[SP] Sensor Intelligence

[ptgatsby]

Is this dude important or something and why should I believe him? Where did he get that info from? Using somebody's blog as a reference for the superiority of intuitive intelligence is highly suspect. And it's really convenient that he's an INTJ, one of the "smart" people. Boo!!

I was only getting the link for Mac (which is why I gave the research along with it)

 

[spirilis]

I am curious where Keirsey's 4 types of intelligence fit into this. He proposes that each temperament expresses its own unique form of intelligence (SJ = Logistical, SP = Tactical, NT = Strategic, NF = Diplomatic).

 

[proteanmix]

I was only getting the link for Mac (which is why I gave the research along with it)

I didn't think you agreed. I was just referring to the link.

 

[MacGuffin]

I was only getting the link for Mac (which is why I gave the research along with it)

Thanks, there is also this:

SENG: Articles & Resources - Gifted kids at risk: Who's listening?

 

["?"]

As for me personally, I have a problem with Keiresey's description of temperament in general, and I have yet to meet a SP who agrees with the hedonistic and tool usage viewpoint provided by Keirsey. Also, as referenced above, the Improviser's intellect is Tactical which means, per Berens, that:

Those expressing Improviser tend to be gifted at employing the available means to accomplish an end. Their creativity is revealed by the variety of solutions they come up with. They are talented at using tools, whether the tool be language, theories, a paint brush, or a computer. Such people tune into immediate sensory information and vary their actions according to the needs of the moment.

 

[Maverick]

The reason why this doesn't manifest itself universally is because there is a huge overlap despite the binomial distribution of S/N, and simply because Ss don't do any worse in the workplace, statistically speaking. Just like the N side, the STJs cannibalise the SFs and the STPs (NTJs doing the same to the other side) to become vastly over represented. If you normally distribute the factors, the correlation is about 0.3, I think, which isn't very significant. Course, when you segment the population into a 25/33-75/66 split, you are going to get a wider gap.

What is normally misunderstood is that while Ns are unique good at taking IQ tests, this is because all of the gF loaded tests require abstract thinking. By definition, N's will be better at it. What it doesn't note is that there are very few to no success factors involved. Not money, not happiness... There is a correlation between IQ and wealth and a few others, but for the most part, very little.

Recent reviews in the litterature conclude that the best predictor of job performance is IQ out of all possible known information...

 

[ptgatsby]

Recent reviews in the litterature conclude that the best predictor of job performance is IQ out of all possible known information...

It is, however, erratic depending on the type of job. We've had this discussion before, however, so I don't see any need to rehash it. I think we can both agree that certain personality factors and IQ influence and are predictive of job performance, even if we disagree on the relative influence of both.

I am, however, more convinced along the lines of IQ being more predictive overall, but I'm not so sure that it is as predictive once you are within a job category range... ie: clerical staff at the 90-110 puts limits on the normal IQ group, at which point I think personality factors play a larger role... in practise, smaller IQ ranges make personality factors somewhat more relevent. Taking the entire spread of IQs, it is far more likely for someone at the 110 range to rise above a clerical position (ie: into manager positions at the 110-120 range)... for example, most managers have a degree of some kind, and most people with degress have IQs above 110/120 - that decreases the pool significantly. I think there is a reason why CEOs have both high IQs and test far more disagreeable and such - certain jobs need certain attributes and depending on the availability of the job, you squeeze out factors one at a time until the people match demand.

Of course, this all relates to how relevent the connection between N and IQ is - there is a reason why, regardless of the link, it isn't the N that dominates the higher end jobs. The correlation may seem strong, but there are offsetting factors that make "N" testers no more desirable.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Since when does IQ denote success in any endeavor? It doesn't. Motivation does. That's about determination more than anything.

 

[FemMecha]

^I think there is something amiss in the MBTI descriptions if it has pattern recognition solely in the court of the iNtuitive. If it actually does, then it hasn't delineated correctly between concrete and abstract thinking, perceiving, and intelligence. I've commented that Sensors can be very "intuitive" about concrete systems while iNtuitives are "intuitive" about abstract systems - and that includes pattern recognition in both instances.

One has to comprehend all the elements in a system before one can identify patterns and approach it intuitively. A person cannot succeed at any type of artistic design (fashion, interior, commercial, etc.) without the ability to see patterns and work at least somewhat intuitively in those systems. I personally would not be intuitive as a fireman or race-car driver because I can't process all the relevant concrete details in those systems, but people who take in all sensory details immediately with the ability to respond instantly are in fact processing concrete information in a gut response, intuitive manner. Even surgeons, engineers, and many aspects of science are working in concrete systems, and I suspect many in the medical field are Sensors even if they test as iNtuitives - or at least they are predominately concrete systems thinkers. This doesn't even address the entire range of classical musicians - many, many, many of whom use a great deal of Si to recreate precise, nuanced, detailed patterns in music.

In our society I suspect most would consider a surgeon or concert pianist quite brilliant, and those skills do not require abstract reasoning to perform - at least not the kind of abstract thinking associated with the iNtuitive since obviously every human being uses their senses and abstract reasoning to process language, etc. A person who thinks abstractly can certainly approach those tasks using that form of intelligence, but it is not core to what is required.

As far as the whole IQ issue, volumes could be written about the limitations, bias, and issues of that form of testing.

 

[wolfy]

Since when does IQ denote success in any endeavor? It doesn't. Motivation does. That's about determination more than anything.

Wow, you bumped an old thread, ptgatsby clocked out ages ago. And yeah, you're right.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION] I decided to bring back 2007. The new threads bore me.

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION] I decided to bring back 2007. The new threads bore me.

I agree, besides this thread looks worth resurrecting.

ps: Damn sorry Wolfy I just notified you again.

 

[wolfy]

[MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION] I decided to bring back 2007. The new threads bore me.

Yeah, I was thinking as much as old threads like T vs F made me laugh and caused big arguments they had some interesting thoughts mixed in.

I agree, besides this thread looks worth resurrecting.

ps: Damn sorry Wolfy I just notified you again.

I didn't get two notifications.

I was just thinking that intuitives are supposed to be good at spotting abstract patterns and sensors patterns in the world they experience around them. So maybe that is something to work from.

 

[Poki]

Not to split hairs, but in terms of IQ, sensors are grouped in the average category (91-109), while intuitives are grouped higher.

Unlike what is assumed, however, it is generally believed that those with lower IQ develop their sensing skills as a way to compensate. IOW, personality doesn't define IQ. (KAIT)

It is also a subset of openness and little to do with the imagination/creative aspects of N/Openness (if memory serves me correctly). So there is a rather large correlation between abstract sub-traits and gF (I think), while gC seems to just be hanging about equally (although still gapped, with a preference for openness type traits - the willingness to learn and grow).

The reason why this doesn't manifest itself universally is because there is a huge overlap despite the binomial distribution of S/N, and simply because Ss don't do any worse in the workplace, statistically speaking. Just like the N side, the STJs cannibalise the SFs and the STPs (NTJs doing the same to the other side) to become vastly over represented. If you normally distribute the factors, the correlation is about 0.3, I think, which isn't very significant. Course, when you segment the population into a 25/33-75/66 split, you are going to get a wider gap.

What is normally misunderstood is that while Ns are unique good at taking IQ tests, this is because all of the gF loaded tests require abstract thinking. By definition, N's will be better at it. What it doesn't note is that there are very few to no success factors involved. Not money, not happiness... There is a correlation between IQ and wealth and a few others, but for the most part, very little.

*shrug*

The problems start when someone starts using these averages as something meaningful. Saying N's are smarter is like saying blacks commit more crimes. Statistically true (in some locations), but irrelevent except for research purposes. It is done to find information, to find causes and to find correlations. Applying it to individuals or groups isn't any better than building upon the same model as racism.



As you wish.

Ns being smarter is a huge crock. I will pit my IQ against an N any day of the week.

ISTJs are probably more intelligent "sensor" wise anyway since they are dominant S where as an ISTP is dominant T.

 

[Poki]

Ns being smarter is a huge crock. I will pit my IQ against an N any day of the week.
r
ISTJs are probably more intelligent "sensor" wise anyway since they are dominant S where as an ISTP is dominant T.

Now I would never pit my nerdiness against an N. Nothiong against being nerdy, just despite how nerdy I am, I dont think I stand a chance against an N.

 

[skylights]

Ns being smarter is a huge crock. I will pit my IQ against an N any day of the week.

There's also the bizarre assumption that IQ actually even measures anything objective or useful.

 

[Poki]

There's also the bizarre assumption that IQ actually even measures anything objective or useful.

LMAO...it measures a very small percent of being useful...from my experience or my POV to me it measures the speed at which one learns and understands. Thats about it. Doesnt show effort, perserverance, experience, determination, size/depth of knowledge or anything else.

 

[Elfboy]

There's also the bizarre assumption that IQ actually even measures anything objective or useful.

^this (though, to be honest, I still enjoy it for the ego boost. my 3w4 fix eats that shit up )

 

[Riva]

Ns being smarter is a huge crock. I will pit my IQ against an N any day of the week.ISTJs are probably more intelligent "sensor" wise anyway since they are dominant S where as an ISTP is dominant T.

If intelligence is not type related to begin with why would you assume Si is more intelligent than Ti? Also there are 6 billion people on the planet. Atlest 1 billion of them are N types. You sure are bold to make a bet like the bet you made.

 

[lauranna]

I actually tend to score highly on those IQ tests. I had to do one to get into secondary school and apparently I scored the best in the year. I don't know why. And I don't much care either way. They measure nothing relevant to life.