very true, just uncommon.Originally Posted by 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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
dumb NT's are uncommon
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.
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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
agreed, but we need to know what we are speaking about when we do. IQ is the closest thing to quantification.
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)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
roflstiltzkins, so wrong.
Can you give any examples of dumb NT's?
D-SEI9w1
This is me and my dual being scientific together
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....
D-SEI
This is me and my dual being scientific together
Nice try.
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)
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".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.
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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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.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.
Wikipedia's no particularly good source, but: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%.
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.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)
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.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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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)
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
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.
Goodstuff.
Are you talking socionics NT or MBTI NT in this part?The whole NTs are teh smarter is what you make of the facts. someone has high IQ, then they are a NT.$ FDG certainly has a high IQ, but many people do not think that he is NT and that he is SF, this is not against the facts either.
I'm just having fun withtoday. Cheerios.
And in what sense do you mean the part between the dollar signs?
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
