# Which MBTI personality types are usually the most Intelligent



## monemi

Signify said:


> Probably the same type that'd realize this type of question will just lead to an insolvable argument in which each type tries to stroke their own ego.


Meh, OP wants to hear NTJ are the smartest and STP's are dumb jocks. Play nice and stroke his ego. He'll feel empowered and walk away happy and it's no skin off our nose.


----------



## Hanaseru

I'm INFJ, but I don't really see myself as smart at all.

All the INTJs I know are extremely smart though.


----------



## fatality

i think... i am the smartest !


----------



## Unforeseen Challenges

Honestly each type has different situations in which they have a greater understanding than most, for the traditional test INTJ/P probably would have an edge, but this is essentially irrelevant because the applicability of those tests to life is minimal.


----------



## gintariukeas

Depending what intelligence- xNTPs usually have better theoretical knowledge, but xSTJs have better practical knowledge, F types have social... 

There are 7 (if i remember well) intelligences- kinesthetic, lingual, logical and 4 others. But i quess you didn't had that in mind.


----------



## cityofcircuits

Gawd.

Mbti doesn't correlate to IQ.


----------



## Tharwen

ESFJ. people think of them as the dumbest type, but the reality is.. its all a devious, intelligent plan.
they do it all on purpose.
they want you to underestimate them.
cause then youll spend time with them out of pity.
and it makes you lower your guards. bad move.
and then the shark ate you. *cough*, i mean squirrel!
they know how to get your nuts.
and then theyll rapidly climb up a tree, with their precious treasures.


----------



## Baldur

There are no good statistics of how many of each type are highly intelligent. 70 people on the Mensa forum out of about 14 million (people in the world with an IQ over 130) don't make for a good statistic. The forum; like PerC is flooded with INxxs, especially INTxs, so there is no surprise they "win". If you use the same kind of logic on PerC, INTJs/INFJs would be the most common types IRL instead of the speshul rare snowflakes that we all know they are.:tongue:

It also seems to me that NTs; more than other types want to be seen as more intelligent, and can act on this by joining an organisation like Mensa. Of course there might be multiple motivations, like for example meeting other people that are at their intelligence level, or out of pure curiosity like I did.

I'm not bashing any types, just pointing out the flaws in the so called statistics, and that being an INTJ/INTP is not a guarantee for you being a genius. However; I can agree that high IQ in Ns might be more common than in Ss. 

But I also think it’s important to remember that people can have other abilities and talents than high intelligence that prove valuable at school or work. Social skills, good work ethics and good memory for example are qualities most employers would like you to have, and can also prove helpful if you're going to start a business of your own. 

As some of you might have guessed after reading through this post, I don't believe in the multiple intelligence hypothesis that many bring up when there is a discussion about IQ and intelligence. If Gardner wanted me to take his "theory" seriously, he should try to prove it scientifically. Without any kind proof it's just pseudoscience. What he calls "intelligences" I call abilities.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

AmodoCattus said:


> Depending what intelligence- xNTPs usually have better theoretical knowledge, but xSTJs have better practical knowledge, F types have social...
> 
> There are 7 (if i remember well) intelligences- kinesthetic, lingual, logical and 4 others. But i quess you didn't had that in mind.


I agree with @AmodoCattus, there are multiple intelligences and they correlate with each types specific strengths.


----------



## Bel Esprit

Well the most intelligent person I've ever met was an ENFP (and was one of high IQ), but I think that type alone is usually not so intelligent; especially in the terms we're speaking of. I've found INFJs not be intelligent either, along with my own type. But I would say that some of the greatest scientists and inventors have proven to be NTs specifically INTJs, INTPs, and ENTPs.


----------



## ChkChkBoom

My ISFJ sister has the highest IQ that I know of. Even compared to the NTs and NFs I have been acquainted with. 

Generally, I'd say INTP, INTJ and INFJ. That's strictly speaking by statistics I've seen.


----------



## ChkChkBoom

Tyrfing said:


> There are no good statistics of how many of each type are highly intelligent. 70 people on the Mensa forum out of about 14 million (people in the world with an IQ over 130) don't make for a good statistic. The forum; like PerC is flooded with INxxs, especially INTxs, so there is no surprise they "win". If you use the same kind of logic on PerC, INTJs/INFJs would be the most common types IRL instead of the speshul rare snowflakes that we all know they are.:tongue:
> 
> It also seems to me that NTs; more than other types want to be seen as more intelligent, and can act on this by joining an organisation like Mensa. Of course there might be multiple motivations, like for example meeting other people that are at their intelligence level, or out of pure curiosity like I did.
> 
> I'm not bashing any types, just pointing out the flaws in the so called statistics, and that being an INTJ/INTP is not a guarantee for you being a genius. However; I can agree that high IQ in Ns might be more common than in Ss.
> 
> But I also think it’s important to remember that people can have other abilities and talents than high intelligence that prove valuable at school or work. Social skills, good work ethics and good memory for example are qualities most employers would like you to have, and can also prove helpful if you're going to start a business of your own. .


Agreed.


----------



## iloveusarita

intelligence does not usually exist.


----------



## knightingling

I am going to go for INTPs and ENTPs.


----------



## Kysinor

Whatever type that can accept other people and get along with them. Cooperation is such a wonderful thing.


----------



## theotter

Rationalists tend to value intelligence over all else, but that doesn't really make them "smarter" by default; you can value money and still be broke. I say there is no correlation of actual intelligence, but some types will place more merit in intelligence and will naturally look down on incompetence.


----------



## AdaptiveDaydreamer

OMG WTF BRO said:


> *INTJ seems to have an innate obsession with IQ score*, l've tried to explain to people what's mentioned above and l actually saw someone go _back _to INTJ after temporarily being typed INTP when they thought INTP had the highest IQ score overall (it was painfully obvious that the person was never an INTP ).
> 
> INTP will have a larger range, and possibly more people with IQ above 140-150 and more around 100-110.
> INTJ(and INFJ) is more evenly distributed with a lot more people right around 120-130 and not many average IQ scores.
> 
> ENTP follows the INTP pattern.


That would make sense, aren't IQ tests designed by xNTJ types [as in by (neuro)psychologists and neuroscientists]?

Also, regarding the OP, intelligence is such a broad term that covers a vast spectrum of cognitive functions and a lot of these functions are not captured by IQ tests. Creativity and practicality, especially, both seem to be a combination of cognitive functions which are hard to truly measure by any controlled test thus far.


----------



## Bardo

I can appreciate a high I.Q as being a measurement of...something your brain can do that is good. But I often see the classic logical high I.Q NT thought process as linear, which isn't always what is needed.

It's like who can build the biggest ladder, this guy has 150 steps in his and the second 100. If the task is climbing the highest then the bigger ladder wins.

But when the task is swim to the bottom of the ocean it becomes irrelevant. The higher I.Q person tends not to think so.

'That's so ridiculous, you'd need some kind of crazy god ladder to reach the bottom of the ocean and you'd be too tired from resisting the buoyancy to reach the bottom, NEXT.'

'You can get to the bottom if you have a motorized, sealed chamber with oxygen inside.'

'A motorized ball of ladders? You're so stupid it hurts.'

'Actually -'
'iNTerruption'
'The context of that is-
'iNTerruption'
'It's relatively easy to-'
'iNTerruption'
'You aren't even talking about the same thing as "FUCKING SEA LADDERS" me anymore. You just said out loud in real life you don't need to know my opinion because you can tell "NO.NO.NO.NO." what I'm going to say, you just claimed telepathy in real life.' 

...and so on. This post is a bit ranty but I've had so many conversation with the NT types where they just inject inappropriate logic to the absolute death of all meaning and value in the conversation and when it doesn't work just jacknife wildy into heroin overdose logic to coverup the tiny original mistake that they could have just effortlessly admitted to at the start. Excuse me. My brother is an ENTJ and he was full on claiming to know what I was thinking the other day for real.


----------



## Gossip Goat

You're intelligence can't be measured by a test.  just throwing that out there.


----------



## Fleetfoot

The "intelligence" judged by most people on this site, and with the IQ tests, always brings this cartoon up in my mind.


----------



## WinterFox

INTJ duh.

Which MBTI type is the most intelligent? | Which MBTI Type… 



And I saw this from another website, the person ranked INTJ and INTP as the smartest, followed by INFP and INFJ. 



INTP/INTJ
INFP/INFJ
ENTP/ENTJ
ENFP/ENFJ
ISTP/ISTJ
ISFP/ISFJ
ESTP/ESTJ
ESFP/ESFJ



Which Is The Smartest MBTI Type? | Slayerment


----------



## WinterFox

But going by cognitive functions alone, I would say INTJ is the smartest, followed by INFJ.
Both have dominant Ni so both are smart people :tongue:

INTJs make good entrepreneurs (dominant Ni + Te) while INFJs make good psychologists (Ni + Fe).

INTJs and INFJs need each other 

INTJs are the ones who set up a new clinic/hospital, while INFJs are the psychologists who work in that hospital/clinic helping INTJs to make money 

If both INFJ and INTJ join forces, we would make a great team together, that's for sure


----------



## ShootsThroughChutes

I find it interesting ISTP is ranked so low. I tested a 137


----------



## theotter

ShootsThroughChutes said:


> I find it interesting ISTP is ranked so low. I tested a 137


That's because the ranking is a load of* bollocks*. These kinds of internet lists usually have a _ridiculous_ bias against sensor types. There's a whole article about it. On the Bias against Sensation | CelebrityTypes


----------



## ShootsThroughChutes

theotter said:


> That's because the ranking is a load of* bollocks*. These kinds of internet lists usually have a _ridiculous_ bias against sensor types. There's a whole article about it. On the Bias against Sensation | CelebrityTypes


Thanks for the read. While I'm not ready to jump on the "We're being oppressed!" train just yet, I can understand most of the points. I'm guessing the rankings have been sensationalized, though I don't understand why. When I began looking into Jung types I found the difference between N and S types pretty clear and unbiased, but I didn't look far beyond the facts regarding each type.


----------



## FX

I don't really get the iNtuitive bias against Sensors, even though I'm an iNtuitive and therefore a bit biased myself. Being a Sensor does not automatically make someone dumb. For the record, my brother is an ESFP, and he's one of the smarter people I know.


----------



## Richard Evers

INTJ's brag about it all the time, that's for sure (I still love you.).


----------



## ChkChkBoom

I don't understand the whole bias thing either. I'm an intuitive and the sensors in my life are incredibly smart. Like I said, my isfj sisters IQ is considerably high. Her logic would out do any intuitive I know. She just doesn't define herself by her intelligence which is something I've noticed a few intuitives place above sensors. It's part of who she is but it isn't at the centre of it.


----------



## phonethesun

Ranking N over S, I over E, T over F, and P over J, with their levels of importance being N, then I, then P, then T, you get a list based on completely irrelevant claims that's fun to play around with in your mind were it to be a true ranking p. This is also probably what most MBTI sites would have as a list if they weren't considered so insulting and discriminatory. 

And just for those who don't feel like making the list themselves:

1. INTP
2. INTJ
3. INFP
4. INFJ
5. ENTP
6. ENTJ
7. ENFP
8. ENFJ
9. ISTP
10. ISTJ
11. ISFP
12. ISFJ
13. ESTP
14. ESTJ
15. ESFP
16. ESFJ


----------



## Kingpin

Statistically Introverts are more intelligent than Extroverts, Intuitive's more than Sensors, Thinkers more than feelers and Judgers more than Perceivers


----------



## eleventhheart

phonethesun said:


> Ranking N over S, I over E, T over F, and P over J, with their levels of importance being N, then I, then P, then T, you get a list based on completely irrelevant claims that's fun to play around with in your mind were it to be a true ranking p. This is also probably what most MBTI sites would have as a list if they weren't considered so insulting and discriminatory.
> 
> And just for those who don't feel like making the list themselves:
> 
> 1. INTP
> 2. INTJ
> 3. INFP
> 4. INFJ
> 5. ENTP
> 6. ENTJ
> 7. ENFP
> 8. ENFJ
> 9. ISTP
> 10. ISTJ
> 11. ISFP
> 12. ISFJ
> 13. ESTP
> 14. ESTJ
> 15. ESFP
> 16. ESFJ


I'm pretty sure by your system, the ranking would go something like:
1. INTP
2. INFP
3. INTJ
4. ENTP/INFJ
5. ISTP/ENFP
6. ENTJ/ISTJ/ISFP
7. ENFJ
8. ISFJ/ESTP
9. ESFP
10. ESTJ
11. ESFJ

Since the system is based around intelligence being measured by how close to an INTP you are, with T being least important, and N being most important. If you assign each letter a value from 1 to 4 and then total the sum, it becomes clearer. I actually like the ordering on this one, though its accuracy is dubious.

Also, on the topic of iNtuitives being biased as generally having higher IQ scores, I read that it was due to the nature of the tests, in that they focus on abstract thinking and connections. My dad is an ISTJ and he is incredibly smart.

In any case, I'm not sure I see the point of knowing your own IQ score. Everyone should be aiming towards full use of whatever they have, and having a single abstract number purporting to sum up your potential doesn't seem to help in any realistic way. The IQ test was originally developed for teachers to find students that were struggling so they could help them. Now it's become a way to find smart people and help them feel superior. Quite the shift, neh?

Also, as way of finishing, there was a study on 8th-12th graders that found ENTPs have the highest IQ, so... :tongue:


----------



## Wartime Consigliere

I don't mind the existence of these types of statistics, but I despise how people use them.


----------



## Anon317

whoever said P over J is a dumbass


----------



## sinshred

The most smart is INTP, but there is no doubt that INTJ is the most intelligent.
P - J function relate to how they take information (perceiving) and how their make decision (judgment). 
Judgers are regarded as more intelligent as they spend more time focusing on the future than perceivers, and organization certainly helps when trying to learn new things.


----------



## Purrfessor

Anon317 said:


> whoever said P over J is a dumbass


Why?


----------



## old_bean

I'd have to guess INTP.


----------



## Kingpin

Her's my list 
INTJ
INTP
INFJ
ENTP
ENFP
ENTJ
ISTP
INFP
ENFJ
ESTJ
ISFP
ISTJ
ISFJ
ESFJ
ESTP
ESFP


----------



## ForlanceAbice

... I sense the bunk is strong with this post. 

Different minds for different environments and tasks.

The mind will develop in response to its environment and past experiences. 
How they are affected depends upon many factors.

Everyone has a different type of genre savvy for their given environment and respective profession. 

Different issues and situations obviously have different expertise that are suitable for them, varying with whom the person in question is sent to deal with said issue. 

I suppose the issue here is not much a question of general intellect, but rather the rate of which one learns, processes and retain the material that they process when confronted with a situation that demands it. 

I.E, a rough example: An E/IFP type might be suitable for group dynamic social situations which require delicate handling and the regard for the needs and wants of all involved, being slow and considerate. Something more academically inclined might require the processing power and calculation of an INTJ/INTP type to observe all possible outcomes, which are possible, and which are not.

A leadership role in directing personnel and quick thinking might require an EXXJ type dynamic for that given situation. 

Like I said, our minds are woven differently based on our experiences, schooling, and what not.


----------



## CorrosiveThoughts

A question that's much more important and maybe one that ultimately serves a better purpose would be, what is the biggest rock? Please don't ask me to define what a rock is or tell me every rock is special or argue that the measurements used are partial to certain rocks.

Personally, I think it's the one I hold in my hand. But you're welcome to argue that you've seen a bigger one. But be warned, mine is extremely large and you'll never be able to convince me.


----------



## JTHearts

There's no such thing as an intelligent person or an unintelligent person. Everyone is intelligent in their own way, no one is intelligent in everything.


----------



## nexorquer

ENFP's have more EQ than IQ. But it is in being super smart in emotive intelligence where all the needs of intellect are drowned more than ever because of emotion. Heart first then brain. ENFP's get that together while intp/entp/intj/infj just miss it completely.


----------



## RaeMarieH

INTJ i guess but all types can be intelligent


----------



## AustenT09

A lot of these people who value their 'smartness' and high IQ are socially retarded and go nowhere in life because they are too pigheaded and emotionally/socially inept to adapt well into the workplace.

I might not grasp abstract concepts and questions as well as an NT but I can charm my way into my coworkers' favor, and solve issues with pragmatism... which is more valuable in making your way through life than pretentiousness.


----------



## Rafiki

Potential vs. Actualized?

I think INxJs are often let downs, born a diamond, never unearthed, so while they have this theoretically high potential for intelligence you gotta go elsewhere for fairness. ExTJs will be the first ones established and making money, ExFJ or ExFP will be the most socially smart and probably have the most friends for connections, probably become somewhat emotionally tricksy.

Personally, I think of the INTP/ENTPs as the walking, pull-an-argument-outta-your-pocket, Socrates kind of genius so.... ya!


Then on the opposite side, there's someone like Anderson Silva who predicts your physical movements before your neurons can plan them.


----------



## Geronimo.Faceplant

INTP then ENTP.

I don't choose INTJ because their two leading functions are Introverted Intuition and Extroverted Thinking. While NTP's two leading functions are Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Intuition. NTJ's are more practical while NTP's are more logical.


----------



## Jetsune Lobos

> And as the tales say, Cain once made claim to his brother "I bet I can piss the most farthest and longest", to which Abel could only sensibly reply "Nuh-uh". And so the Lord said let there be a pissing contest.
> 
> And then piss there was.


.............


----------



## ai.tran.75

Intp if we're talking about logic and being rational


----------



## oddiscrey

Presuming you mean intelligence in the sense of academia/knowledge, then I'd say INTJs are probably at the top, followed by INTPs. I also haven't met a stupid INFP (if we forget about the emotional stuff for a second). Us ENTPs are usually quite intelligent, however we don't always utilize our knowledge to it's full extent, thus under-achieving. I also think that extroverts tend me to get distracted more easily, due to the fact we primarily focus ourselves externally, whereas introverts don't have the same problem, and are thus able to maintain a longer attention span.


----------



## Vincent Trujillo

Hands-down ISTP. We got the big Ti brain with the muscles to silence any who disagree with our internal logic. 

(I am not serious, before I get any heat for this =p).

It's all a matter of the individual, not the "type".

Who tends to be more intelligent? In my perspective, it is those who are open yet shut. Open to possibility, but will take reality as it is.

My biased opinion is: A pragmatist with a penchant for knowledge. Take your pick of the sixteen which you think that falls under.


----------



## f8alz28

It's hard to tell. For example, I was briefly in the GATE program when I was in grade school. I got kicked out because I had behavior issues and rarely turned in my homework. Well, not doing assignments and having authority issues aren't valid reasons for giving someone the boot from that group, not meeting their numbers is. A program such as GATE should strive to adapt to the members of the group, even that one kid who just can't sit still. The kid sniffing sharpies in the corner just might have more brains than the teacher's pet (and the teacher); you think anyone will realize or acknowledge it? I was accepted into the program, but they weren't very accepting of me. I didn't care, I couldn't see myself associating with those individuals. No social skills, yet so pompous and arrogant, and as kids. They looked down on everyone else because someone told them they were "special." Bet the guys are all a bunch of 30-year-old virgins.

My problem with IQ tests is this. You typically get flagged to take an IQ test (usually the WISC or WJ-III for kids or the WAIS or WJ-III for adults) if it is suspected that you might be one standard deviation above average, and one standard deviation below average. So if average is the 90 to 100 range (centered on 100), and a majority of those who take it actually score outside that range, how do they determine average? Wouldn't the average range population be underrepresented? I think it's a good concept, I certainly think we need some standard of measuring intelligence, preferably and objective standard. The current approach might be valid, but I have my doubts. I hate math, any statisticians care to explain how you can derive "average" if the average population is hardly ever flagged for testing?

I know many INTJs. Yeah they are f'in smart. Now have them apply it. A lot of them FAIL.



AustenT09 said:


> A lot of these people who value their 'smartness' and high IQ are socially retarded and go nowhere in life because they are too pigheaded and emotionally/socially inept to adapt well into the workplace.
> 
> I might not grasp abstract concepts and questions as well as an NT but I can charm my way into my coworkers' favor, and solve issues with pragmatism... which is more valuable in making your way through life than pretentiousness.


Totally agree. So you're smart, okay, what can you do with it? It's like, they know what compounds are flammable, but you and I know how to start a fire. During the stone age, we would have had the highest IQ and all the cave girls.


----------



## TurtleQueen

I feel stupid sometimes and smart in other contexts. I think calling someone stupid might be an easy way to discount what they say just because you don't happen to agree with it. It can involve projections based on your own insecurities, assumptions based on communication styles, etc. Personally, I enjoy analyzing things and people, but someone who is good at analyzing things may have a hard time acting in the moment. I can definitely be prone to "paralysis by analysis." The kinds of things that seem "dumb" to me are people who seem resistant to having their opinions challenged on any basis. It really bothers me when someone says something hurtful on the basis of bad assumptions. I doubt my opinions a lot because I want them to be logically and ethically "correct." Any person can have a bad opinion, but I think people should try to take legitimate disagreement under advisement and not act as if they "know" things in an intellectually lazy way. I wouldn't judge somebody who asked what I meant to say, but I do judge people who treat me badly based on an assumption about something I said or did.

I like to analyze things before I act, make a decision, or assert an opinion. I have book smarts, but I lack people smarts. I think a lot of "social norms" can be baseless. I would rather display good intentions and be myself than always have to worry about if someone thinks I'm weird for being myself. The only reason I mind being weird is that it can get me into trouble when I have to deal with someone. I don't want someone to adopt some negative judgment of me because I'm not "correct" according to societal standards. When I want to make a good impression on someone, I want to seem intelligent. I am willing to clarify things for people if I say something that they didn't understand, but I don't want to condescend to them either. When you misunderstand something, it can be really hurtful for somebody to talk down to you by deliberately slowing their speech more than normal, explaining stuff you already know, and getting this look in their eyes that says you're not worthy of their time and attention. I know that I'm misunderstood a lot of the time, but I don't think that kind of approach to making things clear is helpful at all. I tend to think things through a lot before I say something, so when somebody responds to me with something I think is really obvious, I might think they're "dumb" in a way. That kind of thought could be a self-defense mechanism for me being hurt by someone seeming to discount what I say and think that I'm "dumb" enough to overlook obvious things. For example, someone on a MBTI forum might talk about typism and someone dismisses the importance of the subject because they have a conceptually different interpretation of typism (even a neutral generalization with a word like "most" being some sort of horrible moral offense) or think any discussion of an issue is somehow a statement of its importance in comparison to something else like racism or sexism. When I think that something is potentially worthy of discussion, I don't like to see its importance dismissed so lightly on (what I feel) are baseless grounds. I have seen this kind of thing happen sometimes.

I also find it annoying in a "dumb" way when people are unable to be analytical about their own motivations. For example, one time I saw this guy on a personality-type forum (not sure if it was here) complaining about how women dated "shallow jerks" who obviously weren't as "sensitive and deep" as he was because they were "ESTJs" (seemed more extroverted and did physical labor, according to the description). I really wondered if he was projecting some kind of insecurity about his own physical attractiveness onto "ESTJs" and "shallow people." I think it's kind of goofy to pretend that people are too "deep" to give any consideration to physical attractiveness. When you meet someone for the first time, you can't get any true sense of their character beyond their physical appearance because you know nothing about their values or how they treat other people. Someone who is physically attractive would obviously get more attention than an unattractive person. If someone is extroverted, they might find it easier to risk social awkwardness by asking someone out. It's easier to gain someone's attention if you approach them instead of waiting for them to approach you. It's also incredibly obvious to me that he was conflating physical attractiveness and "depth" of character. That is self-evidently rude and judgmental. Just because someone is physically attractive and likes manual labor doesn't mean that they're a jerk to their girlfriends or less "sensitive." 

Some things I say that seem obvious when I try to explain them occasionally seem to be misinterpreted in a way that doesn't make sense to me at all. I can say something that seems fairly simple from my perspective to someone else and they don't seem to understand what I said _at all_. I do some things when I talk that could make it hard for people to understand me: talk a lot, get too emotional about emotional subjects, talk too fast when I'm excited, fail to connect all the dots in my line of reasoning. I also might do things that seem "dumb" when I talk out loud: correct myself if I use a word I didn't mean to use, use filler words, point out a very specific way I agree with someone instead of just saying that I agree, say "I think" or "I feel" when I actually feel confident about my argument, seeming quiet and hesitant when proposing an idea. If I think someone isn't getting what I'm saying because I talked in a confusing way, that bothers me a lot less than someone responding in an unexpected way because I can sound "dumb" when I talk.

I try to have the best interpretation of people that I can. People can claim that "it's dumb" to act that way, but assuming bad intentions where none exist can be really unfair. I would rather be naive than a judgmental jerk. I've been told that I can come across in weird ways. It's so hard to think everything through before speaking. If I did that, I might not be able to speak at all. One time, I mentioned my high verbal GRE score to a boss in response to her saying that she didn't assign much homework (in an AP class) because the students care more about their AP math and science classes to do much homework in there. What I wanted to say but didn't feel that I could is that an AP class should be more challenging in order to resemble a college class since it can be used for college credit; I also wanted to say that it seemed like she was discounting the importance of her subject by lowering academic standards in response to "reality." What I decided it would be okay to say was that I cared about English and have always considered myself an English person because I'm better at it than math and science. Only later did I think about how citing that score could be considered "bragging" and "arrogant." Not knowing how what I say can come across if I try to speak in the moment might make me seem "dumb" or "arrogant" but I don't think that means that I actually am those things. I have a difficult time avoiding offending people sometimes because I ramble when I talk.


----------



## sleepingnereid

Priva said:


> INTPs, INTJs, INFJs


I really think that J's get more credit for intelligence than they should because they *seem* so sure of themelves. I dont know aobu this but i know i read that infj or infp have high rates of genius iq and do well in college, high college attendance.


----------



## TurtleQueen

Seeming to know stuff definitely doesn't mean you actually do. I put forth my opinions in a careful way because I'm smart enough to know that I don't and can't know everything.


----------



## TurtleQueen

Sometimes people who claim to know so much about "other people" really don't know much at all. You can get a sense of a person from what they say and do and possibly a general "vibe" you can learn about them. That's really about it. Things like personality type, past experiences, and biological factors can impact who a person is and becomes. I sometimes wish I could teleport inside someone's head so I can see what things are like from their perspective.

I know a couple of things about people. People are infinitely complicated, and the way I experience things differs from other people a lot. It took a while to get the second part through my head, but years of people judging me as "weird," "too sensitive," or something else have clarified that I am not like most people. So what? Does that really make me a bad person? No! I know I'm not like everyone else, so I make an effort to be a genuinely good person and avoid judging someone unfairly by my personal standards that are not really based on an ethical value or society's standards.

Sometimes I think that people who think they are so great at understanding people only really understand a generalized version of a person and what a person should be. Some variations, like a mental illness or difference from neurotypical people can make someone extremely difficult to understand. These people might seem "odd," but so much of that "oddness" cannot be attributed to something the person meant to do that I think it's ridiculous to judge anyone negatively by standards that would fit an average person.

Also, society's standards are contradictory and confusing. They say different things at different times. At times, a judgment based on alleged "normalcy" just seems like a way to justify personally disliking someone. I don't really care if a person dislikes me based on me trying my best to be a good, inoffensive person. I do care if someone makes an assumption that their feeling that I am strange is anything more than their own idiosyncratic judgment of my behavior.

I'm going to put a music video that shows how confusing it is to follow "society's" judgments when "society" says so many confusing things. At the end of the day, you can't let "society" or other people's opinions dictate what you want to do. You have to decide things based on your own standards of right and wrong or what feels right for you personally.


----------



## TurtleQueen

The condensed version of intelligence for me is a person who does the best they can as a fallible human to consider how they could be incorrect before issuing an ethically based or logically based judgment. If a person makes an incorrect judgment, this may or may not mean that this person is unintelligent. A truly intelligent person is always willing to consider new information even after declaring a judgment.

Or, in other words: Check yourself before you wreck yourself.


----------



## Alomoes

I don't know. I don't care. Honestly, iq doesn't matter to me, even just how intelligent you are doesn't matter. What matters is who you are as a person. The intelligent people understand this.


----------



## RosieJones468

I know an ESFP who is probably one of the smartest people I know. She has done very well academically and combined with her people skills...it is pretty intimidating!

As an INFP, I'm probably biased but I think people with Ne are typically cleverer as they can see a lot of possibilities and juggle many ideas simultaneously whilst Ni is better as selecting which idea is best. INTJ often gets called the cleverest but I'd say the INTP is probably cleverer. A lot of famous scientists and people who have changed the world with their innovative ideas, like Darwin for example, were INTP. My dad is also INTP and he is really smart. However I think I have better intelligence when it comes to emotional IQ and so I typically understand people better. Sometimes this is disregarded as not being as important as IQ but to have a good EQ means in social situations, you are able to connect ideas quickly and scan through your own experiences and emotions to quickly relate to someone else. You have to be able to detect minute changes in tone, body language etc and connect these together and then scan through previous experience to understand what they mean and what the person needs. If you are very good at it, it is actually a very complicated process that requires similar brain power to that of high IQ users.


----------



## Gossip Goat

The ones who don't ask or give serious answers to questions like this one because they understand intelligence can manifest itself [in different ways] regardless of what a Swiss psychiatrist that claimed to have a spirit guide named Philemon says.


----------



## Braverose

My sister is an ESFP and she's honestly the smartest person that I know. Yes, even in comparison to my INTP friends. (That's why we shouldn't trust stereotypes.) Also, I'm not sure if MBTI has anything to do with level of intellegence at all, but that aside for now.

My sister has a very quick mind that doesn't tolerate bullshit, so she gets to the point. She sees right through lies and any kind of character you try to put on. She does not only see the flaws (or problems), she has also immedeatly a couple of solutions for it.
I don't know what else to say, but I really look up to her, even if she is the 'younger one'.


----------



## kaleidoscope

I really can't stand the stereotype that NTs are smarter than everyone else. Seriously, how is that a good correlation? I wish people would stop and realize that not only there are multiple types of intelligence out there among which only _one_ is related to logic, and that yes, there _are_ some NTs with lower intelligence. There can be variation in level of intelligence within _every_ type.


----------



## ANAXEL

I do appreciate your admonishment to be honest.
Though the term "intelligence" is broad, it doesn't require too much thought to know what you mean.

INTJ's will fill a pretty good general description of intelligence: Reacting to external stimuli after correctly perceiving it and processing it to apply the demanded action in a decent amount of time. They can find patterns pretty fast. They can naturally find the solutions to problems. They're your IQ people. 
Even the less bright INTJ's will display a good sense of cold-logic thought process and insight. 

BUT, we could say ENFP's are extremely intelligent as well: Open-minded, yet insightful and friendly to the abstract, all while not being alien to applying logic where it needs be. Keeping the interest of others at a pretty healthy level without neglecting their self-care, literally loving their neighbor as themselves. Motivators, champions, key people to be in contact with in order to evolve as a human being (when speaking about the healthy ENFP's, of course).

In my opinion, those are the two most intelligent types I have ever come in contact with. As in, repeatedly, INTJ's and ENFP's, at their best, are the people that can help me to think straight. 

INTJ and ENFP for sure, filling both categories of intelligences the most naturally: Logical, Emotional, Introspective and Creative.


----------



## PiT

Judson Joist said:


> Intelligence is an incidental result of curiosity, so the real question is: "Who's the most curious?"


Curiosity is important, but most fundamentally you have the issue of "processing capability", for lack of a better phrase. I have known people who were highly curious, but just couldn't process difficult cognitive tasks well.


----------



## Judson Joist

PiT said:


> Curiosity is important, but most fundamentally you have the issue of "processing capability", for lack of a better phrase. I have known people who were highly curious, but just couldn't process difficult cognitive tasks well.


Yeah, but I'm trying to move us intellectual types away from elitism, so I figured a good way to start would be to associate the acquisition of intelligence with a proclivity toward curiosity. That way, we become more approachable to others. We become less like Sheldon Cooper and more like...
**insert your favorite "friendly scientist" archetype**


----------



## zethmal

Intp/intj
entp/entj
istp/infj
enfj/istj
isfj
infp/enfp
estj
estp/esfj
isfp/esfp


----------



## Denature

INFJs but they are very humble and don't show it much.
INTJs and it's very apparent.
INTPs because they actually think.

Pattern? All three of these types are introverts and intuitives. Introversion keeps you away from the crowd and forces you to have time to yourself where intelligence really forms. Intuition takes that knowledge and compacts it.


----------



## ShashaCruz

Entp-a


----------



## Jonz

If you take top football players, around fifteen-20 of all time. And process types. You will see a pattern. I always thought they were dumb as a stone, until I met the first professional player, that was.

Messi
Ronaldo
Maradona
Zidane
Ronaldino
and so on


----------



## Neetee

*INTelligence*

1. The most intelligent P type, INTP

2. The most intelligent J type, INTJ


[hr][/hr]

ABSTRACT – The aim of the present study was to investigate the nature of the negative relationship which has been observed between the trait of Conscientiousness and intelligence, using diﬀerent measures of both variables (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutaﬁ, under review; Moutaﬁ, Furnham, & Crump, 2003; Moutaﬁ, Furnham, & Paltiel, under review). A total of 201 participants completed the Fifteen Factor Questionnaire (15FQ) and the General Reasoning Test Battery (GRT1), which included both measures of ﬂuid and crystallized intelligence. Conscientiousness (Control) was signiﬁcantly negatively correlated with abstract reasoning (ﬂuid intelligence), but not with verbal reasoning (crystallized intelligence). This was interpreted as indicating that the negative relationship between intelligence and Conscientiousness is due to ﬂuid intelligence aﬀecting the development of Conscientiousness, in an educated and need-achieving population.

https://www.psytech.com/Content/Research/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf


ABSTRACT – The present study investigated the relationship between Jung's personality types and psychometric intelligence. A total of 4758 participants completed the Critical Reasoning Test Battery 2 and the Jung Type Indicator (JTI). General intelligence was significantly correlated with Extra version-Intro version (El), Sensing-Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF) and Judging-Perception (JP), *indicating an advantage for Introversion, Intuition, Thinking and Perceiving*. Regressing personality and demographic factors on general intelligence indicated that they account for 14% of its variance. The investigation of personality and demographic predictors of specific mental abilities (numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning) revealed that El, TF and JP can be used to predict scores on all three mental abilities, whereas SN can be used to predict verbal reasoning only.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...lity_Types/links/0c9605302085f47d05000000.pdf


ABSTRACT – This study examined the overlap and correlations among two well-known personality measures (NEO- PI–R; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI) and two widely used intelligence tests (the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA), Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA)). The GMA measures both ﬂuid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), whereas WGCTA mainly assess Gc. A total of over 3,500 participants completed the four measures in a middle management assessment event. Correlational analysis showed that Extraversion on the MBTI tended to be associated with Openness and Stability on the NEO. Intuition was associated with Openness and Introversion. Feeling types tended to be both Agreeable and Neurotic while perceiving types were high on Openness but low on Agreeableness. The NEO Big Five factor of Openness was most consistently and signiﬁcantly associated with both measures of intelligence (r = .09 to r =.12). Results from the MBTI showed that Intuition and Perceiving scores were positively and signiﬁcantly associated with both intelligence test scores which were intercorrelated (r = .38). Regressional analysis showed that personality traits are logically and coherently related to intelligence test scores. Implications for selection and assessment are considered.

This study has found signiﬁcant overlap between the measures of personality traits and types. Moreover, it has been shown that measures of personality traits and types can both predict intelligence test scores. Educators and business managers can use these tests in their selection processes to predict both non-ability traits and ability traits. It should be noted however that the MBTI is nearly always regarded more as a counselling than a selection instrument. It has also attracted both less and more critical empirical research than the more traditional and well established trait measures of Cattell (1971), Costa and McCrae (1992) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1985). 


[…] Personality traits and types were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of intelligence. These measures provide rich data for generating selection criteria for both educators and business ﬁrms who are interested in predicting human performance. Indeed the current models in the area all suggest that it is necessary to measure _both_ personality (traits) and intelligence (cognitive ability) to fully describe and understand an individual’s competence and potential.

DOI: 10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z


[hr][/hr]

*Sleekoduck:* Based on statistics that I posted in a previous blog (which were based on a number of different sources) and the bar graph above, here are the statistics for how many people place in the top 2% by IQ based on each personality type:










Finally, I sorted the data based on the total amount of geniuses to find out who has sheer numbers in the genius category.










https://psychobabble4u.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/which-type-has-the-most-geniuses/


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Denature said:


> INFJs but they are very humble and don't show it much.
> INTJs and it's very apparent.
> INTPs because they actually think.
> 
> Pattern? All three of these types are introverts and intuitives. Introversion keeps you away from the crowd and forces you to have time to yourself where intelligence really forms. Intuition takes that knowledge and compacts it.


Agreed on the Ni, Being a long time INFJ with extremely high Ni, it's pretty insane how abstract my knowledge is such that the older I get the broader my knowledge base abstraction gets, and things become more and more easy to understand. I'm curious if this is what you mean by compacting knowledge... meaning it is compacted because it is distilling that knowledge to it's essence rather then being specific with it, thus knowledge when abstracted is compact because it covers broad forms in a smaller subset making new things more easily related to, thus it's like the knowledge is more compact because it covers things so broadly and easily.


----------



## Charus

Most likely would be INTP's, but regardless of my terrible use with logic, people have considered me as intelligent.


----------



## TeamPB

Neetee said:


> *INTelligence*
> 
> 1. The most intelligent P type, INTP
> 
> 2. The most intelligent J type, INTJ
> 
> 
> [hr][/hr]
> 
> ABSTRACT – The aim of the present study was to investigate the nature of the negative relationship which has been observed between the trait of Conscientiousness and intelligence, using diﬀerent measures of both variables (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Moutaﬁ, under review; Moutaﬁ, Furnham, & Crump, 2003; Moutaﬁ, Furnham, & Paltiel, under review). A total of 201 participants completed the Fifteen Factor Questionnaire (15FQ) and the General Reasoning Test Battery (GRT1), which included both measures of ﬂuid and crystallized intelligence. Conscientiousness (Control) was signiﬁcantly negatively correlated with abstract reasoning (ﬂuid intelligence), but not with verbal reasoning (crystallized intelligence). This was interpreted as indicating that the negative relationship between intelligence and Conscientiousness is due to ﬂuid intelligence aﬀecting the development of Conscientiousness, in an educated and need-achieving population.
> 
> https://www.psytech.com/Content/Research/Conscientiousness-and-Intelligence-2004.pdf
> 
> 
> ABSTRACT – The present study investigated the relationship between Jung's personality types and psychometric intelligence. A total of 4758 participants completed the Critical Reasoning Test Battery 2 and the Jung Type Indicator (JTI). General intelligence was significantly correlated with Extra version-Intro version (El), Sensing-Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF) and Judging-Perception (JP), *indicating an advantage for Introversion, Intuition, Thinking and Perceiving*. Regressing personality and demographic factors on general intelligence indicated that they account for 14% of its variance. The investigation of personality and demographic predictors of specific mental abilities (numerical, verbal and abstract reasoning) revealed that El, TF and JP can be used to predict scores on all three mental abilities, whereas SN can be used to predict verbal reasoning only.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profil...lity_Types/links/0c9605302085f47d05000000.pdf
> 
> 
> ABSTRACT – This study examined the overlap and correlations among two well-known personality measures (NEO- PI–R; Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI) and two widely used intelligence tests (the Graduate Management Assessment (GMA), Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA)). The GMA measures both ﬂuid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), whereas WGCTA mainly assess Gc. A total of over 3,500 participants completed the four measures in a middle management assessment event. Correlational analysis showed that Extraversion on the MBTI tended to be associated with Openness and Stability on the NEO. Intuition was associated with Openness and Introversion. Feeling types tended to be both Agreeable and Neurotic while perceiving types were high on Openness but low on Agreeableness. The NEO Big Five factor of Openness was most consistently and signiﬁcantly associated with both measures of intelligence (r = .09 to r =.12). Results from the MBTI showed that Intuition and Perceiving scores were positively and signiﬁcantly associated with both intelligence test scores which were intercorrelated (r = .38). Regressional analysis showed that personality traits are logically and coherently related to intelligence test scores. Implications for selection and assessment are considered.
> 
> This study has found signiﬁcant overlap between the measures of personality traits and types. Moreover, it has been shown that measures of personality traits and types can both predict intelligence test scores. Educators and business managers can use these tests in their selection processes to predict both non-ability traits and ability traits. It should be noted however that the MBTI is nearly always regarded more as a counselling than a selection instrument. It has also attracted both less and more critical empirical research than the more traditional and well established trait measures of Cattell (1971), Costa and McCrae (1992) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1985).
> 
> 
> […] Personality traits and types were found to be signiﬁcant predictors of intelligence. These measures provide rich data for generating selection criteria for both educators and business ﬁrms who are interested in predicting human performance. Indeed the current models in the area all suggest that it is necessary to measure _both_ personality (traits) and intelligence (cognitive ability) to fully describe and understand an individual’s competence and potential.
> 
> DOI: 10.1007/s10869-007-9051-z
> 
> 
> [hr][/hr]
> 
> *Sleekoduck:* Based on statistics that I posted in a previous blog (which were based on a number of different sources) and the bar graph above, here are the statistics for how many people place in the top 2% by IQ based on each personality type:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I sorted the data based on the total amount of geniuses to find out who has sheer numbers in the genius category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Type Has the Most Geniuses?


wait, why doesn't it make 100%?


----------



## ImpossibleHunt




----------



## eva26

the most intelligent people i have known personally is an INTJ and an ESTP


----------



## dulcinea

Actual studies are pretty inconclusive.
I remember citing a study years ago that stated that thinking was positively correlated to IQ more than any other type parameter, but the variation by type was not very big, like 14% I think.
I saw another more recent study posted on NBCI stating that the parameter associated with the greatest position IQ variance was intuition.
That tells me, that the data from one study to another is not consistent, and thus intelligence/IQ is likely not type related.


----------



## Dezir

Kingpin said:


> Please please please don't be politically correct and say there's different types of intelligence, just be honest.


It depends what you mean by intelligence, because people use that word with a lot of different meanings.

Intelligence = performance? talent matters but ultimately hard work beats talent. So unless there's a specific task you need to be performant at, you can't make a general top of which type is better at performance in general.

Intelligence = IQ? I think INTJ and INTP. There are probably studies on this.

Intelligence = knowldege? this is partly related to performance partly related to IQ yet neither of those things or their sum. Being so many fields you can have knowledge at, it's impossible to make a general top of which type has the most knowledge.

Intelligence = critical thinking? That's a bit hard to quantify, everyone can be wrong, and just because you are wrong about one thing, it doesn't mean you are wrong in general about everything else. It's related to IQ but at the end of the day it's mostly exercise, so I don't think it's possible to make a general top for this one either.


----------



## Glittris

Intelligent in what?

If you asking for strategy intelligence, try xNTx
If you asking for social intelligence, try ExFx
...

Which MBTI personality types are usually the most intelligent? I say ESFP, they are intelligent enough to pull me out of this kind of navel-gazing.


----------



## series0

Kingpin said:


> Please please please don't be politically correct and say there's different types of intelligence, just be honest.


I do not this is a subjective thing as some say. The N types are all in general measurably more intelligent than the S types. Of course, this does not help us rate an individual as intelligent or not, without further testing.

I also do not think there are different types of intelligence. Intelligence is one thing, one's capacity to match patterns and form new patterns based on the one's matched. Those combine into one thing, basically one's facility, agility, with patterns.

But wisdom is vastly more important to a human than intelligence is. This is one of the many reasons for people to say goofy things like there are many types of intelligence. Some wise people do not want to have their opinions discounted on the basis of their suspected or measurable intelligence. That is actually ... wise. Their opinions are often BETTER than smart people's opinions. If you must choose between the two, the moral GOOD, the definition of wisdom is always superior to just more intelligent (choices).


----------



## Infinitus

series0 said:


> But wisdom is vastly more important to a human than intelligence is.


I generally value wisdom over intelligence, but there are caveats. I’ve met intelligent people who lack wisdom, but never a wise person who lacks intelligence. Thus intelligence is a prerequisite to wisdom. Also, what use is wisdom if there is nobody intelligent enough to understand and/or put it into practice? I’d say one is not more important than the other, they are symbiotic.


----------



## Behnam Agahi

MBTI is used to measure personality not intelligence.
Simple as that.
And by the way I don't believe in an exact definition of intelligence either. It's useless to argue over something when you don't have a common definition.


----------



## series0

Infinitus said:


> I generally value wisdom over intelligence, but there are caveats. I’ve met intelligent people who lack wisdom, but never a wise person who lacks intelligence. Thus intelligence is a prerequisite to wisdom. Also, what use is wisdom if there is nobody intelligent enough to understand and/or put it into practice? I’d say one is not more important than the other, they are symbiotic.


My model for wisdom agrees with you except in one particular. That is to say, you are right, intelligence is a critical part of wisdom and it is difficult, but not impossible to possess great wisdom without great intelligence. But, wisdom IS fundamentally more important because if we could choose we should choose it, because it defines that which is objective GOOD. 

Really, this matter is more or less a bizarre technical point, but, its rather like making a pole of any sphere, the GOOD. Then you slice that sphere into wedges. One of the wedges intersecting the pole represents the virtue of intelligence. So, clearly, it is a critical part. But distance from the pole in any direction is wisdom, and it is thus an integration of all virtues, and thus clearly, by definition, more important overall. Ultimately, all virtues are needed aimed at perfection, but, the wisdom is the only real and valid goal. All other goals in preference are immoral.


----------



## Infinitus

I do think wisdom is more valuable, because it comes with experience, at the cost of trial and tribulation, often through personal realisations or transformations that can be difficult to obtain through mere intelligence. I also agree that wisdom can be had without higher levels of intelligence, though I’d say that’s more rare. However, I still reckon there’s a higher probability of becoming wise if one is intelligent. Instead of seeing it like a wedged sphere, I’d see it like a plant, where the roots are intelligence, gathering the nutrients that ultimately form wisdom, which is the beautiful and ‘perfect’ flower that feeds the environment. In this analogy, you can’t grow the flower without planting the roots first. Sure, a flower without roots is plausible, as with some forms of moss, but the exception isn’t the rule.


----------



## BigApplePi

I am fond of definitions as they point to what one is talking about. * Notes:*

1. Define intelligence
2. Define wisdom
3. Define pattern

IQ is not the same as intelligence.
Breadth is not the same as depth is not the same as timeliness.
Each function thinking, feeling, intuition, sensation carries its own intelligence.
Does creativity merit a place?

Sensation - the accumulation of details
Intuition - the accumulation of generalizations
Feeling - acknowledgement of continuity
Thinking - acknowledgement of difference


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> I am fond of definitions as they point to what one is talking about. * Notes:*
> 
> 1. Define intelligence
> 2. Define wisdom
> 3. Define pattern
> 
> IQ is not the same as intelligence.
> Breadth is not the same as depth is not the same as timeliness.
> Each function thinking, feeling, intuition, sensation carries its own intelligence.
> Does creativity merit a place?
> 
> Sensation - the accumulation of details
> Intuition - the accumulation of generalizations
> Feeling - acknowledgement of continuity
> Thinking - acknowledgement of difference


IQ is the same as intelligence, the I in IQ stands for intelligence. It helps to understand what the Q is: "Quotient : a degree or amount of a specified quality or characteristic. "


----------



## Infinitus

BigApplePi said:


> I am fond of definitions as they point to what one is talking about.


Whilst I appreciate a need to have clarity with regards to the subject matter, I think getting caught up in semantics stifles any type of actual discussion. It’s fruitless. Take the first debate between Harris and Peterson as an example. They got caught up in debating the semantics of the word ‘truth’, which completely ruined the discussion, and went in circles trying to convince another of their own interpretations as related to their own worldview. When dealing with concepts such as wisdom, truth, love, etc it’s extremely hard to come up with a succinct and universal declaration of meaning. I don’t think it’s very wise or clever to stop discussions in their tracks with such a demand, even if your intentions are for clarity.

IQ isn’t intelligence, it’s the objective method of measuring intelligence. Else, you can’t really separate the two. Or if you can, let’s hear it.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> IQ is the same as intelligence, the I in IQ stands for intelligence. It helps to understand what the Q is: "Quotient : a degree or amount of a specified quality or characteristic. "


IQ is a try at measuring I'd say. It emphasizes verbal and math skills (so I've heard) which is okay. But what if you don't have those two skills and someone wants to know how able you are to learn them?


----------



## BigApplePi

Infinitus said:


> Whilst I appreciate a need to have clarity with regards to the subject matter, I think getting caught up in semantics stifles any type of actual discussion. It’s fruitless. Take the first debate between Harrison and Peterson as an example. They got caught up in debating the semantics of the word ‘truth’, which completely ruined the discussion, and went in circles trying to convince another of their own interpretations as related to their own worldview. When dealing with concepts such as wisdom, truth, love, etc it’s extremely hard to come up with a succinct and universal declaration of meaning. I don’t think it’s very wise or clever to stop discussions in their tracks with such a demand, even if your intentions are for clarity.


Terrific point. What good is a def if it cramps being open to ideas? Ideas. Yay! Words. Nay! 

(Who is Harrison? What debate?) If they brought out ideas, so much the better. If they tried to close things down competitively, things would be left out. I'd look for definitions that themselves are *open* but aid detail rather than closed and exclusive.

As a quickie, intelligence has to do with the ability to do stuff. <-- this is open as it asks, what stuff?
Wisdom could be intelligence that is broad yet blocks off goofs.
Creativity has to do with newness and value.

Try lucky thirteen: #13


----------



## Infinitus

BigApplePi said:


> Who is Harrison?


Sorry, my bad. I meant Sam Harris. The neuroscientist/atheist.



BigApplePi said:


> If they tried to close things down competitively, things would be left out.


The problem was Peterson had a concept of truth that took into account it’s usefulness or value. That truths were somehow more important if they had more utility. His most solid point being that truth can be expressed though works of fiction, which are sometimes ‘truer’ and more valuable than mundane facts. Whereas Harris has a more empirical and factual concept of truth, and whilst acknowledging Peterson’s point, insisting that the most fundamental truth is found objectively, and that all truths, including facts, are as true as another, regardless of value. Or at least that’s my interpretation.

Though this is besides the point, which is that neither of them could move past this first semantic hurdle, and the audience missed out on discussion of many more points and topics of interest. They learned from and rectified this during later discussions.


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> IQ is a try at measuring I'd say. It emphasizes verbal and math skills (so I've heard) which is okay. But what if you don't have those two skills and someone wants to know how able you are to learn them?


 Pattern recognition is a significant part of the testing as well, which may seem like math, but having good pattern recognition is not exclusive to math skills. 

They have IQ testes for those that have not yet attended school. It's largely patterns and logic. Having mastery of logic and pattern is indicative of having a good degree of intelligence.

I'm curious though, how do you teach someone with no language skill? Wouldn't you focus getting them that skill first?


----------



## Optimus Prime

INTP/INTJ as far as I know.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> Pattern recognition is a significant part of the testing as well, which may seem like math, but having good pattern recognition is not exclusive to math skills.
> 
> They have IQ testes for those that have not yet attended school. It's largely patterns and logic. Having mastery of logic and pattern is indicative of having a good degree of intelligence.


I forgot about those pattern tests. (I'm still after a definition of pattern. I once asked on that "Ask an INTJ a question" thread and someone gave a great answer but now I can't find it.) They are supposed to be "culture free" but now they are so popular I begin to doubt it.





> I'm curious though, how do you teach someone with no language skill? Wouldn't you focus getting them that skill first?


This first thing I have to ask is, what language? Music? Symbols? Word dictionary? Sign language? Language provides the building blocks in any larger enterprise I suppose. Since humans have it and animals don't excel, that is why we are smarter. 

Think numbers. Roman numerals are something. But look at how much further mathematics got when Arabic numbers came along!


----------



## BigApplePi

Infinitus said:


> Though this is besides the point, which is that neither of them could move past this first semantic hurdle, and the audience missed out on discussion of many more points and topics of interest. They learned from and rectified this during later discussions.


What the heck is semantics anyway? Words are only building blocks. String them together to get more subtle meanings. 
"Truth" one can define. Take any entity and try to match it up in some context with other contexts. If you have consistency you have truth, but I'm not going to try to define it now. 





Infinitus said:


> The problem was Peterson had a concept of truth that took into account it’s usefulness or value. That truths were somehow more important if they had more utility. His most solid point being that truth can be expressed though works of fiction, which are sometimes ‘truer’ and more valuable than mundane facts. Whereas Harris has a more empirical and factual concept of truth, and whilst acknowledging Peterson’s point, insisting that the most fundamental truth is found objectively, and that all truths, including facts, are as true as another, regardless of value. Or at least that’s my interpretation.


Sure. There are all kinds of truths. A truth can be unwavering. It can be assigned a value. If Harris wants to say this part of the brain provides a map for this action, that is one thing. But saying a fairy tale, the Bible, or any story for that matter has no truths is false. A story can contain emotional truths. Superheros explain what you get when you exert a special power. Lots of truths there. A painting can show a truth immediately when words escape us. (Pictures versus a thousands words.)


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> I forgot about those pattern tests. (I'm still after a definition of pattern. I once asked on that "Ask an INTJ a question" thread and someone gave a great answer but now I can't find it.) They are supposed to be "culture free" but now they are so popular I begin to doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This first thing I have to ask is, what language? Music? Symbols? Word dictionary? Sign language? Language provides the building blocks in any larger enterprise I suppose. Since humans have it and animals don't excel, that is why we are smarter.
> 
> Think numbers. Roman numerals are something. But look at how much further mathematics got when Arabic numbers came along!


Language is by many standards a set of patterns. symbols or sounds that convey meaning, which can be rearranged.

Pattern tests often involve a sequence that you have to follow and predict the next iteration of the sequence. Sometimes it's numbers, but often shapes. Sometimes instructions are to predict the n'th iteration, which requires more complexity of thought, but is based on the same basic logic. There is no reason an illiterate person with no concept of math couldn't still perform this soft of task if they had a prerequisite degree of intelligence. There may be some degree of educating first as it may be a foreign concept, but intelligent people can learn foreign concepts. Those that lack intelligence can't be taught beyond their personal limit. A person with language and basic math skills with a limited IQ would struggle this type of test regardless of your interventions and tutoring. IQ isn't accumulated understanding, it's capacity.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> Those that lack intelligence can't be taught beyond their personal limit.


I have a theory explaining what this "limit" is. Without spelling it out, compare it to the building of a shelter. At one end (1) there must be the motivation to build the shelter and the intuition that a shelter could exist. At the other end is needed sticks and stones and lumber (2) as prerequisite building blocks. If one can put together (3) the building blocks and aim them at the target, you are done. Intelligence limits would be if any one of those three is missing.

I know I'm winging this by, thinking out loud, but now we have the ingredients for limits on intelligence.
(2) Neurons, nodes and connections within the brain. The physical ability to create more of them. The lessor animals lack these or are specialists.
(1) Some kind of need available to visualize. That is, a defined task to perform. A well satisfied person, not bored, might not even try to exercise any ability. A need is required to get intelligence going.
(3) This is tricky. By putting together the building blocks, by taking baby steps, new building blocks emerge. These are larger blocks which if continued to build even larger blocks can eventually get to the end task. 

Note that having a good memory helps. When I try a tough task I frequently fail because I can't remember the baby steps if there are too many. One needs motivation to go over the baby steps to remember them. Motivation helps to keep one at it. Guidance from another helps in believing it can be done. Intelligence is the ability to carry out all these steps.

Right now I'm not intelligent enough to get a definition of "pattern." You know a pattern when you see one, right?


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> I have a theory explaining what this "limit" is. Without spelling it out, compare it to the building of a shelter. At one end (1) there must be the motivation to build the shelter and the intuition that a shelter could exist. At the other end is needed sticks and stones and lumber (2) as prerequisite building blocks. If one can put together (3) the building blocks and aim them at the target, you are done. Intelligence limits would be if any one of those three is missing.
> 
> I know I'm winging this by, thinking out loud, but now we have the ingredients for limits on intelligence.
> (2) Neurons, nodes and connections within the brain. The physical ability to create more of them. The lessor animals lack these or are specialists.
> (1) Some kind of need available to visualize. That is, a defined task to perform. A well satisfied person, not bored, might not even try to exercise any ability. A need is required to get intelligence going.
> (3) This is tricky. By putting together the building blocks, by taking baby steps, new building blocks emerge. These are larger blocks which if continued to build even larger blocks can eventually get to the end task.
> 
> Note that having a good memory helps. When I try a tough task I frequently fail because I can't remember the baby steps if there are too many. One needs motivation to go over the baby steps to remember them. Motivation helps to keep one at it. Guidance from another helps in believing it can be done. Intelligence is the ability to carry out all these steps.
> 
> Right now I'm not intelligent enough to get a definition of "pattern." You know a pattern when you see one, right?


I don't agree that motive is a factor, but lack of a motive would certainly be a limitation on full realization of capacity. I've seen some suddenly acquire motive where it had been lacking. that then led to vast leaps in personal progress. It would seem the capacity was always there, just not put in to action. Conversely, one could lose motive and retain innate intelligence. lacking motive might be a limiting factor, but only in the realization/manifestation phase, not on it's innate presence.

I've seen some interesting evolutions in intelligence im y kids. two are above average, but not remarkable. One is off the charts, limits out tests regularly. My best guess is 160+ IQ, but at 11, there are few objective ways to measure it that can factor for his immaturity. He's a prodigy in several domains. Yet he struggles with inconsistent approach, motivation that is not focused. I do see motivation if a factor in some ways, so I get where you are coming form. That said, motive is not fixed, where as IQ is, when correctly defined, fixed. He also lacks some communication skills, soft people skills. Yet he has maxed out the reading comprehension test already (beyond college level). Reading is a form of communication. HOw can he score so high, and yet objectively fail in other forms of communication. Lack of IQ, or is IQ itself a limited quantifier? I think the later.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> I don't agree that motive is a factor, ...


That's okay. I didn't spell out what I meant by "motive." I don't want to say motive is at the end stage of some activity. I see it as a drive that occurs at each step.





chad86tsi said:


> It would seem the capacity was always there, ...


I want to say a capacity is not an ingredient of intelligence if it isn't ever carried out. For example I have the capacity to read some book. However if I haven't read it, I am not going to be intelligent about the contents of the book. Or take a virgin. This isn't exactly intelligence, but a normal mature virgin has the capacity for sexual activity. Yet there is no way to say they are going to be able to like it without actually trying sex out.





chad86tsi said:


> My best guess is 160+ IQ, but at 11, there are few objective ways to measure... . Yet he struggles with inconsistent approach, motivation that is not focused. I do see motivation if a factor in some ways, so I get where you are coming form. That said, motive is not fixed, where as IQ is, when correctly defined, fixed. He also lacks some communication skills, soft people skills. Yet he has maxed out the reading comprehension test already (beyond college level). Reading is a form of communication. HOw can he score so high, and yet objectively fail in other forms of communication. Lack of IQ, or is IQ itself a limited quantifier? I think the later.


Here is how I would apply motivation. In referring to his reading skills, he had to have material available. He was motivated to indulge in it. No reading material, no reading skills. When I grew up the available reading material was awful. I would love to have had an encyclopedia. My dad had a Britannica encyclopedia. It was the 1917 edition. I opened it and saw biographies of meaningless people. I never got motivated. Today my reading skills are not so good. I got an early start in math though. My ability there is better.


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> That's okay. I didn't spell out what I meant by "motive." I don't want to say motive is at the end stage of some activity. I see it as a drive that occurs at each step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to say a capacity is not an ingredient of intelligence if it isn't ever carried out. For example I have the capacity to read some book. However if I haven't read it, I am not going to be intelligent about the contents of the book. Or take a virgin. This isn't exactly intelligence, but a normal mature virgin has the capacity for sexual activity. Yet there is no way to say they are going to be able to like it without actually trying sex out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how I would apply motivation. In referring to his reading skills, he had to have material available. He was motivated to indulge in it. No reading material, no reading skills. When I grew up the available reading material was awful. I would love to have had an encyclopedia. My dad had a Britannica encyclopedia. It was the 1917 edition. I opened it and saw biographies of meaningless people. I never got motivated. Today my reading skills are not so good. I got an early start in math though. My ability there is better.


Your points and clarifications about motive and capacity goes well with your points about my son realizing his reading potential. He was given no more reading material, and has no more motive than my other 2 kids. There is nothing extraordinary about his resource material or his use of resources. If anything he reads less than the other 2. 

He has higher potential though, innage capacity. That has been measured and quantified through standardized testing. IQ (and their tests) seek to identify and quantify that capacity, not just the realization of it. When I was his age, I had nearly the same reading test scores, and in my life I've probably only read 6 or 7 books cover to cover. Regardless of motive or material, I excel in reading skills. Not just the capacity to decode, but to understand and build knowledge and bridge new or existing skills together. I'm an autodidact, I can teach myself any subject with this particular skill (and have done so in numerous domains). Motive plays a role in what areas I manifest proficiency or mastery, but the capacity is there regardless of when, whether, or where I apply it. Even if I don't apply it at all, anywhere. On standard tests, I'd still score high, motive aside.

Motive factors in to what is done with IQ, but does not measure it, quantify it, or predict it fore or against. You can't overcome an intellect deficit with motive, and if you have a gifted intellect, you don't need motive to possess it. Motive only goes to what you do with it. If the test is sound, you would score well with or without motive.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> He was given no more reading material, and has no more motive than my other 2 kids. There is nothing extraordinary about his resource material or his use of resources. If anything he reads less than the other 2.


Motives need not be from outside visible. They come from within. Three kids can look at one experience and have 3 different reactions.






chad86tsi said:


> He has higher potential though, innage capacity.


I'm not familiar with the word, "innage." Is that the word you meant?






chad86tsi said:


> When I was his age, I had nearly the same reading test scores, and in my life I've probably only read 6 or 7 books cover to cover. Regardless of motive or material, I excel in reading skills.


Googling intelligence reveal some who lean toward a whole bunch of difference kinds, some sensually based. People can inherit sensual capacity I surmise, as with Mozart and music. Like a *cup* to be filled, do we fulfill this capacity or do we train it assuming limits on the size of the cup? The cup provides a capacity for intelligence, the filling is environment and inner motive ... or that's what I propose.

The reading skills of you and your son possess are beyond analysis unless we take up psychoanalysis and study this more. I don't know enough about motive, subject matter and what is involved in reading to pin down intelligence. It sounds like something to study.





chad86tsi said:


> I'm an autodidact, I can teach myself any subject with this particular skill (and have done so in numerous domains).


I'm self-taught in some areas, but like to listen to other's ideas (I'm motivated, lol). You said "any subject." We are different people, so you don't mean *all* subjects. I'm fond of philosophy and psychology but have no objective idea of the size of what I know. This makes "intelligence" hard to measure. Try measuring a work of art or employee performance or an item on a food menu. Assigning a number to these is extremely crude because numbers are linear and those things are multi-dimensional. Try looking up movie ratings. They often are all over the place.





chad86tsi said:


> Motive factors in to what is done with IQ, but does not measure it, quantify it, or predict it fore or against. You can't overcome an intellect deficit with motive, ...


Especially if you hold a small cup.





chad86tsi said:


> if you have a gifted intellect, you don't need motive to possess it. Motive only goes to what you do with it. If the test is sound, you would score well with or without motive.


I'm not convinced. If you take a reading test and are loaded with pre-reading skills, what did you do motivationally to get those skills?

Think of Mozart. What if he had never ever heard music (voices and machines only) let alone seen a musical instrument and was now twenty years old?


----------



## chad86tsi

> I'm not familiar with the word, "innage." Is that the word you meant?


Innate, spell check did not flag it for some reason.



BigApplePi said:


> Motives need not be from outside visible. They come from within. Three kids can look at one experience and have 3 different reactions.


sure, 3 kids can be given the same motive and have different results.

this has no link to IQ however.




> Googling intelligence reveal some who lean toward a whole bunch of difference kinds, some sensually based. People can inherit sensual capacity I surmise, as with Mozart and music. Like a *cup* to be filled, do we fulfill this capacity or do we train it assuming limits on the size of the cup? The cup provides a capacity for intelligence, the filling is environment and inner motive ... or that's what I propose.


then motive is not IQ, it's just a function of what may or may not get done with it.



> The reading skills of you and your son possess are beyond analysis unless we take up psychoanalysis and study this more. I don't know enough about motive, subject matter and what is involved in reading to pin down intelligence. It sounds like something to study.


it's just one of many facets, but one that can be quantified and is frequently measured during grade school to ensure a key skill is present. That skill predicts future success in accessing curriculum. Lacking it, it's hard to learn new things. You can be smart and illiterate, but the educational system is reading resource based, so you will struggle in that formal (limited) system with poor literacy. Illiteracy does not mean low IQ, it just predicts struggle in a limited reading-based system.



> I'm self-taught in some areas, but like to listen to other's ideas (I'm motivated, lol). You said "any subject." We are different people, so you don't mean *all* subjects. I'm fond of philosophy and psychology but have no objective idea of the size of what I know. This makes "intelligence" hard to measure. Try measuring a work of art or employee performance or an item on a food menu. Assigning a number to these is extremely crude because numbers are linear and those things are multi-dimensional. Try looking up movie ratings. They often are all over the place.


I've found no subject a struggle to learn. Though I find some boring or uncompelling, a "waste of my time". Given motive, I've learned anything: all subjects.. Things I formerly never had motive in, I was surely ignorant to. Then a motive emerged, and I became immersed in it and quickly achieved proficiency. I had that capacity long before the motive.




> I'm not convinced. If you take a reading test and are loaded with pre-reading skills, what did you do motivationally to get those skills?


Far less than everyone else. It's just there.



> Think of Mozart. What if he had never ever heard music (voices and machines only) let alone seen a musical instrument and was now twenty years old?


If mozart were raised on a farm and never heard music, would he have been a simpleton? He may have been influenced by environmental factors, it impacted how his genius manifest, it gave him an outlet, but many have had access to the same factors and did not become a mozart. 

Had mozart been born today to two computer science engineers, he may have developed some new computer science breakthroughs, or inspired some advancements in the field. smart is smart, environment is just a factor as to what possibilities exist to the individual.


----------



## BigApplePi

chad86tsi said:


> Innate, spell check did not flag it for some reason.


That's because it's a real word, lol.





chad86tsi said:


> sure, 3 kids can be given the same motive and have different results. this has no link to IQ however.


I guess not.





chad86tsi said:


> then motive is not IQ, it's just a function of what may or may not get done with it.


Some classify two kinds of IQ, crystal and fluid. One is for innate; the other is for acquired skill. I don't like those terms because I can't recall which is which. Motive correlates with skill.





chad86tsi said:


> You can be smart and illiterate, ...


Do you mean intelligent or* potentially* intelligent? I am still defining intelligence as "the ability to do stuff." School people want to have IQ to mean potential. I want to use "intelligence" to be real right now. 

Perhaps the meaning of a word is how people want to use it. The word "rich" means different things to different people.





chad86tsi said:


> I've found no subject a struggle to learn. Though I find some boring or uncompelling, a "waste of my time". Given motive, I've learned anything: all subjects.. Things I formerly never had motive in, I was surely ignorant to. Then a motive emerged, and I became immersed in it and quickly achieved proficiency. I had that capacity long before the motive.


Capacity. Potential, not realized. Not to forget, a 2 year old with a 300 IQ can't do much if one needs to address an adult problem. We can admire them though.





chad86tsi said:


> Far less than everyone else. It's just there.


There is such a thing as developmental psychology. It has to be developed before it gets there. I learned the English language. But I don't recall learning it. It was not there to start. This matters, especially when things go wrong. I could tell you a story about MY reading skills ... or lack thereof. Wanna hear?





chad86tsi said:


> ... but many have had access to the same factors and did not become a mozart.


Can you clarify the meaning of this?





chad86tsi said:


> Had mozart been born today to two computer science engineers, he may have developed some new computer science breakthroughs, or inspired some advancements in the field. smart is smart, environment is just a factor as to what possibilities exist to the individual.


I gather Mozart had perfect memory for music. Whether he had the same for other parts of his brain is not known ... or not known to me. The brain has different sections. I'd like to consult with psychologist/ neuroscientists before saying the rest of his brain was as good. The brain has visual sections as well as hearing/sound. It has taste as well. This is something for students of this to explore.

I forgot about idiot savants in connection with brain sections. Asperger's and autism are other areas where intelligence is not so simple.


----------



## chad86tsi

BigApplePi said:


> Some classify two kinds of IQ, crystal and fluid. One is for innate; the other is for acquired skill. I don't like those terms because I can't recall which is which. Motive correlates with skill.


Crystal is the type you are born with. Think of crystal as being hard, set, fixed. Classic meaning of IQ is thought to be static, and doesn't change through life. Tests have age factors built in to account for this. Fluid IQ is might change as you experience new ways to manipulate your environment, new strategies and discipline that yield better results Theoretically you could gain or lose IQ with this methodology.





> Do you mean intelligent or* potentially* intelligent? I am still defining intelligence as "the ability to do stuff." School people want to have IQ to mean potential. I want to use "intelligence" to be real right now.


You are confusing knowledge with intelligence. An idiot knows how to do stuff. An intelligent person can learn to do something he doesn't yet know. A highly intelligent person can do so easily and rapidly, and may even make discoveries that create new knowledge.

An "idiot savant" has extreme intelligence in one small facet, but will score low on an IQ test. I went to highschool with one such person, he could do logarithmic calculations in his head faster than you could enter them in a calculator, but but had difficulties finding his way to class, and couldn't carry on a conversation. He needed a helper all day long just to get through the day.



> Perhaps the meaning of a word is how people want to use it. The word "rich" means different things to different people.


Altering semantics is sometimes used to win arguments, or to fit a goal. Doesn't mean the meaning is actually different from what the word was intended to mean. 



> Capacity. Potential, not realized. Not to forget, a 2 year old with a 300 IQ can't do much if one needs to address an adult problem. We can admire them though.


But if you are high IQ as a child, you will become a high IQ adult. If you are a high IQ adult, you were a high IQ child, whether people realised it or not.




> There is such a thing as developmental psychology. It has to be developed before it gets there. I learned the English language. But I don't recall learning it. It was not there to start. This matters, especially when things go wrong. I could tell you a story about MY reading skills ... or lack thereof. Wanna hear?


There is a well known correlation between developing language at key age milestones and subsequent acquisition of not just language, but other key life skills. There have been feral children that were studied for this, they did not have language skills due to prolonged neglect. They seemingly had normalish IQ but they were never quite able to develop language later in life, despite extensive attempts to do so. Interestingly they found this deficit led to other deficits not formerly known to be tied to language skills. SO yes, I get what you mean. IQ predicts how far that development might go. Capacity. It's there, even if it's never used. This language thing has pointed to factors that damage this truth, it impacts how the brain "formats" itself. Think of a disk in a disk drive, it's nothing without formatting first. Poor formatting or damaged directories leads to bad results. 



> Can you clarify the meaning of this?


why did bill gates or Steve Jobs excell? was they in a special school, a special town, given special treatment, or were they born with some special traits that allowed them to capitalize on the environment that we all had similar access to. Was Mozart a product of environment, or was he born with special traits?





> I gather Mozart had perfect memory for music. Whether he had the same for other parts of his brain is not known ... or not known to me. The brain has different sections. I'd like to consult with psychologist/ neuroscientists before saying the rest of his brain was as good. The brain has visual sections as well as hearing/sound. It has taste as well. This is something for students of this to explore.


Memory is a tool that we all use, high IQ people tend to be better able to access it. From what I understand of it, it's not all that limited in where it works like this. Mozart could probably master any subject he found interesting. My belief is that high IQ people often have high functioning in all (or a large majority) of the brains sections. My son has this kind of memory you mentioned, in 2nd grade I told him about irrational numbers, and mentioned Pi is a number that some memorize for fun/sport. Within in 2 weeks without ever mentioning it to me and entirely on his own, he had Pi memorized to 100 digits. He could recite it faster than his tongue could move. In summer break between 4th and 5th grade he decided to teach himself the violin. Within a month he was fluent at reading sheet music (not just the notes, but all of it, intonation, the names, tempos, and formats), and he didn't even have an instrument. We got him a violin in August, and he got his first lesson in October in beginner Orchestra. By November he was moved up to the advanced orchestra, and was moved to first chain within 2 months. Motive made these things happen, but I've seen he has capacity well beyond his current state of being (he could probably excel like this in any subject). Motive caused him to hyper focus, dedicate the prerequisite time to develop the skills, but it was intellect that allowed that to gel in the way it did. Most of the kids in his class had spent a great deal more time and effort than the had invested, and several were just as motivated, but none were anywhere near his abilities. I bet Mozart could have been a computer wiz, mathematician, or scientist if he wanted to. I bet Mozart had a lot of unrealized potential.


----------



## Allostasis

Grehoy said:


> Why do people attribute the quality of wisdom to certain figures?


Because such figures exemplify more mature versions of their own value systems in their perception.


----------



## Grehoy

Allostasis said:


> Because such figures exemplify more mature versions of their own value systems in their perception.


Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy then, what if their perception is wrong but they do not notice it?


----------



## Allostasis

Grehoy said:


> Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy then, what if their perception is wrong but they do not notice it?


Not necessarily a prophecy, lots of experiences can happen before they will get there.
While there is no "absolute", ultimate wisdom, they are not all equal.
It may be possible to discern some "meta" properties that transcend individual values and that describe how system evolves in response to the experience. They, combined with sufficient amount of the "right" experience may allow individual to interpret his previously accepted perspectives as "wrong".
Or they may not. There are configurations that will probably never allow redesigns of such sort on practice.


----------



## Tsurukaze

As far as IQ goes, NT's, secondly NF's. I've seen little difference in intelligence between extroverts and introverts in my personal experience. I's may score slightly higher due to focus ability; J's may score slightly higher due to discipline. The main thing though, is that intuitives are normally better with abstract thinking.


----------



## mia-me

If standardized IQ matters to people, bite the bullet and pay for a proctored IQ test. Beyond that, generalized type intelligence is meaningless, at least relative to yourself.


----------



## X10E8

I'd say ENJT

Actually any type that's willing to study.


----------



## dulcinea

Kingpin said:


> Please please please don't be politically correct and say there's different types of intelligence, just be honest.


I'm too lazy to go way back to a thread I replied and pull up the PDF I referred to (wonder if that PDF is even still there or if you need a Wayback Machine), so I'll sum up:
I had posted a PDF once to a thread about IQ and MBTI and the results showed that MBTI could account for a variance in IQ that was either 11% or 14%, somewhere in that ballpark. The biggest variance was in thinking vs feeling, hence those with a thinking preference were generally more intelligent than those with a feeling preference. Only, I looked up a study on NCBI more recently and that study ended with the conclusion that the biggest variance was the result of intuition vs sensing. I don't think you're going to find peer reviewed research on the correlation between personality and IQ that will have consistent results, and why would you? Many people are mistyped, and the variance might differ based on the type of personality intelligence test.

While, I'm agreement that the whole idea of multiple intelligences is basically the abstract equivalent to handing out participation trophies, there are different ways of assessing IQ. One is the Weschler examination that more or less indicative of Chrystalline intelligence, or how much information you have. While, education has a bearing on it, the most important trait is speed. If your mind works well, but is a bit slower, you will likely not score in a high percentile in the Weschler. I would imagine extraverts and sensing types would excel more at such an assement.
You also have abstract reasoning assessments that are focused more on pattern seeking, and for such assessments, I'd say intuitives would excel more. It would make sense as an intuitive's mind would be more preoccupied with seeking patterns and predicting what comes next in real life.








Overall, it's not an easy kind of question to answer. Comptency generally comes from what activities your mind is the most experienced in. But, while there is an objective aspect to intelligence: logic, spatial reasoning and verbal skills, being the most important core competencies, as without these skills it will be very difficult to learn more than basic skills in any field, hence why people with IQ's below 80 have serious difficulty in finding gainful employment, there are subjective aspects as well. Is it more important to be mathematically intelligent or verbally intelligent? Which one is the more difficult skill to obtain: to learn abstract mathematics or to learn to be fluent in several languages? It's really difficult to say.


----------

