Not type-related

[Exodus]

What do you think is not type-related? More specifically, what cannot be related to any type, function, or information element?

[UDP]

Maturity.

[Exodus]

Maturity.

That's too easy.

[UDP]

Intelligence.
Family input - how they react to their immediate external situation (maturity of those directly around it)
Disabilities.
The people around them, and what type of intertype relations they are presented with or have to deal with.



And so on. What exactly are you looking for?

[rockclimber]

height.

[eunice]

Athleticism.

[Exodus]

Athleticism.

sensing

[Exodus]

Having ambitions. (It's the reasons for your ambitions that can be type or function-determined.)

I've rarely ever met an ambitious IP.

[Exodus]

Flatulence odour.

( That's gross!)

TBD, IMO.

[Exodus]

Maturity.

Actually, rationals, and Gammas/Deltas tend to seem more mature.

Intelligence.

Hm, I think there is some correlation. Perhaps not strong, but it's there.

Family input - how they react to their immediate external situation (maturity of those directly around it)

The people around them, and what type of intertype relations they are presented with or have to deal with.

Now we're getting into Fi territory.

Disabilities.

Physical or mental?

[Exodus]

If socionics says that information is divided into exactly 8 categories, then, in principle, any given thing should be able to fit in one of them.

[UDP]

This sort of thing makes me wonder about being INTj.

[MysticSonic]

Anything that is not type related is something that cannot be correlated in a useful manner to a particular type, which is something that I suppose is decided on case by case. I suppose one would have to be able to trace back the cause of that trait to one's Socionic type as well, otherwise their type would have no influence on that trait despite the possible correlation between the two, and thus wouldn't be type related.

[eunice]

Athleticism.

sensing

I initially thought so too, but I have seen sensors who are bad in sports (probably due to lack of exercise and physical inactiveness) and intuitives who excel in them.

[Rick]

If socionics says that information is divided into exactly 8 categories, then, in principle, any given thing should be able to fit in one of them.

I disagree with the bold part. What aspect does a turkish carpet belong to? If I take a cut off a tiny piece of it, will that piece have the same aspect as the whole? (suddenly I feel like a LII )
I think it makes more sense to say that information about any given thing can be categorized using the 8 aspects. So there is an aspect of maturity, a aspect, etc. An aspect of athleticism, a aspect, etc.
In many or most cases, a phenomenon holds much more information of one kind than of another. For instance, there's not much to say about athleticism from a standpoint except perhaps psychological interaction between players, but there's a ton that can be said from a standpoint, a standpoint, etc.

I have known a few clumsy SLEs, by the way. They seem to have gone into academics . And there are lots of non- tennis players and players of other non-combat sports where endurance is key. I think types often dominate in sports like boxing and wrestling. But this depends on body composition at least as much as on type.

[Minde]

Character. Wisdom. Experience.

[Jarno]

Having ambitions. (It's the reasons for your ambitions that can be type or function-determined.)

Wrong

All xNxJ are very ambitious

[Jarno]

Athleticism.

Wrong

More ISTP and ESTJ are athletic than average.

[Jarno]

Intelligence.

Wrong

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

[Minde]

Having ambitions. (It's the reasons for your ambitions that can be type or function-determined.)

Wrong

All xNxJ are very ambitious

I'm not ambitious, not in an external, worldly goods/success sense.

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

MBTI or socionics?

[Slacker]

Having ambitions. (It's the reasons for your ambitions that can be type or function-determined.)

Wrong

All xNxJ are very ambitious

Be careful when you say *all*. I know *N*js who aren't terribly ambitious. There are no absolutes in the world, or very few anyway. :wink:

[cracka]

Character. Wisdom. Experience.

These are good ones.

[anndelise]

Something can be function related, but not particularly type-related.

This thread is also delving into the argument of nature vs nurture.

[FDG]

Intelligence.

Wrong

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

They just score as N because of it. I know an extremely smart ESFp-Se. She scores as ENFp of course.

I also know some smart ISFjs that score as ISTj because they can think.

[FDG]

Athleticism.

sensing

Nope, nope.

[Jarno]

Intelligence.

Wrong

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

I heard something about ISFjs tending to get the highest scores.

Well I don't know your source, but I've read 4 reports about this subject which all state that Intuitive is highly correlated to intelligence.

[FDG]

Intelligence.

Wrong

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

I heard something about ISFjs tending to get the highest scores.

Well I don't know your source, but I've read 4 reports about this subject which all state that Intuitive is highly correlated to intelligence.

You probably refer to the BIG-5 Openness to New Experiences.

In this case, people have the causality reverse.

Openness causes preference towards N in tests. This means that Open sensors are likely to score as N, and closed intuitives are likely to score as S.

[anndelise]

Intelligence.

Wrong

Intuitives have more intelligence according to intelligence tests.

I heard something about ISFjs tending to get the highest scores.

Well I don't know your source, but I've read 4 reports about this subject which all state that Intuitive is highly correlated to intelligence.

Reports from whom? Socionics related stuff?

[Jarno]

not socionics related, all mbti.

And don't start saying in Socionics everything is oh so different.

I posted this before, but here are the results again from what I can remember...

report 1: INTJ highest average
report 2: INTP highest average
report 3: iq >130 intuitive vs sensor ratio 8:1
report 4: most intelligent types are Intuitive Perceivers (ENTP, ENFP, INTP, INFP)

there are ofcourse exceptions, but intelligence is type related if you are willing to believe the above stated results.

[Elro]

not socionics related, all mbti.

And don't start saying in Socionics everything is oh so different.

Why not?

[posablethumb]

Well.. Maybe these things arent type related, but maybe function related. That's why you see so many people of a the same type acting differently, perhaps there is more than 2 subtypes. Perhaps there are way more functions.. Honestly, it seems like u guys are saying psychology of things, maturity etc. can't be connected to the body, when it's existence relies on the friggin body and everything around it. There are so many possibilities as to explain why some types can be reelly different from others psychologically, really they are just phenomena that need to be tracked down to their exact reasonings. Many of these factors that you guys are suggesting can be influenced by the environment to the self.

[Logos]

The Rule of Thumb for Non-Type Related Subjects: Whatever subject of type determination that causes a plethora of "Me too!" or "I know someone who is..." responses by a sizable group of people from 3 or 4 Quadras.

[BLauritson]

As an intuitive myself, I refuse to believe that intuitives are naturally more intelligent than sensors. It might be more common for an intelligent person to test as an intuitive than a sensor, however that doesn't mean that person really is an intuitive.

FWIW, the lowest IQ score I ever received was 104, when I was 16 years old. Only 104? Oh no, I can't be INTp now, everyone knows INTps always score >300 in IQ tests!

[Slacker]

It's possible that intelligence tests are biased toward that style of intelligence. It's also possible that people mistype themselves due to their intelligence and assume they must be some particular type because of how smart they are even if they aren't - particularly in MBTI - and maybe the MBTI tests are skewed to type more intelligent people as N even if they aren't. It's also possible that intuitives lie or exaggerate their test scores more than sensors because being intelligent might be more valued by intuitive people. Anyway, I just don't buy it.

[Mea]

I do think that type might have a correlation with IQ scores. Only because IQ tests aren't perfect and are biased toward certain intelligence styles.
IQ tests are pretty stupid, I don't think it's a perfect measure of anyone's intelligence.

[Jarno]

To all who oppose on this subject,

as I said, it's according to intelligence tests.

If you believe those tests are really testing your intelligence, well then intuitives have an 8:1 ratio against sensors when it comes to higher intelligence (again, according to those tests)

Even without the test, if I look in real life, most smart people are intuitives. I find it strange if you haven't noticed this.

[Expat]

Even without the test, if I look in real life, most smart people are intuitives. I find it strange if you haven't noticed this.

I certainly haven't, and this may also be circular thinking.

And I will certainly "start saying in socionics is different", because it is.

[Blaze]

to answer the thread question:

spirituality.

[anndelise]

To all who oppose on this subject,

as I said, it's according to intelligence tests.

If you believe those tests are really testing your intelligence, well then intuitives have an 8:1 ratio against sensors when it comes to higher intelligence (again, according to those tests)

Even without the test, if I look in real life, most smart people are intuitives. I find it strange if you haven't noticed this.

what's been done to determine that these people who test as intuitives are actually intuitives?
what's been done to ensure that the personality tests aren't using intelligence based questions?
what are you doing to ensure that you're covering your obvious bias in your observations of intuitives and smartness/intelligence?
are we being expected to ignore the varying types of intelligences?
also, wouldn't real life observations over-ride theory?

YOU said if YOU look in real life, most smart people are intuitives. But you've also shown that you start out with a bias.
Meanwhile, a number of posters on this thread (and other threads like this) don't have that bias, and have stated that they look in real life and see a lot of intelligent S and F people, and that intelligence isn't an N/T thing.

[Jarno]

are we being expected to ignore the varying types of intelligences?

Yes as intelligence test also do, as I said before, I'm only concluding from those tests.
By the way I've never said it's an N/T thing, it's an Intuitive thing, on second place is introversion the most important criteria.
Thinking/Feeling didn't seem to effect.

Of course there are intelligent Sensors, but overall speaking...

If the tests can be trusted.... You never know that for sure.

I'm just saying I've read 4 tests and they al seem to agree at one point.