I'm certain I'm an INTP, but my friend thinks otherwise because I have a tendency to want to do things INFPs are more known for dreaming about. Today for example, I told her I wanted to swim with the whales. To me, it seems like a perfect emotional experience to get in touch with the vibrancy of the ocean. She yelled "Eye-en-eff-peeeeaaaaa!!!"
people who expect a change
who can't throw away their humanity
who stay idle in growth
who won't dirty their hands
those are the most terrifying of monsters
I keep thinking about how languages evolve over time . . . like each person interacting within the larger system, thereby each speaker having some amount of autonomy which works towards evolving/refining the system but there's like varying degrees of the strength of the speaker to modify the system dependent on the hierarchy of the speaker which can be assigned/adapted dependent on proximity to different features. You let the environment shape the hierarchy and the speaker, through repetition of certain connections between features? So like the speakers begin on something like a topographical map with different features (representations of concepts? mechanics? of the language) which they are defined by but also exists outside themselves which they are in relationship to? And they end up changing the probability distribution of the system to choose one path over another when presented with information? But you have like this heat map that is also changing the system due to new clusters of connections? There's lots of holes. But this also seems so painfully obvious . . . why am I even stating something so obvious? There needs to be something like the unchanging features from which the language evolves.
I think intelligence tends be thought of in such a narrow way. But I suppose the reality is that systems just by their nature are defined so therefore restricted. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the structure of one system doesn’t overlap with that of another by sharing elements which are in relation to one another in meaningful ways so as to create subsets. And in the case a lot more often than it seems people give credit actually there are times of element overlap without the two systems actually having much in common. There is often more than one plausible answer when the parameters are not clearly defined and it is due to this overlap. Often within life people assume the question being asked is much more defined than it actually is. The reality is that due to exposure and repetition we go with what seems to be the most probable and call this "correct". But to say that "3" is somehow more correct of an answer than 4 or 1 in the series 1,2, . . . is illogical without really defining the set. In the words of Bertrand Russell, "In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe." That may not be a direct quote so don't flame me. And that’s pretty much my opinion on IQ tests . . . and a lot within life.