T/F types and logical reasoning aptitude

[Ritella]

Niffweed and I had a debate about this, fueled by a comment on his Wiki user list. It's sort of long, but I don't want to paraphrase and misrepresent anything.
What are other people's thoughts on this?


Ritella: also, i wanted to ask you about something you wrote on the Wiki
Niffweed17: ok
Niffweed17: what is your question?
Ritella: discojoe as dominant is essentially wrong. discojoe has repeatedly demonstrated his aptitude for logical analysis in various forms of argumentation and ultimately his behavior suggests nothing to do with DS other than his claims of ignorance.
Ritella: can you explain the last clause please?
Niffweed17: what do you mean
Niffweed17: how his behavior is not Te seeking?
Ritella: the part where you say "behavior suggests nothing to do with DS other than his claims of ignorance."
Niffweed17: well
Ritella: it sounds like you are saying that ignorance implies Te DS
Niffweed17: one of the things is that he says all the fucking time that
Niffweed17: well
Niffweed17: um
Niffweed17: yesterday i was having a conversation with minde
Niffweed17: and in the course of the conversation, quite naturally
Niffweed17: she started asking me a series of questions about her computer
Niffweed17: sort of as an informational mine
Niffweed17: like it's not as though Fi people are ignorant necessarily
Niffweed17: particularly in whatever fields of specialization
Niffweed17: but i do think they often lack confidence in their ability to sort of deal with the aspects of
Ritella: ok
Niffweed17: dealing with or collecting practical information
Ritella: right
Ritella: i think that Te DS are more likely to be uniformed on lots of things
Ritella: and blatantly ignorant about things that are not in their immediate area
Niffweed17: is your question about Te DS or about discojoe in particular?
Ritella: no, it was about your phrasing
Ritella: i don't particularly like the way it's phrased
Niffweed17: ??
Ritella: because i think it's subject to misinterpretations
Niffweed17: dude, deal with it
Ritella: dude, i am dealing with it
Niffweed17: i said that discojoe does not exhibit characteristics of Te DS
Niffweed17: which i don't think he does
Niffweed17: how exactly are you criticizing that phrasing?
Ritella: i'm merely telling you that i think the write up seems to imply other things with which you might not necc agree
Niffweed17: fine.
Ritella: it sounds like you are saying that blatant ignorance is a sign of Te DS
8:15 PM
Niffweed17: well that is not what i am saying but
Niffweed17: to the extent that such a statement contains an element of truth to it
Ritella: i understand
Niffweed17: this is not an area that can be exactly avoided
Niffweed17: i am not going to go out of my way, for example to say that
Ritella: look, imo it can be phrased differently to avoid misconceptions
Ritella: i think these things are important
Ritella: when dealing with socionics
Ritella: because stereotyping is huge
Niffweed17: "discojoe is not Te DS because he does not exhibit the type of information seeking behavior but please dont misinterpret my words please please please im not trying to denigrate Fi i swear"
Niffweed17: i'm not going to do that
Ritella: and has very disastrous potential
Ritella: forget it
Niffweed17: and frankly i'm a bit pissed off that you would bring it up
Ritella: you are taking it to an extreme
Niffweed17: you are too
Ritella: why?
Ritella: one more thing
Niffweed17: because it seems like you're intentionally trying to misinterpret me where i think that you clearly can understand where i'm coming from
Niffweed17: like my wording should be
Niffweed17: totally, perfectly clear
Niffweed17: so as to
Ritella: " discojoe as Fi dominant is essentially wrong. discojoe has repeatedly demonstrated his aptitude for logical analysis in various forms of argumentation"
Niffweed17: avoid any possible ambiguity that
Niffweed17: any moron might come up with
Niffweed17: like, no.
Ritella: no no . i am not being nitpicky on purpose. i am not "out to get you"
Ritella: it just sent off an alarm bell
Niffweed17: that's too bad.
Niffweed17: i am not seeking to offend anyone but
Ritella: look, i don't question your motives
Ritella: i don't care whether you offend people
Niffweed17: i am not going to completely change the nature of my analyses to suit your conceptions
Niffweed17: i stand by what is written there
Niffweed17: as essentially true, from my perspective
Ritella: i do care about the stereotyping that goes on in the forum and i think that when people are ambiguous it's their responsibility to clarify things to the best they can
Niffweed17: both with regards to what it says about discojoe and about the ways in which he does not exhibit Te DS behavior.
Niffweed17: this is not ambiguous.
Niffweed17: this is bordering on stereotyping, maybe, but this is not ambiguous.
8:20 PM
Niffweed17: from the writing it should be very clear what i think about discojoe and why.
Niffweed17: that's it.
Niffweed17: do you disagree with that?
Ritella: the Te DS clause was ambiguous in terms of the phrasing. like i wasn't sure exactly what you were saying
Ritella: my main "stereotyping" concern is really the other comment
Niffweed17: i disagree with that
Ritella: when you say that he's repeatedly demonstrated his aptitude for logical reasoning
Niffweed17: a reader that understands discojoe should be able to follow me
Niffweed17: is the idea i guess
Ritella: it sounds like you are saying that this is not expected from an Fi dominant
Niffweed17: it isn't.
Ritella: ok
Ritella: that i think is a stereotype
Ritella: and a very bad one
Niffweed17: of course its a stereotype
Ritella: because it's wrong
Niffweed17: IM is all stereotype ultimately
Niffweed17: klasjdf
Ritella: well it's not correct
Niffweed17: ok.
Ritella: aptitude in logical reasoning is not T related
Niffweed17: i disagree.
Ritella: i would say the propensity to engage in logical reasoning
Ritella: or related discussions is
Niffweed17: ok, whatever
Niffweed17: i view that as essentially the same
Ritella: also, T related is the amount of confidence people have in it
Niffweed17: on a general level however
Niffweed17: i don't think this is an attribute that you can look at and say
Niffweed17: there is no difference between ethical and logical types in aptitude in logical reasoning.
Niffweed17: like, no.
Ritella: and whether they find intellectual banter personally offensive (F types tend to feel more hurt, whereas T types realize it's just debate)
Niffweed17: no.
Ritella: wait, so you DO think there is a difference between ethical and logical types in logical reasoning aptitude?
8:25 PM
Niffweed17: if you want to call it "propensity to engage in logical reasoning"
Niffweed17: fine
Niffweed17: whatever
Niffweed17: that's perhaps more correct
Ritella: well look
Niffweed17: but i still view it as essentially the same
Ritella: aptitude is markedly different from inclination and confidence in
Niffweed17: if you took a normal distribution of all people
Ritella: if you studied IQ scores amongst the 16 types, I doubt they'd be more highly distributed amongst T types
Niffweed17: do you think that aptitude in logical reasoning would be uniform among logical/ethical types?
Niffweed17: IQ is not aptitude in logical reasoning
Ritella: sure
Niffweed17: if you want to play this game, you'll play by the rules
Ritella: well how would you like to define it?
Ritella: pick a metric
Niffweed17: um
Niffweed17: good question
Ritella: my metric was arbitrary
Ritella: and not perfect
Ritella: but it is A metric
Ritella: and it's not bad
Niffweed17: ok, fine
Niffweed17: fair enough i guess
Niffweed17: so looking at IQ tests
Niffweed17: do you think they'd be uniform among all types?
Ritella: yes, that would be my hypothesis
Niffweed17: i would not agree with that
Ritella: i know for a fact that my highest coring friends in those tests are all F types
Ritella: scoring
Niffweed17: that is subjective and a limited sample
Ritella: I KNOW THAT
Niffweed17: and it doesn't standardize the tests
Ritella: i am not using it to prove my point
Niffweed17: then why bring it up?
Ritella: i am merely stating an observation
Niffweed17: and i am stating constraints on your observation
Ritella: i am well aware of constraints on my observation
Ritella: i assumed you would be too
Ritella: i highly doubt either one of us are going to have access to an ideal sampling of IQ scores (or some other test) complete with accurate socionics typing
Niffweed17: agreed, that is not likely.
Niffweed17: it doesn't for a second support your argument or change my interpretation of your hypothesis
Niffweed17: nor should it necessarily do the same for you
Niffweed17: but just so that we're on the same page here.
Ritella: I merely mentioned my observation to indicate that it serves as a possible counterexample to the view that high IQ scores ----> T type
Niffweed17: not one that remotely convinces me
Niffweed17: i mean i dont think that
Ritella: no, rather
Ritella: it IS a counterexample
Ritella: the distribution
Niffweed17: all T types are smarter than F types or something like that
Ritella: that is something that can't be shown
Niffweed17: obviously
Ritella: with our resources
Niffweed17: well you could do experiments on it
Ritella: ok, well at least you're not that far off

[Ritella]

Niffweed17: but yes, neither of us have the ability to prove this
Ritella: agreed
Niffweed17: as a consequence we are down to doing what socionists do
Niffweed17: which is argue what makes intuitive sense
Niffweed17: and i think that overall
Niffweed17: to say that socionics processing has no effect on IQ scores from a logic/ethics perspective is
Niffweed17: well, it takes into account the abstraction of what IQ is
Niffweed17: i think IQ is more blurred than if there were a test for "logical aptitude"
Niffweed17: but additionally i think it would be
Niffweed17: naive to assume that socionics has no effect on something like that
Niffweed17: now in general i would expect the differences in logical aptitude to not be as significant as other things
Niffweed17: for example, it's definitely not the case that say
Niffweed17: an ethical type cannot be good at logical reasoning
Niffweed17: or become good at it through effort
Niffweed17: particularly in a window of specialization
Ritella: ok, yes
Niffweed17: overall, the further away from socionics that you get
Ritella: i know what you're going to say
Ritella: no need to list all the caveats
Niffweed17: in general the more that things "equalize"
Niffweed17: ok fine then
Ritella: i think that on a theoretical level, if one were to look at socionics,
Ritella: it makes most sense
Ritella: to project that T egos will have higher logical aptitude
Niffweed17: but that's not the way it seems to work out?
Ritella: but (and this is part of why I mentioned the above), from my (albeit biased and small) sampling of people i know irl whose IQ and socionic type is known to me
Ritella: i have not seen this to be the case
Niffweed17: fine
Ritella: so based on that, i would hypothesize differently
Ritella: the thing is
Ritella: i know T egos
Ritella: who are dumb as fuck
Niffweed17: of course
Ritella: they like "logical reasoning" but they're terrible at it
Niffweed17: there are ethical types who are smart
Niffweed17: there are ethical types who are dumb
Ritella: i have to practically remind them what a fallacy is
Niffweed17: there are logical types who are smart
Niffweed17: there are logical types who are dumb
Ritella: yes, well obviously the idea that there's a 1 to 1 correspondence between ethical, dumb and logical, smart
Ritella: is absurd
Ritella: but i also think that the hypothesis that the distribution is skewed in one direction
Ritella: is most likely wrong (my own hypothesis)
Ritella: AND
Ritella: i think that in general
Ritella: until one knows these things
Ritella: for real
Ritella: through experimentation
Ritella: there are ethical implications and potentially disastrous consequences to presume the alternate opinion
Niffweed17: to assume that not all people are equal?
Niffweed17: like frankly
Niffweed17: that's just so stupid
Ritella: well, to assume that the distribution in logical aptitude (IQ, intelligence, whatever) is not even amongst the 16 types
8:40 PM
Niffweed17: i think that's wrong too
Niffweed17: like obviously sort of
Niffweed17: to say that all people are equal and
Niffweed17: treat people equally on this basis or something like that
Ritella: i am not saying that all people are equal
Niffweed17: and yes i'm generalizing your point
Ritella: first of all, i am not talking about person A vs person B
Niffweed17: that's just foolish
Niffweed17: i'm not either
Niffweed17: ultimately, i disagree with you
Niffweed17: on your claim that logical aptitude is evenly distributed
Ritella: i'm comparing central tendencies and deviations amongst the types
Niffweed17: so am i.
Ritella: i never claimed that
Niffweed17: i brought that up.
Ritella: ok fine
Ritella: look
Ritella: my view is that
Ritella: there is obviously going to be some variance
Ritella: things don't come out exactly even
Ritella: but you don't know how things will turn out
Ritella: so to make a claim that there will be a skew in a certain direction due to certain factors
Ritella: is potentially harmful
Niffweed17: ...and intuitively sensible
Niffweed17: this is going in circles
Ritella: well not based on my life experiences
Ritella: maybe from a closed box
Ritella: fine i agree
Ritella: look
Ritella: can you see at all how statements like that would have potentially disastrous consequences?
Niffweed17: not really.
Niffweed17: i can see why they would have consequences
Ritella: and how if it IS untrue, it could have been avoided completely
Niffweed17: some people might sort of
Ritella: look
Niffweed17: ...
Ritella: what about if i looked at IQ scores across different races
Niffweed17: i think you would find less of a distribution for one thing
Ritella: no i was going to make another point
Ritella: but never mind
Niffweed17: i think that would probably be somewhat closer to equal
Ritella: the point is
8:45 PM
Ritella: ok
Ritella: do you remember the thing on Lawrence Summers that I commented on?
Niffweed17: the point is that you're trying to say that everyone is equal on the basis of themselves
Niffweed17: no
Niffweed17: which is not true.
Ritella: nope, not at all
Ritella: i think there are stupid people
Niffweed17: as far as i'm concerned, that's the end of story.
Ritella: and smart people
Niffweed17: and i can't see why you're attacking me for this.
Ritella: how i am attacking you?
Niffweed17: by attacking this idea rather relentlessly
Ritella: i am merely debating something with you
Niffweed17: that counts as attacking.
Ritella: no, if i were to attack you i'd either repeat myself on auto-pilot
Niffweed17: it doesnt necessarily have the same connotations as the word might otherwise say
Ritella: or i'd start issuing personal insults
Niffweed17: but it does count as an attack.
Ritella: unrelated to the discourse
Niffweed17: anyway who cares
Ritella: well, whatever. you can choose not to engage any more so if you'd like to end this, i'm not going to force you to do otherwise
Ritella: do you mind if i post this to the forum?
Ritella: i want to communicate this idea
Niffweed17: sure, go ahead

[tcaudilllg]

I'm of a firm mind that we don't really understand "intelligence".

The way I see it, you can be focused on doing things for people you are comfortable with and the way you are comfortable with -- and notice only the things which will help you get those done -- or you can "put yourself out there" and strive to create things that are not only comfortable for you, but also for those you disagree with and grapple with the hard facts of the other side, whatever those may be. Generally we refer to the latter as more intelligent than the former.

[unefille]

I think being T is much much less a given aptitutde than an inclination for certain forms of thinking.

Using maths as the example, since that seems to be what's being used here: my IEI friend and I always found it surprising the type of people we found majoring in maths, precisely because (often) we were much better at maths than they were - we were capable of grasping the concepts quickly and well, solving the problems - but they were always more confident in their mathematical abilities than we were. We were constantly convinced that we were moronic, on shaky grounds etc and constantly surprised by our own aptitude. Moreover, they were much more likely to apply that form of 'logical thinking' to their everyday lives, whilst we just generally saved it as something we 'turned on' for maths, or other similar occasions.

I think that's all Rita is trying to point out: that whilst it's legitimate for Niff to point out tendencies and inclinations, his reification of these tendencies into concrete correlations has the pronounced effect of shoring up ridiculous stereotypes.

[aestrivex]

I think that's all Rita is trying to point out: that whilst it's legitimate for Niff to point out tendencies and inclinations, his reification of these tendencies into concrete correlations has the pronounced effect of shoring up ridiculous stereotypes.

nobody said there were any concrete correlations. any correlations are very much not concrete and very general, distributed over a larger population.

[unefille]

nobody said there were any concrete correlations. any correlations are very much not concrete and very general, distributed over a larger population.

Yeah, but I think (and Ritella can correct me) part of her point was that when you write things, you have to anticipate that really really dumb people (aka most of the world) will read it and will take it literally. And since you can't stop them from being dumb, you might as well phrase your points as to minimise the chances that stupid people can misread your writing.

And as you've said yourself, you've developed quite a database of knowledge on socionics which is relatively coherent, so people are likely to take your writing as bearing some credibility. In those circumstances (and I think this is why she referenced Lawrence Summers), there is a certain responsibility on your behalf not to make statements that could be misread by morons (again, a large portion of the world) in such a way as to lead them to believe that being ethical equals having a lobotomy.

[aestrivex]

Yeah, but I think (and Ritella can correct me) part of her point was that when you write things, you have to anticipate that really really dumb people (aka most of the world) will read it and will take it literally. And since you can't stop them from being dumb, you might as well phrase your points as to minimise the chances that stupid people can misread your writing.

And as you've said yourself, you've developed quite a database of knowledge on socionics which is relatively coherent, so people are likely to take your writing as bearing some credibility.

if this forum is any indication, the majority of people are not interested in my writing and think i'm some manner of self-obsessed, deluded, autistic retard (people varyingly attribute this to LII and ILI). i've had very productive one-on-one conversations with some other people who might not normally think that, but those people who actually seek out what i write and concurrently have a chance in hell of interpreting it as socionics (example: huitzilopochtli might look at what i write on wikisocion, but it doesn't mean he'd understand anything any more reasonably) are generally not of the subset that i would consider "morons" who have to have things ironed out and placated for them.

overall, i think you're wrong. i think my analyses of socionics are largely for my own intellectual benefit (not that i'm not very happy when people respect my knowledge and try to mine me for information... but in my experience only a relatively select few people have done this). and i think that pretty much all the people that do look them out have enough sense to interpret them correctly... perhaps excepting ritella, who i seem to be seeing eye-to-eye with on very very few things.

In those circumstances (and I think this is why she referenced Lawrence Summers), there is a certain responsibility on your behalf not to make statements that could be misread by morons (again, a large portion of the world) in such a way as to lead them to believe that being ethical equals having a lobotomy.

who says i have to consider that as my responsibility? why should i care? it's certainly not like i'm lawrence summers or have any great commitment to the world at large. overall, several people from this forum have become friends and intellectual colleagues, and the vast majority are either indifferent to me or think i'm completely full of myself. this is the expected result, basically.

[unefille]

if this forum is any indication, the majority of people are not interested in my writing and think i'm some manner of self-obsessed, deluded, autistic retard (people varyingly attribute this to LII and ILI). i've had very productive one-on-one conversations with some other people who might not normally think that, but those people who actually seek out what i write and concurrently have a chance in hell of interpreting it as socionics (example: huitzilopochtli might look at what i write on wikisocion, but it doesn't mean he'd understand anything any more reasonably) are generally not of the subset that i would consider "morons" who have to have things ironed out and placated for them.

overall, i think you're wrong. i think my analyses of socionics are largely for my own intellectual benefit (not that i'm not very happy when people respect my knowledge and try to mine me for information... but in my experience only a relatively select few people have done this). and i think that pretty much all the people that do look them out have enough sense to interpret them correctly... perhaps excepting ritella, who i seem to be seeing eye-to-eye with on very very few things.

who says i have to consider that as my responsibility? why should i care? it's certainly not like i'm lawrence summers or have any great commitment to the world at large. overall, several people from this forum have become friends and intellectual colleagues, and the vast majority are either indifferent to me or think i'm completely full of myself. this is the expected result, basically.

Fair enough.

There is only so far I can go with interpreting or advocating someone else's opinion and I'm concerned with possibly misrepresenting Ritella's opinion in any case. fwiw, whilst I would not express myself the way you do, neither do I have any problems with decoding/understanding what you are trying to say.

[strrrng]

Ritella made very good points; niffweed was just being rigid as usual.

[FDG]

Probably it has to do more with a penchant to apply logical reasoning (both in correct - in the case of somebody well-trained or simply naturally intelligent - and incorrect - in the opposite case - forum) to everyday events. It's quite a common occurence to see a feeling type trying to explain by feeling something that, from my perspective, has a clearly logical reason; conversely, it is just as common to see a logical type trying to explain by logic something that can only be understood deeply by feeling.

[Ritella]

Yeah, but I think (and Ritella can correct me) part of her point was that when you write things, you have to anticipate that really really dumb people (aka most of the world) will read it and will take it literally. And since you can't stop them from being dumb, you might as well phrase your points as to minimise the chances that stupid people can misread your writing.

And as you've said yourself, you've developed quite a database of knowledge on socionics which is relatively coherent, so people are likely to take your writing as bearing some credibility. In those circumstances (and I think this is why she referenced Lawrence Summers), there is a certain responsibility on your behalf not to make statements that could be misread by morons (again, a large portion of the world) in such a way as to lead them to believe that being ethical equals having a lobotomy.

Yeah, that's part of it. What I meant to get to when I brought up Summers is that basically Summers got shat on for making a comment like "it's possible that females are worse than males in math and science." People took offense to this, wrongly in my opinion. Of course it's _possible_! It's also possible that one day I'll give birth to a dinosaur and name it rumpelstiltskin, but that's another story.
Had Niffweed made a slightly bolder claim- i.e. I think/It's my hypothesis that ...- I would have been okay with that too.
But, when you're dealing with an intricate subject manner, with the high potential for pigeon-holing and destructive stereotyping, I think it's imperative that one does not make statements like "Fi Dominant is wrong. He's demonstrated aptitude in logical reasoning." In this case, the person making the statement is failing to differentiate between his hypothesis and commonly held beliefs (or proven facts). It sets up a situation in which most people will just start thinking that either this has been proven or that it's some sort of a priori knowledge or part of the general theory.

and i think that pretty much all the people that do look them out have enough sense to interpret them correctly... perhaps excepting ritella, who i seem to be seeing eye-to-eye with on very very few things.

lol. On what are you basing this conclusion that we "[see] eye-to-eye...on very very few things"? Is it based on the 3 AIM conversations that I've had with you, all of which were motivated by my need to ask you about something with which I specifically disagreed with you? In that case, you might as well conclude that we agree on nothing.

[munenori2]

I think I'm going to have to go with niffweed on this. I do think that generally speaking logical aptitude will be greater in T types, particularly due to a preferred inclination to engage in those kind of pursuits. F types can be very adept at emotional understanding, especially since they tend to focus on the people around them. Needless to say, both T and F egos can be dumb as hell and thereby not contribute much of use at all. However, I think the dichotomies wouldn't explain much if either capacity was found pretty much equally in all people. Type expresses a preference for one of the other sort of rational activity, but, if we're observing over and above natural talent, practice makes perfect. Intelligence is too broad a thing to delineate as merely logical or ethical. It's a measure of overall capability, even if it is more focused in one area or other, or less disparately distributed.

[Ritella]

Well, it's a fact that a high proportion of T-types (NT-types in particular) make up my graduate school maths class. No, I'm not claiming that F-types are incapable of doing high level maths or anything ridiculous like that. It does seem that relatively larger numbers of NT-types are drawn to the sort of mental activity that constitutes mathematical research, however, and that's got to have some socionics significance in terms of information metabolism preference.

Yes, and I agree with this. Fwiw, my opinion on a subject of study is that it's more likely to reflect a person's _interests_ with _ability_ being the sort of "deal breaker." Also, though, i think part of the problem is that interest and ability tend to mutually reinforce each other, so they can be easily conflated.

I think being T is much much less a given aptitutde than an inclination for certain forms of thinking. .............
I think that's all Rita is trying to point out: that whilst it's legitimate for Niff to point out tendencies and inclinations, his reification of these tendencies into concrete correlations has the pronounced effect of shoring up ridiculous stereotypes.

Yes, well said. And I empathise with you and your IEIs friend's math experience! =)

Probably it has to do more with a penchant to apply logical reasoning (both in correct - in the case of somebody well-trained or simply naturally intelligent - and incorrect - in the opposite case - forum) to everyday events. It's quite a common occurence to see a feeling type trying to explain by feeling something that, from my perspective, has a clearly logical reason; conversely, it is just as common to see a logical type trying to explain by logic something that can only be understood deeply by feeling.

This is a really interesting point. It's funny but I think that maybe because, as a society, logic is valued over feeling/ethics, most people wouldn't take offense if you told them they were using logic to understand people's emotions.
And I do agree with your point. I've noticed that my ISTP friend reduces ethical situations into these super simplistic logical axioms and attempts to conclude things in a very "If A ---> B" manner. It's really odd to me. But, yeah, I think that likewise it would be wrong to say that logical types would have a lower emotional aptitude than ethical types.

[strrrng]

I think I'm going to have to go with niffweed on this. I do think that generally speaking logical aptitude will be greater in T types, particularly due to a preferred inclination to engage in those kind of pursuits.

First of all, how is a propensity to engage in "those" kind of pursuits inherent to "T types?" And furthermore, since when does an inclination = skill? There was a guy in my old neighborhood who practiced basketball every morning, but he still sucked. Now, I can generally agree that a natural skill at something can lead to a desire to engage in it, but for this to be true here, it would mean that "T types" would have to have superior natural logical ability than "F types." I keep quoting because there is no such thing as a T or F type. This idea is based on some simplified myers-briggs interpretation and bears no accuracy to how types actually manifest in reality.

F types can be very adept at emotional understanding, especially since they tend to focus on the people around them.

And T types don't? Additionally, what does this even mean?

Needless to say, both T and F egos can be dumb as hell and thereby not contribute much of use at all.

Indeed.

However, I think the dichotomies wouldn't explain much if either capacity was found pretty much equally in all people.

The whole point is that the dichotomies don't explain anything anyway. You're assuming the dichotomies are valid, and working forward from that premise, thus concluding that they actually affect reasoning ability in types. Essentially, you're drawing an erroneous correlation based on a faulty assumption.

Type expresses a preference for one of the other sort of rational activity, but, if we're observing over and above natural talent, practice makes perfect.

If practice is more important than natural talent, what is the purpose of everything you said above?

Intelligence is too broad a thing to delineate as merely logical or ethical. It's a measure of overall capability, even if it is more focused in one area or other, or less disparately distributed.

Yes, it is, so I don't see why you're using dichotomies to illustrate how T types have a stronger propensity for reasoning than F types.

[Minde]

First - The clearer you can explain yourself the first time around, the less hassle you'll have later when people ask you to explain what you said earlier. Obviously, there will almost always be people who can't/don't understand, even when you've done your best. If you leave those people out of the equation - I guess it's a matter of deciding when you want to have the hassle of explaining things to those who do want to understand you.

Also, misunderstanding is one of those things that doesn't always immediately show it's ill effects. That doesn't make the ill effects any less, though.


Second - I think that logical aptitude can be equal between T and F types, but that the inclination for and confidence in it will likely belong more to T types. However, as the saying goes, "practice makes perfect." Those who practice something like logic, as T types are perhaps inclined to do, will more than likely be better at it than those who don't.

[FDG]

This is a really interesting point. It's funny but I think that maybe because, as a society, logic is valued over feeling/ethics, most people wouldn't take offense if you told them they were using logic to understand people's emotions.

Well I'm not sure that society values thinking over feeling; probably they are differently valued in different venues. I doubt, anyway, that a society would be able to function on thinking alone.

And I do agree with your point. I've noticed that my ISTP friend reduces ethical situations into these super simplistic logical axioms and attempts to conclude things in a very "If A ---> B" manner. It's really odd to me. But, yeah, I think that likewise it would be wrong to say that logical types would have a lower emotional aptitude than ethical types.

That's what I have generally seen too, and I am sure I am guilty of similar generalizations of ethical situations.

[Phaedrus]

I'm of a firm mind that we don't really understand "intelligence".

We can measure IQ, and since we can measure it we don't need to understand what it is in order to demarcate it from what it isn't. We can point to it and say: That person is more intelligent than that person. And we can know that what we say is objectively true.

[unefille]

We can measure IQ, and since we can measure it we don't need to understand what it is in order to demarcate it from what it isn't. We can point to it and say: That person is more intelligent than that person. And we can know that what we say is objectively true.

lol @ your logic.

You give flawed premises a whole new meaning, Phaddy.

[strrrng]

We can measure IQ, and since we can measure it we don't need to understand what it is in order to demarcate it from what it isn't. We can point to it and say: That person is more intelligent than that person. And we can know that what we say is objectively true.

That is incorrect. Just because you parameterize something and isolate it into its own little context, making it measurable, does not mean that it is objectively true. How can you verify it's objectivity without comparing it to other things? I could create a test based on how much milk people could drink, measure it, and call it "objectively true," but it would still be pragmatically useless and give no meaningful information. You very much do need to understand what IQ is if you want to determine it's truth. You have to see which areas of the brain are tapped into on the tasks, how those areas are utilized in real life, if other facets are missing, and have a working definition of intelligence, which, as far as I know, no one really has, aside from general dictionary definitions. There is so much inter-dependency that it is almost impossible to reach any "objectively true" measurement of something - especially intelligence.

[Phaedrus]

That is incorrect.

Your idiocy is starting to take universal proportions. I am absolutely right about this, and it is not an opinion that I happen to have, it is just a trivial, non-controversial, and totally indisputable fact.

Just because you parameterize something and isolate it into its own little context, making it measurable, does not mean that it is objectively true.

If you could take a really close look at your own thinking processes and where they lead you, you would be embarrassed.

How can you verify it's objectivity without comparing it to other things? I could create a test based on how much milk people could drink, measure it, and call it "objectively true," but it would still be pragmatically useless and give no meaningful information. You very much do need to understand what IQ is if you want to determine it's truth. You have to see which areas of the brain are tapped into on the tasks, how those areas are utilized in real life, if other facets are missing, and have a working definition of intelligence, which, as far as I know, no one really has, aside from general dictionary definitions. There is so much inter-dependency that it is almost impossible to reach any "objectively true" measurement of something - especially intelligence.

This is a waste of time. Why even bother to try to explain things to imbeciles? IQ is whatever it is that we -- quite successfully -- are measuring with the help of IQ tests.

[unefille]

IQ is whatever it is that we -- quite successfully -- are measuring with the help of IQ tests.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO USE AN IQ TEST TO TELL US WHO IS MORE OR LESS INTELLIGENT:

Then the IQ test has to be made to measure whatever it is that we have decided are the indicia of intelligence.

Is that comprehensible? There is no God on nigh who hands down an IQ test which all beings may be tested by. A test has to test for something. An IQ test tests for intelligence according to how well you demonstrate certain skills. The formulation of an IQ test is embedded with a definition of what intelligence is. You can't have a test for intelligence, rely on its authority and say 'we don't need to understand intelligence'.

It's like counting apples without knowing what a fucking apple is.

[strrrng]

Your idiocy is starting to take universal proportions. I am absolutely right about this, and it is not an opinion that I happen to have, it is just a trivial, non-controversial, and totally indisputable fact.

Shut the fuck up. Your facade of objectivity is transparent and pathetic.

If you could take a really close look at your own thinking processes and where they lead you, you would be embarrassed.

Ah, of course. Yet you can't embarrass me by illustrating this thought process.

This is a waste of time. Why even bother to try to explain things to imbeciles? IQ is whatever it is that we -- quite successfully -- are measuring with the help of IQ tests.

Nice circular reasoning: "IQ tests are objective truth because they measure something. It is whatever we say because they measure something, therefore it is objective."

Get a brain, INTj.

[Rubicon]

If it helps you understand, Phaedrus, forget the term "IQ" ... and ask yourself first "What is intelligence?" ... and once you've answered that in a non-textbook fashion - "How is it possible to truly measure this intelligence in a person in a completely objective, unbiased manner - one that renders a person's education/knowledge/skill levels etc irrelevant?"

[FDG]

We may ask ourselves: what is that IQ was meant to measure in the first place? The answer is, success in the military career, especially in the technical and strategical aspects of it. Does this translate well into our concept of intelligence? Nowadays IQ's meaning has changed, and it seems to be used as a predictor of academic performance. Is it a successful index? Perhaps; the correlation is around 0.5, which is statistically significant, but still leaves an incredible amount of room for variation.

[Expat]

Good IQ tests measure a person's skill in answering IQ tests.

Whether or not that skill can be usefully described as "intelligence" is another story.

[Phaedrus]

BUT IF YOU WANT TO USE AN IQ TEST TO TELL US WHO IS MORE OR LESS INTELLIGENT:

Then the IQ test has to be made to measure whatever it is that we have decided are the indicia of intelligence.

And that's exactly what we have done. Intelligence tests have been tested, corroborated, fine-tuned for decades, and they are nowadays extremely reliable. IQ tests actually measure something that we all agree (those of us who understand what we are talking about and have a scientific approach to the problem) exists in various degrees in different people. It is usaually rather easy to accurately say who is more intelligent of two persons even without the help of an IQ test, and the persons involved are aware of that fact.

It is always the less intelligent person who tends to object to the use of IQ tests and is questioning their validity, and it is always the less intelligent person who is unsure of who is the more intelligent if he or she is the one that is compared with a smarter person. The smarter person knows (often for sure) that he or she is more intelligent, the more stupid person often believes (incorrectly) that the smarter person is less intelligent or that they are equally intelligent. This pattern is extremely common, and it has been confirmed by empirical studies.

Is that comprehensible? There is no God on nigh who hands down an IQ test which all beings may be tested by. A test has to test for something. An IQ test tests for intelligence according to how well you demonstrate certain skills. The formulation of an IQ test is embedded with a definition of what intelligence is. You can't have a test for intelligence, rely on its authority and say 'we don't need to understand intelligence'.

Obviously, you don't understand how science works, and you don't understand the use, nor the value of operational definitions. So, I would say (correctly) that you are an idiot.

It's like counting apples without knowing what a fucking apple is.

That operations is very, very easily performed, my dear idiot. Similar operations have been performed for thousand of years, long before language was invented on earth.

[Jarno]

The most widely accepted theory of intelligence is based on psychometrics testing or intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.

So I would suggest for the time being we use this definition/test as a criteria for intelligence until a better/more accepted theory has evolved.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

IQ tests are one way to measure a persons intelligence, they are not foolproof (for want of a pun) but they are in most cases a very accurate measure of an individuals intelligence. IQ tests measure three aspects of intelligence - mathematical ability, language or 'verbal' ability, and visual-spatial ability. These are good measures of a persons natural mental ability to understand and to solve problems.

However, in order to succeed at various things can take more than intelligence alone. Sort of like someone who was the genetics of a world class athlete will not be much of an athlete if they spend their days sitting on a couch eating too much. IE will power, dedication and hard work all play a part. However if the person with the more natural athletic disposition applies themselves in the same way as someone with less ability, then they will be far more successful.

Fortunately for most people there are other ways to compensate for intelligence in day to day living, but then conversely, sometimes intelligence will compensate for a lacking in other departments.

It's been my observation that people with similar intelligence levels, and would fall into similar levels of IQ, tend to prefer communicating with each other.

[unefille]

And that's exactly what we have done. Intelligence tests have been tested, corroborated, fine-tuned for decades, and they are nowadays extremely reliable. IQ tests actually measure something that we all agree (those of us who understand what we are talking about and have a scientific approach to the problem) exists in various degrees in different people. It is usaually rather easy to accurately say who is more intelligent of two persons even without the help of an IQ test, and the persons involved are aware of that fact.

It is always the less intelligent person who tends to object to the use of IQ tests and is questioning their validity, and it is always the less intelligent person who is unsure of who is the more intelligent if he or she is the one that is compared with a smarter person. The smarter person knows (often for sure) that he or she is more intelligent, the more stupid person often believes (incorrectly) that the smarter person is less intelligent or that they are equally intelligent. This pattern is extremely common, and it has been confirmed by empirical studies.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my point. It's irrelevance doesn't save the reasoning in the second paragraph from being circular however.

Obviously, you don't understand how science works, and you don't understand the use, nor the value of operational definitions. So, I would say (correctly) that you are an idiot.

Oh, don't backtrack. You weren't asserting that IQ measured operationally defined intelligence (intelligence as the ability to do x, y and z and as manifested as a, b and c), but were asserting that IQ identified intelligence. Whilst operational definitions serve a practical purpose, in order for an operational definition to have any application to the question of intelligence, a conceptual definition of intelligence which defines it as something that can be measured is also necessary. Simply in attempting to wield or measure the concept of intelligence, you give it some form of definition. An IQ test cannot substitute for a definition of intelligence because its very validity pends on a given definition of intelligence.

That operations is very, very easily performed, my dear idiot. Similar operations have been performed for thousand of years, long before language was invented on earth.

Maybe. Or maybe you're counting cricket balls.

[Phaedrus]

The most widely accepted theory of intelligence is based on psychometrics testing or intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.

So I would suggest for the time being we use this definition/test as a criteria for intelligence until a better/more accepted theory has evolved.

That's exactly what we should do, and that's exactly what every serious scientist has done, and that's the only correct scientific stance to adopt here.

[Lotus]

The most widely accepted theory of intelligence is based on psychometrics testing or intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.

So I would suggest for the time being we use this definition/test as a criteria for intelligence until a better/more accepted theory has evolved.

No.

[Lotus]

That's exactly what we should do, and that's exactly what every serious scientist has done, and that's the only correct scientific stance to adopt here.

No.

[Phaedrus]

You weren't asserting that IQ measured operationally defined intelligence (intelligence as the ability to do x, y and z and as manifested as a, b and c), but were asserting that IQ identified intelligence.

I am asserting both. We operationally define intelligence as that (whatever it is) that we measure with the help of IQ tests. And we also identify intelligence with IQ tests. We see intelligence, it is manifested in the results people get on IQ tests, it is manifested in their performances. We don't need a definition of an object in order to be able to see it for what it is.

Whilst operational definitions serve a practical purpose, in order for an operational definition to have any application to the question of intelligence, a conceptual definition of intelligence which defines it as something that can be measured is also necessary.

We know that intelligence can be measured. It is an indisputable fact that it can be measured. IQ tests are among the most reliable and accurate tests there is.

Simply in attempting to wield or measure the concept of intelligence, you give it some form of definition. An IQ test cannot substitute for a definition of intelligence because its very validity pends on a given definition of intelligence.

An IQ test is much, much better than any definition of the concept "intelligence". Intelligence is a real existing "object", not a word.

[Phaedrus]

No.

You are an idiot. So now you will shut up.

[unefille]

Intelligence is a real existing "object", not a word.

Prove it.

[Lotus]

You are an idiot. So now you will shut up.

There's no hope left for you. You are an idiot. But you will never shut up.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Prove it.

Are you saying you've never observed people with different intellectual abilities yourself?

[unefille]

Are you saying you've never observed people with different intellectual abilities yourself?

That was not even remotely my point.

Unless you are attempting to argue that my subjective perception of differences in intellectual capabilities as defined by specific tasks such as reading and comprehension, and I am observing them presently, is evidence that intelligence is an 'object' that can be seen. If so, no. It's not evidence of what I am asking him to prove.

[strrrng]

The most widely accepted theory of intelligence is based on psychometrics testing or intelligence quotient (IQ) tests.

So I would suggest for the time being we use this definition/test as a criteria for intelligence until a better/more accepted theory has evolved.

That's what happened with model A, lol. Established/widely accepted means shit in terms of accuracy.

We don't need a definition of an object in order to be able to see it for what it is.

Correct, but eventually you'll need to define it. Parameters will have to be established in order for any coherent measurement to take place. An IQ test, by the sheer fact that it measures "intelligence," assumes a definition of intelligence - one which is determined by the test. You are working backwards here, though. Just because a test operationally defines something, does not mean that the inherent definition it assumes about said thing is accurate. As I fucking said before, Phaddy, we can measure anything any way, parameterize it however we want, but that does NOT mean that the static definition which follows from said measurement is accurate. A static definition needs to precede any measurement, so that the measurement is observing the proper things.

An IQ test is much, much better than any definition of the concept "intelligence". Intelligence is a real existing "object", not a word.

Intelligence is an object? You're a fucking retard. Explain to me how in the motherfuck intelligence is an object. Would you say that consciousness is an object as well, lol?

[strrrng]

Are you saying you've never observed people with different intellectual abilities yourself?

This does not, in any fucking way, mean that intelligence is an object.