[NT] NT Intelligence

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

The NT temperament is basically synonymous with intelligence - from their behaviors to actual scores, these are the superior types. Most know this; but I've been reading the somewhat fringe* intelligence theories on this site, realized that still, NT = intelligent, and wondered what others actually thought.

Here we go:

Subgroups of traits clarified by their low ends
What are you like regarding these traits (intelligence being defined here by rational ethics, ego-strength, strong ability-fostering skills, strong divergent/lateral abilities, and low instinct attachment, all of which seem endemic to the NT temperament)? Likewise, this list seems like a fairly accurate description of the type. Do you agree?

Behaviour and civilization
This scale seems like a pretty clear definition of NT (type I) vs SF (type II). Do you agree with Coojimans' speculations regarding the limits placed on type II individuals?

Aphorisms by Paul Cooijmans: Short truths
What do you think of these truths? In particular:
- If someone says things like "Intelligence is not important" or "Intelligence is not valuable in its own right", it is safe to assume that nothing that person has to say needs to be taken seriously ever again.

- Modesty is the worst form of bragging. It is the vanity of the dishonest; the arrogance of cowards.

- More is learnt by thinking than by asking.

- Non-verbal communication, including "body language", does not exist, and who think to be "reading" it are really putting words into the other's mouth, pinning things on to the other.

- Much of what one calls "criticism" is insult in disguise.

http://paulcooijmans.com/personalitytests/asperger.html
How did you score? I suspect NTs would score quite high, though I believe INTx is supposed to be the most common type for people with actual Aspergers. Both are evolutionary jumps, so it makes sense both would occur simultaneously.

http://paulcooijmans.com/genius/inferior.html
Lastly, to be blunt, what are your opinions on this article, describing non-geniuses.



*Despite which, much of it sounds accurate from what I've read of highly intelligent people.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I think there are some problems with this theory and it seems dangerous to some extent. I actually started to agree with some of things in Behavior and Civilization until I got to this point:

"Inclined, prepared, or willing to use physical violence when perceiving a need for that Avoiding physical violence in all or almost all situations"

-Intelligent people seem to use physical violence less than the average because they have other options for dealing with problems. They can use violence, but tend to resort to it more as a last resort.

"Concerned with the interest of one's own people, culture, society, nation, race, preserving it and protecting it from adverse outside influences Cosmopolitan, belonging only to multicultural multi-ethnic communities, approving of immigration and race mixing"

-I believe he is describing people who are "above average" like in the 120-140 IQ range, but there are several layers of people that are higher than that that don't conform to these rules, they are just less frequent in populations so their values tend not to influence society as much so they don't have as much of a visible impact on society. People in the range of say 150-170 or so seem to have a more "psychadelic" sort of way of experiencing reality. They are intrigued by the weird, the black swans, the exceptions to the rule. Why? Because there is more information where the rules are broken than where they are obeyed. These people also seem to have a more "greek" view of human nature and what constitutes acceptable social behavior so things like homosexuality, drug use, which religion one follows, what "race" one is a part of, etc do not concern them very much.

I can provide examples of non-conformist "genius" which is more valuable than conformist high intelligence.

Walter Pitts (homeless runaway alcoholic and very brilliant cybernetic thinker).

Ada lovelace (not known for her fidelity, liked opium, gambling and a woman who envisioned the first computer in a day when women were second class citizens not allowed to go to college and study maths etc for the most part)

Richard Feynman (bongo playing, strip-club going, safecracker who also came up with feynman diagrams.

Galois - revolutionary duel fighter who died at a young age due to these habits also the inventor of Galois theory.

I could provide many more examples on request. Usually high intelligence people are not conformist because they tend to have oddities about them that make them unaccepted in the mainstream like Alan Turing who was a homosexual and chemically castrated for it leading to his suicide.

I will say this, there are other higher levels of intelligence, but their views seem to not care too much about intelligence. Rather they tend to interact with people in ways that are as mutually beneficial as possible under a given set of circumstances.


"Accepting the reality of heredity with regard to important human qualities Insisting on social-environmental determinism with regard to important human qualities"

It is smarter to accept that there are multiple influencers on human qualities including things like education, culture, etc.

"Preferring the heterosexual marriage as the basis of society's social fabric Advocating the free expression of sexual deviations and the acceptance of alternative family forms such as single-parent families and same-sex marriages
Utilizing animals, ranking them below humans in value Treating animals as equal to or better than humans"

Again see above.

At the extreme upper end there is a completely different set of values but I won't get into that. It's enough to show that there is a group that is smarter than the group this person is describing.

 

[Coriolis]

Good grief. Some of these aphorisms don't make much sense, but then some do. My favorites:

• Non-verbal communication, including "body language", does not exist, and who think to be "reading" it are really putting words into the other's mouth, pinning things on to the other. [I would like a dollar for every time I have expressed a similar sentiment myself]
• There is hardly a greater crime than to force children of sharply different ability levels through the same curriculum in the same classroom.
• It is often said that men are afraid of intelligent women; but in fact, the only scary thing about intelligent women is their near non-existence.

This person has a very detailed and interesting page on how to participate in an online forum. If only more of our members heeded this advice.

On the other hand, there is a page on the occult containing the following:

Some of the materials below were sent to me via t-mail by the future Grail Society member, the most intelligent person ever on Earth, or were written by me based on information provided by said member. T-mail is a form of e-mail that can cross time.

This makes me suspicious of the entire site.

 

[Forever]

This person has a very detailed and interesting page on how to participate in an online forum. If only more of our members heeded this advice.

The first link you shared is quite brilliant.

 

[Kendrix]

Screw whoever wrote this.

Feel free to consider this a crude reaction, but I believe this is necessary & appropiate here… and I say that especially as an INTP who’s fornally ‘diagnosed’ with a high IQ.

Why must I be associated with this shit?

People like that are the reason I can’t be myself without placing some verbal disclaimer not to be dismissed/ mistaken for this ind of person. Okay, my lack of social skills is probably also part of that reason. But still, it’s hard for me not to take this personally.

Nothing irritates me more than when people who claim to speak for ‘reason’ and then push and poorly thought-out, wobbly and transparently self-serving agenda-pushing oversimplifications of complex issues that is laughably devoid of self-awareness and metacognition.

IQ tests are simply imperfect instruments devised by man, not some kind of platonic ideal/absolute measure of human intelligence, much less human worth.

There was actually a study where they grabbed a bunch of people we would empirically identify as ‘geniuses’, (musical prodigies etc), typed em, and had them do tests

Things happened like:

- ESTP pianist got overall slightly above-average score but much higher in tasks that required manipulating physical bricks, 3D puzzles etc.

- ISFJ improved up to 10 points if you told them to hurry up (otherwise they would double and tripple check their answers and get less work done)

- Actually it was INs (including the feelers) who score highest

- This also works the other way around: My personal experience is that I do way better with no time pressure which seems consistent with the way Ti vs Te works (higher scores when the school shrink actually sat down wth & interviewed me for hours than in internet tests that are often timed), and the average is significantly dragged down if they add motoric-kinesthetics (11 year old me could not, for the love of god, catch a ball) in addition to test for concentration, vocabulary etc

It really does not take much thinking to realize that the experts at ‘sitting still & thinking’ would do best in a sit-still-and-think activity. That’s like saying a rice cooker is less useful because it doesn’t make toast as well as a toaster.

Anyone with half a brain can imitate the language and wrapping of a legitimate cause (ie, MRM nuts.), sprinkle in some real issues and reasonable tone to lead people down the rabbit hole and unleash the cray-cray further down.

This is not to say (education system being soul.crushing at times, ppl not being aware that there’s no one ‘right’ way to express yourself and then making assumptions if someone doesn’t show the body language cues they expect etc. ) but that’s because only cartoonish villains and psyvjos are andeven the most extreme people have arrived at their PoVs from somewhere

In any case, this person’s distorted view keeps them from truly grasping the root of the problem and producing actual viable solutions other than this cruel self-fellating that claims to speak of ‘ethics’ and considers their personal opinion the only possible truth… very much the opposite of enlightenment & open-mindedness.

Particularly the “type I/Type II” article shows such forced, dichotomous thinking, us versus them.

I do think the individual ; What he writes of cruelty & shallow/barbaric treatment suggests he cared about ethics at some point; I see more of myself in this asshat than I’m comfortable with/ than I should. It’s sad that he let his bad experiences devour any compassion for his fellow human beings;

It’s clear that he only sees those like himself as humans and perhaps genuinely wants to spare them his suffering.

I emphasize with him probably more than I should because my 12 year old self could have easily gone down this path if it wasn’t for my mother and my first love. Or maybe I’m giving myself too little credit, I don’t know; But I’m struggling with the shadow of my elitist father’s impression on me (My father, by the way, was a sensor, and used similar phrases that the STJ way of thinking was the only legitimate, rational and virtous one, often scoffing at my 'pointless rebelliouness' and 'meaningless verbal diarhrea'. Only speaks to their cheapness; The only enemy is the notion of supremacy, ('I'm okay, you're not okay') no matter what form it takes, be it that of an INTJ such a treatise on their superiority, or a judgemental ESFJ gossip hen. ).

It would be tragic if there wasn’t the responsibility that he has for his crue words; I don’t believe that you can separate yourself from your creations, they are what remains of you in the end.

It’s just this same, childish fantasy of not wanting to live with people who aren’t like you - however ‘like you’ is - A planet where everyone is consevative, shares your disability, is as artistic & ponderous as you, it could be anything… and I’m well aware that it often starts as a defense mechanism against rejection and the inherent unfairness of living in a world that is just not made for you… like, I would have the deepest sympathy for you and scorn those who cry ‘special snowflake!’ each time someone points out how life is just not fair and equates that with doing nothing, but the moment you go and be cruel to others, the moment you spew misantropic shit like this and justify it by a label you do not own, dragging many others you do not know, that moment you become no better than those who made you like this!

Why do you have to taint, even completely poison the legitimate & much-overdue celebration of who you are by putting down others?

If you’re gonna be pissed and bitter, then BE pissed, you should be, but be pissed at the right people.

Who's really following something irratonally romantic here? A fact is that society consist of a percentage of people that invents machines, some that build machines, and others that use machines, and all are required for the system to function - The inventor or revolutionary is just as useless without a society for him to live in & , or even more so - A barbarian in a forest survives, a farmer might make a living; A scholar is useless without books & computers.

Which doesn't mean that it isn't good that we have scholars, they are a cool thing made possible by and adding to a stable society, but it's not a question of anyone being better than anyone else, but of *specialization*, of splitting tasks, or society forming a whole where the scholar who's cooped-up in his house & outputs great thoughts now & then is as much as a legitimate part as, say, a popular entertainer, where everyone has their place... not by some deterministic hierarchy or destiny bullshit, but because the individuals went & looked for one.



...as someone who was bullied severely and often felt like they had no place in this world/ hung on for dear life to what little things I was able to do good, I have often been interested in, and been drawn to works on the subject of ‘otherness’ (I suppose its also a 5w4); One example that I recently came across (and strongly reminds me of this guy) was that of ‘Magi: Labyrinth of Magic’’s Matal Mogamett, a supremacist mage who wants to make a country only for mages… the metaphors were a brilliant mix of secifically applicable yet universal.

 

[Cowardly]

[MENTION=26982]Kendrix[/MENTION]
A helluva rant.

I don't like IQ either. It's an imperfect tool to measure intelligence, but a very good one for segregation and boasting.

 

[Laxton]

7/54 for Asperger's test, which is apparently average for intelligent adults.

A big difference between people with Asperger's and people who are simply intelligent are their understanding of others. Personally, I don't care for a lot of social conventions and norms but I do understand them and will follow them when a situation calls for it.

Not all NTs are intelligent. I personally know an unintelligent INTP, who has little self-awareness and is somewhat uneducated. He watched a lot of educational shows and conspiracy movies instead of researching things by himself, so I consider him to be superficially intelligent. When I finally decided to start talking to him for a while, it was obvious that he didn't really know what he was talking about.

I also know an ENTP who also happens to be pretty unintelligent. He felt no inclination to learn about things that most people would deem important, and did a lot of drugs. He did reasonably well in school, but he was lacking many basic life skills that most people have already developed.

 

[Mr Troll]

You checked 14 items out of 54.

This score is in the average range of intelligent adults.

Read full manual before taking equipment into use

People read manuals? I mean after you have seen couple of them you have seen all of them. Once you know the theory... and use some lateral thinking.
Command line programs – even there I like to make educated guesses.
There are exceptions. I wouldn't drive a tank without some information – at least publicly.

I found a certain female FP's blog posts. She pretty much diagnosed herself as having aspergers because her T was so low that it made her socially clueless in logical aspects of things. It was pretty clear that she got the diagnosis by doing lots of complaining about her issues to professionals and by labelling problems as aspergers traits.
God dammit. I can not think Asperger's as legit diagnosis because that was only tiny proportion of tip of the aspergerian iceberg.

0/54:
This score is below the average range of intelligent adults.
4/54:
This score is in the average range of intelligent adults.
23/54:
This score is above the average range of intelligent adults. In this range there is a somewhat increased likelihood of psychosocial or psychiatric problems.
32/54:
This score is far above the average range of intelligent adults. In this range there is an increased likelihood of psychosocial or psychiatric problems, as well as reduced resistance to stress and reduced empathy. There may be deep introversion and/or an unusual imagination, while associative horizon may be wider than usual.
43/54:
This score is very far above the average range of intelligent adults. In this range there is a clearly increased likelihood of psychosocial or psychiatric problems, as well as reduced resistance to stress and reduced empathy. There may be deep introversion and/or an unusual imagination, while associative horizon may be wider than usual.
53/54:
This score is extremely far above the average range of intelligent adults. In this range there is a highly increased likelihood of psychosocial or psychiatric problems, as well as reduced resistance to stress and reduced empathy. There may be deep introversion and/or an unusual imagination, while associative horizon may be wider than usual.

 

[Mr Troll]

Type I: Accepting the existence of an objective reality and absolute truth Type II: Accepting only what is relative, subjective, opinionative

Now type Einstein...

 

[Jaguar]

According to Paul this is his "character":

Honest; truthful regardless of consequences;
Incapable of lying, cheating, manipulating, posing, psychological tricks; therefore without defence against who do use such methods; therefore not recognizing such methods as a bona fide part of human interaction; therefore having no tolerance for who use such methods;
Complete lack and incapability of prejudice (on the understanding that prejudice is judgment not based on fact); able to observe objectively without being influenced by "emotion" or "empathy"; able to revise a held view when new evidence requires such, and repeatedly having done so; therefore always learning, improving, advancing, and in some fields arriving at conclusions so advanced, so far removed from ruling doctrine and cliché, that those of lesser judgment can no longer recognize them as such and mistake them for rigid or prejudiced;
Incapable of dogma or doctrine, always using objective facts and logic to independently form one's own mind; everything comes from within, nothing is accepted from others; immune to suggestion, immune to "nonverbal signals" and not recognizing the latter as part of human interaction;
Absolute sense of justice (wherein "absolute" means "opposite to relative", or means "objective", and not "divine", and wherein "justice" means "righteousness", not "law").
The character features here described are possessed not by choice but by birth; in case this is not clear enough: There has been no "decision" to "stop" lying, there has been no start to lying at all as a result of incapability.

I think Paul is delusional.

 

[EcK]

According to Paul this is his "character":



I think Paul is delusional.

Or Paul, whoever Paul is, could be an AI.

 

[Mr Troll]

Or Paul, whoever Paul is, could be an AI.

In that case I would say that he is highly evolved.

Paul Cooijmans
- YouTube

Some sort of IQ nut. I don't personally trust psychometrics in strict quantitative way. When mechanisms are too hazy, framework (IQ score) is subjective , it is too much of hand waver stuff. I have studied lots of math so I'm not easily pleased with quantitative psychology. I'm actually far more happier with its qualitative side. Found correlation is not causation. Yes you can show that there is a link but to give it definitive score is preposterous as there are lots of outliers. Besides physical sciences (physics and chemistry) uses uncertainty estimates. Why I'm not seeing them in individual's psychometric tests? (secret: they have no clue what they are doing.)

 

[EcK]

In that case I would say that he is highly evolved.

Paul Cooijmans
- YouTube

Some sort of IQ nut. I don't personally trust psychometrics in strict quantitative way. When mechanisms are too hazy, framework (IQ score) is subjective , it is too much of hand waver stuff. I have studied lots of math so I'm not easily pleased with quantitative psychology. I'm actually far more happier with its qualitative side. Found correlation is not causation. Yes you can show that there is a link but to give it definitive score is preposterous as there are lots of outliers. Besides physical sciences (physics and chemistry) uses uncertainty estimates. Why I'm not seeing them in individual's psychometric tests? (secret: they have no clue what they are doing.)

evolved?
I don't think that's a good term. That seems to parallel the idea some people have that humans are more 'evolved' than other animals - which of course is ridiculous.

People talk of IQ as if it was a fashion-thing. IQ is probably the most documented, most predictive test we've had for decades when it comes to about anything people link with 'intelligence'.
I understand why many people - most of whom have below 120 iq - would like to make it sound all 'relative' (duh, everything is, but it's a matter of degrees).
Now yes, it's just a test, it's not the final judgment of the christians or anything like that and I'm sure there could be a better, more predictive test for intelligence... but I think most of the 'dude IQ doesn't matter' has more to do with people's egos than with any kind of objective assessment.

It's fair to say that virtually all that makes up human society today (ie: civilization) was very disproportionally created by people of high IQ - so it's a bit absurd to say that IQ as a test is dubious or that it's meaningless. If we all had 100 IQ we'd still be at the developmental level of pre colonial africa.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

but I think most of the 'dude IQ doesn't matter' has more to do with people's egos than with any kind of objective assessment.

PREACH!

Ha! Laughed at the 'final judgment' qualifier.