Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 101

Thread: Intelligence does not equal Logical; Logical does not equal Intelligence

  1. #1
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Intelligence does not equal Logical; Logical does not equal Intelligence

    Perhaps this has been pointed out before, and is probably self-evident to many. But it seems like it would be a common fallacy to assume (I've caught myself trying to do it on occasion) that if someone is highly intelligent they must be a Logical type, or if someone is a Logical type they must be intelligent.

    Don't be fooled!

    Intelligence and Logic are entirely separate. It is possible to be very intelligent and to be an Ethical type. It is also possible to be a Logical type and also stupid.

    'nuf said.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  2. #2
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's so self-evident that I think the overall level of discussion on this forum have been dampened significantly by the appearance of the thread addressing it.

    ...

  3. #3
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's funny... the people who say this sort of thing are usually ethical types.

    But more seriously, I would say that the primary way in which type and intelligence interact is in determining the way in which people are intelligent. A highly intelligent ESE may not necessarily be able to create a new model of quantum physics like a highly intelligent LII could, but will understand people and social interaction on an unparalleled level (or other FeSi-related areas of skill).
    Quaero Veritas.

  4. #4
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agreed with OP, and it should be self-evident. Being logical or ethical just determines preferred and more natural approaches in terms of judgement.

    @krig I actually find myself pointing this out to an ethical type.

    Side note, I think the advantages of ethical types is underestimated. Why do you need to be a logical type when you can manipulate one to do the logical stuff for you?
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESEs tend to have "ground zero knowledge" -- awareness of what exactly is contributing to the emotional situation, why people are upset, and what can be done to calm them down. Of course, actual ability to see the situation from any given angle varies with the EM type of the ESFJ.

    But imagine what kind of understanding a "congress" of ESFJs in a community could offer -- a blueprint for paradise, no less.

    I believe intelligence is considered "the ability to offer evolutionary potential to society". This is of course relative to the individual, as every person sees very clearly what society is lacking for their personal influence.

  6. #6
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's the same with S vs. N. It's often assumed that very intelligent people are necessarily intuitives. Combined with the first fallacy it would result in this 'intelligence scale': (if you only take the rational, logical intelligence into account)

    1. NT
    2. ST/NF
    3. SF

    I think this is pretty much the common stereotype.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  7. #7
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the problem is more in the definition of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.com
    capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
    By this definition, intelligence may be dependent upon what kind of things are being learned. Some types may be better at grasping some things, and bad at grasping others. Any thought that certain types are more intelligent than others is skewed by non-socionic values. Especially since the people on this forum all tend to be on the academic side.

    I think it may be accurate to say that NTs are more "intellectual," but it should be noted that being intellectual and being intelligent are different things.

    It can be shocking how dumb some "intelligent" people are, if you understand what I mean.
    Last edited by Azeroffs; 01-24-2011 at 07:58 PM.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  8. #8
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree with Krig, FWIW. Ethical types can and often are very good at sciences, math etc. Maybe not so much when you speak of extreme cases ("a new model of quantum physics"), since all of those geniuses turn out to be T, although we do type many of them without sufficient knowledge of them (and they all used to be typed ILE by Aushra), but as far as mere mortals go, it is but a correlation. I'd even say there's still more gender bias than type bias as far as choice of studies and career goes. I guess my point is, don't label someone a Thinker just because they have a degree in math or something.

    The definition Azeroffs quoted pretty much covers it, as much as people try to compensate by inventing other "intelligencies" (how can you even make it plural?), which are often dependent on entirely unrelated factors that simply have "intelligence" added to them to make it sound better, disregarding the meaning behind the word. Sociotype might affect what kinds of truths, relationships, facts, meanings etc. do or don't appeal to you (and again, it's not the "what", but rather the "how" that's socionics related here), but overall aptitude for it remains there.

  9. #9
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    13,088
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, of course. "Intelligence" is a noun and "logical" is an adjective.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I disagree with Krig, FWIW. Ethical types can and often are very good at sciences, math etc. Maybe not so much when you speak of extreme cases ("a new model of quantum physics"), since all of those geniuses turn out to be T, although we do type many of them without sufficient knowledge of them (and they all used to be typed ILE by Aushra), but as far as mere mortals go, it is but a correlation. I'd even say there's still more gender bias than type bias as far as choice of studies and career goes. I guess my point is, don't label someone a Thinker just because they have a degree in math or something.

    The definition Azeroffs quoted pretty much covers it, as much as people try to compensate by inventing other "intelligencies" (how can you even make it plural?), which are often dependent on entirely unrelated factors. Sociotype might affect what kinds of truths, relationships, facts, meanings etc. do or don't appeal to you (and again, it's not the "what", but rather the "how" that's socionics related here), but overall aptitude for it remains there.
    I'd hope not: math skill does not correlate with type.

    I don't think socionics type has anything to do with what "appeals" to you, but rather affects your receptivity to information; e.g., you accept information for valued functions without reservation, but you apply strict ideological filters on incoming information for unvalued functions. Strong functions are scrutinized in depth, while weak functions are gullible. 3d functions focus on reasons a thing should be true, while 4d functions are more cautious, insisting on justifying the alternative as false.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-24-2011 at 08:07 PM.

  11. #11
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe it's more accurate to say that types are 'smart' in their own way, since the definition seems to be broader.

    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary.com
    quick or prompt in action, as persons

    having or showing quick intelligence or ready mental capability: a smart student.

    shrewd or sharp, as a person in dealing with others or as in business dealings: a smart businessman.

    clever, witty, or readily effective, as a speaker, speech, rejoinder, etc.
    dashingly or impressively neat or trim in appearance, as persons, dress, etc.

    socially elegant; sophisticated or fashionable: the smart crowd.

    saucy; pert: smart remarks.

    sharp or keen
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  12. #12
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As far as interest in math goes, it seems like some types might be more drawn to studying that. But people choose what they study for lots of reasons, like what their parents do, what their parents' expectations are, what the university they're attending has good programs for, where they think they can find a good paying job, men are traditionally pushed to some jobs and women to others, etc. My mom became a teacher despite not wanting to be a teacher because she was offered a scholarship if she studied education. That's not math but an example of why people study things for reasons that would not be related to type. Also, I do think that people of any type can be interested in math, even though I think it might be a more common interest for people of some types than others. And how likely you are to be drawn to math and how good you are at it are not necessarily 100% related either.

    There are lots of stereotypes. The T=smarter and NT= smartest is just one of them.

  13. #13
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back, with some examples...

    My brother and an ex-boyfriend are-- I believe-- both EII's who chose to major/minor in math and computer science.

    I have a friend, who is not very smart...She has mental disabilities. But, she talks and acts like a very logically-minded person. Sure, her logic is often faulty, but it's still logic which she appeals to in a discussion, not ethics.

    I recently posted a picture of a cousin of mine, whom I figured to be an Ethical type, but now a few have prompted me to consider Logical...In thinking about it, I've come to realize that certain things about my cousin led me to rule out Logical too soon...though, Ethical for her is still a possibility. But, I cannot let myself be blinded by such things as I.Q. when attempting to type someone.

    Sure, it may be self-evident to everyone here, and I hope no one felt offended by my bringing it up...Mostly just thought it might make for a worthwhile discussion.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  14. #14
    Grand Inquisitor Bardia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read that emotional intelligence is a better predictor of success anyway .

    But yea I'm not a fan of intelligence testing. I think it's really overrated. I like Gardner's multiple intelligences theory a lot better.
    “No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov

    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
    http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it basically boils down to this:

    Intelligent people categorize.

    Logical people umm deduct?

    Intelligent people highly stereotype. They're the ones that create the hollywood shows with the faggy, feminine gays, the street thug black people- and even when they try to 'anti-stereotype' they can't help but fall back on stereotypes. This is because stereotypes are based on truth, and have to do with categories.

    Intelligent people have a bad habit of overestimating their own abilities, and the abilities of others. They get too cocky because they 'wrap reality' around in their heads too much. Which definitely has it's uses, but for practical living it can get in the way. Logical people probably have a harder time aligning with their own selfish desiries and not realizing they can have so much more in life. Because I think at the core, logical people subtract and intelligent people ADD.

  16. #16
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why does this particular sort of thing always happen? Did someone's feelings get hurt?

    I don't really think it's a common fallacy, I would think that it's common fallacy for people to think that intelligence is not related to some sort of brain function. I think ethical types tend to be prone to fallacies such as this however.

    Intuition functions as far as MBTI is concerned is more correlated with measures of intelligence then either Logic or Ethics function.

    The fact that someone can be smarter as a SF/ST then a NF/NT is more or less within the realm of possibility but less probable based on these measures.

    However, my hypothesis is this, if you compare a random sample population of S's vs a random sample population of N's. It's likely that the N population will score higher on a variety of intelligence measurements.

    There are even reasons I am willing to speculate on why this is so. The acts of sensing are formed from a more primitive portion of the human brain which are present in all mammals, lizards and other organisms without the capacity for things like reason, intuition, tool use and various forms of information processing that is only present in large primates and humans. This is because the human and other large primates have a more developed frontal lobes which is not present in the same capacity as other organisms.

    Taking someone's brain like Einsteins, who we can speculate to as likely smarter then a large portion of the human population. He had more brain cells and the structure of his brain was different as well, as he had wider parietal lobes.

    Given that the function of the frontal lobes are this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    The executive functions of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress unacceptable social responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events. Therefore, it is involved in higher mental functions.
    The frontal lobes also play an important part in retaining longer term memories which are not task-based. These are often memories associated with emotions derived from input from the brain's limbic system. The frontal lobe modifies those emotions to generally fit socially acceptable norms.
    Psychological tests that measure frontal lobe function include finger tapping, Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, and measures of verbal and figural fluency.[2]
    The frontal cortex appears from this description to be involved in T, F, N but not S. It appears that having a more developed Frontal Lobe would possible increase a person's ability in T, F, N but without any major benefit to S related tasks.

  17. #17
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bardia View Post
    I've read that emotional intelligence is a better predictor of success anyway .

    But yea I'm not a fan of intelligence testing. I think it's really overrated. I like Gardner's multiple intelligences theory a lot better.
    Logical types can have higher EQ then ethical types.

  18. #18
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Emotional intelligence is just another subtype of PURE intelligence. Nobody says 'emotional logic' and yes, we as human beings have a natural preference for intelligence over logic. We pay intelligent people more than we pay logical people.

    I don't think this is very fair though. Many times a logical point of view would really help you more than an intellectual one. And too much intelligence breeds way too much narcissism, and annoyance.

  19. #19
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I think F types are smarter than T types.
    But then again: in what way? There a so many ways of being smart or intelligent. Naturally, nobody is good in everything and most people have a certain field of strength.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  20. #20
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    In a pure raw way maybe?

    I find that T types help me more with the interesting details and the smaller tidbits of information. I especially like it when ENTps feed me lots of Ti. I'm just really 'big picture.'

    For some reason INTjs annoy me more with that for a logical reason I can't really put my finger on yet.

  21. #21
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Lol it is funny this is coming from an ethical type, I kind of want to say its bullshit and that logical types are more intelligent, just because I feel like this discussion is centered around self-defense of the ego. Ala, "Just because I'm an ethical type that doesn't mean I can't be intelligent".

    In all honesty though traditionally intelligence was defined through verbal + math skills, and more recently with psychology it has been shown to have multiple facets with debate surrounding the validity of IQ tests and theories like gardner's multiple intelligence. So basically, there is a lot of thought centered around the question of what intelligence really is?

    lol that's an almost impossible thing to define though because its just a word and takes on a different meaning depending on the context it is used by the communicator. It's better to focus on what it is not.

    For example a test which measures verbal and mathematical skills, doesn't necessarily gauge mental competency in general, since mental competency in general isn't purely a function of verbal and mathematical skills, there are plenty examples of everyday activities which utilize the mind that do not directly relate to long division, filling in the blanks to complete sentences, and answering questions about seemingly random reading passages.

    Logical types.... all this means is a strength in thinking function, which is a relatively higher competency in thinking function cognition than in other functional cognition.

  22. #22
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    It is possible to be very intelligent and to be an Ethical type.
    Yes ofcourse.

    To add some info:

    I've read 4 (mbti) articles about intelligence and types.

    To summarize, leading intuitive (xNxP) is most important for intelligence.

    Ti is the most intelligent of the rational functions, I don't remember where I read that, but I just remember it...

  23. #23
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    521
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Because if you think about it, the info that T types tend to deal with is rather simple and direct. There's not a lot of complex nuance or indirect connotation to handle. Of course, I'm a T type so things Fs say tend to be more novel to me.
    I remember one time my friend over dosed on drugs and she was immobilized on the couch. My friends were freaking out, calling people on what to do, looking online trying to find ways to get around the problem, making things more complex than it was.

    I said, "just call the ambulance." They didn't listen lol

    After freaking out for 1 hour they finally called the ambulance.



    I guess there's a time and place to be simple/direct or to take it further/more complex?

  24. #24
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Because if you think about it, the info that T types tend to deal with is rather simple and direct. There's not a lot of complex nuance or indirect connotation to handle. Of course, I'm a T type so things Fs say tend to be more novel to me.
    You might be right about this. But I see what you said as a matter of communication style rather than content. I think two Feeling types understand each other in a similar way as Thinkers do.
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I don't think it equates to competency at all. Just because someone 'thinks' more doesn't mean they are good at thinking.
    Well it depends on what you mean by "good".

    In model A, certain functions are strong and others are weak.

    First; strong and weak are gauged relative to the individual and not to the population at large....

    You may be a logical type, but compared to others that doesn't make you smarter than an ethical type.

    Second; What strong in a function means is rather ambiguous. To me it means competency in cognition, because functions to me seem to be cognitive pathways, channels for information to flow from reality into oneself. Being strong in a function is like having a higher bandwidth for that channel, more information is received and it is clearer.

    Being a logical type means if you were to take the ratio of the bandwidth of logical/thinking information compared to the bandwidth of ethical/feeling information, the thinking/logical bandwidth would dominate.

    It also doesn't mean that this thinking/logical information is necessarily valuable by any particular standard, it just means there is more of this information flowing in and its clearer.

  26. #26
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Intelligent people highly stereotype. They're the ones that create the hollywood shows with the faggy, feminine gays, the street thug black people- and even when they try to 'anti-stereotype' they can't help but fall back on stereotypes. This is because stereotypes are based on truth, and have to do with categories.
    It appears that your conception of intelligence is my conception of stupid. Odd, but shows how interpretation of this word varies... I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    ...
    I take it you're an N type.


    ANYWHO you can't test or bestow on a personality type something as diverse, abstract and subjective as 'intelligence'. FWIW I've seen ethicals perform equally with logicals on math and science exams, so bleh.

    By preaching functional superiority I think we grow dangerously close to sexism, racism and so forth so I'm going to steer clear of those judgements, partly because it reminds me of some guy who was ranting that all betas and gammas should be murdered due to the superiority of alpha delta or something...
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    |
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  27. #27
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    It's funny... the people who say this sort of thing are usually ethical types.

    But more seriously, I would say that the primary way in which type and intelligence interact is in determining the way in which people are intelligent. A highly intelligent ESE may not necessarily be able to create a new model of quantum physics like a highly intelligent LII could, but will understand people and social interaction on an unparalleled level (or other FeSi-related areas of skill).
    Exactly. The correlation isn't anything absolute, but if an intelligent person proves themselves, it will likely be at what their type is usually good at. Last time I checked there were many more known LII scientists than ESE scientists. To call being smart being an innovative scientist and knowing a few fields in depth, is not always the case. You can prove yourself to be smart at things others wouldn't recognize, ie. an SEE might see the lack of social skills in an LII and not see him as very tactful or a good leader, missing the more important knowledge in life. Quadra values can also explain why some people seem more intelligent ie. an SEE might say an EIE isn't smart enough to understand the value of paying attention to their social-skills in relationships and how to lead people and build meaningful trusts, spending more of their time dwelling on emotion and not having enough realistic influence. Intelligence is such a subjective factor, and it can seem like someone is obviously more intelligent than someone else, until he turns around to prove himself in a different area, or not necessarily prove himself at all. Much of intelligence is abstract and doesn't rely on making a difference in the world.

  28. #28
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    I disagree with Krig, FWIW. Ethical types can and often are very good at sciences, math etc. Maybe not so much when you speak of extreme cases ("a new model of quantum physics"), since all of those geniuses turn out to be T, although we do type many of them without sufficient knowledge of them (and they all used to be typed ILE by Aushra), but as far as mere mortals go, it is but a correlation. I'd even say there's still more gender bias than type bias as far as choice of studies and career goes. I guess my point is, don't label someone a Thinker just because they have a degree in math or something.
    I would say that Logical and Ethical types may have overlapping ranges -- that is, an ESE whose "science smarts" are in the upper range for his type could outperform LIIs whose "science smarts" are in the lower range for their type. But the most "science smart" LII will always outperform the most "science smart" ESE in that field.

    Likewise for the reverse -- an exceptionally socially skilled LII might be better at dealing with people than some ESEs at the lower end of the ESE range, but the most socially skilled ESE will always be better with people than the most socially skilled LII.

    To put it in D&D terms:
    LII: +2 Science Intelligence, -2 Social Intelligence
    ESE: +2 Social Intelligence, -2 Science Intelligence


    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    It can be shocking how dumb some "intelligent" people are, if you understand what I mean.
    Just because you have a lot of horsepower in your car doesn't mean you know how to drive.
    Quaero Veritas.

  29. #29
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I would say that Logical and Ethical types may have overlapping ranges -- that is, an ESE whose "science smarts" are in the upper range for his type could outperform LIIs whose "science smarts" are in the lower range for their type. But the most "science smart" LII will always outperform the most "science smart" ESE in that field.

    Likewise for the reverse -- an exceptionally socially skilled LII might be better at dealing with people than some ESEs at the lower end of the ESE range, but the most socially skilled ESE will always be better with people than the most socially skilled LII.
    Sure...The fastest man will always outrun the fastest woman (barring injury, of course).

    To put it in D&D terms:
    LII: +2 Science Intelligence, -2 Social Intelligence
    ESE: +2 Social Intelligence, -2 Science Intelligence
    Hah, I like this...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  30. #30
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Sure...The fastest man will always outrun the fastest woman (barring injury, of course).
    Ohh... sexism alert!

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Just because you have a lot of horsepower in your car doesn't mean you know how to drive.
    Nice one!
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  31. #31
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Saying that different people have different kinds of intelligence is just a politically correct way of saying that some people are stupid. But the real issue here is that no one knows exactly what the logic/ethics dichotomy means, or what the functions are. It's like there are two poles, the ditzy sorority girl and the nerdy scientist whose idea of social interaction is letting someone borrow his microscope, and whether people are ethical or logical is determined by which pole they're closer to. But really, people have a very vague of what the logical/ethical dichotomy is, what it means to have a thinking function or a feeling function in the ego block, and so on. So until we have a better understanding of the material basis of socionics, it's pointless trying to answer this question because the only way we'll be able to do so is by pulling stereotypes out of our asses and calling them science.

  32. #32
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    I think the problem is more in the definition of intelligence.

    capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
    By this definition, intelligence may be dependent upon what kind of things are being learned. Some types may be better at grasping some things, and bad at grasping others. Any thought that certain types are more intelligent than others is skewed by non-socionic values. Especially since the people on this forum all tend to be on the academic side.

    I think it may be accurate to say that NTs are more "intellectual," but it should be noted that being intellectual and being intelligent are different things.

    It can be shocking how dumb some "intelligent" people are, if you understand what I mean.
    Not even that. By the definition of intelligence there, I live up to my IQ.

    Where you say NT = intellectual, is where I think you're spot on.

    I'm not an exceptionally focused or analytical thinker (when I don't have to be (HI MATHS)), but I've tested with strong logical faculties, and I have a mind like a warehouse, in that statistically there's more things I can grasp than not. Just like statistically I'm slower than most at signal coding. It's just a definition, right? I'm not trying to blow my own horn here or anything

    Temporarily aspiring physicist SEI, representin'.

    EDIT

    Probably the only Socionics at play is that I enjoy when people explain things to me, and I occasionally need assistance with figuring out certain things (again, hi maths). The end point is that, basically, however they get in to my head, a lot of things do, and there's no apparent huge reason why they can't get in.

    Of course I'm resistant to learning some things. I'm not a genius. I still have trouble understanding counting and probability

  33. #33
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I would say that Logical and Ethical types may have overlapping ranges -- that is, an ESE whose "science smarts" are in the upper range for his type could outperform LIIs whose "science smarts" are in the lower range for their type. But the most "science smart" LII will always outperform the most "science smart" ESE in that field.

    Likewise for the reverse -- an exceptionally socially skilled LII might be better at dealing with people than some ESEs at the lower end of the ESE range, but the most socially skilled ESE will always be better with people than the most socially skilled LII.

    To put it in D&D terms:
    LII: +2 Science Intelligence, -2 Social Intelligence
    ESE: +2 Social Intelligence, -2 Science Intelligence
    Can you explain to me why this is? I am genuinely curious in the way you're thinking.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    |
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  34. #34
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    N = generalization without conclusion
    F = generalization with conclusion

  35. #35
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    How do you know ethical IEs aren't utilized in other ways aside from dealing with personal feelings and interpersonal relations? For example, physicist Michael Faraday I type ENFj, and if you've ever looked at his notes before, I think they demonstrate an interesting application of (internal object dynamics) being utilized outside it's stereotypical realm of emotiveness/moods/etc. I think people get too hung up on associating F with 'things related to feelings'.
    That's an interesting idea I think its entirely possible once you consider how functions relate to each other.

    Like in the model I was talking about above. If functions in model A are like channels for cognitive information. Strength/Weakness would be bandwidth/clarity. Value/Unvalued would be what channel you prefer tuning into. And finally once all the information is embedded into ones psyche it inter-relates and work in conjunction when being processed. Unfortunately model A doesn't consider the internal relations between functions... only external relations between people.

  36. #36
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's about as stupid as the idea that some types are more socially skilled than others.

  37. #37
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
    I take it you're an N type.


    ANYWHO you can't test or bestow on a personality type something as diverse, abstract and subjective as 'intelligence'. FWIW I've seen ethicals perform equally with logicals on math and science exams, so bleh.

    By preaching functional superiority I think we grow dangerously close to sexism, racism and so forth so I'm going to steer clear of those judgements, partly because it reminds me of some guy who was ranting that all betas and gammas should be murdered due to the superiority of alpha delta or something...
    If you study socionics, duality is about having partnerships, so there is really no reason why all types are not neccessary. There are many roles to fill in society and they are filled by a multitude of people and types.

  38. #38
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    To put it in D&D terms:
    LII: +2 Science Intelligence, -2 Social Intelligence
    ESE: +2 Social Intelligence, -2 Science Intelligence


    Um... Yeah. I know an ESE math major. She dislikes the theoretical stuff, though; she prefers applied math. And I agree about having different types of intelligence. Maybe it is an attempt at political correctness, but it's thoroughly stupid to discount people's strengths just because they don't register on some NT-oriented test.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  39. #39
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do believe that NT types tend to be a lot better at handling complex systems and logic than other types. I've noticed that they are usually pretty good at understanding, or at least they aren't very intimidated, by that kind of stuff, like complicated models, numerical methods, etc. Don't take that "away" from them (I've noticed that it hurts their pride too). It does seem like ethical types get hurt from T types and they try to then pwn them by going for how socially awkward they are, have no feelings. It's unnecessary... For one, I've seen that it's hard for NTs who focus on Ti to reconcile their models with reality at times, or they are able to understand these very high-mental juice things that aren't really practical for the day to day, and it frustrates them a lot. Just do your own thing, and don't let people who think they are smarter than you "get to you." People underestimating your intelligence are only shooting themselves in the foot.

  40. #40
    limNol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    130
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another problem with this line of thinking is that it's going to result in a socionics culture where some people type themselves as logical types to "explain" their lack of social skills while others call themselves ethical types as an excuse for being stupid. It would probably be a lot easier for people to get to the core of their type without having to work their way through a bunch of mistypings first if there wasn't this implicit assumption that NT = dork and SF = idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2
    I've seen this too. People w/ higher intelligence tend to be less bound into narrowly specific ranges of competen
    Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote an interesting book about creativity where he argues pretty much the same thing. His take is that the "creative personality" isn't the result of some mysterious genius but instead stems from a breadth of knowledge because intellectual creativity is synthetic and relies on an ability to make connections between seemingly disparate concepts.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •