MBTI Type and I.Q.

[Kristiana]

Research has shown that in the gifted population, introverts are significantly more common than in the general population. This doesn't mean that all introverts are gifted, but that the two qualities do often correlate.

Also, more than 8 out of 10 National Merit Finalists are N types. This is quite disproportionate to the N types in the general population (2.5 out of 10). Again, this doesn't mean that all N types have high IQs, nor that all people with high IQs are N types, but that N-ness and IQ tend to go together.

[gloomy-optimist]

Honestly, I think each type is smartest in some area. You don't have to judge on IQ because I think everyone pretty much agrees that that's no real basis to judge intelligence.
But I notice some types are better with raw facts; some types are better with abstract concepts; some types are better with common sense factors.
So basically, there's no one type that's the most intelligent.

[Eileen]

Originally Posted by RansomedbyFire

I find this kind of strange because I would imagine that Sensing and Thinking would make one smarter rather than going by one's emotions. Strange...

This betrays your lack of understanding of this typology.

[Cimarron]

Originally Posted by Eileen

This betrays your lack of understanding of this typology.

I understand what he's getting at, though. It's why N just seems like "witchcraft" when you're observing it, and not experiencing it yourself.

[Grayscale]

the problem here is that there is a difference between saying that IQ testing favors the intuitive style of thinking and that people who have a cognitive preference for intuition are better at IQ testing.

someone who commutes two hours to work and back every day may drive more on average than a professional NASCAR driver, but that doesn't mean they are better at it.

even if IQ was significant, it would be difficult to tie it to a type rather than cognitive functions... which wouldnt say much, since types are just order of preference of the same CPs.


lastly, if you were to correlate IQ to a CP, it would be a thinking function, it wouldnt make any sense whatsoever for it to relate to feeling, introversion, extroversion, sensing, or intuition as i would define it, just thinking... ie Ti or Te. type is still irrelevant, though, because even an IxFP or ExFJ could have a stronger thinking function than IxTP or ExTJ.

Mensa Fun Test

how would emotions prove useful here? how would an "ability to sense or know immediately without reasoning" going to help you solve mathematical problems? if the questions were truly intuitive, then they'd be too easy, most IQ tests want to test your critical thinking and reasoning skills. Let us look at the first question:

"Sally likes 225 but not 224; she likes 900 but not 800; she likes 144 but not 145. Which does she like?"

A) 1600
B) 1700

Sally likes 1600, because being a square number is the only mathematical attribute that both fits all of the numbers she likes and differentiates A from B. She doesn't like 1600 because of some mystical bond she feels with it along with the the others, 1600 doesn't look anything like the others, and although someone might say they just intuitively "knew" it was 1600, the logical (ie, Tx) reasoning above is the only way someone could consistently come to the correct answer.




what we need is a test that could measure the strength of the cognitive functions instead of just the order.

[entropie]

what we need is a test that could measure the strength of the cognitive functions instead of just the order.

You sound like an engineer and I dread them

[noigmn]

Originally Posted by Grayscale

how would emotions prove useful here? how would an "ability to sense or know immediately without reasoning" going to help you solve mathematical problems? if the questions were truly intuitive, then they'd be too easy, most IQ tests want to test your critical thinking and reasoning skills. Let us look at the first question:

"Sally likes 225 but not 224; she likes 900 but not 800; she likes 144 but not 145. Which does she like?"

A) 1600
B) 1700

Sally likes 1600, because being a square number is the only mathematical attribute that both fits all of the numbers she likes and differentiates A from B. She doesn't like 1600 because of some mystical bond she feels with it along with the the others, 1600 doesn't look anything like the others, and although someone might say they just intuitively "knew" it was 1600, the logical (ie, Tx) reasoning above is the only way someone could consistently come to the correct answer.

what we need is a test that could measure the strength of the cognitive functions instead of just the order.

You've obviously never experienced Ne. Some things are initially learned using thinking, but Ne will do any of them. And it is evolutionary. It reworks itself and develops new thinking systems on the fly. It maps whole systems out on just seeing them. It sees patterns where no one else would notice any order. And it has little or no fear of complexity, as long as the data is present to intuit it.

Your example is perfect for Ne, as is most of an IQ test. I glanced at it and thought "yeh, whatever, square numbers, 1600." Rather than thinking, each step just hits you as an intuit, with reasoning included (because you are consciously aware of the workings of extroverted functions). Also if you think thinking is needed for new things: My father is an INTP with IQ 180. I can answer complex questions about new things I've never seen before faster than him nearly 100% of the time. For him the foreignness of the system takes a while to accept and understand. For Dom Ne, on the other hand, a solution is extrapolated from previous systems almost instantly. And then confirmed against potential realities and impacts; usually down to the last detail about what will and won't work.

On IQ tests the only questions I pause on are vocabulary related when they ask which word describes something best and I don't know the definitions that well, though that doesn't happen now I write more. And the other is when they say which is the odd one out, and I see more than one valid option because whoever wrote the test wasn't an EN*P so left it semi-ambiguous. In these situations I normally think what would the test writer choose, and go for the most boring option .

[Tiltyred]

On the math thing -- the reason I flunked math all my life had nothing to do with math but rather with math classes and how the teachers insisted you come to the front of the class and do problems on the board. I can't do that. And if I think I'll be called upon, I can't think. I can't work if someone's watching me. Math class made me nauseated with anxiety.

But one time my family moved someplace where we would only be there a few months, and I talked to the math teacher and he agreed to basically pretend I did not exist (let me sit in the back and promised never to call on me for any reason) so I could relax ... and I made an A in algebra and I loved it. I finally fell into the groove.

I took logic instead of math in college and I loved it and made As.

[FDG]

Originally Posted by Tiltyred

On the math thing -- the reason I flunked math all my life had nothing to do with math but rather with math classes and how the teachers insisted you come to the front of the class and do problems on the board. I can't do that. And if I think I'll be called upon, I can't think. I can't work if someone's watching me. Math class made me nauseated with anxiety.

But one time my family moved someplace where we would only be there a few months, and I talked to the math teacher and he agreed to basically pretend I did not exist (let me sit in the back and promised never to call on me for any reason) so I could relax ... and I made an A in algebra and I loved it. I finally fell into the groove.

I took logic instead of math in college and I loved it and made As.

Ahah, you know, I'm completely the opposite. I always do my best at subjects where I know I am going to talk and explain the problems in front of the class.

[gloomy-optimist]

I honestly think "intelligence" is independent of type. There are smart people and dumb people in every type.
The only difficult thing is finding something that would accurately gauge intelligence, since certain types are better with certain types of tests due to ways of coming to conclusions (cognitive functions).

I think we should just not worry about it; measuring overall "intelligence" is a little too specific to too many factors.