1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
No idea how to rank the bottom 6.
Rank the types in terms of IQ
1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
No idea how to rank the bottom 6.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-16-2016 at 04:02 AM.
As an ILE, I approve of this listing.
It would be dependent upon the people you know of the types. Most EII I know IRL are average or slow, while my I.Q. is higher than anyone I would regularly encounter. If TIM is type of processor, I would consider I.Q. to be the speed.
Today general IQ tests seem to be easier for T-N types. Other types should get high scores in less quantity, have no idea how much less.
IQ tests are very easy to learn. Especially if you are a programmer and have studied mathematics extensively. It's pretty much impossible to come up with a test that cannot be learned, or in which you cannot use existing learning.
I do agree ILE's and LII:s probably do best in the standardized IQ tests. However, I don't think these types are any smarter than others.
There is more variety of intelligence than 16 types.
The type of intelligence that IQ measures is pretty all-encompassing. I wouldn't put street smarts, emotional intelligence, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence on the same level as g.Originally Posted by Neneth
That's not low. That's average.
For I.Q. to become apparent, there must be a comparison. Without myself in a group, I.Q. usually has no bearing on anything, because everyone present is generally fairly close. That said, I can usually tell what sort of I.Q. people have, and relate it to how people/work dynamics are affected by such. E.g., LSI moderate intelligence, but better for concrete task solutions than above average I.Q. IEE, so people mistake their "I.Q."s/"intelligence" most of the time.
Every female that has ever tested as ESTJ for me admits they are not smart, and they definitely aren't. Maybe it's because a primary purpose of basically proceduralizing everything is typically evidence of not being able to do things on a case by case basis, which translates to being poor at anything new. Really, no ST's consider themselves smart, outside of very surface-level coverup statements. Just an FYI from my experiences.
I should also throw in that most INTJs by self-testing are slow but think they are sharp. Very few are actually intelligent.
You have pretty limited experiences then.
Nope, though I would be inclined to agree that I don't typically go places that high I.Q. LSE women would be. In general, though, LSE has Routine as their Base, which is generally the opposite of what is considered intelligence (separate from knowledge).
You claim you have high IQ then you resort to such simplistic reasoning.. uh.
Do you speak French when in Japan?
I don't like the processor speed analogy. Sounds like Intel with the old Pentiums.
lowest: Suedehead
Water's wet? News flash: most people who aren't White/Ashkenazi, East Asian or upper-caste Indian are screwed IQ-wise. My ancestors probably had a penchant for inbreeding which has a detrimental effect on IQ also.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-16-2016 at 06:34 PM.
This would make some sense if it related to the types of questions in an actual IQ test, but otherwise type has nothing to do with intelligence, IMO.
You can have brilliant NTs and dumb NTs, brilliant NFs and dumb NFs, brilliant STs and dumb STs, and brilliant SFs and dumb SFs.
Obvious fact is obvious: IQ is ntr.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Yes, but I have yet to see an SF who is brilliant at standardized testing, which is what an IQ test basically is. I think Ti and Ni has an edge in this narrow method of determining intelligence.
IEE ranked above beta STs?1) LII/ILE
2) ILI
3) LIE
4) IEI
5) EIE
6) EII
7) IEE
8) LSI
9) SLE
Beta STs have better common sense, but I'd imagine IEE's would be more adept at abstract pattern recognition on average.
Fixed that for you.
they are all retarded
good bye
It would be Ne and Ti. Generation of possible cases going into logic of the specific ordering that creates such. All visual/spatial awareness is Si, though.
imo standardized testing is easy...almost all tests can be "learned".
real-time analysis and adaptive situations are hard.
Eh, that's a cop out. Someone taking a timed IQ test without prior explicit practice would be using real-time analytical reasoning. IQ is a measure of how quickly you arrive at the right answer spontaneously. A lower IQ person who reads an answer sheet after taking the test might be able to understand the logic behind the correct answer in retrospect, but it would've taken him a longer than average amount of time to arrive at the answer on his own, if at all.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-16-2016 at 11:52 PM.
I don't understand why you're so obsessed with the IQ test. It's a test in abstract logical reasoning, which would obviously tend to favor NT types. Nevertheless, there are stupid ILEs and highly intelligent ESIs. All types have different strengths that may or may not be rewarded by a standardized IQ test.
I wouldn't have a problem with the test being called an "abstract logical reasoning test," because that's the only thing that it measures.
Well, people who score well on IQ tests typically go on to procure 6-figure salaries, so IQ-related skills are probably more useful in the real world than other skills.
This whole 'everyone is intelligent in their way' notion is tired cliche by the way. I have a low IQ and have absolutely no strengths to speak of. I'm intellectually inept, physically inept, emotionally inept, socially inept, etc. Whatever strengths I do have aren't on par with those of a high IQ person's, nor are they as extensive.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-17-2016 at 01:58 AM.
The fact that you keep saying it, tells me you haven't fully accepted it as fact yet.
You are completely mistaken about this. People who "procure 6-figure salaries" are people with a lot of common sense, a good grasp of where to place themselves spatially, how to make themselves irreplaceable to a company/organization.
i misinterpreted as how SF's do on standardized tests in general
I was curious about what IQ was a few years ago and took an online test that gave me a low score but then got an email from administrator that something was wrong with their site and asked if I wanted to take it again. I didn't bother because I just wanted to see what was on it.
I graduated from high school and college with honors. An IQ test doesn't mean anything to me.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Read Guilford's, you retard. Even if you're average or below average, you have several hundred different blocks of intelligence. Some will be way below average and some will be in the Gifted range, averaging out to your overall self-claimed low intelligence. If you figure out which ones are the gifted ones, you can use them.
Well, if an ESI, weak in Ne-Ti scores highly on an abstract logical reasoning test, wouldn't his Fi-Se be far beyond any measure of NT's?
If I.Q. tests are Ne, and we assign a 1-10 value to it based upon I.Q., and each function of higher dimensionality is consequently ranked one point higher than the previous one, then an ESI of 5-Ne would have 6-Ti, 7-Se, and 8-Fi, for a total Mental superblock intelligence of 26. If an ILE of 7-Ne (higher I.Q.) thus had 6-Ti, 5-Se, 4-Fi, then his total Mental superblock intelligence would be 22, 4 less than the ESI of 2 less I.Q.
You're both incorrect.
People who have 6-figure salaries are those who want 6-figure salaries, know the steps to achieve such, and work to achieve such. Oh, and drug dealers.
10000xYes. Too much work and requires selling your children as slaves to the third world in the process and if you are hindu then make it 3 life times.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
FWIW, @suedehead, I scored in the 99th percentile on my IQ tests both as a preschooler and in high school. I have never (yet?) come close to earning a 6-figure salary. Imo, @maithili amd @Jeremy8419 are correct (though I don't see how Jeremy's original description of ppl who earn 6-figure salaries excludes drug dealers so that they should be listed seperately)
Also, I know at least one high-IQ LSE. She's a doctor, and she really is pretty brilliant.
Again I'll say it: intelligence is not type-related.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
That's my bias. I don't consider law-breaking to be an achievement
Tangential,
I hate IQ. It feels so meaningless. I get a lot more fulfillment out of solving a practical problem and getting some kind of tangible result over being proud of a number.
Assuming the types are equally distributed, most of them should be hovering around average (90-110 range). For there to feasibly be a type with an average IQ of 110+, there would have to be a type with an average IQ below 90 which seems unlikely to me.
What if I.Q. is a precursor to type? Considered that?
No, I haven't. I'm clearly way out of my depth here. I can tell you're at least two standard deviations above me IQ-wise. If I were an Ashkenazi Jew or a WASP I would've been able to engage in discourse with you.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-19-2016 at 10:05 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
