Examples of Genius in Each MBTI Type

[that's not my name]

This is potentially a very interesting thread but I wonder if the definition of the word "genius" is being used a bit loosely.

 

[FemMecha]

This is potentially a very interesting thread but I wonder if the definition of the word "genius" is being used a bit loosely.

It is intentionally broadened to get away from the narrow definitions used by society for the IQ test alone. That's partly the point, but people are welcome to show Se-doms being genius at math as well, but that isn't demonstrating Se giftedness as a function. The thread can unfold however. It is about showing how each function demonstrates giftedness. How does Fe demonstrate giftedness? Not with spatial reasoning, vocabulary, or math skills, instead it shows it by demonstrating a brilliant use of Fe.

 

[entropie]

genius is in every person, no matter of his or her achievements.

Thats tho not written in books only

 

[that's not my name]

It is intentionally broadened to get away from the narrow definitions used by society for the IQ test alone. That's partly the point, but people are welcome to show Se-doms being genius at math as well, but that isn't demonstrating Se giftedness as a function. The thread can unfold however. It is about showing how each function demonstrates giftedness. How does Fe demonstrate giftedness? Not with spatial reasoning, vocabulary, or math skills, instead it shows it by demonstrating a brilliant use of Fe.

Isn't that a bit of a narrow definition in its own way too? Functions are simply a lens with which we view and react to the work so basing it on stereotypes of how these functions work is just as bad as basing it on IQ. If an ESTP is a math genius its worth noting and examining.

 

[that's not my name]

genius is in every person, no matter of his or her achievements.

Thats tho not written in books only

I disagree, I don't think everyone has an exceptional ability, but that doesn't mean that they can't do something great with what they have or that they are any less of a person.

 

[entropie]

I disagree, I don't think everyone has an exceptional ability, but that doesn't mean that they can't do something great with what they have or that they are any less of a person.

thats why you dont know genius yet

as in: the bird is the word

as in: dont listen to me i am drunk

 

[Starry]

Poet, Writer, Cartoonist, Painter, Sculptor, Not-Actually-a-Doctor-Inspirationalist and all around Renaissance ENFP

^This type of wordplay is so distinctly Ne>Fi to me that I would probably feel confident typing by it alone (Basically all NFPs I've encountered at least do this either spontaneously...or they hone their wordplay craft...like I'm thinking of Kurt Cobain lyrics right now

"Like most babies smell like butter
His smell smelled like no other
He was born scentless and senseless
He was born a scentless apprentice"

And, as I've said before, I do take some kind of "twisted poetic justice but not really that" form of not-exactly-pleasure-but-kinda
in knowing how many people have quit their day jobs over the years in order to make an easy million writing books for children...just like Dr. Seuss.

 

[FemMecha]

Let's consider this based on Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences which is a well established approach. I'll propose a correlation with MBTI functions. While I don't suggest that they overlap 100%, there is a parallel idea that there are many ways to be a genius. It doesn't mean that everyone is equally brilliant, which should be obvious in this thread. Not every Ti-dom is Paul Erdos and not every Se-dom is James Hunt. They are all many, many standard deviations away from the average and norm - plenty far enough to demonstrate genius.

musical-rhythmic
visual-spatial
verbal-linguistic Te, Ti
logical-mathematical Ti, Te
bodily-kinesthetic Se, Si
interpersonal Fe
intrapersonal Fi
naturalistic Se, Si
existential Ni, Ne

 

[entropie]

So that Howard Gardener I guy I need to beat up to get a date with you?

 

[that's not my name]

Let's consider this based on Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences which is a well established approach. I'll propose a correlation with MBTI functions. While I don't suggest that they overlap 100%, there is a parallel idea that there are many ways to be a genius. It doesn't mean that everyone is equally brilliant, which should be obvious in this thread. Not every Ti-dom is Paul Erdos and not every Se-dom is James Hunt. They are all many, many standard deviations away from the average and norm - plenty far enough to demonstrate genius.

musical-rhythmic
visual-spatial
verbal-linguistic Te, Ti
logical-mathematical Ti, Te
bodily-kinesthetic Se, Si
interpersonal Fe
intrapersonal Fi
naturalistic Se, Si
existential Ni, Ne

Not trying to be combative but I want to know 1) what makes this more valid than IQ in your opinion and 2) why spmeome whose genius does not immediately seem to correlate with their function stack shouldn't be mentioned, to be honest I think those are the more interesting cases if anything.

 

[FemMecha]

Not trying to be combative but I want to know 1) what makes this more valid than IQ in your opinion and 2) why spmeome whose genius does not immediately seem to correlate with their function stack shouldn't be mentioned, to be honest I think those are the more interesting cases if anything.

Please post links to examples where people's genius does not immediately correlate with their function preference. I suggested earlier that you do this as well. Let the thread unfold as it may.

I'm not saying it's more valid than IQ - it's just a way to approach it, and worthy of a thread and discussion. The supporting of one approach does not automatically compete with or dismiss another. My position is that this is a valid way to approach intelligence - this is not to say it is the only way to approach intelligence.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Fiona Apple's lyrics speak to me. I can feel her depression and heartache when I listen to her songs as if she understands my own pain. But doesn't Criminal lean towards INFP? I will say that listening to some of her songs, there seems to be a "visual" quality that I fail to understand.

 

[that's not my name]

Please post links to examples where people's genius does not immediately correlate with their function preference. I suggested earlier that you do this as well. Let the thread unfold as it may.

I'm not saying it's more valid than IQ - it's just a way to approach it, and worthy of a thread and discussion. The supporting of one approach does not automatically compete with or dismiss another. My position is that this is a valid way to approach intelligence - this is not to say it is the only way to approach intelligence.

I will look for some but its difficult because people tend to type on stereotypes rather than on what the functions actually do. Since Im not great at typing people yet I would be interested if other people did this. Additionally I don't think genius is just IQ but the word does mean something, it can't just be famous people we admire if were being honest.

 

[FemMecha]

I will look for some but its difficult because people tend to type on stereotypes rather than on what the functions actually do. Since Im not great at typing people yet I would be interested if other people did this. Additionally I don't think genius is just IQ but the word does mean something, it can't just be famous people we admire if were being honest.

I mostly started that thread that way to create a sense of archetype, and in order for it to make sense initially, it's helpful if the person is famous enough to be recognizable to various readers. I don't personally admire everyone I included, but thought they would be a good starting point. I did try to avoid people who are morally offensive, so it's not meant to be comprehensive, but I did try to make equivalent examples for each type in that they are all famous, they all exhibit a high level use of their dominant function, and they have all accomplished something significant and recognizable in society. It's not meant to be the definitive definition or a closed system. If the thread evolves into something completely different I'm interested to see it happen. One opinion I do have about intelligence is that it isn't that well understood, and it does have a subjective aspect to it because it does reflect whatever a given society values. In a former tribal society Paul Erdos might be seen as a liability and lower in intelligence because he struggled with simple concrete tasks like opening a milk carton, and yet his IQ may go beyond what are tests are designed to measure. He is an extreme genius by any intellectual measure.

 

[that's not my name]

I mostly started that thread that way to create a sense of archetype, and in order for it to make sense initially, it's helpful if the person is famous enough to be recognizable to various readers. I don't personally admire everyone I included, but thought they would be a good starting point. I did try to avoid people who are morally offensive, so it's not meant to be comprehensive, but I did try to make equivalent examples for each type in that they are all famous, they all exhibit a high level use of their dominant function, and they have all accomplished something significant and recognizable in society. It's not meant to be the definitive definition or a closed system. If the thread evolves into something completely different I'm interested to see it happen. One opinion I do have about intelligence is that it isn't that well understood, and it does have a subjective aspect to it because it does reflect whatever a given society values. In a former tribal society Paul Erdos might be seen as a liability and lower in intelligence because he struggled with simple concrete tasks like opening a milk carton, and yet his IQ may go beyond what are tests are designed to measure. He is an extreme genius by any intellectual measure.

Okay, I see what you mean now, perhaps a thread on the strict definition of demonstrable genius in people of every type should be a different thread. As far as intelligence is concerned I tend to define it as cognitive ability or potential rather than how well it is expressed in a social setting. But I can see why that definition could be limiting or (and I am starting to hate this word) problematic for some people.