[Other/Multiple Temperaments] Intelligence – Intuitives vs Sensors

[Coffee_Yum]

If you have already discussed these things with meaningful results what would be your motivation to have this same discussion all over again INTP? Perhaps it would be best if you remove yourself from the savages here at TypoC and return to these more civilized groups you speak of.

I started the same topics in multiple locations at the same time to maximise the amount of input I'll receive. I didn't "already" had meaningful results. It is a fallacy to assume I started the talk here after everywhere else, and even more illogical to think just because I got meaningful results elsewhere I wouldn't be motivated to gather more meaningful results here. The pursuit of knowledge is unending at least for me who values personal growth.

Yes you're correct. I have unsubscribed to this thread and came back only because of the quote notification. And I am motivated now to respond because it is interesting to dabate for the sake of debate.

 

[Starry]

Why am I encountering all the crazies tonight?

It is a fallacy to assume I started the talk here after everywhere else

I take my cues from language Coffee Yum.

I have hosted the same talk elsewhere with a much more diverse crowd of all types and received much more meaningful results...

If you were simultaneously hosting...or had started these same discussions after you started one here...I would have expected you to phrase the above differently but perhaps that's just me and every single English major in the universe.

...and even more illogical to think just because I got meaningful results elsewhere I wouldn't be motivated to gather more meaningful results here.

Not necessarily. As a scientist I can say that you can't perpetually gather information and do nothing but. For the sake of personal growth you must synthesize that information and move forward.

 

[Coffee_Yum]

If you were simultaneously hosting...or had started these same discussions after you started one here...I would have expected you to phrase the above differently but perhaps that's just me and every single English major in the universe.

Firstly you are not representative of every single English major in the universe so you have no grounds for such claims. That out of the way, my phrase is in past tense because those discussions ended before this one. I have mentioned nothing about when they began. Past tense phrases are not direct evidence suggesting I started those other discussions before this one. You assumed.

Not necessarily. As a scientist I can say that you can't perpetually gather information and do nothing but. For the sake of personal growth you must synthesize that information and move forward.

Yes but there is a point when one needs to decide how much information is enough before moving on and that's a completely personal matter. You are not in the position to suggest when that point should be for me.

You place more importance on language cues over the actually words used. But your interpretation of these cues are largely influenced by your personal experience. They are subjective and they can be wrong. I'm telling you that you are reading all my cues wrong, probably because we are very different in how we operate. Maybe you haven't encounter anyone like me before so you are inexperienced in interpreting my meanings. If you pay more attention to the actual content of my words without putting personal judgement into them, perhaps then we can hold a proper conversation.

 

[Starry]

You assumed.

That's precisely what I said Einstein. Based on your past tense language I made an assumption as to your timeline...and frankly I am still under the assumption that I am correct in that and everything else I imagine to be true about you. Namely, that you like to fancy yourself as being at the top of the genuis-chain and will find any excuse to talk about it...anytime...anywhere.

Yes but there is a point when one needs to decide how much information is enough before moving on and that's a completely personal matter. You are not in the position to suggest when that point should be for me.

Once you start talking about the members of this site as if we are somehow incapable of critical thinking and reasonable discussions...when they aren't complete bullshit...then as a member I am in a position to tell you to move on.

 

[Coffee_Yum]

That's precisely what I said Einstein. Based on your past tense language I made an assumption as to your timeline...and frankly I am still under the assumption that I am correct in that and everything else I imagine to be true about you. Namely, that you like to fancy yourself as being at the top of the genuis-chain and will find any excuse to talk about it...anytime...anywhere.

Your assumptions are incorrect. I have given you proof through the exactly words I used. If you cannot accept reality then this won't go anywhere.

Once you start talking about the members of this site as if we are somehow incapable of critical thinking and reasonable discussions...when they aren't complete bullshit...then as a member I am in a position to tell you to move on.

Now you're just ranting. What is wrong with speaking about other people of this site? You are speaking about me, aren't you? You have made another unnecessary assumption there that I was complaining about every single member of the site. I was not, only the few that participated on this thread who made useless comments. And once again the evidence was in my choice of words. Mostly you at this point. You are in no position to tell me to move on when you have misinterpreted everything I posted.

 

[Starry]

Your assumptions are incorrect. I have given you proof through the exactly words I used. If you cannot accept reality then this won't go anywhere.



Now you're just ranting. What is wrong with speaking about other people of this site? You are speaking about me, aren't you? You have made another unnecessary assumption there that I was complaining about every single member of the site. I was not, only the few that participated on this thread who made useless comments. And once again the evidence was in my choice of words. Mostly you at this point. You are in no position to tell me to move on when you have misinterpreted everything I posted.

Your word has no weight with me whatsoever as I do not believe you have a grasp of your own motivations and thus the reality you are currently subjecting us to. As far as I'm concerned you lie.

And so you are correct in this one thing. This discussion will not advance.

 

[Riva]

Am i the only one who is wondering whether the op is a teenager?

My thoughts:
IQ tests measure only one aspect of intelligence.
There are various types of intelligence some of which are more usefull for success than high IQ.
Success is what people mostly wish to accomplish with intelligence.
A person with high IQ with low social skills, empathy, emotional awareness is similar to a person suffering from asperges.

 

[Coffee_Yum]

Your word has no weight with me whatsoever as I do not believe you have a grasp of your own motivations and thus the reality you are currently subjecting us to. As far as I'm concerned you lie.

And so you are correct in this one thing. This discussion will not advance.

If you believe you know me well enough to pass judgement on me in just a few posts then you've grossly overestimated yourself, but you have the right to believe all the nonsense that's in your head. I tried my best to clarify a few things but at the end of the day, we don't know each other at all.

You are wrong. This is not a discussion. This has been you attacking me and me trying to explain myself.

 

[Coffee_Yum]

I've been reading a lot of things over this. There are many theories regarding what intelligence is.

The most commonly accepted standard defines it generally as the brain's capacity to process information, without regards to what types of information. The clock speed of the CPU so to speak. Under the same PC analogy, the GPU processes graphical information much better than the CPU. It can be argued that despite the numbers, each and every CUDA cores on a GPU is less powerful than one CPU core and therefore making the CPU more "intelligent" in it's most fundamental sense. IQ tests are designed specifically for this measurement, only picking the most appropriate question to measure one's raw brain potential, without regards to how that person will actually perform in a wide range of tasks. The assumption is if this person's "intelligent" in this sense, he will perform well on average of all the task throughout his life. He may not excel in any of them, but a jack of all trade can still have a high average. So in a sense, IQ tests are meaningful with an underlying assumption that this is the definition of "intelligence".

Other theories such as multiple intelligence breaks down the scope of intelligence to include a wide scope of different types of activities aside from the basic academic intelligence. Interpersonal, arts all have its own separate measure of intelligence. To me this is a more attractive and realistic definition of intelligence. In reality, what makes a person shine is specialization. By allocating a separate measurement to various different types of tasks we can then better measure how much and what area can a person contribute to the world. Under this definition of intelligence, IQ tests are simply too theoretical and general to be of any meaning. I think the downfall though, being divided means this view shifts attention away from the question "who can contribute more to the world as a whole?". A person who excels in one area and completely suck in others, will get more recognition in society for doing what he does best. Compare this to a jack of all trade person who does everything reasonably well, if can be quantified, has a higher average contribution to society, but under this sense of intelligence, he will not receive the recognition he deserves. More over if society has to choose between these 2 persons, logically it will be the jack of all trade who should be chosen.

Under general intelligence. I think it should be no surprise that intuitives will perform better on average. However everyone can have a fair chance to shine in other areas under the multiple intelligence. In this sense, those with high general intelligence are more suitable to lead because their decisions will likely to be of a higher quality, but it will be up to those with high scores in various multiple intelligence fields to go into the practical specifics or act as an adviser, neither more important than the other.

Like I have mentioned how much IQ test mean subject to how one defines intelligence. I have not once stated that IQ is accurate measure of intelligence either. These ideas are what other assumed when I started this thread. I have tried my best to clarify these misconceptions.

I do not worship IQ results like it's some kind of indication of a person's worth. I believe I have made this very clear. I wanted to explore the relationship between personality and intelligence if there is any, true intelligence whatever it may be, NOT IQ.

 

[Rebeka]

I'm an enfp and always grab things by intuition, sometimes people say to me that i think too much, and actually this is an issue for me. Being intuitive leads you to be anaitical and to create patterns of things, which helps to understand apparently unconnected isssues, however i don't think this is an inteligence trait, it's more related to being just intuitive rather than sensor. I am not a good student, not ranked high in intelligence IQ tests either... so both things are dued to different issues.

 

[Jaguar]

Why do people care about iq so much?

They fear they're stupid.

 

[Rebeka]

I'm an intuitive, but I do not excel in inteligence. Thinking in abstract terms maybe raises your creativity and helps when seeing things from a broader perspective, but that's nothing to do with IQ..... (I'd say)

 

[Rebeka]

They fear they're stupid.

who doesn't??? haha

 

[Norexan]

Am i the only one who is wondering whether the op is a teenager?

My thoughts:
IQ tests measure only one aspect of intelligence.
There are various types of intelligence some of which are more usefull for success than high IQ.
Success is what people mostly wish to accomplish with intelligence.
A person with high IQ with low social skills, empathy, emotional awareness is similar to a person suffering from asperges.

People with high IQ usually have poor social and emotional intelligence...

 

[Ashtart]

People with high IQ usually have poor social and emotional intelligence...

I'm not so sure about people in general, I think it is more of a myth. But is true to myself though.

 

[Ashtart]

Why do people care about iq so much?

That's indeed a good question.

People for some reason think it is awesome to have a high IQ. I wonder if they would still feel the same way if they had the misfortune to go to one of Mensa's meetings and have to interact with that bunch of spoiled arrogant people.

 

[Lead Guitar Wankery]

People with high IQ usually have poor social and emotional intelligence...

How many people with high IQ do you know? How many people you know actually have a legit IQ at all (from a real, professionally administered IQ test)?

 

[Norexan]

Logical way of thinkig usually destroys social and emotive intelegence. It is natural.

 

[Ashtart]

Tu put it simple: There are different types of intelligence. Sensors may be more inclined to one type, Intuitors to other and so on.

People really seem to be, yet to this day, stuck on the idea of one form of supreme intelligence.

 

[Ashtart]

Logical way of thinkig usually destroys social and emotive intelegence. It is natural.

Of course.