INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[Blackmail!]

So do people. What is your point? Can they never tell the truth?

Frankly! How can you believe a second the guy writing this blog is sane, and not biased at all, ideologically or politically speaking?

Let me quote his title:

"Election 2008, in perspective: The (mostly ignorant) voters of several States have taken us another giant step down the road to serfdom. I cannot but mourn the imminent and certain elimination of the last traces of liberty in the United States. Thus the new, predominantly black, color scheme of this blog."

:yim_rolling_on_the_ :yim_rolling_on_the_ :yim_rolling_on_the_

How can you trust someone who (seriously) claims, that "the Right is Smarter than the Left", and once again with incomplete datas, datas he has pulled out of his pocket?

The guy is a mythomaniac liar with severe psychological issues, it's obvious.



Plus, he doesn't provide ANY reliable sources. And it's the same in almost every article he writes, he always conveniently eludes the sources, pretends he has seen them but can't recall exactly where and how, or invent them out of incomplete conjunctures...

Do you know what we do with PhD thesis that don't provide real sources or reproducible results?

They directly go to the trash bin.

 

[erm]

@erm
Intelligence= the ability to solve simple and complex problems and to understand and process information.

Please stop with the overly liberal non-sense.We all know essentially what intelligence means, I assume now you're going to get into a long drawn out speech ultimately leading to the conclusion that i.q. is meaningless and everyone is equally intelligent in their own way, no?That is a nice notion and allows everyone to feel good about themselves but its not at all accurate.

I.q tests are not perfect, and i realize this, their are things like cultural biases, and poverty to take into account,but chances are if your a white individual that was raised in a middle to upper class familty then your i.q. is for the most part an accurate representation of your intelligence.

No, I was suggesting that intelligence is ill-defined and very subjective. The ability to spot visual patterns is just one cognitive area, the ability to solve complex arithmetic problems another. Both are corner-stones of most IQ tests. Idiot-savants are a fine example of people with incredibly high IQs failing in other areas often considered an essential part of intelligence.

Take your definition just given. Are you claiming people with higher IQs solve more problems generally? And are you also claiming that people with higher IQs understand things better?

I'd give you understanding and processing things quicker, but not better. As for solving problems, if you can't see the huge variety of problems, and how people with high IQs generally have as many (those with very high even more so), than anyone with IQs around 100, you have are using a very narrow definition of "problem". If you were to do an actual study of this, you'd have huge difficulties defining what a "problem" is in the first place.

People who innovate to solve problems rarely have very high IQs, for example. It's not a very good measure of creativity at all, which is considered a key area in intelligence by many. There are things which correlate far more to financial success than IQ does, though the ability to process information faster would be a clear advantage in many fields.

That's ignoring the problems IQ tests have themselves. Notably a lack of consistent scoring, and an ease of increasing score with practice.

What I'm not doing, is claiming everyone has the same intelligence, or that there aren't stupid people. What I am claiming, is that intelligence is not a scalar quantity. IQ is.

 

[themightybob]

well can you propose a better method of measuring intelligence then?

If there is no way at all to measure general intelligence with a reasonable ammount of accuracy then i guess a statement that any individual is intelligent is neither true nor false. So, by your logic i could call hawking an idiot and your average prison inmate a genius and it would be as accurate as if i had stated the opposite, or atleast their is no way of explicitly proving me wrong in that assumption.

 

[erm]

well can you propose a better method of measuring intelligence then?

If there is no way at all to measure general intelligence with a reasonable ammount of accuracy then i guess a statement that any individual is intelligent is neither true nor false. So, by your logic i could call hawking an idiot and your average prison inmate a genius and it would be as accurate as if i had stated the opposite, or atleast their is no way of explicitly proving me wrong in that assumption.

I never suggested that.

It's clear we can measure the common definitions of intelligence to some degree, if we were to agree on a definition to be measured. It's also true that it is not such a simple thing to measure regardless, and even clear definitions fall under the usual inaccuracies of measuring mental capabilities.

All I'm really saying is that, after a certain point IQ looses value as a measure of intelligence. For example people with IQs below 100 rarely, if ever, fit most definitions of intelligence, so it does quite well there. It is measuring a specific area of intelligence, and does it quite well, but beyond that I wouldn't give it much credit. The higher the scores, the less accurate it becomes.

Chris Langan is a smart guy. By my standards he's not that smart though, after reading his CTMU. Others think he is a genius. By contrast there are many people I've met with considerably lower IQ scores than him, who's intelligence has shined through to me, who others have thought stupid. There's no clear cut answer as to who's right about it, yet such a dilemma is commonplace.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting I'm more intelligent than Chris Langan.

 

[themightybob]

I guess i can agree with that, but i still think the correllation between I.Q. and the generally accepted measure of intelligence goes well beyond 100.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Either way, until those statistics are proven wrong by a more definitive and credible source, I will use them as a reference guide.

* August 26, 2007: I apologize for not having documented the source of the statistics that I cite here. I dimly recall finding them on or via the website of Mensa USA, but I am not certain of that. And I can no longer find the source by searching the web.

Sounds extremely credible, not to mention intelligent

 

[Zarathustra]

I never suggested that.

It's clear we can measure the common definitions of intelligence to some degree, if we were to agree on a definition to be measured. It's also true that it is not such a simple thing to measure regardless, and even clear definitions fall under the usual inaccuracies of measuring mental capabilities.

All I'm really saying is that, after a certain point IQ looses value as a measure of intelligence. For example people with IQs below 100 rarely, if ever, fit most definitions of intelligence, so it does quite well there. It is measuring a specific area of intelligence, and does it quite well, but beyond that I wouldn't give it much credit. The higher the scores, the less accurate it becomes.

Chris Langen is a smart guy. By my standards he's not that smart though, after reading his CTMU. Others think he is a genius. By contrast there are many people I've met with considerably lower IQ scores than him, who's intelligence has shined through to me, who others have thought stupid. There's no clear cut answer as to who's right about it.

Now this is possibly the first good post on the matter!

I would agree with almost everything stated (although I have no idea who Chris Langen is...[until now, since I just wikipedia'd him]).

Sometimes it seems like we're all playing tug of rope with reality. We all know what's sitting right there in the middle, but we all think everyone's too far on this side or that, and we just need to try and pull them a little more over here or there...

Kinda annoying, but I do the same shit.

 

[Zarathustra]

I guess i can agree with that, but i still think the correllation between I.Q. and the generally accepted measure of intelligence goes well beyond 100.

Agreed here, too.

I've found that I can pretty accurately categorize the people I know into about a 10 point range on the IQ scale.

That's gotta count for something...

 

[PeaceBaby]

btw, I can't believe this thread is still ongoing ... haven't you INTJ's managed to prove the accuracy of the myth yet?

 

[Zarathustra]

btw, I can't believe this thread is still ongoing ... haven't you INTJ's managed to prove the accuracy of the myth yet?

Just a little bit longer...

 

[erm]

I guess i can agree with that, but i still think the correllation between I.Q. and the generally accepted measure of intelligence goes well beyond 100.

Well, I didn't say it stopped completely at 100. Just started to weaken considerably. I've heard decent arguments for it staying strong up until 120 (this is all standard deviation 15), but I disagree.

I'm not sure how we could take this debate any further, however.

Agreed here, too.

I've found that I can pretty accurately categorize the people I know into about a 10 point range on the IQ scale.

That's gotta count for something...

Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I said. I believe I can guess rather accurately too after knowing someone for a while. Though I have been way off the mark from time to time.

 

[Blackmail!]

Agreed here, too.

I've found that I can pretty accurately categorize the people I know into about a 10 point range on the IQ scale.

That's gotta count for something...

Fine.

I've taken a written form of IQ test, many, many years ago, so in which range do you think I am?

I'm just curious...

 

[Ginkgo]

Agreed here, too.

I've found that I can pretty accurately categorize the people I know into about a 10 point range on the IQ scale.

That's gotta count for something...

Do me.

 

[uumlau]

btw, I can't believe this thread is still ongoing ... haven't you INTJ's managed to prove the accuracy of the myth yet?

I know very many people with "high IQs".

For some reason, they tend not to brag about it on forum threads.

I wonder why?

 

[Zarathustra]

Fine.

I've taken a written form of IQ test, many, many years ago, so in which range do you think I am?

I'm just curious...

I've never met you.

 

[Ginkgo]

@erm
Intelligence= the ability to solve simple and complex problems and to understand and process information.

So it would follow that we ask ourselves the questions: What is simple? What is complex? What flavor of information? What is understanding?

For some supposedly intelligent people, social graces may be the most daunting tasks; though socialization is a form of problem. It is a challenge of some sort to be charismatic. Suddenly, the calculus major finds what is normally simple to be complex.

Meanwhile, the gregarious cheerleeder struggles in calculus class, but finds socialization, and even social manipulation coming with fluid ease. So what was complex for the intelligent person is simple for the non-intelligent.

Now, there are those who are poised to perceive patterns on a short term scale, processing information with quick adaptation; but they only understand these patterns on a superficial level.

Meanwhile, there are others who indolently come to perceive patterns, but once they do they have acute understanding of all the information.

Now, I'm not saying that there's not a generalized consensus as to what constitutes intelligence (though consensus does not dictate reality). I'm trying to elucidate why so many "multiple intelligences" were derived from the single definition you just proposed.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, but that doesn't contradict what I said. I believe I can guess rather accurately too after knowing someone for a while. Though I have been way off the mark from time to time.

But I think it does point to the fact that IQ tests point to something.

None of this is perfect, and it all gets muddled when you examine it too closely (as does most everything), but I think we can all agree that there is some kind of trait that we could call general intelligence, and that IQ tests -- properly administered, best in childhood -- are at least somewhat, albeit not entirely, accurate at pointing to whether one is of below, around, or greater than average intelligence, and, to a certain extent, how much below or how much greater than average one might be.

It ain't perfect, but most things aren't...

 

[Zarathustra]

I've heard decent arguments for it staying strong up until 120 (this is all standard deviation 15), but I disagree.

I've heard that anyone above 130 is basically capable of doing anything another person above 130 (no matter how high) is capable of doing (intellect-wise).

Sounded like a semi-decent rule of thumb...

 

[Ginkgo]

But I think it does point to the fact that IQ tests point to something.

None of this is perfect, and it all gets muddled when you examine it too closely (as does most everything), but I think we can all agree that there is some kind of trait that we could call general intelligence, and that IQ tests -- properly administered, best in childhood -- are at least somewhat, albeit not entirely, accurate at pointing to whether one is of below, around, or greater than average intelligence, and, to a certain extent, how much below or how much greater than average than one might be.

It ain't perfect, but most things aren't...

Yes.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes.

And sorry, Tater, I'd have to spend some time with you.

Not enough experience with online friends and zeroing in on their probable IQ score.