[NT] Do high IQ xNTx individuals use a dominant mix of Ne Ni Te Ti in no specific order?

[EnnisPreit]

I have tested ENTJ ENTP INTJ but never INTP but my best friend is an INTP.

Is it possible high iq individuals use both introverted and extroverted intuition and thinking dominantly in no specific order depending on the stimuli presented?

Just my hunch.

 

[Cellmold]

What would happen if the IQ of a person was far higher than the people who created MBTI from Jung?

But I suppose intelligence isn't that linear....

 

[Typh0n]

What about high IQ SF types?

High IQ isn't reserved to NTs, you know...

 

[EnnisPreit]

I suppose the 33 types that actually exist would be more prevalent. I suppose the further we can classify personality the more we minimize our margin of error when calculating how a person will react to certain stimuli, social setting, emotional/logical evaluation, etc.

For information like that would have quite a price tag.

 

[EnnisPreit]

I knew someone would supplement the overwhelming data suggesting NT types to statistically have higher iqs with some good old lets be fair to all.

I believe any type could be equally as smart, I just believe an intuitive can learn to become comfortable sensing, but not the other way around.

 

[Dreamer]

I knew someone would supplement the overwhelming data suggesting NT types to statistically have higher iqs with some good old lets be fair to all. I believe any type could be equally as smart, I just believe an intuitive can learn to become comfortable sensing, but not the other way around.

Though it's merely my own perspective, I understand the difference between Intuitives and sensors in what they read and pick up, given the exact same material in front of them, not whether sensors are those that understand only through their five senses and Intuitives, don't.
I don't assume this is the understanding you are seeing between the N/S types, but it's a common viewpoint I see most prevalent around MBTI type discussions. But with this viewpoint of mine, I don't believe Intuitives can sense any easier than Sensors can intuit. The two types just see the same world in very different ways (if absolutes were to exist of course, which they don't)

 

[EnnisPreit]

From an evolutionary standpoint as hunter gatherers being a dominant sensor would certainly favor safety and ability to thrive on a day to day basis, but intuitiveness, being less common and more abstract, would favor the ability to adapt to changes. So yeah, i agree with you lol
But only to that extent, two different ways of doing the same thing doesnt make them equal at all.

 

[Dreamer]

From an evolutionary standpoint as hunter gatherers being a dominant sensor would certainly favor safety and ability to thrive on a day to day basis, but intuitiveness, being less common and more abstract, would favor the ability to adapt to changes. So yeah, i agree with you lol But only to that extent, two different ways of doing the same thing doesnt make them equal at all.

Given certain circumstances, an intuitive would fare better, a sensor would fare better in others. I understand some people ARE just better than others in some respects, so I'm not arguing there, I just know that on more than one occasion, and in many ways, my S friends are almost vital for me. Partially, because it gives me license to remain in the abstract and to be as strong in that department as I can be, without trying to be an all-around person spread thin in talent, ya know? Likewise, I'm sure some intuitive friends give to their S friends in ways they may not readily think of. Interesting to ponder isn't it?

 

[EnnisPreit]

I agree however the disproportionate amount of sensors compared to intuitives simply implies intuitiveness is more "valuable", therefore more scarce, as opposed to being more "practical" therefore more common.

 

[EcK]

I agree however the disproportionate amount of sensors compared to intuitives simply implies intuitiveness is more "valuable", therefore more scarce, as opposed to being more "practical" therefore more common.

Incorrect. You're implying a supply demand situation where there's no demand data. Simply being 'rarer' doesn't make a thing more valuable. Not having aids is rarer than having aids.. catch my drift ?

Secondly from an evolutionary standpoint the more adapted and likely to reproduce the more frequent in the genepool. In general Ns being longer term thinkers will be quite likely to be the people subsidizing a 80 iq family with 6 kids rather than being the one with 6 kids. So I wouldn't say that high iq or "N" traits are really that well adapted to their environment despite the benefits high IQ individuals disproportionally add to their host populations (about every advance in history is probably due to someone with above average iq and iq seems rather well correlated with "Intuition" in the MBTI sense.)

 

[EnnisPreit]

Precisely why I used quotations to describe valuable. If its more rare to have aids then its more valuable, value determined by scarcety not quality performance. For instance a species of bug that can fly faster than others, camoflauge better, etc but going extinct due to is inability to adapt.
Intuitiveness favors the adaptation, is my point.
Sensing favors the non-changing evironment.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

IQ tests measure a small portion of intelligence, reflecting specific cultural values.

Edit: It can't predict or measure a Van Gogh or a Niki Lauda.

 

[EnnisPreit]

IQ tests measure a small portion of intelligence, reflecting specific cultural values.

Edit: It can't predict or measure a Van Gogh or a Niki Lauda.

But it can measure averages. Regular Joes. Everyday guys n gals.

Just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean the absence of space doesn't have mass.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

But it can measure averages. Regular Joes. Everyday guys n gals. Just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean the absence of space doesn't have mass.

It measures certain aspects of the intellectual abilities of average joes. It doesn't measure intellectual abilities in a wholistic way.

The areas of intelligence IQ measures does correlate well with Te/Ti and Ne/Ni ways of thinking. My point is that there are also forms of intelligence that correlate to Fe/Fi and Se/Si that are not measured on the IQ test.

One can can likely say and demonstrate that NTs score higher on average in IQ tests, but it does not follow to say its proof of greater intelligence. Artistic intelligence is recognized by societies throughout history but not fully measured by IQ testing. Yes, parts of pattern recognition apply to artistic intelligence, but not the ability to convey subjective meaning and feeling that resonates through history. That is one of many examples of the limits of IQ. It measures something important but not everything that is important.

 

[EnnisPreit]

Me having a Mensa qualifying iq of 138 and dominant Ni/Ne Ti/Te doesnt mean I am better than any SFs or STs or NFs for that matter, but Ive consistently perform better since I can remember.
I also am "whole-brained" (using both sides equally), ambiverted, left handed, and have been an artist in many ways from painting to carving to airbrushing, music production, clothing design and more.
My artistic intelligence may not be correlated with my ability to use intuitiveness or thinking to score high on predetermined tests, but correlated it is...

 

[EnnisPreit]

Yes, parts of pattern recognition apply to artistic intelligence, but not the ability to convey subjective meaning and feeling that resonates through history. That is one of many examples of the limits of IQ. It measures something important but not everything that is important.

I find a big difference in ISFP "artists" and the NFs and NTs. You tell me.

Instagram.com/ennispreit/

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I've been in Mensa and have a doctorate in composition, so I also have some sense of which parts of my own intelligence are measured on the IQ and what parts are not. It is possible for someone to be artistically brilliant but with less correlation to what IQ measures.

It is important to be able to see and respect types of brilliance one does not personally possess.

I find a big difference in ISFP "artists" and the NFs and NTs. You tell me. Instagram.com/ennispreit/

I'm not decided on my type and have considered ISFP. I've thought Jimi Hendrix is an ISFP genius. It is important to me to respect different types of genius.

 

[EnnisPreit]

I've been in Mensa and have a doctorate in composition, so I also have some sense of which parts of my own intelligence are measured on the IQ and what parts are not. It is possible for someone to be artistically brilliant but with less correlation to what IQ measures.

It is important to be able to see and respect types of brilliance one does not personally possess.

I'm not decided on my type and have considered ISFP. I've thought Jimi Hendrix is an ISFP genius. It is important to me to respect different types of genius.

Very nice
And I realize how I come off sounding, wasnt my intention.
Just feel theres something more to just saying sensors are equal to intuitives but just different lol

 

[EcK]

It measures certain aspects of the intellectual abilities of average joes. It doesn't measure intellectual abilities in a wholistic way.

The areas of intelligence IQ measures does correlate well with Te/Ti and Ne/Ni ways of thinking. My point is that there are also forms of intelligence that correlate to Fe/Fi and Se/Si that are not measured on the IQ test.

One can can likely say and demonstrate that NTs score higher on average in IQ tests, but it does not follow to say its proof of greater intelligence. Artistic intelligence is recognized by societies throughout history but not fully measured by IQ testing. Yes, parts of pattern recognition apply to artistic intelligence, but not the ability to convey subjective meaning and feeling that resonates through history. That is one of many examples of the limits of IQ. It measures something important but not everything that is important.

bullshit, there's no such thing as 'emotional intelligence'. You're talking about a skill.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

bullshit, there's no such thing as 'emotional intelligence'. You're talking about a skill.

According to Howard Gardner there is intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences.

You differentiate between intelligence and skill. How do you define the difference? I would say that skill has less of an inherent quality being mostly learned. Emotional intelligence, like verbal intelligence, can be learned to an extent but has an inherent quality as well.

Describe your definitions for intelligence.