[Other/Multiple Temperaments] Intelligence – Intuitives vs Sensors

[Coffee_Yum]

First and foremost, when I talk about intelligence I am talking about intelligence alone as a description of a person, and by no means does it define anyone’s worth, or is reflective overall superiority/inferiority of a person. This topic has been discussed many times, but most discussions turned out to be debates because people get personal. They feel they are being called stupid or put down. So please refrain from doing that to ensure this thread remains informative and the topic remains objective they way numbers and statistics should and do not post if you cannot achieve that.

That out of the way, I would like to know, from a population weighted average point of view, do intuitives actually have higher IQ than sensors. Historical evidence seems to suggest so since there were more intuitive inventors, scholars, philosophers etc. Also, deduction suggests intuitives are more likely to seek understanding beneath the surface and hence achieve greater understandings, which contributes to intelligence. However, is there any hard evidence that this is truly the case, or not the case?

 

[kirsten]

Historical evidence seems to suggest so since there were more intuitive inventors, scholars, philosophers etc.

Yeah but, there are probably more Sensors out there running the world and actually getting things done. Don't discount practical intelligence.

Also, do you know for sure that all those "inventors, scholars, and philosophers" are actually Intuitives, or are you just assuming they're Intuitives because they're inventors, scholars, and philosophers?

 

[Forever]

Why do people care about iq so much?

 

[/DG/]

Random thing I recently learned. Apparently raw scores on IQ tests keep increasing. It's worth reading about: Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the OP, I remember reading a post a while ago regarding a study that correlated type with IQ. It indeed did place intuitives on top, particularly NTs. SPs generally scored near the bottom. I don't remember there being a huge difference in actual IQ scores (it was maybe between one point or so between types if at all, I can't remember). Not sure if anyone had a link to this?

However, I also don't know how valid the MBTI type sorting of these individuals was. If it was just by test metric, then it isn't necessarily accurate. If it was the test and then interview format (which I believe is done for the official test), then it is more valid.

The big five is similar to MBTI in many respects and likely has a lot of data on it and IQ if you're interested in more search terms to find what you want.

 

[/DG/]

Actually, you may be interested in this: Intelligence and personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Openness (intuition) is the key personality factor associated with intelligence. But it is associated with "crystallized intelligence" (related to "book smarts") as opposed to "fluid intelligence" (related to novel situations). Thus it is proposed that this relationship is due to a greater enjoyment for learning in people with high openness. But it doesn't exclude people with low openness from attaining higher crystallized intelligence.

 

[IndigoViolet11]

I would say that anyone can improve in anything in general, but intuitives and sensors start in different positions. Either getting the big picture before putting the dots in, or put the dots in before linking them to fill the picture.

 

[IndigoViolet11]

But then.. IQ is like some hard skills when I actually got the opportunity to take one of those tests from a psychologist. Sensors will have more advantage imo. They test from logical areas of matching the next shapes, solving math problems, verbal skills explaining teems, some puzzle to solve, or giving you pictures to measure your so call common knowledge and observation (ah that is tat bit too much supposingly to mention, as those who took it aint suppose to put too much hint). It itself is already sensor biased because they will make logical sense rather than just intuitive sense. It has its limited scope, and that have not take account to a lot of things that a human life would encounter.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Why do people care about iq so much?

Because it matters.

 

[Dreamer]

This just spawned a similar thought, but I find real intelligence, where someone not only reads or learns material, but is able to wield it in new and exciting ways, understanding a concept so we'll that they can mold it to whatever way they please. Anyone can read a book and spit that information back, a computer can do that. A human on the other hand, takes that information further.

 

[Forever]

Because it matters.

Judging by your avi, I'm guessing you're sarcastic.

If not... I'm sure many people will do fine in their life never knowing their IQ. Or really others.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

IQ tests measure the intellectual skills needed in white collar employment. People who do well on those test are skilled at the specific, narrow ranged forms of intelligence valued by society.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Judging by your avi, I'm guessing you're sarcastic.

If not... I'm sure many people will do fine in their life never knowing their IQ. Or really others.

It's not about knowing exactly what your IQ score is, it's about how you demonstrate IQ whether you're aware that you are or not.

- - - Updated - - -

IQ tests measure the intellectual skills needed in white collar employment. People who do well on those test are skilled at the specific, narrow ranged forms of intelligence valued by society.

You clearly haven't studied the mountains of research done about IQ.

 

[Forever]

It's not about knowing exactly what your IQ score is, it's about how you demonstrate IQ whether you're aware that you are or not.

Could you further explain this, I'm not sure if I see your point?

 

[Jaguar]

Because it matters.

To the querent.

 

[Forever]

Do I care about someone's musical intelligence? No, I just want to hear good songs. Idgaf about your quotient.

Emotional intelligence? Just treat me right to the best you can. Thanks.

Spatial intellgience? Just make nice paintings or help people out with models for science or business whatever.

Logical intelligence is no different, just use it on science or whatever, do something useful if it's your thing, not show it off like it's your wang and expect the sex to automatically be good because your wang is big.

I haven't listed all the different intelligences, but all that really matters how I see it is for how people express it. Because you can have the most high and brilliant but not do anything. People going to think you're an amazing and high person doing nothing with your talents?

I hope I don't need to answer that question.

 

[Poki]

Random thing I recently learned. Apparently raw scores on IQ tests keep increasing. It's worth reading about: Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the OP, I remember reading a post a while ago regarding a study that correlated type with IQ. It indeed did place intuitives on top, particularly NTs. SPs generally scored near the bottom. I don't remember there being a huge difference in actual IQ scores (it was maybe between one point or so between types if at all, I can't remember). Not sure if anyone had a link to this?

However, I also don't know how valid the MBTI type sorting of these individuals was. If it was just by test metric, then it isn't necessarily accurate. If it was the test and then interview format (which I believe is done for the official test), then it is more valid.

The big five is similar to MBTI in many respects and likely has a lot of data on it and IQ if you're interested in more search terms to find what you want.

I question how much of type descriptions and typical N is smarter goes towards typing and such. I first tested as INTP and i think alot of Ti gets confused as N.

 

[Bush]

That out of the way, I would like to know, from a population weighted average point of view, do intuitives actually have higher IQ than sensors. Historical evidence seems to suggest so since there were more intuitive inventors, scholars, philosophers etc.

I wouldn't go by history. Those folks' types are speculative. In fact, I'd wager that there's a circular loop in many of those cases -- "Oh, Diogenes was a profound thinker, so he's probably an N." [...] "Well, Diogenes is an N, which is why he's a profound thinker." (Also, don't go for self-serving bullshit garbage like this.)

The best resources are hard stats and studies. This particular study did a cool lil' MANOVA and also clearly lays out its samples' age ranges, gender, race, etc. Lots of other studies are worth checking out. There are also nice and pretty tables/graphs out there, such as

Keep in mind, too, that these studies determine type through the official MBTI test, which only very, very indirectly deals with cognitive functions.

(Some hardcore typology purist folks scoff at the official test, but many of them will embrace those stats if they're in their favor.)

Also, deduction suggests intuitives are more likely to seek understanding beneath the surface and hence achieve greater understandings, which contributes to intelligence. However, is there any hard evidence that this is truly the case, or not the case?

Take the following with all of the grains of salt on the planet. It's a tough nut to crack.

The definition of the Big 5's Openness trait captures that likelihood more directly than the definition of MBTI's intuition does. By definition.

But intuition is correlated positively with Openness and with IQ. That forms a pretty thin, flimsy bridge between intuition and IQ. It's possible that there's a connection between intelligence and seeking understanding beneath the surface. It's also possible that, if that relationship exists, it could be causal.

__

To the querent's widdle tiny fragile ego.

^ more precisely

 

[geedoenfj]

From my observations, sensors being more alert give them adavntage of tricking people into thinking they're more intellegent..
I know an ESFP (a family member) whom everyone used to praise how intellegent she is, although she doesn't have any special talent, didn't do well at school at all, and have below average IQ..
I can generally assume that NTs have the highest IQ, though some of them that I know have lower IQ than mine..

 

[Coffee_Yum]

I've been reading a lot of things over this. There are many theories regarding what intelligence is.

The most commonly accepted standard defines it generally as the brain's capacity to process information, without regards to what types of information. The clock speed of the CPU so to speak. Under the same PC analogy, the GPU processes graphical information much better than the CPU. It can be argued that despite the numbers, each and every CUDA cores on a GPU is less powerful than one CPU core and therefore making the CPU more "intelligent" in it's most fundamental sense. IQ tests are designed specifically for this measurement, only picking the most appropriate question to measure one's raw brain potential, without regards to how that person will actually perform in a wide range of tasks. The assumption is if this person's "intelligent" in this sense, he will perform well on average of all the task throughout his life. He may not excel in any of them, but a jack of all trade can still have a high average. So in a sense, IQ tests are meaningful with an underlying assumption that this is the definition of "intelligence".

Other theories such as multiple intelligence breaks down the scope of intelligence to include a wide scope of different types of activities aside from the basic academic intelligence. Interpersonal, arts all have its own separate measure of intelligence. To me this is a more attractive and realistic definition of intelligence. In reality, what makes a person shine is specialization. By allocating a separate measurement to various different types of tasks we can then better measure how much and what area can a person contribute to the world. Under this definition of intelligence, IQ tests are simply too theoretical and general to be of any meaning. I think the downfall though, being divided means this view shifts attention away from the question "who can contribute more to the world as a whole?". A person who excels in one area and completely suck in others, will get more recognition in society for doing what he does best. Compare this to a jack of all trade person who does everything reasonably well, if can be quantified, has a higher average contribution to society, but under this sense of intelligence, he will not receive the recognition he deserves. More over if society has to choose between these 2 persons, logically it will be the jack of all trade who should be chosen.

Under general intelligence. I think it should be no surprise that intuitives will perform better on average. However everyone can have a fair chance to shine in other areas under the multiple intelligence. In this sense, those with high general intelligence are more suitable to lead because their decisions will likely to be of a higher quality, but it will be up to those with high scores in various multiple intelligence fields to go into the practical specifics or act as an adviser, neither more important than the other.

 

[Jaguar]

Deep.