What type(s) of intelligence are you the strongest in? Weakest in?
Types of Intelligence you are strongest in
What type(s) of intelligence are you the strongest in? Weakest in?
Last edited by Iwantpeace; 09-07-2020 at 02:42 PM.
You missed one.
I have often gotten linguistic and intrapersonal on most quizzes that didn't include all the types.
If I had to put in order:
Existential
Intrapersonal
Verbal/Linguistic
Interpersonal
Musical
Math and body are weakest. I still walk into walls so better put spatial lower too. That is probably covered under body though.
Weird synch since I was discussing the ninth intelligence (existential) to someone a few days ago. I thought of making a thread then changed my mind. Now here it is.Existential Intelligence – What is it?
I would define existential intelligence as the ability to be sensitive to, or have the capacity for, conceptualizing or tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence. In my mind folks who have this intelligence are not afraid to tackle thinking about questions that revolve around such issues as the meaning of life, or contemplate questions like why are we born, why do we die, what is consciousness, or how did we get here?
There are many people who feel that there should be a ninth intelligence, existential intelligence (A.K.A.: “wondering smart, cosmic smart, spiritually smart, or metaphysical intelligence”). The possibility of this intelligence has been alluded to by Howard Gardner in several of his works. He has stated that existential intelligence might be manifest in someone who is concerned with fundamental questions about existence, or who questions the intricacies of existence. And while Professor Gardner has offered a preliminary definition as: “Individuals who exhibit the proclivity to pose and ponder questions about life, death, and ultimate realities,” he has not fully confirmed, endorsed, or described this intelligence.
Perhaps the difficulty is that Gardner wisely believes that if he offered an official definition it would open a can of worms best left out of the arena of education. Or, since a great deal of the importance and credibility of Gardner’s work rests on neurological evidence of site specific locations within the brain, it might be that it is a bit risky for any author or scientist to definitively pinpoint the exact biological seat of spiritual wonder or cosmic awareness without offending any number of people, or some cultural or religious groups. I think it is important to remember that part of the power of Gardner’s work depends upon careful examination of the available data and scientific evidence. So, at this point in time, it might be safer to say that existential intelligence is the “half” in 8-1/2 intelligences that comprise MI Theory.
Despite this avoidance on Gardner’s part to definitively commit to existential intelligence, there are many who have accepted the presence of this intelligence as fact and have attempted to clarify what it might look like if it were part of the MI array. For those who have met children who appear to have “old souls,” it is often easy to accept the existence of existential intelligence as something very real and important. These are the children who appear to have a sixth sense, they may be highly intuitive and insightful, even what some might describe as psychic, or they are the ones who pose, and sometimes even answer, life’s larger questions – like:
Why am I here? Why are we here?
Are there other dimensions and if so what are they like?
Can animals understand us, or do animals go to heaven?
Are there really ghosts?
Where do we go when we die?
Why are some people evil?
Is there life on other planets?
Where is heaven?
Where does God live?
These may be those children who can be described as “fully aware” of the cosmos — of its diversity, complexity, interconnected threads, its wonder. Frequently, these are the children who persist in asking those “big” questions that adults cannot or will not answer.
Gardner also addresses this issue more fully in his 1999 work. So I recommend you read this as it comes from the source himself – Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.
Notes: A number of folks have asked what existential intelligence might look like in the form of a human being — after all we can readily give examples of persons having other types of intelligence. I think one has to answer that question on a personal level as it would depend on one’s world, cultural, or religious views. Obvious figures that immediately come to mind when thinking about this type of intelligence might be Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Black Elk, etc. But they are historic figures. Today one might think of Pope Francis or the Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) or some other world religious figure. But I have met ordinary folks, and even some children, who I would say had this type of intelligence. For me they exude an inner peace, a deep sense of knowing, a wisdom that far exceeds that of everyone else. They make connections very easily as if they see far beyond us mortal beings. As I indicated earlier, they seem to have “old souls,” a knowing that transcends this time or place. In this era, in its tumult and chaos, my only wish is that there were more folks who fell into this categorization — I think the world really needs them!
http://thesecondprinciple.com/optima...smic-smarts-2/
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I think existential was added specially for youOriginally Posted by Aylen
You missed one.
like this?I still walk into walls
You know me so well.I think existential was added specially for you
like this?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
My strongest ones are Linguistic and Intrapersonal.
My weakest ones are Naturalistic and Mathematical.
My Existential intelligence is not too bad, I was fairly good in Philosophy class and all that, but I am an Atheist, so...
It's difficult to find a description of Existential intelligence that doesn't involve some kind of belief in a "Higher Being" or "Higher Power".
I like to think of parallel universes, different time dimensions, and all that... Generally, existential thinking has never been difficult to me. I just don't like all the religious or spiritual stuff attached to it, because I personally believe most of it is made-up and doesn't hit the mark of truth, so I tend to avoid it.
There are upsides and downsides to my Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, and Visual intelligences. I can dance fine and I can be athletic, but I am generally rather bad at any sport involving a ball. I could learn to play certain musical pieces quite well, but otherwise I am fairly average. I can be charming, empathetic, observant of moods and so forth, or I can be unsympathetic and oblivious to how I am upsetting people (online). And I can be quite imaginative and "visual"; I like to create graphs and so forth (as you can tell by my blog stuff), but at the same time I have troubles with practical visual things like ... parking.Or imagining a rotating object and seeing it from all angles correctly.
So all in all... it is probably something like...
Linguistic/Intrapersonal
Existential
Visual (imaginative kind)
Bodily/Musical/Interpersonal
Naturalistic
Mathematical/Spatial (practical kind)
P.S: This is a random fact, but I've been the most attracted to guys who had higher Musical, Bodily, and/or Interpersonal intelligence than me. Guys who were weak in any of those areas (especially those with a lower Interpersonal intelligence than me) would generally be less attractive to me. I am wondering whether that is just a "me" (Imago) thing, or whether those three intelligences tend to be very attractive in general. A lot of women are into musicians and athletes and such, so... Could be a matter of both.
you know when I read strengthsfinder's 34 themes to decide which are my top five, I was sure you have connectedness as your number one more than my number one (maybe I should delete intrapersonal from my listYou know me so well.)
Oh did you do the test? I have done strengthfinder before but when I answered the questions I did it from the perspective of looking for a career and how I would be in a professional environment. Not much use for someone who feels that they swim in the sea of the collective unconscious, sometimes. My top was:you know when I read strengthsfinder's 34 themes to decide which are my top five, I was sure you have connectedness as your number one more than my number one (maybe I should delete intrapersonal from my list
Not sure if it would be different if I took it today though.
I think I still tend to take my natural way of being for granted. I used to assume that everyone saw the world like me and just didn't talk about it. I was a child then. Now I know they don't so I keep a lot to myself. I time what I share and with who. It is easier with some than others.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
^ Video footage of me when I came.
thanks god I wasn't behind the wall you walked through
I did the quiz here https://mypersonality.info/test-mi/
It cut off the last one.
Bodily/Kinesthetic
20%
Last edited by Aylen; 07-03-2017 at 04:53 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Strongest: Visual, Logical, Intrapersonal
Weakest: Interpersonal, and maybe musical too
I know so many people who are bad at all of them, it's incredible
Anyway I think my weakest is interpersonal, my best spatial and logical mathematical i guess.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
you reminded me of Einstein's quote
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
- Logical/Mathematical
- Verbal/Linguistic (that serves logic or other way around)
Logic and math is highly verbal and visual.
Bad
- Visual/Spatial (I can spot things if try but placing my body in it... I can imagine stuff in abstract shapes)
- Bodily/Kinesthetic (see previous, good reflexes never hurt myself badly)
- Naturalistic (maybe through experimentation... so not)
- Musical Intelligence (Never got interested in it. Don't know. Instruments seem to be too tedious.)
- Interpersonal (what we mean by this? If I find motivation, I can generate something captivating out of it)
- Intrapersonal (If meant by inspecting myself through some logic? Maybe but not interested. I know what is uninteresting.)
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
I'm strongest in logical, but oddly suck at mathematics. I just hate numbers.
In linguistic only when writing, when talking I often cannot find the time to muster my full vocabulary to create elaborate sentences.
Weakest is intra- and interpersonal. Often don't know what I feel/want, because I often unconsciously repress my feelings in favour of logic.
Every time I act out of emotion it all goes wrong, because my emotions often deceive me. Therefore I don't trust them and repress them.
Am also mistrustful of people. Often accused of being blunt, impolite, even when I don't mean to. Especially after I've spent long bouts alone, it's like I have to ''relearn'' how to be social again.
But after that it usually goes well. I just need to tell myself that people mean well lol
The third one would be musical intelligence, according to the discription here; almost all of them fit me
https://mypersonality.info/multiple-...ences/musical/
The 3rd would be visual intelligence, am quite a visual thinker and can remember memories clearly. Can also rarely get lost due to how I have good spatial awareness. (awareness of how far and what direction I've walked/travelled in order to get back to where I was)
The fourth highest would probably be kinesthetic intelligence. I have reasonably good hand-eye coordination and have always been good at almost any sport, even without much practice, compared to most of my peers in high school.
Naturalistic intelligence - what is that exactly? I googled it but don't find any real answer but some description that looks like it's describing Si, which to me seems not really like a form of intelligence, but more of preferences.
https://mypersonality.info/multiple-...es/naturalist/
From what I remember of school maths; it was all about rearranging stuff, and looking at things from different perspectives, which should be NE, so I wouldn't be surprised if NE is more useful for basic maths, than any other function
That explains why I must've hated it so much lol.
Because I'm also pretty sure Ti is one of the best functions for math, alongside Ne maybe. It has also never been that I couldn't do it, just that it takes me 3 times more effort to get the same result compared to the other courses, because I am naturally disinterested in it.
I've always wondered if it was because I hated it, therefore don't do my homework etc and get bad grades or that I suck at it, therefore get bad grades, therefore hate it.
Chicken and the egg. Socionics would say that it is the first, which is good for my ego
That explains why I must've hated it so much lol.
Because I'm also pretty sure Ti is one of the best functions for math, alongside Ne maybe. It has also never been that I couldn't do it, just that it takes me 3 times more effort to get the same result compared to the other courses, because I am naturally disinterested in it.
I've always wondered if it was because I hated it, therefore don't do my homework etc and get bad grades or that I suck at it, therefore get bad grades, therefore hate it.
Chicken and the egg. Socionics would say that it is the first, which is good for my ego
If it is NE, then it being your ignoring function would work out nicely!
Though, it could be other functions too...
I only did it up to age 16 (the age that people use to leave school in my country) so I don't know about the higher stuff...
What I have found though, is that anyone that I have ever tried to help with basic maths can actually do it...
It does seem to be more of an effort/interest thing more than anything.
TI is described differently by different people, but I see it more of a 'correct/incorrect' function
Which i don't necessarily see useful to approaching an equation, but more useful for checking that the equation has been perfomed correctly.. Though maybe it could be used when approaching an equation; "have i seen an equation like this before, yes/no"? and then using memory to do the process, rather than looking at the equation from a 'fresh' perspective and then looking at it from different angles 'NE'
I would see TI as very useful for Verbal reasoning, whereby a large passage of writing is looked at, and then questions based on the passage are to be answered as correct or incorrect. I am so much slower at this stuff compared to math/ other stuff that I'm classed as dyslexic
It would fit what I have seen on forums, whereby TI doms/egos in particular, are always correcting/helping people by breaking large posts down, and correcting them peice by peice
TI should also be useful for organising things into thier correct place... and many other things I am sure...
Urgh whatWhat crazy black and white binary view is this? (Don't be offended please, I'm just surprised. Could also be you didn't flesh out what you meant, ofc.)
So basically, no, that's only an output of Ti reasoning to judge something as correct or incorrect. The reasoning itself is way more nuanced. It's not just memorizing, either. It's just not usually shown in full by Ti leads. If you ask them to explain all of it then you might get all of it (it will take time, effort and a lot of patience to write the whole book on it
But, yes, that is a very important point that Ti judges correctness. So if that's what you wanted to emphasize then I agree.
Yeah.TI should also be useful for organising things into their correct place... and many other things I am sure...
Actually those are more preferences than intelligences.
verbal logic strikes again...
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
I think I'm strongest in intrapersonal (which is a weakness as much as a strength as far as I can tell) and verbal. Weakest in mathematical. Visual and existential are both pretty gratifying to use even though they're probably more towards the middle.
I like this thread @sorrows, good idea!
From strongest to weakest:
Visual/Spatial
Verbal
Existential
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Bodily/Kinesthetic
Musical
Naturalistic
Logical/Mathematical
1. Intrapersonal (I'm quite a lot drown in my own self, my own emotion, thoughts, psychology etc... Defying myself, my beliefs, my personality etc. is crucial for me)
2. Verbal/Linguistic (I can fluently speak 3 different languages and have basics of 2 more, I worked as an English teacher and I study Creative Writing.)
3. Musical (I'm a very good singer, I have a good ear for melody, but I can't play any instrument and my sense of rythm is quite weak as well)
4. Existential (Not sure what it means, if the means philosophy of existence, I excel at it, but I'm not the worst at handeling every-day life either)
5. Interpersonal (Even though I'm mostly introverted and stay silent, I know how to talk to people, when I have to, I know how to lead the conversation and how to behave in most of the social situations.)
6. Visual/Spatial (I'm actually not very good at it, but I'm even worse at the others.)
7. Naturalistic (I have zero relationship towards nature on both theoretical/educational and practical bases. I hated biology and a walk in a forest is a source of suffering for me.)
8. Logical/Mathematical (Well...I know what 1+1 equals...)
9. Bodily/Kinesthetic (Lol...)
existential intelligence
That's kind of interesting because I'm drawn to look at it from another perspective. Like what I can decipher. Philosophy was easy subject but not that gratifying. I could dance around others if I wanted to. I wrote nice essays just to turn those concepts backwards. Got full points. Heck, it is probably one of the strongest in me.
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
Took a test here:
http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html
Strong intelligences:
Self (Intrapersonal) - 4.29
Musical - 3.57
Language (Linguisitic) - 3.29
Mediocre Intelligences:
Nature (Naturalist) - 2.71
Social (Interpersonal) - 2.71
Body (Movement) - 2.57
Spatial - 2.57
Weak Intelligences:
Logic (Math) - 1.86
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
According to this test: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assess...strengths.html
Body Movement: 3.71
Nature: 3.57
Self: 3.14
Social: 3
Musical: 2.43
Spatial: 2.43
Language: 1.71
Logic/Math: 1.71
Edit: Ah @Raver just beat me to it lol.
Self 3.57
Musical 3.43
Body movement 3.43
Spatial 3.43
Social 3.43
Logic Math 3.29
Language 2.71
Nature 1.86
strong - naturalist, intrapersonal, verbal/linguistic, existential
average - interpersonal, visual/spatial, musical (i love music but i can't sing songs/play instruments/remember lyrics)
weak - logical/mathematical, bodily/kinesthetic
Mediocre verbal, shitty everything else, zero existential. I do not need any test, questionnaire, or article to know this.
Intrapersonal 3.57
Language 3.43
Social 3.29
Nature 3.14
Body movement 2.86
Spatial 2.57
Musical 1.86
Logic/math 1.57
According my own consideration/value:
1. Existential - Spatial/Visual
2. Self/Intrapersonal -Linguistic - Kinesthetic
3. Musical - Math - Naturalist
4. Social/Interpersonal
According first test:
Attachment 10820
Second test:
1.Spatial
2.Musical
3.Self/Intrapersonal
4.Naturalist
5.Social/Interpersonal
6.Linguistic
7.Math = Kinesthetic
Good test. But I don't consider at any rate that Linguistic is below Naturalist or Social in my case. Also I don't think my Kinesthetic intelligence is in the lowest, since I learn better when doing things with my own hands. I'm not really into sports, but the way I learn is always hands on.
I bet test have some limitations. Plus the questions seems more directed in most cases to detect interests than directed to the learning style of the person or the way of acquiring knowledge.
Also I don't entirely agree with descriptions on this link they are extremely limited and again, based more on preferences (what do you like to do or in what do you spend time) than in the mere ability of doing something (having certain intelligence). F.e. I love music, but I don't consider that I'm really good at it or that I've an special ability into that. Not at all, and it appears in 2nd place in both tests...why? Just because I like it. :S
Third test:
Attachment 10822
Last edited by Hope; 07-04-2017 at 12:48 AM.
Linguistic 3.71
Interpersonal 3.29
Intrapersonal 3.14
Musical 2.71
Kinesthetic 2.29
Spatial 2
Naturalist 1.86
Logic/Math 1.57
Getting Interpersonal second is rather surprising. I probably just got that because I am So/Sx. I certainly don't think it is my second best intelligence...
In comparison to some other people I know, my social skills are rather subpar and I prefer not talking much IRL. And this test gives me the impression I have dumbed down over the years. Makes me feel a bit bad about myself. 4w5 problems.
P.S: A lot of the questions for "Spatial" were rather ST.
Its in the first part of the page with descriptions provided for OP. It only appears on the web version.
LINK
Okay thanks, I was using Safari and it doesn't appear on there. Works with Firefox.
This is what I got.
This is not too bad, though the Kinesthetic and Musical intelligences are probably one tad too high.
1) Logic/Math - consistently scored 30+ above the class average on exams in both of my econ classes (micro and a relatively math-intensive macro course) without doing much review
2) Visual spatial
3) Verbal
8) Interpersonal
I'm objectively below-average when it comes to all of them though, at least for a Westerner
Last edited by suedehead; 07-03-2017 at 12:28 PM.
Lol you're not stupid @suedehead . There's nothing that proves that. You just have unconscious weak Te. So I guess that might make it harder for you to access, and then you believe that stuff about being dumb, for some reason, but you're not. You're just weird.
And keep in mind I often call people stupid. And I'm also not biased at all just because I think you're hot (ok, I'm aware it could be there lol, but I don't think it's making an impact... but actually by the way intelligence has been correlated with physical attractiveness).
Mostly agree, besides the idea that intelligence and physical attractiveness are correlated.
There are a lot of hot women who are stupid and a lot of super intelligent guys who are not physically appealing at all, so I find it hard to believe that the two are truly correlated.
I think it is mostly a matter of bias; people subconsciously assume someone is more intelligent, more sweet, more sociable, etc etc. just because they look better. (There have been studies showing that...) But that doesn't mean it is true.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
