• 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.

[SJ] SJ's and being smart/intelligent

Saslou

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
4,910
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I am raising this question as it was brought to my attention that someone does not think i am smart/intelligent. For the record, it is only their perceived opinion and i don't care less, however ..

I do openly admit i am not intelligent in the sense i could go on a game show and win the big bucks .. Me, i am street smart, i learned from the mistakes i made and not in a classroom.

However, i do seek knowledge .. Usually one book leads me to another book and i become so engrossed, i do this to become more open minded and to see it from other peoples perspective. I also like facts to be clarified preferably by 2 books.

So how do you define intelligence and being smart? Do you think you are either of these?

You can be smart yet not understand how to grasp social situations. Driving your car whilst uninsured or with bold tyres. Stealing.

Isn't knowledge just taking the information in, storing it and using it when appropriate. Are we not all capable of this?

I admit i only take in information and retain it if
A- It's quirky
B- It will come in handy at some point an/or
C- I need more input on the particular subject.

What are you thinking :D
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm thinking you are intelligent.
 

Kra

Black Magic Buzzard
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
912
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
4w5
I'm not an SJ, but I think it's worth noting that being intelligent and being knowledgeable are not the same thing. "Smart" is an awfully vague term though.

Intelligence is better described as a "rate of acquisition," or simply, your ability to learn. Knowledge is simply what has already been acquired.

"Street smart," generally implies "quick learner/thinker." One can be intelligent, but un-knowledgeable on a certain subject.

Not understanding a subject like calculus/etc. does not necessarily imply that you are not intelligent, but maybe that you haven't yet studied that subject yet.

In closing, from what you have written Sas, you sound intelligent.
 

d@v3

Perfect Gentleman! =D
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,830
MBTI Type
ISTJ
I'm definitely more street smart than book smart. I really suck at being a university student. LOL! I am however, fairly quick about learning academically if it is something I am interested in. :yes: But that probably goes for everyone....
 

wrldisquiethere

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
xSFJ
Enneagram
2w1
I consider myself smart and intelligent. However, I am not knowledgeable about a lot of things that most people are knowledgeable about.

In my opinion, there are so many things out there that I want to learn and I have no desire to educate myself about things that don't apply to me or affect me, even if it does make me appear more smart to other people.

I admit i only take in information and retain it if
A- It's quirky
B- It will come in handy at some point an/or
C- I need more input on the particular subject.

What are you thinking :D
I am thinking that this describes me, as well. Those are the same reasons I will seek out information and commit it to memory.

I'll also often learn about a subject that I know will help another person. If someone has a problem that needs fixing, I have the ability and often the desire to find the answer so I can help them with their problem.

I do love to learn. :cheese:
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Isn't knowledge just taking the information in, storing it and using it when appropriate. Are we not all capable of this?

That is one of the aspects of intelligence, and SJs can be especially good at retaining details and facts. Practical sense is as well, and Ns can be terrible at it.

The thing is though, there's another aspect of intelligence that deals with being able to think abstractly and comprehend abstract ideas. SJs don't tend to be the best at this. And some people that define intelligence give preference to abstract abilities.
 

MacGuffin

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

In my opinion, there are so many things out there that I want to learn and I have no desire to educate myself about things that don't apply to me or affect me, even if it does make me appear more smart to other people.

versus

I do love to learn. :cheese:

Is why an INTP (for example) casts a wary eye at SJs that say they love learning. For the INTP there are no boundaries to learning. They learn the most useless things, all for the sake of gaining knowledge. It's why an INTP believes an SJ to be limited when it comes to intelligence/learning.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Is why an INTP (for example) casts a wary eye at SJs that say they love learning. For the INTP there are no boundaries to learning. They learn the most useless things, all for the sake of gaining knowledge. It's why an INTP believes an SJ to be limited when it comes to intelligence/learning.
I think everyone prioritizes certain kinds of information over others. There is limited time, resources, and brain space which can be devoted to any sort of topic. This includes trivia, theoretical physics, psychology, information how value systems are created, information about how to word things to communicate with the utmost emotional sensitivity, keeping up with computer technology, understanding exactly why someone believes people and dinosaurs lived on earth together, learning outdated technology for a job that pays little, memorizing all the traditions and text in a given religion, excelling at crossword puzzles, learning everything about children's literature, etc. I seriously wonder if there is any one person who values this sort of diversity of knowledge equally. Different types value different sorts of information. It can appear that one is investigating everything when they might actually be blind to certain areas of disinterest.
 

wrldisquiethere

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
xSFJ
Enneagram
2w1
Is why an INTP (for example) casts a wary eye at SJs that say they love learning. For the INTP there are no boundaries to learning. They learn the most useless things, all for the sake of gaining knowledge. It's why an INTP believes an SJ to be limited when it comes to intelligence/learning.
Why do you "cast a wary eye" at those who choose to educate themselves primarily of things that are practical? It's fine if it's your preference, but do you consider it superior to learn about even those things that you consider useless?
 

Saslou

New member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
4,910
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Is why an INTP (for example) casts a wary eye at SJs that say they love learning. For the INTP there are no boundaries to learning. They learn the most useless things, all for the sake of gaining knowledge. It's why an INTP believes an SJ to be limited when it comes to intelligence/learning.

How beneficial are those most useless things? How do you get to apply them in life if they are in fact useless?

Maybe that comes down to the fact (possibly) we all do enjoy learning although we SJ's may be more selective. You INTP's do it for pure pleasure whereas we may do it so that it may be beneficial to others and ourselves.

Hmmm.

Saying that though .. I am going to read Cromwell and Queen Elizabeth 1st soon .. which has no real relevance in my life other than being told a film i watched was not a true portrayal.
 

NewEra

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
3,104
MBTI Type
I
Intelligence imo is a combination of things - ability to grasp concepts, memory, intuition, logic, knowledge, decision-making, task speed, etc.

I am intelligent, I have been told so by people and I believe I am. I am cerebrally quick. However, some concepts go beyond my head. I am not very creative or intuitive, admittedly. However, I have a phenomenal ability to remember dates and facts, especially long-term things. I have been commended for this, and it's come in use many times. I am very quick at doing tasks too, but am not really knowledgeable admittedly. I would still say I'm intelligent.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Making assumptions about a person's intelligence based on a system of categorization as tenuous as a self-reporting personality assessment is one of the more strange things I have encountered. This is especially true since the system itself is not skill based. Intelligence itself is a largely subjective measurement, but test scores based on performing skill are more interesting in interpreting intelligence than socially constructed categories based on observation.

Ideas about intelligence seem to be becoming stranger. There is some bizarre stuff going on in terms of self-reporting IQs. I'm not sure why that is, but regarding this topic I would disregard type and look to the person's ability to perform intellectually. If someone wants something more definitive, post test scores or demonstrate a contribution or ability. Maybe people who dismiss others' intelligence arbitrarily are missing a sense of personal validation and use safer means which cannot be definitively measured or proven, are not falsifiable, and as a result are safer to hold onto as truth.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think everyone prioritizes certain kinds of information over others. There is limited time, resources, and brain space which can be devoted to any sort of topic. This includes trivia, theoretical physics, psychology, information how value systems are created, information about how to word things to communicate with the utmost emotional sensitivity, keeping up with computer technology, understanding exactly why someone believes people and dinosaurs lived on earth together, learning outdated technology for a job that pays little, memorizing all the traditions and text in a given religion, excelling at crossword puzzles, learning everything about children's literature, etc. I seriously wonder if there is any one person who values this sort of diversity of knowledge equally. Different types value different sorts of information. It can appear that one is investigating everything when they might actually be blind to certain areas of disinterest.

Sure, but for NTs (esp. INTPs) little thought is given to the value of preferring one subject over another.

Why do you "cast a wary eye" at those who choose to educate themselves primarily of things that are practical? It's fine if it's your preference, but do you consider it superior to learn about even those things that you consider useless?

How beneficial are those most useless things? How do you get to apply them in life if they are in fact useless?

Maybe that comes down to the fact (possibly) we all do enjoy learning although we SJ's may be more selective. You INTP's do it for pure pleasure whereas we may do it so that it may be beneficial to others and ourselves.

You place limits on learning. Limitations are limitations. "Love to learn" doesn't come with a list of qualifiers for the INTP.
 

run

New member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
466
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
the ability to make philosophical distinctions.

We all have different definitions, because we're different types. ISFJs don't understand philosophy. INTPs don't understand x and y. So I guess intelligence is being what you're not.
 

Kaizer

sophiloist
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
795
MBTI Type
INTp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In my view and limited understanding, the preference of the combination of cognitive functions versus the level of the ability of a mind to use these processes, in whichever combination or individually, are virtually independent variables. The former is a natural propensity borne of a preference whilst the latter is the proficiency with and hence the ability to utilize them. To give a loose corollary, treat them, if you will, as types of computers/machines versus their processing capacity and speed. The latter to me is intelligence. Hence no type has greater or lesser intelligence per se even though it is true that at various times various kinds of intelligence are valued to varying degrees.

That said, it took an ESFJ to state it in so many words, that they had assigned roles and essentially boxed virtually everything and were looking to build upon them and build using them all the while consolidating those boxes, for me to assign only to them and others like them a box which they had defined.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sure, but for NTs (esp. INTPs) little thought is given to the value of preferring one subject over another.
The distinction you refer to is one of pragmatism and application then? It's Fs not Ss that are associated with "valuing", so it would be the SFJs who would be associated with "valuing" something, not STJs.

For the NT, what is the filter that chooses one area over another? Why is one thing more interesting in a given moment than something else?

Edit: It could be interesting to compare the diversity and types of topics at the different single-type personality forums.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The distinction you refer to is one of pragmatism and application then? It's Fs not Ss that are associated with "valuing", so it would be the SFJs who would be associated with "valuing" something, not STJs.

For the NT, what is the filter that chooses one area over another? Why is one thing more interesting in a given moment than something else?
And yet STJs do place value on "practical" information over theoretical.

Who knows what the filter is. I have no idea why I decided to read about the history of split infinitives in the English language yesterday, but I did.
 

wrldisquiethere

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
xSFJ
Enneagram
2w1
Sure, but for NTs (esp. INTPs) little thought is given to the value of preferring one subject over another.

You place limits on learning. Limitations are limitations. "Love to learn" doesn't come with a list of qualifiers for the INTP.
And that's fine. I don't have a problem with the variety of things you choose to learn about.

I'm just questioning, once again, whether or not you consider it to be superior or more intelligent than collecting and storing information about selective things.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And that's fine. I don't have a problem with the variety of things you choose to learn about.

I'm just questioning, once again, whether or not you consider it to be superior or more intelligent than collecting and storing information about selective things.
Intelligent? No, I don't define intelligence by knowledge.

I was just stating above how NTs/INTPs often view this subject. Not all of them though.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
And that's fine. I don't have a problem with the variety of things you choose to learn about.

I'm just questioning, once again, whether or not you consider it to be superior or more intelligent than collecting and storing information about selective things.

I think he's differentiating between the worldview that reacts to things by going, "hmmm... don't have time to read the six volume set for something so unrelated to my life goals and skillsets, but I can read the Wikipedia article while I'm eating my Cheerios" vs. "that is unrelated to my goals and skillsets" and not touching it for that reason.

Because by the ubiquitous latter definition everyone loves to learn, which makes the descriptor of the individual who can't not learn because their brain would esplode from curiosity kinda useless.
 
Top