INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[Poki]

Would it be fair to say the determining factor for intelligence is being able to do something very few other people can do?

Now your mixing intelligence with gifted. Intelligence is a form of being gifted, why INTJs feel that it is above other forms is

Some people can "quickly reason" in terms of cognitive skills that most NTs tend to be untalented in. Why is their quick reasoning less indicative of intelligence?

STPs in the house

 

[uumlau]

Some people can "quickly reason" in terms of cognitive skills that most NTs tend to be untalented in. Why is their quick reasoning less indicative of intelligence?

Isn't the definition of "useful skill" simply a function of transient cultural standards?

If I call a puppy dog's tail a "leg," how many legs does a puppy dog have?

 

[Poki]

If I call a puppy dog's tail a "leg," how many legs does a puppy dog have?

6, if you think a tail is a leg then who knows what else youll mistake? oh...wait...is this a male or female dog?

 

[Zarathustra]

Now your mixing intelligence with gifted. Intelligence is a form of being gifted, why INTJs feel that it is above other forms is

STPs in the house

6, if you think a tail is a leg then who knows what else youll mistake? oh...wait...is this a male or female dog?

Poki: +3

 

[onemoretime]

Hey, Onemoretime!

Good thing you showed up to say something totally irrelevant (and that I and everyone else could care less about)!

Your loss.

 

[Forever_Jung]

Okay I don't have any empirical evidence to back that up, but Myers Briggs and intelligence isn't that objective anyway.And if it is, well...I am too lazy and stupid to realize. Both options seem very possible to me.

Relative to to the average person, INTJ's prefer to use functions that are considered by our society (rightfully or wrongly) to be used in higher order processing. If you look at those dinky lists of famous people by type, under INTJ you will find a list of great thinkers.

Call intelligence what you want, but if I needed someone to write a philosophical treatise, work on my computer or to proofread my paper and the only information I had on the candidates were their Myers Briggs Type, I would choose the INTJ over almost any other type (maybe an INTP because they might be more flexible or an INFJ because they are fuzzier). I am not saying I would have made the right choice, but that's where I would place my bets. If I wanted an interpretive dancer, a folk singer or a shoulder to cry on, I probably wouldn't pick an INTJ.

I am not saying I like INTJ's better than other types (I have like two NT friends in the world and we don't always get along). But in the great pantheon of historical figures, there are a lot of philosophers and not so many dancers. Just sayin'. They are probably thinking something smart up there in their brains.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ For a guy who just walked in on the thread, I have to say, not. a bad. post.

Like the username, too.

Welcome!

 

[uumlau]

^ For a guy who just walked in on the thread, I have to say, not. a bad. post.

Like the username, too.

Welcome!

But it's post #666 of the thread, and therefore evil.

 

[Zarathustra]

for sure.

 

[Forever_Jung]

^ For a guy who just walked in on the thread, I have to say, not. a bad. post.

Like the username, too.

Welcome!

Thank you, it means a lot coming from someone who makes a lot of well thought-out posts

I like your username too, it reminds me of all the brain hemorrhages Nietzsche has caused me.

 

[Ginkgo]

I bet you if you lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki around January of 1946, you'd disagree.

Everyone knows that intense amount of radiation increases your risk of developing cancer, and cancer increases your propensity to multiply cells. So cellular growth in the brain increases intelligence. C'mon.

And anyway, Buddhism is an ascetic religion that revolves around self-deprivation. That sacrificial edge, coupled with the mantra of meditation reeks of Ni Fi. I'd bet bundles that most of those monks were already intelligent INTJs, INFPs, and INFJs.

So when you're bitten by a radioactive INXX monk zombie, your intelligence is likely to increase manifold. It's just intuitive, bro.

 

[erm]

@Solitary Walker

That's precisely what I was getting at, expanded in a much clearer way.

Intelligence as a term suffers from vagueness, complexity, subjectivity, relativity and bias. To put it in one sentence.

Whether it's a gestalt hard to define, or just a term averaging some simpler parts still eludes me.

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...

I guess I'll just refer you back to my previous posts in this thread. Both the SW's posts are good too. Peacebaby's and some others as well.

I'd add that IQ tests are at their worst when done on children. Check the link posted before, apparently it's been proven to have little accuracy and varies greatly depending on one's environment.

I'd also say to one of your other posts that the terms "rationality" and "reason" suffer the same problems as "intelligence" does. They are often synonyms for each other, after all.

Call intelligence what you want, but if I needed someone to write a philosophical treatise, work on my computer or to proofread my paper and the only information I had on the candidates were their Myers Briggs Type, I would choose the INTJ over almost any other type (maybe an INTP because they might be more flexible or an INFJ because they are fuzzier). I am not saying I would have made the right choice, but that's where I would place my bets. If I wanted an interpretive dancer, a folk singer or a shoulder to cry on, I probably wouldn't pick an INTJ.

For me:-
To fix a computer: ISTJ
To proofread something: Any type, probably favouring S and J types though.
To write a philosophical treatise: Any NP. ENTPs in particular.

I think in general, S types have what is perceived as the more useful intelligence, on average. Ns often have the more academic "so what do we actually use it for?" type.

It might explain why S types are so common, or be explained by S types being so common.

I am not saying I like INTJ's better than other types (I have like two NT friends in the world and we don't always get along). But in the great pantheon of historical figures, there are a lot of philosophers and not so many dancers. Just sayin'. They are probably thinking something smart up there in their brains.

As opposed to those other types that don't have "great" thinkers in them.

So many famous historical figures are a result of bias, especially when typing them, that it doesn't make much difference anyway. For example, most of the scientists and engineers that made major breakthroughs, but aren't famous, are often S, especially SJ and ST. The more recent ones you can actually talk to, at least.
Philosophers tend to be N types, though again the ones alive now you can actually take a shot at typing. Mathematicians I have no clue about.

There's a whole list of other definitions for "great thinkers" that are probably filled with the other types. Great artists and such.

 

[Zarathustra]

Everyone knows that intense amount of radiation increases your risk of developing cancer, and cancer increases your propensity to multiply cells. So cellular growth in the brain increases intelligence. C'mon.

And anyway, Buddhism is an ascetic religion that revolves around self-deprivation. That sacrificial edge, coupled with the mantra of meditation reeks of Ni Fi. I'd bet bundles that most of those monks were already intelligent INTJs, INFPs, and INFJs.

So when you're bitten by a radioactive INXX monk zombie, your intelligence is likely to increase manifold. It's just intuitive, bro.

= +1

 

[Zarathustra]

I guess I'll just refer you back to my previous posts in this thread. Both the SW's posts are good too. Peacebaby's and some others as well.

Already read 'em.

Not really changing anything here, cuz, to be honest, those are already part of my perspective. Add literally nothing new.

I guess I'd just refer you back to the post of mine you quoted, as well as this one (which was responding to a post you made):

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.

But, to be honest, now you're really making me wonder whether everyone realizes that it's somewhere in the middle...

I'd add that IQ tests are at their worst when done on children. Check the link posted before, apparently it's been proven to have little accuracy and varies greatly depending on one's environment.

Which link?

There have been several...

The age issue completely differs from anything I've ever heard. I've always heard IQ tests become less dependable as you get older, because, by virtue of what the score means (that if your IQ is 150, for example, that you're as "intelligent" as the average person 1.5x your age [i.e., a 6yr old with 150 IQ does as well on the test as an average 9yr old]), it becomes more useless the older you get (i.e., a 30yr old with a 150 IQ does as well on the test as an average... um, 45yr old???).

(Someone, please, correct me if the above is wrong, but I believe it's right.)

As for the environment issue, if you reread my post, I said when the test is properly administered.

I'd also say to one of your other posts that the terms "rationality" and "reason" suffer the same problems as "intelligence" does. They are often synonyms for each other, after all.

Ummm, well, a lot of this whole thread has been about whether Aristotle's idea of "reason" and "rationality" is equivalent to general "intelligence". I've been arguing in the affirmative, so... thanks.

Second, while it is a particular pet peeve of mine when the terms "logical" and "rational" are thrown about recklessly (when they are, it usually can be translated to mean, "You're not looking at this the same way as I am."), that's precisely why I took it back to Aristotle. I ain't talkin' 'bout no hopey-dopey flabby modern bullshit definition of this term; I'm goin' straight back to the muthafuckin' CLASSICS, YO!

Unless you want to argue with Aristotle, which, well...

For me:-
To fix a computer: ISTJ
To proofread something: Any type, probably favouring S and J types though.
To write a philosophical treatise: Any NP. ENTPs in particular.

My father's an ISTJ, and I would never have him fix my comp...

My IxTJ friend... yes.

But if I had to go with one type, it would probably be ISTP, no?

Proofread something: well, are you looking for content, or misspellings? If the latter, I think your choice is fine -- although you might want to throw some T in there. If the former? I think Forever Jung might have made the better choice...

Write a philosophical treatise? Do you want it to be accurate, or just a bunch of blathering? If the former, you'd be better off with the INTJ. The latter? Feel free to take the ENTP. INTPs... well, they could go either way... At their best, they and an INTJ at his/her best are probably gunna be pretty dead even... Being a P, you might favor the the INTP's philosophy; but that's all just a subjective interpretation...

But here's the real question: Who would you choose if you needed all three done by the same person?

Mathematicians I have no clue about.

Ummm... really? I think it's pretty obvious they're Ns...

Mathematics is like the most abstract system we've got...

There's a whole list of other definitions for "great thinkers" that are probably filled with the other types. Great artists and such.

Very true.

 

[simulatedworld]

If I call a puppy dog's tail a "leg," how many legs does a puppy dog have?

Ok, I'm sorry if I'm being an idiot. I am really curious about this subject.

Can you articulate a definition of intelligence...or is this one of those stupid Ti questions where Ni knows that putting an exact definition on it would ruin the significance?

 

[Zarathustra]

Also, why such a need to hate on the INTJs? :steam:

One break your heart, or something?

 

[Zarathustra]

Can you articulate a definition of intelligence...or is this one of those stupid Ti questions where Ni knows that putting an exact definition on it would ruin the significance?

Now you're showing some intelligence!

 

[erm]

Already read 'em.

Not really changing anything here, cuz, to be honest, those are already part of my perspective. Add literally nothing new.

I guess I'd just refer you back to the post of mine you quoted, as well as this one (which was responding to a post you made):

I was just pointing out that you said your original point again, which is what all those people have been arguing against, in one form or another, since you first made it.

Which link?

There have been several...

The age issue completely differs from anything I've ever heard. I've always heard IQ tests become less dependable as you get older, because, by virtue of what the score means (that if your IQ is 150, for example, that you're as "intelligent" as the average person 1.5x your age [i.e., a 6yr old with 150 IQ does as well on the test as an average 9yr old]), it becomes more useless the older you get (i.e., a 30yr old with a 150 IQ does as well on the test as an average... um, 45yr old???).

(Someone, please, correct me if the above is wrong, but I believe it's right.)

As for the environment issue, if you reread my post, I said when the test is properly administered.

Yea I should have been clearer.

I was referring to:

At this point I have limited my discussion to strictly intelligence or ability to solve various complex problems. I've purposefully omitted any reference to the concept of 'innate intelligence' as it is far too vague and hopeless confused to be addressed in a serious conversation. To say the least of it, the authors of the Bell Curve claimed that the intelligence and IQ test-scores of children do not change throughout their lives. Famously, the American Psychological Association found no evidence to support their claim and stated that intelligence is mostly a result of a person's experience with the environment. (See Bloom 2007, Lecture 13 Session 13 - Why Are People Different?: Differences — Open Yale Courses)

The environment point was referring to the environment the child has been in. Say a child raised by intellectual parents will score higher, then later if the environment changed (boarding school or something) the IQ score would drop significantly. An opposite would be an orphan's changing dramatically when the finally hit higher academia or some such.

In general it's predicting growth that tends to go the most wrong.

Ummm, well, a lot of this whole thread has been about whether Aristotle's idea of "reason" and "rationality" is equivalent to general "intelligence". I've been arguing in the affirmative, so... thanks.

Second, while it is a particular pet peeve of mine when the terms "logical" and "rational" are thrown about recklessly (when they are, it usually can be translated to mean, "You're not looking at this the same way as I am."), that's precisely why I took it back to Aristotle. I ain't talkin' 'bout no hopey-dopey flabby modern bullshit definition of this term; I'm goin' straight back to the muthafuckin' CLASSICS, yo!

Unless you want to argue with Aristotle, which, well...

In that case, with clearer terms a lot of the problems fade. I was just referring to how vague reason and rationality are solely as words, since the don't always equate with intelligence either and have many other definitions. I share a similar pet peeve, same with any really vague word.

I'd gladly argue against Aristotle, somewhere else though.

My father's an ISTJ, and I would never have him fix my comp...

My IxTJ friend... yes.

But if I had to go with one type, it would probably be ISTP, no?

Proofread something: well, are you looking for content, or misspellings? If the latter, I think you're correct. The former? I think Forever Jung might have made the better choice...

See, it's all bias, what I was highlighting. The people best with computers, that I know, have all been ISTJs. IT specialists and such. Added too their tendency to flock to that field made me favour them. ISTPs would have been my second choice.

Write a philosophical treatise? Do you want it to be accurate, or just a bunch of blathering? If the former, go INTJ. The latter? Feel free to take the ENTP... INTPs... well, they could go either way... At their best, they and an INTJ at his/her best are probably pretty dead even.

I want it done accurately. You need all the viewpoints for that, hence ENTP. The ones with the tendency to see all sides and possibilities are the NPs. Then you bring them together and put a few contingencies on each view, which again Ps thrive at.

They may or may not be as good at bringing clarity through the writing itself, as INTJs in general, but I see that as secondary for accuracy.

Now here's the real question: What would you choose if you needed all three done?

And why so much hate on the INTJs? :steam:



Ummm... really? I think it's pretty obvious they're Ns...

I ain't hating INTJs. If I want a theory read and explained to me, I'd choose INTJ. It's close between them and INTPs for a programming problem. I could list more but meh.

As for all three, INTP. They'd supposedly be the best all-rounders. INTJs are close though.

I'll just put the whole "these are all huge generalisations not to be taken too seriously" right here.

EDIT: My own experience is that mathematicians tend to be a lot of types. I haven't spoken to any significant ones, as I have trouble recognising them. So I'm only talking about students in universities, rather than the lecturers and researchers.

 

[simulatedworld]

Also, why such a need to hate on the INTJs? :steam:

I could ask you the same question about ENTPs, but then again, I'd probably just be blathering, so I won't bother.

Now you're showing some intelligence!

Ahh, working without clear definitions hurts for NTPs. We feel as helpless as you do when asked to work without a clear goal or objective.

I am slowly starting to understand the value in not defining things precisely, but it's very hard to stretch my brain that way.

 

[Zarathustra]

I want it done accurately. You need all the viewpoints for that, hence ENTP. The ones with the tendency to see all sides and possibilities are the NPs. Then you bring them together and put a few contingencies on each view, which again Ps thrive at.

They may or may not be as good at bringing clarity through the writing itself, as INTJs in general, but I see that as secondary for accuracy.

Are you kidding?

ENTPs, or at least most on this site, are horrible with regards to accuracy.

Their Ne takes em all over the f'ing place, and they follow Ti thought-paths and tangents with reckless abandon...

As Kra accurately pointed out in the NTs: which other NT function would you choose? thread:

Imagine, if you will, a sphere looking out in all directions. To my understanding, that is somewhat how Ne works, moving from origin and examining all around.

Well, take the same sphere, and focus from the surface inward towards the core. That is Ni, attempting to see a single point from all possible sides.

The very definition of Ni is to look at things from all sides, and, as Wildcat pointed out in the Ni vs. Si thread:

Ni does not oversight detais.
It sees them in the context.