...

[Saslou]

I was talking to one of the tech guys at work recently.

Off the top of my head i'd say he is a InTx. I was making conversation with him as he has few social skills going in his favour. Anyway i asked him what his IQ was as he is a self-taught computer tech guy/thing. He said 126 but went on to say that his English is shit, he stutters when anxious (i hadn't noticed) and his spelling is appaling.

For once .. It was really nice to meet someone who had a high IQ but was also aware of his flaws/weaknesses.



Apologies .. Lets get back to 'My IQ is high and my shit don't smell'

 

[Vitorbgs]

A lot to say about IQ can be seen in Christopher Lagan, Christopher Langan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is iq all there is to being smart? Cause either his ctmu theory is way beyond my mortal comprehensions or he does seems a little looney, he's got high iq and i'd say his shit do smell.

 

[Serge]

IQ wise I've scored from 90 to higher 130s (mensa practice test, I think) depending on the test and particularly the type of test I'm doing. I tend to do worse on mathematical and spatial tests (My "male" brain apparently sucks) while I do extremely well on verbal tests such as definitions, analogies, and logic tests, stuff like that

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

Just bumping this a bit further so I won't forget. Am at work at the moment but will post some of the stats on IQ and type from the MBTI manual over the weekend. These are rarified however and largely have a narrow focus on US College students.

I am personally more of an adherent to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences - will tell you an interesting story on a child who supposedly failed his IQ test then as well.

 

[Such Irony]

I am personally more of an adherent to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences - will tell you an interesting story on a child who supposedly failed his IQ test then as well.

Ha, the reason why I score high on IQ tests is only because they test the intelligences I happen to be high in: logical/mathematical and verbal and to a lesser extent visual/spatial. If the IQ test started involving bodily/kinestetic, interpersonal, or musical questions, my score would drop precipitiously.

 

[InsatiableCuriosity]

I have tested variously from a young age on traditional IQs from 126 to 151 (tho the latter was when I first started high school) Mainly verbal, logic and spatial. The highest I have achieved in the last 10 years was 143, but I doubt on the single test I would achieve that now - my brain is not as quick as it used to be at 55

I did hear an interesting story when talking to a psychologist about a young gifted boy in late primary school whose parents were called in when he tested sub 80. When they asked to look at the test he had skipped one section of the questions completely. The young lad was called into the office and asked why he skipped the questions to which he replied something to the effect of "they already asked those questions earlier and I didn't think I should have to answer them again". The questions were indeed similar but rephrased to test consistency in answer and this ten year old called the test into question!!

Needless to say he was retested with gifted results!

 

[mrcockburn]

eh...I had my IQ tested in high school (I was such an obnoxious little asshat, that I suppose they were trying to confirm that I was indeed stupid enough to address the beefy-necked gym teacher Patrick as Patsy.)

I'm not posting numbers here, but let's just say that if I was willing to pay Mensa to assist in the destruction of my dignity, I could. But the fact is, I'm not much for nerds. They squeal when you tackle them.

Oh, and I think my highest scores were in the logic/verbal/math and my lowest scores were in those pattern grids.

And I certainly don't see myself as "spectactularly ooh wow BEETHOVEN PRODIGY" smart. I just got lucky that day, and for once, peed before taking the test.

 

[lunalum]

I was talking to one of the tech guys at work recently.

Off the top of my head i'd say he is a InTx. I was making conversation with him as he has few social skills going in his favour. Anyway i asked him what his IQ was as he is a self-taught computer tech guy/thing. He said 126 but went on to say that his English is shit, he stutters when anxious (i hadn't noticed) and his spelling is appaling.

For once .. It was really nice to meet someone who had a high IQ but was also aware of his flaws/weaknesses.

Apologies .. Lets get back to 'My IQ is high and my shit don't smell'

Meh, I see this a whole lot more often then not. It is so common for me to hear the "My IQ is *insert ridiculously huge number* but I'm still a no-good, worthless..." that it makes me want to explode.
It leads me to think of a few likely things about the person:
1.) The person takes the "Intelligence Quotient" too seriously in the first place and looks at a statement like "my IQ is 159" as "I am better at everything than 99.9999% of the population" and feels the need to counter this with "OMG I have weaknesses too!"
2.) The person has terribly low self-esteem and is using the opportunity as an excuse to beat him/herself up.
...
...

Bottom-line, having a high IQ is awesome, but so is being able to play piano or climb a mountain. You don't have to give it more power than it has.

 

[mrcockburn]

Meh, I see this a whole lot more often then not. It is so common for me to hear the "My IQ is *insert ridiculously huge number* but I'm still a no-good, worthless..." that it makes me want to explode.
It leads me to think of a few likely things about the person:
1.) The person takes the "Intelligence Quotient" too seriously in the first place and looks at a statement like "my IQ is 159" as "I am better at everything than 99.9999% of the population" and feels the need to counter this with "OMG I have weaknesses too!"
2.) The person has terribly low self-esteem and is using the opportunity as an excuse to beat him/herself up.
...
...

Bottom-line, having a high IQ is awesome, but so is being able to play piano or climb a mountain. You don't have to give it more power than it has.

I think a lot of people (myself included) follow the disclosure of their (high) IQ score and then follow with a seemingly self-deprecating downplaying statement in an attempt to echo your "bottom line" - that IQ is not the end-all be-all. It's not a condescending condolence to all the "mere mortals" (i.e., "Don't feel bad, I may be smarter than you, but I'm still a human just like you!"

I don't want to give IQ scores too much power, and I don't want people to mistakenly get the idea that I do. (In my opinion, if anyone believed that their own high IQ score made them all-superior humans, they'd fail to comprehend the limits of IQ testing and/or the scope of non-testable/unrelated achievements/attributes - thus immediately 'disproving' their notion of superiority. )

Plus, nobody wants to appear arrogant. I have my own theories on why this is so, but that's another thread.

You'll understand one day...when your Fe begins to sprout like the HPV warts you've always dreaded.

 

[VictorClimacus]

I assume there is only a small correlation--and probably not statistically significant--between MBTI type and IQ, and a much smaller one between type and intelligence. We are too quick to assume that there is a difference in brainpower between two individuals, since our judgments are usually based on their behavior in the presence of us and/or others, as well as on their ability to express their ideas or demonstrate logical reasoning in a social environment. There is an endless range of external variables to consider here, which makes an evaluation of raw brain power difficult to ascertain.

NTs often get undo credit for being smarter than the other types. Or, rather, I think that their personalities are too often blamed on, or confused with, their intellects. Like all Ts, they are especially adept at efficiently using their brainpower supply. And, unlike the sensors, they've got an affinity for abstract thinking. But this doesn't mean they've got more brainpower; it just means that, if paired with another personality type of equal intelligence, the NT is more likely to appear smart, which I think could apply to both a real-life situation and an IQ test. SO, the argument could be made that, as far as who can "best demonstrate their intelligence", the NTs win, followed by STs/NFs and SFs, who are most likely to be viewed as dumber than they really are.

NFs are also good at appearing smarter than they really are. They get labeled as the "deep, philosophical" ones when in reality it's just their personality talking, not necessarily their intelligence (although in many cases, of course, it is a combination of the two).

So, in essence, Ns get too much credit, or are a little better at looking smart than the Ss. This may extend to IQ tests, probably to the same extent that introversion is positively correlated with IQ. But I think those findings are worth bunk.

 

[EcK]

I assume there is only a small correlation--and probably not statistically significant--between MBTI type and IQ, and a much smaller one between type and intelligence.

about your first statement I'm not saying you're wrong (yes I am) but you're using baseless statements while studies actually show the exact opposite.
There's a statistically significant correlation between mbti type and iq, especially if you look at S/N. Now statistics are what they are, they don't speak for any individual but express trends in populations.
nts are, as a group , actually smarter in terms of IQ, but the difference between S and N is way more significant.
One reserve I'd have is that the mbti tests (and the nature of the subject) are not standardized enough to get a strict application of the scientific method.

Now I'd have to agree more about the intelligence part of your statement, in its broad sense.
I'm the first person to consider that a skill isn't anything to boast about if it's not balanced. I don't consider the cliché 'stupid party boy' to be any more interesting than the cliché 'socially akward nerd', they both think they're cool when they just suck ass in human terms, having no true adaptability.

One thing I agree with absolutely though is that preference is not proficiency. It's no feat to get say, a T preference if it's just because of F-tardation just as much as there's a huge difference between being "philosophically selfish" and just being too narrow minded to see the big picture. You can of course replace selfish by selfless in that statement.

 

[Blown Ghost]

I did hear an interesting story when talking to a psychologist about a young gifted boy in late primary school whose parents were called in when he tested sub 80. When they asked to look at the test he had skipped one section of the questions completely. The young lad was called into the office and asked why he skipped the questions to which he replied something to the effect of "they already asked those questions earlier and I didn't think I should have to answer them again". The questions were indeed similar but rephrased to test consistency in answer and this ten year old called the test into question!!

Lol. I hated that about tests because once I answer a question I forget about it. Then it comes up 1-2 times later and I get stuck between trying to remember what I wrote last time and having to redo it (blah!). What I want to know is why laziness is considered to be a sign of intelligence.

IQ testing was originally meant to test children to see if they were 'smart enough' to be able to go through certain levels of classes, usually general ones, or if they weren't.

Aha. I've always thought IQ tests were a poor measure of raw intelligence because performance depends too much on recall of rote information and use of trained skills such as math and vocabulary use. Makes much more sense now.

 

[CityLights87]

Smartest Types

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but what types do you think or better yet, have you noticed have been smarter than others?

I have noticed that the INTP's I have talked to, are extremely well read, beat the pants off me in Chess and provide very deep conversations.

And just guessing, I would think that NT's in general would be the smartest since they can think logically without much feeling and at the same time be able to see the big picture and not what is right in front of them.

But at the same time, if NT's truly are smarter, does that necessarily mean that SF's are at the low end of intelligence spectrum?

 

[Blown Ghost]

ISFP, ISFJ, ESTP

 

[CityLights87]

Why?

 

[Blown Ghost]

In my opinion, intelligence has everything to do with how one flows with their environment. NTs are notoriously good at detached analysis, but it is one thing to think of smart things and another to be smart.

 

[Chloe]

In my opinion, intelligence has everything to do with how one flows with their environment. NTs are notoriously good at detached analysis, but it is one thing to think of smart things and another to be smart.

arent ENTPs good at both, street smart...

i always admired street smarts the most, but in intelligent people.. that's why i dig ENTPs

 

[Fluffywolf]

IQ tests favor intuitive people, especially IQ tests with time limits on answering.

IQ is a crappy way to measure intelligence.

There is also no better way to measure intelligence.

Basicly, measuring intelligence between different people is futile.

Hey, wasn't this a seperate thread? IQ/Intelligence doesn't quite equal being 'smart'.

I define smart people by the way they dress and the way they subtly intertwine with other people like a flowing river meddling with other peoples affairs without getting burnt. They need a certain level of intelligence. But I'd say intelligent people are the ones that work their capacity to their fullest in respectable ways.

 

[EcK]

If people were all the same we wouldnt need to use any sort of benchmark. Alot of people go on about how we re all different. Past the obvious parts such as genetic and behavioral variations within a species being advantageous, these sort of statements are the sort of equaliterian bullshit that d have everybody be the same because while they all want to be "better", people in average just dont have the balls to be bold about it.
Its fine to say that someone is taller or runs faster than someone else but somehow everybody is "just different" when it comes to feats of the mind.
Athletes are different too, yet nobody think it strange to call a person more athletic than another even if the fields are quite different.

Past things like iq, some people just have brains more able to build complex neural activation paterns and switch faster between them, have a better myelination of their brains, more energy efficient neurons.
Thats "quantatively better", independantly from any particular qualitative variations in the brain to behavior translation.

 

[Fluffywolf]

If people were all the same we wouldnt need to use any sort of benchmark. Alot of people go on about how we re all different. Past the obvious parts such as genetic and behavioral variations within a species being advantageous, these sort of statements are the sort of equaliterian bullshit that d have everybody be the same because while they all want to be "better", people in average just dont have the balls to be bold about it.
Its fine to say that someone is taller or runs faster than someone else but somehow everybody is "just different" when it comes to feats of the mind.
Athletes are different too, yet nobody think it strange to call a person more athletic than another even if the fields are quite different.

Past things like iq, some people just have brains more able to build complex neural activation paterns and switch faster between them, have a better myelination of their brains, more energy efficient neurons.
Thats "quantatively better", independantly from any particular qualitative variations in the brain to behavior translation.

Oh, I don't disagree with you, but I also think intelligence is much more faceted than an IQ tests makes you believe. IQ tests only tests a few facets, and those facets favor intuitive people. But I know people that score very high on an IQ test that I don't particularly find intelligent at all, and people that score lower that seem to be much more intelligent to me overall.