Socionics Intelligence System

[Raver]

Okay, basically like almost every system I create, I expect some controversy due to the bias that is inevitable. Everyone is welcome to comment on the system and give their own ideas on what type is the most intelligent etc... Keep in mind that this system that I created has to do with how intelligence correlates with socioncs. It does NOT indicate that actual type is always going to be smarter than a type with less points, since a lot of factors are involved with intelligence that I ignored.

Anyways, here is my intelligence socionics system, each type is rewarded intelligence points based on a reward system:

Intelligence and Socionics

Highly Intelligent

1. INTJ and INTP = 15.625 points
2. ENTP and ENTJ = 15 points

Moderately Intelligent

3. ISTJ and INFP = 11.875 points
4. ESTJ and ENFP = 11.25 points
5. INFJ and ISTP = 10.625 points
6. ENFJ and ESTP = 10 points

Sparsely Intelligent

7. ISFJ and ISFP = 6.875 points
8. ESFP and ESFJ = 5.75 points

Reward System:

This system was created by me by using the two dominant functions of each type. Each function was worth a certain number of points that I felt attributed to intelligence.

Judgement

Ti: 10 points
Te: 7.5 points
Fi: 5 points
Fe: 2.5 points

Perception:

Ni: 10 points
Ne: 7.5 points
Si: 5 points
Se: 2.5 points

Scoring The Total

The 1st dominant function is added completely to 75% of the 2nd dominant function and that determines how many points a type will have.

Intelligence Partners

Every type has a partner that is equal to them intelligence. However, they are intelligence in different ways. When it comes to those under the highly intelligent and sparsely intelligent crowd. They have mirror images of their functions and the judgement and perception functions are flipped. For the moderately intelligent crowd, their intelligence partner has the exact opposite type of intelligence in terms of judgement and perception. It is like they are intelligent in completely different things than their partner, but they are still equally intelligent.

Created by: Young and Confused

[Rocky]

No offense, but none of your threads ever make any sense. You are looking at this thing completely wrong.

BTW, what the fuck *is* intelligence?

[MysticSonic]

No.

[WVBRY]

1. How do you define intelligence?

2. How do you measure "intelligence"?

Answer those questions and maybe youll make a minimum of sense. :wink:

[Raver]

1. How do you define intelligence?

2. How do you measure "intelligence"?

Answer those questions and maybe youll make a minimum of sense. :wink:

1. The ability and speed to understand ideas/meanings and the world you live in.

2. When it comes to socionics, realize which functions of each personality are better suited to perform what was stated in number 1.

[Zeia]

1. How do you define intelligence?

2. How do you measure "intelligence"?

Answer those questions and maybe youll make a minimum of sense. :wink:

1. The ability and speed to understand ideas/meanings and the world you live in.

2. When it comes to socionics, realize which functions of each personality are better suited to perform what was stated in number 1.

Please stop.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

According to your definition, and Aushra Augusta's explaination of S/N, sensors would be the more "intelligent" ones.

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

[Raver]

It does NOT indicate that actual type is always going to be smarter than a type with less points, since a lot of factors are involved with intelligence that I ignored.

As I said here, this does not mean that an INTj is going to be smarter than an ESFP. Of course there are so many factors involved that I ignored completely. This system only accounts if each person with equal intelligence were to compare themselves to other types. Please don't dismiss the system immediately unless you realize that.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Zeia]

This system only accounts if each person with equal intelligence were to compare themselves to other types. Please don't dismiss the system immediately unless you realize that.

If they had equal intelligence nothing you said would work, INTj = ESFj which you compared as Highly Intelligent and Sparsely Intelligent.

[WVBRY]

If you define intelligence as a capacity to define meaning, then N types are smarter. If you define it as a capacity to adapt to your environment as it is typically accepted in academic circles, S types are smarter.

[Raver]

It does NOT indicate that actual type is always going to be smarter than a type with less points, since a lot of factors are involved with intelligence that I ignored.

As I said here, this does not mean that an INTj is going to be smarter than an ESFP. Of course there are so many factors involved that I ignored completely. This system only accounts if each person with equal intelligence were to compare themselves to other types. Please don't dismiss the system immediately unless you realize that.

Um, esfp is not really unintellegent even with equal intellegence. They are pretty hardcore, just try to argue with one and see how far you can get.

Yeah I've been there, arguing isn't one of their strong points. My ESFp friend is intelligent in some ways and then stupid in others, but you can look at that for any type.

[Raver]

According to your definition, and Aushra Augusta's explaination of S/N, sensors would be the more "intelligent" ones.

It is noteworthy that the first (intuitive types) have a certain sluggish thinking style. They need much more information to figure out what's going on. They create the impression of being absent-minded "dullwits." The latter (sensing types), on the other hand, immediately impress you by how quickly they are able to get their bearings.

If you look at anyone's opinion it can go either way. Actually to average concensus it appears that sensory intelligence is more intelligent, though according to this site intuitives would be the more intelligent.

2. Intuitive Intelligence. Intuitive intelligence is the ability to learn complex skills and solve problems on a subconscious basis; for example, a child learning to speak without learning the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar actually were learned, but the child cannot tell you want they are. This type of intelligence is particularly powerful at picking up patterns in a seemingly chaotic situation. When the right answer to a complex problem pops into your head but you can't figure out how you came up with it, it's probably the product of your intuition. Important: Intuitive intelligence is better at solving certain types of complex problem than our conscience, sensory intelligence.

3. Sensory Intelligence. As described by Jung, sensory intelligence is our ability to think logically and to learn new facts in our world. As children grow up, their ability to learn intuitively appears to decrease as their ability to think methodically and logically increases.

Everyone people possess all three types of intelligence. Sensory intelligence is what we normally think of as intelligence because it is conscience thinking, while the other two types are more mysterious and subsequently discounted. Intuitive intelligence is used to identify relationships and concepts while sensory intelligence is used in remembering details and linear thinking.

Of course, you can always copy and paste what somebody said, but it is just as subjective as what I said. :wink:

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Raver]

You seem like a cool dude, but lose the MBTI think and join us when you are through, okay!

Thanks , I was so optimistic that this would receive a positive response. I was actually shocked on the negative response. I didn't think people would be that pissed off about the S/N thing. Though, maybe I was doomed from the start. Trying to claim types to be more intelligent than others probably doesn't work, since it is in a whole other ball park.

All I have to say is that anyone who disagrees with my system can't make the comment that one type is smarter than an another or they will be hypocritical. You would have to look at it as if they are all equal.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

1)

If you look at anyone's opinion it can go either way. Actually to average concensus it appears that sensory intelligence is more intelligent, though according to this site intuitives would be the more intelligent.

2. Intuitive Intelligence. Intuitive intelligence is the ability to learn complex skills and solve problems on a subconscious basis; for example, a child learning to speak without learning the rules of grammar. The rules of grammar actually were learned, but the child cannot tell you want they are. This type of intelligence is particularly powerful at picking up patterns in a seemingly chaotic situation. When the right answer to a complex problem pops into your head but you can't figure out how you came up with it, it's probably the product of your intuition. Important: Intuitive intelligence is better at solving certain types of complex problem than our conscience, sensory intelligence.

3. Sensory Intelligence. As described by Jung, sensory intelligence is our ability to think logically and to learn new facts in our world. As children grow up, their ability to learn intuitively appears to decrease as their ability to think methodically and logically increases.

Everyone people possess all three types of intelligence. Sensory intelligence is what we normally think of as intelligence because it is conscience thinking, while the other two types are more mysterious and subsequently discounted. Intuitive intelligence is used to identify relationships and concepts while sensory intelligence is used in remembering details and linear thinking.

Of course, you can always copy and paste what somebody said, but it is just as subjective as what I said. :wink:

No, actually, that's completely wrong. Jung never said that Sensing was subconcious, and Intuition was concious. He said that both Sensing and Intuition were subconcious funcitons, and both Thinking and Feeling were concious functions. Also, he never said that Sensors were more "methodolical", or "linear". I can't believe they said something like that, and then mentioned Jung's name; it completely contradicts Jung's theory. These are all Judging and Perceiving differences. He also said that collecting facts was related to Extraverted Thinking, not Sensing.

2) People define intelligence differently. You could say it has something to do with picking up on things quickly, or it could be a good memory, or it good be emotional intelligence, or it could be artistic, or it could have to do with writing, or possibally intelligable expression of thought, etc...

Is intelligence a good memory, the ability to sculpt, make a diving catch in center field, play blindfold chess, construct sentences of "learned length and thundering sound", or time a punchline? ~ Burnham P. Beckwith

3)

4. ESTJ and ENFP = 11.25 points
5. INFJ and ISTP = 10.625 points

Either way, I'm probably smarter than you.

[Raver]

No, actually, that's completely wrong. Jung never said that Sensing was subconcious, and Intuition was concious. He said that both Sensing and Intuition were subconcious funcitons, and both Thinking and Feeling were concious functions. Also, he never said that Sensors were more "methodolical", or "linear". I can't believe they said something like that, and then mentioned Jung's name; it completely contradicts Jung's theory. These are all Judging and Perceiving differences. He also said that collecting facts was related to Extraverted Thinking, not Sensing.

True, everyone interepts Jung's theory their own way. Judging and sensing can be confused a lot of the times. Even intuitive and perceiving functions too, so I understand what your saying. Though the quote you pasted before was pretty subjective just as much as the one I pasted.

2) People define intelligence differently. You could say it has something to do with picking up on things quickly, or it could be a good memory, or it good be emotional intelligence, or it could be artistic, or it could have to do with writing, or possibally intelligable expression of thought, etc...

Is intelligence a good memory, the ability to sculpt, make a diving catch in center field, play blindfold chess, construct sentences of "learned length and thundering sound", or time a punchline? ~ Burnham P. Beckwith

Yeah, I agree intelligence comes in many shapes and forms. Transigient is right when he said that people's IQ can always increase. I think the brain is like a muscle and it develops if you use it. Almost everyone in my mind doesn't have limits on how intelligent they can be unless they use hard drugs frequently.

3)

4. ESTJ and ENFP = 11.25 points
5. INFJ and ISTP = 10.625 points

Either way, I'm probably smarter than you.

Well, I'll have to assume your looking at it individually. It depends on what you define as intelligence.

[Rocky]

No, actually, that's completely wrong. Jung never said that Sensing was subconcious, and Intuition was concious. He said that both Sensing and Intuition were subconcious funcitons, and both Thinking and Feeling were concious functions. Also, he never said that Sensors were more "methodolical", or "linear". I can't believe they said something like that, and then mentioned Jung's name; it completely contradicts Jung's theory. These are all Judging and Perceiving differences. He also said that collecting facts was related to Extraverted Thinking, not Sensing.

True, everyone interepts Jung's theory their own way. Judging and sensing can be confused a lot of the times. Even intuitive and perceiving functions too, so I understand what your saying. Though the quote you pasted before was pretty subjective just as much as the one I pasted.

There's a difference between interpretation, and mistating a fact. They got it wrong; there is no room in Jung's work to interpret it in the way that they did. He stated, clearly, that the subconcious was perception, and that the concious was judgment. I'm serious, read his description of the types. Whenever you are "concious" of something, then you are using your judgment.

Also, again, stating that "Jung said" Sensing was about collecting facts, and whatever else they said, is a mistatement of fact, because collecting facts, according to Jung, that is, is what happens when you are using your Te funciton. No where in "Psychological Types" does he correlate that stuff to Sensing.


... and that quote was made by an ENTp, OMG...



And Transigent is right, loss the MBTI stuff, because as much as they pretend, they have little to do with Jung's work.

[Darklord]

Personally, I must say that, when I've been talking online, it is very often the Ss who manage to actually come across as smart, and not just knowledgable. See Rocky, e.g. A good example of Ss being perfectly capable of being incredibly smart if there ever was one.

IMHO, I'd say that the reason Ns come across as smarter is that we actually bother to go refer to scientific theories and obscure points of literature (Or Star Trek!), etc.

[tcaudilllg]

You seem like a cool dude, but lose the MBTI think and join us when you are through, okay!

Thanks , I was so optimistic that this would receive a positive response. I was actually shocked on the negative response. I didn't think people would be that pissed off about the S/N thing. Though, maybe I was doomed from the start. Trying to claim types to be more intelligent than others probably doesn't work, since it is in a whole other ball park.

All I have to say is that anyone who disagrees with my system can't make the comment that one type is smarter than an another or they will be hypocritical. You would have to look at it as if they are all equal.

I think you're on the right track, ...but your critics speak louder than your supporters. Supporters tend not to say anything because they don't have any immediate impetus to interact: "why try to fix what ain't broke"? Just remember that when you're feeling surrounded.

[Raver]

You seem like a cool dude, but lose the MBTI think and join us when you are through, okay!

Thanks , I was so optimistic that this would receive a positive response. I was actually shocked on the negative response. I didn't think people would be that pissed off about the S/N thing. Though, maybe I was doomed from the start. Trying to claim types to be more intelligent than others probably doesn't work, since it is in a whole other ball park.

All I have to say is that anyone who disagrees with my system can't make the comment that one type is smarter than an another or they will be hypocritical. You would have to look at it as if they are all equal.

I think you're on the right track, ...but your critics speak louder than your supporters. Supporters tend not to say anything because they don't have any immediate impetus to interact: "why try to fix what ain't broke"? Just remember that when you're feeling surrounded.

That makes sense, according to the poll it looks like I only have one supporter at the moment, I was hoping I would have more votes under decent.

[tempus]

Something I posted on another thread a while ago:

If I were to define intelligence I would define it as "the capacity to learn." If the functions are indeed "cognitive processes" as I believe one website calls them, then in terms of socionics, intelligence could be defined as the capacity to perceive and interpret information. Sensing and intuition are both valid ways of perceiving information. The way in which one perceives information really says nothing about their capacity for perceiving information. On average, sensors and intuitives are probably equally intelligent but I guess how manifest that intelligence would be depends on what sort of environment they are placed in. For example, in a culture, place, or setting that values sensing, intuitives might come off as less intelligent and vice-versa. Maybe. I don't know about this for sure; I'm just trying to think of reasons for the existence of a thread such as this one. America is supposedly an ENTj culture, isn't it?

Sorry if this seems redundant.

[XoX]

Stop ranking the types or the functions...for ranking individuals there are all kinds of I.Q. tests, boxing rings, "real life" success indicators and whatever. But the types are not created for ranking people. Young&confused...what is this ranking obsession? Are you secrectly jealous of NTs or wannabe elitist or what? You say you despise caste systems in one post yet in another post you classify some types as "animals" and yet another post you create adhoc system to classify some types as "sparsely intelligent".

[Creepy-]

Intelligence has nothing to do with type.

I'm sure you have a lot of good things to contribute, Y&C, but I wish you didn't insist on posting these threads that make me irritable.

[discojoe]

Some of you are being jerks to YaC. Instead of just bashing him, why not constructively offer an analyses? He is obviously pretty bright, and patient enough to understand some objective criticism since he went through the trouble of creating this system. Lay off the hostility.

To YaC:

Typing intelligence based on function would require field study and loads of research. Your system is interesting, and the refutations here are irrational and bigoted, but you simply cannot pretend to have observed any real link between type and intelligence. It is all very rough conjecture.

[Raver]

Some of you are being jerks to YaC. Instead of just bashing him, why not constructively offer an analyses? He is obviously pretty bright, and patient enough to understand some objective criticism since he went through the trouble of creating this system. Lay off the hostility.

To YaC:

Typing intelligence based on function would require field study and loads of research. Your system is interesting, and the refutations here are irrational and bigoted, but you simply cannot pretend to have observed any real link between type and intelligence. It is all very rough conjecture.

Thanks for the concern. I really don't mind if people bash my system because that is why I wanted so I can learn more. However, you are right on the matter that I wanted people to tell me why my system is wrong analytically rather than just bash me because of the biases.

Stop ranking the types or the functions...for ranking individuals there are all kinds of I.Q. tests, boxing rings, "real life" success indicators and whatever. But the types are not created for ranking people. Young&confused...what is this ranking obsession? Are you secrectly jealous of NTs or wannabe elitist or what? You say you despise caste systems in one post yet in another post you classify some types as "animals" and yet another post you create adhoc system to classify some types as "sparsely intelligent".

No, I'm not secretly jealous of NTs, but I do appreciate thinkers in general of all types. Well, I said I despised caste systems after I realized I was wrong about calling types animals. I even made changes to the big picture in the behaviour and symbols topic.

Well, a lot of people do believe that certain types are smarter than others. I used to think that too, though what type you are affects awareness and knowledge but not intelligence. Intelligence is a whole other body of water.

[Raver]

Some of you are being jerks to YaC. Instead of just bashing him, why not constructively offer an analyses? He is obviously pretty bright, and patient enough to understand some objective criticism since he went through the trouble of creating this system. Lay off the hostility.

To YaC:

Typing intelligence based on function would require field study and loads of research. Your system is interesting, and the refutations here are irrational and bigoted, but you simply cannot pretend to have observed any real link between type and intelligence. It is all very rough conjecture.

Thanks for the concern discojoe. I really don't mind if people bash my system because that is why I wanted so I can learn more. However, you are right on the matter that I wanted people to tell me why my system is wrong analytically rather than just bash me because of the biases.

Stop ranking the types or the functions...for ranking individuals there are all kinds of I.Q. tests, boxing rings, "real life" success indicators and whatever. But the types are not created for ranking people. Young&confused...what is this ranking obsession? Are you secrectly jealous of NTs or wannabe elitist or what? You say you despise caste systems in one post yet in another post you classify some types as "animals" and yet another post you create adhoc system to classify some types as "sparsely intelligent".

No, I'm not secretly jealous of NTs, but I do appreciate thinkers in general of all types. Well, I said I despised caste systems after I realized I was wrong about calling types animals. I even made changes to the big picture in the behaviour and symbols topic.

Well, a lot of people do believe that certain types are smarter than others. I used to think that too, though what type you are affects awareness and knowledge but not intelligence. Intelligence is a whole other body of water.

[Creepy-]

I vehemently disagree that type has anything to do with intelligence.

However...

It occurred to me that certain types might be slightly predisposed to different types of intelligence (if we use Gardner's Multiple Intelligences).

For instance, introverts might be more likely to have high intrapersonal intelligence.

What do you think of that?

[Louise]

Sparsely Intelligent

7. ISFJ and ISFP = 6.875 points
8. ESFP and ESFJ = 5.75 points

shit

[anndelise]

Sparsely Intelligent

7. ISFJ and ISFP = 6.875 points
8. ESFP and ESFJ = 5.75 points

shit

*Looks at where Louise is standing.*
Yep, that's shit all right.
Here, wipe it off onto this....*hands Louise Y&C's intelligence theory to use as a wipe*

[Louise]

Sparsely Intelligent

7. ISFJ and ISFP = 6.875 points
8. ESFP and ESFJ = 5.75 points

shit

*Looks at where Louise is standing.*
Yep, that's shit all right.
Here, wipe it off onto this....*hands Louise Y&C's intelligence theory to use as a wipe*

lol. thanks.

I don't usually reply to stuff like that and I really shouldn't, or at least wait a while to calm down before I react.

[FDG]

Intuitives seem more intelligent because their skills are scarcer.

Scarcer goods have an higher "price".

Price, in this case, is represented by the perception of the skills. Since intuitives have rarer skills, those skills are automatically considered as better.

To do a stupid analogy, think about silicates and coral. Coral is useless in comparison to silicates, but higher priced and considered "better" by the layman.

[Creepy-pokeball]

That is a good perception. Another one is the correlation with g factor and it's influence on testing higher. G factor is supposedly related to N. So, if true, this kind of screws those that work for the same score. Likewise, N's tend to gravitate toward academia which gains the erudite stereotype which is an association. This has only changed recently due to the influx of academia NEED rather than previous generations WANT so there are more S's in universities now (that's from MBTI research but Im sure there is truth in it).

[machintruc]

This intelligence system is totally fuckin' right !

In fact, all SF types are DUMB !

[liveandletlive]

No.

agreed. and may i add- screw you.

[Cudcat]

I see this thread as proof that the forum wasn't any better "in the good ol' days".

[Mediator Kam]

I voted yes. I feel like a dum-dum all the tyme.

[MysticSonic]

Why don't people bump any GOOD threads?