You should listen more to SG. He has got all the answers:Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by Ganin
You should listen more to SG. He has got all the answers:Originally Posted by Logos
Originally Posted by Ganin
But you should know that having answers does not necessarily mean that one has the right ones.Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yeah, it's high, it's 1 percent of the population.Originally Posted by aka-kitsune
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You can't "agree" with statistics. They are fucking data, not opinions.Originally Posted by Jarno
Are you serious? 37 times more likely? This means that Ns have to be 100/37 = 2.7; 100-2.7= 97.3 % of the high IQ population...I read that for high IQ, an I is 8 times more likely than E, an N 37 times more likely than S, a T 2 times more likely than F, and a J about 3 times more likely than P.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
yes, that makes sense - 37 gifted N's for every gifted S. I could name 15+ gifted/genius N's off the top of my head but the only S I know of is MadonnaOriginally Posted by FDG
4w3-5w6-8w7
These stats are really self-fufilling prophocies... I'm sorry, it's a joke, you have to know where a number comes from before you believe it blindly...Originally Posted by strrrng
And what about Richard Nixon for example? Most type him as an "S" (I say estj) and he had something around a 145... I remember it being reported as the highest IQ if the modern presidents. A lot of people type Edison as an "S" too... the whole thing seems pretty absurd if you ask me.
It's more likely that either intelligent people are often mistyped as Ns, or that IQ tests are biased toward N types, or some combination, than that those statistics are accurate.Originally Posted by Rocky
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I used to believe in the stereotype of N-people being smarter. However I'm finally starting to understand socionics and I'm seeing how many "smart people" I typed as N-types are not N-types. E.g. one ISTp I know is smart as hell (who I thought is INTp). It is easy to fall to the MBTI-test trap that if you are interested in intellectual pursuits then you are N-type (often it just means you are intelligent and might be N or S). I don't deny that many of the leading scientists _seem_ very intelligent N-types but that doesn't say much about them having higher IQ than e.g. many sensory types who do very well in another line of business. Perhaps creating scientific theories is naturally more N-field and so a very intelligent N-type is likely to realize his/her potential in science or perhaps arts. A very intelligent S-type is less likely to do "pure science" or arts but perhaps engineering, business or practical medicine instead. And so on.Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
How can a test be biased towards something that didn't exist when the test was invented? IQ tests, from my understanding, value abstract thinking, visual/conceptual processing, pattern recognition....N's are typically more conceptual, visual, abstract, thus able to deal with concepts more easily than S's, who prefer concrete data/facts.Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I'm not saying one is better. But there is a correlation.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Just systematically unwittingly.Originally Posted by strrrng
I think you have a very skewed understanding of the difference between S and N.Originally Posted by strrrng
It's more like s types use their intelligence (abstract thinking, pattern recognistion etc.) on concrete tangibile goals while n types on abstract intangibile goals.Originally Posted by strrrng
translation: (...jargon...)Originally Posted by electric
really? You wouldn't happen to be an S, would you? Either way, enlighten me - well, I'm sure your knowledge is too vast, so just a general glimpse will suffice. Better yet - critique my brief summary of what I believe to be S and N traits:Originally Posted by Rocky
N: abstract, dreamy, big picture, head-in-clouds, visual and conceptual, likes theory, likes variety, imaginative, creative.
S: Practical, efficient, methodical, step-by-step, down-to-earth, observant, present-oriented, focus on details and facts, concrete.
how's that?
I think you're right in one sense, but your intelligence level is your intelligence level.Originally Posted by electric
4w3-5w6-8w7
Without jargon:Originally Posted by strrrng
Unwittingly.
lol. alright, but still, the intelligence test was designed to tap into all aspects of mental ability; so, if it was unwittingly biased towards intuitives, that just means intuitives are smarter (not my opinion, just hypothetical).Originally Posted by electric
4w3-5w6-8w7
I don't know what you mean.Originally Posted by strrrng
Generally n types in s field or activity (usually very narrow activities) appear less intelligent, they seem to miss out the important things, focus on the wrong things, everything is learnt and repeated, things just aren't very flexible. They make more bad mistakes, they learn slower etc.
And it's the same visa-versa. It's also the same with F types in T fields and so on.
That's assuming that the people creating the tests fully understand what they're are doing and the MBTIers fully understand what they're doing (since your using the MBTI description of n vs s).Originally Posted by strrrng
People on the socionics side don't believe that the MBTI people are right about their iterpretations on s vs n.
Very poor.Originally Posted by strrrng
Enlightening you would require you to think about where those definitions came from... history leason... see, a long time ago a guy named Carl Jung described the functions. Then a woman named Myers decided to make a simple test for it so she simplfied the functions to a bunch of easy words to identify with it, to classify people. Unfortunately along the way people started to confuse those test questions for the ACTUAL qualities of the people. And this is where you've got your definitions from. In reality, these words are basically meaningless. The word "perception" means how one views the world, and Jung used it because, he thought, people deal with their sorrounding in 4 basic ways. Understanding what he meant by that is what it's all about. But you have to actually, you know, know people to understand how they can look at the same thing and see something different.
ok, so I will refrain from alluding to actual character traits and stick with modes of perception - I get what you mean.Originally Posted by Rocky
(and now back onto N vs. S intelligence.....)
4w3-5w6-8w7
I hate when off-topic topics get back on topic.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
yeah man hahahahaOriginally Posted by hkkmr
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often