S intelligence vs. N intelligence

[INTJMom]

Sensores are mindless. That's about it against them.

You are so naughty!

 

[MacGuffin]

I love how "Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence" is always equated with the more standard forms of IQ.

As if hand-eye coordination is why the human species went from living in caves to splitting the atom and landing on the moon.

 

[Randomnity]

If we're going to have the intelligence debate yet again, I'll have to point out again that preference is not the same as ability. Just, you know, on principle.

:bows out:

 

[nightning]

This is getting kind of annoying. Everything is all about how flawed IQ is all the time. I am not discussing that. I am simply saying that within the IQ framework, Ns are more intelligent than Ss. Some like that framework, you obviously don't. Then I also showed Ns are more intelligent than Ss within the multiple intelligences framework. And these two frameworks are the most popular to think within. You have your own theory it seems, but at least I have shown that Ns are more intelligent than Ss in standard intelligence perspectives.

Well if you're going by the IQ testing framework... then yes... Ns will be "more intelligent" than Ss... on the virtuals that the tests are designed for pattern recognition which is the most readily handled by N.

This is what I've noticed...

Ni dominant (unable to say whether Ne dominant does the same) have a tendency to build up a collection of patterns in which they modify to solve problems. The Ss don't do that... they do all their processing on the fly. They're just two different ways of tackling a problem... sometimes one way is better, other times the other's better. You're essentially pitting the Ns ability to modify their learnt patterns against Ss speed of processing. That's what I think N and S comes into play for "general aptitude" aka the G-quotient.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Is it really fair to debate sensors on intelligence? Do they even understand the arguments?

 

[Gabe]

Is it really fair to debate sensors on intelligence? Do they even understand the arguments?

'debate' is a faculty of thinking attitudes.

This is very interesting to me. So, what does your company do with the Myers-Briggs stuff, once they've typed everyone? Is someone more likely to be chosen for a management position if they're a certain type?

Ha! Ha! You should ask.... Almost all of our top management are ST's!! They never implement anything...They simply maintain. (I get a huge kick out of the "strategic planning" meetings that they hold all the time). And they are not believers in M-B, so why utilize it in the first place? And no, we do not utilize M-B in our hiring process, so I try to trainspot and make sure I put the right person in front of the hiring manager and use my powers of persuasion on some of my less cooperative peeps.

My theory has always been to use M-B on the front end for hiring and then again for aiding team development. Imagine that!!!

It would be unethical. Making a hiring based not on someone's indicated skill but thier supposed (skewed and misinterpreted by many practitioners and companies) skill would be extremely unfair. I'm Glad that if I were to apply for a job as a meteorology professor, nobody would go "Wait a minute. You're an enFp. That main's you're inclined to be a lousy scientist. get lost", which of course is an exxagerated example, but I'm sure this shit happens all the time. Besides the fact, what happens pretty quickly when organizations try to personality-test employees (with any framework) is that everyone has some sense that thier are right answers, so they all try to throw the test (to fool it). The problem is, MBTI isn't supposed to have right answers.

IQ is - and always has been - a metric designed to assess wealth.

lolololol!!!! You are awsome.

There are significantly fewer intelligent people on the planet.

There are also significantly fewer intuitives on the planet.

It leaves a pretty small smart sensor window and they're getting all pissy about it.

Sorry kids.

But I'm not being biased. I'm an IIII anyway.

is this tautological reasoning supposed to be a self-parody?

It's not a logical fallacy. The spread is larger among men. Does this tell you anything? Image:Normal distribution pdf.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Blue is large spread (men), red is small spread (women))

it says a lot about our culture

Jesus...

/sigh.

No one except dissonance said it was. Despite what you see or don't see, there's a much greater proportion of highly intelligent intuitives than sensors. It's pretty much universally accepted.

I guess you could make the argument that are samples aren't random enough, or that we should sample the entire population before we say things like that, but then, there's one other thing to consider before doing so.

It doesn't matter. If we do find out, statistically that there are more smart intuitives than sensors, what do we do with that data? It's not a guarantee, so regardless of the odds, there's still going to be some leeway, which means each individual, regardless of type has to be treated and analyzed as just that.

This is worse than this ridiculous health rage right now where a new study comes out every week. There's no such thing as universal health, just like there's no such thing as universal intelligence.

Some people have allergies, some people don't. Some people are smart in math and terrible with writing, some people are just the opposite.

Can I ask for this thread to be closed?

Great stuff. however, i don't except the 'universally accepted' statement. Therefor it's not universally accapted.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

'debate' is a faculty of thinking attitudes.

Is recognizing sarcasm a faculty of thinking attitudes, too?

 

[Ivy]

Merged 6 consecutive posts by one author. Multiquote is your friend. Look for a tutorial in the Official Decrees section soon.

EDIT: Check here

 

[Seanan]

I got it! After a rather lengthy discussion with an "S" on the "what don't you get" (ironic) thread... I never would have believed it. Yeh, I truly do get now.

 

["?"]

Sensores are mindless. That's about it against them.

Oh, in what way? Over the years of posting I have found that those preferring sensing pick up on the basic principles of this system much faster than intuitives.

 

[Night]

lolololol!!!! You are awsome.

Your context seems cheeky.

Assert a premise to counter mine, if you've one.

 

[nightning]

I got it! After a rather lengthy discussion with an "S" on the "what don't you get" (ironic) thread... I never would have believed it. Yeh, I truly do get now.

What was your insight? Do share...

 

[Xander]

It's most confusing to return after a few days absence to find I've created a thread. Kudos to whoever did it though.. nice title..

Anyhow subject at hand.

Thinking outside the box.
Brian "You're all individuals"
Crowd "We're all individuals"
Individual "I'm not!"

Hmm this "thinking outside the box" was a marketing term was it not? Used to represent those who could come up with ideas which were unexpected, unconventional or new. How that applies to how you collect information I cannot figure. You try getting an ESTP to stay in the box when you're doing something restrictive or get them to come outside of their box when you're doing something free-form. It's a question of how things are processed, not results.

Sure I'd expect some kind of correlation between intuitives but to accept it as a rule would invite error.

Anyway, shouldn't we try to get away from such fashion statements about people's thinking? It's getting like the teenage obsession with being "different" by wearing the same things and doing the same things as everyone else.

For those who really want to be individuals, it involves being shunned by most people and having to put up with the stones and arrows from those who feel that your "being different" is a mutation and a threat to their version of reality.

As for IQ, that's never been a reliable measure of how useful your mind is. Such simple measures are kind of equivalent to processor speeds. It's not just the clock speed of your processor or the amount of memory you've installed which determines your actual speed of operation. There are many variables and IQ falls woefully short of a complete benchmark. It is however the most recognised and perhaps the most complete in current use. However rely on it at your own risk. I've met the so called "clever" people and I wouldn't trust half of them with anything more dangerous than plastic cutlery.

A good example of how poorly we currently measure peoples actual brain power was a friend I had at school who on paper could not do maths, english, science or any of the usual intellectual subjects, he could however (half way through a conversation) go "aha" and point out exactly what the problem was and how it could be solved. He could do this for even really complex problems and yet in any test situation he would fail miserably.

Of course this can be reasoned out and there are always exceptions but this just exemplifies the inadequacy of current methods.

Anyhow, if you are looking at intelligence in a vacuum then perhaps the correlation between intelligence and intuition is true. However, what use is intelligence in a vacuum?

Again it would seem that intuitives are better in concept but not in practicality.

 

[illume]

It would be unethical. Making a hiring based not on someone's indicated skill but thier supposed (skewed and misinterpreted by many practitioners and companies) skill would be extremely unfair. I'm Glad that if I were to apply for a job as a meteorology professor, nobody would go "Wait a minute. You're an enFp. That main's you're inclined to be a lousy scientist. get lost", which of course is an exxagerated example, but I'm sure this shit happens all the time. Besides the fact, what happens pretty quickly when organizations try to personality-test employees (with any framework) is that everyone has some sense that thier are right answers, so they all try to throw the test (to fool it). The problem is, MBTI isn't supposed to have right answers.

Any good Recruiter knows that you don't base a hiring decision solely on a test result... It is just part of the picture. However, sometimes monumental mistakes could be avoided if MBTI were used as part of the hiring process. Here is one classic example: Our HR Manager is an ISTP who scored a "zero" on the feeling portion a of the exam. Is it any small wonder that this person has no empathy for the employees and is one of the most hated managers in our corporate office? This information could have been identified ahead of time and another equally qualified candidate with a more balanced set of scores could have been chosen.

 

[Xander]

It would be unethical. Making a hiring based not on someone's indicated skill but thier supposed (skewed and misinterpreted by many practitioners and companies) skill would be extremely unfair. I'm Glad that if I were to apply for a job as a meteorology professor, nobody would go "Wait a minute. You're an enFp. That main's you're inclined to be a lousy scientist. get lost", which of course is an exxagerated example, but I'm sure this shit happens all the time. Besides the fact, what happens pretty quickly when organizations try to personality-test employees (with any framework) is that everyone has some sense that thier are right answers, so they all try to throw the test (to fool it). The problem is, MBTI isn't supposed to have right answers.

Any good Recruiter knows that you don't base a hiring decision solely on a test result... It is just part of the picture. However, sometimes monumental mistakes could be avoided if MBTI were used as part of the hiring process. Here is one classic example: Our HR Manager is an ISTP who scored a "zero" on the feeling portion a of the exam. Is it any small wonder that this person has no empathy for the employees and is one of the most hated managers in our corporate office? This information could have been identified ahead of time and another equally qualified candidate with a more balanced set of scores could have been chosen.

ENFP = bad scientist?

NEVER!!!
ENFP = MAD scientist

Oh and you'd be surprised at how often there are poor recruiters. The example of four seconds per application seems to underline that nicely.

 

[illume]

Four seconds per app, eh??

 

[Xander]

Four seconds per app, eh??

Sorry, assumed knowledge. Apparently your CV/ application has (on average) approx 4 seconds to attract the interest of the reader or it goes straight in the bin.

Comforting no?

 

[illume]

Didn't follow at all.... We receive about 20,000+ resumes a year here. Very difficult situation indeed with archaic IT systems and basically no staff. Have to be strong intuitive to make do with the chaos of it all and cull strong candidates out. Sensors would croak.

 

[Xander]

Didn't follow at all.... We receive about 20,000+ resumes a year here. Very difficult situation indeed with archaic IT systems and basically no staff. Have to be strong intuitive to make do with the chaos of it all and cull strong candidates out. Sensors would croak.

EP vs IP.

Sorry you're saying you spend longer than 4 seconds looking at each app at the primary stage?

I must admit the figure is about 20 years out of date but I saw no reason to doubt it recently.

 

[Valiant]

This is one of the few times that i've really thought that MBTI talk has gone too far
I am a sensor and have 140+ IQ, according to testing. And I do not consider myself very intelligent or anything, i'm simlply good at people and thinking outside the box. People are often surprised as to how I get things done.

Let's take a nerdy example. I was playing a Role Playing Game and our game leader presented me and my sword-armed group with a bunch of unfriendly serpents. About 200 of them. Most people would barricade themselves in a doorway and chop anything that comes close. No. I took the group back, went to the nearest town, bought lamp-oil, bottles and linen. Molotov cocktails! Everyone knows snakes hate fire.
Went back, SNAKE BBQ!

My role playing group won't play without me, just because I manage to get them out of just about any situation with thinking way ahead, not thinking within the frames of the box. We have a hardass game leader, but luckily I manage to outsmart him somehow most of the time.

Really. MBTI discussion has gone a little too far if all sensors are branded dumber than people with N dominance. Most of my friends and my entire family are N's and I own their asses