question on intelligence

[Gilly]

Can you give any examples of dumb NT's?

Not off the top of my head, but I know enough in person.

[Mediator Kam]

Not off the top of my head, but I know enough in person.

Almost every NT I know personally has been as smart as me or smarter, except this one ENTj I met, but that's another story....

[Gilly]

Almost every NT I know personally has been as smart as me or smarter, except this one ENTj I met, but that's another story....

Then odds are you're typing those people NT just because they're smart. Or, you're avoiding typing the dumb ones as NTs. Or both; probably as likely as either one alone.

[strrrng]

Not off the top of my head, but I know enough in person.

exactly how are they "dumb?" Something tells me you're gonna say how impractical they are or something like that. I have never met a dumb - even average - NT.

[Mediator Kam]

Then odds are you're typing those people NT just because they're smart. Or, you're avoiding typing the dumb ones as NTs. Or both; probably as likely as either one alone.

Absolutely not, when I typed these guys, I knew little about socionics or even realized that NT's are supposed to be smart. I did it the MBTI way of typing, and then when I learned more about them, I confirmed my typings and now that people say that NT=intelligence, I must agree.

The assumption that I would type people as NT temperament because they are smart is ridiculous.

[Mediator Kam]

That's your entire problem.

I fail to see your point.

MBTI is not an vastly inferior system compared to socionics. I find that socionics explains a lot of my questions that I had with MBTI, and that Model A.... really nice.

Yes, I had typed these people using an MBTI system, but that in itself is not damning. When I discovered Socionics, I went back and reexamined these people, and they still ended up being of the NT temperament.

[Creepy-pokeball]

This is like one of those topics that is never ending, yet gets rehashed into a new face.

[Mediator Kam]

In MBTI there is bias towards typing intelligent people as intuitives.

While that is true, I would say that the majority of intelligent people have a thought pattern that corresponds to NT temperament. So yeah, enough with the rehashing.

[Creepy-pokeball]

While that is true, I would say that the majority of intelligent people have a thought pattern that corresponds to NT temperament. So yeah, enough with the rehashing.

It depends on what your base value of intelligence IS.

[Gilly]

I fail to see your point.

MBTI is not an vastly inferior system compared to socionics. I find that socionics explains a lot of my questions that I had with MBTI, and that Model A.... really nice.

Yes, I had typed these people using an MBTI system, but that in itself is not damning. When I discovered Socionics, I went back and reexamined these people, and they still ended up being of the NT temperament.

The point is:

In MBTI, N=intelligence. Your typing of those people was influenced by this idea. So you typed Ns as smart. Duh. It's pretty simple logic.

NT is not a temperament. It's a club. And they each have drastically different thought patterns.

[Mediator Kam]

You guys just killed my self-esteem.

I'm gonna go do what my type does best.

brb.

[Gilly]

Low self-esteem is totally funny.

[Creepy-pokeball]

You guys just killed my self-esteem.

I'm gonna go do what my type does best.

brb.

/wrists? It is the sociological season for such an event, afterall! But I dont recommend it. Santa gets pissed if others wear red.

[Mediator Kam]

Low self-esteem is totally funny.

It wasn't a joke man, I sat there for like 5 minutes reading Salawa's ILI post feeling like shit. But I'm happy again. w00

/wrists? It is the sociological season for such an event, afterall! But I dont recommend it. Santa gets pissed if others wear red.

lol, that was clever.

[Gilly]

Sounds like you were really feeling down about yourself.

[Mediator Kam]

Sounds like you were really feeling down about yourself.

oh absolutely. I'm listening to My Chemical Romance right now.

So.....

There's no direct evidence that NT types are smarter than other types, right?

[BLauritson]

There's no direct evidence that NT types are smarter than other types, right?

Correct. If there ever could be a final answer to this question, the answer would be that intelligence is not type related.

[Gilly]

If there ever could be a final answer to this question, the answer would be that intelligence is not type related.

Do you realize that this totally contradicts your affirmative response to Kamangir's question?

[BLauritson]

If it does, I appear to have misunderstood something along the line somewhere. Please elaborate.

[Gilly]

Scratch that, I read you wrong. My bad.

[BLauritson]

Scratch that, I read you wrong. My bad.

No worries

[FDG]

a modest differential might be a nice ego boost. but i'd rather it not be so high that i have difficulty finding a smart SF outside of college.

(among other reasonings, i want whatever copies of myself that are made to be smart, too!)

If you're in a given college-program-whatever, you'll have trouble finding somebody as "smart" as you in anything which is of a "lower-smartness-level" without reference to them being NT, SF, ST, or NF, I think?

[Gilly]

if "there's no direct evidence", then my "final answer to this question" would be: i don't know.

This is kinda what I was saying, but I guess I shied away because it wasn't directly contradictory. I think you have it here, though.

[Gilly]

It's MBTI however.

It might as well be astrology. Doesn't matter. At all.

[FDG]

Average NT's are more common then smart NT's. That goes for everyone for that matter.
The only reason intelligence studies and type studies correlate happens to be because of the high proportion of gifted specimens of certain psychological type versus other types. Statistically different enough to be investigated.

As far as gifted people of every type, they're common enough that it is likely for one to encounter a gifted person of any type any time. There is no lack of intelligent people, average people or dumb people of any type. The evidence is that distribution is skewed towards certain traits.

Most people are average. Few are challenged, and few are gifted.

What I think in many cases happen is that somebody that has the typical "gifted" charateristics will type him-herslef as N(or, to a lesser extent, T) even if that's not his-her true preference, mostly because the functions N and T are commonly associated with typical "smartness-related" questions; this is imho the source of skewedness in the distribution (I know an ESFP that tests as ENFP because she has a super high IQ, and ISFJ that test as ISTJ for the same reason, etc)

I think most of the time when people discuss intelligence it is in reference to standardized intelligence test of measure of intelligence. I think sometimes it is the folly of intelligent people to dismiss the effect their own intelligence has had on their lives. A lot of times they act out of a sense of humility, or in my opinion false humility. They talk about how it wasn't how smart they are but it was their hard work and dedication that got them thru or perhaps a religious underpinning to the rhetoric, rarely is this the case.

There are strong correlations between prison, dropping out of highschool, illegitimate children and various other social ills that exist for people of deficient intelligence.

Yeah, but the crime rates, high school dropout probability and illegitimate children rates tend to drop from 1 std deviation from the mean and above, which isn't yet the border for being considered "gifted".

Basically my point is that much of the skewedness in the distribution is due to bias in the way MBTI questions are worded rather than real differences in IQ distributions of different types.

[Gilly]

I feel bad for you a little bit, you were getting kinda of picked on.

But N is related to abstract thought in not just MBTI, it is similar in Jung and socionics.

So in a way it is related to the standardized testing that take place for general intelligence.

And MBTI is not vastly inferior to Socionics, MBTI was and is mostly concerned with testing and have developed consistent testing for the psychological types it identifies. It lacks certain structural concept and methods to predict intertype relations that socionic has but it is better in some areas. Are they compatible? Well that's debateable but I think both subjects investigate the same phenomena which is human "personality".

I think where people here start talking ennegrams and use that as a statistical measurement and correlate that measurement with type it's far less effective then MBTI. Like some posters will say that a Socionic X cannot be a ennegram Y.

The sad thing is a lot of socionics people read about here are quite related to MBTI as a lot of the writings on socionics was a early attempt to integrate and adopt certain MBTI terminology in a effort to advance the field. So I more or less raise a eyebrow when people say that MBTI is absolute shit and should be absolutely and positively dismissed. That's like saying Jung is absolute shit and should be dismissed. And as I have studied the socionic community and the disagreements that exists within this community it's more and more evident where MBTI has huge advantages over socionics application wise and marketing wise.

So cheer up, you're not ignorant at all.

Nobody can say it's inferior or superior objectively, obviously. It just has no logically justifiable influence on Socionics; they're completely discrete systems, despite being based on the same typology.

[FDG]

1) my reply wasn't meant to be very empirical (hence the use of the vague term "smart".)

i was just making the point that it's not necessarily in one's interest for their self-identified club to be overwhemingly better at something. unless you want your duals to on average be overwhelmingly worse. (i don't.)

Oh yeah I agree then.

2) what if you're in a less-intelligent club looking for someone in a more-intelligent club? (not that i'm necessarily saying there are any such clubs.) but that effect could outweigh the effect of the college-program-whatever's average intelligence.

i was mostly talking about the general population though (in #1).

Ok, if you suppose that there are more intelligent and less intelligent clubs, then I see your point

[Gilly]

it matters in so far as the MBTI correlates with socionics and standardized testing correlates with what is meant by intelligence.

truthfully, i think those correlations are nonzero and it matters somewhat. but not enough for me to really argue about it right now.

If you're not capable of quantifying the correlation, then don't assume there is one. Yeah, there might be some correlation, but it's not worth the mess that people get into when they try to find out exactly what it is. You're better off not bothering with it at all as long as you're talking about Socionics.

[Gilly]

have some experienced socionists type some people. then have some experienced MBTI practitioners type the same people.

(actually, have half of the sample MBTI-tested first to reduce any bias in the order tests are administered.)

then see how the categorizations match up.

similar studies have been done before (see Lytov's site.) although with limited samples and rigor.

I am an experienced Socionist, unless you want to say that 3 and something years of study is worth dick. I've also been familiar with MBTI since I was about 12; it's what got me into Socionics. My mother is a Socionics LSE and an MBTI ENTJ. My father is a Socionics EII and an MBTI INFP. I am an MBTI ENFP and a Socionics ILE or SLE. My sister is an MBTI ENFJ and a Socioncs EII or LII.

I kinda know what I'm talking about, here.

[FDG]

You mean like you... Haha, I'm just joking tho. I can't really comment on your personal experience, but I'm sure this exists to a certain extent but this should be factored into the studies. However, even from theory. What intuition is in Jung Typology should indicate greater success on the tasks being presented in standardized testing. Regardless of MBTI, socionics or other typeology based on Jung. It is however /not/ causation. Which is where you might be trying to go, correlation <> causation and I'm not going to talk about causation since I really don't know.

I do agree that what Jung states regarding extraverted intuition makes it more palatable as a skill for good performance on IQ tests, however what about introverted intuition? I see no reason in its description to consider it as a good skill for test-taking. But I may be missing something - Jung's language is hard to understand for me.

I don't think Gifted was any kind of super out of norm type, it was just 1 std deviation from the mean. If you look at the % of the high gifted types it was in the double digit % which is within the top 25% range but not above the top 5%.

Wikipedia's no particularly good source, but:

Some IQ testers use these classifications to describe differing levels of giftedness. The following bands apply with a standard deviation of σ = 15 on a standardized IQ test. Each band represents a difference of one standard deviation from the mean of a standard distribution.
Bright: 115+, or one in six (84th percentile)
Moderately gifted: 130+, or 1 in 50 (97.9th percentile)
Highly gifted: 145+, or 1 in 1000 (99.9th percentile)
Exceptionally gifted: 160+, or 1 in 30,000 (99.997th percentile)
Profoundly gifted: 175+, or 1 in 3 million (99.99997th percentile)

Moderately gifted means 2 std deviations from the mean, and that's the first bracket for which the word gifted is used. But arguing semantics is pointless anyway.

But looking at MBTI statistically, most people are sensing, most people are extraverts. So if one would presume that distribution is equal, then perhaps this is merely a MBTI phenonma. But I think some experiments are in order if you want to prove somehow socionic type is or is not related to intelligence. I would say first do the IQ test, do not release results, then have a group do the socionic assessment as well as a MBTI one. MBTI being the control. This might be a good experiment for a psych student.

There are various ways to maintain the validity of such a experimental apparatus.

Ok, I see that you point is basically that we should trust MBTI test results as a good indicator of one's own type. I tend to disagree, I think that diagnosis of certain types is harder via MBTI and that there's the intelligence bias I explained. I don't know if they naturally correct for that via statistical methods, maybe.

[Gilly]

And you should continue to do so. Now just stop mentioning it and potentially leading people astray, and you'll be on the right path.

I'm aware that sample is small, but you are intelligent enough to see my point, I hope. A whole family full of people whose MBTI and Socionics types are different is no coincidence.

[Gilly]

Sorry for the insult, by the way; I tried to retract it.

[Gilly]

My brother-in-law, as well; MBTI ENFP, Socionics ESE.

[Jarno]

My brother-in-law, as well; MBTI ENFP, Socionics ESE.

hahaha you gotta be kidding right?

I'm starting to like this forum. But for different reasons then I came here...

[Gilly]

hahaha you gotta be kidding right?

I'm starting to like this forum. But for different reasons then I came here...

Not sure what you're playing at, but I'm entirely serious.

[BLauritson]

Apologies for interrupting the current trend in the thread, but I just wanted to clear this up:

if "there's no direct evidence", then my "final answer to this question" would be: i don't know.

This is kinda what I was saying, but I guess I shied away because it wasn't directly contradictory. I think you have it here, though.

My bad, I'd phrased the initial post the wrong way. When I said "this question" I should've said something like "the question of whether or not intelligence is type related". That's what I get for responding to something that half-exists in my mind I suppose. Oh well, I shall leave again now *fades back into the shadows*

[strrrng]

I don't think Gifted was any kind of super out of norm type, it was just 1 std deviation from the mean. If you look at the &#37; of the high gifted types it was in the double digit % which is within the top 25% range but not above the top 5%.

"gifted" is not one std from the mean. 1 std deviation puts you in the top 16% - that is above average. 2 std's would put you in the top 2% - that can be considered gifted. 145 is probably the best approximation for "genius" (lol).

[marooned]

I don't know if there's such a bias in Socionics. But there certainly is one on this forum (I think very few posters actually hold such a bias, but it's enough).

I think just on a fundamental level it irks me. Your type has to do with which IM aspects you are more directly tapped into, yes?: i.e. what kind of information are you pulling out of reality the most. You're pulling on all 8 aspects of course, but some of them you're paying a lot of constant attention to, while others you're just paying attention to when you have to, or trying to at least keep tabs on... That, fundamentally, has nothing to do with your intelligence. Since we aren't omniscient, we can't possibly glean every conceivable piece of information out of reality at all times--there's just too much of it.

Intelligence has more to do with what you actually do in your mind with the information you have taken out of reality. How well do you interconnect the information? Assess it? Draw conclusions from it? Use it to figure things out? Blah, blah, blah.

I mean if you want to convince me that there's this undeniable correlation between NTs and being more intelligent than everyone else, then I would need to see some well conducted studies (unfortunately, I would need to see them in English, and covering a diverse array of people including but not limited to Russians). First we would need a way to try to confirm that the people we think are NTs actually are NTs in the study (and that the other groupings are what we think they are... the reasons for the conclusions would need to be stated as well). Then we would have to define "intelligence" for the sake of the study and figure out which sort(s) of intelligence we're measuring. The test would need to be as unbiased as possible. Different sorts of similar tests would need to be conducted numerous times with well chosen (large) sample groups. Then if you can find a correlation that NTs are generally scoring higher, it still doesn't mean they're smarter, just that they seem to be doing better on this particular sort of test. Then one would need to figure out why and how this has anything to do with the fact that they're very attuned to the Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te information aspects (and there could still be other biases or factors contributing). Then after I read all of this crap and analyzed it, it might be possible to convince me there's something to the idea of NTs being more intelligent.

Otherwise, no. It doesn't make sense. I am naturally inclined to imagine no such correlation--again, because I don't see how your preferred mode of information intake has much to do with your intelligence. Even if there seems to be a connection, there are too many other non-intelligence related factors that might be contributing.

And the other thing is it's better to consider others on their individual merits without lumping them into categories before you even get to know them. What possible point would there be to find proof that certain types seem to be "more intelligent" than others? So certain pompous people who *think* they're NTs can sit about and think themselves masters of the universe? A worthwhile aim indeed.

[Smilingeyes]

The bias against SF's is somewhat smaller than it is against individual functions IMO.

While this forum was brand new there was a bias against non-alphas and for Ne + Ti in particular. A long standing socionics convention... While we managed to purge this to an extent the gamma NTs appear to be the primary beneficiaries of the events and the alpha SFs the ones to suffer the most from the events... But that goes just for this forum...

The other convention, that being alpha means to be gifted and multi-talented is likely still quite prevalent in the russian community.

Indeed, I find the whole 'we NTs are teh intelligent' thing to be a rather obvious power-play and a somewhat despicable one too for that mtter. OTOH it's a type trait in and of itself. I've met plenty of stupid NTs but never one that didn't think themselves smart in some way.

Anyway, intelligence is only important in as much as it translates to benefit for the individual. One might as well concentrate on other, more important ways to measure people: life expectancy, self-reported happiness, the number of direct descendants, average monthly income...

Ignoring the categories of intelligence (social, musical etc.) intelligence is supposed to be according to the dictionary:
1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason
(2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
bChristian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind
c: mental acuteness : shrewdness
2 a: an intelligent entity; especially : angel
b: intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3: the act of understanding : comprehension
4 a: information news
b: information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information5: the ability to perform computer functions

If we pick the first definition, the ability to learn in the general sense, the ability to learn anything... we have a primarily biological trait defined by the abilities of a person's nerve tissue in general. By that definition the geniuses are anyone who is in kindergarten and we are all morons. Our brain plasticity and adaptability is pathetic in comparison.

Definition number two is two-fold. The application of knowledge in individual situations is something that is easier for S-types, the abstract pondering easier for N-types.
(I'll disregard the christian science and the general idea of shrewdness for now)

The act of understanding, comprehension...
Ok, this creates the question of what is 'understanding'. How do we know a person 'understands' something... By the ability to repeat standard knowledge? Hardly. To me understanding is shown by the ability to create a relatively beneficial outcome of an encounter with the object of understanding. But here's another interesting thing. Understanding something is only possible if there is information on the subject. So this form of intelligence is actually a product of education. (Not that the previously mentioned brain plasticity/ learning ability isn't partially a product of the environment as well... correct nutrition for example has a significant role...)

Anyway... to be proud of one's intelligence is stupidity. Simply to go around and proclaims 'I am intelligent' is asinine. In socionics the habit of NT types to claim mastery of all skills they happen to think of and relegate to other functions simply such issues as Si= health, Fe = emotions ... it is despicable and quite telling of the lack of true understanding by these people.

(hmm... letter 'a' in my keyboard not working properly... apologizing for any resulting typos)

[strrrng]

Understanding something is only possible if there is information on the subject. So this form of intelligence is actually a product of education.

not necessarily. think about people who created mathematical systems...there wasn;t specific information on the subject...they had to infer based on certain observations. and also, it's not all about education/crystallized intelligence...people also can solve new problems.