Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[EJCC]

Substantiate this.

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Fast considerations:
- You can't measure the IQ of a person that lived 500 years ago. That's insanity. Not even their mbti type can be properly known, but that's another story.
- Having a high IQ doesn't make you smart. You can have a big IQ and suck in life big time. Besides, a high IQ is often correlated with some bad stuff (poor grasp of social norms, depression, big ego).

You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell

 

[EJCC]

You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell

I could TOTALLY see Jesus as ESFJ!

Talk about an influential person. Seriously!

 

[RDF]

[...]In short: if you want people to take your ideas seriously, start acting like a scholar, and not like some random blogger who just discovered MBTI a week ago and is making vague generalizations based only on Wikipedia and the Keirsey website. Because, honestly, that's the vibe I'm getting.

Yeah, the article at that website comes off as another iNtuitive masterpiece by another ditzy, schizy, whiny, N dilettante.

I sometimes wonder what Ss think about the iNtuitive discussions that take place here on MBTI-Central. There's a lot of whacked-out, dimwitted iNtuitive theorizing about how nice it would be to kill off big portions of the population, get rid of organized religion, get rid of the corporations, etc. As the real-world "adults" of the MBTI spectrum, Sensors probably aren't going to have much to say in such discussions. And even when discussions are more down-to-earth and results-oriented, Ns frequently discount any first-person experience as anecdotal, a mere snapshot of a point in time having no bearing on future trends. So you get a big disconnect between the Ss with their excellent powers of observation and first-hand experience of the world vs. the Ns who deal in overviews and theories and only want to discuss broad trends and future developments.

Ns brainstorm and fantasize about how nice it would be to get rid of all cars in order to reduce the greenhouse effect. Meantime Ss are laughing at the Ns and shaking their heads, because the Ss just finished a shift working as part of a team of cops and paramedics untangling a high-speed six-car pile-up on the highway. It's all fine and dandy to brainstorm about life 50 years from now, but in the meantime someone needs to have a Sensor's mastery of observation, detail, and procedure and the presence of mind to handle the real-life emergencies happening on the roads right now.

Ns bitch and moan about globalization issues or the white-collar rat race or the paper chase in bureaucracies. Meanwhile, S admin and management specialists laugh at the dilettante Ns who have no idea what they're talking about. The S specialists have read through thousands of pages of corporate directives, administered pension funds, granted education allowances for dependents, worked up merit allocation coefficients for pay increases for employees, sat on grievance tribunals for disgruntled workers, audited budgets for departments, etc. They know the corporations aren't going to disappear anytime soon, and they know why.

MBTI stereotypes cut both ways. Ns tend to see themselves as visionaries and they see Ss as dreary, unimaginative, fussy drudges. But in my experience Ss tend to see themselves as responsible, clear-eyed, sensible adults and they see Ns as oblivious, whiny, teenaged dilettantes.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

guys, there is not one type of intelligence. i read somewhere there are 5, but maybe even more, depending on how you look.
N's and S's have different types of intelligence according to how you look. for how i look, i'd say N's are more intelligent, but only because it's the sort of intelligence i identify with and value. apart from that, this discussion will go nowhere, i assure you. it all balances out.

 

[slayerment]

Ah yes! That sounds very lovely, in theory. (except for the bolded, which is extremely stereotypical. and I digress!)

I was mostly responding to the thread in general, and not just your article. But I might as well respond to your article in more detail.

Here's my opinion: Your methodology is seriously lacking.

Firstly, you quote Wikipedia, which is a mistake. (If you want credibility, please cite someone with credibility. And don't cite internet sources; those are generally written by Ns and therefore extremely biased. Consider the the juxtaposition of the INFJ stereotype (intuitive to the point of being psychic, bearer of "magical" abilities at reading people), and the ISTP stereotype (they're great at car repair!). If you think critically, you'll realize that these sorts of things sound sketchy.

Secondly, saying "Here's all the great people in the world; see how few are Sensors?" is also a really bad idea. It's too broad, which means you've been picking and choosing people to include or reject from your list -- which means you've probably been unscientific and very subjective, and have no credibility whatsoever. How can we know who you decided to reject? How do we know that you didn't find a huge list of Sensors who changed the world? I'd vote that you, at the very least, define intelligence in your article, then make a list of people in a certain profession directly linked to that sort of intelligence, and then type them. Even then, I'd object to your article, but that would make it less silly and easy for people like me and [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] and [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] to dismiss.

Thirdly -- and I don't know if I have to explain this to you or not -- celebrity typing is a contentious thing. I'm guessing someone could make a Sensor argument for at least half of the people you included on that list. Also, few, if any, of us have met those people, let alone read a biography of them. And I'm not going to trust your typing unless you give me exactly why you typed them that way -- and I'm not going to trust your explanations unless they involve, at the very least, several interviews with the person, and a History Channel special.

Fourthly, cite your freaking sources. Where did you find those IQs?

And finally (because, even though I could go on and on, I choose not to), being "smart" and being "intelligent" are not the same thing. You know this. The title of your article implies that you don't, which takes away even more of your credibility.

In short: if you want people to take your ideas seriously, start acting like a scholar, and not like some random blogger who just discovered MBTI a week ago and is making vague generalizations based only on Wikipedia and the Keirsey website. Because, honestly, that's the vibe I'm getting.


Edit:

Then say it in your freaking article. You state everything in it as if you take it as inarguable fact. You use fucking charts and graphs. It's why no one is taking you seriously here.

If people thought you knew that it was all a generalization, and that you were knowingly exaggerating and speaking unscientifically, they would be treating you differently.

Another edit:
I just realized that yes, you do kinda-sorta define intelligence in your article. But your list is still far, far too broad, and those same issues apply.

You can attack anything anybody does. You could write the best article in the world and I could poke holes in it. So I'm not trying to write a perfect article. I am trying to bring information forth and give people a new perspective on the MBTI. You're focusing too much on minor details. I could easily cite my sources. I could easily use definitions outside of Wikipedia -- that's all minor. If I do a source to your satisfaction it will be to another person's dissatisfaction.

I define what I mean by smart when I say,

"I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason."

Again, you're getting tripped up on minor semantics for the sake of disagreeing. No matter what I do or what source I use I will most likely never satisfy you.

And I'm not trying to be scholarly, I'm trying to be educational. I don't respect most scholars or the way the SJ school system treats academics or intelligence.

 

[EJCC]

Yeah, the article at that website comes off as another iNtuitive masterpiece by another ditzy, schizy, whiny, N dilettante.

I sometimes wonder what Ss think about the iNtuitive discussions that take place here on MBTI-Central. There's a lot of whacked-out, dimwitted iNtuitive theorizing about how nice it would be to kill off big portions of the population, get rid of organized religion, get rid of the corporations, etc. As the real-world "adults" of the MBTI spectrum, Sensors probably aren't going to have much to say in such discussions. And even when discussions are more down-to-earth and results-oriented, Ns frequently discount any first-person experience as anecdotal, a mere snapshot of a point in time having no bearing on future trends. So you get a big disconnect between the Ss with their excellent powers of observation and first-hand experience of the world vs. the Ns who deal in overviews and theories and only want to discuss broad trends and future developments.

Ns brainstorm and fantasize about how nice it would be to get rid of all cars in order to reduce the greenhouse effect. Meantime Ss are laughing at the Ns and shaking their heads, because the Ss just finished a shift working as part of a team of cops and paramedics untangling a high-speed six-car pile-up on the highway. It's all fine and dandy to brainstorm about life 50 years from now, but in the meantime someone needs to have a Sensor's mastery of observation, detail, and procedure and the presence of mind to handle the real-life emergencies happening on the roads right now.

Ns bitch and moan about globalization issues or the white-collar rat race or the paper chase in bureaucracies. Meanwhile, S admin and management specialists laugh at the dilettante Ns who have no idea what they're talking about. The S specialists have read through thousands of pages of corporate directives, administered pension funds, granted education allowances for dependents, worked up merit allocation coefficients for pay increases for employees, sat on grievance tribunals for disgruntled workers, audited budgets for departments, etc. They know the corporations aren't going to disappear anytime soon, and they know why.

MBTI stereotypes cut both ways. Ns tend to see themselves as visionaries and they see Ss as dreary, unimaginative, fussy drudges. But in my experience Ss tend to see themselves as responsible, clear-eyed, sensible adults and they see Ns as oblivious, whiny, teenaged dilettantes.

These are very good observations -- and that's exactly why it annoys me so much when people treat those huge issues as if they're so simple, and so potentially easy to deal with, when obviously they aren't, if you'd just take the time to do your research. Much of the time when someone proposes a big and vague (but pretty) idea to me, my response will be "And how do you suggest doing that?" And the response will be deafening silence.

That's also why it annoys me when people say that Sensors can't have the big ideas; I don't know much about how the SP mind works (since I know so few SPs), but with SJs, we're pretty damn well prepared to have those ideas and implement them successfully, just because we've taken the time to find out what's been tried in the past, what worked halfway, and what didn't work at all. It's just a hop and a skip from that point to the point where you come up with a solution that can be implemented in the real world.

 

[1487610420]

Oh hooray, it's another one of those pseudo-intellectual piss contest threads.

Yeah completely useless. Every typologist worth his/her [bath] salt knows N piss is superior.

 

[wildcat]

It doesn't really matter. There are more sensors than there are intuitives. We may be smarter, but we have to play by your rules most of the time in order to be considered "functional". The myth, of course, is that we can't function without you because we're too "pie in the sky".






In what way?

You answered your question.

 

[EJCC]

You can attack anything anybody does. You could write the best article in the world and I could poke holes in it. So I'm not trying to write a perfect article. I am trying to bring information forth and give people a new perspective on the MBTI. You're focusing too much on minor details. I could easily cite my sources. I could easily use definitions outside of Wikipedia -- that's all minor. If I do a source to your satisfaction it will be to another person's dissatisfaction.

If your work is scholarly, and if your research is sufficient, and if you are very thorough, then the only objections will be those of people who don't think much of the IQ test, or of the MBTI. But as of now, the only people who would agree with your article are people who aren't thinking critically.

Also: If you care so little about individual people's objections, then why did you start an account here with the express intent of posting on this thread? I would say that you were trying to evangelize your article, but if you were, you would be trying a little harder to convince people, instead of dismissing people's concerns by saying "Your disagreements are minor details that don't matter."

I define what I mean by smart when I say,

"I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason."

Like I said: too vague. Too long a list, that you obviously shortened.

Again, you're getting tripped up on minor semantics for the sake of disagreeing. No matter what I do or what source I use I will most likely never satisfy you.

If you know anything about ESTJs, you know that they can be convinced of almost anything if you give them credible data. So no, I'm not objecting to minor details. Credibility of data is not a minor detail. If you think a source written by an amateur (e.g. Wikipedia) is as credible as a source written by someone with years of education and experience and huge amounts of influence around the world (e.g. Jung), then it's no wonder that you've convinced no one of anything in your brief (but entertaining) time on Typology Central.

If you call a group of people "not smart", in an article you wrote with the intent to "educate", people might take every little detail you say as fact. But obviously you didn't want that. If you really were an ESFJ, then you'd understand the instinct of many people to take others literally in that regard, but you obviously aren't ESFJ. The reason why I keep saying you should try the scholarly way is that it's exact, and it's thorough. If you use that method, you will mean every word you say. You will be avoiding interactions like these. You will be respected.

But at this point, the only way I'd believe your article would be if I took your word for it, and chose not to question you. Is that what you wanted? Were you writing that article under the impression that no one would question you? On what grounds would anyone respect your article? (Hence my emphasis on credibility.)

And I'm not trying to be scholarly, I'm trying to be educational. I don't respect most scholars or the way the SJ school system treats academics or intelligence.

If you ever want to convince anyone of anything, you have to know how to convince them. Trust of other people's logic, knowledge and expertise is not a given, and it must be earned. If you make an argument with very little reputable data, if any, you are going to convince very few people. And those who are "educated" by you will soon find a contradictory argument that is better phrased, with better data, that is more objective, and they will be convinced of another opinion and will no longer agree with you.

 

[animenagai]

Regardless of which type is smarter, raptorwizard should go check his head before posting anything else.

 

[EJCC]

Regardless of which type is smarter, raptorwizard should go check his head before posting anything else.

!
The Great One, too!

 

[1487610420]

i think this INT thing with aspies is that they are actually IST's more often(more likely ISTJ), but their S is disassociated from their other processes and falsely test as INTs. its common for people with aspergers to be really focused on details of external world, so much focused that it draws all their energy and cant properly distinguish 'what is'(due to the disassociation of S).

the idea of aspergers is that different brain regions arent first of all communicating with each other properly(some areas lack proper connection and some areas have really strong connections), some areas are poorly developed(not much processing power) or are really strongly developed(and try to do processes with the developed areas that arent usual for them, for example reading with visual cortex, while normal people transport the visual imaginery from text to other areas which process the reading).

i have heard of 3 basic types of personalities in autism;

-photo-realistic; thinks in static images

-music, mathematic; thinks in visual patterns, are naturally good at music and some types of math

-word-logic; is good at names and statistics

photo-realistic type is afaik the most common with aspergers, i think this is the typical ISTP aspie who often gets confused with INTP, but visual cortex playing a big role(and at least one case of these had a super strong wiring to areas involved with Ti and really crap on opposite Fi side), which is not common for INTPs, but is related to Se. i think because of the typical ISTP attitude of paying attention to details in external world, gets dimmed due to the intensity of how external world is perceived, creates similar voluntary disassociation of the objects that INTPs generally have, so these types look like INTPs often. i also think that people with autism experience their unconscious mind much differently than healthy people do and live much more of the life of the unconscious, not because it would be larger necessarily, but because the confusion it evokes is much greater(due to it not being compatible with the external world), thus it feels more intense and distracting(which also might make them seem as INTPs, but its actually the Ni playing role here).

music, mathematic is most likely closest to INTJ

word-logic is most likely closest to ISTJ

So, which is more intelligent the fake INT aka real IST with a dissociated S or the real INT with a superior N?

 

[INTP]

So, which is more intelligent the fake INT aka real IST with a dissociated S or the real INT with a superior N?

N types have slightly higher IQ on average, but that doesent make N people smarter than S, its just that iq test measures certain type of intelligence, which is often seen in intuitives. you could make different test where S types would score higher in average than N types, but that wouldnt be what you call IQ test.

the post you quoted has nothing to do with the subject and was about people confusing ISTP aspegrers to INTPs

 

[1487610420]

N types have slightly higher IQ on average, but that doesent make N people smarter than S, its just that iq test measures certain type of intelligence, which is often seen in intuitives. you could make different test where S types would score higher in average than N types, but that wouldnt be what you call IQ test.

the post you quoted has nothing to do with the subject and was about people confusing ISTP aspegrers to INTPs

Exactly. I thought it was most fitting to the srs bsn discushun here...

 

[IceBlock]

action is all that matters in this world[/QUOTE]

NTs are the most likely to take action. They are the most Choleric.

....no, no they aren't. ENTJs are, sometimes INTJs can be pretty choleric too, but NTs as a whole? no. there isn't a large degree of correlation with 4 humors and MBTI anyway (assuming 4 humors held any weight, which I don't think they do). anyway, the most action oriented types are probably Se doms and Te doms (ESxPs and ExTJs)

ESTP all the way.

I could TOTALLY see Jesus as ESFJ!

Talk about an influential person. Seriously!

More like ENFJ, don't you think?

guys, there is not one type of intelligence. i read somewhere there are 5, but maybe even more, depending on how you look.
N's and S's have different types of intelligence according to how you look. for how i look, i'd say N's are more intelligent, but only because it's the sort of intelligence i identify with and value. apart from that, this discussion will go nowhere, i assure you. it all balances out.

Accordinly to Howard Gardner's theory, there are 8 (logical, bodily-kinesthesic, naturalistic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, verbal-linguistic, spatial), and I do believe in this theory. The IQ is a limited way of measuring logical and spatial intelligence. It's incomplete. It's like saying Mozart wasn't intelligent, because he had no high IQ (I don't know whether Mozart's IQ is high or low, I'm just giving a raw comparison here).

 

[Laurie]

I like saying that being "gifted" gives you the gift of being an underachiever. Or maybe P gives you that gift.

Even if Ns were on average smarter than Ss, which may statistically be the case, that would not say anything about you or me or anybody else.

This. With any of the letters.

Regardless of which type is smarter, raptorwizard should go check his head before posting anything else.

I was hoping to see the butt pic again!

 

[SD45T-2]

Just some anecdotal info.

For years I was pretty heavily involved with one of the largest Mensa chapters (the Washington, D.C. chapter was the 2nd most active after Chicago). My experience there (again, anecdotal) was that Sensors made up somewhat more than 1/2 of the membership of that chapter. Maybe as much as 2/3.

That proportion of Sensors would still makes the chapter a little heavy on iNtuitives compared to the general population (where Sensors may represent as much as 3/4 of the population); and in fact Mensa was a great place to go if you wanted to find a higher-than-normal concentration of certain types of iNtuitives. But those numbers could also be explained by the fact that Mensa members are self-selected and don’t necessarily reflect the true make-up of the entire spectrum of the high-IQ population.

To put it another way, only a small percentage of high-IQ people ever bother to join Mensa. Furthermore, I noticed that iNtuitives (and NTs in particular) tended to see Mensa as a haven from the cruel outside world and a place where they could find acceptance for their quirks and the company of more people like themselves.

Sensors, by comparison, seemed to view Mensa as just one more place to socialize; it wasn’t a “haven” for them since they didn’t seem to feel out-of-place in the outside world the way that NTs might. Sensors floated in and out of the organization; they didn’t cling to their membership like a lifeline the way some NTs would. Also the Sensor membership seemed skewed toward Extraverts (ESxx), again indicating that Mensa was just one more place to party and socialize for them.

The upshot is that iNtuitives (and NTs in particular) might flock to Mensa in greater proportion than Sensors and stay a little longer, making Mensa a little “N-heavy.” So Mensa membership probably didn’t reflect the overall population of high-IQ people. But in any case, just looking at the large numbers of ESxx Sensors in the chapter, it seemed to me that Sensors are well-represented among the high-IQ population.

Again, that’s all anecdotal. Just my own personal non-scientific observations. As far as I know, Mensa hasn’t done any surveys of the personality types of its members.

It's interesting you should say that. My mom is an ESFJ and she scored high enough to join Mensa, but didn't.

 

[wolfy]

I suppose it is a fun enough thing to bullshit about, who is most intelligent. But at the end of the day it is who is most effective that matters. These kind of threads and subjects always feel like ego bolstering to me. It is sad in a way though, this kind of abstract masturbation, it screws it up for people who want to use it to learn about themselves and others.

 

[Laurie]

Someone should start a thread on whether n's are better than s's at abstract masturbation.