• 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.

Ns are smarter than Ss?!

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Define intelligence.

There are many different kinds of intelligence.

I reject the notion that IQ is the sole indicator of intelligence.

That is the correct position to take.

I do, however, believe that g can be a somewhat useful indicator.

Te seems to be the intelligence function in my mind, probably because I suck at it.

Te, at least in the dominant position, is actually not very highly correlated with intelligence (a la g).

In the auxiliary, however, it is, iirc, the second most highly correlated with intelligence (i.e., ITJs).

The most highly correlated function with intelligence, when in the dominant position, is Ni.

Interestingly, when it's in the auxiliary, though, Ni is not all that highly correlated.

And, for honesty's sake: IN is more correlated than Ni dominance (i.e., P>J).

(And, ftr, these conclusions are mostly drawn from one study.)
 

Viridian

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
3,036
MBTI Type
IsFJ
...the irony being that he's ISFJ and doesn't even realize it.

I take it you have started a "Most Ns are SFJs in Denial" campaign? I've noticed kind of a pattern...

Also: the guy who wrote the article doesn't know what "preferring intuition" and "preferring sensing" actually mean in either a Jungian or MBTI context.

He kind of .. you know, skimmed those chapters and skipped over a bunch of facts, drawing some misinformed conclusions with his limited data.

I wouldn't listen to him.

--

Also: if anyone on this forum tells you that intuitives are smarter than sensors and points you to official MBTI/IQ correlation stats to back that up, remind them that that same person also probably doesn't trust the official MBTI and so the correlation would be meaningless to them if they thought about it for more than a second or so.

--

Also: In before the "woe is me, we're smarter and better than S's but we have to conform to their world" bullshit

Thank you, sir.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I take it you have started a "Most Ns are SFJs in Denial" campaign? I've noticed kind of a pattern...

I believe we've been over this, man. It's not my fault most people are SFJs...that's why I end up having to type so many that way. But I don't do it deliberately! I just say what I think they are, and usually that ends up being SFJ!

Do tell, who is the author?
Could it be the person who just joined the forum and came straight to this thread to make their first post? ;)

LOLOL! Such a clever plan he had, speaking in the third person!
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Here we go again :wizfreak:




And please no moar of the "but I know an S who went to Harvard" or "they just have a more practical kind of intelligence like building houses and stuff" kind of stuff, like going to college or having trade skills has anything significant to say of intelligence. Ivy league grads and so called "street-smart" people can sometimes just be good at illusions and just covering of their intellectual weakness.


How about Ns are not smarter than Ss because N/S is personality, and raw intelligence is independent of personality. Is that really so challenging? :tongue:
 

lunalum

Super Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,706
MBTI Type
ZNTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I believe we've been over this, man. It's not my fault most people are SFJs...that's why I end up having to type so many that way. But I don't do it deliberately! I just say what I think they are, and usually that ends up being SFJ!

Are you still going by visual typing, or is this forum just absolutely flooded with Si and Fe in their dominant and auxiliary forms and you're the only one who sees it?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Are you still going by visual typing, or is this forum just absolutely flooded with Si and Fe in their dominant and auxiliary forms and you're the only one who sees it?

Well, I don't do the visual typing as much anymore because people get all shitty about it and I usually can't get a good look anyway unless they post a decent video/pic series. So...the latter?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
How about Ns are not smarter than Ss because N/S is personality, and raw intelligence is independent of personality. Is that really so challenging? :tongue:

How about claiming that as the position we should all land on as proof that Nness isn't correlated with intelligence?

 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I spend a little while trying to put my thoughts together on this issue, only to realize that I was going around in circles, and that the answer can be phrased so much more simply.

If there's one thing that the MBTI teaches, it's that everyone has their innate strengths that are equally valuable in the world. The cliched Einstein quote comes to mind: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Therefore, everyone who says that they correlate intelligence with the MBTI is doing so in a subjective and biased way. They are deciding that one form of intelligence is more important than the others, and 99% of the time they are deciding that based on which types of intelligence they value the most, which, more often than not, are the types of intelligence they take the most pride in possessing. (Example: those who say that "intelligence" best correlates with their own MBTI type.)

This is not political correctness. This is an attempt at objectivity.


Edit: I see that [MENTION=15827]slayerment[/MENTION] himself is reading this thread. Let the games begin! :popc1:
 

slayerment

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8
MBTI Type
ESFJ
First stab at this

Real-world logic: many people don't study their asses off because they're so intelligent that they don't need to study.

Sensoriffic data, as in, supportive studies:
Positive correlation between drinking and intelligence
Conscientiousness is negatively correlated with intelligence, and Judging is positively correlated with Conscientiousness, and INTJ is a judging type--you can do the math.

I could go on.

edit:

Holy shit, I just noticed that. How.. lack.. of sensorism of me..

How do these articles correlate towards sensors being more intelligent?

Please define intelligence and then show me how these 3 articles, and any others, give credence towards this point. I fail to see where you are going with this.
 
R

RDF

Guest
Just some anecdotal info.

For years I was pretty heavily involved with one of the largest Mensa chapters (the Washington, D.C. chapter was the 2nd most active after Chicago). My experience there (again, anecdotal) was that Sensors made up somewhat more than 1/2 of the membership of that chapter. Maybe as much as 2/3.

That proportion of Sensors would still makes the chapter a little heavy on iNtuitives compared to the general population (where Sensors may represent as much as 3/4 of the population); and in fact Mensa was a great place to go if you wanted to find a higher-than-normal concentration of certain types of iNtuitives. But those numbers could also be explained by the fact that Mensa members are self-selected and don’t necessarily reflect the true make-up of the entire spectrum of the high-IQ population.

To put it another way, only a small percentage of high-IQ people ever bother to join Mensa. Furthermore, I noticed that iNtuitives (and NTs in particular) tended to see Mensa as a haven from the cruel outside world and a place where they could find acceptance for their quirks and the company of more people like themselves.

Sensors, by comparison, seemed to view Mensa as just one more place to socialize; it wasn’t a “haven” for them since they didn’t seem to feel out-of-place in the outside world the way that NTs might. Sensors floated in and out of the organization; they didn’t cling to their membership like a lifeline the way some NTs would. Also the Sensor membership seemed skewed toward Extraverts (ESxx), again indicating that Mensa was just one more place to party and socialize for them. :)

The upshot is that iNtuitives (and NTs in particular) might flock to Mensa in greater proportion than Sensors and stay a little longer, making Mensa a little “N-heavy.” So Mensa membership probably didn’t reflect the overall population of high-IQ people. But in any case, just looking at the large numbers of ESxx Sensors in the chapter, it seemed to me that Sensors are well-represented among the high-IQ population.

Again, that’s all anecdotal. Just my own personal non-scientific observations. As far as I know, Mensa hasn’t done any surveys of the personality types of its members.
 

Lexicon

Temporal Mechanic
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,342
MBTI Type
JINX
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Oh hooray, it's another one of those pseudo-intellectual piss contest threads.
 

Lexicon

Temporal Mechanic
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,342
MBTI Type
JINX
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
duplicate post [it won't let me delete, for some reason]

cleanup on aisle ..52?
 
Last edited:

Lexicon

Temporal Mechanic
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
12,342
MBTI Type
JINX
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hit "edit," then you'll see multiple delete buttons in different text boxes. Click them all. :)

:laugh: I'd tried that; it didn't work.
 

slayerment

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I spend a little while trying to put my thoughts together on this issue, only to realize that I was going around in circles, and that the answer can be phrased so much more simply.

If there's one thing that the MBTI teaches, it's that everyone has their innate strengths that are equally valuable in the world. The cliched Einstein quote comes to mind: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

Therefore, everyone who says that they correlate intelligence with the MBTI is doing so in a subjective and biased way. They are deciding that one form of intelligence is more important than the others, and 99% of the time they are deciding that based on which types of intelligence they value the most, which, more often than not, are the types of intelligence they take the most pride in possessing. (Example: those who say that "intelligence" best correlates with their own MBTI type.)

This is not political correctness. This is an attempt at objectivity.


Edit: I see that [MENTION=15827]slayerment[/MENTION] himself is reading this thread. Let the games begin! :popc1:

I agree. But most people will inherently consider certain types of measurements for intelligence as more useful than others. Whoever smokes the most pot is probably a worse measurement than whoever creates the most profitable company. Whoever watches the most TV is probably a worse measurement than whoever helps the most people. Almost all people of all MBTIs will agree to this.

So with an understanding that there are better measurements for intelligence, smarter or whatever else you want to call it, we can start to hone in and create a useful definition for everyone. Yes it is subjective, but not entirely. Yes, it may not be a perfect definition, but it will at least be meaningful -- more meaningful than simply saying, "oh well there's no such thing." That is all I have attempted to do. I am taking people that everyone sees as great people and that everyone strives to become (with the exception of a few). Yes, I know it's not the best model, but it is most likely better than IQ and most other measurements that are commonly used. Sheer technical ability like number crunching, which many S's can excel at, is not the best way to view things. We can create robots that can do that. We want to define intelligence in a way outside of robots. We want to define intelligence along the lines of creativity -- something that creates value and meaning towards others and life. We want to define intelligence as something that creates value where most other people fall short.
 

slayerment

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8
MBTI Type
ESFJ
God, what an awful article. Really, I even feel sad with people like him being a fellow N.

I'm saying they're not smart - This is a ridiculous generalization. Sensors are not smart? I know a bunch of stupid iNtuitives: people who can't deal with basic daily stuff; people who accurately can explain how a neuron works, but can't do anything in sudden emergency situations.
S's may be good at entertaining you or making you laugh - So, iNtuitives don't have this ability? Not even the super charismatic ENFJs can entertain you? Not all sensors are entertainers or funny people. iNtuitives may have more leadership skills (specifically NTs), but this article was written in a way that makes any newbie at MBTI be disgusted with Sensors.

The whole article is a generalization. Clearly there are exceptions for everything.
 

slayerment

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Fast considerations:
- You can't measure the IQ of a person that lived 500 years ago. That's insanity. Not even their mbti type can be properly known, but that's another story.
- Having a high IQ doesn't make you smart. You can have a big IQ and suck in life big time. Besides, a high IQ is often correlated with some bad stuff (poor grasp of social norms, depression, big ego).

Fair points. MBTI is probably easier to know than IQ of people who are dead. I may not know exactly what Thomas Jefferson is but I can get a pretty good idea based off of his preferences and character. I can take somebody today and without knowing their MBTI measure them the same way I would somebody like Thomas Jefferson who is dead. One is alive, one is dead, but I would be measuring them the same exact way. I could then verify that the person who is alive is what I typed them as based off of my analysis. So it is possible, it may not be the best way, but there is still something to gain from it and there is still some accuracy in doing so. We know Thomas Jefferson is closer to an INTJ than ESFP. We know Einstein is closer to INTP than ESFJ.

Moreover, I agree people with high IQs can suck in life big time. That is why I am using people who didn't suck big time in life as the measurement.
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I agree. But most people will inherently consider certain types of measurements for intelligence as more useful than others. Whoever smokes the most pot is probably a worse measurement than whoever creates the most profitable company. Whoever watches the most TV is probably a worse measurement than whoever helps the most people. Almost all people of all MBTIs will agree to this.

So with an understanding that there are better measurements for intelligence, smarter or whatever else you want to call it, we can start to hone in and create a useful definition for everyone. Yes it is subjective, but not entirely. Yes, it may not be a perfect definition, but it will at least be meaningful -- more meaningful than simply saying, "oh well there's no such thing." That is all I have attempted to do. I am taking people that everyone sees as great people and that everyone strives to become (with the exception of a few). Yes, I know it's not the best model, but it is most likely better than IQ and most other measurements that are commonly used. Sheer technical ability like number crunching, which many S's can excel at, is not the best way to view things. We can create robots that can do that. We want to define intelligence in a way outside of robots. We want to define intelligence along the lines of creativity -- something that creates value and meaning towards others and life. We want to define intelligence as something that creates value where most other people fall short.
Ah yes! That sounds very lovely, in theory. (except for the bolded, which is extremely stereotypical. and I digress!)

I was mostly responding to the thread in general, and not just your article. But I might as well respond to your article in more detail.

Here's my opinion: Your methodology is seriously lacking.

Firstly, you quote Wikipedia, which is a mistake. (If you want credibility, please cite someone with credibility. And don't cite internet sources; those are generally written by Ns and therefore extremely biased. Consider the the juxtaposition of the INFJ stereotype (intuitive to the point of being psychic, bearer of "magical" abilities at reading people), and the ISTP stereotype (they're great at car repair!). If you think critically, you'll realize that these sorts of things sound sketchy.

Secondly, saying "Here's all the great people in the world; see how few are Sensors?" is also a really bad idea. It's too broad, which means you've been picking and choosing people to include or reject from your list -- which means you've probably been unscientific and very subjective, and have no credibility whatsoever. How can we know who you decided to reject? How do we know that you didn't find a huge list of Sensors who changed the world? I'd vote that you, at the very least, define intelligence in your article, then make a list of people in a certain profession directly linked to that sort of intelligence, and then type them. Even then, I'd object to your article, but that would make it less silly and easy for people like me and [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] to dismiss.

Thirdly -- and I don't know if I have to explain this to you or not -- celebrity typing is a contentious thing. I'm guessing someone could make a Sensor argument for at least half of the people you included on that list. Also, few, if any, of us have met those people, let alone read a biography of them. And I'm not going to trust your typing unless you give me exactly why you typed them that way -- and I'm not going to trust your explanations unless they involve, at the very least, several interviews with the person, and a History Channel special.

Fourthly, cite your freaking sources. Where did you find those IQs?

And finally (because, even though I could go on and on, I choose not to), being "smart" and being "intelligent" are not the same thing. You know this. The title of your article implies that you don't, which takes away even more of your credibility.

In short: if you want people to take your ideas seriously, start acting like a scholar, and not like some random blogger who just discovered MBTI a week ago and is making vague generalizations based only on Wikipedia and the Keirsey website. Because, honestly, that's the vibe I'm getting.


Edit:
The whole article is a generalization. Clearly there are exceptions for everything.
Then say it in your freaking article. You state everything in it as if you take it as inarguable fact. You use fucking charts and graphs. It's why no one is taking you seriously here.

If people thought you knew that it was all a generalization, and that you were knowingly exaggerating and speaking unscientifically, they would be treating you differently.

Another edit:
I just realized that yes, you do kinda-sorta define intelligence in your article. But your list is still far, far too broad, and those same issues apply.
 

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
NTs are the most likely to take action. They are the most Choleric.

....no, no they aren't. ENTJs are, sometimes INTJs can be pretty choleric too, but NTs as a whole? no. there isn't a large degree of correlation with 4 humors and MBTI anyway (assuming 4 humors held any weight, which I don't think they do). anyway, the most action oriented types are probably Se doms and Te doms (ESxPs and ExTJs)
 
Top