perfect examples

[Phaedrus]

EDIT//// Since when did we get a forum full of Pheadrus clones?

I wonder that just about everyday I log into the forums.

You should listen more to SG. He has got all the answers:

INTps have this very special relationship with Socionics. They are like plague, eating its very foundation. They are like ever growing tumour that turns once solid and sound principals into a formless jelly. Just like a bunch of angry termites on rampage, they feed on anything structural, bearing clarity and simplicity... by turning it to dust.

[Logos]

EDIT//// Since when did we get a forum full of Pheadrus clones?

I wonder that just about everyday I log into the forums.

You should listen more to SG. He has got all the answers:

INTps have this very special relationship with Socionics. They are like plague, eating its very foundation. They are like ever growing tumour that turns once solid and sound principals into a formless jelly. Just like a bunch of angry termites on rampage, they feed on anything structural, bearing clarity and simplicity... by turning it to dust.

But you should know that having answers does not necessarily mean that one has the right ones.

[FDG]

yeah, it was just interesting to me, but actually, you don't see too many S's with IQ's that high.

You don't see too many N's with that high IQ either.

140? That's high? Mine tested about 136 or so. At least according to some extremely long online test.

Yeah, it's high, it's 1 percent of the population.

[FDG]

Yes I've read those statistics too.

And I agree with them.

You can't "agree" with statistics. They are fucking data, not opinions.

I read that for high IQ, an I is 8 times more likely than E, an N 37 times more likely than S, a T 2 times more likely than F, and a J about 3 times more likely than P.

Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...

[strrrng]

Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...

yes, that makes sense - 37 gifted N's for every gifted S. I could name 15+ gifted/genius N's off the top of my head but the only S I know of is Madonna

[Rocky]

Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...

yes, that makes sense - 37 gifted N's for every gifted S. I could name 15+ gifted/genius N's off the top of my head but the only S I know of is Madonna

These stats are really self-fufilling prophocies... I'm sorry, it's a joke, you have to know where a number comes from before you believe it blindly...

And what about Richard Nixon for example? Most type him as an "S" (I say estj) and he had something around a 145... I remember it being reported as the highest IQ if the modern presidents. A lot of people type Edison as an "S" too... the whole thing seems pretty absurd if you ask me.

[Slacker]

Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...

yes, that makes sense - 37 gifted N's for every gifted S. I could name 15+ gifted/genius N's off the top of my head but the only S I know of is Madonna

These stats are really self-fufilling prophocies... I'm sorry, it's a joke, you have to know where a number comes from before you believe it blindly...

And what about Richard Nixon for example? Most type him as an "S" (I say estj) and he had something around a 145... I remember it being reported as the highest IQ if the modern presidents. A lot of people type Edison as an "S" too... the whole thing seems pretty absurd if you ask me.

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

[XoX]

Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...

yes, that makes sense - 37 gifted N's for every gifted S. I could name 15+ gifted/genius N's off the top of my head but the only S I know of is Madonna

These stats are really self-fufilling prophocies... I'm sorry, it's a joke, you have to know where a number comes from before you believe it blindly...

And what about Richard Nixon for example? Most type him as an "S" (I say estj) and he had something around a 145... I remember it being reported as the highest IQ if the modern presidents. A lot of people type Edison as an "S" too... the whole thing seems pretty absurd if you ask me.

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

I used to believe in the stereotype of N-people being smarter. However I'm finally starting to understand socionics and I'm seeing how many "smart people" I typed as N-types are not N-types. E.g. one ISTp I know is smart as hell (who I thought is INTp). It is easy to fall to the MBTI-test trap that if you are interested in intellectual pursuits then you are N-type (often it just means you are intelligent and might be N or S). I don't deny that many of the leading scientists _seem_ very intelligent N-types but that doesn't say much about them having higher IQ than e.g. many sensory types who do very well in another line of business. Perhaps creating scientific theories is naturally more N-field and so a very intelligent N-type is likely to realize his/her potential in science or perhaps arts. A very intelligent S-type is less likely to do "pure science" or arts but perhaps engineering, business or practical medicine instead. And so on.

[strrrng]

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

How can a test be biased towards something that didn't exist when the test was invented? IQ tests, from my understanding, value abstract thinking, visual/conceptual processing, pattern recognition....N's are typically more conceptual, visual, abstract, thus able to deal with concepts more easily than S's, who prefer concrete data/facts.

I'm not saying one is better. But there is a correlation.

[leckysupport]

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

How can a test be biased towards something that didn't exist when the test was invented?

Just systematically unwittingly.

[Rocky]

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

How can a test be biased towards something that didn't exist when the test was invented? IQ tests, from my understanding, value abstract thinking, visual/conceptual processing, pattern recognition....N's are typically more conceptual, visual, abstract, thus able to deal with concepts more easily than S's, who prefer concrete data/facts.

I'm not saying one is better. But there is a correlation.

I think you have a very skewed understanding of the difference between S and N.

[leckysupport]

It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.

How can a test be biased towards something that didn't exist when the test was invented? IQ tests, from my understanding, value abstract thinking, visual/conceptual processing, pattern recognition....N's are typically more conceptual, visual, abstract, thus able to deal with concepts more easily than S's, who prefer concrete data/facts.

I'm not saying one is better. But there is a correlation.

It's more like s types use their intelligence (abstract thinking, pattern recognistion etc.) on concrete tangibile goals while n types on abstract intangibile goals.

[strrrng]

Just systematically unwittingly.

translation: (...jargon...)

I think you have a very skewed understanding of the difference between S and N.

really? You wouldn't happen to be an S, would you? Either way, enlighten me - well, I'm sure your knowledge is too vast, so just a general glimpse will suffice. Better yet - critique my brief summary of what I believe to be S and N traits:

N: abstract, dreamy, big picture, head-in-clouds, visual and conceptual, likes theory, likes variety, imaginative, creative.

S: Practical, efficient, methodical, step-by-step, down-to-earth, observant, present-oriented, focus on details and facts, concrete.

how's that?

It's more like s types use their intelligence (abstract thinking, pattern recognistion etc.) on concrete tangibile goals while n types on abstract intangibile goals.

I think you're right in one sense, but your intelligence level is your intelligence level.

[leckysupport]

Just systematically unwittingly.

translation: (...jargon...)

Without jargon:

Unwittingly.

[strrrng]

Without jargon:

Unwittingly.

lol. alright, but still, the intelligence test was designed to tap into all aspects of mental ability; so, if it was unwittingly biased towards intuitives, that just means intuitives are smarter (not my opinion, just hypothetical).

[leckysupport]

It's more like s types use their intelligence (abstract thinking, pattern recognistion etc.) on concrete tangibile goals while n types on abstract intangibile goals.

I think you're right in one sense, but your intelligence level is your intelligence level.

I don't know what you mean.

Generally n types in s field or activity (usually very narrow activities) appear less intelligent, they seem to miss out the important things, focus on the wrong things, everything is learnt and repeated, things just aren't very flexible. They make more bad mistakes, they learn slower etc.

And it's the same visa-versa. It's also the same with F types in T fields and so on.

[leckysupport]

Without jargon:

Unwittingly.

lol. alright, but still, the intelligence test was designed to tap into all aspects of mental ability; so, if it was unwittingly biased towards intuitives, that just means intuitives are smarter (not my opinion, just hypothetical).

That's assuming that the people creating the tests fully understand what they're are doing and the MBTIers fully understand what they're doing (since your using the MBTI description of n vs s).

People on the socionics side don't believe that the MBTI people are right about their iterpretations on s vs n.

[Rocky]

N: abstract, dreamy, big picture, head-in-clouds, visual and conceptual, likes theory, likes variety, imaginative, creative.

S: Practical, efficient, methodical, step-by-step, down-to-earth, observant, present-oriented, focus on details and facts, concrete.

how's that?

Very poor.

Enlightening you would require you to think about where those definitions came from... history leason... see, a long time ago a guy named Carl Jung described the functions. Then a woman named Myers decided to make a simple test for it so she simplfied the functions to a bunch of easy words to identify with it, to classify people. Unfortunately along the way people started to confuse those test questions for the ACTUAL qualities of the people. And this is where you've got your definitions from. In reality, these words are basically meaningless. The word "perception" means how one views the world, and Jung used it because, he thought, people deal with their sorrounding in 4 basic ways. Understanding what he meant by that is what it's all about. But you have to actually, you know, know people to understand how they can look at the same thing and see something different.

[strrrng]

Very poor.

Enlightening you would require you to think about where those definitions came from... history leason... see, a long time ago a guy named Carl Jung described the functions. Then a woman named Myers decided to make a simple test for it so she simplfied the functions to a bunch of easy words to identify with it, to classify people. Unfortunately along the way people started to confuse those test questions for the ACTUAL qualities of the people. And this is where you've got your definitions from. In reality, these words are basically meaningless. The word "perception" means how one views the world, and Jung used it because, he thought, people deal with their sorrounding in 4 basic ways. Understanding what he meant by that is what it's all about. But you have to actually, you know, know people to understand how they can look at the same thing and see something different.

ok, so I will refrain from alluding to actual character traits and stick with modes of perception - I get what you mean.

(and now back onto N vs. S intelligence.....)

[Lotus]

I hate when off-topic topics get back on topic.

[Blaze]

I hate when off-topic topics get back on topic.

It's ok.. you ain't God you know. :wink:

yeah man hahahaha