Intelligence does not equal Logical; Logical does not equal Intelligence

[Creepy-male]

The fluid vs crystallized intelligence is interesting. I recall that on my WAIS test I had ~130 on VIQ but only ~110 on PIQ (and approx. mid 90s for the Symbol Search and Coding tests).

It might be worth considering that Logic, as a dichtomy, is correlated with fluid intelligence, while crystallized intelligence is independent of type.

[Creepy-male]

How do you know fluid intelligence is related to the Logic dichotomy?

"It might be worth considering."

I don't know. I said it might be worth thinking about, based purely on what I was reading on the matter.

Was there any particular point to that question?

[Creepy-male]

Enough snarking. Let's kindly keep this civil.

"Fluid intelligence includes such abilities as problem-solving, learning, and pattern recognition."

"Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge."

Let's take my maths education. I'm like a notebook, or a computer; I can learn very easily how to solve all manner of problems, from the mundane to the "Oh hey only 10% of the state can do these". The thing is, I still need to learn how to do them. My ability to teach myself new logical tricks is pretty abysmal. My reasoning in general is fairly weak. This is a statement of fact: I have tested with low PIQ. Anecdotally, I've even had Logical types criticise me for being irrational wrt to "ethical stuff" like relationships and what have you, even if that's something I'm confident in dealing with and don't find stressful or a strain (which funnily enough is strong Ethics and weak Logic).

Gc > Gf, as far as I could gather from the article.

Of course I'm an isolated individual. It would be interesting to see across a broad range of people on these forums if there were any trends in Gc and Gf across the types.

[force my hand]

The problem with this idea, is that it rests upon equating an emphasis on logic/thinking with ability in logic/thinking. The two are not always commensurate (personally I believe there is no correlation with T types and genuine logical ability). I'm sure we've all had experiences dealing with Logical types who, despite having high confidence in their own thinking abilities… exhibited something of a Dunning-Kruger effect.

I like that study for a semi-related reason because it's applicable to the apparent rise of denialism in our society.

That said, while I think it observes a real phenomenon, there are cautions; for example, the validity of a relative, testing metric where performance improves with study and practice. This is worth considering if intelligence is limited by proficiency in 'dynamic' or 'fluid' logical reasoning (which, in a general sense, it appears to be) because you're testing something different such as memory.

[force my hand]

Apparent rise? Lol, I don't think 'denialism' is any more frequent now than it always has been. That Maher video was a great exposition of it as well.

As an aside, I didn't watch the entire video so I can't say for sure, but we may be identifying with the term in different ways. I apply it more to a crank/conspiracy-theorist assessment of politicized scientific issues as defined within the link.

...though I certainly see no reason to restrict it solely to that; if-the-shoe-fits, etc.

[Jarno]

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

hehe, good one.

[Rick]

Even if we take intelligence to mean IQ alone, I doubt there is much difference in average IQ between logical and ethical types, or intuitive and sensing types.

Confusion on the subject probably comes from 3 sources:

1. MBTI typological drift leading to the pigeonholing of intelligent, creative individuals into intuitive introverts. This carries over into English language socionics.

2. Augusta's and other early writings on the subject which carried a clear ILE bias (a combination of intuitive bias, logical bias, and Alpha bias). The role of intelligence was discussed only briefly by her as determining the "capacity of the intellect," but nothing more. She still incorrectly typed many original thinkers and theory builders as ILE.

3. The tendency to want to find a socionics label for every psychological phenomena.

I've typed the smartest man in the world as an LSI — probably not a type that most socionics people would expect. ( http://socionist.blogspot.com/2007/0...st-man-in.html ) If an ILE were that smart he'd probably die from absentmindedness before reaching adulthood...

Here are some ESE theory builders (my typings): Richard Dawkins, Ken Wilber. Of course they are in the minority, but the very fact they exist at all should be reason for pause.

There are other misconceptions related to the role of ethics, namely the idea that ethical competencies relate only to the social sphere. In my opinion ethics also confers potential intellectual advantages, particularly a better understanding of what is important and what isn't. I often find myself comparing ILEs and IEEs. The ILEs much more easily get carried away with things of no importance to society simply because they're interesting mental games. An IEE, in contrast, has a strong inner sense of what things are important (i.e. have the potential to change society, culture, people, etc.) and begins to lose interest in things when he can't see such a connection. In my scientific interests, I see ethics as helping me sift the important from the unimportant and avoid wasting time studying things of little consequence.

[Creepy-bg]

There are other misconceptions related to the role of ethics, namely the idea that ethical competencies relate only to the social sphere. In my opinion ethics also confers potential intellectual advantages, particularly a better understanding of what is important to IEEs and what isn't. I often find myself comparing ILEs and IEEs. The ILEs much more easily get carried away with things of no importance to society simply because they're interesting mental games. An IEE, in contrast, has a strong inner sense of what things are important (i.e. have the potential to change society, culture, people, etc.) and begins to lose interest in things when he can't see such a connection. In my scientific interests, I see ethics as helping me sift the important from the unimportant and avoid wasting time studying things of little consequence to IEEs.

fixed

[1981slater]

The best students - in terms of grades - I have ever seen are ESI and SEI

[Rick]

fixed

Well, if you go that far it would be better to just write "to me."

[mu4]

There are other misconceptions related to the role of ethics, namely the idea that ethical competencies relate only to the social sphere. In my opinion ethics also confers potential intellectual advantages, particularly a better understanding of what is important and what isn't. I often find myself comparing ILEs and IEEs. The ILEs much more easily get carried away with things of no importance to society simply because they're interesting mental games. An IEE, in contrast, has a strong inner sense of what things are important (i.e. have the potential to change society, culture, people, etc.) and begins to lose interest in things when he can't see such a connection. In my scientific interests, I see ethics as helping me sift the important from the unimportant and avoid wasting time studying things of little consequence.

ILE don't get carried away with things of no importance to society. Rather we do not make the assumption that it's of no importance to society until the topic at hand is comprehensible. Also society's ideas are not necessarily good or beneficial and often bad and a product of ignorant traditions and assumptions. ILE's are not in the business of merely catering to the wishes of society but rather engage in a act of creative destruction upon whatever organization they engage themselves in, society included.

As far as I am concerned, my moral and ethical thought is based on my analysis of consequences, intentions, personal sovereignty and allowable harm. I usually only concern myself with social rituals, tradition, hierarchy as possible consequences.

The study and discoveries of science has done more to change ethics then the study of ethics has ever done in it's myopic ritual of naval gazing and personal fetishes.

First one should know what one is doing, then one can know what one should do. Otherwise one is merely practicing ritual, without the necessary comprehension. A form of degeneration.

2. Augusta's and other early writings on the subject which carried a clear ILE bias (a combination of intuitive bias, logical bias, and Alpha bias). The role of intelligence was discussed only briefly by her as determining the "capacity of the intellect," but nothing more. She still incorrectly typed many original thinkers and theory builders as ILE.

Some of the types you think are not ILE might actually be ILE, or at the least Alpha NT. Maybe your perception of ILE bias has made you have not-ILE bias and you skew your typings the other way.

[Creepy-Snaps]

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.

That's a very intelligent point. You must be logical. Have you considered ENTp?

[pianosinger]

That's a very intelligent point. You must be logical. Have you considered ENTp?

haha, like that new smiley...

[Creepy-Snaps]

haha, like that new smiley...

The name's Dew. Mountain Dew.

[krieger]

i think Ti is the function that judges relevance and separates primary from secundary concerns. *shrug*

Recently we had a thread in which it looked like the Te types thought it was Te that did this.

[chip]

umm it seems to me like people underestimate themselves regardless of type. Here you have an ethical type underestimating their intelligence and you have logical types underestimating their social abilities.

I consider reading to be a sign of intelligence. I realized I see eye to eye with people whose activities includes reading than always watching television. Humour is another sign of intelligence.

[Rick]

ILE don't get carried away with things of no importance to society. Rather we do not make the assumption that it's of no importance to society until the topic at hand is comprehensible. Also society's ideas are not necessarily good or beneficial and often bad and a product of ignorant traditions and assumptions. ILE's are not in the business of merely catering to the wishes of society but rather engage in a act of creative destruction upon whatever organization they engage themselves in, society included.

As far as I am concerned, my moral and ethical thought is based on my analysis of consequences, intentions, personal sovereignty and allowable harm. I usually only concern myself with social rituals, tradition, hierarchy as possible consequences.

The study and discoveries of science has done more to change ethics then the study of ethics has ever done in it's myopic ritual of naval gazing and personal fetishes.

First one should know what one is doing, then one can know what one should do. Otherwise one is merely practicing ritual, without the necessary comprehension. A form of degeneration.

What you have written sounds like an anti-ESI declaration and conveys a sense of being tied down or limited by ignorant cultural assumptions and traditions. This is similar to my attitude towards "the System" and how it limits people's freedom. Just a typological observation...

But it would be incorrect to label as "everything that I don't like about ," or as "everything that I don't like about ." The latter is only a small subset of the former, and thanks to both we are able to have a civilized society.

As a strong student, I feel like I am better able to understand the psychology of my teachers and mentors. Part of the knowledge they possess is tacit and can only be discerned by watching them and taking note of their attitudes. As a weak person, I have to do a bit more personal study to pick up the terminology of the field. Logical connections and terminology that I don't understand slow me down more than perhaps a similar ILE person, so I compensate by trying to be on top of these things in advance.

That's about the only practical difference I can think of between an IEE and an ILE in their learning process, given similar interests and aptitudes.

[FDG]

What you have written sounds like an anti-ESI declaration and conveys a sense of being tied down or limited by ignorant cultural assumptions and traditions.

That's stereotypical. I know a good number of ESIs that would completely agree with what hkkmr said. You're also implying that "ignorant cultural assumptions" are an ESI-like typical characteristic. That's worse than stereotypical, I guess, but I won't comment further.

[Rick]

That's stereotypical. I know a good number of ESIs that would completely agree with what hkkmr said. You're also implying that "ignorant cultural assumptions" are an ESI-like typical characteristic. That's worse than stereotypical, I guess, but I won't comment further.

Well, that's not what I meant, but fair enough. I would also agree with what hkkmr said, except that I don't feel I personally affected, limited, or oppressed in some way by ethics and traditions. They're easy enough to ignore or replace.

[DividedsGhost]

Enough snarking. Let's kindly keep this civil.

Let's keep it civil...yes...civil...disobedience...hahahahhahahahaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahah haaaaaaaaaaahahahhahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh hhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahhaha - ha.......ha ... ha. mmmm. this is fun. and fun will always mean fun.

[tcaudilllg]

Well, that's not what I meant, but fair enough. I would also agree with what hkkmr said, except that I don't feel I personally affected, limited, or oppressed in some way by ethics and traditions. They're easy enough to ignore or replace.

If that's not what you meant, use Brian P. Miller's terminology next time so that you distinguish between people of different type/values combinations.

Back to the topic of this thread, there are more intelligent T people than intelligent F people.

[pianosinger]

Back to the topic of this thread, there are more intelligent T people than intelligent F people.

Do you have empirical evidence?

[tcaudilllg]

Who cares? It's obvious. Just look at Sarah Palin. Can you imagine a T type as stupid as her?

[pianosinger]

Just look at Sarah Palin. Can you imagine a T type as stupid as her?

uh....yeah. She's still a heck of a lot smarter than some T-types I personally know.

[mu4]

What you have written sounds like an anti-ESI declaration and conveys a sense of being tied down or limited by ignorant cultural assumptions and traditions. This is similar to my attitude towards "the System" and how it limits people's freedom. Just a typological observation...

But it would be incorrect to label as "everything that I don't like about ," or as "everything that I don't like about ." The latter is only a small subset of the former, and thanks to both we are able to have a civilized society.

I'm not really limited by most cultural assumptions or traditions these days, but it still irks me. Why would something like taboo on pork eating or sharia laws or caste systems and various other cultural traditions and assumptions bother me? It doesn't affect me where I am? It irks me because of the social misery and harm caused by these traditions and rituals. So if I happen to get carried away by such a topic, it's not because it's not meaningful to society, but I believe it's definitely meaningful to society.

The ILEs much more easily get carried away with things of no importance to society simply because they're interesting mental games.

Yes, yes, Don Quixote tilting windmills. There are no giants. It's all in your head. The thing about the unknown is that it's rarely of any "importance" to anyone yet all the more important because of that.

Well, that's not what I meant, but fair enough. I would also agree with what hkkmr said, except that I don't feel I personally affected, limited, or oppressed in some way by ethics and traditions. They're easy enough to ignore or replace.

Sometimes I'm personally limited or oppressed, other times I'm not, ultimately, I think there's no way to be un-"personally" affected by tradition and various cultural assumptions, no matter the position on it. I didn't say ethics, because ethics is more than tradition and ritual and cultural assumptions.

As far as ignoring tradition and replacing them, it seems harder then it should be since there have been conflict over traditions that have lasted hundreds and thousands of years, even within nominally similar traditions with similar backgrounds and teachings. What does one replace a tradition with? Another tradition? Maybe not a good idea. How does one change the minds of others? There are many ways that will fail, and many ways that will be unethical.

If you want to talk about other people getting carried away with things that seems like it shouldn't be "important" to society, or at least things that don't cause harm to society. We can maybe point to people that spend their time holding up signs like "God Hates X", "Y makes you dirty", "I own every Z ever made".

[tcaudilllg]

uh....yeah. She's still a heck of a lot smarter than some T-types I personally know.

yeah she's probably smarter than you.

In my experience, the IEEs who don't know when to take in decent Ti when it's offered are the stupidest of all.

[pianosinger]

yeah she's probably smarter than you.

In my experience, the IEEs who don't know when to take in decent Ti when it's offered are the stupidest of all.

I'd rather be stupid than arrogant.

[Suz]

LII's... so full of themselves. I personally know a dumb LII at work that I can beat brain-wise any day. And i'm not even that smart--I know some truly genius people.

I think certain types can come across as "dumb" to other types just because of perhaps their demeanor or their failure at an IE that one considers important.

I agree with Aiss, that logical vs ethical type does not have anything to do with intelligence. Any type can be intelligent or dumb. Information processing type simply represents how one goes about using one's own level of intelligence.


Intelligence = capacity to learn. Socionics type reflects how one goes about learning. The capacity is still there, the way you fill it would be type related.

[tcaudilllg]

Troll thread.

[Creepy-male]

This is the hottest thread to have happened in a while, and Gilly hasn't even posted yet.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Troll thread.

The thread is fine. You're the one making derogatory comments and baseless claims.

[golden]

I'd like to chime in here to complain about my lack of intelligence before anyone else beats me to it.

Golden = idiot

And ... so what?

Thanks!

[force my hand]

Golden = idiot

*insert automatic need to argue on account of pseudo-mathematic representation*

/LII

[DividedsGhost]

:~/run Woot_Wooo_Woooooooooo
initializing()...
cleaningUpUnneededMemory()...
sendingFoundKiddiePornToFBI()...
executing()...

"Hello World, I'm a genius because I used the internet!"


Woot wooo woooooooooooo



TOOT TOOT!

[chip]

Aristotlian Logic, symbolic logic, categorical logic, numeric logic, political logic, technical logic, rhetoic, argumentation, etc.

Logic is necessary to life. Even the very notion of birth and death is logical.

what we have here is dichtomous thinking which is a cognitive distortion.

To make use of proper logic we can address the issue into quantifiable terms 'all' and 'some'.
Based on the original stipulation:
Not all logical types are proficient at logical reasoning.
Not all ethical types are inefficent at logical reasoning.

Some logical types are proficient at logical reasoning and some are not.
Some ethical types are inefficient at logical reasosing and some are not.

For all, logic is an innate trait but for some, to be talented at logic is a learned ability. I flunked a logical reasoning course twice before finally passing the third time! haha I'm a logical type!!

Conclusion: logical personality is defined differently from logical reasoning. The same word can be defined differently depending on who is using the word. A logician is not talking about personality theory when they emphase logical ability. A psychologist is not talking about logical reasoning when they talk about logical types.

[tcaudilllg]

An alpha NT who is logically proficient will exceed the inferential capability, on average, of an F who is logically proficient.

I'm sorry but only an ILE could have created the theory of relativity.

I'm bearing down on a hypothesis, in fact, which associates the strength of the base function -- any base function -- with the ability to integrate LII logical instruction. Gulenko himself has asserted, based on experience, that LIIs are the foundation of society: every type anchors their self-confidence to logic. And why wouldn't they: the purpose of logic is to understand the world as it is, so that adaptation to it can be optimal.

Yes, there have been great thinkers and philosophers of every type. But even today their ideas have nowhere near the support that the LIIs do. Kant himself, a cornerstone of philosophy. Those who have succeeded Kant (the sociopathic egoists aside) have made a point of integrating him, not refuting him. Hume himself asserts that reason is the foundation of ethic.

Dichotomous thinking is not a logical distortion. The hallmark of base Ti: for every thesis, a possible antithesis. Failure to appreciate the multi-layered depth of this simple proposition, is the fount from which fallacies flow.

[pianosinger]

An alpha NT who is logically proficient will exceed the inferential capability, on average, of an F who is logically proficient.

Not arguing with you there.

[Park]

:~/run Woot_Wooo_Woooooooooo
initializing()...
cleaningUpUnneededMemory()...
sendingFoundKiddiePornToFBI()...
executing()...

"Hello World, I'm a genius because I used the internet!"


Woot wooo woooooooooooo



TOOT TOOT!

Memory cleanup should be done at the end of the program.

[DividedsGhost]

Memory cleanup should be done at the end of the program.

Woot woo wooooooooo

[chip]

cognitive distortion means flawed cognitive thought patterns. here is an example: I have to do perfect on the exam or i'm a failure.

as is said: not everything is black and white.

thesis and antithesis is a matter of objectivity. in full there is a thesis and the antithesis and the synthesis. This can be argued in open discussion unlike a cognitive distortion which occurs silently in one's mind.

not telling you what or how to think but unwritten history is filled with millions of LII who did nothing but live their own lives in no grandeur manner. Kant is apart of a philosophical history and is considered to be one of the most important figures. I know he is significant but honestly I do not understand Kantian philosophy and that is no lack of trying. For the last 2400 years there is four major philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Descrates and Kant. They shaped metaphysics for many philosophers. IMO they are all INTJ except Aristotle who is ESTJ. Of those LII like myself and yourself - we are no Plato, Descartes or Kant. Our lives are not over but I would not suggest LII means more to society than a non-LII. I mean Gulenko is no Plato nor a Carl Jung.

if I am not mistaken Gulenko admitted that socionics can only contribute for a small representation of the entire sum of an individuals personality. An individual who is self-aware of their socionics type has only scratched the surface of who they are. People on the forum have asked general questions like what socionics type is Japan? I think a more interesting question is at least what is the differences in culture amongst the same socionics type? How different and similiar is a LII born American from a LII born Japanese? How different and similar is a ESE born Korean and a ESE born Chinese?

generation differences matter too. How different and similiar is american SEI born in 1950 from an american SEI born in 1975?

ethnicty matters too: how different and similar is a african american EII from a hispanic EII?

economy matters too: how different and similar is a upper class SEE from a middle class SEE?

sexual orientation matters too: how different and similar is a heterosexual LIE from a homosexual LIE?

educational differences: how different and similar is a IEI university graduate from a IEI collage graduate?

physical attractiveness: how different and similar is a EIE that is beautiful from a EIE that is ugly?

intelligence: how different and similar is a IEE genius from a IEE simpleton?

profession: how different and similar is a SLE taxi driver from a SLE Corporate CEO?

mental health: how different and similar is a stable ILI from a unstable ILI?

physical well-being: how different and similar is a healthy SLI from a decreped SLI?

so on and so forth...

Perhaps what I am thinking is LII is like your twin. Often twins separated from birth offer incredible insight into the development of the individual's genetic traits. The analogy may be flawed. I'm not too sure but I have the impression that in socionics one LII is the twin brother or sister of another LII but i'm beginning to think that is not entirely true.