INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[Zarathustra]

Though I do have a preliminary estimate...

 

[Ginkgo]

Though I do have a preliminary estimate...

You INXJs... always making your seclusive intuitive judgments...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No, I was suggesting that intelligence is ill-defined and very subjective. The ability to spot visual patterns is just one cognitive area, the ability to solve complex arithmetic problems another. Both are corner-stones of most IQ tests. Idiot-savants are a fine example of people with incredibly high IQs failing in other areas often considered an essential part of intelligence.

Take your definition just given. Are you claiming people with higher IQs solve more problems generally? And are you also claiming that people with higher IQs understand things better?

I'd give you understanding and processing things quicker, but not better. As for solving problems, if you can't see the huge variety of problems, and how people with high IQs generally have as many (those with very high even more so), than anyone with IQs around 100, you have are using a very narrow definition of "problem". If you were to do an actual study of this, you'd have huge difficulties defining what a "problem" is in the first place.

People who innovate to solve problems rarely have very high IQs, for example. It's not a very good measure of creativity at all, which is considered a key area in intelligence by many. There are things which correlate far more to financial success than IQ does, though the ability to process information faster would be a clear advantage in many fields.

That's ignoring the problems IQ tests have themselves. Notably a lack of consistent scoring, and an ease of increasing score with practice.

What I'm not doing, is claiming everyone has the same intelligence, or that there aren't stupid people. What I am claiming, is that intelligence is not a scalar quantity. IQ is.

Erm, you're onto a very important discovery. Stephen Jay Gould (1981) discussed this notion in depth. Intelligence is not a single entity and its definition is at best vague and at worst incoherent. Its true that people who do well on one type of a cognitive task tend to do well on many others, however, this does not show that we know their innate intelligence. Many of the tests can be mastered by rote learning and focus on culture-specific phenomena and do not cover taks that assess important cognitive abilities. They also ignore a deep conceptual issue regarding the question of whether or not IQ itself is a coherent notion. Consider for example the work of a Mathematician and compare it to that of a historian. Both scholars would be required to proficiently use imagination and engage in deductive reasoning. However, mathematics requires more deductive reasoning than brainstorming and vice versa is the case with history. Clearly, some people are better at one than the other and some are more talented at one than the other. Even among mathematicians there is a rift between problem solvers and theory builders. It does not exactly correspond to the discrepancy between visionaries and deductive analysts, but it does point out that people who are clearly intelligent tend to excell at one type of an activity more than at the other. The foundational notion of IQ testing, namely that there is an exact figure assessing how smart a person is, or how well he will solve all problems is mythical. At best, there are vague approximations regarding how a person will fair in most intellectual affairs, but the lack of nuance greatly undermines the argument of the proponent of IQ testing.

You should, however, clarify your conceptual distinction between IQ and intelligence. I am guessing one means a person's IQ test-result and the other is intelligence. How is intelligence a scalar quality? The entity in itself does not yield to a precise measurement. It is an agreggate of multiple cognitive abilities. If IQ tests were able to test the functioning of all abilities relevant to problem solving the result would at best be an average of all of those scores, which would be symbolized as a single number. In itself the number would tell very little about how a person will solve all problems. For example, he could be better than 99.99% of contestants at memorizing items, yet inferior to 7% of other test-takers in using his imagination but also superior to 98% of his competitors in deductive reasoning. In order to know how well he will perform in a certain intellectual task, we'd be well advised to determine how well he performs in specific cognitive activities that are required by the task the most. If 'general intelligence' is not an incoherent concept resultant of a hasty generalization fallacy, tell me what is!

A challenger of the theory I have advanced above may claim that people who are good at analysis are also imaginative and have a formiddable memory. For the very least, in most cases, when a person's displays competence in one area, he can develop skills in others. Such an example of course excludes a number of idiosyncratic cases, such as the Savant syndrome.

There is a certain underpinning for intelligence, but it is rather vague and abstract. I cannot provide an accurate descriptive account of this phenomenon without relying on analogical reasoning and concrete examples. Lets imagine a man who is 'in shape', suppose that his regular exercising program consists of lifting weights, running and playing hockey. In all of these activities, he uses various skills that will prove timely in other physical contests that he may encounter. For instance, he would be more likely to succeed as a soccer or a tennis player than someone who is 'couch-potato'. The case is such because he regularly cultivates many athletical skills consistently, just as the historian, the mathematician and the political scientist exercises all cognitive skills. It is true that they rely on some more than others, but nonetheless, they could prevail in academic tasks that require a different type of cognitive work than the kind they're accustomed simply because they've practiced them more. Thus, in order to do one type of intellectual work, you need to participate in nearly all other kinds, at least occassionally. This, however, does not mean that you perform equally well in all of them and precisely for this reason, the concept of intelligence is rendered untenable. To assert that a person has a general intelligence is as grotesquely absurd as to claim that he also has AQ or general 'athleticism' the implication of which is that he is equally skilled at all athletic activities that we may imagine! This means that he is equally good at ice-skating and weight-lifting. The range of cognitive activities is nearly as wide as that of athletic abilities. As a soccer fan, I often notice that not all players are equally good at all activities that pertain to the sport of their professional specialization. For example, some are excellent shooters, yet inadequate tacklers, some have great pace, but encounter terrible difficulties shooting accurately on target. If we see such disparities in one sport, it would be hopeless non-sense to assert that a person's competence at one athletic activity can be generalized to all possible athletic activities. Similarly, a person who has the skill-set of a typical academic such as analytical reasoning, pattern recognition and memorization may be destitute of other important intellectual abilities that we often overlook. I can comment on this from personal experience. As a philosophy student I have often observed English, Historians and Art scholars struggle with philosophical concepts. Similarly, many students and professionals working in philosophy, physics or mathematics struggled as literature or art critics. Almost none of the analytic philosophers have the kind of a prose that mathces the artistic talents of the more artistically minded scholars. For this reason, academics of the exact sciences have alienated the humanities and vice versa. Its not that they simply have no interest in the disciplines of one another, but its a fact that the scholars are more talented at one academic enterprise than the other. They are often able to succeed in disciplines that are similar to their own, but not in those that are significantly different. For instance, many mathematicians have abandoned their discipline in favor of philosophy, yet fewer of them have become historians, art critics of English scholars.

At this point I have limited my discussion to strictly intelligence or ability to solve various complex problems. I've purposefully omitted any reference to the concept of 'innate intelligence' as it is far too vague and hopeless confused to be addressed in a serious conversation. To say the least of it, the authors of the Bell Curve claimed that the intelligence and IQ test-scores of children do not change throughout their lives. Famously, the American Psychological Association found no evidence to support their claim and stated that intelligence is mostly a result of a person's experience with the environment. (See Bloom 2007, Lecture 13 Session 13 - Why Are People Different?: Differences — Open Yale Courses)

 

[Ginkgo]

I can't wait to hear a rebuttal by Lex.


You see, what's going to happen is:

A communication error. The NTPs are engrossed by the definition of intelligence itself because carrying on, even delving into MBTI afterwards would be taking an illogical leap. Speculating about the intelligence of INTJs, or anybody, is out of the question. We are clearly not of mutual understanding here because we are speaking on different frequencies.

On the other hand, INTJs are being presumptuous and labeling the NTPs as "egalitarian". The fact that NTPs are disseminating the definition of intelligence doesn't mean that they are egalitarian; if anything, it means that they are aspiring for correctness. If some are indeed egalitarian, so be it.

I honestly don't understand why the NTJs are so presumptuous, though they may have a certain element of intelligence. If anything, this conversation is a fine representation of the diversity of intelligences among the MBTI Archetypes. Both NT orientations seem to infer information in unique ways. Both seem to process and understand in unique ways.

So how can you compare apples and oranges by a measurement tool that isn't applicable to either? Specifically, I am referring to IQ tests. To answer Zarathustra's question: The only thing you can measure with a test is how well one takes the test.

Strange how I identify with NTPs more on this issue...

 

[Ginkgo]

I hope this supplements the conversation: SaneThoughts.com

 

[simulatedworld]

Liberty Corner: IQ and Personality

Don't forget, statistics lie.

IQ tests typically involve a certain kind of puzzle solving, and it seems to me that the people who do particularly well on IQ tests are those who have the kind of personality that enjoys puzzle solving. And the people who make IQ tests are also people who enjoy puzzle solving, and who believe that puzzle solving is an important and valuable ability (i.e., they are passionate about puzzle solving, interpreted in a very general sense). Essentially, an IQ test measures the overlap between the passions of the test taker and the passions of the test maker.

It's obvious that INTs have the highest IQs. The problem is in the assumption that IQ is an accurate measure of total overall intelligence.

How do we arrive at our definition of what constitutes intelligence? If we polled ESFPs as to what skills represent the most intelligence and allowed them to design their own test of intelligence based on the skills they consider most important, how would INTJs fare on such a test?

The IQ test was designed by NTs to test how good people are at tasks that NTs are good at. The problem is, there's not really any good reason to believe these tasks are more representative of true intelligence than any others--most likely, they are representative of one kind of intelligence, among many.

 

[Kalach]

I honestly don't understand why the NTJs are so presumptuous,[...]

Because by and large being INTJ means working with a complex and all but untranslatable bundle of concepts, the hallmark of which is if not originality then novelty, at least to us. And on the whole pretty much no matter what other people choose to do, they end up standing in the way of the translation for public consumption of that bundle, and often they seem to wish us to say they have done us a service. If we don't presume to tell everyone else to shut up, we won't get the insights out to make them real.

 

[Ginkgo]

Because by and large being INTJ means working with a complex and all but untranslatable bundle of concepts, the hallmark of which is if not originality then novelty, at least to us. And on the whole pretty much no matter what other people choose to do, they end up standing in the way of the translation for public consumption of that bundle, and often they seem to wish us to say they have done us a service. If we don't presume to tell everyone else to shut up, we won't get the insights out to make them real.

Thank you.

 

[Kalach]

We could of course lighten up sometimes, but apparently that is a learned ability.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Not sure whether you've read any books about MBTI, but I've seen some great statistics in some of them.

Might wanna check some out...

I have read books on MBTI, have extensively researched the typology online, and have studied general personality correlations with IQ, but have yet to come across clear and definitive data on the Myers-Briggs personality types and their dispersion in terms of IQ apart from some vague information that loosely ties INTJs to intellectual preponderance.

If you have any statistics that you could point me to, please do so; otherwise, refrain from responding with your useless observations and negligible injections. In fact, do so regardless, as I grow tired of your pseudo-intellectual drivel.

 

[simulatedworld]

We could of course lighten up sometimes, but apparently that is a learned ability.

But it's really awesome when you guys learn it

 

[Ginkgo]

If you have any statistics that you could point me to, please do so; otherwise, refrain from responding with your useless observations and negligible injections.

Why are you such a dick? Honestly. Did daddy inject you with his own "negligence" when you were a child? C'mon man. Don't make yourself and all other INTJs look like self-servile, hard headed dolts. Intelligent people act intelligently, tactfully, and don't throw around ad hominems like some animal, snapping at the people trying to feed it. That's what this conversation looks like. A crocodile is being revived by Steve Erwin; so then it impulsively snaps back because its reptilian brain is too underdeveloped to distinguish friend from foe.

 

[Mole]

I hope this supplements the conversation: SaneThoughts.com

This is a good article.

Thanks Tater.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Why are you such a dick? Honestly. Did daddy inject you with his own "negligence" when you were a child? C'mon man. Don't make yourself and all other INTJs look like self-servile, hard headed dolts. Intelligent people act intelligently, tactfully, and don't throw around ad hominems like some animal, snapping at the people trying to feed it. That's what this conversation looks like. A crocodile is being revived by Steve Erwin; so then it impulsively snaps back because its reptilian brain is too underdeveloped to distinguish friend from foe.

Why? Because I tire of his pointless replies which do little to advance the argument and do everything to make him seem like a haughty teenager who just read his first philosophical work and now thinks he is in a position to profess his "insight" to others. What conversation is he "feeding"? His responses are inane. Of course, he is far from the only one who does this, but he targets me so I direct it at him.

Respect and courtesy to those who deserve it.

Reverentia merenda est.

 

[Kalach]

So I went looking for "intelligence" in the MBTI Manual to see if there were any quotable type-specific points of pride. In the index they have just the one page reference which led one to a sentence expressing an interesting suggestion:

"ntelligence can be seen as a result of effective command of perception and judgment; that is, more information is taken in accurately, and better judgments are made."

 

[Ginkgo]

Why? Because I tire of his pointless replies which do little to advance the argument and do everything to make him seem like a haughty teenager who just read his first philosophical work and now thinks he is in a position to profess his "insight" to others. What conversation is he "feeding"? His responses are inane. Of course, he is far from the only one who does this, but he targets me so I direct it at him.

Respect and courtesy to those who deserve it.

Reverentia merenda est.

And you do realize that you deserve to be reciprocated in the same manner, right? Irreverence recycles irreverence.

 

[simulatedworld]

What Is Intelligence, Anyway?

What is intelligence, anyway? When I was in the army, I received the kind of aptitude test that all soldiers took and, against a normal of 100, scored 160. No one at the base had ever seen a figure like that, and for two hours they made a big fuss over me. (It didn’t mean anything. The next day I was still a buck private with KP – kitchen police – as my highest duty.)

All my life I’ve been registering scores like that, so that I have the complacent feeling that I’m highly intelligent, and I expect other people to think so too. Actually, though, don’t such scores simply mean that I am very good at answering the type of academic questions that are considered worthy of answers by people who make up the intelligence tests – people with intellectual bents similar to mine?

For instance, I had an auto-repair man once, who, on these intelligence tests, could not possibly have scored more than 80, by my estimate. I always took it for granted that I was far more intelligent than he was. Yet, when anything went wrong with my car I hastened to him with it, watched him anxiously as he explored its vitals, and listened to his pronouncements as though they were divine oracles – and he always fixed my car.

Well, then, suppose my auto-repair man devised questions for an intelligence test. Or suppose a carpenter did, or a farmer, or, indeed, almost anyone but an academician. By every one of those tests, I’d prove myself a moron, and I’d be a moron, too. In a world where I could not use my academic training and my verbal talents but had to do something intricate or hard, working with my hands, I would do poorly. My intelligence, then, is not absolute but is a function of the society I live in and of the fact that a small subsection of that society has managed to foist itself on the rest as an arbiter of such matters.

Consider my auto-repair man, again. He had a habit of telling me jokes whenever he saw me. One time he raised his head from under the automobile hood to say: “Doc, a deaf-and-mute guy went into a hardware store to ask for some nails. He put two fingers together on the counter and made hammering motions with the other hand. The clerk brought him a hammer. He shook his head and pointed to the two fingers he was hammering. The clerk brought him nails. He picked out the sizes he wanted, and left. Well, doc, the next guy who came in was a blind man. He wanted scissors. How do you suppose he asked for them?”

Indulgently, I lifted by right hand and made scissoring motions with my first two fingers. Whereupon my auto-repair man laughed raucously and said, “Why, you dumb jerk, He used his voice and asked for them.” Then he said smugly, “I’ve been trying that on all my customers today.” “Did you catch many?” I asked. “Quite a few,” he said, “but I knew for sure I’d catch you.” “Why is that?” I asked. “Because you’re so goddamned educated, doc, I knew you couldn’t be very smart.”

And I have an uneasy feeling he had something there.

--Isaac Asimov

 

[Zarathustra]

Why? Because I tire of his pointless replies which do little to advance the argument and do everything to make him seem like a haughty teenager who just read his first philosophical work and now thinks he is in a position to profess his "insight" to others. What conversation is he "feeding"? His responses are inane. Of course, he is far from the only one who does this, but he targets me so I direct it at him.

Respect and courtesy to those who deserve it.

Reverentia merenda est.

Lex, there's a difference between "targeting" and offering advice.

If you had any social skills, you'd know the difference.

 

[Salomé]

Hollingworth points out that the exceptionally gifted do not deliberately choose isolation, but are forced into it against their wills.

These superior children are not unfriendly or ungregarious by nature. Typically they strive to play with others but their efforts are defeated by the difficulties of the case… Other children do not share their interests, their vocabulary, or their desire to organize activities. They try to reform their contemporaries but finally give up the struggle and play alone, since older children regard them as “babies,” and adults seldom play during hours when children are awake. As a result, forms of solitary play develop, and these, becoming fixed as habits, may explain the fact that many highly intellectual adults are shy, ungregarious, and unmindful of human relationships, or even misanthropic and uncomfortable in ordinary social intercourse [3, p. 262].

Isn't Hollingsworth's work a bit out-of-date?
The article seems to suggest that introverted behaviour is a result of high IQ, rather than just a correlate of it. (Also, there is a strong suggestion that it is dysfunctional).

I was supposedly a "gifted" child, but my anti-social/introverted tendencies were in evidence from early infancy, which I understand is the norm, and supports the (now) generally accepted view that introversion/extraversion is innate.

 

[Zarathustra]

Why? Because I tire of his pointless replies which do little to advance the argument and do everything to make him seem like a haughty teenager who just read his first philosophical work and now thinks he is in a position to profess his "insight" to others.

Also, with regards to your odd obsession with "haughty teenagers who just read their first philosophical work and now think themselves in a position to profess their 'insight' to others": stop projecting, kid.

I'm not some 20-yr old who just discovered Nietzsche a year ago (i.e., you).