• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

...

Tippo

New member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
92
MBTI Type
ENTJ
It really depends on the question. Don't give me questions based on "unscramble" this word. But give me complicated math questions, complicated word questions, something where you actually apply problem solving abilities and I fly through those. Give me history questions or what does this word mean questions and its hit or miss as its based on knowledge, not actually figuring something out.

I worked at Texas Instruments and the best Technician called everything doodads, whatcha macallits, thingymagigys, etc. But he knew exactly how everything interacted and worked together, he just didn't have a clue what it was called. He was a back woods, swamp living, sensor type that was hard to understand because of his accent. Highly intelligent person, but his verbal skills, etc. were lacking. He was the type that would call in hung over instead of call in sick. But he ran circles around the people who worked for the company that built the machines. We are talking 30-120 million dollar photolithography machines, not some simple mechanical machine.

FWIW, I score very high on IQ tests and enjoy mensa workouts where you actually have to analyze and solve problems.

I was in dmos 4 and 5 back in 8 inch days. I created many of the recipes ran at the time.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION]

That reminds me of when I beat someone at chess when I promoted a pawn to a knight instead of a queen. They'd prepared their defense for a queen promotion which is almost what all beginners and even a lot of intermediate players go to first without hardly thinking and when I pulled out a knight instead, she just fell apart and didn't know how to handle it.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I was in dmos 4 and 5 back in 8 inch days. I created many of the recipes ran at the time.

Nice :). I was an equipment technician in KFab before they shut it down. Was strictly 12 inch wafers and an R&D fab so when its technology became old it was cheaper to build a bigger and more advanced fab then expand and retool KFab.

I eventually moved out of photolithography and designed systems for equipment engineering department. Things like a chemical management system that tracked all the bottled chemicals within a fab. It was used to make sure the right chemical went into the right spot and wasn't expired. Wrote several systems like that. Using wireless handheld scanners, industrial pda's and barcodes to track things.

That was back around 2001-2007 I think.

It was funny because I actually didn't know about databases and not much about java when I did a presentation about designing the chemical system. When they decided to go in house development with me I was like oh shit, I need tonlearn this stuff...lol. Which was the starting point of where I am today as a senior java developer
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
i was in chess club in 7th grade. buncha useless, arrogant tools except this one kid who insisted on not playing the game but rather pretending the pieces were action figures and tossing them at each other, all while making little "pew pew" and explosion noises. it was worth joining the club to watch this. let's see fisher or kasparov win with those rules.
 

Tippo

New member
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
92
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Nice :). I was an equipment technician in KFab before they shut it down. Was strictly 12 inch wafers and an R&D fab so when its technology became old it was cheaper to build a bigger and more advanced fab then expand and retool KFab.

I eventually moved out of photolithography and designed systems for equipment engineering department. Things like a chemical management system that tracked all the bottled chemicals within a fab. It was used to make sure the right chemical went into the right spot and wasn't expired. Wrote several systems like that. Using wireless handheld scanners, industrial pda's and barcodes to track things.

That was back around 2001-2007 I think.

It was funny because I actually didn't know about databases and not much about java when I did a presentation about designing the chemical system. When they decided to go in house development with me I was like oh shit, I need tonlearn this stuff...lol. Which was the starting point of where I am today as a senior java developer

Very good. I was "let go" once again regarding my ego around 2000 I think. I fell into an internet company and never looked back. I did enjoy the puzzle part tho. I was very proficient regarding deviation across substrate. Long time ago tho, I'm sure they're way past these days.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I see your point, but is booksmart just the regurgitation of information? Or is it just learning from books? I mean yeah I hated those times in education where I was expected to just memorise and present what was essentially that exact information but used at 'the right time'. But information from books isn't just used in that one way, not even in education.

You can take information from all different sources and use it to come up with something new or create a new paradigm, theory, physical invention, technical...etc....so I think it's unfair to just label 'booksmart' as the regurgitation of information when that quite clearly isn't the case.

Application is important though and I am right behind the importance of where to apply as well as where you absorb. It's also readily apparent that there are so many different angles to intelligence that goes far beyond just academia. I personally think practical skills and applied experience, combined with genuinely learning from mistakes, is more important and useful than entirely abstract pursuits, but that is just personal.

Also I think your post is an interesting example of someone perhaps downplaying something he doesn't feel particularly attuned to. Well I feel similarly and it's those who show us up in areas that we are weaker who make us aware of them and that's important in itself. Although I'm not great at either book or street smarts by my own esteem.

This is perhaps a bit soppy and idealistic, but to me it would be great if we could move towards appreciation of those differences in attunement. I think that's part and parcel of typology as well and to stop us being so caught up in self-defence when we feel threatened. Certainly less snobbery in bookish areas might be nice.

Yes, to me that's what book smart is. It means that what's read takes precedence in life. For example, when I read it goes into a holding cell to be analyzed, judged, processed, and sorted. Everything is read as a grain of salt to be tweaked and played with as I see fit according to life. Book smart people hold things from sources with a higher value then I do. These people tend to try and find books or smart people to learn from because they don't necessarily apply the filtering as the information comes in. Its more seen as fact and applied as fact instead of trying to merge it with the real world. Its not even tied to books, it may be a speaker, a video, etc.

Edit: I guess its that book smart people try to make life fit the book instead of making the book fit life.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Funny things happen at the high end of the high IQ scale. Rather than using IQs, let me use percentiles.

The dynamic I see, for example, in the software field, is that you have a lot of people who are very smart, who are easily smarter than 95% of the people around them. I'm not even talking about IQ tests or anything like that: just normal everyday aptitude at work.

The problem I see is something I call "expert-itis". These really smart experts have simply never encountered anyone smarter than they are. Worse, at this high end of smarts, knowledge becomes very, very specialized. It is possible for two people to be experts in the "same field", and yet their knowledge barely overlaps. Part of the dynamic that occurs might be best represented by a Venn diagram. Two circles, each representing the sum total knowledge of each individual, each about the same size. The overlap of the two circles comprises about 10% of each individual's knowledge.

"Expert-itis" as I name it, is the phenomenon of two such individuals meeting, and as one sees that the other person only understands 10% of one's own knowledge, one assumes that the other person is a complete idiot.

The main reason that I see this dynamic fairly clearly is that, like you, I'm in that 150+ IQ range, easily 3 standard deviations above the norm (based on standardized tests, not IQ tests per se), around the 99.5% percentile. I routinely have people who barely understand what I do, who would quickly flunk out of the courses I took, treat me as a complete idiot, because I didn't know some dinky little detail that they consider to be all-important. Yet when push comes to shove, and we have to solve a real-life problem, I would often run into cases where I figure out the solution in 10 minutes, but I have to spend an hour or more "proving" my solution to people who haven't a clue what is going on, even though they are very (95th percentile) smart, and they think I'm an idiot because I don't know some dinky fact that they knew.

I see this same dynamic in people trying to determine how smart each MBTI type is. We understand our own kind of smarts better than others' versions of being really smart. The INTPs think the INTJs are all idiots. The INTJs think the INTPs are all idiots. The reality is that they all have "expert-itis": they see that small section of overlapping knowledge, but they DON'T see that other 90% of knowledge that is full of things they don't know, things that they don't even know that they should ask about.

I think that some of what you note about INTJs and myself is also part of that dynamic. I suspect you don't see the strengths in that INTJ thinking, because they aren't your strengths. You only see my strengths because I'm not merely INTJ, I'm an INTJ with a ton of education and several decades of real life experience backing it up, while a lot of these other INTJs are still just kids in college or barely out of college, still full of unrealistic expectations that were instilled by our kind of weird education system that doesn't actually teach you how to get and keep a job.

So, are INTJs the smartest strategic thinkers? It's definitely an aptitude or talent. And it's a kind of weird one, that looks especially stupid to Ti doms. Ti doms are thinking in terms of logic and logical consequences. INTJs (and Ni doms in general) don't think like that. Instead, they have a tool that is uniquely suited to strategy: an internal library of "how things work". While the topics might be logical/technical, the thought process is not. It's more a process of pattern-matching. If the pattern matches, or at least matches closely, the INTJ just pulls out the pattern, makes a couple of adjustments to handle special real-world cases they're aware of, and then applies it. This is great for strategy because if the facts on the ground change, one doesn't have to figure out the logic all over again (the typical Ti-dom thought process), one just looks for a new match (a very fast process) and works from there. A young INTJ has a much smaller library of such patterns, so the matching is going to be much broader, more naive, more likely to not account for everything and result in mistakes. An older INTJ with significant education and much experience in a specific field will have a very fine-tuned library of patterns. Also the older INTJ will have "meta-patterns", an ability to judge how well the pattern one has just matched might apply, an ability to judge others' levels of expertise and take advantage of them, and so on.

One of my longstanding questions about MBTI has been "what does a stupid INTJ look like?" and "what does does a smart ESFP look like?" I think I have answers for these. The stupid INTJ will still tend to score high on an IQ test, but will be kind of an idiot savant, unable to actually apply any of that knowledge in real life. The smart ESFP will be remarkably practical and high-achieving, yet not appear to be all that smart. ( Famous ESFPs - CelebrityTypes.com ) I bring this up because the real point isn't what type is smart or not, but how each type expresses its own intelligence and/or stupidity.

After deleting my long drawn out post j decided to settle on this one...

Being tertiary Ni I understand about playing with patterns. I play with patterns and logic all the time. I am very good at crossing patterns, flipping hem around, and tweaking them. For me its just a means to understand and play with the world though...its not a means to an end.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Yes, to me that's what book smart is. It means that what's read takes precedence in life. For example, when I read it goes into a holding cell to be analyzed, judged, processed, and sorted. Everything is read as a grain of salt to be tweaked and played with as I see fit according to life. Book smart people hold things from sources with a higher value then I do. These people tend to try and find books or smart people to learn from because they don't necessarily apply the filtering as the information comes in. Its more seen as fact and applied as fact instead of trying to merge it with the real world. Its not even tied to books, it may be a speaker, a video, etc.

Edit: I guess its that book smart people try to make life fit the book instead of making the book fit life.

Well if that's the (very specific) interpretation being taken then yeah, it would be something I wouldn't put much value in either.

Certainly not just taking everything as written to be true.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
After deleting my long drawn out post j decided to settle on this one...

Being tertiary Ni I understand about playing with patterns. I play with patterns and logic all the time. I am very good at crossing patterns, flipping hem around, and tweaking them. For me its just a means to understand and play with the world though...its not a means to an end.

Yeah, eventually our tertiary can get pretty good at what it does. For me, that's Fi. But there's a funny thing about the tertiary: when we get good at it, we're about as good as a teenager or young adult who has it as their primary. Those who have our tertiary in the dominant position are way ahead of that.

I know that when I have issues, I can just talk with certain INFPs who instantly know what I'm getting at, and say something really fucking insightful that makes everything click for me. In Fi terms, I can understand INFPs when they help me process things, but I'm not that quick on the Fi processing myself. Having the guide kind of helps. Similar observations have been made by ENFPs I know about ENTJs.

I'm not sure how it applies to say, ISTJs vs INFPs or INTJs vs ISTPs, as the necessary N vs S barrier hinders things. The perceiving functions seem to work a bit differently in this regard, so I'm not sure what I can show you about Ni. Suffice it to say that while you play with patterns, I live them. An INTJ "plays" with Fi, and an INFP lives it. The patterns are just there for me, making obscure things obvious to me, and necessarily obscuring that which is obvious to most everyone else. What I think throws a lot of INTJs off is that they think they are "logical", because if they think that, then they don't understand how their mind works and don't have a good idea where their blind spots are.

I see very similar issues with ISTPs that you do with INTJs, especially the younger ISTPs (who often type themselves as INTJs, which had me confused for a while until I saw their patterns). My point being that it has a lot more to do with maturity than anything else. Some of that maturity varies based on function stack, e.g., tert Fi means a good deal of emotional immaturity well into adulthood, but mostly it's just the degree to which someone understands oneself and others.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yeah, eventually our tertiary can get pretty good at what it does. For me, that's Fi. But there's a funny thing about the tertiary: when we get good at it, we're about as good as a teenager or young adult who has it as their primary. Those who have our tertiary in the dominant position are way ahead of that.

I know that when I have issues, I can just talk with certain INFPs who instantly know what I'm getting at, and say something really fucking insightful that makes everything click for me. In Fi terms, I can understand INFPs when they help me process things, but I'm not that quick on the Fi processing myself. Having the guide kind of helps. Similar observations have been made by ENFPs I know about ENTJs.

I'm not sure how it applies to say, ISTJs vs INFPs or INTJs vs ISTPs, as the necessary N vs S barrier hinders things. The perceiving functions seem to work a bit differently in this regard, so I'm not sure what I can show you about Ni. Suffice it to say that while you play with patterns, I live them. An INTJ "plays" with Fi, and an INFP lives it. The patterns are just there for me, making obscure things obvious to me, and necessarily obscuring that which is obvious to most everyone else. What I think throws a lot of INTJs off is that they think they are "logical", because if they think that, then they don't understand how their mind works and don't have a good idea where their blind spots are.

I see very similar issues with ISTPs that you do with INTJs, especially the younger ISTPs (who often type themselves as INTJs, which had me confused for a while until I saw their patterns). My point being that it has a lot more to do with maturity than anything else. Some of that maturity varies based on function stack, e.g., tert Fi means a good deal of emotional immaturity well into adulthood, but mostly it's just the degree to which someone understands oneself and others.

My dad is INTJ we actually understand each other very well and work very good together. He is the first person I call whenever I need help figuring something out. My GF said we can be like an old couple arguing over how to do something, it never gets beyond small arguing or bickering. We usually can see each others point and meld the ideas together and settle on something. He does the same. He calls me over when he needs a hand and can't figure something out.

The real difference is that we usually have different goals personally. My P vs his J is really what stands out. The way that is solved is that when we are working on my things what I want is what goes and same with his things. It is a simple way to create a common goal. We both have tremendous amount of respect for each other. We just go about life differently.

We are both very level headed and grounded people, both hard workers and both use logic and patterns to solve the task at hand. Shooting holes in each others ideas until we come to an agreement or someone says screw it, and we jump in feet first.

Its funny because he has always been put in a leader position kinda like me, but he is tired of it so when I asked if he wanted to do contract work with me he said yes, but your the manager, not me. I don't want to deal with being the manager...lol
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
^^ That's cool. It sounds like you and your Dad make a great team, which is pretty awesome all by itself, regardless of type. Yeah, we INTJs tend to get put into leadership positions, but we don't actually want them. We'd rather wander around inside our heads and play with ideas and figure things out.

The reason we often get put in leadership positions is because while not all INTJs are skilled and competent, when we are skilled and competent, it shows. We also dislike leadership positions because it usually means having to explain things to other people who just don't understand them as quickly as we do. We can do it, but it's tiring. It feels like I'm not getting anything "real" done, because I'm stuck herding cats.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
^^ That's cool. It sounds like you and your Dad make a great team, which is pretty awesome all by itself, regardless of type. Yeah, we INTJs tend to get put into leadership positions, but we don't actually want them. We'd rather wander around inside our heads and play with ideas and figure things out.

The reason we often get put in leadership positions is because while not all INTJs are skilled and competent, when we are skilled and competent, it shows. We also dislike leadership positions because it usually means having to explain things to other people who just don't understand them as quickly as we do. We can do it, but it's tiring. It feels like I'm not getting anything "real" done, because I'm stuck herding cats.

I am the same way. It hard for me to explain the complex logic that goes into everything I see and do. Having to explain all the logic paths I traversed almost instantly. They really are a combination of logic and jumping patterns. I can either choose which pattern to jump to as I see multiple and being very playful with that I jump to patterns that make somewhat of a sense and just confuse for fun...of course I feel bad if I leave someone confused so I have to unconfuse them :( I have a huge issue with sarcasm once I really get to understand things :doh: and I have been told I don't use it mean, just to play with whats in front of me. Most of my sarcasm is playing with patterns
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I am the same way. It hard for me to explain the complex logic that goes into everything I see and do. Having to explain all the logic paths I traversed almost instantly. They really are a combination of logic and jumping patterns. I can either choose which pattern to jump to as I see multiple and being very playful with that I jump to patterns that make somewhat of a sense and just confuse for fun...of course I feel bad if I leave someone confused so I have to unconfuse them :( I have a huge issue with sarcasm once I really get to understand things :doh: and I have been told I don't use it mean, just to play with whats in front of me. Most of my sarcasm is playing with patterns

Actually, unconfusing people is one of the benefits of typology. I just need a starting point (just a function, or an MBTI letter) and work from there. What I do is translate this overall truth I see into something specific and meaningful for that person. The trick is to NOT explain the logic, to NOT explain the insight, but just point at conclusions and results. I can't teach them to think like me, but I can give them a starting point, and let them think things through for themselves from there. Without typology, I tended to go in circles, not quite able to explain a complex idea. With it, I sorta-kinda take a "snapshot" of my idea from their particular type's perspective, and give it to them.

My experience with this tends to baffle those who think typology is some sort of pseudoscientific phrenology. What they don't understand is that everyone uses a degree of "typology" (not just MBTI and other popular typologies, but also personal typologies based on personal experience) to navigate all aspects of life. It isn't scientific at all, and doesn't pretend to be science. It's just navigating common patterns. If the patterns aren't there, that doesn't "disprove" typology, it just renders it inapplicable in that circumstance.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Actually, unconfusing people is one of the benefits of typology. I just need a starting point (just a function, or an MBTI letter) and work from there. What I do is translate this overall truth I see into something specific and meaningful for that person. The trick is to NOT explain the logic, to NOT explain the insight, but just point at conclusions and results. I can't teach them to think like me, but I can give them a starting point, and let them think things through for themselves from there. Without typology, I tended to go in circles, not quite able to explain a complex idea. With it, I sorta-kinda take a "snapshot" of my idea from their particular type's perspective, and give it to them.

My experience with this tends to baffle those who think typology is some sort of pseudoscientific phrenology. What they don't understand is that everyone uses a degree of "typology" (not just MBTI and other popular typologies, but also personal typologies based on personal experience) to navigate all aspects of life. It isn't scientific at all, and doesn't pretend to be science. It's just navigating common patterns. If the patterns aren't there, that doesn't "disprove" typology, it just renders it inapplicable in that circumstance.

Yes, but the pattern should lead you to dig in deeper and fine tune things. Not necessarily be the end all be all. Should lead to more questions and a deeper dive into things, a deeper understanding. That's usually where things go with me. I tend to ask question digging deeper. In regard to explanations, I give them a high 50 foot view and they ask questions so they can understand. What it leads to is an explanation of how everything works together not just the plain logical analysis. How I came to each step and all the knowledge that led me to that conclusion each step of the way. It becomes a long drawn out process which I don't mind explaining, but we don't always have the time for that. The quick and or high level analysis is what leaves them lost. The deeper understanding is what unconfused them though it takes time. Once I accomplish that they usually can follow my way of thinking. I can have an ENFP argue for me because she has listened to all my reasoning and logic along the way, knows the ins and outs, and has all the details. Its like that whole regurgitation thing, but its not necessarily used as knowledge, but discussion to go further and get more info from others. Its used more as a tool for more data, not the primary method of how things are.
 

Frosty

Poking the poodle
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
12,667
Instinctual Variant
sp
Actually, unconfusing people is one of the benefits of typology. I just need a starting point (just a function, or an MBTI letter) and work from there. What I do is translate this overall truth I see into something specific and meaningful for that person. The trick is to NOT explain the logic, to NOT explain the insight, but just point at conclusions and results. I can't teach them to think like me, but I can give them a starting point, and let them think things through for themselves from there. Without typology, I tended to go in circles, not quite able to explain a complex idea. With it, I sorta-kinda take a "snapshot" of my idea from their particular type's perspective, and give it to them.

My experience with this tends to baffle those who think typology is some sort of pseudoscientific phrenology. What they don't understand is that everyone uses a degree of "typology" (not just MBTI and other popular typologies, but also personal typologies based on personal experience) to navigate all aspects of life. It isn't scientific at all, and doesn't pretend to be science. It's just navigating common patterns. If the patterns aren't there, that doesn't "disprove" typology, it just renders it inapplicable in that circumstance.

I think that what people tend to do on this site is that they base expectations off of what they have read about particular functions/behavior. Instead of looking at the whole picture, they break down what they do not want to see and reshape it. I am sure that I am guilty of this as well, but it seems that typology has moved from a way of understanding people to a way of separating and categorizing. Which is fine in its own way, but even within the same type there are bound to be varied differences.

Learning how to navigate and readjust perspectives to fit whoever you are talking to seems important, but what I have seen, is that many seem to suffer from a sort of sense of superiority, and when they do try to adjust their methods of relating they generally tend to put the person who differs from them in a mentally lower position. I am sure that this is unintentional and is most likely derived from unfamiliarity, but it does create cause to be careful.

It seems to me to be a sort of a learned skill, to be able to detatch yourself enough away from your person so that your own personal judgements do not color any sort of barriers between how you relate to anyone else. You do not view someone as lesser, nor greater than yourself because of how you view how they see the world. Just two separate wholes taking different roads to reach the same destination. Either can choose once they get there to go further, and maybe some are better suited to choose to continue, but the capability to get from point A to point B is there for all. Anyways now I am talking in circles... None of this is meant to be passive aggressive by the way, though it moght come off that way. I think it is just pretty indicative of the human experience to judge, and some of all types are able to learn methods to shove that to the back of their minds.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think that what people tend to do on this site is that they base expectations off of what they have read about particular functions/behavior. Instead of looking at the whole picture, they break down what they do not want to see and reshape it. I am sure that I am guilty of this as well, but it seems that typology has moved from a way of understanding people to a way of separating and categorizing. Which is fine in its own way, but even within the same type there are bound to be varied differences.

Learning how to navigate and readjust perspectives to fit whoever you are talking to seems important, but what I have seen, is that many seem to suffer from a sort of sense of superiority, and when they do try to adjust their methods of relating they generally tend to put the person who differs from them in a mentally lower position. I am sure that this is unintentional and is most likely derived from unfamiliarity, but it does create cause to be careful.

It seems to me to be a sort of a learned skill, to be able to detatch yourself enough away from your person so that your own personal judgements do not color any sort of barriers between how you relate to anyone else. You do not view someone as lesser, nor greater than yourself because of how you view how they see the world. Just two separate wholes taking different roads to reach the same destination. Either can choose once they get there to go further, and maybe some are better suited to choose to continue, but the capability to get from point A to point B is there for all. Anyways now I am talking in circles...

Lol, circles are funny. Can mean you created a solid sustainable cycle or you took wrong turns and ended up back where you began. It all depends on what the goal was :D
 

Frosty

Poking the poodle
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
12,667
Instinctual Variant
sp
Lol, circles are funny. Can mean you created a solid sustainable cycle or you took wrong turns and ended up back where you began. It all depends on what the goal was :D

Well I suppose if I have to think in circles, I would prefer them to be thready intertwined circles that don't necessarily always take the same path, but interconnect and strengthen the common understanding of the whole. That doesn't always happen though... :cry:
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well I suppose if I have to think in circles, I would prefer them to be thready intertwined circles that don't necessarily always take the same path, but interconnect and strengthen the common understanding of the whole. That doesn't always happen though... :cry:

You will come across a lot of circles here, its part of finding the correct path no matter how high your IQ is.
 

Frosty

Poking the poodle
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
12,667
Instinctual Variant
sp
Or maybe of even solidifying the correct path, building upon it. I wouldn't say that I have an overly high IQ, I have met people who I would consider naturally smarter/quicker than me. Generally though, while I do not know a bunch of things, what I do know and am interested in I can be very good at. One year I found my statistics class extremely interesting and I set the curve on every single test because I was literally just that enthralled with the subject, but the year before in calculus I averaged near 40%s on every test because I barely bothered to open the book. While some seem naturally inclined to learn a bit about everything, others might want to learn everything about a bit. I would say both are fairly equal measures of intelligence.
 
Top