...

[Walking Tourist]

Ready! Get set! Heave!!!!!!!!!!!

and we can break in and shove you out if you protest too... don't forget it

 

[Nicodemus]

Well, yes. If your goal is to milk the government for every penny you can instead of working, anyone can do that. Some more successfully than others.

If you intend to make some sort of impact on other people, you actually have to do something.

Seriously though. Elaborate.

Are you saying, for example, someone with an average IQ is unable to understand Particle physics, or Chemical engineering, and therefore should not waste their time trying?

I merely wanted to point out that your general assertion is not generally correct. Have you seen 'Amadeus'? If your goal is to be Mozart but you end up being Salieri, you are heading for the madhouse.

 

[Mole]

Scarcity and Plenty

Well, yes. If your goal is to milk the government for every penny you can instead of working, anyone can do that. Some more successfully than others.

If you intend to make some sort of impact on other people, you actually have to do something.

For the first time in human history we have overcome scarcity in developed countries but our minds haven't caught up with this yet. And who can blame us, for we have lived in scarcity for 200,000 years.

Economics is still based on scarcity, but we manage to keep the economy turning over with the flywheel of military spending and welfare spending.

Our economy is quite capable of providing us all with a guaranteed minimum income instead of military and welfare spending, but our minds are conditioned by scarcity. Our very morals are conditioned by scarcity. And so rather than thinking new thoughts, we moralise.

And when we moralise, we stop thinking about our present reality of plenty.

We drive forward looking in the rear vision mirror of scarcity while plenty is rushing towards us through the windshield.

 

[FemMecha]

The composer Milton Babbitt once said "judge music for what it is, not for what it is not", which I think can be extended to apply to other ideas. I don't think other types of intelligences must be dismissed in order to value another type. Paul Erdos is the brilliant mathematician who couldn't open a jug of milk, but I value that intelligence and contribution because it is remarkable and worth all the admiration it is granted. By default that does not require a complete dismissal of other types of intelligence. It also doesn't mean everything is equal. It means that comparisons are often useless and result in distortions.

Our competitive culture is so inundated with the gold, silver, and bronze medals that we attempt to extend that linear sense of "winning" into complex systems in which it doesn't apply. You can't line up different sorts of intelligence and give one the gold, the other the silver, etc. Every kind of intelligence is beholden to a specific context in which it operates.

Our definitions tend to reflect our culture's values and the skills needed to succeed in that context. Western society has formed a type of split between academia and the working class in which theoretical intelligence is held as superior in part as a result of class divisions. At the same time, the larger society can feel ostracized by that split and end up being anti-intellectual by devaluing its contribution. I promote freedom and opportunity for all people to be exposed to intellectualism and hands on survival. This can increase an overall comprehension of what humanity is. A more holistic approach that values each contribution for what it is without forcing comparisons seems most reasonable.

 

[Srho]

^ Which perhaps dispels the argument that N's are smarter than S's

I know I posted some obscure data that I once read. I think that it is possible for there to be trends based on MBTI type, but clearly there is great variation between individuals. I know plenty of S's who are smarter than me.

Oh, yeah. Not denying that.

 

[JoSunshine]

Does that fit?

As long as I'm the one with the axe

 

[Lily flower]

Smart doesn't equal wisdom. You could be the smartest guy or lady in the room, able to do all sorts of equations, but not have a clue how make wise decisions in your life.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This whole thread makes me think of this meme and chuckle.

[YOUTUBE="SiMHTK15Pik"]IQ is[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Elfboy]

I could be biased, but I think NFs over all are the most intelligent. the reason I think NFs are as a whole more intelligent than NTs is because our intuition is less inhibited. NTs can grasp theoretical concepts better than most types, but they often have trouble understanding more subjective concepts and sometimes miss things that NFs pick up immediately. my INTJ friend is a total mastermind at business, economics and strategy, but he misses some of the most obvious things because he has a harder time understanding things until he breaks them down and restructures them into an objective model. he is only recently discovering the limits of what is objectively provable and the value of grasping information subjectively in order to understand it more quickly. however, I believe NTs have the most "practical intelligence" of the archtypes. they are by far the most likely to earn a high income and they have a nack for taking complex theory and applying it in a practical and strategic way. they also tend to be better at focusing intuition and thinking toward understanding a highly leveraged skill, systemizing it and optimizing it so that they become extremely proficient at a profitable skill in a short amount of time.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I read somewhere that 80% of xNTPs, xNFPs and INxJs had an IQ greater than or equal to 115, then it was the same for 60% of ENxJs, 50% of ISTJs, 40% of ISTPs, 30% of ESTPs and ISFPs and only 15-20% of xSFJs, ESTJs and ESFPs.

I'am an ISTP with an IQ of 134 personally, and I was a gifted and precocious children.

 

[EcK]

I could be biased, but I think NFs over all are the most intelligent. the reason I think NFs are as a whole more intelligent than NTs is because our intuition is less inhibited. NTs can grasp theoretical concepts better than most types, but they often have trouble understanding more subjective concepts and sometimes miss things that NFs pick up immediately. my INTJ friend is a total mastermind at business, economics and strategy, but he misses some of the most obvious things because he has a harder time understanding things until he breaks them down and restructures them into an objective model. he is only recently discovering the limits of what is objectively provable and the value of grasping information subjectively in order to understand it more quickly. however, I believe NTs have the most "practical intelligence" of the archtypes. they are by far the most likely to earn a high income and they have a nack for taking complex theory and applying it in a practical and strategic way. they also tend to be better at focusing intuition and thinking toward understanding a highly leveraged skill, systemizing it and optimizing it so that they become extremely proficient at a profitable skill in a short amount of time.

So what you're telling us is basically that you have your own definition of what intelligence is that, probably just happen to be traits you have and that all that mere NT understanding of say silly things like business strategy, physics or organisations is all and well but none of these serious things that really make people intelligent

Way to show nf smarts dude

 

[EcK]

For the first time in human history we have overcome scarcity in developed countries but our minds haven't caught up with this yet. And who can blame us, for we have lived in scarcity for 200,000 years.

Economics is still based on scarcity, but we manage to keep the economy turning over with the flywheel of military spending and welfare spending.

Our economy is quite capable of providing us all with a guaranteed minimum income instead of military and welfare spending, but our minds are conditioned by scarcity. Our very morals are conditioned by scarcity. And so rather than thinking new thoughts, we moralise.

And when we moralise, we stop thinking about our present reality of plenty.

We drive forward looking in the rear vision mirror of scarcity while plenty is rushing towards us through the windshield.

hum, no. We're still in a logic of scarcity because that's the material reality and that's why our economy is defined by it. The fact that some people have more than others is a situation that have always existed, it has nothing to do with the current state of scarcity it's just human nature\will to power and the limitations of global social mobility.
We evolved our way through scarcity. War just as well as cooperation are strategies we use to assimilate and secure ressources as a species. Calling one of these human traits as 'good and justified' and the other as 'mere petty thinking' is patronizing at best

 

[Thalassa]

I could be biased, but I think NFs over all are the most intelligent. the reason I think NFs are as a whole more intelligent than NTs is because our intuition is less inhibited. NTs can grasp theoretical concepts better than most types, but they often have trouble understanding more subjective concepts and sometimes miss things that NFs pick up immediately. my INTJ friend is a total mastermind at business, economics and strategy, but he misses some of the most obvious things because he has a harder time understanding things until he breaks them down and restructures them into an objective model. he is only recently discovering the limits of what is objectively provable and the value of grasping information subjectively in order to understand it more quickly. however, I believe NTs have the most "practical intelligence" of the archtypes. they are by far the most likely to earn a high income and they have a nack for taking complex theory and applying it in a practical and strategic way. they also tend to be better at focusing intuition and thinking toward understanding a highly leveraged skill, systemizing it and optimizing it so that they become extremely proficient at a profitable skill in a short amount of time.

Not exactly.

As an ENFP, what you're seeing here is an Ni/Te "limiting"...Ni delves deeply and explores all the potential and meaning of a singular concept or thing, then objectively objective Te wants to categorize it after objectively measuring it. I know. Frustrating. BUT...they can do things we can't do.

ENFP with Dominant Ne seems incredibly broad-minded and open in comparison - like whoa, collecting and connecting patterns, etc. from the external world, then examining them with a subjectively subjective Fi.

So what you're perceiving is your Ne "broadening" and Fi ethical subjectivity as being more "open" and therefore smarter. And...in certain areas, it surely can be. ENFPs have strengths INTJs lack.

It totally disturbs me when INTPs and INTJs think they know everything, for this reason, because it's so obvious to me as an NF what they do not GET.

So...in sum, I don't think NFs are "smarter" though you're tempted to think that because of your own perceptual lens...just like Mr. Ni/Ti is tempted to think he's smarter because of his perceptual lens.

Oh also...I think TJs - rather than NTs - have the most "practical" intelligence...practical Te is practical.

NTPs have the most "academic" intelligence, it seems to me.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I think xSTJs have a more academic inteligence than xNTPs.

 

[Thalassa]

No, not generally speaking, because the ISTJ way of thinking isn't even bent toward Ti/Ne abstract theorizing, which is part of what makes academia so annoying, that it seems "unnecessary" or "pretentious"...to some people, some of those people being ISTJs because Si/Te is like THE MOST PRACTICAL THING ON EARTH.

Academic intelligence really is the domain of NTs, but especially NTPs, and if you know anyone with 4 degrees, and none of them in anything remotely useful, it's probably an INTP 80% of the time.

STJs make the world go round, but NTPs are the philosophers.

 

[iwakar]

The major quibble here is defining intelligence first, right? Can we say that intelligence approximates the success rate of problem-solving?

Is that neutral enough to cover all facets of ability and application?

 

[guesswho]

So what you're telling us is basically that you have your own definition of what intelligence is that, probably just happen to be traits you have and that all that mere NT understanding of say silly things like business strategy, physics or organisations is all and well but none of these serious things that really make people intelligent

Way to show nf smarts dude

I've actually noticed this in a lot of people.

I am good at X, therefor being smart means being good at X. Not being good at X means you are an idiot.
He is smarter than me because he is better at X.

 

[guesswho]

I could be biased, but I think NFs over all are the most intelligent. the reason I think NFs are as a whole more intelligent than NTs is because our intuition is less inhibited. NTs can grasp theoretical concepts better than most types, but they often have trouble understanding more subjective concepts and sometimes miss things that NFs pick up immediately. my INTJ friend is a total mastermind at business, economics and strategy, but he misses some of the most obvious things because he has a harder time understanding things until he breaks them down and restructures them into an objective model. he is only recently discovering the limits of what is objectively provable and the value of grasping information subjectively in order to understand it more quickly. however, I believe NTs have the most "practical intelligence" of the archtypes. they are by far the most likely to earn a high income and they have a nack for taking complex theory and applying it in a practical and strategic way. they also tend to be better at focusing intuition and thinking toward understanding a highly leveraged skill, systemizing it and optimizing it so that they become extremely proficient at a profitable skill in a short amount of time.

ESTJs are the moneymakers !!!!!!!!!!!!! I can basically GUARANTEE it.
I haven't seen ESTJs procrastinate, delay things, or leave them unfinished.

 

[Orangey]

No, not generally speaking, because the ISTJ way of thinking isn't even bent toward Ti/Ne abstract theorizing, which is part of what makes academia so annoying, that it seems "unnecessary" or "pretentious"...to some people, some of those people being ISTJs because Si/Te is like THE MOST PRACTICAL THING ON EARTH.

Academic intelligence really is the domain of NTs, but especially NTPs, and if you know anyone with 4 degrees, and none of them in anything remotely useful, it's probably an INTP 80% of the time.

STJs make the world go round, but NTPs are the philosophers.

[Taking the following definition of "academic intelligence"; "determining factor in one's ability to manage formal school education; the ability to learn, process and repeat information."]

Have you been in academia lately? STJs thrive there. Memorizing passages verbatim? ISTJs. Memorizing page numbers and who said what in footnote 33? ISTJs. Memorizing facts? ISTJs. Academic work is 99% memorization and organization. You organize your research, your notes, your books, your articles, your citations. Writing a publishable article takes months of steady, meticulous work; writing a book takes years. All of these things are STJ areas of strength.

In all honesty, any type of person can have high academic intelligence. My adviser, for instance, was an ISFP (who is a sonuvabitch, but I digress...) If we're going to go by the strengths of types in general, though, and not of individuals, I see no reason why STJs would not have an equal if not higher level of academic intelligence than most types (even NTs.)

 

[Elfboy]

[Taking the following definition of "academic intelligence"; "determining factor in one's ability to manage formal school education; the ability to learn, process and repeat information."]

Have you been in academia lately? STJs thrive there. Memorizing passages verbatim? ISTJs. Memorizing page numbers and who said what in footnote 33? ISTJs. Memorizing facts? ISTJs. Academic work is 99% memorization and organization. You organize your research, your notes, your books, your articles, your citations. Writing a publishable article takes months of steady, meticulous work; writing a book takes years. All of these things are STJ areas of strength.

In all honesty, any type of person can have high academic intelligence. My adviser, for instance, was an ISFP (who is a sonuvabitch, but I digress...) If we're going to go by the strengths of types in general, though, and not of individuals, I see no reason why STJs would not have an equal if not higher level of academic intelligence than most types (even NTs.)

it's true. academia requires way more sensing than intuition (and being way more J than P). most NPs are like "WTF is going on?"