S intelligence vs. N intelligence

[Splittet]

If you don't have an apptitude in any of those particular areas, you won't seem very intelligent will you? If you read my other post, you will see where I've seen the history of "intelligence" change to suit "feeeelings"... PCness. Yes, I am logical.

You know, I was only referring to the multiple intelligences perspective: Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It's an intelligence theory, and I only sought to discuss the intelligence of Ns versus Ss in that framework. I am not really saying anything about what my personal thoughts on what the definition of intelligence should be.

 

[Grayscale]

Well, there are no doubt Ns on average are more intelligent than Ss in the IQ perspective.

IQ tests favor intuitives by design because they're largely about pattern recall.

do you understand how someone who doesnt favor intuition might actually be more adaptable and intelligent in the sense that they are processing new, accurate information instead of simply relating the current information to a past pattern?

You're all neglecting the variance in the distribution. The central tendencies tell you nothing if you don't know the spread of the data. The standard deviation (or whatever measure they used) indicates intelligence is more variable for Ss than for Ns. I think that points to something more than the use of N functions that leads to the differences in IQ test scores.

perhaps the above explains this variance...

 

[SillySapienne]

Sensores are mindless. That's about it against them.

You're kidding, this is a joke, right?

 

[Splittet]

IQ tests favor intuitives by design because they're largely about pattern recall.

do you understand how someone who doesnt favor intuition might actually be more adaptable and intelligent in the sense that they are processing new, accurate information instead of simply relating the current information to a past pattern?

This is getting kind of annoying. Everything is all about how flawed IQ is all the time. I am not discussing that. I am simply saying that within the IQ framework, Ns are more intelligent than Ss. Some like that framework, you obviously don't. Then I also showed Ns are more intelligent than Ss within the multiple intelligences framework. And these two frameworks are the most popular to think within. You have your own theory it seems, but at least I have shown that Ns are more intelligent than Ss in standard intelligence perspectives.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Intelligence is a heavily contextual concept. IQ tests relative skill within a peer group on skills that are needed to be successful in a certain environment. We tend to take certain premises about intelligence as givens, but many of these are tied into Western European culture and values. For example, defining those cognitive traits in which human differ from animals as being "intelligence" reveals a bias that places man against nature. There are plenty of assumptions to examine. In order to really understand intelligence, it requires being able to view it from outside these contexts and make comparisons. Intelligence is fluid, diverse, and contextually defined. Perhaps there should be a thread started to specifically explore the topic and relate it to current research and debate?

 

[Tallulah]

I don't see the difference. Maybe you mean I did something wrong by not adding the word "intelligence" after the eight intelligences? I thought that detail wasn't necessary, but it might be for your Ti to work. You guys are quite detailed when it comes to logic. Definition on the word given by Dictionary.com: "readiness or quickness in learning; intelligence"

I see what you're saying here, but I'm inclined to agree with Seanan...the aptitude that Ns or Ss have in a particular subject won't necessarily translate into being smarter all around.

I think we have to figure interests into all this, too. People tend not to put much effort into things that they aren't interested in, which could lead others to believe that they are not capable of understanding a certain subject. In reality, they could be quite capable, but don't have the interest to put time and effort into it.

 

[Seanan]

IQ tests favor intuitives by design because they're largely about pattern recall.

do you understand how someone who doesnt favor intuition might actually be more adaptable and intelligent in the sense that they are processing new, accurate information instead of simply relating the current information to a past pattern?



perhaps the above explains this variance...

The tests (not all of which are graphical) aren't particularly about "recall" but recognition. It was an effort to exclude apptitude to arrive at "pure" intelligence... again to see and apply patterns making learning exponential.

The farmer who's never done anything but plow the field and speak in poor grammar may score highly on an IQ test because nothing is required except recognizing patterns. He's probably never done anything involved with the mentioned apptitudes. He may use his intelligence in learning to fix his wife's oven and apply it elsewhere to farm machinery never having to actually learn how to fix a particular machine. Simplistic I know but happens every day with highly intelligent people who never fit with an apptitude they're being judged by.

 

[Grayscale]

Intelligence is fluid, diverse, and contextually defined.

agreed... this is why i think reality is the only real judge of intelligence, those who navigate it with ease have something in common.

 

[Nocapszy]

the grouping of words associated with each approach are not entirely synonymous, but the concepts are the point here, not the terminology.

Oh I get it, you're teaching me about MBTI. Why did I even both researching and figuring for the last 2 years?

S vs. N is a spectrum of favored approach, looking at a collection of new details <-> considering the implications of the summarized whole by comparing it to past pattern.

No, sorry it's not that simple. Ne strings together all or many of the sensations that Se brings in. It might not remember each detail, but it does notice them at the start. That's because instead of only remembering the details so they can be analyzed, by feeling or thinking, it has another step. There's the connection between them, and if there are enough, then it turns into a pattern, and Ne can become aware of what might happen. It's not as if the user of Ne can't notice details, they're just not interested in laboring over them. It's got absolutely nothing to do with approach. In fact, judgement is what determines the favored approach. Usually there's a divide between thinking and feeling, but you could also draw a line between the two attitudes of either.

ironically, it is people who want to look at MBTI letters alone and say "Ns are more intelligent than Ss" who are being simplistic here...

... and... you think that's what I'm doing?

a type such as ISTP contains an Ni tertiary function that could easily be stronger than, say, an INTP's Ne secondary.

That's not proven. It's my understanding that the four letter type code only indicates which two functions a person prefers at the front, and all the others swim in a nebula. I'm staunchly opposed to the notion of a rigid function order.

nearly everyone uses both senses and intuition, and between any given XSXX vs XNXX, you are simply swapping the Nx and Sx functions... not removing them, and certainly not altering the quantitative effectiveness of the function.

Well we certainly don't disagree here.

Ineffective intuition is where we get people like Michael Scott from the office. NF symbology taken to an absurd tier makes him a true dumbass. Just like perhaps NT systematizing that tries to trump reality, with the thinking that if they can't analyze it, it must not exist.

 

[Splittet]

Perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to compare the average brain size (correlates about 0,4 with IQ) of Ns and Ss? Whichever group has the largest brain size on average is the most intelligent? It works in explaining racial IQ differences, although I must say I am somewhat sceptical of applying this approach here, but it would be fun to test.

 

[SillySapienne]

That, or to whip your proverbial "cocks" out.

 

[Grayscale]

The tests (not all of which are graphical) aren't particularly about "recall" but recognition. It was an effort to exclude apptitude to arrive at "pure" intelligence... again to see and apply patterns making learning exponential.

The farmer who's never done anything but plow the field and speak in poor grammar may score highly on an IQ test because nothing is required except recognizing patterns. He's probably never done anything involved with the mentioned apptitudes. He may use his intelligence in learning to fix his wife's oven and apply it elsewhere to farm machinery never having to actually learn how to fix a particular machine. Simplistic I know but happens every day with highly intelligent people who never fit with an apptitude they're being judged by.

ah, but the type of questions found on most IQ tests are an aptitude themselves

a typical question:

"Which word of four letters can be added to the front of the following words to create other English words?"

CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE

a mailman would have a much easier time answering this question than your farmer

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

That, or to whip your proverbial "cocks" out.

 

[Nocapszy]

Why? They're both equally capable of recognizing that all except haste are nouns.

Unless they're uneducated. IQ isn't the only way of figuring intelligence though, and I don't see why it's being fought over here.

Actually, haste is a noun... huh. Well it's not something that can be touched.

 

[Seanan]

ah, but the type of questions found on most IQ tests are an aptitude themselves

a typical question:

"Which word of four letters can be added to the front of the following words to create other English words?"

CARD BOX CODE BAG HASTE

a mailman would have a much easier time answering this question than your farmer

You know that's going back to where PCness in this area started... ghetto slang and tests.
Thus the graphical version to cut out all the BS. So let's just eliminate the idea of intelligence altogether... everyone equal in every way... no yardsticks... who looses? Who wins?

 

[Seanan]

Lovely... back later... have to go apply my "intelligence" or lack of it to getting some bills paid.

 

[Grayscale]

... and... you think that's what I'm doing?

yes, yes you are, and only you!

You know that's going back to where PCness in this area started... ghetto slang and tests.
Thus the graphical version to cut out all the BS. So let's just eliminate the idea of intelligence altogether... everyone equal in every way... no yardsticks... who looses? Who wins?

only reality can tell for sure

ultimately, i dont see a point in quantifying intelligence, so i wouldnt waste time on an in-depth analysis of what smarts really look like, but i can easily say that things like IQ tests and education are a shallow example

time for me to bow out of this discussion to take a much needed nap... my oh-so-smart self stayed up very late last night

 

[alicia91]

Why don't we all measure our heads and compare?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Moved 74 posts on intelligence from Sensor Bias.

 

[Nocapszy]

yes, yes you are, and only you!

Nice. Well when you mature as a type analyst you'll eventually see what I'm talking about and realize that ol' Nocapszy was not using the four letter type code to make his point.