S intelligence vs. N intelligence

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Some psychologists (not that they have claim to what intelligence is, since it's a word/meme, and no one has ownership) divide intelligence into these categories: Bodily-Kinesthetic; Interpersonal, Verbal-Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, Spatial, Musical, and even Spiritual, Existential, and Moral. You could correlate the intuition-function to some of these, but not all.

 

[pure_mercury]

Some psychologists (not that they have claim to what intelligence is, since it's a word/meme, and no one has ownership) divide intelligence into these categories: Bodily-Kinesthetic; Interpersonal, Verbal-Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, Spatial, Musical, and even Spiritual, Existential, and Moral. You could correlate the intuition-function to some of these, but not all.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[The Ü™]

I wouldn't really say that intelligence is owned by the intuitive function. Thinking outside the box is one aspect of intelligence, but there's a lot more. Your definition seems a bit self-serving, no, Dissonance?

I agree with this.

Thinking outside the box helped with inventions and whatnot, but I can't quite commit to the notion that it is necessary to intelligence. Say intelligence is making the right decision at the right time. Sensors surely can be included into this group.

Attention to detail and memory recall are also aspects of intelligence...and they are examples of S forms of intelligence.

And thinking outside of the box is one form of intelligence that an IQ test does not measure. If anything, IQ tests simply measure your ability to think inside their box.

 

[Wandering]

And thinking outside of the box is one form of intelligence that an IQ test does not measure. If anything, IQ tests simply measure your ability to think inside their box.

True. For example, I hate the type of questions where they give you several words, and you have to find the one that "doesn't belong". I can usually make a case for every single one of them: you just need to change the parameters for belonging. So all those questions actually test is whether you can guess which parameters the test-makers want you to use: what does that have to do with intelligence ??

 

[INTJMom]

i think intelligence REQUIRES the ability to think outside the box. that's a premise. that's not the full definition, but it's REQUIRED in my definition.

if you disagree with that, come up with a different definition. otherwise, you're wrong.

Thinking outside the box is a P thing, not an N thing.

 

[The Ü™]

True. For example, I hate the type of questions where they give you several words, and you have to find the one that "doesn't belong". I can usually make a case for every single one of them: you just need to change the parameters for belonging. So all those questions actually test is whether you can guess which parameters the test-makers want you to use: what does that have to do with intelligence ??

That's exactly how I am. I can see multiple angles that are logical, but the test only considers one of them logical.

 

[Thursday]

Thinking outside the box is a P thing, not an N thing.

N and P are the same in the following respects

non-linear
spontaneous
ever changing
seeing possibilities, albeit indecisive

S and J are similar in regards to being

linear
responsible
action orientated, ergo decisive

it is a shame that intellect is being put upon a platform to be bludgeoned,
with the very same weapons in which its being accused
Bias

Though mentioned before,
Intelligence is both
Sure, one must be able to conduct thoughts outside of the box,
but one most also know when he/she is being mired in thought,
and in want of action
let alone knowing how to implement the brainstorm into something
1. palpable
2. functional
3. beneficial, perhaps to other parties

but all in all
true intellect cannot be defined or confined by us idiots who try to label it
for it is simple and intricate

 

[Thursday]

Some psychologists (not that they have claim to what intelligence is, since it's a word/meme, and no one has ownership) divide intelligence into these categories: Bodily-Kinesthetic; Interpersonal, Verbal-Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Naturalistic, Intrapersonal, Spatial, Musical, and even Spiritual, Existential, and Moral. You could correlate the intuition-function to some of these, but not all.

*whispers*

Exacto

I just went on an intuitive rant,
and this was here

 

[The Ü™]

But N spontaneity is more based on spontaneous insight (an "a-ha" moment), so it's not the way most people think of spontaneous. P spontaneity is based on lifestyle preferences -- so they are more open-minded and willing to change regardless of S or N preference -- that's the more typical definition of spontaneous.

 

[Thursday]

But N spontaneity is more based on spontaneous insight (an "a-ha" moment), so it's not the way most people think of spontaneous. P spontaneity is based on lifestyle preferences -- so they are more open-minded and willing to change regardless of S or N preference -- that's the more typical definition of spontaneous.

right

 

[proteanmix]

In homage to our resident ISTJs, here are my thoughts on The Box and Your Placement Around It

These poor people are fighting to get outside of the box.

The box seems unhappy because no one wants to be inside it.

Once they get out here is where they land in a beautiful gift shop filled with more boxes to choose from.

Boxes only change in size and exterior/interior decor in my mind.

 

[nightning]

So what is the box? conventions?

Wouldn't the case goes for Ne is coming up with new places to put boxes? Ni is linking between boxes, Se is noticing boxes, and Si for looking into boxes?

And while we're at it...

Ti for drawing new boxes, Te for grouping boxes, Fe for pulling out contents of boxes, Fi for organizing contents of boxes?

I guess my point is that, regardless of type, we all have our own boxes. To say we're "thinking outside the box" only means we're redefining our boxes.

Edit:
Protean: EXACTLY! I love that visual depiction...

 

[The Ü™]

My guess is that most of us were bullied as children and we need something to increase our sense of superiority. Bragging about our N-ship and the notion it's a minority dichotomy (aside from these forums, of course) is one of those ways because it makes some feel unique and elitist, or 1337, if you will.

 

[Night]

IQ is - and always has been - a metric designed to assess wealth.

 

[The Ü™]

IQ is - and always has been - a metric designed to assess wealth.

Interestingly, a lot of the high scorers were dirt poor.

 

[redacted]

No, I'm saying that because I believe it to be true. As I stated before, I didn't disparage intuition by saying that it makes people unable to see plain facts in front of their face. I honestly don't think that being intuitive necessarily correlates with higher intelligence (just as I don't believe that sensing necessarily correlates witb being more "sensitive" or "sensible"). These are just two points on a spectrum of how people look at and interpret the world. I honestly think you don't know me well enough to comment here. I could be any combinatory amalgamation of 4 letters and still realize this. I really thought that these sensory "bias" claims were overblown and somewhat silly, but some of the post in this forum are leading me to believe that they have some credence.

i never said intuitives were more intelligent than sensors. i just said the actual functions Ne and/or Ni are necessary for intelligence. everyone uses them. i know plenty of Ns who use them too much, even.

and i don't KNOW you very well, but my gut tells me that you're an ENFP. i've read a lot of your posts. this is just my opinion anyway.

IMO, it's evidence of bias against sensors that people like pure_mercury who are clearly bright & clever are "elevated" to iNtuitive status.

that's not the reason. it's because i see Ne. don't assume you know what my motives are. i'm just putting my thoughts out there.

It's disgusting, Ivy.

ugh, these are the kind of posts that just get me angry. no substance at all; just jumping on board as the PC police. and Ivy's assumptions are wrong anyways.

you must be an S! sorry, couldn't resist that joke there.

 

[redacted]

I wouldn't really say that intelligence is owned by the intuitive function. Thinking outside the box is one aspect of intelligence, but there's a lot more. Your definition seems a bit self-serving, no, Dissonance?

it is self serving. on the other hand, you are straight up DUMB if you never use an N function. jump on me all you want, but it's true.

there are a lot of other aspects of intelligence, i agree. but i wouldn't call someone intelligent unless they could apply old ideas to new concepts, understand metaphor, widen their perspective, make connections between seemingly unrelated things, etc.

again, this IS self serving. i admit it. but it's how i've always judged intelligence, way before i ever knew about MBTI.

also, even though this should be completely clear by now, EVERYONE USES N FUNCTIONS. this is not an anti-sensor rant. this isn't a pro intuitive rant. this is just a claim that you need to use intuitive FUNCTIONS every once in a while. intuitive people often miss obvious stuff because they intuit too much. everyone has their flaws.

Re: dissonance

Wait a minute.. what about sensors that have highly developed thinking functions? They don't think outside the box?

well, sure they do, when they use N functions.

i dunno, maybe "the box" isn't very well defined. examples of thinking outside the box are using metaphor, seeing multiple perspectives, imagining, etc.

I agree with this.

Thinking outside the box helped with inventions and whatnot, but I can't quite commit to the notion that it is necessary to intelligence. Say intelligence is making the right decision at the right time. Sensors surely can be included into this group.

first of all, you saying "sensors surely can be included into this group" makes it clear that my point is being misinterpreted. sensors can surely be intelligent based on my claims. i'm not talking about sensors vs. intuitives. i'm talking about never using N functions vs. using them.

but i agree with you; if you define intelligence as making the "right" decision, then N functions are less necessary. still useful though.

you have to understand -- the way i think of functions is that they're mini computer processes. in a one second span, we probably use at least 10 functions. maybe we use all 8 of them. Ns use N functions more often than S functions, and vice versa. but this is a matter of percentages. maybe an N uses N functions 50 times in a minute and an S uses them 20 times.

Thinking outside the box is a P thing, not an N thing.

huh? how does Se think outside the box? how does Ni NOT think outside the box?

define the box.

 

[Randomnity]

All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.

 

[redacted]

All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.

wait...are you responding to me?

if so, you must not have read all of my posts. and if you have, i really don't feel like explaining my viewpoint again. everyone here's jumping all over me.

yes, you need S functions to live. Si is necessary for intelligence. blah blah blah. i've made my point, and i've made it clearly. if you want to get all offended and put words/ideas in my mouth, have at it. honestly, half of what you're offended by, i never even said.

also:

Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting.

isn't that the point of the functions? to break down thought processes into categories? wouldn't you say you NEED Se to take in sensations from the environment?

 

[Seanan]

All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.

Here we go again. What is this trend the last few days to try and induce all types being the same? I came here to learn. I might as well just quit reading if everyone is going to say, in one way or another, that all types are the same because they use some of the same function some of the time ... geez... give me a break. Feelers and Thinkers are the same. Faith and Logic is the same. "Ss" and "Ns" are the same... its crossing my eyes.