Type an IQ... Again!

[pure_mercury]

given your posts, i'd bet a lot of money that you aren't an ESFJ

I've tested as ESFJ, ESTJ, and ENFJ. No biggie.

 

[Night]

You strike me as an ENFP, Pure.

I remember you saying that you'd tested as ENFx.

 

[pure_mercury]

You strike me as an ENFP, Pure.

I remember you saying that you'd tested as ENFx.

I actually think I am a J. Last time I took a test, I scored this:

Your Type is
ESFJ
Extraverted Sensing Feeling Judging
Strength of the preferences %
89 12 25 67


You are:

* very expressed extravert
* slightly expressed sensing personality
* moderately expressed feeling personality
* distinctively expressed judging personality


S/N and F/T are pretty close there.

 

[Night]

You are close in some interesting areas, Pure_Mercury.

Like you, I tend to borderwalk between types; I'm probably more of an apparent ENTP in real life than INTJ.

 

[Thursday]

Merc
the 8 function test is a lot more reliable

 

[cascadeco]

Merc
the 8 function test is a lot more reliable

Do you think so? The first time I took it, it said I was an ISFP.

I think the test tells you which function you're focusing on/using/prioritizing when you're taking the test.

 

[Thursday]

Do you think so? The first time I took it, it said I was an ISFP.

I think the test tells you which function you're focusing on/using/prioritizing when you're taking the test.

huh
i thought it was because the functions we use determine our type

 

[pure_mercury]

Do you think so? The first time I took it, it said I was an ISFP.

I think the test tells you which function you're focusing on/using/prioritizing when you're taking the test.

Do you have a link?

 

[cascadeco]

huh
i thought it was because the functions we use determine our type

Well yes, that is true. But if I were to use this test as the basis of determining my type, my type would be changing throughout my life. (actually, I don't necessarily have a problem with that theory either ;-).

I have been heavily Fi-focused the past year or so, so that's why I came out ISFP that one time, and most of the rest of the time INFP.

Had I taken the test when I was 24/25, I am pretty sure Ti would have been the highest, because I was really focused on that at the time, so would have responded to the Ti-slanted questions in a stronger way.

So for me, I don't think my 'testing' with Fi at the highest means a whole lot, and I don't think it means I'm therefore Fi-dominant. It just means I'm dabbling in that function more of late.

 

[cascadeco]

Do you have a link?

This is the one that has been posted on this site before --

Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes

 

[pure_mercury]

Wow, that one put me as ISFJ, with ESFJ or ESTJ as other possibilities. Do you think that maybe I am just a really weird outlier?

 

[GZA]

I find it hilarious that intelligence and personality, two subjects psychologists and neurologists have only a vague understanding of, are getting compared, especially using MBTI and IQ. As useful as MBTI is in opening your mind to understanding how different people work, and as useful as IQ is for ego masturbation, neither are really proven that much more accurate than Cosmo's "Is He A Dud or A Stud?" questionaire.

Here's one quote on one of the "definitions" of intelligence:

"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions." (From Wikipedia's Intelligence article)

This definition, which is a "proposed consensus idea", even admits that no one agrees on what it means, which is exactly why it, and every other definition, are "proposed" defintions up for review. I don't think anyone will ever agree on a definition. People have to much to win or lose by defining intelligence objectively, especially a bunch of egg-head academics. I've always been bothered by the emphasis on "complex thinking" in intelligence definitions. Complex thinking can murder you in practical reality, which isn't a very smart idea. I like the idea that intelligence shouldn't be measured, but aptitude for success, which I guess would be similar to EQ? Whatever...


By the way, Nemo, this is me after reading your post:

 

[Thursday]

I find it hilarious that intelligence and personality, two subjects psychologists and neurologists have only a vague understanding of, are getting compared, especially using MBTI and IQ. As useful as MBTI is in opening your mind to understanding how different people work, and as useful as IQ is for ego masturbation, neither are really proven that much more accurate than Cosmo's "Is He A Dud or A Stud?" questionaire.

Here's one quote on one of the "definitions" of intelligence:

"Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person

Bravo

 

[Mondo]

There are many bright people of all types out there- even ESFJ's. They are just very.. you know.. ESFJ-ish.

I 'love' the type elitism on these forums, haha.

 

[pure_mercury]

There are many bright people of all types out there- even ESFJ's. They are just very.. you know.. ESFJ-ish.

I 'love' the type elitism on these forums, haha.

Right back at you. I'm going to go TALK to my FRIENDS now.

 

[Haphazard]

Umm.

I think the point is that no matter how high your IQ is, it doesn't really save you from doing spectacularly stupid things. Only you can prevent yourself from doing spectacularly stupid things. And that's really more important than raw intelligence, isn't it?

 

[pure_mercury]

Umm.

I think the point is that no matter how high your IQ is, it doesn't really save you from doing spectacularly stupid things. Only you can prevent yourself from doing spectacularly stupid things. And that's really more important than raw intelligence, isn't it?

Yes, probably. However, I also think that my life has been as fun as it has been at least partly due to the fact that I got a double dose of brains but a half serving of good judgment. I had to earn any wisdom I have now the hard way.

 

[Haphazard]

I mean pattern recognition is a good thing but it um... kind of doesn't help when you end up leaving your hand on the stove's burner without noticing and get yourself some third-degree burns

 

[Bear Warp]

I wonder how those people that estimate the IQs of famous dead people do actually do that.

I say a bingo basket.

 

[Didums]

I wonder how those people that estimate the IQs of famous dead people do actually do that.

I say a bingo basket.

Lol. They can't really 'estimate' at all, its not possible scientifically, all you can tell is whether they were "smart" or "super-smart!" imo.