MBTI Type and I.Q.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of radical behavior; rooting for the underdog and so forth. In a way, criminals tend to be dissatisfied with things as they are and so are willing to make changes. And so I figured, in that way, there is some sort of correlation between that and Openness.

Well... maybe a sub-set of criminals. In general, most high-IQ people are not criminals, hence not Ns. Very little crime is from the need to change the system, or even the willingness to change the system. Most incentives for crime come either from deviancy (often fitting in nowhere else/being able to function at the level of expectation they have for themselves) or self service (incentive greater than risk).

[Uberfuhrer]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Well... maybe a sub-set of criminals. In general, most high-IQ people are not criminals, hence not Ns.

I assume that serial killers are more likely N, because most are motivated by fantasies.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

I don't think math is an Intuitive pursuit at all. Math isn't really abstract -- at least not in the Intuitive sense. Contrarily, it's detail-oriented factual logic and highly systematic. Math is problem solving concerned with finding a definite answer -- very ISTP- or ISTJ-ish if you ask me.

The INTP and INTJ would be more comfortable with flawed logic, because N is open to fanciful rather than systematic thinking. Hence, contrary to popular belief, the INTP and INTJ are not nitpicking types.

Let's review that the N isn't about intelligence, it's about creative thinking. Math is quite the opposite way of thinking.

As far as MBTI the most important trait for doing math is having T. But even then you have to have some aptitude for it also. On the other hand I think the second most important trait for doing math is N. I wouldn't doubt that there are a few NF's that have developed some good math skills, but without the T I doubt that they could explain their reasoning as clearly as a thinker. N is very useful for problem solving though. It's quite possible to be able to solve a problem without giving a clear explanation for how you arrived at your answer.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Well... maybe a sub-set of criminals. In general, most high-IQ people are not criminals, hence not Ns.

Though the statement as read seems to be something like:
High IQ implies Not Criminals, therfore High IQ implies not Ns. ??

I think it was meant to say:
High IQ implies Not Criminals, N implies High IQ (from prior post), therfore N implies not criminal.


My non-sequitur alarm went off at this statement. Uberfuhrer may still be right.

The following argument is valid:

Premise 1:A person with high IQ will not be a criminal.
Premise 2:An iNtuitive person will have high IQ.
Conclusion:An iNtuitive person will not be a criminal.

The following argument is not sound:

Premise 1a:A person with high IQ will likely not be a criminal.
Premise 2a:An iNtuitive person will likely have high IQ.
non-sequitur:An iNtuitive person will likely not be a criminal.

You need to bring in some more data/premises.

Consider the follwing hypothetical situation.
10% of the people have high IQ, are not criminals and are not iNtuitives.
5% of the poeple have high IQ, are cirminals and are iNtuitives.
70% of the people do not have High IQs, are not criminals, and are not iNtuitives.
15% of the people do not have high IQs, are criminals, and not iNtuitives

Here premises 1a, and premise 2a, hold, but the non-sequitur clearly does not.

[Uberfuhrer]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

N is very useful for problem solving though. It's quite possible to be able to solve a problem without giving a clear explanation for how you arrived at your answer.

Yeah, but the S would more likely use math to figure out the answer, while the N will use a hunch. I think actual science is an ST field, while pseudo-science is NT, since pseudo-science is a combination of speculation and systems (as opposed to people) orientation.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Yeah, but the S would more likely use math to figure out the answer, while the N will use a hunch. (I think science is a largely ST field.)

Both the T and the N approach are using math. Math is the art of solving problems. It highly relies on using logic, which favors a T approach, but the N approach is still valid. Both ways are using math.

However without a well developed Ti or Te the ability to explain one's reasoning is quite limited.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

I assume that serial killers are more likely N, because most are motivated by fantasies.

I think you are probably right for certain groupings of serial killers... but I don't know that much about criminology. I know that openness plays a part in narcisstic behaviour to a moderate amount, and that narcissism is one of 3 (4?) traits that serial killers can have...

Originally Posted by ygolo

Though the statement as read seems to be something like:
High IQ implies Not Criminals, therefore High IQ implies not Ns. ??

Yes, you are correct - I wasn't saying that Ns are not criminals, only that they are under-represented - because they have higher IQs and lower IQs are a direct influence on crime. I was connecting too many ideas in too many short sentences. I would spend the time to argue this all out, but the short of it is that criminals are normally Ss, especially repeats and have low IQs (those do go together in this case, independent and together).

In any case, it is the low IQ that causes criminality (I think it comes from a lack of forsight and inability to perform in society at high enough material level, etc), not the S/N divide. This is different than the J/P divide which is very correlated to deviant behaviour (and often criminal). (C- and N+ being the major criminal factors, using FFM).

Their may be an exception for narcissistic serial killers and openness - I wouldn't be surprised - which would also imply that narcissistic serial killers have high IQs (rather unlike serial gang bangers, for example, which are also serial killers.) The source of motivation is simply different.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by alexkreuz

from what i've seen so far, the SJs tend to do better on IQ tests if and only if they've studied and memorized the subject matter rigorously ahead of time ..

I consider studying IQ tests is a misnomer or a misunderstanding.. some tests that indicate and correlate strongly with IQ can be studied, but without almost any effect to real IQ at all: say for example SAT. IQ really has only 2% to do with knowledge level in any measures. The most psychometrically valid actually completely eradicate the need for prior knowledge, hence their scores cannot be improved by remembering anything.

There are exceptions to these actual and theoretical claims.

As a math expert I find it easy to do "tests" on number series quickly, such as testing if a number series includes a rule to two consecutive numbers or such. Knowledge of widely used number series helps to make that judgement faster.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer

Yeah, but the S would more likely use math to figure out the answer, while the N will use a hunch. I think actual science is an ST field, while pseudo-science is NT, since pseudo-science is a combination of speculation and systems (as opposed to people) orientation.

Sounds like a bit nonsense to me.. I am strong N and have a habit of instantly evaluating statements with strictly factual basis according to established scientific procedures, and I dont consider that as deviating from my N tendencies. I am not into pseudosciences at all, rather I agree with views of Robert T. Carroll, as in The Skeptic's Dictionary.

I consider using N to draw from a variety of possiblities that might "match" in a given situation, and I improve upon my initial judgements with T type thinking. I consider N to greatly help in noticing things that might be useful in a given situation, even when such connections might never have been taught to me. I think that S would use some kind of denial mechanism more easily in unfamiliar territory, limiting the choice of theories that they could find and prove right.

[Santtu]

Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser

Both the T and the N approach are using math. Math is the art of solving problems. It highly relies on using logic, which favors a T approach, but the N approach is still valid. Both ways are using math.

However without a well developed Ti or Te the ability to explain one's reasoning is quite limited.

I agree with you to great extent. "Science" does not define how to make a theory, assumption or a hypothesis, with the exception in the most well-defined, narrowed-down details. Strict adherence to validated procedures is of course needed to maintain validity of the experiments as well as the theories. It is easier to notice deviance from parameters with S-type thinking, when the expected value is known already. With all the fact-checking and double-checking, and N person is capable to do that job too.

N is instead greatly useful to form new hyphothesis and to work in an uncharted territory. I wouldn't say that N is required, but it helps. S (with recalling details exactly) is required, but science is not about using details in the way they have always been used, but in an innovative way. Well, I would say that a S person could learn the "innovative" way as the regular way and do good science. SP are innovative in another sense, but do they choose scientific careers so often?

Both N and S type of scientist need to study existing publications too to find where the state of research is going and what would need to be studied next.

Edison's close associate commented how he refused to do any theoretical work, making him to perform tests and build models that would have easily and immediately been noticed as unworkable, given the slighest understanding of principles behind the test procedure. He , and suspect something along the lines of 40% too much work being done with the purely empiristic brute force method.

I would say that N combined with T is more adept in foreseeing the consequences of actions in an uncharted territory, where as S with T is more so in what is already known. Doing science requires a skillfull combination of both, no matter where a person's preferences are in.