A Critique of the Pi Functions

[Igxfl]

This is my first post here, but I'm very familiar with the content.
I made an account to air some consistency issues I have with the theory, mostly about the depictions of the various functions.


I'm starting with Si and Ni, since these tend to have the worst descriptions, and their problems are sort of related.


Most Ni descriptions are heavily glamorized and extremely vague, centering around having profound realizations and meaningful thoughts. These descriptions rarely highlight any personality traits other than simply being intelligent and insightful.
An interesting litmus test for a definition of Ni is whether it can be meaningfully applied to a low-IQ Ni user. If not, the definition is outlining "Smart and Special: The Function", rather than a more informative outline of personality.

In contrast, Si descriptions tend to be extremely negative, detailing dull and rigid traits very few would identify with. [inb4: "No, Si types are such complete sticks up the ass that they would actually like being called that and identify with it."] Typical attributions to Si include excessive dependence on familiarity and mindless continuation of past habits.

Oddly enough, low-quality descriptions of both types sound more like judging functions than perceiving ones. By the usual descriptions, Si types seem to be gauging value or correctness based on a personal set of standards, and Ni types ponder upon, refine and improve their ideas. Often Ni has little to distinguish it from Ti or Fi, which should be a major red flag. I suspect the association of Si and Ni with XXXJ types has distorted their likenesses somewhat.

To sift out some better descriptions, then, we must keep three things in mind:
1. Si/Ni are perceiving functions. They should not primarily be making judgement calls (vaguely Je) or doing heavy processing of known information (vaguely Ji). Being Pi functions, they should have some purpose relating to actual perception, but colored by a subjective factor not present in Se/Ne.
2. Ni should have specific, identifiable characteristics other than being smart and special. Seriously.
3. Si should have traits that a decent portion of actual people might identify with. (I believe there was an "Si users describe Si" thread here a bit ago, and it was quite informative in this regard.)


The most interesting Ni description I have encountered has been Lenore Thompson's.

Introverted Intuition (Ni) focuses on what is inexpressible–the incommensurable and chaotic things that exist outside of any conceptual framework. For example, what do you hear in the theme-and-variations movement of Beethoven’s String Quartet Op. 131? There is a meaning there, but you can’t put it into words. Any attempt to put it into words will result in only a tawdry parody of the reality. Better to remain silent. As an epistemological perspective, Ni leads you to view all signs as meaningless or even deceptive, not necessarily connected to what they’re supposed to represent. The true reality is something that exists beyond all signs and appearances, and can only be apprehended by a kind of direct intuition. To learn truth, one must learn to see through appearances–to make contact with a reality that cannot be seen or said. As an ethical perspective, Ni leads you to hold yourself apart from and unaffected by the meanings that others attach to words and events–to keep your own vision pure and pursue your own path regardless of evidence, reasons, or the opinions of others.

From this description, Ni is more perception-oriented, clearly different from the introverted judgement functions. It details more of an attitude towards things than a particular mental ability. The trade-off between Ni and Se also seems much more clear and necessary this way.

As for Si, the problem may simply be a severe underestimation of its adaptability. If Si is the function of experience and habit, I would expect a healthy Si-dom to readily learn from experiences and efficiently adopt common-sense habits when needed. (I certainly know more people like that in real life than I do of the usual SJ stereotypes). This emphasis is more perception-like as well, instead of comparing and evaluating based on the past, it's about internalizing experiences with an eye towards their effect on your own state and behavior. I like the consistency of this version, because it's clearly sensing-like (instinctive?) and clearly introverted. It's also a way of thinking that I can actually imagine a significant portion of people identifying with.

 

[entropie]

You are starting with Si and Ni cause they are by far the worst.

I dont consider your post about the pee functions to be objective.

 

[Igxfl]

Worst in terms of quality of typical descriptions. I suppose I should clarify it a bit.

 

[Dyslexxie]

I came here for a critique of pies. Ugh I hate when I feel this mislead by my own projections of wants.

 

[reckful]

The most interesting Ni description I have encountered has been Lenore Thompson's.

Introverted Intuition (Ni) focuses on what is inexpressible–the incommensurable and chaotic things that exist outside of any conceptual framework. For example, what do you hear in the theme-and-variations movement of Beethoven’s String Quartet Op. 131? There is a meaning there, but you can’t put it into words. Any attempt to put it into words will result in only a tawdry parody of the reality. Better to remain silent. As an epistemological perspective, Ni leads you to view all signs as meaningless or even deceptive, not necessarily connected to what they’re supposed to represent. The true reality is something that exists beyond all signs and appearances, and can only be apprehended by a kind of direct intuition. To learn truth, one must learn to see through appearances–to make contact with a reality that cannot be seen or said. As an ethical perspective, Ni leads you to hold yourself apart from and unaffected by the meanings that others attach to words and events–to keep your own vision pure and pursue your own path regardless of evidence, reasons, or the opinions of others.

FYI, that description is emphatically not from Lenore Thomson. It was written by somebody at a now-defunct website that called itself the Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki — which Thomson did not contribute to — and it doesn't even qualify as a loose paraphrase of anything Thomson wrote.

 

[Forever]

But we are smart and special.

But yes the real Lenore Thomson description is actually really quite accurate about Ni. Maybe I should copy pasta some of it.

 

[Forever]

I came here for a critique of pies. Ugh I hate when I feel this mislead by my own projections of wants.

Ikr where's trigonometry when you need it? That's one big piece of Pi I'd like to handle.

Hehe #contribution

What about the circle of fifths in music theory? Apparently that's no good.

And for all that is good and righteous in the heaven itself why is there no discussion about the circumference of a circle?

All my rage.

Get this: a pie is circular as well.

Calculating Pi on pie. I think my mind can't handle this anymore.

 

[Pionart]

I believe the pi function to be of prime importance.

 

[Thalassa]

According to Jung, the Si dom can actually be extremely artistically talented, in fact a madman if imbalanced, seeing the world through an individuallly biased perception and believing it to be "facts" or objective reality. To an Ni, and to a lesser degree Ne, type this is a symbol of that. This explains to me why in late adolescence, I suddenly developed an interest in universal symbolism and psychology, and why my Fi/Ni loops sound like vague nonsense or babble, to people who don't understand my internal landscape (which is why some people say Kurt Cobain was actually ISFP with his constant personal symbolic referencing; INFJ Tori Amos does something similar but more structured and less defiantly self centered, ISFP Lana del Rey drIves some people nuts with her constant references to party dress, Lolita, etc and how she's internalized the symbolic landscape of 30th century America into her personal narrative )...by contrast, Si types are more likely to be attached to the thing itself, which is why non-Si doms can interpret them as simplistic or stubborn sticks in the mud, but to them the religion of the thing is actually necessary to their ability to experience the eternal, the object itself is inextricably tied to the meaning. To the Si type a cigar is just a cigar, yet they may be fixated on cigars none the less, even ritualistically so. Their artistic ability lies in their talent to duplicate what they see, or to form a beautiful aesthetic impression of the thing rather than a duplicate. It's also why their houses sometimes look like four star hotels, all matchy matchy. My ESTJ step grandmother was like this, took great pride in aesthetic order, throw pillows that matched the carpet to the sofa, etc ...not that they're all that gifted, some simply duplicate the culture of their childhood, even if that was messy ghetto life. That's what makes it more difficult for them to overcome certain childhood patterns, especially ESFJ.

Lower IQ Ni doms likely come across as idiot savants...like mostly talking about vague weird shit, being written off by people around them, yet under closer observation they seem smart in a weird way, like having a different perspective of the same situation, and problem solving through erratic insight.

 

[reckful]

According to Jung, the Si dom can actually be extremely artistically talented, in fact a madman if imbalanced, seeing the world through an individuallly biased perception and believing it to be "facts" or objective reality. ...

Carl Jung had a mystical streak, but he also believed in applying the scientific approach to the extent feasible — and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And the result was that Myers' type descriptions ended up departing from Jung in many ways, both large and small.

And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.

As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more function-centric sources like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the opposite of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually nobody respectable really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.

The long spoiler at the end of this post is all about Jung's mistaken belief that introversion involved both being introverted in the modern MBTI sense (including its social/defensive/private aspects) and being "abstract" (idea-focused) in orientation — as distinguished from the "concrete" physical-fact focus Jung associated with extraversion. But decades of MBTI data have firmly established that not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but that there's no significant statistical correlation at all between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. An extravert is no more likely than an introvert to choose the S side of test items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) facts or (N) ideas" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) concrete or (N) abstract."

And I'd say it was that big mistake on the E/I-concrete/abstract front, first and foremost, that caused Jung to miss the boat so badly in his conception of introverted sensation. And again, this is not a "dichotomies vs. functions" issue. As described at greater length in that first linked post (with lots of quotes!), even the more function-centric MBTI theorists (e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi) agree with Myers' corrections to Jung in the Si department (not to mention in the E/I-concrete/abstract department).

But it's very much worth noting that 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. If Jung was still around and became aware that, almost 100 years after Psychological Types was published, anybody was inclined to ignore the improvements that Myers made to his original ideas and was recommending that people focus on his original Si description instead, I really don't think he'd approve.

 

[Thalassa]

Carl Jung had a mystical streak, but he also believed in applying the scientific approach to the extent feasible — and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And the result was that Myers' type descriptions ended up departing from Jung in many ways, both large and small.

And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.

As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more function-centric sources like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the opposite of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually nobody respectable really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.

The long spoiler at the end of this post is all about Jung's mistaken belief that introversion involved both being introverted in the modern MBTI sense (including its social/defensive/private aspects) and being "abstract" (idea-focused) in orientation — as distinguished from the "concrete" physical-fact focus Jung associated with extraversion. But decades of MBTI data have firmly established that not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but that there's no significant statistical correlation at all between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. An extravert is no more likely than an introvert to choose the S side of test items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) facts or (N) ideas" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) concrete or (N) abstract."

And I'd say it was that big mistake on the E/I-concrete/abstract front, first and foremost, that caused Jung to miss the boat so badly in his conception of introverted sensation. And again, this is not a "dichotomies vs. functions" issue. As described at greater length in that first linked post (with lots of quotes!), even the more function-centric MBTI theorists (e.g., Thomson, Berens and Nardi) agree with Myers' corrections to Jung in the Si department (not to mention in the E/I-concrete/abstract department).

But it's very much worth noting that 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. If Jung was still around and became aware that, almost 100 years after Psychological Types was published, anybody was inclined to ignore the improvements that Myers made to his original ideas and was recommending that people focus on his original Si description instead, I really don't think he'd approve.

Maybe it's the way my mind works, but I think Jungs description of Si is intensely more accurate and able to be widely applied to diverse cultures and levels of intelligence in SJ types, especially compared to Keirsey. This "mystical streak" plus scientific observation has been ventured to peg Jung as ISTP rather than INFJ.

If he was wrong about E/I so be it...but his description of Si is spot on and gives SJs more intellect and humanity than any other description I've seen of them basically being tools.

 

[Poki]

Maybe it's the way my mind works, but I think Jungs description of Si is intensely more accurate and able to be widely applied to diverse cultures and levels of intelligence in SJ types, especially compared to Keirsey. This "mystical streak" plus scientific observation has been ventured to peg Jung as ISTP rather than INFJ.

If he was wrong about E/I so be it...but his description of Si is spot on and gives SJs more intellect and humanity than any other description I've seen of them basically being tools.

From my experience ISTJ are tools most when beat down and controlled. Its their form of de-associating from the world. I swear the good qualities of ISTJ were given to ISTP because of "how Si has been defined". I cant stand most ISTJ descriptions because it misses alot of the whole picture.

 

[KitchenFly]

Ikr where's trigonometry when you need it? That's one big piece of Pi I'd like to handle.


And for all that is good and righteous in the heaven itself why is there no discussion about the circumference of a circle?

All my rage.

Get this: a pie is circular as well.

Calculating Pi on pie. I think my mind can't handle this anymore.

Thank you Si, leave it to an Ni for now... It's all about the meat and the gravy... The impression triggering taste buds triggering memory,. Memories,. Pi on Pie. And then the first bite was taken. "It's Curry chicken" I ordered lentils!

On another note, Si and Ni reminds me of a two lane road and the concentration of traveling along it as a path.

Si is like the need to stay truly aligned with the white line alway holing in measure in mind and not loosing its content from focus.

Ni is like holding the space between the two edges of both lanes in the minds near peripheral view so as the sub conches can act upon the task of safety and direction toward destination.

If Si transforms to Ni while traveling along the road then the central gaze can become Ni and the near peripheral vision and mid peripheral vision and far peripheral vision can become that cafe, that friend to meet, that fine cup of coffee,..that lamp post that now touching my nose.

 

[Pionart]

Lower IQ Ni doms likely come across as idiot savants

Hm... I had associated "idiot savants" with Si. Though, I could be basing that on only certain savants, like ones with remarkable memories but lacking in a lot of other ways.

I would think a lower IQ Ni dom would just seem... idk, like a higher IQ Ni dom would? :S but maybe seem a bit more "normal" like a sensor, except really dazed, lol..

 

[Pionart]

also: wondering what you guys think of the Si and Ni functions in socionics

 

[Igxfl]

Lower IQ Ni doms likely come across as idiot savants...like mostly talking about vague weird shit, being written off by people around them, yet under closer observation they seem smart in a weird way, like having a different perspective of the same situation, and problem solving through erratic insight.

Not to tease too much, but Ni has become so strongly associated with intelligence that if I ask what a dumb Ni type is like, the answer is a smart person who is dumb about the things they aren't smart about.

I should play fair, though, and take a crack at the question myself.

If Ni involves a lot of "just knowing" things, sudden realizations in "a-ha" moments, and an inner confidence in one's insights, I might expect an Ni type of unusually low intelligence to do the same things, but consistently miss the mark. That is, such a person would stubbornly attach themselves to some dumb idea, interpretation, or prediction, and not be swayed by common-sense reasoning or evidence. Note that this behavior is the same as that of the bold Ni visionary who sees beyond the limited mental frameworks of others. The main difference is being right, and being right is not a personality trait. (Of course, your average regular-person Ni type would hit neither of these silly extremes.)

Maybe it's the way my mind works, but I think Jungs description of Si is intensely more accurate and able to be widely applied to diverse cultures and levels of intelligence in SJ types, especially compared to Keirsey. This "mystical streak" plus scientific observation has been ventured to peg Jung as ISTP rather than INFJ.

If he was wrong about E/I so be it...but his description of Si is spot on and gives SJs more intellect and humanity than any other description I've seen of them basically being tools.

Most of Jung's original descriptions sound a bit pathological, I think they're geared towards very extreme versions of each type. I agree, though, that his Si description is very helpful if one looks past that. Actually, I think a lot of the stuff about being oriented towards and deeply influenced by one's subjective impressions of the world gets awkwardly shunted towards Fi or Ni in a lot of MBTI work.

As for Keirsey, he rather blatantly used Sensing/Intuition as a euphemism for Dull/Bright. I think his temperaments really distorted a lot of the typology.

also: wondering what you guys think of the Si and Ni functions in socionics

I think the Socionics Si function is a lot more interesting than the MBTI one. Being relaxed and homeostasis-oriented seems more appropriate to a a Pi function, and I like how it pairs well with Ne. Si and Ne often come off as direct opposites in MBTI, where in Socionics they're more like two complementary perspectives on the Si/Ne function axis.

I don't like Socionics Ni as much. It tends to have an extremely specific emphasis on time and prediction, which seems lopsided and incomplete to me. I do like the way the emphasis on function axes (Socionics Judicious/Decisive and Merry/Serious) helps create a clearer difference between the two types of intuition.

 

[Thalassa]

Hm... I had associated "idiot savants" with Si. Though, I could be basing that on only certain savants, like ones with remarkable memories but lacking in a lot of other ways.

I would think a lower IQ Ni dom would just seem... idk, like a higher IQ Ni dom would? :S but maybe seem a bit more "normal" like a sensor, except really dazed, lol..

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I'm an S because let me tell you son, some Ns live in outer space. Their grasp of facts and and things like grammar/sentence structure is poor, and they sound like complete loons when they open their mouths to speak. I have no clue why you'd think Si are idiot savants...they're usually the bench mark for "average" or "book learning."

People thought Einstein was retarded, and he was just Ne aux.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but I think low IQ Ns are more common than people think. The theory of there being so few, has been attached to an additional theory that Ns were easily killed off by Law of the Jungle in earlier times. A low IQ N is an evolutionary disaster, under natural conditions.

So there would understandably be more living now, who had been protected. Dumb SJs can be assistant manager of Taco Bell, and an ignorant SP may still have some inherent earthy bodily wisdom, a certain practical view. A low IQ N likely still lives with their parents, or is Sweet Aunt Sally who says strangely remarkable things at random, but otherwise seems like there are bats in the bellfry.

 

[Thalassa]

Not to tease too much, but Ni has become so strongly associated with intelligence that if I ask what a dumb Ni type is like, the answer is a smart person who is dumb about the things they aren't smart about.

I should play fair, though, and take a crack at the question myself.

If Ni involves a lot of "just knowing" things, sudden realizations in "a-ha" moments, and an inner confidence in one's insights, I might expect an Ni type of unusually low intelligence to do the same things, but consistently miss the mark. That is, such a person would stubbornly attach themselves to some dumb idea, interpretation, or prediction, and not be swayed by common-sense reasoning or evidence. Note that this behavior is the same as that of the bold Ni visionary who sees beyond the limited mental frameworks of others. The main difference is being right, and being right is not a personality trait. (Of course, your average regular-person Ni type would hit neither of these silly extremes.)



Most of Jung's original descriptions sound a bit pathological, I think they're geared towards very extreme versions of each type. I agree, though, that his Si description is very helpful if one looks past that. Actually, I think a lot of the stuff about being oriented towards and deeply influenced by one's subjective impressions of the world gets awkwardly shunted towards Fi or Ni in a lot of MBTI work.

As for Keirsey, he rather blatantly used Sensing/Intuition as a euphemism for Dull/Bright. I think his temperaments really distorted a lot of the typology.



I think the Socionics Si function is a lot more interesting than the MBTI one. Being relaxed and homeostasis-oriented seems more appropriate to a a Pi function, and I like how it pairs well with Ne. Si and Ne often come off as direct opposites in MBTI, where in Socionics they're more like two complementary perspectives on the Si/Ne function axis.

I don't like Socionics Ni as much. It tends to have an extremely specific emphasis on time and prediction, which seems lopsided and incomplete to me. I do like the way the emphasis on function axes (Socionics Judicious/Decisive and Merry/Serious) helps create a clearer difference between the two types of intuition.

I'll reply to you more later, but you seem biased. I mean really, I have never honestly thought Ni doms had higher IQs than anyone else. Jung called Ni the voice crying in the wilderness, sort of like Rasputin, stumbling around drunk and being super psychic. The bench mark for smart people tends along STJ in polite society in terms of career advancement, law, teaching, etc....honestly a low IQ N who was below average would seem even more stupid than "normal" because low IQ Ss can be trained to be useful.

 

[Pionart]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I'm an S because let me tell you son, some Ns live in outer space. Their grasp of facts and and things like grammar/sentence structure is poor, and they sound like complete loons when they open their mouths to speak. I have no clue why you'd think Si are idiot savants...they're usually the bench mark for "average" or "book learning."

People thought Einstein was retarded, and he was just Ne aux.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but I think low IQ Ns are more common than people think. The theory of there being so few, has been attached to an additional theory that Ns were easily killed off by Law of the Jungle in earlier times. A low IQ N is an evolutionary disaster, under natural conditions.

So there would understandably be more living now, who had been protected. Dumb SJs can be assistant manager of Taco Bell, and an ignorant SP may still have some inherent earthy bodily wisdom, a certain practical view. A low IQ N likely still lives with their parents, or is Sweet Aunt Sally who says strangely remarkable things at random, but otherwise seems like there are bats in the bellfry.

Well, like I said, I associated with Si based on the idea that Si's have incredible memory for details. I'm unsure how accurate this characterisation is exactly, I know it's not as significant as it's often made out to be, but I still feel like it's like, a thing.

I've thought of that evolutionary theory for why N's would be higher in IQ, but I think it's more that IQ by its very nature tests more for N abilities than it does for S. Same with universities, which is why you might have like 50% or more of the people at a university being N's. I have thought, based on the 1 in 4 statistic for intuition, that it may be linked to recessive genes or something, but I have no good reason for thinking so other than it fitting neatly.

Anyway, the wiki states: "Savant skills are usually found in one or more of five major areas: art, musical abilities, calendar calculation, arithmetic, and spatial skills" - spatial skill is associated with Se. The calendar calculation and arithmetic could be N, because from what I understand, these savants don't actually go through step-by-step processes to get the answer, it just comes to them (or I know this is at least the case some of the time). I'm not sure how art/music ties into the functions - various types are ascribed artistic sensibilities; I think Jung would say it's mainly the introverted irrational types that are best here. I could see there being an association with low IQ based on the very specialized nature of the savant's abilities (specialization is associated with Si, but that's more based on experience rather than natural ability, I believe). Anyways, I'll leave the overall correlation with type as weak until shown otherwise.

As for N's living in outer space and speaking really strangely... the majority of members of this forum are N, and I wouldn't say that they come across that way, although maybe it's much more apparent in person when someone is a total space cadet. I knowingly write really obscure posts on here sometimes, and I would say that's me being more N than usual, and I do get spaced out a lot, and know a lot of even spacier N's, so yeah, I can agree with what you're saying.

 

[Thalassa]

Well, like I said, I associated with Si based on the idea that Si's have incredible memory for details. I'm unsure how accurate this characterisation is exactly, I know it's not as significant as it's often made out to be, but I still feel like it's like, a thing.

I've thought of that evolutionary theory for why N's would be higher in IQ, but I think it's more that IQ by its very nature tests more for N abilities than it does for S. Same with universities, which is why you might have like 50% or more of the people at a university being N's. I have thought, based on the 1 in 4 statistic for intuition, that it may be linked to recessive genes or something, but I have no good reason for thinking so other than it fitting neatly.

Anyway, the wiki states: "Savant skills are usually found in one or more of five major areas: art, musical abilities, calendar calculation, arithmetic, and spatial skills" - spatial skill is associated with Se. The calendar calculation and arithmetic could be N, because from what I understand, these savants don't actually go through step-by-step processes to get the answer, it just comes to them (or I know this is at least the case some of the time). I'm not sure how art/music ties into the functions - various types are ascribed artistic sensibilities; I think Jung would say it's mainly the introverted irrational types that are best here. I could see there being an association with low IQ based on the very specialized nature of the savant's abilities (specialization is associated with Si, but that's more based on experience rather than natural ability, I believe). Anyways, I'll leave the overall correlation with type as weak until shown otherwise.

As for N's living in outer space and speaking really strangely... the majority of members of this forum are N, and I wouldn't say that they come across that way, although maybe it's much more apparent in person when someone is a total space cadet. I knowingly write really obscure posts on here sometimes, and I would say that's me being more N than usual, and I do get spaced out a lot, and know a lot of even spacier N's, so yeah, I can agree with what you're saying.

I'm saying I've met people like that IRL, and I think they're less intelligent or less educated Ns. Stupid Ss aren't fun people to talk to, but they'll rake your yard or greet you at Walmart. I'm not suggesting ALL Ns are like that...I think Ns just presume they're more intelligent by ignoring the stupid of their own kind.

Also, Si is more complicated than memory. I'm too tired to go into it right now, but I've posted about it many times on the forum.