• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Which type is mostly likely to become superintelligent genius

Which type will most likely be a superintelligent genius


  • Total voters
    59

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
:worthy:

Every type can be geniuses in their own way.

The NFs are geniuses at genocide.

adolf_hitler_biography_2.jpg



GODWINED!!!
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It seems to me that philosophy, or perhaps as it is practiced academically, is concerned precisely with questions that are unanswerable. When a question can be answered it becomes part of another discipline. Look at economics as a social science or even the grpwth of natural philosophy to science.

I wouldn't want to restrict philosophy's purpose to this one alone, but, based on what you (accurately) pointed out here, perhaps one of philosophy's more practical uses is to extend human thought onto new paths that eventually become disciplines all their own...

Perhaps these questions are philosophical in nature but asking them of yourself does not make you a philosopher, it makes you human. Most of the well known philosophers lived so far from the normal human experience they have little to offer in terms of guidance.

We're all philosophers.

Some are just more arrogant, stubborn, and, perhaps, sometimes accurate, than others.

... dammit I'm philosophizing again.

Glad you picked up on that.

:jew:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Indeed, by studying these grandiloquent and dead philosophers and their philosophies, we may come to a better understanding of ourselves and what we want to accomplish and what we think is good or bad. By studying these certain sorts of philosophies a person can come to a better of himself...

+1

I believe it was that great philosopher, Hunter S. Thompson, who said something along the lines of, "I'm not so arrogant as to think I could reach the same heights without standing on the shoulders of other great men."
 

suttree

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
231
MBTI Type
intP
Indeed, by studying these grandiloquent and dead philosophers and their philosophies, we may come to a better understanding of ourselves and what we want to accomplish and what we think is good or bad. By studying these certain sorts of philosophies a person can come to a better of himself -- Suttree has somehow forgotten this is true and so his paragraph borders upon the ironic.

Seriously, what has Kant done for you lately? Logical positivism? Platonic ideals?

I find it odd that he is using a philosophical approach to justify his position -- philosophically. Hehehehe.

I'm glad I'm not the only one entertained by the thread.
 

suttree

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
231
MBTI Type
intP
+1

I believe it was that great philosopher, Hunter S. Thompson, who said something along the lines of, "I'm not so arrogant as to think I could reach the same heights without standing on the shoulders of other great men."

i defer to Sir Thompson's insight. You're correct in that I have been greatly influenced ny the philosophical ideas generated by many others.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Seriously, what has Kant done for you lately? Logical positivism? Platonic ideals?

I haven't read much of Kant. I think the only thing I've read about him had something to do with an absolute need to believe in a god -- at the time I was on the toilet and so I stopped reading because I decided there was too much shitting going on.

His mother gives great head though. Just ask anyone.

I'm glad I'm not the only one entertained by the thread.

Indeed.
 

suttree

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
231
MBTI Type
intP
Lol.

But you're a full-fledged human, right? I thought all humans were philosophers. Shouldn't philosophers have studied the famous philosophies?

There seem to be quite a few activities that are being lumped together as philosophizing:

1) Inspiring and guiding peoples journey towards meaning, mindfulness and fulfillment. This seems to be the use Zarasthustra et al seem to be defending. I would argue most writers, teachets, parents, friends, etc engage in this activity without the logical approach of philosophy and while philosophers have also engaged in this activity, the activity itself is not philosophy.

2) Attempting to construct systems of thought around an individuals goofy ideas. See Plato, Nietzche, Kant, Ayn Rand. You want arrogant and stubborn? See these guys. Fruitfull and useful? Not particularly.

3) Long winded arguments in reaction to previous long winded arguments. See the progression of analytic philosophy. This is the stuff of professorships. Useful? Every once in a while it may spin off a new discipline, as Z suggested. It keeps book publishers making money as undergrads buy stuff fpr class. And it maintains a long tradition fpr what thats worth.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
2) Attempting to construct systems of thought around an individuals goofy ideas. See Plato, Nietzche, Kant, Ayn Rand. You want arrogant and stubborn? See these guys. Fruitfull and useful? Not particularly.
"Everything my generation discussed, inwardly exposed itself to, you can say: suffered, you can also say: unfurled - all that had already been expressed and exhausted itself in Nietzsche."
- Gottfried Benn (1886 - 1956)

Nietzsche was, as he himself put it, dynamite: he changed my life. I think it is pretty needless to defend Plato and Kant, and Ayn Rand doesn't give a damn.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
There should be a stupidity filter for certain posters and certain topics.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Shouldn't philosophers have studied the famous philosophies?

One would hope/think it would help, but that is not necessarily the case.

One can know the canon, but suck as a philosopher.

One could not know the canon, but be a great philosopher.

There seem to be quite a few activities that are being lumped together as philosophizing:

1) Inspiring and guiding peoples journey towards meaning, mindfulness and fulfillment. This seems to be the use Zarasthustra et al seem to be defending. I would argue most writers, teachets, parents, friends, etc engage in this activity without the logical approach of philosophy and while philosophers have also engaged in this activity, the activity itself is not philosophy.

I own a lecture series on this exact topic.

The lecturer argues that academic philosophy has gotten away from the true purpose of philosophy, which you have clearly stated.

I would say that the best philosophers are the people who have the greatest advice for the greatest number of people, in this regard.

There are also those who have great advice for a limited audience; they are also great, in their own right.

2) Attempting to construct systems of thought around an individuals goofy ideas. See Plato, Nietzche, Kant, Ayn Rand. You want arrogant and stubborn? See these guys. Fruitfull and useful? Not particularly.

C'mon, dude.

Reading Plato is excellent for one's development and thinking.

Kant and Nietzsche can be as well (as long as one doesn't go off the deep end).

Ayn Rand: well, she mostly sucks. Hers was basically a weak, sickly version of Nietzsche's philosophy, with a few changes. The one thing I will give her credit for is her critique of libertarianism, which, as a libertarian, I found compelling.

3) Long winded arguments in reaction to previous long winded arguments. See the progression of analytic philosophy. This is the stuff of professorships. Useful? Every once in a while it may spin off a new discipline, as Z suggested. It keeps book publishers making money as undergrads buy stuff fpr class. And it maintains a long tradition fpr what thats worth.

Agreed here.

I prefer continental philosophy.

I also think continental philosophy tends to be more aimed at fulfilling #1.
 

suttree

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
231
MBTI Type
intP
C'mon, dude.

Reading Plato is excellent for one's development and thinking.

Kant and Nietzsche can be as well (as long as one doesn't go off the deep end).

Ayn Rand: well, she mostly sucks. Hers was basically a weak, sickly version of Nietzsche's philosophy, with a few changes. The one thing I will give her credit for is her critique of libertarianism, which, as a libertarian, I found compelling.

Granted.

I take issue with making ridiculous claims in earnest. Like Plato's metaphysics. Or Kant claiming murder is preferable to masturbation.
 

Speed Gavroche

Whisky Old & Women Young
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
5,152
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You're a dumbtard.

NFs can be scientific geniuses, literary geniuses, philosophical geniuses, you name it.

And, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!

Read up on some stats regarding IQ and MBTI type correlation, there are plenty of NFs who are, in fact, geniuses.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Every types can be genius.

But there's different varieties of genius.

INTP: The Genius (the most classic example)
ENTP: The Dynamic Genius (or even hysteric genius)
INTJ: The Genius Who Takes Himself Seriously (very mad and dengerous genius)
INFP: The Sensitive Genius
ISTP: The Pragmatic Genius
ENTJ: The Dynamic Genius who takes himself seriously (The Boss of the Genius)
ENFP: The Dynamic and Sensitive Genius
INFJ: The Sensitive Genius who takes himself seriously
ESTP: The Dynamic and Pragmatic Genius
ISFP: The Pragmatic ans Sensitive Genius
ISTJ: The Pragmatic Genius who takes himself seriously
ESTJ: The Pragmatic and Dynamic Genius who takes himself seriously
ISFJ: The Pragmatic and Sensitive Genius who takes himself seriously
ESFP: The Dynamic, Pragmatic and Sensitive Genius
ENFJ: The Dynamic and Sensisitive Genius who takes himself seriously
ESFJ: The Dynamic, Pragmatic and Sensitive Genius who takes himself seriously
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I take issue with making ridiculous claims in earnest. Like Plato's metaphysics. Or Kant claiming murder is preferable to masturbation.
I would like to see the passage in which Kant states that murder is preferable to masturbation.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I would like to see the passage in which Kant states that murder is preferable to masturbation.

:laugh:

I was thinking the same thing.

I think he's just making a joke, Nico.

I do find many of Kant's "moral examples" to be ridiculous, though.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I think he's just making a joke, Nico.
I think I would have chosen another name had I known that at one point I would be called Nico.

I do find many of Kant's "moral examples" to be ridiculous, though.
Me too. I am actually a non-cognitivist. But if you buy his premisses, it is hard to argue with Kant. Most people are consequentialists by nature; if it comes to torture, though, you will most likely have recourse to a deontological approach much like Kant's.
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Where do your views diverge from mine?

I'm talking about the op and the whole idea of having a type more likely to become a "superintelligent genius".

1.) Multiple threads have already been opened concerning a possible correlation between MBTI and IQ.

2.) "Superintelligent genius" is an incomprehensible concept in itself since I support Gardner's theory of intelligence.

3.) The fact that some types may or may not have bigger IQs does not mean that they're more likely to contain "geniuses". Even if we accept such largely oversimplified statements as, say, a) 'genius = 150 IQ +' at a sd. of 15, and b) the average IQ of an INTP is higher than the average IQ of an ESFP, we still don't know anything about the MBTI distribution of genius-range people. What if there are a lot more unintelligent ESFPs than unintelligent INTPs, but there are slightly more superintelligent ESFPs than superintelligent INTPs? Is this even measurable because of the small sample and ambiguous definitions? Will it ever be? Is there a meaning in this topic? I highly doubt it.

4.) The opener is an angry nerd with delusional revenge fantasies and laughable 'theories', not to be trusted. I don't know what he wrote in the first posts since I have him on ignore, but I'm sure it's something very insightful.
 
Top