I'm taking everyone's serious self-reported IQ, and subtracting 10-15 points in the interests of accuracy.
At any given time, on any MBTI forum, there is an IQ thread on the first page of the NT sub-forum.
Despite IQ being complete bunk...
I've never been tested officially.
Of the tests I've taken online...I've gotten anywhere from 105 to 130ish..
The most recent one I took I got 112, though I was drunk at the time...and I ended guessing the last third of the test because I got impatient..
Intuitives will score higher then sensors, because the IQ test favors those cognative processes, this creates an biased or limited view of the term intelligence.
Intuitives will score higher then sensors, because the IQ test favors those cognative processes, this creates a biased or limited view of the term intelligence.
I dislike this criticism of IQ tests. It's like complaining a 100m race doesn't adequately measure upper body strength.
To add on your simile, the critisism is because it's like people say that a 100m race adequatly measures upper body strength.
So it's not the test itself I critisize, but the way people use it as a tool.
Yup, IQ is mostly horsepoo. I once took a semi-official like test, (with time limits and the such) and scored 138. But I was younger and unaware of the true dimensions that make up the concept of IQ. A realization that left me utterly and completely disinterested in even bothering ever testing again.
Intuitives will score higher then sensors, because the IQ test favors those cognative processes, this creates a biased or limited view of the term intelligence. Not to mention that even people with seriously high IQ's can manage to accomplish nothing. And the ones with lower IQ's can still accomplish almost anything. So there is no apparant practical use of knowing ones IQ. Basicly, if you know your IQ, then everyone that is say 35 points above or below you, has near similar potential than you have (the actually differences between people usually lie with their motivations but IQ alone is not much of a variable in this.). More than 35 difference? Okay, you'll probably have the advantage. Still, it's pretty pointless and should probably just be called the Intuitive quotient. Instead of the Intelligence quotient.
I dislike this criticism of IQ tests. It's like complaining a 100m race doesn't adequately measure upper body strength.
To add on your simile, the critisism is because it's like people say that a 100m race adequatly measures upper body strength.
So it's not the test itself I critisize, but the way people use it as a tool.
That I'll agree with.
I fully understand these points, and I think you put it better than most, Fluffy, but the fact of the matter is: show me an animal with iNtuitive-type intelligence. Cuz I can show you a bunch that have Sensor-type intelligence. As much as I am against the idiots who think all iNtuitives are smarter or better than all Sensors, I think it's likewise idiotic to just deny that there's nothing *different* (and I mean that in a particular way) about iNtuitive intelligence. Intuitive intelligence, simply put, is higher up on the evolutionary ladder. It is a higher order thinking. We did not start as iNtuitives, and then became Sensors. We started as Sensors and then became iNtuitives. As I said before, I reject simplistic notions about this matter. But nothing I've seen thus far, and, frankly, I've seen plenty, has shown my anything different.
Individuals don't evolve in the same way species do.