Stanton Moore
morose bourgeoisie
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,900
- MBTI Type
- INFP
Because people who can generate random and useless information are intelligent apparently.
Good answer....
Because people who can generate random and useless information are intelligent apparently.
It was hypothesized that individuals favoring Intuition and Thinking would be more intelligent and would favor fluid over crystallized intelligence relative to those favoring Sensing and Feeling, respectively.
.....Consistent with hypothesized relationships, people classified as Intuitive earned higher KAIT Composite IQs than those classified as Sensing. However, most other hypotheses were not supported...
In summary, here's what the statistics indicate about the correlation between personality traits and IQ:
* Other personality traits being the same, an iNtuitive person (one who grasps patterns and seeks possibilities) is 27 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Sensing person (one who focuses on sensory details and the here-and-now).
* Again, other traits being the same, an Introverted person is 8 times more likely to have a high IQ than one who is Extraverted; a Thinking (logic-oriented) person is 2.5 times more likely to have a high IQ than a Feeling (people-oriented) person; and a Judging person (one who seeks closure) is about twice as likely to have a high IQ than a Perceiving person (one who likes to keep his options open).
* Moreover, if you encounter an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging), there is a 37% probability that his IQ places him in the top 2 percent of the population. The probability is 20% for an INTP, 15% for an INFJ, and 8% for an INFP. These four types account for 66% of the high-IQ population but only 6% of the total population.
Please don't cite the nutty Republican blog. I'm tired of seeing that one.
Please don't cite the nutty Republican blog. I'm tired of seeing that one.
Intelligence is correlated to N and to a lesser extent, P.
From here.
Considering that 'type' is something so intangible that there is no absolutely reliable personality test out there yet and therefore no reliable basic statistics, I really don't see how anyone can make any subsequent statistics, present them like facts and draw any conclusions from them.
Is that chart saying that ENFPs are the most gifted? Because that's what it looks like.
Is that chart saying that ENFPs are the most gifted? Because that's what it looks like.
There are plenty of stupid thinkers, especially if they're 40% of the population, there's bound to be an endless amount. From statistics I've seen, Ts are only a little more likely than Fs to have high IQ or SAT scores. E/I and S/N has more to do with IQ test performance, favoring IN.
There's even stupid NTs. ENTPs are super dumb.
I don't think IQ measures intelligence perfectly, but it gives a decent rough estimate. I don't know about the reliability of the MBTI studies, but they seem to mirror what I see IRL.
Intelligence is multi-faceted! There's no one number or scale that can describe it accurately because there are numerous different types of intelligence.
IQ tests measure N and T intelligence. SFPs score a lot lower on average because the test doesn't favor their type of intelligence. If you did a field test involving physical dexterity, awareness of the environment and other Se skills, you'd find that NTs would score significantly lower.
The IQ test and SAT, unfortunately, contribute to the pretentious NT attitude that N and T intelligences are the only "real intelligence", which is a large part of why NTs think they're so much smarter than everyone else.
Everyone's idea of intelligence is different. As I said recently in a different thread, most people unconsciously define "intelligent" as "good at my dominant function" and anyone who isn't good at what we're good at gets labeled "stupid", thanks to our good friend perceptual bias.
Are you a feeler? Because that sounds like a whine!
Is that chart saying that ENFPs are the most gifted? Because that's what it looks like.
I'm not entirely certain (and I don't generally trust my mathematical ability), but isn't P the least significant correlation?
N is strongest, followed by I, then T, then P.
Edit: Actually, now I'm not sure. The difference between the ratios (I'm not sure if that's what it's called; the no. in the gifted population divided by the no. in the normal population) of T to F is 0.23, whereas for P to J it's 0.39, but T itself has a higher ratio (1.13) than does P (1.11)...?
It's either NITP or NIPT.
Gifted adolescents were significantly more introverted than the normative group (n = 5,723; z = 3.85; p<.01).
Also, the analysis indicated that gifted adolescents were significantly more intuitive than the general high school population (z = 12.71; p < .01).
Further, this integration of research results revealed significant differences between the gifted samples and the normative in the thinking dimension (z =1.72; p < .05; one-tailed).
Moreover, the gifted adolescents were significantly higher than the general high school population in the perceiving dimension (z = 4.96; p < .01).
PS. the twin question: is it possible to be a Feeler with the emotional depth of a teaspoon?
We're all idiots, really. Our vast compendium of knowledge is not a talent, it's more like a man's dualie truck with a nine inch lift. You know, compensating.