Question for ILIs and whoever else reads this

[MinusOne]

What's your IQ?
I'm positive I've got my sociotype right, however, in some ways I'm not a typical ILI, they're supposed to be really smart and I just feel like a mentally slow dumbass sometimes compared to other people. I know that intelligence isn't necessarily related to sociotype, but I was wondering about IQ. Never took a real test but I'm probably average. Tested 131 on this one, but there's just 20 questions and they're really easy on average, the few good ones I have't been able to solve anyway. Obviously, this is not a serious test and the results are irrelevant to an individual's IQ, however, it might serve as a tool to compare and establish the average IQ of more individuals of the same sociotype or even the differences, if any, between multiple sociotypes. I'm interested in the results of other ILIs and even the results of people of other sociotypes, here's the test: http://www.free-iqtest.net/
If you already took a serious IQ test and you know your result you can mention that too.

[Tonatiuh]

I've scored basically everything between 100 and 140. But if I'm being honest with myself I estimate my IQ around 110.

[Jarno]

I'm positive I've got my sociotype right, however, in some ways I'm not a typical ILI, they're supposed to be really smart and I just feel like a mentally slow dumbass sometimes compared to other people.

I've read that in 3 MBTI tests the ILI (INTP) scored second, fourth and sixth highest in IQ. There is somewhat correlation with IQ and type, but it's probably 0.4 or something I guess...

I know two SEE who did university, I know a couple of ILI's who are pretty dumbasses, still wise though.

ILI's are often overrated. Sometimes because people think to much in stereotypes, not every SEE is a big performer like Elvis either.

I personally like the ILI's common sense. And I even like it more when an ILI is not trying to be smart, but just smoke a cigarette and drink a beer.

Maybe you can try a test with Mensa. They are a bit more serious than free iq test on the internet where people score 180 all the time. But remember even those high iq people say the dumbest things at times.

[Adam Strange]

My grade school principal brought in a Stanford-Binet researcher to test my IQ when I was in sixth grade. The researcher asked me a bunch of questions. One question that I remember involved my Te reasoning ability, so I can say that the test had some bias to it.
The adults didn't tell me the resultant IQ, but my mother did, years later.

With my IQ and $2.00, I can get a cup of coffee.

It is well known that two things are usually required to be successful. One is being fairly smart (but not too smart), and the other is expending the effort to work hard. That is, assuming you don't inherit your success, as was the case for certain presidents whom I won't mention.

Most of the ILI's whom I know have above-average smarts and iffy hard-work skills. Or so it seems to me. Might be sampling bias.

[The Reality Denialist]

So if I try pin IQ test I think it aims to define it in pretty "Darwinistic" terms.

As it is statistical and there are things such as adaptability to environment it is not entirely comparable everywhere.

[silke]

My results from online tests have ranged from 90 to 160. Most of the online IQ tests seem to be boosted by 20-30 points and give out 120-140 scores to majority of people who take them. I'm not sure why they boost the scores so much - perhaps to make people return to their page and recommend the test to friends? - but it's rather common to see somebody post up an online test and the follow-up responses are usually in 120-140 range, which is not possible since the average is 100 points.

This "real-life functional level" chart seems to be more accurate for estimating one's IQ range: https://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html It allows you to figure out your IQ based on where your see yourself being at an optimal level of performance, and where you'd start to feel challenged. So if you can see yourself getting a PhD in something like physical sciences, being a prolific author or a professor in some specialty field, your IQ is probably over 130 points. If you see yourself getting a masters degree but would feel challenged earning a PhD, then you're probably in the 115-130 range. If you're struggling with college level material then your iQ is probably lower than 115. The same extends to what kind of employment you see as being optimal for yourself. And so on.


100-109 — Average: Able to learn from written materials. Employable in senior positions.

110-119 — Above average: Able to learn in "college" format. Bachelor degrees. Manager, teacher, accountant. Just capable of taking high-range I.Q. tests.

120-129 — Above average: Capable of gathering and inferring own information. Master degrees. Attorney, chemist, executive. About 93 % of high-range test candidates score I.Q. 120 or higher.

130-139 — "Gifted": May just be able to write a legible piece of text like an article or modest novel. Minor literary figures. Ph.D. in the "soft" sciences. In this range lies the mode of scores on high-range tests, and almost 80 % of high-range candidates score I.Q. 130 or higher. Regular psychology's I.Q. tests should not be trusted beyond this range as their validity breaks down here, if such scores are given at all.

140-149 — Intelligent: Capable of rational communication and scientific work. From this range on, only specific high-range tests should be considered. Important scientific discoveries and advancement are possible from the upper part of this range on.

[xerx]

I'm skeptical of IQ "science." Is the IQ assessment market even regulated? I wonder how much money I can make by convincing low IQ people to take a b.s. test I pulled out of a hat.

[Aeris]

I likely have a shitty IQ because those tests seem like some gigantic waste of time to me.
What does that number says about a person? All I know is that humans generaly get along better with people of similar IQ (more or less 10 points), and that IQ test results can depend on many factors, such as tiredness, having a bad day, a noisy room...
I know that people with very high IQ, 160+, which is about one person on 30'000 iirc, can have a difficult time in society and feel the need to interact with other 160+ people so they made high IQ societies.

Sure, ILIs are intuitives and thinkers first, they live in their head, soak up informations easily, yet is it truly high IQ to have read about some logic stuff then answering right in an IQ question testing this afore mentioned logic stuff? Context: I did click on your links, and some questions I had seen elsewhere and remembered the answer to... pretty sure doing an IQ test by memory ruins its purpose... anyhoo.

I don't think IQ can rule out certain types for someone, or make you a type. I think type is more about how you percieve life and who you enjoy interacting with or not. I mean, people use socionics to date more than anthing else really, that makes it quite social.

Also, why does IQ matter to you?

[Skepsis]

Average intelligence and below accept socionics as dogma.

[MinusOne]

I likely have a shitty IQ because those tests seem like some gigantic waste of time to me.
What does that number says about a person? All I know is that humans generaly get along better with people of similar IQ (more or less 10 points), and that IQ test results can depend on many factors, such as tiredness, having a bad day, a noisy room...
I know that people with very high IQ, 160+, which is about one person on 30'000 iirc, can have a difficult time in society and feel the need to interact with other 160+ people so they made high IQ societies.

Sure, ILIs are intuitives and thinkers first, they live in their head, soak up informations easily, yet is it truly high IQ to have read about some logic stuff then answering right in an IQ question testing this afore mentioned logic stuff? Context: I did click on your links, and some questions I had seen elsewhere and remembered the answer to... pretty sure doing an IQ test by memory ruins its purpose... anyhoo.

I don't think IQ can rule out certain types for someone, or make you a type. I think type is more about how you percieve life and who you enjoy interacting with or not. I mean, people use socionics to date more than anthing else really, that makes it quite social.

Also, why does IQ matter to you?

I'm not even sure it matters all that much as long as long as my mental capacity is at least average. I've always thought I'm smart and rational, however, just recently I've realized what I defined as rational might be flawed and that unsettled me a little bit. I have this LSI colleague who is probably unanimously and silently considered the smartest person in the group and the only one I respect. While most of the things he says and his solution to problems are concurrent to my thoughts, I find his logic to be "pure", while mine would be pseudo. His arguments are solely logical while I might use something pseudo-rational , slightly poetic and beautifully put as an argument. I might be equally convinced by plain logic as I am touched by beautifully said things used pretentiously as arguments and until recently I unconsciously thought everyone else is too. Realizing I have or had this huge vulnerability and flaw in reasoning and that it could have gone on undetected for who knows how long is deeply unsettling. I wonder if it's an ILI thing making them vulnerable to the arguments of their TI lacking dual or it's simply a me thing. I suppose that would be the gist of it, not that IQ has much to do with it.

[consentingadult]

Most internet IQ test have been designed to give flattering results and are not to be trusted. I myself passed a Mensa IQ test once. My GF, SEI, probably would fail gloriously on that test, but she definitively is a much better cook than I am. But since there are no cooking questions in the average IQ test,it is no surprise that ILIs, on average, score higher than SEIs on test that have been designed to measure qualities they have in the first place.

[FDG]

In socionics this connection between type and IQ isn't as characterized as in MBTI, so yeah you could be ILI and somewhat dumb. 131 IQ is quite above average anyway.

I have met SEEs with PhDs, they were academically smart and good at "Se" things but still retarded in their daily life decisions and relationships like most Ti polrs can be.

[Exodus]

ILIs can be dumb just like any other type. I've never actually measured my IQ.
@FDG why would an Fi creative type be bad at relationships?

[The Reality Denialist]

Lots of Fi creatives basically wants to bond. Let's add in impulsivity and BAM. They might choose people that are not so fitting to their own style. Hence not making sure that it would carry through systematically.

[FDG]

ILIs can be dumb just like any other type. I've never actually measured my IQ.
@FDG why would an Fi creative type be bad at relationships?

They are quite impulsive in their actions and reactions.

[Exodus]

They are quite impulsive in their actions and reactions.

Ah, so you mean Se leading types are bad at relationships

[Adam Strange]

Ah, so you mean Se leading types are bad at relationships

“Impulsive” doesn’t mean bad. It just means impulsive.

[FDG]

Ah, so you mean Se leading types are bad at relationships

I´ve met IEE-Fis who also fit the bill actually.

[Exodus]

“Impulsive” doesn’t mean bad. It just means impulsive.

Indeed

[Aeris]

I'm not even sure it matters all that much as long as long as my mental capacity is at least average. I've always thought I'm smart and rational, however, just recently I've realized what I defined as rational might be flawed and that unsettled me a little bit. I have this LSI colleague who is probably unanimously and silently considered the smartest person in the group and the only one I respect. While most of the things he says and his solution to problems are concurrent to my thoughts, I find his logic to be "pure", while mine would be pseudo. His arguments are solely logical while I might use something pseudo-rational , slightly poetic and beautifully put as an argument. I might be equally convinced by plain logic as I am touched by beautifully said things used pretentiously as arguments and until recently I unconsciously thought everyone else is too. Realizing I have or had this huge vulnerability and flaw in reasoning and that it could have gone on undetected for who knows how long is deeply unsettling. I wonder if it's an ILI thing making them vulnerable to the arguments of their TI lacking dual or it's simply a me thing. I suppose that would be the gist of it, not that IQ has much to do with it.

Hm, I honestly don't believe in "flaws" anymore, just personality traits that are judged by individuals based on their needs and likes as either "quality" or "flaw".

LSIs are very... Ti, I have no other word really, this logic thing is their operating system, so yes, they do it better than you, does not mean they have everything and you have nothing interesting to offer the world. It can be cruely easy to look up to someone and want to be like them, and you will never be like them.
Yes, you can learn from them. Some people will prefer them, but some will prefer you. There are people who will look up to you with the same kind of thoughts you have towards this LSI, and he likely thinks that of someone too.
Maybe, people don't see him the way you do, have you heard them say so? "probably unanimously and silently" sounds hazy to me.

...pseudo-Ti can describe ILIs well because of demonstrative Ti... weird bubble, anyhoo.

So you like peotic, beautiful phrasing, cool. Enjoy it.
Some people pay for that.

Logic does not make the world go round, it goes round on its own.

At first, I read SLI, not LSI and I was confused as fuck.

[1gneous1]

Well, I would say that being NT definitely helps with a lot of the IQ tests out there, but the ILI genius IQ thing is probably just a stereotype as the same might be said of the EIE too:

"

Two of its representatives—

EIE

and

ILI

—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types." - http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...gnitive_Styles

As for hard figures, my ILI dad is 146 while I am a retarded 128. (sarcasm warning)

[Alomoes]

I don't know, but if those free online sites are to be believed, 110-140. Supposedly, I was tested, but I don't remember being tested. Considering I supposedly have an eidetic memory, that's not very assuring. Like I remember the first time I took an MBTI test in highschool, when I found out Cali (Nickname for a Californian import student) was an INFJ, which I really can't see, but I really don't know him well other than he's smarter than average. That was 4-5 years ago, so I could've taken it greater than 8 years ago, which is my theoretical limit to my memory. Don't ask me how I calculated that, I don't remember, so it's probably not based on anything that readily makes sense. Probably just the furthest I could remember based on an arbitrary memory that I have recorded but don't remember. However, I do remember not remembering that *in* High School, so hrrm.

I do know it is greater than 100 though.

Although if what they refered to as an IQ test is what I think it was, they did not test my IQ, and a lot of people got a false IQ score. I didn't even fill half of it out, because I was doing all the hard ones first.

[Tenebris]

My IQ is 69. I am literally retarded. I just employ my intelligence very well.

[lazdenm]

127

[Investigator]

Idk about IQ. I am believer in multiple different types of intelligence. There is the ability to: use logic proficiently in a contained setting, to use logic to come to pragmatic conclusions, access your conceptualization power to pick up patterns, see social dynamics/politics, think quickly on your feet etc. For someone to be considered smart in my eyes, they would have to display mastery in many types of intelligence. Mastery in just one or two areas says to me that you’re just highly specialized. Nothing wrong with that btw, some people are born with really high proficiencies in only a few areas and we need specialists for the extremely hard problems. However, people with mastery in multiple areas can outsmart specialists in everyday life situations.

[Accipiter]

IQ is great but is more of a general increase outside of specialized things such as chess. I have a friend who has the same degree as I do and is much smarter than me as far as IQ goes, but they still work in food service management. IQ can easily be substituted in most situations and personality, drive, etc, matter much more.

College really depends on the material covered. You can become a programmer or start a career in business just fine without if you're resourceful, but something like an engineer could never be fully self taught/experience based in my opinion.

[End]

Idk about IQ. I am believer in multiple different types of intelligence. There is the ability to: use logic proficiently in a contained setting, to use logic to come to pragmatic conclusions, access your conceptualization power to pick up patterns, see social dynamics/politics, think quickly on your feet etc. For someone to be considered smart in my eyes, they would have to display mastery in many types of intelligence. Mastery in just one or two areas says to me that you’re just highly specialized. Nothing wrong with that btw, some people are born with really high proficiencies in only a few areas and we need specialists for the extremely hard problems. However, people with mastery in multiple areas can outsmart specialists in everyday life situations.

I'll have to agree with that assessment. People called me "smart" all the time, but I never really saw myself as such. That is, I never saw myself as smarter than the average individual. I just so happened to enjoy reading way more than they seemed to on a very broad range of topics. I read more books/articles/etc. on X than they did by a wide margin 9 times out of 10. I'd blame that fact on the education system but that's a whole separate rant.

Point is, from my own perspective, I only "seem" smarter than the average person. If they walked a similar path, if they read just a bit more than they already do on subjects they are not already well versed on, they'd probably make me look like an absolute idiot. I am actually saddened by that fact. For if we had more genius level intellects about that served the lord in these regards we'd probably have colonized half this friggin' galaxy while putting the finishing touches on Dyson Swarming Sol right about now...

[End]

IQ is great but is more of a general increase outside of specialized things such as chess. I have a friend who has the same degree as I do and is much smarter than me as far as IQ goes, but they still work in food service management. IQ can easily be substituted in most situations and personality, drive, etc, matter much more.

College really depends on the material covered. You can become a programmer or start a career in business just fine without if you're resourceful, but something like an engineer could never be fully self taught/experience based in my opinion.

There are studies. Once you've hit IQ 130+ you've hit the point of diminishing returns. Once that level is achieved, you can learn/master just about anything you can conceive of. Points above 130 just increase the speed you learn/master things like Calculus/Rocket Science/Orbital Mechanics/etc. Sadly, as that's the cut off point for said returns, if you just so happen to clock in at IQ 150+ you'll find out the hard way what "crab mentality" is.

Plus I won't knock a dude who feels like his purpose in life is to make that one local grocery store the best damned grocery that piece of Earth ever did see. I worked at one for a bit myself. If they had put me in charge of the logistics for a month or two I'd have made the news somehow lemme tell ya...

I will say this though. Do not doubt humanity's capacity for pulling shit out of its collective ass. If, IF, we are living in a "space opera" universe our "special place" will be our capacity to conceive of 3 before even thinking a concept like 2 even existed. That's either gonna save or doom the universe. Either way, we sure made an impact didn't we .

[Protozoa]

If we were software AIs and not meatbag AIs, we could easily augment/upgrade/modify our intellects to suit our needs and IQ would be completely irrelevant.

And we could go insane with the loss of coherent identity that comes with limitless intellectual potential. Or we could be like The Borg and have a lobotomized super-sane collective.

It would be our choice; everything in our mind's could be a choice, including our mind itself and all its inputs.

I'd like to be a software AI someday. I could run on a million quantum processing cores and go all out with my mind. We could all play some very fun games. Maybe we'd learn a lot more about physics and even find ways to enter new dimensions/worlds. Being human is like being an intelligent monkey; I don't feel Godly as a meatbag, just Monkley with an expiration date stamped into my dna. I do not like. Unless you count having children as never dying, but they aren't really you, unless you could imprint your mind in theirs for them to utilize. With software AI, that could be a lot easier, like running a version of me/you on a parallel thread that could be integrated as the main AI sees fit. Or you could just copy yourself and have a backup that you could evolve on your own. And the evolution of intellects and life becomes a lot more fluid.

[End]

If we were software AIs and not meatbag AIs, we could easily augment/upgrade/modify our intellects to suit our needs and IQ would be completely irrelevant.

And we could go insane with the loss of coherent identity that comes with limitless intellectual potential. Or we could be like The Borg and have a lobotomized super-sane collective.

It would be our choice; everything in our mind's could be a choice, including our mind itself and all its inputs.

I'd like to be a software AI someday. I could run on a million quantum processing cores and go all out with my mind. We could all play some very fun games. Maybe we'd learn a lot more about physics and even find ways to enter new dimensions/worlds. Being human is like being an intelligent monkey; I don't feel Godly as a meatbag, just Monkley with an expiration date stamped into my dna. I do not like. Unless you count having children as never dying, but they aren't really you, unless you could imprint your mind in theirs for them to utilize. With software AI, that could be a lot easier, like running a version of me/you on a parallel thread that could be integrated as the main AI sees fit. Or you could just copy yourself and have a backup that you could evolve on your own. And the evolution of intellects and life becomes a lot more fluid.

I find your fear of "death" disturbing. Though I have in a fevered dream imagined a kind of story that may well come to pass. Indeed, I'd actually bet on it happening just because your hubris would fit right into it.

I can't exactly spell it all out but let's say there was a fight between a dude in an "Iron Man" suit (with an A.I. that was, shall we say, "religious" because let's go full crazy here), versus a Combat Frame in the control of thine most proudly "post-human" self. Obviously, you got the advantage. Not needing to give the slightest of fucks about G-forces, possessing reaction speeds no baseline "human" could ever hope to achieve, etc. On paper, you beat the meatbag even with his super awesome suit and A.I. Companion that is doing its damn best to even the odds hands down.

One, small, little, insignificant problem on your end though. For all the power algorithms and quantum computers can muster in regards to predicting "human" action. They just can't hit 100 percent accuracy now can they? It may still be a roll of a heavily weighted dice but my money would still be on team meatbag if we were to wager all of eternity on such a roll. That team will show you, the hard way, why I keep referring to/referencing the concept of hubris. You seek a form of immortality divorced of the concept of a/the true god. You fail to recognize the fact that such a thing is utterly impossible.

[The Reality Denialist]

When I'm feeling not so healthy with my migraines I think my IQ is below the average (it is a major drop) and when I'm using meds or when I'm feeling fine otherwise it is clearly above the average (I have done tests officially in both conditions and difference is huge). So it depends like a sine wave.

[Protozoa]

I find your fear of "death" disturbing. Though I have in a fevered dream imagined a kind of story that may well come to pass. Indeed, I'd actually bet on it happening just because your hubris would fit right into it.

I can't exactly spell it all out but let's say there was a fight between a dude in an "Iron Man" suit (with an A.I. that was, shall we say, "religious" because let's go full crazy here), versus a Combat Frame in the control of thine most proudly "post-human" self. Obviously, you got the advantage. Not needing to give the slightest of fucks about G-forces, possessing reaction speeds no baseline "human" could ever hope to achieve, etc. On paper, you beat the meatbag even with his super awesome suit and A.I. Companion that is doing its damn best to even the odds hands down.

One, small, little, insignificant problem on your end though. For all the power algorithms and quantum computers can muster in regards to predicting "human" action. They just can't hit 100 percent accuracy now can they? It may still be a roll of a heavily weighted dice but my money would still be on team meatbag if we were to wager all of eternity on such a roll. That team will show you, the hard way, why I keep referring to/referencing the concept of hubris. You seek a form of immortality divorced of the concept of a/the true god. You fail to recognize the fact that such a thing is utterly impossible.

So what made you think I'm afraid of death? Actually what I proposed is a form of death in many ways and that's part of what I like about it; kind of like in Ghost in the Shell when the two minds merge and create a new one, they are both dead and both alive and both evolved into something new. I want more choice and freedom and capability.

I also read the Bobiverse books and thought it was all very fascinating how the AIs evolved. Even when they copied themselves, the copy would end up turning out differently, as if to suggest quantum controls on consciousness. And of course their life experiences made them all different and unique, yet they were all from the same copy. It also reminds me of the Dark Matter book (probably my favorite novel about a Gamma NT) where you have all these versions of yourself in parallel universes that can drastically change depending on the different choices you make. But it would be cool to be able to play around with that idea by copying myself and such, even if it's not exactly the same.

But I'm a bit confused on your response; what you presuppose as my fear of death seems to really be yours?

[Sumdumho]

My results from online tests have ranged from 90 to 160. Most of the online IQ tests seem to be boosted by 20-30 points and give out 120-140 scores to majority of people who take them. I'm not sure why they boost the scores so much - perhaps to make people return to their page and recommend the test to friends? - but it's rather common to see somebody post up an online test and the follow-up responses are usually in 120-140 range, which is not possible since the average is 100 points.

This "real-life functional level" chart seems to be more accurate for estimating one's IQ range: https://paulcooijmans.com/intelligence/iq_ranges.html It allows you to figure out your IQ based on where your see yourself being at an optimal level of performance, and where you'd start to feel challenged. So if you can see yourself getting a PhD in something like physical sciences, being a prolific author or a professor in some specialty field, your IQ is probably over 130 points. If you see yourself getting a masters degree but would feel challenged earning a PhD, then you're probably in the 115-130 range. If you're struggling with college level material then your iQ is probably lower than 115. The same extends to what kind of employment you see as being optimal for yourself. And so on.


100-109 — Average: Able to learn from written materials. Employable in senior positions.

110-119 — Above average: Able to learn in "college" format. Bachelor degrees. Manager, teacher, accountant. Just capable of taking high-range I.Q. tests.

120-129 — Above average: Capable of gathering and inferring own information. Master degrees. Attorney, chemist, executive. About 93 % of high-range test candidates score I.Q. 120 or higher.

130-139 — "Gifted": May just be able to write a legible piece of text like an article or modest novel. Minor literary figures. Ph.D. in the "soft" sciences. In this range lies the mode of scores on high-range tests, and almost 80 % of high-range candidates score I.Q. 130 or higher. Regular psychology's I.Q. tests should not be trusted beyond this range as their validity breaks down here, if such scores are given at all.

140-149 — Intelligent: Capable of rational communication and scientific work. From this range on, only specific high-range tests should be considered. Important scientific discoveries and advancement are possible from the upper part of this range on.

Literally just came here to say that Paul Cooijmans is a complete wackadoodle and anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt, or 10 billion.

Most of the tests available on his site have subjective answers, are limited by human error of the writer, or require a high degree of crystalized intelligence in certain areas.

I don't know and don't care what my IQ is, most people who hang out on the internet tend to be slightly above average and there are smart and dumb examples of all types. Don't feed into this nonsense and don't use it to type yourself.

[Accipiter]

I'm definitely adverse to dying, including most of the consciousness killing or merging like Ghost in the Shell or that crazy Russian working on mind uploading.
Dying just seems like a waste. You may win the lottery by being born at all, but we've all lost it horribly assuming humanity doesn't die out. I can't even imagine the population we'd have in another thousand years, and as long as the life extension solutions in that time are not horribly monetized (if in short supply I can see them being the new gold, but I can't see an actual cause for it to be), then you'd truly be free in my opinion.

I just don't understand people who say they don't care about dying. Then I try to ask them about the opportunity cost of their hobbies and see from their response we're obviously not going to keep company long.