[NT] Stupid NTs

[Usehername]

Well the test asks if you "easily" understand new theoretical principals, which should indicate a short span of time.

I made my grandpa take the online test, and I watched him click the answers. Keeping in mind he was originally an advanced physicist specializing in radiation, and later one of the foremost MDs and finally businessmen leading the province's largest hospital, he clicked "No" to that answer.




Some people are harder on themselves/have higher standards than others.

(Though FWIW I thought he would test INTP but came out as ISFJ.)

 

[entropie]

I made my grandpa take the online test, and I watched him click the answers. Keeping in mind he was originally an advanced physicist specializing in radiation, and later one of the foremost MDs and finally businessmen leading the province's largest hospital, he clicked "No" to that answer.




Some people are harder on themselves/have higher standards than others.

(Though FWIW I thought he would test INTP but came out as ISFJ.)

Cool point, I always clicked "No" cause I am convinced I am dumb, thats prolly why I keep scoring estj

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Oh I get it, it's simple!

the NTs in this thread who jumped to assess whether or not they were stupid or smart without first realizing the relative and contextual nature of those terms are the "stupid" NTs. The ones that thought about it beforehand and expressed as such are the "smart" ones.

 

[entropie]

Watch out for the Ones wearing no pants, they are the "kinky" ones

 

[The Ü™]

Understanding theoretical principles has much more to do with Ti than N.

Understanding abstract ideas is far different from being abstract in perception.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Also ent, I think if you are convinced of that in tests, it might be a sign of healthy developing Ni. I might be wrong, though.

Oh also, just for personal experience, I've known an ST that could run circles around me in programming, and smoked me in the classes that we had taken together, just in terms of raw IQ. It was when I would get to the part of the homework that I would find that I was interested in the actual pursuit of knowledge, whereas he intimated to me that he was only interested in the correct answers in order to get a grade, and wasn't really interested in taking the discussions the questions arose any further than they needed to go. That was personally a very frightening eureka right there, but it does all come back to how one chooses to define intelligence. If you define "smart" or "winning" as "getting all the points" or, "getting all the knowledge from a given exercise", or even "getting something out of every experience". Shit, by that last definition a lot of NFs could be smarter than NTs.

 

[Ace_]

I made my grandpa take the online test, and I watched him click the answers. Keeping in mind he was originally an advanced physicist specializing in radiation, and later one of the foremost MDs and finally businessmen leading the province's largest hospital, he clicked "No" to that answer.




Some people are harder on themselves/have higher standards than others.

(Though FWIW I thought he would test INTP but came out as ISFJ.)

ISFJs don't become successful physicists. All the ISFJs I know hate physics.

N people have a huge advantage in physics.

 

[Hendo Barbarosa]

Understanding theoretical principles has much more to do with Ti than N.

Understanding abstract ideas is far different from being abstract in perception.

Could you give an example? I found that incredibly big-picture. Also, as an aside, I would contend that several different functions probably grapple with theoretical principles, etc, just in very different ways.

 

[ajblaise]

I made my grandpa take the online test, and I watched him click the answers. Keeping in mind he was originally an advanced physicist specializing in radiation, and later one of the foremost MDs and finally businessmen leading the province's largest hospital, he clicked "No" to that answer.




Some people are harder on themselves/have higher standards than others.

(Though FWIW I thought he would test INTP but came out as ISFJ.)

Yeah and ISFJs are one of the more modest types I think. Could be an ISFJ with a really great work ethic. That's how I imagine most of the SJs able to work in physics got there.

 

[SubjectA]

ISFJs don't become successful physicists. All the ISFJs I know hate physics.

N people have a huge advantage in physics.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

 

[FemMecha]

I made my grandpa take the online test, and I watched him click the answers. Keeping in mind he was originally an advanced physicist specializing in radiation, and later one of the foremost MDs and finally businessmen leading the province's largest hospital, he clicked "No" to that answer.

There is an interesting relationship between skill and perception. As a teacher I have noticed this relationship as students mature. If a person's skill closely matches their ability to perceive that skill in others, then they feel competent, content, and at times arrogant. That is how a person can "know it all". I have seen this when someone plays their first Beethoven sonata to the same level they can hear others perform and then see themselves as having achieved the same level as a greater performer. Once someone announces that they "know it all", they are showing where the limits of their perception are.

When the perception is significantly greater than the skill level, then they are more likely to have a lesser view of their own skill, but also strive harder. The level of perception is what is more likely to place the outer boundary on achievement rather than the present skill. It sounds like a case such as your grandpa indicates a person with the ability to perceive vastly beyond personal skill. That imbalance can be a strong motivator for people to develop skill, and from what I have seen it is the more solid measure of brilliance.

 

[Mempy]

There is an interesting relationship between skill and perception. As a teacher I have noticed this relationship as students mature. If a person's skill closely matches their ability to perceive that skill in others, then they feel competent, content, and at times arrogant. That is how a person can "know it all". I have seen this when someone plays their first Beethoven sonata to the same level they can hear others perform and then see themselves as having achieved the same level as a greater performer. Once someone announces that they "know it all", they are showing where the limits of their perception are.

When the perception is significantly greater than the skill level, then they are more likely to have a lesser view of their own skill, but also strive harder. The level of perception is what is more likely to place the outer boundary on achievement rather than the present skill. It sounds like a case such as your grandpa indicates a person with the ability to perceive vastly beyond personal skill. That imbalance can be a strong motivator for people to develop skill, and from what I have seen it is the more solid measure of brilliance.

Comforting in some ways, and not in others. Nice observation, Toonia.

 

[Qre:us]

There is an interesting relationship between skill and perception. As a teacher I have noticed this relationship as students mature. If a person's skill closely matches their ability to perceive that skill in others, then they feel competent, content, and at times arrogant. That is how a person can "know it all". I have seen this when someone plays their first Beethoven sonata to the same level they can hear others perform and then see themselves as having achieved the same level as a greater performer. Once someone announces that they "know it all", they are showing where the limits of their perception are.

When the perception is significantly greater than the skill level, then they are more likely to have a lesser view of their own skill, but also strive harder. The level of perception is what is more likely to place the outer boundary on achievement rather than the present skill. It sounds like a case such as your grandpa indicates a person with the ability to perceive vastly beyond personal skill. That imbalance can be a strong motivator for people to develop skill, and from what I have seen it is the more solid measure of brilliance.

What an excellent point.

I think, therefore, I limit who I am.

I aim, therefore, I become.

 

[Grungemouse]

I think I'm actually quite thick, lulz.

*shrug* I'm not particularly curious, I've spent the past couple of weeks in my pajamas watching daytime television, and the sciences bore me to tears. I think the most intelligent person who I know (who is also my age) is an ISTJ. She's focused, studying diligently for hours, although stumbles when you take away her revision guides and fact sheets.

When the perception is significantly greater than the skill level, then they are more likely to have a lesser view of their own skill, but also strive harder.

This isn't always the case. In my Geography class I perceived that others were more competent in the subject than me, so I became a pessimist and stopped trying.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

Indeed.

What an excellent point.

I think, therefore, I limit who I am.

I aim, therefore, I become.

Nicely said!

 

[LostInNerSpace]

I said it before, I'll say it again. I don't believe I "know it all". I know I will hear it another 1000 times or so before I repeat, "no, I don't know it all". By that time I will know a lot more than I know now. I've not really thought about why people have such a problem with "know it all", in my case "know a lot". Why is that?

My attitude is people can do pretty much anything they want with the right attitude and enough time and effort. I think people are too afraid to look the fool. People are too afraid to try and fail. They don't think other people can do certain things so they project their own insecurities on to people who think they can. I can't even count the number of things I wouldn't be doing today if I had such a pessimistic attitude.

I read in another post someone complaining that Americans are too dumb. This is a good place to start. Stop making people too afraid to learn new things.

 

[Edgar]

I think this is an oxymoron.

Now I know that intelligence varies in people more than types, however when people say there are stupid NTs, I just don't understand how that is possible.

The very personality characteristics of an NT are either developed through growing up as an intelligent person, or having NT characteristics would build a foundation for intelligence. Basically, there is no way someone could hold strategic thinking mind set, with out it leading to some type of knowledge.

If people chose to act stupid, that is a whole other story.

There is difference between being smart and being an intellectual.

I've met many "intellectuals" with ho-hum intelligence. Usually an NT dumbass who read a few books or articles and thinks he/she got it all figured out.

 

[entropie]

I think too its again a classical problem how far someone deals in stereotypes. Some people just need those to feel safe -> see for reference this board Typology Central - Powered by vBulletin

But the question still remains, how can you call a NT to be stupid ?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

There is difference between being smart and being an intellectual.

I've met many "intellectuals" with ho-hum intelligence. Usually an NT dumbass who read a few books or articles and thinks he/she got it all figured out.[/

Whatever. I don't have time or will to argue.

 

[Ace_]

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

It's not sarcasm. It's a well known fact that intuitive people have an advantage in science and philosophy. I thought it was obvious.