Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[great_bay]

Smart is an arbitrary word that has no clear distinction. Arguing over a word that doesn't have a definition is meaningless and will never result in an agreement.

 

[Bush]

Also, everyone dismisses the official CPP MBTI test as inaccurate when it comes to type... but at the same time, they'll use the stats from the test to draw these sorts of conclusions via studies that, say, correlate them with IQ. Whatever caveat you personally think needs to be applied to the MBTI test, you'd need to multiply like tenfold for the correlative stats that come from it.

There's also the trap of "Jake's dense; Sensors are dense; therefore Jake must be a Sensor; Jake's dense; Jake's a Sensor; there's evidence that Sensors are dense." No offense to any Jakes


But, hey. From at least one conceptual standpoint -- one that just so happens to work in my favor -- N = smart would mean that the N-doms are smarter than the N-aux'es. I mean, they're S-inferiors rather than S-terts, and so they're more divorced from their Sensing function and rely much more on their intuition. You know, theoretically. I'll take it.

 

[RosieJones]

This is a pretty unintelligent statement and tells me you don't actually know what an S brings to the table vs an N (and no, it's not S = gossip, can't connect the dots, and talks about mundane things by default). And to believe someone with a strong N preference would be capable of 'doing pretty much what an S does' and the reverse does not hold true does not make sense. They are *preferences*. An S prefers NOT to sit in abstract-land ad nauseum, just as an N prefers not to sit in observation-land ad nauseum. Most S's CAN however venture into abstract land if they choose to, just as most N's CAN venture into observation-land if they choose to. I would say though that the more *extreme* the preference one has, the more difficult it would be, and some may in fact not be able to do well in that other 'land' at all. But honestly in my observations of people, I think most people aren't super strong in their preference on this dimension. Yes, some are absolutely, but there's tons of middle ground there. I mean -- your 'N's can do pretty much anything S's can do' is just patently false. The number of N's who are utterly incapable of doing *simple* tasks, or remembering them, is pretty funny -- when observing in the real world. From my pov they can come across as stupid. Take working behind the counter at a fast-paced high-need-to-be-adaptable-on-your-feet type of job. The role is not that difficult -- it doesn't take high brain capacity. It does however elude many an N who cannot easily manage it. I have seen N's externally appear incredibly stupid in this environment, and they aren't able to excel at it -- iow, they actually fail at 'being S'. Or transmit your highly-preferenced N 'absent-minded professor' into an S job. I guarantee he or she'd drop the ball repeatedly and would fail at performing the job. Now let's reverse it. There are most definitely S's who will of course fail abysmally at highly theoretical roles. And there are plenty of S's who could care less about these things, these concepts. There are definitely S's who do not think in such a way as to be able to excel at aptitude tests or IQ tests. However there are a large number of S's who in fact do find these things fascinating and CAN do well in these studies, and who can do quite well in aptitude tests - your traditional metrics of 'intelligence' and pattern matching/recognition. BUT there are also N's who do poorly at these tests. (Unless you're someone who by definition believes if one does poorly on them, and does poorly with this sort of 'intelligence', then one cannot be N - in which case anyone who does well would have to be N (even S's)). You are forgetting that it's in the end a preference. What you are describing is like a caricature of an extreme S. And if that's the only sort of S you know, that's too bad. (and fwiw, like others have already mentioned, by your criteria, the world would type as probably at least 50%N, 50%S --- iow lots of S's don't particularly care for the so-called S people you're describing, thus would easily self-identify as N)

Okay those are interesting points and it is good to emphasise the fact that it is just a preference. But my issue is that I think living in observation land takes less brain capacity than living in abstract land. You practically said it yourself using the N as a salesperson example.
To live in N land you have to first live in S land - noticing the things physically around you, then taking them further, thinking about symbolism, collecting physical details about people to get an overall impression. There's more of an intuition about it because your brain is naturally picking up a million physical details all at once to create a certain vibe about someone. That's why I see it as an extension of S. Of course it is a preference, but couldnt we say that Ns are stretching their brains further than Ss every day by thinking of these things that require more brain capacity? And that stretching your brain like this is likely going to result in smarter people?
Also I would say that the majority of Ns who find S things boring feel so because there is not enough going on intellectually. There is no deeper complex sophisticated meaning. It's just right there in front of you.

 

[The Cat]

We can technically say anything, but that doesn't make it so. Working on your intellect requires exactly that. Work, same as anything else. This argument has always felt like saying men are better at math than women. I've never seen any evidence of that; nor that intuitives are inherently more intellectual than sensors.

 

[biohazard]

This whole stereotype is so dumb to me. So so so dumb.

Smart, in the context of intellect, just means someone is quick to learn something. Intuitives can be just as quick as sensors and vice versa. It has more to do with individual aptitude.

 

[Jaguar]

You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell

Funny fucker.

 

[reckful]

Okay, first off, you have to be careful about using the word "abstract." The functions were largely devised by Jung, and Jung wrote whole chapters about what's mentally involved when we "abstract." Here is how it works, according to Jung:

Introverts abstract, and extraverts do not. In place of abstracting, extraverts compare and group together qualities.

In other words: Ni and Si (introverted N and introverted S) engage in abstraction. Ne and Se (extraverted N and extraverted S) do not.

That means that all introverts (Fi, Ti, Ni, and Si) do exactly the same thing as each other with their brains. They just do it with different things. For example, Ni abstracts things like ideas and principles and values, whereas Si abstracts about things like art and careers and hobbies, etc.

Same with all the extraverts (Fe, Te, Ne, and Se): They all do exactly the same thing as each other with their brains. They just do it with different things. (They don't abstract; they compare and group together qualities.)

Anyway, I'm writing a blog about Jung's book "Psychological Types." You can find it at this link: My own spin on "Psychological Types"

In about two days, I'm going to write a long post in my blog about the nature of abstraction (introverts) and non-abstraction (extraverts). So I'm not going to say anything more in this thread about it. I'm not trying to be mysterious, it's just that I'm going to be covering the subject in my blog in a couple days anyway.

Also, based on my reading of Jung as an amateur, personally I would consider S to be a higher-level function than N. That's partly because iNtuitives are kind of narrowly focused, and they tend to work a few ideas and concepts really hard. Meantime Sensors are doing exactly the same brainwork as Ns, but they are doing it with a much wider and more extensive range of data: They are processing all the raw, hard data of the world around them.

I'm hoping to discuss the differences in the functions at some later point in my blog, so maybe at some point I can talk about this difference between Ns and Ss as well someday. But for now, let's just call it a personal opinion on my part, i.e., that S is a higher-level function.

Anyway, I'll drop out of the discussion at this point. Again, not trying to be mysterious. It's just that I want to save this stuff for my blog.

There's no question that Jung thought that concrete/abstract was first and foremost an E/I thing. But he was wrong about that — and nobody who's knowledgeable really disagrees with that today, now that decades of data has shown that an extravert isn't significantly more likely than an introvert to prefer the concrete to the abstract.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.

And in any case, on the E/I-concrete/abstract issue, if you insist that Jung was right, facts be damned, you're not only being non-Jungian, but you're also being wrong.

For a longer discussion of that issue, see this post.

 

[Ace_]

I don't think they're smarter but I do think they're more intelligent. There are plenty of people who score high on IQ tests but in real life they're impractical, dumb and useless.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

There's no question that Jung thought that concrete/abstract was first and foremost an E/I thing. But he was wrong about that — and nobody who's knowledgeable really disagrees with that today, now that decades of data has shown that an extravert isn't significantly more likely than an introvert to prefer the concrete to the abstract.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. There's nothing wrong with reading Psychological Types if you're interested, and I've read it more than once myself. But you should realize that, although Jung had a lot of insightful things to say about various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world characteristics that have proven to be psychometrically respectable and have been incorporated into the MBTI, there's a lot that Jung got wrong, too. And if you read Psychological Types with an overly reverent attitude, then you're being non-Jungian in that respect, if you get my drift.

And in any case, on the E/I-concrete/abstract issue, if you insist that Jung was right, facts be damned, you're not only being non-Jungian, but you're also being wrong.

For a longer discussion of that issue, see this post.

Nope. I'm not going with the concrete/abstract dichotomy. I didn't like that model either.

As you know, Jung proposed lots of different models to highlight different aspects of the E/I dichotomy. In my blog, I already covered the model from Chapter 6 that proposes Introverts build internal "complexes" of ideas; I thought that particular model was pretty accurate. Then there was the concrete/abstract dichotomy that you mentioned--I don't like that model because I find it *way* too simplistic. Then there is the empathy/abstraction model in Chapter 7. I'm not in love with that model, but I think it's fairly accurate. But the model I want to discuss in my blog in a couple days is none of the above. Instead, the model I want to use in a couple days is the reduction/synthesis model from Chapter 5.

As I see it, I think it's useful to see the synthesis side as "synthesizing an abstraction." In that sense (and in the sense of the empathy/abstraction model in Chapter 7), I think it's fair to characterize Introversion as basically an abstracting attitude. Of course it depends on how one defines "abstraction." In other words, it gets down to semantics. If Jung defines "abstraction" one way and Myers defines it slightly differently, then there's going to be a legitimate difference of opinion there on how to measure and evaluate that quality.

But I think Jung's right concerning the essence of the matter, that is, that the introverting process is largely the same across the functions and is in opposition to the extraverting function (without worrying about how one uses the specific term "abstraction"). That's pretty much the main point I'll make in that future blog post.

 

[Yama]

Oh, good christ. People who buy into this shit are dumbasses.

 

[The Cat]

Everyone has layers.

 

[INTJMom]

The remarks on that blog were made by someone whose head went through the windshield of a car.
These things happen.

Hahaha!

Actually, the 3 sensors in my family got better test scores in school than the 2 intuitives did.
The intelligence is not "better", it's just different. We need both kinds in the world.

 

[prplchknz]

Also, everyone dismisses the official CPP MBTI test as inaccurate when it comes to type... but at the same time, they'll use the stats from the test to draw these sorts of conclusions via studies that, say, correlate them with IQ. Whatever caveat you personally think needs to be applied to the MBTI test, you'd need to multiply like tenfold for the correlative stats that come from it. There's also the trap of "Jake's dense; Sensors are dense; therefore Jake must be a Sensor; Jake's dense; Jake's a Sensor; there's evidence that Sensors are dense." No offense to any Jakes But, hey. From at least one conceptual standpoint -- one that just so happens to work in my favor -- N = smart would mean that the N-doms are smarter than the N-aux'es. I mean, they're S-inferiors rather than S-terts, and so they're more divorced from their Sensing function and rely much more on their intuition. You know, theoretically. I'll take it.

I really want some one named jake to reply to this with none taken

 

[that's not my name]

Its good to see the bigger picture, but don't miss the trees for the forest either. There are smart and dumb people of every type and when dealing with a particular person's intelligence the only intelligence that matters is theirs and I can't think of a case where the averages actually would matter.

 

[Population: 1]

We might actually complement one another. The two approaches can cover a wider spectrum of solutions to problems. N and S together.

Yeah I know that’s more likely true but boring and doesn’t continue to stir the cauldron of shit a lot of people feel must never settle.

Carry on.

 

[Yama]

N and S aren't even about intelligence at all, but about how you passively process information. It isn't even exactly about different types of intelligence. It's about an imaginary bias based on nothing that's even real...

 

[Yuurei]

Well I am tired of S’es being actually abusive by constantly insulting and demeaning me; telling me I am incompetant and mentally deficiant to the point that I belong “ in an adult home” because I do not do things the way they do.

S: “Do you know exactly how you are going to accomplish this thing you have to do today?”
Me: “Not exactly but I’ve got a basic idea. I’ll figure it out. I always do.”
S: “ You’re SO irrisponsible!
Me: “No I’m not. This is just how I work.”
S: No it isn’t! NO ONE “ works like that!” I think I’m going to have you evaluated by a psychologist and you’d better pack your bags because he’s going to have you committed and you know, you should appreciate it because it’s the closest thing to living on your own! This is why I have to hire a babysitter for you at 24!

You know, normal shit like that. And no, this attitude was not just from my abusive grandparents. I don’t know anyone quite so extreme but I know many S-types which are condescending at the least.
They share this attidude that if they make a mistake it isn’t thier fault. “ Shit happens”. If I make a mistake, well, thank God they were there to follow me around micro-managing everything I do. The times I do something right without them just don’t happen.

Ranting aside, I am quite curious to know just what the hell sort of personality flaw this is. I mean the perpetrators do seem very S like but I’m hard-pressed to generalize such a large and varying group.

 

[EJCC]

Well I am tired of S’es being actually abusive by constantly insulting and demeaning me; telling me I am incompetant and mentally deficiant to the point that I belong “ in an adult home” because I do not do things the way they do.

S: “Do you know exactly how you are going to accomplish this thing you have to do today?”
Me: “Not exactly but I’ve got a basic idea. I’ll figure it out. I always do.”
S: “ You’re SO irrisponsible!
Me: “No I’m not. This is just how I work.”
S: No it isn’t! NO ONE “ works like that!” I think I’m going to have you evaluated by a psychologist and you’d better pack your bags because he’s going to have you committed and you know, you should appreciate it because it’s the closest thing to living on your own! This is why I have to hire a babysitter for you at 24!

You know, normal shit like that. And no, this attitude was not just from my abusive grandparents. I don’t know anyone quite so extreme but I know many S-types which are condescending at the least.
They share this attidude that if they make a mistake it isn’t thier fault. “ Shit happens”. If I make a mistake, well, thank God they were there to follow me around micro-managing everything I do. The times I do something right without them just don’t happen.

Ranting aside, I am quite curious to know just what the hell sort of personality flaw this is. I mean the perpetrators do seem very S like but I’m hard-pressed to generalize such a large and varying group.

This is not type-related. You answered your own question re: what it’s actually about: micromanaging, inability to hold oneself accountable.

 

[Amargith]

[MENTION=29849]Yuu[/MENTION]

Sounds like a need to control tied into genuine concern fir you that they cannot properly(and ironically) control.
Aka 'what she is doin, i wouldnt ve able to pull off therefore it must be wrong, so i have to now follow her around in order to keep things from fallibg apart/hurting ly baby!'

The way in which this anxiety manifests usually provides a clue to the personality type but is typically irrelevant in the manifestation of the anxiety/parental worry/need for control. Abd unfortunately, it can create permanent damage to the child's self esteem, especially if done for years on end.

Typically, its their blindspot/inferior functions that is the worst. With me, my dad bashed my Fi (his blindspot) relentlessly demanding Ti and my mom went apeshit on my Ne (being ISTJ), demanding Si. Then it drove her nuts i was able to game the system and succeed with Ne while taking such risks, in her opinion.

Ive seen my INTP brother go nuts over his ISTPs son need to train his Se in the most harrowing situations( in his opinion), and demand he uses his intelligence in a more abstract/safe manner
Its just coz he feels inadequate to properly guarantee his sons safety and success in areas where he himself is incompetent (aka Se). Interestingly, he decided over the years to hone that function more just to be able to keep up with his sons

 

[/DG/]

Oh, good christ. People who buy into this shit are dumbasses.

People like to find any excuse to "prove" that they are better than someone else.

Even if MBTI itself was created with good intentions, it is not a system that people can use for good. All I've seen with it is people using it to feel superior to others and to put other people down.

It's almost like an invented class system.

Look, I know Mole likes to call it a cult, but he isn't necessarily far off in his thoughts that MBTI is bad. It's not that the system is necessarily bad, but it's that people are incapable of using it properly.