question on intelligence

[strrrng]

yeah, salawa, those online ones are mediocre at best....I've never taken a real one, but my old therapist told me what was on it and demonstrated some stuff. there are four categories: verbal, spatial, processing speed and short-term memory. basically, visual is like the blocks and drawing pictures, i.e. attention to detail....processing speed deals with matrices and symbol-coding, short-term memory is where they say #'s, letters or both, in any order and you have to repeat them back....and then verbal is like metaphors and conceptual reasoning and vocab.

I would not be surprised at all if an ESTj scored higher on memory than an INTj....I think the visual fields are where NT's would score best, NF's might score higher on verbal....

In 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', the author, Robert Pirsig, mentioned his IQ of 170 dismissively, saying the test was just analytic manipulation.

[Ezra]

I'd say that most people on this forum are open-minded enough to recognise that each type is valuable in their own way. However, I think that in wider society, there is definitely a bias in the clever people being NTs (nerds). NT stands for something else - Nerdic Thinker.

Salawa, just out of interest, which game is your picture from? It looks like C&C or Rise and Fall or something.

[strrrng]

It doesn't make any sense that an NT would score highest on visual as a rule -- such a task is mostly related, I would think.

Which is not to say that an individual NT won't, but rather I wouldn't make that prediction based only on sociotype.

One moment, I'll find my test report so I can make a better comment.

ahh, this is what I hoped you would notice. I would conjecture that S's would be better at the visual portion that deals with attention to detail and quick scanning...however, the block are about abstract patterns, seeing the whole....so intuiters would theoretically be better at that (I suck at scanning shit, but can synthesize shapes and stuff like that easily).

you took a real test? cool. please share

[FDG]

It's just not true. There are dumb NTs with typical NT interests but that don't understand things particularly well or easily, and the opposite is true for SFs.

[strrrng]

It's just not true. There are dumb NTs with typical NT interests but that don't understand things particularly well or easily, and the opposite is true for SFs.

very true, just uncommon.

[FDG]

very true, just uncommon.

No, no. I know all the people that were in the top 20 as far as SAT scores go at my college, and they're pretty evenly distributed across the 4 temperaments. Sorry.

[strrrng]

I think dumb people are much more common than one would hope.

dumb NT's are uncommon

No, no. I know all the people that were in the top 20 as far as SAT scores go at my college, and they're pretty evenly distributed across the 4 temperaments. Sorry.

SAT's!!?? are you kidding me? anyone can score high on the SAT's as long as they have half a brain and have been programmed by the school system to think a certain way. The SAT is not a good indicator of true intelligence.

[FDG]

Yeah yeah, so it's you the only one able to assess intelligence. Which could be even true, but we need an objective standard in order to be able to speak the same language.

[Gilly]

dumb NT's are uncommon

roflstiltzkins, so wrong.

[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.

[Mediator Kam]

I'd say that most people on this forum are open-minded enough to recognise that each type is valuable in their own way. However, I think that in wider society, there is definitely a bias in the clever people being NTs (nerds). NT stands for something else - Nerdic Thinker.

I've met many NT's who compete in sports and succeed, such as soccer and swimming. Like my father, I could never describe him as a nerd. Well maybe, he doesn't care how he dresses.

[strrrng]

And SAT scores have a pretty good correlation with IQ scores so I used it as proxy (turns out these 20 people i spoke about all have wide and varied interests bla bla, none of them is your typical guy that has to study 3423545 hours to get an high score. You'll see that this is generally the case for the tail of the distro)

yeah, I agree. if you take an IQ test, then take an SAT, the results will be similar. but these days, peoples' final scores on their SAT's are higher than their actual abilities, unless they're one of the really smart people who takes it once and does really well.

[Jarno]

It doesn't make any sense that an NT would score highest on visual as a rule -- such a task is mostly related, I would think.

That task is not Se in my opinion.

A visual/spatial test usually means twisting and turning pictures in your mind.

I would say intuitives score highest on these because of their imagination.

[MysticSonic]

IQ isn't related to type. Period. I thought this forum itself would've made this clear by now.

[Jarno]

IQ isn't related to type. Period. I thought this forum itself would've made this clear by now.

Isn't this the same faulty comment as saying, working with tools isn't type related.

Or saying becoming a professional boxer isn't type related.

I do think that there are some quality's that certain types have with which they have an advantage on IQ tests. (assuming IQ test is a reliable criteria for measuring intelligence)

Thinking that all types have equal qualities on all different aspects of life (including intelligence) is ignorant.

[MysticSonic]

Isn't this the same faulty comment as saying, working with tools isn't type related.

Or saying becoming a professional boxer isn't type related.

I do think that there are some quality's that certain types have with which they have an advantage on IQ tests. (assuming IQ test is a reliable criteria for measuring intelligence)

Thinking that all types have equal qualities on all different aspects of life (including intelligence) is ignorant.

I agree that not all types possess either the same qualities or skills in all "different aspects of life." Saying otherwise would be an extremely bizarre assertion for someone whom asserts Socionics to be, at least at some level, true. However, throughout my entire time on this forum I have seen, at least to the extent that I can gauge intelligence, no correlation of type and intelligence. As well, although they are inherently faulty and flawed, studies on MBTI types show little to no correlation in IQ to type as well. Whatever MBTI is describing, I feel it is at least similar enough to Socionics to be at least taken into consideration.

As well, let us consider the fact that IQ tests are, theoretically, not supposed to be effected by the amount of practice one has in that area or field of thought. It is supposed to be an objective measure of general intelligence and capacity to learn. A type, whose skills I believe(and obviously this is going to be subjective due to my own understanding of Socionics) in their type come from preference and practice rather than innate ability, for the most part, would not have any effect upon such a measurement. And although the matter how innate and unchangeable IQ truly is is a matter of debate, I believe there is fairly strong evidence to show that IQ is a generally static measure of one's general intelligence(whatever that might mean.) There would undoubtedly be complications in the relations between type and IQ, and they undoubtedly effect each other to some degree, but the matter itself I believe is a topic I believe to be generally irrelevant to Socionics in terms of its significance and has no reason for being brought upon from any practical point of view.