[NT] What would a stupid NT look like?

[Doctor Cringelord]

At the risk of a bit of a tangent, I take issue with this whole notion of "multiple intelligences". While those other so-called "intelligences" are valuable, they are not intelligence by any conventional definition. They are their own qualities: things like wisdom, empathy, physical grace/ability, artistic ability, etc. The problem isn't failing to call them by the wrong name, but rather overemphasizing/over-valuing conventional intelligence in comparison.

So for you, it's more a problem with the semantics than it is with the actual theory?

 

[Coriolis]

So for you, it's more a problem with the semantics than it is with the actual theory?

The semantics, and the mindset it represents.

 

[Mind Maverick]

At the risk of a bit of a tangent, I take issue with this whole notion of "multiple intelligences". While those other so-called "intelligences" are valuable, they are not intelligence by any conventional definition. They are their own qualities: things like wisdom, empathy, physical grace/ability, artistic ability, etc. The problem isn't failing to call them by the wrong name, but rather overemphasizing/over-valuing conventional intelligence in comparison.

I can see your point, and where you're trying to go with it, and it seems fair...but I'm still hesitant in a sense, because I also see multiple "conventional" intelligence areas, and that one might excel at one and not another.

Personally, I am biased in the first place, admittedly, because I don't like sincerely calling anyone stupid in the first place, tbh. I don't like it done to me and therefore I don't want to do it to other people. I think it's just respect for another human being...I could be called stupid in comparison to some who are more "intelligent" than me, but I don't like it...so why should I call others that in comparison to--what, myself? Yet they might outsmart me in some other area. TBH it's just all too debatable imo and this probably won't get further than that on my end due to seeing too many possible variables. If I adhere to anything otherwise, then I am either lacking self-respect and accepting being called / treated like I'm an idiot, or I am a hypocrite for treating someone in some way I won't tolerate being treated myself. So those are my options in my mind's eye. IDK.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Hmm. After reading through the responses, I'm thinking a better question might have been "what would an unwise NT look like?"

I've seen quite a bit of intelligent but rather unwise and narrow-minded, stubborn NTs, a few on this very forum. (please, nobody take this as an indictment of anyone responding to this particular thread, that isn't the case)

Can you be specific / give a hypothetical example (maybe not an actual example, lest someone think it's about them and a fire starts)

 

[Coriolis]

I can see your point, and where you're trying to go with it, and it seems fair...but I'm still hesitant in a sense, because I also see multiple "conventional" intelligence areas, and that one might excel at one and not another.

Personally, I am biased in the first place, admittedly, because I don't like sincerely calling anyone stupid in the first place, tbh. I don't like it done to me and therefore I don't want to do it to other people. I think it's just respect for another human being...I could be called stupid in comparison to some who are more "intelligent" than me, but I don't like it...so why should I call others that in comparison to--what, myself? Yet they might outsmart me in some other area. TBH it's just all too debatable imo and this probably won't get further than that on my end due to seeing too many possible variables. If I adhere to anything otherwise, then I am either lacking self-respect and accepting being called / treated like I'm an idiot, or I am a hypocrite for treating someone in some way I won't tolerate being treated myself. So those are my options in my mind's eye. IDK.

The qualities typically included as other "intelligences" are outside any conventional measure, otherwise I would agree with your first paragraph. This is a separate matter from whether it is ever productive to call anyone "stupid". I personally prefer to be much more specific when rendering criticism. If I think someone is being stupid, for instance, in what sense? If I cannot explain that, I have no business passing judgment on them at all.

 

[BlueScreen]

It might not be productive to call someone stupid, but sometimes it feels good.

For example, I think "stupid" is a great word for the "your wrong, I know stuff" types that keep replying with vacuous shit for the sake of arguing. Academic or philosophical discussions are great, but you can't have one with these types. Half the time they probably don't have a clue what they are talking about either.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Can you be specific / give a hypothetical example (maybe not an actual example, lest someone think it's about them and a fire starts)

Someone who rejects new information or insights if it threatens their fragile worldview. Some people will double down and stubbornly stick to their guns. I don't want to supply specific examples because I don't want to start a flame war. It's also not something specific to type, and NTs aren't immune from falling into that self-serving sort of feedback loop.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Someone who rejects new information or insights if it threatens their fragile worldview. Some people will double down and stubbornly stick to their guns. I don't want to supply specific examples because I don't want to start a flame war. It's also not something specific to type, and NTs aren't immune from falling into that self-serving sort of feedback loop.

Hopefully can remember to return to this later since my notification is gone now, I'm too introvert mode to reply right now.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Omarosa (ENTJ).

 

[Jaguar]

Give the little boot-licker some pom poms.

 

[Yuurei]

Elan Musk; incapable of the most basic concept of pragmatism or reality.

That guy you know who is always going on about how hd’d totally survive a zombie apocalypse but everyone knows would go down immediatly would without tech-gagets or google to tell them how to build a fire.
Also lacks any and all practical/life skills.

 

[EcK]

I think "stupid" is a great word for the "your wrong, I know stuff" types that keep replying with vacuous shit for the sake of arguing. Academic or philosophical discussions are great, but you can't have one with these types. Half the time they probably don't have a clue what they are talking about either.

agreed

 

[EcK]

At the risk of a bit of a tangent, I take issue with this whole notion of "multiple intelligences". While those other so-called "intelligences" are valuable, they are not intelligence by any conventional definition. They are their own qualities: things like wisdom, empathy, physical grace/ability, artistic ability, etc. The problem isn't failing to call them by the wrong name, but rather overemphasizing/over-valuing conventional intelligence in comparison.

yes, exactly my POV as well. I call these talents / skills, but they are not strongly correlated with g. The reason this 'multiple intelligence' idea is being parroted everywhere despite being utterly assinine and discredited is due to the general obsession average people have with intelligence, it's the same reason they'll both put it down as 'unimportant' or incorrect (despite it being the best predictive and most backed by research construct in the whole field of psychology) while simultaneously generally claiming to have an above average intelligence.
It's similar, in a way, to self reported erect penis size: "size doesn't matter, but everyone you ask has a bigger than av. slong." Sure, that's how statistics work.

If you want to know what people value, look at what they either exagerate (or understate) - such as the number of sexual partners they've had, their iq, size of their shaft, income, academic achievements ...

I think "stupid" is a great word for the "your wrong, I know stuff" types that keep replying with vacuous shit for the sake of arguing. Academic or philosophical discussions are great, but you can't have one with these types. Half the time they probably don't have a clue what they are talking about either.

agreed

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I knew one - a likely INTJ who was obsessed with analyzing everything in reality based on the number 3.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I knew one - a likely INTJ who was obsessed with analyzing everything in reality based on the number 3.

Is that really stupid/dumb? It strikes me more as a misdirection of mental energy/resources. Although I suppose that could be considered a criteria for stupidity.

 

[Tilt]

yes, exactly my POV as well. I call these talents / skills, but they are not strongly correlated with g. The reason this 'multiple intelligence' idea is being parroted everywhere despite being utterly assinine and discredited is due to the general obsession average people have with intelligence, it's the same reason they'll both put it down as 'unimportant' or incorrect (despite it being the best predictive and most backed by research construct in the whole field of psychology) while simultaneously generally claiming to have an above average intelligence.
It's similar, in a way, to self reported erect penis size: "size doesn't matter, but everyone you ask has a bigger than av. slong." Sure, that's how statistics work.

If you want to know what people value, look at what they either exagerate (or understate) - such as the number of sexual partners they've had, their iq, size of their shaft, income, academic achievements ...



agreed

Agreed. I tend to go with the metric, "What are the topic 5 things that a person spends time on - avoiding and fixating on?" In some ways, I consider myself flipping stupid, but I have spent 1000s of hours on introspection and analyzing other people (no joke) so I would like to think that I am proficient in that arena.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Is that really stupid/dumb? It strikes me more as a misdirection of mental energy/resources. Although I suppose that could be considered a criteria for stupidity.

It is a highly simplified version of the kinds of mental processing in Ni-Te. The degree of simplicity and arbitrary application makes it ineffective and a slowed down version of what I've seen in other NTs.

 

[evilrubberduckie]

A stupid NT looks like me waking up on a hot summer morning. You would think I’m lying, but you also havnt seen me on a hot summer morning. So that’s that.

 

[Lib]

They ask a lot of irrelevant, nitpicky questions that don't add much depth or further understanding to a discussion...all the while believing the illusion that they are incredibly smart and insightful. It's basically a mental masturbation loop. I have only met a few of them. On the other hand, "smart" NTs usually will ask precise/ well-timed questions (or say comments) without being tryhards.

Most of the NTs I have known seem at least slightly above average to high IQ. My close INTJ friend was average/slightly above average but lacked intellectual intensity.

But it is a mental masturbation to explore ideas from any angle, to debate for the debate's sake, to exchange perspectives. Curiosity is never stupid. In fact, it is considered the most important trait that contributes to intelligence. And it's actually less inhumane compared to treating your NT friends as projects for emotional development.

Ironically, empaths often fail to understand others' perspective because they could only relate to their own experience. How do you know someone is stupid if you don't understand the point they are making?

 

[I Tonya]

Yells at inanimate objects. ;