Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[Cellmold]

N types have slightly higher IQ on average, but that doesent make N people smarter than S, its just that iq test measures certain type of intelligence, which is often seen in intuitives. you could make different test where S types would score higher in average than N types, but that wouldnt be what you call IQ test.

the post you quoted has nothing to do with the subject and was about people confusing ISTP aspegrers to INTPs

I once heard that when it comes to IQ tests, they tend to have been constructed by N types and so they cater more to intuitive tendencies of pattern relation. Of course this is merely something I read...doesn't make it true but it seems like an interesting idea to consider nonetheless.

This is unrelated to me quoting you but I also posted a couple of replies to that website in the OP as ive found that before on other forums before this topic and in an extremely hilarious twist he assumed that I was an INTP because of what I wrote. My posts are Andrew Parkinson.

 

[RDF]

It's interesting you should say that. My mom is an ESFJ and she scored high enough to join Mensa, but didn't.

Yeah, I met lots of ESFJs there. A lawyer, a doctor, an electrical engineer, a fundraiser (head of development) for a college, and so on. And if Mensa didn't suit them, they could easily go elsewhere; they were very much in demand anywhere they might choose to go.

Mensa is where I first identified individual ESFJs by their personality type and really got to know them. Great people.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

wow i'd never heard of interpersonal...that's really cool!
so would intrapersonal be Fi and interpersonal be Fe?

action is all that matters in this world

ESTP all the way.



More like ENFJ, don't you think?



Accordinly to Howard Gardner's theory, there are 8 (logical, bodily-kinesthesic, naturalistic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, verbal-linguistic, spatial), and I do believe in this theory. The IQ is a limited way of measuring logical and spatial intelligence. It's incomplete. It's like saying Mozart wasn't intelligent, because he had no high IQ (I don't know whether Mozart's IQ is high or low, I'm just giving a raw comparison here).[/QUOTE]

 

[Anew Leaf]

OMG THIS THREAD IS NEW AND EXCITING AND NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE BY ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF TYPOLOGY WEBSITES WOW I AM SO GLAD I AM A GENIUS AND NOT A LAME S BUT THAT'S OK BECAUSE IF I WAS AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL THEY ARE TOO BUSY SURFING AND BAKING CUPCAKES.

 

[RaptorWizard]

OMG THIS THREAD IS NEW AND EXCITING AND NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE BY ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF TYPOLOGY WEBSITES WOW I AM SO GLAD I AM A GENIUS AND NOT A LAME S BUT THAT'S OK BECAUSE IF I WAS AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL THEY ARE TOO BUSY SURFING AND BAKING CUPCAKES.

I would like to thank you for futher proving my point that N's think they know more than S's because I quote "AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL"

 

[garbage]

I am trying to bring information forth and give people a new perspective on the MBTI.

This is not a new perspective on MBTI at all; it's a debate that's been had many, many times over on this and many other MBTI/typology-oriented forums and even in the academic community.

What you must realize is that the definitions of "preferring sensing" and "preferring intuition" don't indicate that one has risen above, transcends or necessarily includes or supersedes the other. That's just, like, not what they mean.

I define what I mean by smart when I say,

"I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason."

So, are you talking about which types are most influential, or which types embody secondary secondary characteristics (such as smarts) that may lead to influence? Why not cut out the middleman and simply talk about influence directly?

And I'm not trying to be scholarly, I'm trying to be educational. I don't respect most scholars or the way the SJ school system treats academics or intelligence.

Do you respect higher education? What sort of training and learning has the most influence, in your eyes?

Someone should start a thread on whether n's are better than s's at abstract masturbation.

They are. In fact, the 80 pages of bullshit produced amongst Ns about the topic of which type is best at abstract masturbation would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I would like to thank you for futher proving my point that N's think they know more than S's because I quote "AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL"

Hell, I'd say that not understanding this thread would pretty much be a gift.

 

[Red Herring]

I would like to thank you for futher proving my point that N's think they know more than S's because I quote "AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbergers

 

[EJCC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbergers

Yes.

+1

 

[IceBlock]

wow i'd never heard of interpersonal...that's really cool!
so would intrapersonal be Fi and interpersonal be Fe?

[/QUOTE]

I have never tried to relate both. I guess the interpersonal intelligence is more like a social attitude toward the world, not necessarily extraverted feeling. From what I know, involves Ne and extraversion, for the one with interpersonal intelligence likes to go out, understand and read people easily, and are good at working with others (I've just read this up, heh). Intrapersonal is the contrary, it's more like a capacity of understanding yourself, knowing what you are feeling and knowing how to deal with it, I guess it could be Fi.

 

[The Ü™]

Warren Buffet is an INTP? JFK an INTJ? Sigmund Freud an N? Um, I don't think so.

There were IQ tests in the times of Aristotle, Shakespeare, and Alexander the Great?

On top of it, the types of most of the famous people is just...wrong. And how come do the more recent famous people have lower IQs?

 

[animenagai]

Someone should start a thread on whether n's are better than s's at abstract masturbation.

What counts as abstract masturbation? Getting excited over ideas?

Getting turned on by ideas? Jacking off to ink blobs? Having colourful and shapeless objects coming out of your... OK I'll stop.

 

[onemoretime]

Of course not. It's impossible to define "intelligence" in a way that does not skew toward a certain set of tendencies, and overlook another, without coming to some sort of tautology.

In other words, "these people are smart because they meet these standards. These standards measure intelligence because they describe what smart people do. Smart people do these things because they're intelligent."

 

[Orangey]

You people are aiming your criticisms too high! It all starts with self-report!

 

[Cellmold]

I have a strong suspicion that the maker of that blog had this in mind when he wrote it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6057734.stm

I must strongly remind him that this hasn't happened just yet....

 

[skylights]

If you really were an ESFJ, then you'd understand the instinct of many people to take others literally in that regard, but you obviously aren't ESFJ. The reason why I keep saying you should try the scholarly way is that it's exact, and it's thorough.

Bingo.

Someone should start a thread on whether n's are better than s's at abstract masturbation.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45083&highlight=Fetishists

 

[Laurie]

I suppose it is a fun enough thing to bullshit about, who is most intelligent. But at the end of the day it is who is most effective that matters. These kind of threads and subjects always feel like ego bolstering to me. It is sad in a way though, this kind of abstract masturbation, it screws it up for people who want to use it to learn about themselves and others.

To be fair abstract masturbation was a Wolfy quote.

It's a great phrase.

 

[Laurie]

I suppose it is a fun enough thing to bullshit about, who is most intelligent. But at the end of the day it is who is most effective that matters. These kind of threads and subjects always feel like ego bolstering to me. It is sad in a way though, this kind of abstract masturbation, it screws it up for people who want to use it to learn about themselves and others.

To be fair abstract masturbation was a Wolfy quote.

It's a great phrase.

 

[Kalach]

People seem to be making a distinction between individuals and their type. Like, perhaps type will influence what you perceive and how you think and feel but it's not the real you. And the real you is actually kind of dumb. It exists independent of the benefits a particular type can confer.

 

[Thalassa]

Have you considered the possibility that [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] is just an ass?

Anyway Ive actually suspected him of being an especially annoying ESxP ANYWAY.

Furthermore John F. Kennedy and F. Scott Fitzgerald were both smarter than [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] and they were both xSTPs. Don't forget Ernest Hemingway.

In fact, can we just change the title of this thread to "let's laugh at [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]"?

 

[Thalassa]

OMG THIS THREAD IS NEW AND EXCITING AND NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE BY ANYONE IN THE HISTORY OF TYPOLOGY WEBSITES WOW I AM SO GLAD I AM A GENIUS AND NOT A LAME S BUT THAT'S OK BECAUSE IF I WAS AN S I WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THIS THREAD SO ITS OK TO HURT S FEELINGS BECAUSE THEY WONT GET IT LOLOLOLOL THEY ARE TOO BUSY SURFING AND BAKING CUPCAKES.

would you like a German chocolate cupcake?