Ns are smarter than Ss?!

[Thalassa]

I havent said that solving a problem or mathboy in my example means being intelligent. I mean people who are good at math are most often not intelligent, that, one can always be sure of.

I was more talking about beating the odds. I mean a stone thrown in the air, will fall to the ground if no opposing force is instilled. Thats a natural law. But that someone climbing a rock wouldnt solve a math equation because he is concentrated on climbing is no law. Cause its possible to beat that law. Same applies for Jungs types; they are no natural law, cause its always possible to beat them, if one just tries hard enough.

And here comes a problem. I remember reading sports interviews with racers, soccer players and mountain climbers. They were asked what they are thinking of when they achieve their highest performances. Most of them answer "Nothing, they aint thinking, they act on impulses, instincts and intuition." Some tho said, like Michael Schumacher, he sometimes is thinking, while racing about trivial things; like a grocery list or painting the house.

This phaenomenon is not too uncommon and it is a way of a prescindend thinking in the moment. That would be perfectly alignable with Jungs functions, cause it would roughly, in a 1st analysis, define the Se function as a form of action that requires no thinking. it would tho at the same hand define thinking as a function that requires no action. Therefore the two wouldnt need to be connected and you can basically have someone, achieving high Se performances, but thinking nothing... and getting bored because of that and to start thinking.

Thinking would herein describe the sole process, not the mbti function.

If you ponder about that, I wonder how many "men and woman of action" as in S people, had brilliant N insights while rubbing their balls. (figuratively spoken)

you're not understanding because you look through your own Se-rejecting Ne lens...people fully engaged in Se are not "bored" I can assure you that I think about many things but when I am dancing on stage or doing power yoga at great intensity I truly think of nothing, I am my body and my soul, or my performance would be mechanical and basically shit

same for athletes they have to fully engage in sensing and judging to actually give a fully stellar performance

you shouldn't even drive a car and do physics, let alone climb mt. Everest, your rejection of Se makes you seem almost silly and foolish to me, like you think physical risk is something that can be handled by multi-tasking. Um, no.

Not that Se types don't multi task, but I think only someone with demonic Se would say something as silly as this, not even regarding the very real consequences of falling to your fucking death

no offense, but I don't think you grasp that Ne and Se cannot simultaneously occupy the same space in the brain

of course sensors think, and Se types use their judging functions and Ni, unless they have an unhealthy Se dom over dependence, which I believe creates the sorts of people who seem like unthinking physical machines, just as a Ti dom overdependent on Ti would seem like a brain in a jar with an otherwise sad existence

 

[EJCC]

Is that so? That salt really does your hands in. It's nothing to laugh about.

Only the hardiest and strongest of them all shall toil in the mines, for this reason.

Those too sensitive for the pain the salt would cause, would bake cupcakes for Her Royal Majesty Empress [MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION].

 

[garbage]

i think my conclusion on this would be that jungian type definitions aint sufficient to describe how and in how many various ways humans perceive the world and what they make of that latter

Somehow, we've lost sight of the well-accepted psychological notion that instinct, intuition, and emotion are all driven by the same damn phenomena and are damn near synonyms, where the rational and calculating brain is driven by another damn phenomena.

Racecar drivers may consciously think of dinner while they perform because their instinctual/intuitive brain is doing the thing that's actually "important" for them--rationality isn't so important when you're on the race track; if you stop to think, you're probably dead. That doesn't mean that their brains are shut off and that they're idiots.

An interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

I will quote every single post that actually points out a really real cognitive bias that truly affects most people and I congratulate the person who posts it.

Congratulations, Elfa. I love you.

 

[entropie]

you're not understanding because you look through your own Se-rejecting Ne lens...people fully engaged in Se are not "bored" I can assure you that I think about many things but when I am dancing on stage or doing power yoga at great intensity I truly think of nothing, I am my body and my soul, or my performance would be mechanical and basically shit

same for athletes they have to fully engage in sensing and judging to actually give a fully stellar performance

you shouldn't even drive a car and do physics, let alone climb mt. Everest, your rejection of Se makes you seem almost silly and foolish to me, like you think physical risk is something that can be handled by multi-tasking. Um, no.

Not that Se types don't multi task, but I think only someone with demonic Se would say something as silly as this, not even regarding the very real consequences of falling to your fucking death

no offense, but I don't think you grasp that Ne and Se cannot simultaneously occupy the same space in the brain

of course sensors think, and Se types use their judging functions and Ni, unless they have an unhealthy Se dom over dependence, which I believe creates the sorts of people who seem like unthinking physical machines, just as a Ti dom overdependent on Ti would seem like a brain in a jar with an otherwise sad existence

I am not biased towards Se-people, I am not biased towards anyone. Biases are the prerogative of a weak mind.

With "bored" I meant that, when you are damn good at one thing and almost do it automatically, you have the time to think about another thing. So a form of multitasking. I'ld see in the nature of S a greater likelihood to excel in that, than in the nature of N.

if you exaggerate that a bit: for me N perception is like religion. While S perception is like realism. Religious people create their own nice little World to live in. The same basically is done by Star Trek fans. S types have due to that, a high inclination to end up in natural science, cause its what we can define as the best realism there is. For most N types a career in natural sciences started with Star Trek. Still its more likely that Ns will stay in natural sciences cause at the higher classes, it becomes very abstract and defines reality in symbolisms. Thats when the Ns get intrested in it, basically very different from religion it tho isnt.

Thats why a majority of S types could be in engineering and the majority of N types in physics. At least for my University I can confirm that.

of course thats all very exaggerated. The point is that an attunement to the real world ist always easier to handle than an attunement to the abstract. If you are attuned to the asbtract, first of all you are a foreigner in your society, cause you need to explain your abstractions. They are always different from person to person. And second of all, you filter reality thru your abstractions. What you called Ne-lens. Therefore you will never be able to tap in into whats called common knowledge and will always be a stranger in any group.

Regarding thinking much, here's an intresting problem again: when I tell people, who know jack about mbti that they could be F types, they refuse that label and say "I am thinking all the time, therefore I must be a thinker". What defines a T type now ? The quality of thinking ? I can imagine that many people who really worry about stuff a lot, would be called F types. is that because they lack quality of thinking or structure in rationality ? Wouldnt be quality in rationality be a human construct or a human definition, which would turn the whole meaning of T into some sort of philosophical concept disconnected from natural psychology.

I mean in the end, mbti is reduced to no more than biases. You have a bias about F people and you'll call all people who fit that bias F people. Mbti itself is a theory of biases not more. Cause I hardly doubt you can but all of humanity into 16 types, which would even be different dependant on the culture you define them in.

Very true.



I am reaching this conclusion more and more myself lately. Sad, almost. All of this time devoted to studying this framework only to discover the ultimate truth of reality being more vast and more splendid than a theoretical system can keep up with.

Truth is, the N POV might be useful in speedy transcendence of situations and therefore major overturns, but the S POV may possess more final wisdom in terms of actually being connected to the life that we are experiencing. We tend to think that N helps us reach faster conclusions but are those conclusions always aligned with actuality? No, no...

The MBTI itself may be a case in point...

the time is not in vain, basically it was devoted to a process of growth. Scientific breakthroughs always had a long line of failures to rule wrong stuff out before they happened. Most people think you need to be intelligent to be a scientist but fact is you just need a very strong willpower and patience.

I agree with you. With N its like with a mathematical model of the real world. If you for example make a mathematical model of your car driving, to for instance calculate your engine power, you'll strip the model of minor influences, like traction resistance, air resistance or pitch resistance. So what do you do ? You create an easy model of reality you can calculate with. Thats what N does all the time.

That way you can easier see interconnections and reach new insights, cause you made your reality graspable for the human mind, stripped off complexity, but those insights then need to be transfered back to reality, to check if they really work. In control engineering people call that the "image layer" in which you basically create a simplified reality in a self-defined symbolism.

And here is another thing, mbti does not account for. Relativity. Mbti is a static model of reality and dozens of times we criticized a lack of dynamic. When at some point people start to label themselves X, because they are not sure if they are more of a Feeler or of a Thinker. There is no dynamic in the model which can derivate the turbulent function every person is represented by in any given point and say: sunday you were a Feeler, monday you were a Thinker. Mbti does in that terms leave no room for mavericks. It tries to set up an easy model of reality, graspable for the dumbest dumbeff to market the whole thing more successfully and leaves no room for dynamic and mavericks. Sounds a bit like religion again to me.

 

[BlackCat]

Anyone who is remotely into typology/cares about the human race should know that this is a load of shit by now, lol.

And to anyone who says that, I take the S approach and say "prove that you're smarter than me."

 

[RaptorWizard]

Anyone who is remotely into typology/cares about the human race should know that this is a load of shit by now, lol.

And to anyone who says that, I take the S approach and say "prove that you're smarter than me."

I agree completely that the only way you can prove something is with empircal evidence and observation because otherwise you could be wrong and hence you are right when you say "prove it". That's right!

 

[King sns]

 

[Rasofy]

 

[Nocapszy]

http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti

According to the above website, intuitive people are more intelligent than sensing people (like myself.) I also just got told by [MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION] that I am a sensing ass because I took something he said literally. I am tired of intuitives lording their higher positions in the social intellectual heirarchy and their supreme minds over us sensors!

hasn't anyone told you not to read?
N types can't even drive cars in a straight line.
who's smarter?

 

[KDude]

Some N types (not necessarily extroverts) play and/or calculate with more data in their head, I think. And they can adjust spatially or visualize with their imagination easier. That could lead to more raw intelligence than myself personally. I don't give a shit though. I think it's cool. My intelligence has it's strengths too. You can hang around and find out. Dismissing me strictly on type though would be more stupid than what I'm capable of.

 

[Cellmold]

My intelligence is tied to comparison as all intelligence is.

So because of this I can say I am more stupid and more intelligent than many different individuals. But a group holds no sway in this arena.

 

[zelo1954]

This is a large thread and my apologies for not having read through it. I do however say two things to the original poster - and I cannot stress these enough

• N types are more intellectual than S types
• Intellect and intelligence *** are not the same thing ***

Intellect is about understanding complex concepts. S types couldn't be less interested in such things. Intelligence is about surviving in this world of ours. I suspect S types trump N types here.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I did not bother to read anything about this thread, but there's good reasons that N is a more intelligent variant of the function S.

The best you can do (if you're S) is not to feel bad about it.There's so much more to the life than being smart.

Also, if you are much smarter than average S, you will be smarter than the N on average.

Don't whine in any case. None of us are holding you back.

 

[Orangey]

I did not bother to read anything about this thread, but there's good reasons that N is a more intelligent variant of the function S.

The best you can do (if you're S) is not to feel bad about it.There's so much more to the life than being smart.

Also, if you are much smarter than average S, you will be smarter than the N on average.

Don't whine in any case. None of us are holding you back.

ESTJ.

 

[Werewolfen]

I read this a few months ago about MBTI and intelligence, though it looks like someone's blog, it was still a good read. It too says iNtuitives are at the top. >

http://politicsandprosperity.wordpr...elligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/

(I don't wholly agree with the political slant in that article)

 

[Orangey]

I read this a few months ago about MBTI and intelligence, though it looks like someone's blog, it was still a good read. It too says iNtuitives are at the top. >

http://politicsandprosperity.wordpr...elligence-personality-politics-and-happiness/

(I don't wholly agree with the political slant in that article)

That person is an insufferable narcissist. It's palpable in the writing.

 

[Werewolfen]

The writer might be, but my group was favorably mentioned and I thought that was nice.

There's a lot of things Sensors can do better than me, and even know more than me.

 

[Orangey]

The writer might be, but my group was favorably mentioned and I thought that was nice.

Indeed, and your critical faculties were shut down forthwith!

There's a lot of things Sensors can do better than me, and even know more than me.

How generous of you to say.

 

[Werewolfen]

Yes, indeed. Thanks.

I'm related to a handful of ISTPs that I admire.

My great uncle J.C. is ISTP , still living at 86. Very intelligent and worked Civil Service for the Warner Robins AFB from 1959-89 in the sheet metal dept. He actually designed some sheet metal tools working as a sheet metal mechanic. I'm proud to be related to him.

 

[entropie]

I tend to turn every new problem I have to solve into a science. Even if its something easy like opening a bottle. I think of a formalized approach, I collect several ideas and possible solutions and vary them against each others, then I most often come up with a solution that will work but which is pretty complicated.

My gf on the other hand just takes the bottle, opens it up and thats it.

The problemn for me is that I do that in theory as well. So when faced with a math problem, I usually solve it, but on such a complicated way that I could have had it easier. Thats not really a talent and before math class hadnt gotten really abstract and complex in school and university, I pretty much tended to suck with math problems. Even small calculations like 7 + 3 I tend to answer with 9 or something, because I am scatterbrained and unfocussed.

I think that the lack of focus can be attributed to me having N as a primary function and that it would be the same for someone having S as a primary function. But the practical disability and the theorethical ability are the outcome of a learning process. I always was only emerged in school books, so how could I ever develop practical ability ? On the other hand many people with practical abilities often are bored sitting around in school, dwelling over theory so they quit it at some point and devote themselves to developing their practical abilities.

I think in that moment it becomes clear that mbti is a test about your personal preference.