Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[Cellmold]

I sense i'd be sensor, but they would only censor me.

 

[MetalMoon]

I sense i'd be sensor, but they would only censor me.

That spoke to me on a spiritual level.

 

[prplchknz]

No, just no preference has nothing to do with intelligence. I know some retarded Ns like myself and I know some genius Ss like my brother and @LevelHeroZero

 

[WorldSocionics]

Sensors and Intuitors aren't more or less intelligent than eachother. It entirely comes down to whether they are better with the physical or the abstract which is not the be all and end all of intelligence. If anything Sensors usually have a greater strength of character, discipline and willpower than Intuitors making them a lot more successful.

Interestingly a man with one of the highest IQs in the world, Christopher Langan, would be Ti and Se, making him ISTP or LSI.

 

[Stansmith]

Most ENxxs strike me as being of average to above-average intellegence, certainly not all MENSA candidates. The divide becomes clearer when comparing INxx's to ESxx's, although the exceptions are numerous and worth noting.

 

[TaylorS]

Anyone who claims that Intuitives are more intelligent than Sensors are full of shit, sadly it was Myers herself who created this myth by wrongly equating N with intellectualism. Which is ironic because Jung was an ISTP, and he typed both Darwin and Aristotle as ESTJs!

 

[Zarathustra]

Anyone who claims that Intuitives are more intelligent than Sensors are full of shit, sadly it was Myers herself who created this myth by wrongly equating N with intellectualism.

That, and, you know, the IQ test studies that say as much.

Which is ironic because Jung was an ISTP, and he typed both Darwin and Aristotle as ESTJs!

I know at least one of these claims is questionable.

As to the other two, it's been too long to be sure that they are, but they very well might be.

 

[TaylorS]

That, and, you know, the IQ test studies that say as much.

I qualify for MENSA but refuse to join because most of the members seem to be stuck-up SJs with a nasty arrogance streak.

 

[Zarathustra]

I qualify for MENSA but refuse to join because most of the members seem to be stuck-up SJs with a nasty arrogance streak.

Congratulations, so do I, and I've never given a shit about joining, cuz, honestly, who gives a shit.

Could there be a lamer thing to do than join Mensa?

 

[Nijntje]

Could there be a lamer thing to do than join Mensa?

.
.

I qualify for MENSA but refuse to join because most of the members seem to be stuck-up SJs with a nasty arrogance streak.

Tell strangers on the internet who you will never meet that you qualify for MENSA?

No?

Maybe my inferior intellect is just Jelly then

 

[EcK]

this is my point, Intuitives have more raw intelligence, but raw intelligence has very little actual value past a certain point (being above average intelligence is useful, but being genius level intelligence is not. in fact, there is a point where high intelligence becomes a liability, making it harder to get out of one's head, not over analyze and relate to people who are of average intelligence). genius level intelligence people have brains like hungry stomachs. they are constantly hungry, extremely high maintenance and they need to be constantly solving complex puzzles or they get bored

Not so.
Iq is correlated with economic success even with very high iqs. Ie: on av a guy with 160 iq id better off than one with 140 and so on

 

[EcK]

On average yes . Ns are smarter than Ss. But ofc alot of S are smart and alot of Ns are dumb.

The types, i think, most likely to be gifted in Sensors are istps and istjs. (Backed by some research)

My sister is an istp. She's literally a rocket scientist. She s cool like that.

The diff between the least (esfp) and most likely (intj) type to be "gifted" (130iq snd more) is something like a factor of 20.

The "least" gifted N type(enfj) is still about 30% more likely to be gifted than the "most gifted" S
type (istj).

Ns are 1/3rd of the population and 70+% of the gifted population.

At the end of the day of course I'll judge who s an idiot or not based on individual merits. Even if i dont disagree with you and your stupid arguments.

 

[chubber]

then you get the ISTJ engineer walking around with and IQ of 160.

 

[EcK]

then you get the ISTJ engineer walking around with and IQ of 160.

Ultimately i think the who s smarter etc is pointless after a while. Ie: we are a community with an average iq, i'd assume that is way off the average. To people with iqs above 140: what does it matter which 30/70 percent group you are in whej you are one in 80, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 10000 etc.

Whether you are a republican, an N or a goat doesn't make other people with that affiliation "smarter" or "like you"

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Not so.
Iq is correlated with economic success even with very high iqs. Ie: on av a guy with 160 iq id better off than one with 140 and so on

Actually, Malcolm Galdwell Outliers stated the correlation between IQ and income tops off at 130 or so, iirc (I read it awhile ago). I didn't read the research he based this on, obviously.

His research was that after a certain IQ, there was dimminishing returns. Usually smart but not super genius types more likely to have practical success due to better grounding in life.

He also found success to be pretty closely related to specific historical, cultural, societal, or similar factors. His discussion regarding the rise of the tech industry, the shape of the New York legal market, and why the best Canadian hockey players are born during certain months is fascinating, showing that certain specific factors outside of the control of successful individuals, created their success.

 

[EcK]

Actually, Malcolm Galdwell Outliers stated the correlation between IQ and income tops off at 130 or so, iirc (I read it awhile ago). I didn't read the research he based this on, obviously.

His research was that after a certain IQ, there was dimminishing returns. Usually smart but not super genius types more likely to have practical success due to better grounding in life.

He also found success to be pretty closely related to specific historical, cultural, societal, or similar factors. His discussion regarding the rise of the tech industry, the shape of the New York legal market, and why the best Canadian hockey players are born during certain months is fascinating, showing that certain specific factors outside of the control of successful individuals, created their success.

If he said DIMINISHING RETURNS. that still means that people with 150 iq make on average less than people with 160 iq.

I can't get my hand on a good study now. I'm supposed to work. But I've read several papers suggesting that the 'diminishing returns' story is an exageration. There is a clear correlation with average iq and income. Though it's of course only a correlation. Billionaires are smarter than millionaires are smarter than ... etc. This correlation is present even in the extremely high iq range (again, I'll have to find the study later but I saw numbers for the 140-180+ iq ranges.

So perhaps 10 iq is 'more useful' between 90 and 100 than between 100 and 110. But that doesn't mean that somehow people with very high iqs are not still more successful on average.
Also you have to remember that it's a matter of perspective. a 100-110 jump=10% more, a 150-160 jump = 6.66% more. So his 'diminishing' return effect might just be a failure at math.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

If he said DIMINISHING RETURNS. that still means that people with 150 iq make on average less than people with 160 iq.

It actually said 130 makes more than 160, iirc. It was career choice among other things. But basically, it starts topping off at around 120 or so and then decline after a certain point.

 

[EcK]

It actually said 130 makes more than 160, iirc. It was career choice among other things. But basically, it starts topping off at around 120 or so and then decline after a certain point.

While I've heard that before. I'm not sure if it's wholy supported by facts. It may be that I'm wrong though, if so i'll have to look into the methodology of the studies to get an idea of which is which.
Do you have links to a study? or better yet a meta study

 

[SearchingforPeace]

While I've heard that before. I'm not sure if it's wholy supported by facts. It may be that I'm wrong though, if so i'll have to look into the methodology of the studies to get an idea of which is which.
Do you have links to a study? or better yet a meta study

I don't own the book, but he is a meticulous researcher. You should be able to find the data.... read the book anyway....it really made the whole success thing look a lot more based upon seemingly random facts than on individual talent, focus, and desire.

 

[Poki]

It actually said 130 makes more than 160, iirc. It was career choice among other things. But basically, it starts topping off at around 120 or so and then decline after a certain point.

That's because us "really" intelligent people know money doesn't matter much LMAO