[NT] Do you think you're intellectually superior to the poster above you?

[EcK]

Hey! There were NFs in here! I'm not unprecedented.

Yeah I hoped to get away with that one
lets call it a draw

 

[Riva]

That seems like a baseless statement. Care to elaborate? About the penis size I believe studies say that on average guys want like 1 more inch or something. Dunno about Width though. And where does it end?

Ego does trump the intellect. I will have to go to specifics to explain this to you. Lets consider an example where one wants to prove something. (Superiority etc.) It is the ego that wants to prove it, not the intellect. (Sure the both of us can agree on that.). Lets assume that the intellect realizes that the repercussions of such an argument (show off) will only result in something unproductiuve or even worse, destructive. Therefore the intellect lets oneself to back off.

So you could assume that the intellect won wouldn't you?

That is hardly the case. The intellect convinced oneself that the intellect is superior or one saw something the other didn't see, the intellect is right etc and thereby convices oneself to back off. So now the ego has changed. Once the ego wanted to stay there and spill some blood now the intellect has convinced the oneself to change one's perceptions. Therefore the ego has changed.

Are you calling introverted hermits stupid?

Not at all. I am just saying -

at the end of the day all things imagined, intuitive, creative or brilliant has to be measured in whatever possible measurements to be considered worthwhile. Unless of course one is an INTP.

Basically saying that the introverted hermits rarely care about the measurement of what ever things, tangible or intangible.

 

[EcK]

That is hardly the case. The intellect convinced oneself that the intellect is superior or one saw soemthint the other didn't see, the intellect is right etc and thereby convices oneself to back off.

Perhaps that's how you work. Don't assume these are necessarily my operating parameters just because we both scored entp (look at the statement in low resolution (because we're both guys\humans or get rid of 'because we bot scored entp' if you want, not a very meaningful part of my statement)

 

[EcK]

Basically saying that the introverted hermits rarely care about the measurement of what ever things, tangible or intangible.

The good old 'if a tree falls in a forest and there's no one to hear it does it make a so...'.
A hermit can be perfectly adapted to hermithood '(or however its called) but poorly adapted to the 'mean human environment' (mean as average not the value judgement).
Then it depends how you define intelligence.

I think this thread could gain in adding some modifiers to it's op or ask the posters to define grey areas and areas where one assumes the likelihood of higher or lower intelligence\adaptability

 

[Riva]

Perhaps that's how you work. Don't assume these are necessarily my operating parameters just because we both scored entp

Hey I am trying to be an iNTj these days, can't you see?

Okay let me rephrase what I said -

Intellect is not the person. The ego is the person. The ego has to rest for the intellect to rise and convince the ego what to do. (This itself shows the superiority of the ego over the intellect.)

And once the intellect convinces the ego what to do (which is quite a hard thing to do) the ego makes the decisions. But the ago is hurt and wants more blood/revenge. But then the ego convinces the ego (with bits and pieces of the intellect) that what the ego did was right. And the ego avoided something bad by being a smartass.

 

[EcK]

Intellect is not the person. The ego is the person.

Depends how you define ego. What about metacognition I mean. You can 'look at yourself' (well part of yourself can look at other parts) without necessarily implying that metacognition is in any way different from the ego. That simultaneity implies that your ego vs intellect situation wouldn't be a 1 or 0 situation. The I is multiple and entangled and your dichotomy seems unjustified

 

[Riva]

Depends how you define ego. What about metacognition I mean. You can 'look at yourself' (well part of yourself can look at other parts) without necessarily implying that metacognition is in any way different from the ego. That simultaneity implies that your ego vs intellect situation wouldn't be a 1 or 0 situation. The I is multiple and entangled and your dichotomy seems unjustified

It is always the questions isn't it?

Who watches the I that watches the thoughts?

(In other words, who watches the watcher that watches?)

Sigh!!!

 

[gmanyo]

yes

 

[xisnotx]

I don't think it...I know it.

Bwahaha

 

[Ginkgo]

no u

 

[Antimony]

Herp herp

 

[gmanyo]

yes

 

[Mr. TickTock]

After stalking almost all 120 of your post I would say so.

But who am I to be so sure based on such a small assortment of your personality and intelligence.

 

[Poki]

Yes - have no clue who they are, I am just that confident...I must be in an NT forum for this question.

 

[Redbone]

Only if I can take my time. Not with that off the cuff stuff.

Warning to the next poster: Don't even say it. *shakes fist*

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Hmm...

 

[funkadelik]

Hell no.

 

[gmanyo]

yes

 

[wolfy]

Not only intellectually, also physically.

 

[Aquarelle]

Naw, wolfy seems pretty smart to me.