User Tag List

First 545535455565765 Last

Results 541 to 550 of 793

  1. #541
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    So I went looking for "intelligence" in the MBTI Manual to see if there were any quotable type-specific points of pride. In the index they have just the one page reference which led one to a sentence expressing an interesting suggestion:

    "[I]ntelligence can be seen as a result of effective command of perception and judgment; that is, more information is taken in accurately, and better judgments are made."
    Good find, K.

    Interestingly enough, this is almost the exact same definition of intelligence I gave to my very intelligent IxTJ buddy a few years back while we were arguing about the topic at Sam's in Tiburon/SF.

    Don't hate too hard, but I work on Wall St. as a research analyst, so I get a very interesting view into a world filled with very many relatively "intelligent" people, but, more importantly, I get a very good view as to whether their perceptions and judgments are ultimately validated.

    Wall St. is beautiful in that sense, because it doesn't matter how smart you *think* you are, since, at the end of the day (or month, or year) the proof about how smart you *really* are will all be right there on paper, for everyone to see.

    That said, motherfuckers like George Soros, John Paulson, Warren Buffet, et al -- who have managed to consistently and correctly predict what is going to happen on a global basis for several decades -- are *very* fucking intelligent.
    Last edited by Zarathustra; 04-02-2010 at 01:03 PM.

  2. #542
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I know very many people with "high IQs".

    For some reason, they tend not to brag about it on forum threads.

    I wonder why?


    Only one person knows my IQ, besides myself.

    I do like to brag about my dad's freakishly high IQ, only because it turns out he, in so many more ways than one, was a completely incompetent asshat <- was going to write retard, but wanted to be PC.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  3. #543
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post



    Why is that? What better method do we have that is both practical and applicable?.
    How about a person's ability to propound original ideas and to reason critically? Who is more likely to be intelligent, one of the numerous MENSA members who scores 140 on the IQ test and is unable to even read a single book on any complex subject let alone make thought-provoking claims or a person who published an original and a conceptually nuanced dissertation on Mathematics? If intelligence is to be defined as an ability to solve complex problems, then it can certainly be measured by how a person performs in activities that clearly involve solving such puzzles. There is no doubt that typical IQ test problems are simplistic in comparison to the many abstruse conundrums that professional academics work with. As a matter of fact, you're offering us a far clearer indication of your own intelligence in this very thread than any of your IQ test results may!



    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Actually, if you research Arthur Jensen's g factor, you will learn that studies show that improvements on IQ tests are generally a result of specialized knowledge that allows for a higher score on that test (or series of very similar tests), and that test alone, and usually declines over time. This acquired ability does not translate to other psychometric tests..

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Somebody who actually does improve their IQ permanently across the entire range of psychometric tests most likely had a high IQ to begin with and simply misunderstood the earlier testing...
    What supporting rationale can you provide for such a strong claim? What non-controversial, scholarly authority can you cite in its support?


    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    People like this don't generally require training and improve over a very short period of time....
    That's a clever way to reiterate the foundationless assertion that nature intelligence exists and IQ tests indicate what one's natural intelligence is! Generally the proponents of your thesis, like Herrnstein and Murray would be inclined to say that a person's IQ test scores don't change and that is why natural intelligence exist. Yet you hold that any person who in the past received low scores and now consistently scores highly must have had a high intelligence to begin with. The trouble is, the argument from the consistency of test-takers' scores throughout their lifetime was what granted a foundation for the claim that there is 'natural intelligence' in the first place. Again, as common of numerous partisan defender's of the existence of intelligence and viability of IQ tests, you've reasoned in a decidedly circular manner.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    It requires you to understand the question and appropriate the necessary reasoning abilities (i.e. drawing inferences), utilize prior knowledge (i.e. crystallized intelligence), and coming to an overall conclusion (i.e. perception.)....
    That is not true in all cases. The simplicity of the underlying test system and its questions allows for one to succeed by rote learning and without engaging in the cognitive abilities that you've listed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    The tests do measure one level of the requisite cognitive functions, and the timing is used to measure the speed with which one can execute these functions and to set a limit that allows for individual comparison.
    In order to support this claim, you'd have to show that the only way a person can answer the test questions is by executing those functions and that no other skills or knowledge will allow him or her to perform well on the assessment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Nonsense. Stephen Jay Gould does not have the definitive word on the usefulness of IQ tests..


    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Read the works of Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton for a better and more honest understanding of IQ.
    As common of a defender of IQ test, you're making a number of controversial claims while providing little supporting rationale for them. Another tactic you employ is referencing to the ideas of controversial thinkers such as Jensen, Herrnstein or Lynn. The evidence for views for all of those authors is inconclusive, controversial and several of their key views have even been refuted by the American Psychological Association.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Actually, if you research Arthur Jensen's g factor, you will learn that studies show that improvements on IQ tests are generally a result of specialized knowledge that allows for a higher score on that test (or series of very similar tests), and that test alone, and usually declines over time. This acquired ability does not translate to other psychometric tests..
    It is senseless to merely regurgitate what Jensen may or may not have said on the subject. A real defense of an IQ test's indication of intelligence would require a definition of intelligence, a definition of the test and a careful juxtaposition of the two which suggests that the two entities are closely linked. Since you've done none of that, your conclusion rests on a dubious and a controversial viewpoint of one researcher who endorsed a certain partisan view on the subject of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Read the works of Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton for a better and more honest understanding of IQ.
    Can you provide any reason to believe that their discoveries accurately represent reality. Furthermore, can you cite one or more articles suggesting that the views on intelligence of at least one of these thinkers are supported by the consensus of professional psychologists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Nonsense. Stephen Jay Gould does not have the definitive word on the usefulness of IQ tests..
    No, but he exposed a great deal of fraud and errors of reasoning implicit in the work of researchers you cited. For example, the abuse of the factor analysis method. Spearman's 'g' that also resurfaces in the work of Jensen performs a mathematical analysis of the scores people receive on their tests without providing any justification for why intelligence exists as a single entity in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    IQ has been successfully correlated with many facets of life, and only those who wish to remain willfully ignorant or scientifically dishonest deny this in the psychological community...
    The claim that a person's IQ test results have a great deal to do with how they do in life is not questioned, what is impugned is whether the IQ tests indicate intelligence. A person's grades or standardized test scores commonly employed by universities also correlate highly with his success. However, many people who do earn high grades or test scores do so by virtue of their perseverance and industriousness rather than intelligence. There are many reasons why a person can succeed in life as there are many reasons why a person can do well on an IQ test and they do overlap. There is no reason to suppose that only intelligence is the reason for both. At any rate, you offered no support for that assumption.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #544
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    People who appear intelligent are the ones who are very good at what you wish you could do, try to do, enjoy doing or want to do This is different then IQ as its a personal opinion of a persons intelligence vs a number from an IQ test.
    Im out, its been fun

  5. #545
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Using intelligence tests

    There is one more problem with IQ tests, this time not about making them or giving them, but about using them:

    There was an experiment by Rosenthal in which school teachers were casually told at the beginning of the school year that certain students (mentioned by name) were "spurters," that, according to some tests designed to measure "spurting," they would blossom in the coming year. Actually no such test had been given. In fact, no such test exists. The information was actually given about 20% of the students, chosen at random.

    These kids not only did well academically (which we might expect, with teachers having some control over that), but actually increased their IQ test scores!

    The same, incidentally, happens with rats: Graduate students told that certain rats had been bred for intelligence found that they did indeed do better at learning mazes -- even though the information was false!

    This is a form of experimenter bias, of course, and part of the reason we have double blinds in experiments. but in the broader, social arena, we call this the self-fulfilling prophecy, or the labelling effect. It is clear that we should take children as individuals and give them whatever education they can handle. Unfortunately, that is costly.
    Source: Intelligence and IQ

    If I simply label you INTJ's as S-M-R-T, will that make you happy? It should work as well as any other self-fulfilling prophecy.

    You understand that there are pros and cons to everything, and your kind of intelligence can be a double-edged sword.

    Just get out there and use your brain to invent something useful already instead of blabbing on and on about it !!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  6. #546
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by poki View Post
    People who appear intelligent are the ones who are very good at what you wish you could do, try to do, enjoy doing or want to do This is different then IQ as its a personal opinion of a persons intelligence vs a number from an IQ test.
    No, some activities are more indicative of a person's ability to solve abstract puzzles. I wish I was a good basketball player and enjoying playing basketball, but that does not mean that I believe that anyone who is good at basketball is intelligent. There is a way of observing a person's intelligence in work of mathematics or physics for example that does not rely on an arbitrary personal opinion. For instance, it is difficult to argue that it is merely a personal opinion that Einstein's discoveries in physics are indicative of his intelligence. IQ tests are assumed to indicate a person's intelligence because they force him to use 'intelligence' presumably. They do the same thing as physics puzzles, the trouble is that it is easier to do well on an IQ test by rote learning rather than display of intelligent thinking than it is to discover something complex and original in physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Erm, you're onto a very important discovery. Stephen Jay Gould (1981) discussed this notion in depth. Intelligence is not a single entity and its definition is at best vague and at worst incoherent. Its true that people who do well on one type of a cognitive task tend to do well on many others, however, this does not show that we know their innate intelligence. Many of the tests can be mastered by rote learning and focus on culture-specific phenomena and do not cover taks that assess important cognitive abilities. They also ignore a deep conceptual issue regarding the question of whether or not IQ itself is a coherent notion. Consider for example the work of a Mathematician and compare it to that of a historian. Both scholars would be required to proficiently use imagination and engage in deductive reasoning. However, mathematics requires more deductive reasoning than brainstorming and vice versa is the case with history. Clearly, some people are better at one than the other and some are more talented at one than the other. Even among mathematicians there is a rift between problem solvers and theory builders. It does not exactly correspond to the discrepancy between visionaries and deductive analysts, but it does point out that people who are clearly intelligent tend to excell at one type of an activity more than at the other. The foundational notion of IQ testing, namely that there is an exact figure assessing how smart a person is, or how well he will solve all problems is mythical. At best, there are vague approximations regarding how a person will fair in most intellectual affairs, but the lack of nuance greatly undermines the argument of the proponent of IQ testing.

    You should, however, clarify your conceptual distinction between IQ and intelligence. I am guessing one means a person's IQ test-result and the other is intelligence. How is intelligence a scalar quality? The entity in itself does not yield to a precise measurement. It is an agreggate of multiple cognitive abilities. If IQ tests were able to test the functioning of all abilities relevant to problem solving the result would at best be an average of all of those scores, which would be symbolized as a single number. In itself the number would tell very little about how a person will solve all problems. For example, he could be better than 99.99% of contestants at memorizing items, yet inferior to 7% of other test-takers in using his imagination but also superior to 98% of his competitors in deductive reasoning. In order to know how well he will perform in a certain intellectual task, we'd be well advised to determine how well he performs in specific cognitive activities that are required by the task the most. If 'general intelligence' is not an incoherent concept resultant of a hasty generalization fallacy, tell me what is!

    A challenger of the theory I have advanced above may claim that people who are good at analysis are also imaginative and have a formiddable memory. For the very least, in most cases, when a person's displays competence in one area, he can develop skills in others. Such an example of course excludes a number of idiosyncratic cases, such as the Savant syndrome.

    There is a certain underpinning for intelligence, but it is rather vague and abstract. I cannot provide an accurate descriptive account of this phenomenon without relying on analogical reasoning and concrete examples. Lets imagine a man who is 'in shape', suppose that his regular exercising program consists of lifting weights, running and playing hockey. In all of these activities, he uses various skills that will prove timely in other physical contests that he may encounter. For instance, he would be more likely to succeed as a soccer or a tennis player than someone who is 'couch-potato'. The case is such because he regularly cultivates many athletical skills consistently, just as the historian, the mathematician and the political scientist exercises all cognitive skills. It is true that they rely on some more than others, but nonetheless, they could prevail in academic tasks that require a different type of cognitive work than the kind they're accustomed simply because they've practiced them more. Thus, in order to do one type of intellectual work, you need to participate in nearly all other kinds, at least occassionally. This, however, does not mean that you perform equally well in all of them and precisely for this reason, the concept of intelligence is rendered untenable. To assert that a person has a general intelligence is as grotesquely absurd as to claim that he also has AQ or general 'athleticism' the implication of which is that he is equally skilled at all athletic activities that we may imagine! This means that he is equally good at ice-skating and weight-lifting. The range of cognitive activities is nearly as wide as that of athletic abilities. As a soccer fan, I often notice that not all players are equally good at all activities that pertain to the sport of their professional specialization. For example, some are excellent shooters, yet inadequate tacklers, some have great pace, but encounter terrible difficulties shooting accurately on target. If we see such disparities in one sport, it would be hopeless non-sense to assert that a person's competence at one athletic activity can be generalized to all possible athletic activities. Similarly, a person who has the skill-set of a typical academic such as analytical reasoning, pattern recognition and memorization may be destitute of other important intellectual abilities that we often overlook. I can comment on this from personal experience. As a philosophy student I have often observed English, Historians and Art scholars struggle with philosophical concepts. Similarly, many students and professionals working in philosophy, physics or mathematics struggled as literature or art critics. Almost none of the analytic philosophers have the kind of a prose that mathces the artistic talents of the more artistically minded scholars. For this reason, academics of the exact sciences have alienated the humanities and vice versa. Its not that they simply have no interest in the disciplines of one another, but its a fact that the scholars are more talented at one academic enterprise than the other. They are often able to succeed in disciplines that are similar to their own, but not in those that are significantly different. For instance, many mathematicians have abandoned their discipline in favor of philosophy, yet fewer of them have become historians, art critics of English scholars.

    At this point I have limited my discussion to strictly intelligence or ability to solve various complex problems. I've purposefully omitted any reference to the concept of 'innate intelligence' as it is far too vague and hopeless confused to be addressed in a serious conversation. To say the least of it, the authors of the Bell Curve claimed that the intelligence and IQ test-scores of children do not change throughout their lives. Famously, the American Psychological Association found no evidence to support their claim and stated that intelligence is mostly a result of a person's experience with the environment. (See Bloom 2007, Lecture 13 Session 13 - Why Are People Different?: Differences &mdash; Open Yale Courses)

    This post should be read more. It cuts to some of the fundamental conceptual issues regarding the debate on Intelligence. Unlike the contributions of many of our highly esteemed members, it does not merely make vague assertions that are either circular in reasoning or supported by dubious discoveries of controversial researchers such as Jensen or Herrnstein.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #547
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    Why? Because I tire of his pointless replies which do little to advance the argument and do everything to make him seem like a haughty teenager who just read his first philosophical work and now thinks he is in a position to profess his "insight" to others. What conversation is he "feeding"? His responses are inane. Of course, he is far from the only one who does this, but he targets me so I direct it at him.

    Respect and courtesy to those who deserve it.

    Reverentia merenda est.
    He has a BA in philosophy and has published a book on Jungian typology. Why do I get the feeling he knows significantly more about both subjects than you do?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #548
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    He has a BA in philosophy and has published a book on Jungian typology. Why do I get the feeling he knows significantly more about both subjects than you do?
    Thank you, however, I believe Lex was deriding Zarathustra, not me. Nonetheless your suggestion that he should cut down on substanceless ridicule has merit in its own right.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #549
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Agreed.

    On both counts.

  10. #550
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    No, some activities are more indicative of a person's ability to solve abstract puzzles. I wish I was a good basketball player and enjoying playing basketball, but that does not mean that I believe that anyone who is good at basketball is intelligent. There is a way of observing a person's intelligence in work of mathematics or physics for example that does not rely on an arbitrary personal opinion. For instance, it is difficult to argue that it is merely a personal opinion that Einstein's discoveries in physics are indicative of his intelligence. IQ tests are assumed to indicate a person's intelligence because they force him to use 'intelligence' presumably. They do the same thing as physics puzzles, the trouble is that it is easier to do well on an IQ test by rote learning rather than display of intelligent thinking than it is to discover something complex and original in physics.
    Ok, do INTJs use rote learning or do they discover something complex and original? If Ni is like memory and overlaying patterns and systems do they really discover something new or is it extremely good application of rote learning leading to a false IQ score? I think INTPs can put INTJs to shame when it comes to intelligence in regards to creating something complex and new. This is where a shallow Ne really shines along with a dominant Ti to filter things out. I am not saying they are not intelligent or they are not smart, but if you say intelligence is about discovering something new then doesnt that go against the concept of dominant Ni actually being intelligent and you are supporting what you believe intelligence is?

    Who is to define new and complex anyway. If a person discovers the same theories as einstein is he not intelligent because its not new to the world, but he discovered it on his own? How much of your definition of intelligent thinking is applied to what you try to do or what you are good at? Success is not an indicator of intelligence, just apparent intelligence which leads back to my statement.
    Im out, its been fun

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] Quotes, Songs, Commercials, GIFs
    By Nieland in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2015, 09:21 PM
  2. [INTJ] INTJ Quote Of The Day
    By Mal12345 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 11-23-2012, 11:32 AM
  3. Words of Wisdom, Inspiring Quotes, etc
    By rivercrow in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 06:39 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Quote on Intution
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 01:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO