[NT] Do high IQ xNTx individuals use a dominant mix of Ne Ni Te Ti in no specific order?

[Agent Washington]

Today on: One of THOSE NT threads.

ITT: Let's brag about how special and how smart we are I'll start, I have an IQ of 255 and am one of the rarest types in MBTI (INTJ). Today a bunch of preps stared at me. I put my middle finger up at them. hbu?????

 

[ceecee]

Oh. This thread explains a great deal.

 

[FindingSolutions]

All NTs Ive met are mostly with honors.

And Im an SP, why dont I even have one? :'(

 

[Dreamer]

I find a big difference in ISFP "artists" and the NFs and NTs. You tell me. Instagram.com/ennispreit/

I checked out your Instagram, and I do seem to find commonalities between NT artists. I forget his name, but he posted in the TypoC Art Gallery, and he's INTJ. Well, his artwork is similar to yours, but without color and they're pencil drawings. Both of you use literal forms and shapes. Your work is certainly Ne whereas his is what I imagine would be the expression of Ni, as he also has whimsical imagery, but not so "random" appearing. It's hard to describe, but it's rather obvious to me, and perhaps you'd be able to pick up what I'm trying to describe.

You can check out my Instagram of photography (blwells_photogrpahy). I also posted some other work of mine in that Art Gallery thread. I like abstracting forms and tend to express some vision in whatever I do. Perhaps a generalized type could be seen in my photography and work?

I liked your work btw! I spent a fair amount of time just looking them over and taking them in.

 

[EcK]

According to Howard Gardner there is intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences.

You differentiate between intelligence and skill. How do you define the difference? I would say that skill has less of an inherent quality being mostly learned. Emotional intelligence, like verbal intelligence, can be learned to an extent but has an inherent quality as well.

Describe your definitions for intelligence.

If something is - in essence - an aspect of the same thing, you'd expect high correlation between both. There isn't such a high correlation between 'Intelligence" as defined by the G construct and "Emotional Intelligence". Therefore emotional intelligence is not 'intelligence' as defined by G. However things like memory, processing speed, size and duration of neural activation patterns, spatial rotation, vocabulary and a plethora of other cognitive traits traits ARE highly correlated with each other. Emotional intelligence just doesn't fit in that framework. Because it's not intelligence. It's a talent, or a propensity for the interpersonal there are already perfectly good terms for that.

From the about hundred of years of research on the topic it seems like traits related to intelligence are more wholistic. ie: someone who is more intelligent than someone else will generally be better at about every type of cognitive task, it's not the case for something like 'emotional intelligence' which is much narrower. Hence it's proper classification as a 'talent' / propensity etc.
Furthermore intelligence doesn't vary much if at all throughout life. Emotional Intelligence is in large part a function of preference and experience. ie: someone more emotional or more social who will then LEARN to read people. You can't learn yourself into being smarter, wiser yes, not smarter. Yet you can 'learn' to have a higher "EQ" - again because it's not a form of intelligence.


The popular perception of intelligence as 'narrow' is what makes "EQ" an attractive concept. But it's just that, a popular belief. A 140 iq individual has a brain that - overall - quantitatively and qualitatively outdoes an iq 100 individual at nearly everything. That is hard for people to accept, hence the attractiveness of oversimplification of what intelligence is that's been popularized by the have nots in that particular area.

Enough said.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

If something is - in essence - an aspect of the same thing, you'd expect high correlation between both. There isn't such a high correlation between 'Intelligence" as defined by the G construct and "Emotional Intelligence". Therefore emotional intelligence is not 'intelligence' as defined by G.

Perhaps I used the term 'emotional intelligence' as a catch-all for the inter and intra-personal intelligences defined by Gardner. I don't think that emotional intelligence is a clearly defined term and in a way is more general but perhaps should be understood as a subset of the other two. Emotions play a significant role in both the intra and inter-personal systems. It's a messy term right now.

At any rate, this debate of single vs multiple intelligences has been going on for over 100 years, and it is interesting on both sides. As a teacher I lean towards believing multiple intelligences is more accurate because I see a lot of variety of giftedness and special needs within the same individual. This is especially true of the extremely intelligent who are often neuro-atypical with significant deficits as well.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I agree however the disproportionate amount of sensors compared to intuitives simply implies intuitiveness is more "valuable", therefore more scarce, as opposed to being more "practical" therefore more common.

Only as valuable as determined by the society they live in. In some situations an intuitive might be a liability to a group's survival chances.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

But it can measure averages. Regular Joes. Everyday guys n gals.

Just because you can't prove a negative doesn't mean the absence of space doesn't have mass.

Averages in abstract intelligence, just one type of intelligence. If you have a mentally retarded person who is a savant at playing the piano but scores 70 on an IQ test, then clearly the averages aren't a good signpost for this person because they're not being measured on the right test. You wouldn't judge a house fly's or hawk's speed against a cheetah's average speed, at least not as a fair indication of the fly's or hawk's abilities.

 

[EcK]

Perhaps I used the term 'emotional intelligence' as a catch-all for the inter and intra-personal intelligences defined by Gardner. I don't think that emotional intelligence is a clearly defined term and in a way is more general but perhaps should be understood as a subset of the other two. Emotions play a significant role in both the intra and inter-personal systems. It's a messy term right now.

At any rate, this debate of single vs multiple intelligences has been going on for over 100 years, and it is interesting on both sides. As a teacher I lean towards believing multiple intelligences is more accurate because I see a lot of variety of giftedness and special needs within the same individual. This is especially true of the extremely intelligent who are often neuro-atypical with significant deficits as well.

As an NTP I'm a stickler for correct term-use. So sorry for the dictionary naziism. But I think it's worthwhile to define terms as to be able to think ..properly for lack of a better term.
Again the multiple intelligence view is incorrect, it's not a matter of what you want to be true.

For example people will say 'visual and kinestetic intelligence'. They are not intelligences, they are learning styles. etc. It's not that it's brain related that it's intelligence.
I highly value and respect people who have talents I don't have or have to a lesser degree. But I'm not going to call something what it isn't. Now regarding 'neuro atypical' individuals with high iq, yes, it's true that there are exceptions to that rule. But overall high iq = better at nearly everything brain. I don't think a few savants are enough to discard a 100 years of research.

I'm an ENTP - but I'm better at reading people than most NFs I know. I can read intent and spot lies better than my INFJ wife and people give me free shit and discounts on about everything i purchase. The difference being that I don't make DECISIONS based on it, which is the reason I'm an NTP. And I'm sure I'd be better at it if it was my preference to prioritize relationships over facts. But that's independant from my intelligence however low or high it might be.

 

[EcK]

Only as valuable as determined by the society they live in. In some situations an intuitive might be a liability to a group's survival chances.

stop bashing on INFPs, they didn't do nothing wrong.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

stop bashing on INFPs, they didn't do nothing wrong.

That's cold, man.

 

[EcK]

That's cold, man.

thank you

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Averages in abstract intelligence, just one type of intelligence. If you have a mentally retarded person who is a savant at playing the piano but scores 70 on an IQ test, then clearly the averages aren't a good signpost for this person because they're not being measured on the right test. You wouldn't judge a house fly's or hawk's speed against a cheetah's average speed, at least not as a fair indication of the fly's or hawk's abilities.

I have a student exactly like that. I suspect high spatial intelligence and pattern recognition influences his ability to play and harmonize a familiar melody in any key, yet he lives in a group home and has low linguistic abilities - special needs level.

It is also worth noting that the theory behind the IQ test was developed a century ago long before brain scan technology and the revolution in the field of neurology. It was designed when there were several erroneous beliefs about brain processing such as the idea we only use 10% of the brain or that certain aspects of cognition were permanently set at certain stages in development.

It seems presumptuous to assume we have accurately defined intelligence, especially when much of our current definitions are based on past understanding (some of which is proven wrong). It is worth staying open to new and better understanding of intelligence.

 

[Wunjo]

You all, I hate you all. You have made all the funny jokes. Ugh! I am such a dumb feeler, I can't think of any more funny jokes thanks to you.

 

[Population: 1]

Hey just think of INFPs as the village shaman. We're kinda out there and a lot of what we do doesn't make sense to others but once in a while we'll lay some profound wisdom on your dour asses.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Hey just think of INFPs as the village shaman. We're kinda out there and a lot of what we do doesn't make sense to others but once in a while we'll lay some profound wisdom on your dour asses.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Hey just think of INFPs as the village shaman. We're kinda out there and a lot of what we do doesn't make sense to others but once in a while we'll lay some profound wisdom on your dour asses.

Humans have a long history of doing whatever the shaman tells them - even them thinkers and feelers alike. 😝

 

[Population: 1]

Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I have a student exactly like that. I suspect high spatial intelligence and pattern recognition influences his ability to play and harmonize a familiar melody in any key, yet he lives in a group home and has low linguistic abilities - special needs level.

It is also worth noting that the theory behind the IQ test was developed a century ago long before brain scan technology and the revolution in the field of neurology. It was designed when there were several erroneous beliefs about brain processing such as the idea we only use 10% of the brain or that certain aspects of cognition were permanently set at certain stages in development.

It seems presumptuous to assume we have accurately defined intelligence, especially when much of our current definitions are based on past understanding (some of which is proven wrong). It is worth staying open to new and better understanding of intelligence.

Some of those misconceptions prevail to the present, notably the 10% myth which is often presented as both "common knowledge" and the premise for what-if science fiction stories and films.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!

Well, ain't we a pair.