S intelligence vs. N intelligence

[Nocapszy]

Nice, thanks for the example of logical fallacy.

I think it was lost on NoCap though.

No, but the humor was lost on you.

 

[Splittet]

I expect that from others, but we have discussed things over the years (formerly known as INTrPosr) so I would expect more Mac. You know (or should know) that MBTI does not measure intelligence or emotions.

While it is true MBTI doesn't measure intelligence, it is true there are correlations to IQ based upon type.

 

[Maverick]

OK, can we all stop arguing now and make a group hug?!?

Come on over here!

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't think Mac was saying that it does. Gender doesn't either. But a wider range of intelligence is associated with the male gender- that doesn't mean smart guys are smart because they are guys. Same with MBTI. (If I understand correctly, being both a dumb lady and a possible sensor.)

DISCLAIMER: I keed!

It's sickening how often someone has to justify what someone over-assumes as stereotyping, or forgetting the causation/correlation fission.

 

[MacGuffin]

I expect that from others, but we have discussed things over the years (formerly known as INTrPosr) so I would expect more Mac. You know (or should know) that MBTI does not measure intelligence or emotions.

Correct.

My statement is also correct.

 

[FemMecha]

OK, can we all stop arguing now and make a group hug?!?

Come on over here!

When an ENTJ is calling for a group hug you know the world has gone to hell.

 

[Domino]

By "making up", Mav, do you mean I get to throw my leg over Daniel Craig? I'll selflessly sacrifice myself to the Senser cause.

 

[Grayscale]

i dont see why intelligence would be tied to intuition or senses...

if the approach is big picture vs. detail mechanics, it is entirely possible for someone to reach a [highly accurate] "big picture" view through quickly processed sensory mechanics while another person thinks big with large gaps in logic due to their inability to see details that, albeit small, drastically alter the big picture.

actually, this seems to happen quite a bit...

i find the whole subject confusing. i dont understand how people can "know" things without going through the series of details required to reach a concussion. this is because you cant, and if you do, you are guessing. i also dont understand why people would stop short and make conclusions once their hands are full of details even though there is more to be considered... this time, the error is not in glossing over details that you dont have, but missing details that you need.

in lightning fast, subconscious deduction, as soon as you step away from the finitely known you are introducing the possibility for error, bottom line. intelligence, in my opinion, is to reach this demarc as quickly and accurate as possible, but to not cross it without being well aware of the game of probability that you have entered. this is agnostic of whether you approach from the nuts and bolts or the big picture. if you grasp the details but never proceed towards larger implications, you are missing something, if you generalize but never identify and consider what you dont know for sure, then you are most likely mistaken about something.

really, the most intelligent approach would be to take into account as much sensory input as possible and then intuit whatever else you absolutely need to. why act on gut instinct when there are facts staring you in the face that say otherwise? why do nothing (to the outcome of greatest detriment) for lack of concrete evidence? as with many things, neither end of the spectrum is much good by itself. you cant be correct if you do think you have considered everything (when that is impossible) and you cant be correct when you do not consider everything in the first place!

 

[Wandering]

OK, can we all stop arguing now and make a group hug?!?

Come on over here!

But... But...

But you're *Maverick*, the Baddest Mofo on the Forum! What are YOU, of ALL people, doing, asking for a group hug ??

Doesn't compute, doesn't compute...

 

[arcticangel02]

But... But...

But you're *Maverick*, the Baddest Mofo on the Forum! What are YOU, of ALL people, doing, asking for a group hug ??

Doesn't compute, doesn't compute...

He has finally seen the light and turned into a fluffball!

Triumph for team F!

 

[Wandering]

He has finally seen the light and turned into a fluffball!

Triumph for team F!

Who's next ?

 

[Nocapszy]

i dont see why intelligence would be tied to intuition or senses...

Jesus...

/sigh.

No one except dissonance said it was. Despite what you see or don't see, there's a much greater proportion of highly intelligent intuitives than sensors. It's pretty much universally accepted.

I guess you could make the argument that are samples aren't random enough, or that we should sample the entire population before we say things like that, but then, there's one other thing to consider before doing so.

It doesn't matter. If we do find out, statistically that there are more smart intuitives than sensors, what do we do with that data? It's not a guarantee, so regardless of the odds, there's still going to be some leeway, which means each individual, regardless of type has to be treated and analyzed as just that.

This is worse than this ridiculous health rage right now where a new study comes out every week. There's no such thing as universal health, just like there's no such thing as universal intelligence.

Some people have allergies, some people don't. Some people are smart in math and terrible with writing, some people are just the opposite.

Can I ask for this thread to be closed?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Why?

 

[Xander]

Wow it seems like any instance of possible war is leapt upon. It soo nice It's like people are responding to my request for more dissonance

I'm tearing up here

Of course those who recognise that the present measures of intelligence produce results which favour intuitives are one kind of person. Those who think that 'ergo they should prejudge people's intelligence based on their type' are another kind of person.

Seems to me though that sensors do fine without an intuitive nanny so what's the point? Can anyone tell between an IQ of 145 and an IQ of 146? Doubtful.

Personally I've always tried to treat everyone as an equal unless given reason to alter my approach. I see nothing new to change that.

As for a sensor bias in this forum, if there is one it's slight enough that I've noticed only a few comments alluding to such a bias. It is funny though that often it's a comment made by those who seem quite heavily sensor influenced themselves. Perhaps it's just a means of hoofing off some self recrimination onto a nice parcelled bundle of people?

Anyhow as one of those logical types I can see uses for both styles of thinking and therefore figure that for each task there is an inbuilt favouritism for one way of thinking over another, why not just go by that and forget trying to figure out who's on the top of what tree. Besides, I've been feeling like taking a chainsaw to something recently. Fancy a shakeup?

 

[Nocapszy]

Why?

Yeah, why? I changed my mind. No reason to close it, but at the same time, there's also no reason to continue posting here.

 

[Grayscale]

No one except dissonance said it was. Despite what you see or don't see, there's a much greater proportion of highly intelligent intuitives than sensors. It's pretty much universally accepted.
Can I ask for this thread to be closed?

in order for that to be true, an intuitive approach would have to have some property that ties to intelligence. i think intuitives often seem more intelligent because of the blurry nature of overview. sensors are more likely to digress smaller, more accurate pieces of information that may be irrelevant, but it's easy to see those as right, wrong, or moot, difficult to do with the type of conclusions made by intuitives.

this isnt a personal matter for me, just one id like to clarify. my image of high intelligence is one of processing speed and accuracy, not general vs. details approach.

a sensor who is more intelligent than a group of intuitives will be poking holes in their general approach, and an intuitive who is more intelligent than a group of sensors will offer overarching insight on the greater implications of things. i think the most intelligent approach requires a balance, accounting for the details where they exist and intuiting when details are not available but a conclusion needs to be made anyways (while also being aware of the lack of concrete evidence)

both approaches in their raw form are stupid and so is trying to argue one as being better than the other. without concrete data you will be out in left field, without intuition you will be highly inefficient and even paralyzed when you need to make a decision.

 

[Splittet]

This is not interesting to discuss at all. It has been empirically proved Ns on average are more intelligent than Ss. If you search the forum you would be able to find the studies that concluded with this as well. ptgatsby was the main guy on this, and he seems to work in statistics. The average IQ of an N was about 110, while it was about 95 for an S. It's not that Ss are much below average, it's only that Ns are quite a bit over the average. There is about 50-50 among high intelligence people being N/S. This is explained by there being more Ss than Ns.

 

[illume]

I am a Recruiter (ENFP) for a large Corporate office. We Myers-Briggs test all of our management and I see their scores. Having worked for with many of these individuals for several years or longer here is what can I tell you as my opinion dealing with these people and helping them staff their departments:

Sensors:

*Little or no "big -picture" ability.
*May choke on small details and let things that are much more important go. Focus on minutiae.
*Less likely to work with an employee that requires training or a second chance and simply terminate that person after a very brief period of time.

Intuitives:

*Not detail oriented. Lose things. Absent minded.
*Do not confront issues with employees/situations when they should. However, generally I find N's to be quite tolerant and agreeable, and working on a floor full of them is quite delightful.
*Can communicate in very roundabout, confusing manner. This is OK to me because I understand it, but I have heard others complain.

Our organization was typed as an ISTJ organization. Woe is me. We fail to move forward with our vision because of this very reason. It is unfortunate.

 

[INTJMom]

This is not interesting to discuss at all. It has been empirically proved Ns on average are more intelligent than Ss. If you search the forum you would be able to find the studies that concluded with this as well. ptgatsby was the main guy on this, and he seems to work in statistics. The average IQ of an N was about 110, while it was about 95 for an S. It's not that Ss are much below average, it's only that Ns are quite a bit over the average. There is about 50-50 among high intelligence people being N/S. This is explained by there being more Ss than Ns.

Ah. The voice of reason, sensibility and statistics. My hero!

 

[Nocapszy]

in order for that to be true, an intuitive approach would have to have some property that ties to intelligence.

No it doesn't. It could just be a coincidence.

And regardless, who said it wasn't?

this isnt a personal matter for me, just one id like to clarify. my image of high intelligence is one of processing and accuracy, not general vs. details approach.

So basically what Ti does, if done well, is the intelligent approach. That's certainly a reasonable idea, and I do agree. But at the same time, since we're using common MBTI rhetoric, then we can also say that intuition enhances judgement. In this case, the ideal NTP trumps the ideal STP in terms of accurate reasoning.

Unless you'd like to abandon the common, and usually misconstrued terminology tied with intuition and sensing.