I agree. But most people will inherently consider certain types of measurements for intelligence as more useful than others. Whoever smokes the most pot is probably a worse measurement than whoever creates the most profitable company. Whoever watches the most TV is probably a worse measurement than whoever helps the most people. Almost all people of all MBTIs will agree to this.
So with an understanding that there are better measurements for intelligence, smarter or whatever else you want to call it, we can start to hone in and create a useful definition for everyone. Yes it is subjective, but not entirely. Yes, it may not be a perfect definition, but it will at least be meaningful -- more meaningful than simply saying, "oh well there's no such thing." That is all I have attempted to do. I am taking people that everyone sees as great people and that everyone strives to become (with the exception of a few). Yes, I know it's not the best model, but it is most likely better than IQ and most other measurements that are commonly used. Sheer technical ability like number crunching, which many S's can excel at, is not the best way to view things. We can create robots that can do that. We want to define intelligence in a way outside of robots. We want to define intelligence along the lines of creativity -- something that creates value and meaning towards others and life. We want to define intelligence as something that creates value where most other people fall short.
Ah yes! That sounds very lovely, in theory. (except for the bolded, which is extremely stereotypical. and I digress!)
I was mostly responding to the thread in general, and not just your article. But I might as well respond to your article in more detail.
Here's my opinion: Your methodology is seriously lacking.
Firstly, you quote Wikipedia, which is a mistake. (If you want credibility, please cite someone with credibility. And don't cite internet sources; those are generally written by Ns and therefore extremely biased. Consider the the juxtaposition of the INFJ stereotype (intuitive to the point of being psychic, bearer of "magical" abilities at reading people), and the ISTP stereotype (they're great at car repair!). If you think critically, you'll realize that these sorts of things sound sketchy.
Secondly, saying "Here's all the great people in the world; see how few are Sensors?" is also a really bad idea. It's too broad, which means you've been picking and choosing people to include or reject from your list -- which means you've probably been unscientific and very subjective, and have no credibility whatsoever. How can we know who you decided to reject? How do we know that you didn't find a huge list of Sensors who changed the world? I'd vote that you, at the very least, define intelligence in your article, then make a list of people in a certain profession directly linked to that sort of intelligence, and then type them. Even then, I'd object to your article, but that would make it less silly and easy for people like me and [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] to dismiss.
Thirdly -- and I don't know if I have to explain this to you or not -- celebrity typing is a contentious thing. I'm guessing someone could make a Sensor argument for at least half of the people you included on that list. Also, few, if any, of us have met those people, let alone read a biography of them. And I'm not going to trust your typing unless you give me exactly why you typed them that way -- and I'm not going to trust your explanations unless they involve, at the very least, several interviews with the person, and a History Channel special.
Fourthly,
cite your freaking sources. Where did you find those IQs?
And finally (because, even though I could go on and on, I choose not to), being "smart" and being "intelligent" are not the same thing. You know this. The title of your article implies that you don't, which takes away even more of your credibility.
In short: if you want people to take your ideas seriously, start acting like a scholar, and not like some random blogger who just discovered MBTI a week ago and is making vague generalizations based only on Wikipedia and the Keirsey website. Because, honestly, that's the vibe I'm getting.
Edit:
The whole article is a generalization. Clearly there are exceptions for everything.
Then say it in your freaking article. You state everything in it as if you take it as inarguable fact. You use fucking charts and graphs. It's why no one is taking you seriously here.
If people thought you knew that it was all a generalization, and that you were knowingly exaggerating and speaking unscientifically, they would be treating you differently.
Another edit:
I just realized that yes, you do kinda-sorta define intelligence in your article. But your list is still far, far too broad, and those same issues apply.