INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[miss fortune]

now get to it and become enlightened as to what REAL intellegence is!

 

[Poki]

No, because he discovered something with his mind that almost no other human being would have been able to do, for lack of enough intelligence.

He discovered something that no other human being had. You are mixing past, present, and future again. In the past not enough was known and in the future to much was known. He was intelligent for his time, but his intelligence inregards to what he knew has been passed time and time again.

You are simply taking intelligence at that time of discovering something new and locking it in. It aligns perfectly with INTJ goal to find something new and exciting and want that intelligence to be locked in as well.

 

[sculpting]

Cancer is never gunna be cured. Cancer is what happens to life after it's existed long enough to have complications/imperfections arise (and multiply).

cancer is immortality.

What....oh nevermind I figured it out.

 

[Poki]

cancer is immortality.

What....oh nevermind I figured it out.

:hi:

 

[Zarathustra]

He discovered something that no other human being had. You are mixing past, present, and future again. In the past not enough was known and in the future to much was known. He was intelligent for his time, but his intelligence inregards to what he knew has been passed time and time again.

You are simply taking intelligence at that time of discovering something new and locking it in. It aligns perfectly with INTJ goal to find something new and exciting and want that intelligence to be locked in as well.

Poki, no offense, but what's your point?

I never said other human beings weren't capable of understanding his discovery.

Once again, no offense, but your statement is essentially pointless...

 

[sculpting]

to poki!!!!! Here are some texas wildflowers for you!

 

[uumlau]

I think labeling either more intelligent than the other is probably a mistake because they're exercising different kinds of intelligence.

So, let's say we define intelligence in a more conventional way, such as "demonstrated skill in solving abstract puzzles." Yeah, sure, that's a very particular definition, which will result in very particular biases when measured among many groups, but of what use is a definition of intelligence that encompasses "all kinds of intelligence?" Does such a definition have any purpose other than to let people feel good about themselves?

Should I define "height" as "different kinds of height," such as "height with shoes", "height while barefoot", "height while sitting", "height while laying down" ... ? The word "height" becomes useless.

There's a reason intelligence tests are based in large part on abstract reasoning: when measuring specific skills, such as farming or cooking or dancing or playing flute or accounting or electrical engineering, the level of exposure to the material plays a much more significant role than with a well-designed IQ test. The test has to be abstract, otherwise it cannot measure any sort of "general intelligence," as in "ability to quickly reason."

This very fact is what will limit the scores those whose skills and training and tendencies benefit more from being less abstract, and be biased in favor of those who regularly employ abstract reasoning.

The problem is not the measure of intelligence, here, but that many people (not just INTJs) think that "abstract reasoning" is better, and it turns into a competition for imagined superiority rather than a measure of a useful skill.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Poki, no offense, but what's your point?

I never said other human beings weren't capable of understanding his discovery.

Once again, no offense, but your statement is essentially pointless...

He is saying that Einstein's intelligence was relative ...






oh, my sides hurt I am laughing so much ...

 

[sculpting]

Poki, can you think about how you love other people? When love them and care for them do you feel as though the perceiving functions-Ni,Se-play a role somehow?

Do you perceive people you love in a different way from problems you have to solve? (No underlying theory or anything, just curious)

 

[Zarathustra]

So, let's say we define intelligence in a more conventional way, such as "demonstrated skill in solving abstract puzzles." Yeah, sure, that's a very particular definition, which will result in very particular biases when measured among many groups, but of what use is a definition of intelligence that encompasses "all kinds of intelligence?" Does such a definition have any purpose other than to let people feel good about themselves?

Should I define "height" as "different kinds of height," such as "height with shoes", "height while barefoot", "height while sitting", "height while laying down" ... ? The word "height" becomes useless.

There's a reason intelligence tests are based in large part on abstract reasoning: when measuring specific skills, such as farming or cooking or dancing or playing flute or accounting or electrical engineering, the level of exposure to the material plays a much more significant role than with a well-designed IQ test. The test has to be abstract, otherwise it cannot measure any sort of "general intelligence," as in "ability to quickly reason."

This very fact is what will limit the scores those whose skills and training and tendencies benefit more from being less abstract, and be biased in favor of those who regularly employ abstract reasoning.

The problem is not the measure of intelligence, here, but that many people (not just INTJs) think that "abstract reasoning" is better, and it turns into a competition for imagined superiority rather than a measure of a useful skill.

Hey, it's the voice of reason!

I was gunna say the same thing with regards to PeaceBaby's post about "Farm IQ", but got bogged down in responding to Whatever's post.

 

[miss fortune]

^ and I gave you such a lovely new post!

 

[Poki]

Poki, no offense, but what's your point?

I never said other human beings weren't capable of understanding his discovery.

Once again, no offense, but your statement is essentially pointless...

No offense taken, my point is explained, I dont usually have a goal.

Mixing contexts together. Making a pie.

 

[Zarathustra]

The problem is not the measure of intelligence, here, but that many people (not just INTJs) think that "abstract reasoning" is better, and it turns into a competition for imagined superiority rather than a measure of a useful skill.

I know what you're saying here, and I mostly agree with you, but, as I said in that previous post to Sim (to which he still hasn't really responded, at least not in its entirety), there is a reason Aristotle called us the "rational" animal.

Not that we can't be irrational and disgusting as all hell, but it's our potential for "rationality" that separates us from the rest of the beasts.

And a large part (although not the entirety) of this "rationality" has to do with abstract reasoning.

That's why this kind of intelligence has been called intelligence for millennia...

It's not just some simplistic and culturally/historically embedded definition of intelligence...

Abstract reasoning has been called intelligence by cultures all over the world for a very long time.

 

[Zarathustra]

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA!

 

[PeaceBaby]

This very fact is what will limit the scores those whose skills and training and tendencies benefit more from being less abstract, and be biased in favor of those who regularly employ abstract reasoning.

I was merely pointing out one type of bias, one which is historically well-documented and well-known.

From the same source, here are a few other difficulties to consider whilst attempting to measure intelligence (since no one has referenced that link I think, from which I copied the Farm IQ test too )

The problem of cognitive style

How are a pair of scissors and a copper pan alike?

One point answer: They are both household utensils.
Two point answer: They are both made of metal.
Why is the second worth more than the first?

---

Which doesn't belong: clam, pig, oven, rose.

The correct answer is the oven, because the rest are living things.
But a child may say rose, since the others relate to making dinner.
Or the clam, since clams live in the water, and the rest live on land.

Not only can different answers reflect different social or cultural backgrounds; they may also reflect originality and novel outlook.

In certain IQ tests, the child is given two points for "categorical" answers, one point for "descriptive" answers, but no points for "relational" answers. So, in response to "How are a cat and a mouse alike?" you get two points for "they are both animals," one point for "they both have tails," and nothing at all if you say "they both live in houses."

With drawings of a boy, an old man, and a woman (the latter two wearing hats), children were asked "Which go together?" "Good" answers include the boy and the man, because they are both male, or the man and the woman because they are both adults. Less points are awarded to "the man and the woman, because they are both wearing hats." and no points are gained for "the boy and the old man, because the boy can help the old man walk," which strikes me as the most creative answer!

---

Disembedded thought

The most important of all the confusing variables, I believe, is the problem of disembedded thought. Disembedded thought is Margaret Donaldson's term for thought that takes place in a contextual vacuum: It takes years of practice to get to a point where one is comfortable with abstract questions. Answering what appear to be meaningless questions is rejected by people of many cultures, by most young children, and by many people with different "cognitive styles." It is, in fact, a talent peculiar to us (i.e. educated western adults, and a few others). Many others will spend their creative energies not at solving the problem, but at trying to figure out why you would ask such a strange question to begin with.

 

[miss fortune]

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA!

yeah... whatever

 

[uumlau]

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA!

yeah... whatever

Me called umlau.

 

[Zarathustra]

Please, somebody, make that your signature...

:yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[Poki]

Poki, can you think about how you love other people? When love them and care for them do you feel as though the perceiving functions-Ni,Se-play a role somehow?

Do you perceive people you love in a different way from problems you have to solve? (No underlying theory or anything, just curious)

I end up trying to think about how I would think about loving people. My senses have to all line up in what I see, hear, sense, words, etc. If everything lines up the sincerity of the feeling is felt.

People arent problems to be solved. Situations are to be solved.

 

[simulatedworld]

I know what you're saying here, and I mostly agree with you, but, as I said in that previous post to Sim (to which he still hasn't really responded, at least not in its entirety), there is a reason Aristotle called us the "rational" animal.

Not that we can't be irrational and disgusting as all hell, but it's our potential for "rationality" that separates us from the rest of the beasts.

And a large part (although not the entirety) of this "rationality" has to do with abstract reasoning.

That's why this kind of intelligence has been called intelligence for millennia...

It's not just some simplistic and culturally/historically embedded definition of intelligence...

Abstract reasoning has been called intelligence by cultures all over the world for a very long time.

Would it be fair to say the determining factor for intelligence is being able to do something very few other people can do? (EDIT: Obviously this something needs to involve cognitive skills. I don't think holding the world record for benchpress is indicative of intelligence either.)

The test has to be abstract, otherwise it cannot measure any sort of "general intelligence," as in "ability to quickly reason."

The problem is not the measure of intelligence, here, but that many people (not just INTJs) think that "abstract reasoning" is better, and it turns into a competition for imagined superiority rather than a measure of a useful skill.

Some people can "quickly reason" in terms of cognitive skills that most NTs tend to be untalented in. Why is their quick reasoning less indicative of intelligence?

Isn't the definition of "useful skill" simply a function of transient cultural standards?