done all that great with INTP and ENTP teachers. Tell me how a structure to actually re-design praxis in our education system will simultaneously improve the experience for high IQ people of a type, and all below?

This is all beside the point anyway. If the above is done successfully and tactfully and implemented for the betterment of learning, great! What I'm talking about is this attitude that if you identify with a type, you have a higher chance of having a higher IQ - and the superiority complex that ensues. I haven't been on here in awhile, but on the INTJ group on Facebook this is running rampant. It needs to be clear that IQ is an individual trait, not a collective type trait.


----------



## LittleMissCurious (Jul 1, 2012)

Interesting chart. So by cognitive process breakdown according to what processes dominate in each type, it looks like introverted judging (Ti or Fi), followed by extroverted intuition (Ne), followed by extroverted judging (Fe or Te), then introverted sensing (Si), followed by extroverted sensing (Se). 

I was typing a slightly different response and just noticed the last column-- %Gifted per Type. That's kinda fascinating to me, and unexpected.

I actually think this chart shows more why the IQ tests are testing for certain kinds of processing (How well can you think in this particular type of way?). But our society (at least Western civilization) has evolved around a certain way of thinking. So it's measuring within a particular cultural context. I'd be very interested to know if this held up in say, the Middle East or the Far East, in countries with long histories of their own. 

For my part, I'm mostly interested in encouraging people to use their giftedness to serve others and make a positive contribution to the world around them. For that reason, I do find value in talking about such things because a lot of people do not realize what they are capable of.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Figure said:


> You're telling me about the labor, I'm telling you about the baby in a different room. Find something concrete and neurological to support "temperament" and we may have a game, but as to now, those assumptions are theory off of theory. Some NT types, for example, think very differently, and in fact prefer opposite cognitive functions, but they're in the same temperament - and I can attest, having not done all that great with INTP and ENTP teachers. Tell me how a structure to actually re-design praxis in our education system will simultaneously improve the experience for high IQ people of a type, and all below?
> 
> This is all beside the point anyway. If the above is done successfully and tactfully and implemented for the betterment of learning, great! What I'm talking about is this attitude that if you identify with a type, you have a higher chance of having a higher IQ - and the superiority complex that ensues. I haven't been on here in awhile, but on the INTJ group on Facebook this is running rampant. It needs to be clear that IQ is an individual trait, not a collective type trait.


My use of the word temperament was ambiguous, I now recognize. I meant temperament in more general terms, as in, grouping people by a general trait or preference. In the case of academic achievement we're looking at, J vs P. The fact that you did not enjoy or feel very fulfilled or educated by the P teachers you had is not contrary to the point we've been discussing. Really, it suggests that you've personally experienced the J/P divide that exists in education, according to the statistics.

And I understand that you have frustrations with people who would point to their type and correlations with IQ as reasons for them to feel superior to other people. Personally, I don't really care what people think about themselves and their IQ and so on. It's so far from relevant to me that I have a hard time getting worked up about it. So what if a bunch of INTJ's think they're god's gift to the world? If they had no idea about type, they would probably have that attitude any way.

But those are side points.

The point I was trying to make is that, if type is a fairly consistent predictor of academic achievement, and the statistics seem to say that it is, it's worth considering the why behind that.

Now, you kind of got onto a tangent about the "realness" of type, but here's the thing, "real" in this case just means statistically reliable and valid. It's an issue of psychometrics, and, to elide, as long as you can test someone with the MBTI or some other inventory and get consistent results, you can use those results as a factor to predict or find correlations with other measures. The theoretical issue of whether there is some phenomena, such as cognitive functions, that can be extrapolated from the MBTI is another issue altogether. The empirical issue remains that you can test people, get the results, and compare these results to other measures.

I'm not here to offer a solution to redesigning education based on type. If I had those answers, I'd probably be paid a lot more than I am. But the essential point remains that those statistics exist, and while you seem to feel strongly that they should not be considered in a discussion of education, I don't see any strong reasoning from your posts as to why it's so important to shut the conversation down.


----------



## ubergeek (Feb 5, 2013)

reckful said:


> The point of the plotting was not to compare two purported measures of the same thing. It was to see to what extent discrepancies (in either direction) between _aptitude_ (as measured by IQ tests) and _scholastic achievement_ (as evidenced by GPA) correlated with MBTI preferences. And the finding was that the J's tended to be overachievers and the P's tended to be underachievers, by those measures.
> 
> Since broken light switches can interfere with doing homework, perhaps that was a factor for some of the P's.


Good point. the J's are more applied perhaps. More committed and able to make their aptitude count. Less likely to procrastinate.

I think what I was trying to say though, was that I don't believe that IQ equates to apptitude in the first place, and that G.P.A is a better measure of apptitude and therefore IQ. i.e that I.Q testing is largely redundant. Except for a nice ego boost. My I.Q. score is a reflection of how good I am at I.Q. tests and not my academic apptitude, which involves so much more than hypothetical paper logic. I am assuming G.P.A includes the humanities and all manner of applied disciplines. Scholastic achievement overall is further expansion from this and includes people who excel and specialise in, or just love and are committed to understanding and achieving at specific subjects. (I might be a bit off with the cultural side of things as I am from the U.K.)

An (admittedly slightly rubbish) analogy might be, I might, on testing have incredible physical power and strength, which in theory could be a predictor for high achievement in the field of sports, but I also need spatial awareness, precision, drive, aggression, reaction speed, motivation etc. THe J/P divide might be the drive/aggression/motivation discrepancy (not calling J's aggressive by the way, just referring back to my dodgy analogy) but would not account for the reaction speed, spacial awareness aspects that were not tested for. 

I personally think application and moving things from theory to practice, even within an academic setting might be as much to do with Te, as the J/P divide. (INTJ/ENTJ/ISTJ particularly spring to mind)

Fortunately at school I had a very capable INTJ mother on the case. No broken light switches in our house growing up!


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Teybo said:


> My use of the word temperament was ambiguous, I now recognize. I meant temperament in more general terms, as in, grouping people by a general trait or preference. In the case of academic achievement we're looking at, J vs P. The fact that you did not enjoy or feel very fulfilled or educated by the P teachers you had is not contrary to the point we've been discussing. Really, it suggests that you've personally experienced the J/P divide that exists in education, according to the statistics.


But "general" is a problem here. What is great to one P is not necessarily great to another P. ENTP and ISTP are very different types, for example. What about "general" works well when there are 8 variables, each weighted equally?



> The point I was trying to make is that, if type is a fairly consistent predictor of academic achievement, and the statistics seem to say that it is, it's worth considering the why behind that.


Predictor? So you're telling me that if some family walks into a clinic to adopt a child today and he/she was an ISF_, for example, and ISF_ scored less-highly on IQ tests than other types according to a study, that they'd have a way to "predict" - "this child has less of a chance of having a high IQ, or of achieving more, academically, than he/she would if they were an INTP." Load of bull. We can't skate aside of the essence of what type is (which we haven't even defined yet) and draw that sort of connection, just because there is a correlation. There is no causation yet. 



> But the essential point remains that those statistics exist, and while you seem to feel strongly that they should not be considered in a discussion of education, I don't see any strong reasoning from your posts as to why it's so important to shut the conversation down.


See the above. And, I want IQ and type separated, not improving the schooling system and type separated. The reason, again, is very simple - typism without concrete evidence, in this case causation.


----------



## Barcelonic (Jan 5, 2013)

Sorry I've not read everything up to here but i just want to say my piece on this....

There may or may not be a correlation between IQ and certain MBTI types. However, such a correlation might be indicative not of a type influencing IQ but, rather, IQ influencing type.

After all, one cannot type a baby; they don't yet _have_ a personality.


----------



## talkingAddict (Jan 8, 2014)

***disclaimers***
*I am young
*yes I did just notice that was spelled wrong no need to tell me #lazyexcuses!!
*I am a self server egotistical person (now everyone else admit it and stop LYING)
*I posses much more Auditory than visual processing social ability- so you can easily say I'm not fully participating in this
*I Act ALOT more impulsive/confrontational over text (mostly joking but I can't really do sarcasm or voice tones over this) I Am ESTP on fourms and test based comunication (EXTP in actual life)
*I can pretty much Guarente that I will Regret my own Statements After the first 1-3 responses I don't proofread meh crap
*I am EXTP (socionics and mbti) but id say im either a impulsive ENTP or a Creative ESTP
*I'm just putting all these disclaimers so I can refer to them when someone tries to poke holes into my arguments (I POKE MY OWN HOLES > )

lets begin

I hear most people on the fourms say they have a iq of 120-140- is the whole damn world mensa now? Let me define mine like a spoiled child now: I score too varied on tests when i input my age (130-159) I do however score around 126 on adult iq tests- Iq is mental age/actual age X100 (or adult score in my case)- lets see... brain fully developed around 25... 25/14= 1.78- 1.78X126= 225 wow that was high- I DO NOT BELIVE THIS SCORE INTERNET IQ TESTS ARE OFF-SET I DON'T TRUST IT IM GOING TO CHANGE THIS UNTIL I GET A REASONABLY LOW SCORE- Lets say im an adult at 18 and lets say the iq test i took made my score was actually 100 not 126 because I don't trust the test. 18/14= 1.28- times 100- 128 THAT IS THE LOWEST IQ I COULD POSSIBLE HAVE WHILE RAGING WITH ALL CAPS 128 is- gifted to highly gifted ok COOL- even after all this that means my current abilities are that of an average adult- meaning I *****Don't and Won't hold my somewhat above average abilities over your head***** because you're all big scary suit wearing tax paying chore commanders- if your all EXXJ. (self admitted sociopathic narrism over) 

Im an immature person who dosen't know things- I have an adult IQ but I do immature and stupid things ALL THE TIME I HAVE LITTLE SELF CONTROLL AND SUCH HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA



lets get into people bragging about their type is "better" due to iq- First i'll cover the general concept for intuitives and then get into detail for sensors
1- When someone is smart they are-so because they are different- no one is smarter but the same- smarter people just have different brains intelligence is not merely "more" it is complex-advanced. intelligence Is not evenly dispersed through the brain

now for some proof/detail/swaga for you silly boy sensors out there 

***MBTI functions are what your use first in social situations thinkers can fail science and get A's in poetry too!!!

ALBERT EINSTEIN- so people claim he is INTP INTJ
wellllll
lets not look at his work but rather WHAT HE SAID because mbti is about sociability NOT lifetime Achivement potential
QUICK-BIB I STOLE THESE QUOTES FROM BRAINYQUOTE MOCK MY SATANIC PLAGIRMS WAYS!!!

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

"Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."

"It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer."

“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.”

These are not quotes of a self serving bastard genius (HEY! me! hold half the genius) LOOK at what he actually did other than math!! he stuck out his tounge! he did lots of cheating- at once he had SIX GIRLFRiENDS (one night stands and such not counted) also he hits on chicks and cheated on his wife a bunch- Albert Einstein was also a HUGE pacifist- he HATED and felt so BAD about hiroshima and nagasaki
Albert Einstein went out into the world and looked for good in people- and looked for attractive people
Do you want to know something cool? he didn't write the theory of relativity when he was old- he did it in his office while he was working with mail at a lower-middle class job- HEY he was just bored u'know studying the entirety of the universe
MBTI dosen't apply to Geniuses

ISSAC NEWTON
ok ill be honest- I did this mostly to piss off self Indulgant INTJ's just the Arrogant internet ones- I have a INTJ friend in real life he's pretty fun. 

Issac newton was CRAZY! (still genius arguably greatest thinker ever) he was a total shut-in he wrote angry letters- bet he was bipolar or something- Issac newton seems more of a sensor- When he did mathamatical proof- he would often not just do it once or twice- but to the 50'th step of the pattern- this overdetail- this intrest in doing overmeticulous things SENSOR I CALLED IT! DIBS DIBS DIBS DIBS.

Want a better example? famous apple- it wasn't him thinking about gravity- but rather thinking about instantaneos speed due to the acceleration- he didn't want an average speed- he wanted THE EXACT instantaneos speed in the middle of the apple's fall- Newtons greatest Accomplishment CALCULUS i don't really know it but he freak'in developed it just to know this crap- that is crazy detail exact drive!! you shouldn't Aspire to be him- he was cool but crazy and obsessive 

Issac Newton got PISSED at robert hook- he got obsessive about things- if nobody visited him he could often stay shut several months.

Final proof- back to Einstein
his brain has been researched sooo much you don't even want to know... ok ill tell you-The brains intell is based on connections- In his frontal cortex (higher human thought) the left and right sides were actually pretty normal *left brain is all about step by step logic and solid 100% proved things *right brain is all about new ways out-of-the-box creativity art music contemplation (NOT emotion people get this wrong so much emotion is chemical not actualy neuronic connections)

BUT the part that connects the left and right brain in Einstein was vastly superior- forming many many many more connections- So its not about being Sensing or Intuitive to be smart- its about- BEING BOTH!
So really the point is geniuses and mbti are not validly reflective ive crammed this down your throaght but
ONCE YOUR ARE SMART YOUR ARE DIFFERENT AND BY THEN MBTI SOCIONICS AND ENNAGRAM ARE NOT LONGER AS RELIABLE AS YOU THINK!!!

again i'm more impulsive/angry/stupid over text- i need to voice to REALLY tell you something
-sorry about the caps i wanna put the most important stuff in a special place <3
Sorry if this was all confrontational- most comments i see directly or indirectly agree with this I just couldn't help but yell stuff at people

***bows***


EDIT: IM SOOO SORRY THIS IS WAYYY TO LONG </3 have a nice day (i let go of my mouth and my brain let go of itself hence my username)


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm and INTJ and I don't want to know my own IQ. I see risk yet little benefit.

Also, Newton was into theology and had a wide range of interests, which he looked into quietly while discarding the erroneous knowledge held by his contemporaries. Perhaps unlocking the "secrets" of "God".


----------



## amanda32 (Jul 23, 2009)

Honestly, who cares? Just live your life and do the best with what you've been given.


----------



## CorrosiveThoughts (Dec 2, 2013)

These threads are essentially a couple of NTs quoting studies that benefit their own type and the rest of the NFs picking sides. Sounds awfully political and useless. My intellectual ego and subsequently, epeen is not dependent on MBTI theory, I pity anyone who would have to say otherwise.


----------



## aspidis (Mar 19, 2014)

im intp my iq is around 140-159 and nobody believes it


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

aspidis said:


> im intp my iq is around 140-159 and nobody believes it


bs


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

aspidis said:


> im intp my iq is around 140-159 and nobody believes it


We're on the same boat then. 

Except I'm an ENFP. *Not* an ENTP as so many people like to type me as.


----------



## grlwithoutthedragontattoo (Feb 8, 2014)

To suggest that one "is" simply smarter than the other merely implies that it "always" occurs as true. Essentially, it should be understood that correlation does not imply causation. 
I do not feel it is appropriate to disclose my exact standing, because it may impose any unwanted bias. 

These are suggested "General Likelihoods" NOT DEFINITIVE:

Highest IQ recorded types( without regard to order)
INFJ
INTJ
ENTP
INTP

Temperament- 
The Rationals (NT)

Functions with a larger occurrence rate-
I vs E?
Introverted type 
N vs S?
iNtuitive type
F vs T?
Thinking type
P vs J?
Judging type


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

IQ is a bunch of lies.


----------



## CupcakesRDaBestBruv (Aug 6, 2013)

john.thomas said:


> IQ is a bunch of lies.


Or a bunch of flowers?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

MBTI and plain test score IQ? Yeah, probably favours xNTx's.

MBTI and intelligence? Zero correlation.


----------



## RiseAgainst55 (Jan 4, 2014)

I think that most IQ tests are made so that they're really easy for the minds of NTs. IQ tests are mostly made to test logic and puzzle solving, which some people aren't good at.
My IQ is 140 though.


----------



## talkingAddict (Jan 8, 2014)

ok I have something to say
everyone is saying they have a iq above 130 or 140
I know I do because I have fun conversations with groundbreaking mathmaticians like Heleman Ferguson and people who work for google and facebook. They all tell me Im smart on a level of curiosity exploration and sudden moments of great thought. Because these people who have made groudbreaking achivements say Im smart I can trust I am. And my dad worked with Bioengineering and my mom has entered high iq societies (and of course i know i know nothing)

but Im only 14 so this intellect is about that of an average adult- but don't treat me like one imma immature lazy douchebag

however there is no possible way everyone else are all highly gifted to genius here. The probablity of being a genius is 1/1000 (145+) and being highly gifted is 1/50 (132+)
Two geniuses in one spot is therefore a one in a million chance- all the people posted on the thread being within 132-150 is a probability in the septillions

Or maybye only arrogant people trying to cheaply gain succsess or build self esteem with there iq are the ones who posted here
I know i am one


----------



## Dosto Yevsky (Feb 9, 2014)

talkingAddict said:


> however there is no possible way everyone else are all highly gifted to genius here. The probablity of being a genius is 1/1000 (145+) and being highly gifted is 1/50 (132+)
> Two geniuses in one spot is therefore a one in a million chance- all the people posted on the thread being within 132-150 is a probability in the septillions


You're obviously not aware of Devilwin's Law:

*n = p[SUP]x[/SUP]*

n = average stated IQ of participants in internet IQ discussions, 
p = their (resting state) penis circumference in inches,
x = number of beer bottles littering their desk and similarly applicable storage areas nearby (floor, cupboard, girlfriend's boobs).


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

142, INFJ. I don't think there is a correlation between actual intelligence and type, as I must have the least common sense out of everyone I know. There are just too many factors.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

talkingAddict said:


> Two geniuses in one spot is therefore a one in a million chance- all the people posted on the thread being within 132-150 is a probability in the septillions


With all due respect, Gifted One, that was kind of a dopey thing to say. If the odds of being a genius are 1/1000 (and I'm just assuming you're right about that; I'm not familiar with the stats), then you'd expect to find multiple "geniuses in one spot" if there are several thousand people in that spot — like, say, PerC. The "one in a million chance" you're referring to is the chance that a spot has two geniuses if there are _only two_ (randomly selected) people in that spot.

To complicate things further, MBTI INs are significantly more likely to have high IQs than the general population, so you'd expect to find proportionally more high-IQ people at an IN-dominated place (and PerC is about 60% IN) than in the general population.

As a further possible complication (just as an example), it might also be the case that, all other things being equal, a high-IQ person may be more inclined to participate in a thread about IQ than the average person and, if so, that would further muddy your mathematics.


----------



## Osytek (Feb 11, 2014)

There is something stupid with IQ tests.

I found in the internet for example this:
IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure intelligence is a 'fallacy', study finds - Science - News - The Independent 

An absent-minded (or not absent-minded) professor of physic (or of sociology) can be less intelligent than 6 years old girl in many, many ways.


----------



## Accipiter (Oct 20, 2013)

I thought I saw some similiar tests made that in some MBTI types there where more people with higher IQ's. However I think its important to remember that even if those tests were true, in every MBTI type category there would be distribution of all intelligences. I.e. in INTJ there would be people with higher and lower IQ's, just maybe few more people with slightly higher IQ's than in some other MBTI type. So just by being from " high MBTI IQ" category it wouldn't be justifiable to say that you are more intelligent than someone else from "lower IQ MBTI type", as single person from that category might have much higher IQ than you.

And what is intelligence anyway? I find most tests testing intelligence very bias, mostly testing problem solving and mathematical intelligence. There is lot more to human minds than that I hope. Don't let IQ test categorize you!


----------



## Frank Weaver (May 13, 2014)

*Thanks for the cue!*



DiamondDays said:


> Oh this topic again...
> 
> IQ is as penises, it grows considerably on the internet. Some chump takes a bullshit online tests that says they have an IQ of 150, and they believe it...


Thanks for this, I was reading the thread and waiting for an opportunity to say that I have a 160+ IQ and a 7 inch penis. 

Come to think about it, these are 2 invisible and thus quite useless attributes.


----------



## Frank Weaver (May 13, 2014)

aspidis said:


> im intp my iq is around 140-159 and nobody believes it


The typos and lack of punctuation probably don't help.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

I never put a lot of stock into the IQ tests. They only test for certain things and the # you come up with is not static. It changes over time, due to health status, level of education attained (so my IQ could very well be higher now, but I don't really give a crap what the test says), etc. 

This was stated in my text for my general psychology class. Yes, groups of people were actually followed over their lifetimes to see whether or not this was the case.

So if results don't stay the same over one's lifetime, why would I rely on that to make any correlations?


----------



## Frank Weaver (May 13, 2014)

Asian_Chick said:


> I never put a lot of stock into the IQ tests. They only test for certain things and the # you come up with is not static. It changes over time, due to health status, level of education attained (so my IQ could very well be higher now, but I don't really give a crap what the test says), etc.


IQ scores fluctuate, sure, but let's not mistake correlation and causation here. The IQ conditions (among many, many, potentially more important things) your education level, for example. I came across an article a couple of years ago, claiming that IQs were found to move by as much as one SD15 during puberty. Overall, IQ decreases with age but, interestingly so, less for the high scorers.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

I've got between 115-119 in several online iq tests which is pretty average so it must reinforce the possibility of me being an ESFJ looser.
Edit: being honest with all of you, more like 111-119 hehehe hehehe
hehehe hehehe


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Frank Weaver said:


> IQ scores fluctuate, sure, but let's not mistake correlation and causation here. The IQ conditions (among many, many, potentially more important things) your education level, for example. I came across an article a couple of years ago, claiming that IQs were found to move by as much as one SD15 during puberty. Overall, IQ decreases with age but, interestingly so, less for the high scorers.


I don't mix correlation with causation. And I am pretty sure that my psychology text stated that it could go up and down over the course of a lifetime, unless there's studies showing quite different since 2006, when I took the class.

But aside from the aforementioned, the test and its score is not something that makes or breaks a person. In numerous places, it's stated that the IQ test is administered in certain instances, for specific reasons.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

inb4 people start claiming N's are smarter than S's
or has it already been said? I didn't read through it.


----------



## AstralVagabond (Apr 8, 2014)

I took an (official) IQ-related mental skill assessment test recently and apparently, my scores in varying sections were nigh exclusively between 120 and 135. (I only got one score that was one _point_ below 120 and I may have gotten scores above 135 in some sections but I'm not sure of how many or what my best score was.) My average was probably somewhere between 125 and 130. About a couple of years ago, I took an online IQ test once and scored 134. (I realise that this was likely not a perfect assessment.)

I don't mean to toot my own horn; but the idea does make sense to me that INTPs would have the most mean 'intelligence' of the Myers-Briggs types (16personalities does describe us as having "the most logically precise mind of all personality types"), with INTJs perhaps scoring closely behind. Despite these two types having totally different cognition patterns, I can see both as excelling in the typical/conventional definition of 'intelligence' - even if through totally different means. Other types that I imagine would tend to lead in intelligence are INFJs, ENTPs and ENTJs.

However, as people before have mentioned, I also see that this typical definition of 'intelligence,' as far as authentic science goes, is an inherently flawed umbrella term with no precise definition - which would be why all these types with all these different cognition patterns could still score similar results - and, going by the definition of 'natural proficiency in a field of mental activity,' everyone (or at least most people) is intelligent in his/her own way while being unintelligent in others.

In fact, this idea is a major and obvious truth in the basic concept of Jungian theory of cognitive functions and personality types - every type is uniquely high in some functions, or forms of mental ability, and low in other functions, or forms of mental ability.

For instance, if INTPs are masters of technical intelligence, we're also dangerously low in emotional intelligence (though, if therein inferior Fe is all we're going by in our definition of 'emotional intelligence,' oddly still higher than half of the types). If we judge by Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, INTPs should tend to be very high in logical-mathematical intelligence but low in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and naturalistic intelligence. Similar conditions apply to all the other types.


----------



## AstralVagabond (Apr 8, 2014)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> I've got between 115-119 in several online iq tests which is pretty average so it must reinforce the possibility of me being an ESFJ looser.
> Edit: being honest with all of you, more like 111-119 hehehe hehehe
> hehehe hehehe


Hey, you're still pretty safely above average! And averaging out at about the mark at which I think a lot of people begin considering the subject to be particularly 'smart' (115). However, as you may have heard before, online IQ evaluations aren't always that accurate so perhaps some of your judgment should be reserved for a time of receiving an official evaluation.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

iq doesn't measure intelligence. but i know it tests your ability to think outside the box. anyway i'm an ESTP with 138 iq.


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

I'm an ESTP, and the last time I took an IQ test I got 133.


----------



## magnisarara (Feb 28, 2013)

It's hard to tell on the internet because the online tests are ridiculous. The best way to determine your IQ is to take it through your school
in my school, They did the assessment in elementary school, usually around 3rd or 4th grade, and then you get placed in gifted classes and you are given the option to go further if you want. This method is the best way to determine IQ, other than seeing a professional, everything else is inaccurate, especially on the internet.

From a group of about 500 students there were 8. I'm an INFP,
other students were INTP, INFP, ,ENTJ, ENTP. Not sure if I typed them all accurately. 
They were all intelligent and interestingly none of them have gone on to do further education, 
and I know a lot of them who got involved in drugs or are just depressed all the time 
and most of them I lost contact with unfortunately. it's a blessing or a curse depending on how much support you get.
But from my experience
they were mostly introverts.


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

magnisarara said:


> It's hard to tell on the internet because the online tests are ridiculous. The best way to determine your IQ is to take it through your school
> in my school, They did the assessment in elementary school, usually around 3rd or 4th grade, and then you get placed in gifted classes and you are given the option to go further if you want. This method is the best way to determine IQ, other than seeing a professional, everything else is inaccurate, especially on the internet.
> 
> From a group of about 500 students there were 8. I'm an INFP,
> ...


I actually paid for my IQ test. Not mensa. PM me if anyone wants the link.


----------



## Serenitylala (May 13, 2014)

bubbamamma said:


> Do you think that any specific type is smarter than another, or that people with any specific letter have higher IQ than those with the opposite? Opinions, please, preferably with examples or statistics.


I am an ENFP and scored a 148 on an extensive IQ test that covered a wide variety of different aspects of intelligence including spatial, memory, mathematics, language, etc.


----------



## krimzon (Apr 6, 2013)

i did an IQ test and it said i was on the 101th percentile of intelligence level in north america


----------



## Serenitylala (May 13, 2014)

krimzon said:


> i did an IQ test and it said i was on the 101th percentile of intelligence level in north america


Now that sounds more like it. ISTJs are supposed to be the most logical of us all. So that makes sense.


----------



## AstralVagabond (Apr 8, 2014)

magnisarara said:


> It's hard to tell on the internet because the online tests are ridiculous. The best way to determine your IQ is to take it through your school
> in my school, They did the assessment in elementary school, usually around 3rd or 4th grade, and then you get placed in gifted classes and you are given the option to go further if you want. This method is the best way to determine IQ, other than seeing a professional, everything else is inaccurate, especially on the internet.


I remember taking an IQ test early enough in primary school; but oddly enough, I don't think I ever received the results. In fact, the teachers who were handing out the tests mentioned that we 'don't even need to see the results' or something along those lines. Now I'm wondering whether I should ask my mum about it... but I feel doubtful of that she knows anything about it.

There may also have been another time when I was taking an IQ test in primary school with results that my parents received - though this is currently just an educated guess on my part - when I was being tested for special needs/extra time on my exams/Asperger Syndrome. The last test which I took was actually quite recent and I'm told we're getting the results next week Monday, so at least I'll see then...



magnisarara said:


> From a group of about 500 students there were 8. I'm an INFP,
> other students were INTP, INFP, ,ENTJ, ENTP. Not sure if I typed them all accurately.
> They were all intelligent and interestingly none of them have gone on to do further education,
> and I know a lot of them who got involved in drugs or are just depressed all the time
> ...


Oh, yes. I think that makes sense. Actually, now I'm thinking that I wish I'd added 'INFPs' on my list of likely intelligent types in my last post, as I've seen that a lot (most, really, I imagine) of INFPs also have distinctly high intelligence. As would be marked on IQ tests. And support received in one's environment throughout one's life definitely has a lot of influence on how one turns out - which unusually intelligent youths can actually be prone to receive less of because of how different they are from normal children.



Serenitylala said:


> I am an ENFP and scored a 148 on an extensive IQ test that covered a wide variety of different aspects of intelligence including spatial, memory, mathematics, language, etc.


I... believe that means that you're a literal genius.


----------



## Serenitylala (May 13, 2014)

AstralVagabond said:


> I remember taking an IQ test early enough in primary school; but oddly enough, I don't think I ever received the results. In fact, the teachers who were handing out the tests mentioned that we 'don't even need to see the results' or something along those lines. Now I'm wondering whether I should ask my mum about it... but I feel doubtful of that she knows anything about it.
> 
> There may also have been another time when I was taking an IQ test in primary school with results that my parents received - though this is currently just an educated guess on my part - when I was being tested for special needs/extra time on my exams/Asperger Syndrome. The last test which I took was actually quite recent and I'm told we're getting the results next week Monday, so at least I'll see then...
> 
> ...


Thank you, but I don't consider myself a genius. I believe everyone is intelligent at something, or rather everyone is a genius in their own way.



Okay, I take that back. My brother was dating a seriously beautiful red headed girl... (Now keep in mind, I come from a family of breathtakingly beautiful blondes... My cousins are gorgeous. So this has nothing to do with beauty.)

But this girl was so dumb that I was astonished.... Seriously astonished. She could have been a Jaywalking Allstar. I have never before seen someone so ... without normal intellect... That I was left awestruck.

But other than most people are geniuses in their own way.


Btw, I really like your avatar.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

eleventhheart said:


> What I find really sad is that there is apparently so many people with 'genius' level IQ (commonly stated as above 140), but they're really normal people when you talk to them.
> 
> I went to a school where there was apparently a study conducted that found every student that was accepted had a genius level IQ. I looked around at my classmates, and these punks were all friggin' normal! I want to have the option of talking to geniuses (genii?) about the deep mysteries of life and the universe, but instead, these kids were just being normal teenagers, admittedly with significantly higher grades.
> 
> ...


I can say one thing, you *DO NOT* want to be too intelligent. The discomfort resulting from it is terrible. When your thoughts are too intense and the emotions crash lands in your body, the only thing you feel is agony. Those who have experienced this will not take their intelligence so seriously anymore. You avoids the deep and distressing thoughts, you just do the mundane things in life and enjoys it.

To be normal can be what saves you...


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Madman said:


> I can say one thing, you *DO NOT* want to be too intelligent. The discomfort resulting from it is terrible. When your thoughts are too intense and the emotions crash lands in your body, the only thing you feel is agony. Those who have experienced this will not take their intelligence so seriously anymore. You avoids the deep and distressing thoughts, you just do the mundane things in life and enjoys it.
> 
> To be normal can be what saves you...


I don't like your reply for several reasons. The biggest being that you seem to be implicitly implying that you've experienced this pain of being a genius. Which is just a subtle way to brag, haha

I have this pet hate on the internet that a lot of people cling to labels or exaggerate the hardship they experience so that they can feel embattled and owed respect simply for surviving in spite of whatever 'affliction' they have. I call it having an 'artist's tortured soul', because they pretend to have these terrible problems that normal people just don't have. Not to say I'm talking about you, I just thought of it while reading your post.

I'd have to disagree and say that being intelligent *IS NOT* a bad thing. If you're feeling really alone in the big wide world of dumb people, then you need to go out and talk to more of them. I can guarantee that there are people equally or more intelligent than you out there (like me). And then get over yourself, because no matter how smart you think you are, having fun while discussing with people less intelligent than you is still _easily_ achievable. Do the mundane if you can't handle anything more, but my heart doesn't exactly bleed for you, haha

(Yeah, I did the subtle brag thing too. Sue me)


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

eleventhheart said:


> I don't like your reply for several reasons. The biggest being that you seem to be implicitly implying that you've experienced this pain of being a genius. Which is just a subtle way to brag, haha
> 
> I have this pet hate on the internet that a lot of people cling to labels or exaggerate the hardship they experience so that they can feel embattled and owed respect simply for surviving in spite of whatever 'affliction' they have. I call it having an 'artist's tortured soul', because they pretend to have these terrible problems that normal people just don't have. Not to say I'm talking about you, I just thought of it while reading your post.
> 
> ...


I never said I was smart, you assumed it (incorrectly as well). I know people who are intelligent (it's a pretty descriptive trait), the mundane in this case is stuff I could only dream of, so you assumed incorrectly again. I fear that you have missed my point entirely...


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Madman said:


> I never said I was smart, you assumed it (incorrectly as well). I know people who are intelligent (it's a pretty descriptive trait), the mundane in this case is stuff I could only dream of, so you assumed incorrectly again. I fear that you have missed my point entirely...


My sincerest apologies then. I thought your post gave the sense you were trying to speak from experience. If that's not the case, then just ignore what I said; it can be for the next _actual_ bragging 'genius' to come along, haha


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

AstralVagabond said:


> I took an (official) IQ-related mental skill assessment test recently and apparently, my scores in varying sections were nigh exclusively between 120 and 135. (I only got one score that was one _point_ below 120 and I may have gotten scores above 135 in some sections but I'm not sure of how many or what my best score was.) My average was probably somewhere between 125 and 130. About a couple of years ago, I took an online IQ test once and scored 134. (I realise that this was likely not a perfect assessment.)
> 
> I don't mean to toot my own horn; but the idea does make sense to me that INTPs would have the most mean 'intelligence' of the Myers-Briggs types (16personalities does describe us as having "the most logically precise mind of all personality types"), with INTJs perhaps scoring closely behind. Despite these two types having totally different cognition patterns, I can see both as excelling in the typical/conventional definition of 'intelligence' - even if through totally different means. Other types that I imagine would tend to lead in intelligence are INFJs, ENTPs and ENTJs.
> 
> ...


We're counting online IQ tests as IQ? In that case I'm a genius. (psst... online IQ testing is wayyyyy inaccurate. Everyone gets a higher result on them than the official tests.) Was your "official" test taken online? Because the official test isn't accepted online. It's given in person.


----------



## CorrosiveThoughts (Dec 2, 2013)

Certain online tests are accepted in high IQ organizations. For example, I think Mensa recognizes the Gigi Pro, but it's still a paid test. And there are some fairly accurate, non-verbal IQ tests available for free online, assuming you know where to look.

I think IQ provides a fairly accurate idea of your logical problem-solving abilities at a given point in time, but not your intelligence or innate capability. Human intelligence is too diverse to even accurately define. A well-developed theory of human neurology would be required to actually go about measuring intelligence and what constitutes it, something anyone who's ventured into AI research knows that we painfully lack. But of course, half the "opinions" on IQ on the internet are horribly misinformed, regurgitated stereotypes.


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

That's so true , IQ tests are shit . I took an IQ test it told me I have an IQ of 154 but do I do good in school ? No! I score eggs and ham on my final results. I get horrible math grades and score barely enough to pass


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

eleventhheart said:


> What I find really sad is that there is apparently so many people with 'genius' level IQ (commonly stated as above 140), but they're really normal people when you talk to them.
> 
> I went to a school where there was apparently a study conducted that found every student that was accepted had a genius level IQ. I looked around at my classmates, and these punks were all friggin' normal! I want to have the option of talking to geniuses (genii?) about the deep mysteries of life and the universe, but instead, these kids were just being normal teenagers, admittedly with significantly higher grades.
> 
> ...


True , I have been to those high IQ societies , I was in the helliq society and I expected to meet interesting people but no! They were just like any random person I can meet any where except with 5000+ attitude .I really want to leave their group . the star student of my school looked so super normal I was completely taken away when I heard that she got straight A+ on all her tests . she looked like any normal hipster you can see and she was a Justin bieber fan!

I would be really happy to talk to any other genius leveled person who isn't a douch bag too.


----------



## chicklit (Feb 28, 2014)

Amacey said:


> That's so true , IQ tests are shit . I took an IQ test it told me I have an IQ of 154 but do I do good in school ? No! I score eggs and ham on my final results. I get horrible math grades and score barely enough to pass


... you do get that IQ tests don't determine how well you do in real life? It probably has to do with you being lazy or the school system just not working for you. That doesn't make IQ tests shit.



> True , I have been to those high IQ societies , I was in the helliq society and I expected to meet interesting people but no! They were just like any random person I can meet any where except with 5000+ attitude .I really want to leave their group . the star student of my school looked so super normal I was completely taken away when I heard that she got straight A+ on all her tests . she looked like any normal hipster you can see and she was a Justin bieber fan!
> 
> I would be really happy to talk to any other genius leveled person who isn't a douch bag too.


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

[/QUOTE]

Not sure if sarcacastic expression or actually surprised


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

CorrosiveThoughts said:


> Certain online tests are accepted in high IQ organizations. For example, I think Mensa recognizes the Gigi Pro, but it's still a paid test. And there are some fairly accurate, non-verbal IQ tests available for free online, assuming you know where to look.
> 
> I think IQ provides a fairly accurate idea of your logical problem-solving abilities at a given point in time, but not your intelligence or innate capability. Human intelligence is too diverse to even accurately define. A well-developed theory of human neurology would be required to actually go about measuring intelligence and what constitutes it, something anyone who's ventured into AI research knows that we painfully lack. But of course, half the "opinions" on IQ on the internet are horribly misinformed, regurgitated stereotypes.


Mensa accepts online IQ tests? No one watching to make sure you didn't cheat? There goes the last remnants of my respect for that organization.


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

chicklit said:


> ... you do get that IQ tests don't determine how well you do in real life? It probably has to do with you being lazy or the school system just not working for you. That doesn't make IQ tests shit.


I admit that I'm lazy but the school system isn't working for me too

That last picture are you being sarcastic or are you really surprised?


----------



## chicklit (Feb 28, 2014)

Amacey said:


> That last picture are you being sarcastic or are you really surprised?


I wasn't aware of the fact that looks and taste in music determine intelligence. :kitteh:


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

chicklit said:


> I wasn't aware of the fact that looks and taste in music determine intelligence. :kitteh:


They do , I mean what genius would ever like Justin bieber ?! Any thing with ears can tell that his music is bullshit , if I were his microphone I would have damaged myself on purpose. 
As for looks I don't think you can completely know somebody's intelligence by it but I don't think a smart person would dress like a hooker right? :laughing:


----------



## chicklit (Feb 28, 2014)

Amacey said:


> They do , I mean what genius would ever like Justin bieber ?! Any thing with ears can tell that his music is bullshit , if I were his microphone I would have damaged myself on purpose.


What kind of music would a "genius" listen to, then?



> As for looks I don't think you can completely know somebody's intelligence by it but I don't think a smart person would dress like a hooker right? :laughing:


And how should an intelligent person dress like?


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

chicklit said:


> What kind of music would a "genius" listen to, then?
> 
> 
> And how should an intelligent person dress like?


This is just my opinion so I can't be completely sure so I think they would listen to all types of music that have deep meaning lyrics or classic music and any type of songs that has a perfect beat to it.

As for clothes , well most of them tend to have an intj or intp personality or some what close to it so I gues they will like clothes that dont drag too much attention but after I saw that hipster girl I think they can wear anything they want or be from any personality.


----------



## chicklit (Feb 28, 2014)

Amacey said:


> *This is just my opinion so I can't be completely sure* so I think they would listen to all types of music that have deep meaning lyrics or classic music and any type of songs that has a perfect beat to it.
> 
> As for clothes , well most of them tend to have an intj or intp personality or some what close to it so I gues they will like clothes that dont drag too much attention but after I saw that hipster girl I think they can wear anything they want or be from any personality.


See, you can't be sure. The cleaning lady at your school or the party girl wearing a miniskirt could be the most intelligent person you'll ever meet, but the problem is that you're too prejudiced to recognize that. :kitteh:


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

chicklit said:


> See, you can't be sure. The cleaning lady at your school or the party girl wearing a miniskirt could be the most intelligent person you'll ever meet, but the problem is that you're too prejudiced to recognize that. :kitteh:


I'm not really prejudiced :mellow:

I just said in the begging its just an opinion but it does have some chances of being true


----------



## Frank Weaver (May 13, 2014)

IQ is like processing speed on a computer. You can use an HP calculator to do rocket science just as you can use IBM's Deep Blue to watch porn. IQ is a cap to what you can do but other than that it is actually sadly irrelevant.


----------



## AstralVagabond (Apr 8, 2014)

monemi said:


> We're counting online IQ tests as IQ? In that case I'm a genius. (psst... online IQ testing is wayyyyy inaccurate. Everyone gets a higher result on them than the official tests.) Was your "official" test taken online? Because the official test isn't accepted online. It's given in person.


I know. I mentioned the actual test first and then the online test as just an afterthought. Sorry about the confusion.


----------

