User Tag List

First 513141516172565 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 1059

  1. #141
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I disagree. IQ tests do test knowledge, and often culturally specific knowledge. Not as much as a History test, but you need to know things to score well.
    how is that a counter-argument? knowledge and wisdom/intelligence are two different things. this is precisely what i was saying before. IQ test test a small part of your brain''s capacity, it focuses on how well you can retain information. say if you live in the states, it may ask you something about the declaration of independence. if i am genius who did not grow up in the states, i may very well not know the answer. an idiot who has learned about the declaration of independence a million times though will. how is this a good measure of intelligence?

    before anyone starts an argument about pattern recognition and whatnot on IQ tests, anyone who has done enough of these things know what kind of questions they ask. they know what to look for through experience. times tables, the number of lines in a shape, how many steps a highlighted square moves through a grid... it's very predictable. hence, it is learnable through memory alone. i find it hard to believe that i am suddenly that much smarter because i learned that whenever i see a series of shapes, all i have to do is to count the number of sides.

  2. #142
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    it's very predictable. hence, it is learnable through memory alone. i find it hard to believe that i am suddenly that much smarter because i learned that whenever i see a series of shapes, all i have to do is to count the number of sides.
    Most robust IQ tests would not be like this.

    See the WAIS subscales, for example.

  3. #143
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Most robust IQ tests would not be like this.

    See the WAIS subscales, for example.
    i think i remember doing this one a couple years back. there was this thing on TV called 'test the nation' and i'm pretty sure it had this format. i don't think i've ever been so fucked off with an IQ test. i detest the VIQ shit.

    vocab and information was particularly bad for me as they asked local new zealand questions and i had only been back to the country for like a year. memory was also an area i did not like. if einstein told everyone that he can't remember any phone numbers, i don't think anyone would consider him less of a genius. i can see how memory can be a problem if you forget the start of your reasoning by the time you've reached the conclusion, but if it is not TOO low, i can't see how it would be a flaw on your intelligence.

    honestly, this format isn't any better than the ones before. in fact, i'll prefer the other ones.

  4. #144
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    783 sx/so


    In my opinion Einstein was no genius, he was an orderly man. He devoted his thoughts to one single cause and came up with a brilliant idea of how to connect the dots. That made him ingenious but not genius. That whole genius thing was publicated by the media.

    If you ask Einstein, why the marmbles in the universe that resemble heavy gravitational objects like a galaxy, do not fall into one whole in the middle in spacetime curvature, but expand. That means if you ask him, why the universe does expand, because that would be illogical according to special relativity. He would say, it is because of the "cosmological constant" namely antigravity.

    You see, this can be right or can be not. It is just another idea, derived from a logical concept.

    Therefore genius does not exist.


    The most intresting thing about genius, I think, is the ability to be able to understand the world without participating in it. I guess everyone scores 190 here. But the only problem that still remains is a measurement thing:

    You can measure tempreature through a resistor, which drops resistance with rising temperature for example. That is called a PTC resistor (Positive Temperature Coefficient). But you can not build the electrical circuit, if you have no reference resistor. That means, you actually have two voltage outputs, the one from the PTC resistor, which changes and a constant one which does not change and the CPU does compare these two, to output the temperature.

    See, life is no constant resistor. It is a changing one. But if you compare it against the MBTI reference, you get some answers. But if you start ignoring life or changing the reference, you loose your temperature. So it is either you, changing everything and having some constant of your own, or it is you, getting lost in the myriads of theory, forgetting about life.

  5. #145


    Education evidently has a lot to do with it. How easy is it to speak Latin or Russian? Comes naturally if you're Julius Caesar or Vladimir Putin. On a pernickety point, Einstein never liked the Cosmological Constant because it was just a fix to fit the facts and really amounted to something missing here but has this effect. Queen Elizabeth I spoke six languages and understood three more (including Latin). Most educated ancient Romans wrote Classical Greek.

    What does look like Genius to me is Wolfie Mozart playing his way round Europe at age six or something. Nikola Tesla was a genius, Thomas Edison wasn't: he had to work at his stufff, Tesla didn't. Tesla rarely bothered with experimental prototypes or theory, he knew what would work, sketched a patent and built it. Then he mostly forgot about it and went on to something else: the original Mad Scientist (literally - the first three Superman comix based their MS on him) A lot of it would be better than the production equipment ancestral to what we have now. Imagine cordless lighting and hand-held X-ray devices. John von Neumann may have been a genius and so probably was the English mathematician Alan Turing.

  6. #146


    Wow. I feel like such a fag. The reason why I'm obsessed with this is, let's be honest, it has to do with ME ME ME and it also has to do with human psychology. And I'm obsessed with human psychology cuz im a fag like that. And it's really probably because it is, though in a broader sense, all about ME ME ME.
    I'm an ENTP. I totally agree with it, but is that just because that's what I WANT to be?
    Anyway, away from me for a moment.
    I was trying to figure this out, too. I like seeing all the little names, like, "Inventor," "Nurturer," etc. I would THINK that thinking may be smarter, but I can also see feeling. Because a thinker is so close-minded. A feeler can think beyond, you know? And I would think intuitive types would be smarter. I had a full sentence after that, but then you have to think, what does intelligence even MEAN? Like, they care more about these subjects- but is it just your ability to think or WHAT?
    Wow. I am so weird. I like cant even catch up with myself because I'm too dumb to FOLLOW MY OWN TRAIN OF THOUGHT. Now THAT is an insult.
    I heard IQs are really just how "outside of the box" you can think, but it also tests your logic. I would think Extroverted/Introverted might not mean anything themselves, but actually what comes to that conclusion. Like, extroverted people are probably more intuitive, but that's just my biases coming through, correct?
    Moving on. Intuitive/Sensing is probably a big thing. For some reason, I keep thinking of "sensing" as a fancy word for "doesn't care, can't think beyond." Like, they're all just stupid and critical thinkers, u know?
    And then thinking/feeling. I think "thinking" is just like, another word for close-minded. Except...I think it said I was open minded, and I'm an ENTP- as in thinking- so yeah. But feeling, they might see things more complex and the bigger picture, while thinkers get stuck on the little details. But it SAID it just means that I think logically, but they're trying to make us all happy, aren't they?
    And finally, Percieving/Judging. I would think percieving would be smarter because that means that they see THROUGH the facts, while the judging are simply looking at the facts already there, except that means they can like connect things better...
    My guess is...x (wait. that means tie, right? Cuz I've been seeing that lately) nfp. so enfp or infp. I'm an ENTP....close enough, right?
    OKAY, I am leaving now, because youre probably all bored and i gotta get back to my stupid blog.
    I wish they had statistics of personality traits. One final thought.

  7. #147


    My IQ test went over a bunch of history and government facts, so it does test knowledge. That makes up about a 10th of the test.
    Needless to say, I got below average.
    I've heard that INTJs and INTPs have high IQs, but I don't believe there's much merit in that.

  8. #148
    Senior Member Simplexity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008


    If you really want a discussion about INTJ's and INTP's as they relate to IQ, Go visit INTPc. I hear they might have a thread or two about that topic.
    My cold, snide, intellectual life is just a veneer, behind which lies the plywood of loneliness.

  9. #149
    Senior Member mlittrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008


    imo IQ is irrelevant. im not saying this because i have a low IQ in fact my IQ is quite high. but to answer the question i know for a fact that statistically INTJs do the best and NTs in general do excellent.

    some of the stupidest people i know have high IQs. the smartest people i know have high EQs
    "Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "

    "You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."

    "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Enneagram: 9w1

  10. #150
    Join Date
    May 2007
    5w6 sp/sx


    The fact is that these studies come up with totally different conclusions and there are so many other forms of abstract thinking that an NT would find stimulating that are never even considered on an IQ test and even considered to be in the realm of stupidity by scientific standards.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :bye:
  • :hi:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :huh:
  • :shock:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:

Similar Threads

  1. Determining Socionics type from MBTI type
    By Azseroffs in forum Socionics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 09:28 AM
  2. Do you identify more with your MBTI type or your Enneagram type?
    By Zarathustra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 06-28-2012, 05:32 PM
  3. [E4] enneagram type 4 what mbti type matches up?
    By liYA in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-21-2011, 04:01 PM
  4. figuring out my socionics type from MBTI type
    By psyche in forum Socionics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2010, 10:50 PM
  5. Your MBTI type and your Socionics type
    By 527468 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-28-2008, 04:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO