INTj : 20-40% dumbass

[Ms. Kensington]

I have seen on here questions like, "can someone be INTj and still be dumb" and "S types are dumb" and "STFU intelligence doesn't have to do with function" (not sure about what was said about types..)


Intelligence intelligence blah blah bullshit blah blah

so um yeah it seems you could draw both conclusions:

The way you receive and organize information does not correlate to intelligence

The way you receive and organize has a lot to do with intelligence.

and maybe one's intelligence is something separate and your type is how you prefer to behave and/or use that intelligence. (which makes me kind of sad because in my MBTI consumption days I was always deemed as having a happy marriage of ability and interests as an INTP).

If the last statement is true then i still think that there would be ranges of how intelligent you are-- for example if the way you receive information MUST be in a systematic and logical progression then.. you must have SOME idea of how to use logic. it is impossible to receive information that way and say i dont know what this is, this makes no sense. So while someone's not automatically a master of their lead functions, they've got to have at least a decent understanding and usage.

correct?

[Rocky]

I have a friend called Billy-Bob.

He is 18 years old. 5'2". 87 lbs.

He loves football.

He has played football everyday since he was a young boy. He tries really, really hard everyday and perfects all of the right moves. He remembers the plays. He knows every rule about the game, and how the game should be played. He is fanatical about football.

So he tried out for the High School football team.

He played one game, and a 6'4" 300 lbs guy who sat on his ass all summer eating chettos hit him with a shoulder tackle. Poor little Billy-Bob was paralyazed and never played football again.

Is it fair?

No.

But is life fair?

No.

Some people are born into money, good looking, tall, athletic, intellgent and without a problem in the world.

Sucks, doesn't it?


DISCLAIMER: Billy-Bob was not actually real, but that sort of thing does happen.

[Mariano Rajoy]

The way you receive and organize has a lot to do with intelligence. No, you cannot be INTj and dumb. But the INTj cannot do other things as well as the "unintelligent" can.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

The way you receive and organize has a lot to do with intelligence. No, you cannot be INTj and dumb. But the INTj cannot do other things as well as the "unintelligent" can.

_________________
LII

LOL.

I guess you just proved yourself wrong.

[Rocky]

what shall i do now?

You don't have to do anything. I will write the rest of your posts in this thread for you.

Enjoy.

Whaa... but what do you mean by that? I am LII, therefore I am smart because all LIIs are always smart. I don't understand what you are saying because comprehension is difficult for me.

Well, you made a stupid comment. Actually, it is sort of funny because you made the stupid comment in an attempt to make yourself sound smart.

You= LII
You= Stupid

;therefore,

LII= Stupid.

See how that works, Mr. Logic?

We now have an actual example of at least one stupid LII.

But what do you mean? LII is intelligant because we are naturally poor at other things. That's how things work. Everyone knows that.

Wrong again.

Did you read my story about Billy-Bob? I think it's pretty good.

See, in a perfect world, things would work out that way. Maybe they should. But they don't.

Are you saying that if a kid was born to a poor, 16 year old mother who was thrown out of her house by Daddy because she got knocked up and left by her boy friend, then the baby would be born tall and extremely athletic (for example)? As sort of compensation for being born into an unfortunate situation? Hell no. But it sucks. Not fair. Too bad for him. Glad it wasn't me.

If you were born into a third world African village with AIDS in your blood stream because your mother past it down to you, would you have superior intelligence to the rest of us? I hope you answer no...

Are we going to start saying that beautiful people are idiots by nature as well?

What does that poor kid born with a neurological problem who could never walk or talk his whole life and died young get for compensation?

The short end of the stick.

Yeah, I know... it's terrible. Cry about it.

Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.

I hope now that you have been bitch-slapped and will stop saying stupid things we can be friends.

[diamond]

I have a friend called Billy-Bob.

He is 18 years old. 5'2". 87 lbs.

He loves football.

He has played football everyday since he was a young boy. He tries really, really hard everyday and perfects all of the right moves. He remembers the plays. He knows every rule about the game, and how the game should be played. He is fanatical about football.

So he tried out for the High School football team.

He played one game, and a 6'4" 300 lbs guy who sat on his ass all summer eating chettos hit him with a shoulder tackle. Poor little Billy-Bob was paralyazed and never played football again.

Is it fair?

No.

But is life fair?

No.

Some people are born into money, good looking, tall, athletic, intellgent and without a problem in the world.

Sucks, doesn't it?


DISCLAIMER: Billy-Bob was not actually real, but that sort of thing does happen.

Chettos or cheetos?

hahahahaha

[Kim]

From http://www.britannica.com/ebc/articl...telligence&ct=

In education, the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or challenging situations.

In psychology, the term may more specifically denote the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as the IQ test). Intelligence is usually thought of as deriving from a combination of inherited characteristics and environmental (developmental and social) factors. [...] General intelligence is often said to comprise various specific abilities (verbal ability, ability to apply logic in solving problems, etc.), but critics contend that such compartments fail to reflect the nature of cognition and that other models, perhaps based on information processing, are needed.

And that is where the functions come in (in bold). Generally, based on this, intelligence is not related to or any other singular function.
And boy, have I met INTjs who could not write a logically sound research paper, rest assured. They were still or were not intelligent. See? Functions don't stand on their own. If you wanted to do that, you could throw other functions into the mix. , you name it.

[Creepy-]

I think intelligence has to do with how effectively one uses their functions, not *what* their functions are.

[MySaviour]

No, you cannot be INTj and dumb.

My twin brother is INTj, and he's really stupid!

That's what supervisors think of those they supervise.

[Kim]

No, you cannot be INTj and dumb.

My twin brother is INTj, and he's really stupid!

That's what supervisors think of those they supervise.

No

[Creepy-]

No, you cannot be INTj and dumb.

My twin brother is INTj, and he's really stupid!

That's what supervisors think of those they supervise.

Not true! Not in all cases, anyway.

[wym123]

But what do you mean? LII is intelligant because we are naturally poor at other things. That's how things work. Everyone knows that.

Wrong again.

Did you read my story about Billy-Bob? I think it's pretty good.

See, in a perfect world, things would work out that way. Maybe they should. But they don't.

Are you saying that if a kid was born to a poor, 16 year old mother who was thrown out of her house by Daddy because she got knocked up and left by her boy friend, then the baby would be born tall and extremely athletic (for example)? As sort of compensation for being born into an unfortunate situation? Hell no. But it sucks. Not fair. Too bad for him. Glad it wasn't me.

If you were born into a third world African village with AIDS in your blood stream because your mother past it down to you, would you have superior intelligence to the rest of us? I hope you answer no...

Are we going to start saying that beautiful people are idiots by nature as well?

What does that poor kid born with a neurological problem who could never walk or talk his whole life and died young get for compensation?

The short end of the stick.

Yeah, I know... it's terrible. Cry about it.

Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.

Your argument is full of holes. First, there is no relationship between how the babies will physically turn out and whether the mother got kicked out of the house for getting "knocked." It is likely that there is no relationship between whether a child is "gifted" and whether he or she is born with AIDS because there is no research that indicate that AIDS somehow surpresses the intellectual development. There might be a slight relationship between looks and intelligence because better looking people may have been socially taught to pursue physical superficiality instead of intellectual depth. However, none of these can be used as arguments to refute the possibility that there is is a relationship between "type" and intelligence, or the possibility that there is one between the different kinds of intelligence. In other words, just because in some contexts, things are not correlated/are not balanced/do not have any "karma system" does not mean that in other contexts, the same happens.

The smartest people are those that are actually interested in knowledge and overall, NT types are probably more interested in knowledge than any other type. To answer the OP's question, most INTjs are probably intelligent (in this sense) because they possess the characteristics that cause them to pursue knowledge and be as smart as possible. Of course I think it is possible for some INTjs to have the wrong idea about what knowledge actually is, hence they are actually quite dumb according to real academic standards. Furthermore, I honestly believe that there are tradeoffs in intelligence because not everyone is a genius and can develop all the various kinds of intelligence simultaneously. Therefore, book smart people most likely gave something up to become book smart.

[Kim]

The smartest people are those that are actually interested in knowledge and overall, NT types are probably more interested in knowledge than any other type. To answer the OP's question, most INTjs are probably intelligent (in this sense) because they possess the characteristics that cause them to pursue knowledge and be as smart as possible. Of course I think it is possible for some INTjs to have the wrong idea about what knowledge actually is, hence they are actually quite dumb according to real academic standards. Furthermore, I honestly believe that there are tradeoffs in intelligence because not everyone is a genius and can develop all forms of intelligence simultaneously. Therefore, book smart people most likely gave something up to become book smart.

Intelligence does not increase with level of education. You are implying that education makes you intelligent. Not so. Try again.

[wym123]

The smartest people are those that are actually interested in knowledge and overall, NT types are probably more interested in knowledge than any other type. To answer the OP's question, most INTjs are probably intelligent (in this sense) because they possess the characteristics that cause them to pursue knowledge and be as smart as possible. Of course I think it is possible for some INTjs to have the wrong idea about what knowledge actually is, hence they are actually quite dumb according to real academic standards. Furthermore, I honestly believe that there are tradeoffs in intelligence because not everyone is a genius and can develop all forms of intelligence simultaneously. Therefore, book smart people most likely gave something up to become book smart.

I think you are confusing intelligence with education. You are implying that education makes you intelligent. Not so. Try again.

You are misunderstanding my definition of intelligence (and I thought I was clear by linking it with just plain knowledge), which is, "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I believe this is the kind of intelligence the OP was referring to. This kind of intelligence is not necessarily the result of education. I know some people that are extremely smart according to rigorous academic standards but are college dropouts. In fact, you can probably find many such people in history. The reason why these people are smart is because they were obsessed with knowledge but had no interest in pursue it in an academic setting with all the schedules, homework, etc. Regardless, the intelligence that these people possessed is the same as the knowledge/thinking intelligence I am talking about. Here is another post on the matter:

I understand what your saying. Of course, a person of a certain type won't be more intelligent than another type. I'm just going along the lines of what if everyone was equally intelligent, but of different types.INTPs would be more naturally inclined to do well and enjoy mathematics. Though isn't that an area that requires more intelligence compared to designing an outfit or understanding people's emotions? I might be wrong though, since intelligence comes in different forms. However, someone who is more inclined to solve complex mathematical equations vs. someone who has a better fashion sense. Who looks more intelligent to you?

You are obviously using the standard definition of intelligence, which is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Hence, for obvious reasons INTPs are probably more intelligent than any other types. However, intelligence is a useless measurement because it doesn't imply anything else in general. In today's world, do we see that a correlation between intelligence and job salary? Not really. There is a certain threshold of intelligence that the highest paying jobs require and all types are easily capable of achieving that level of intelligence. This threshold is obviously much lower than that of a Mathematician. Is intelligence related success? Once again, not really. Discipline, persistence, and such traits are required for success and intelligence is not related to those at all. In fact, it is also easy to make the argument that in certain areas, people skills, which are, in general, inversely correlated to intelligence, are perhaps more important for success. So what can we make of intelligence? Nothing really.

From this we can see that your comparison isn't very insightful and isn't very fair. It is much better to perhaps compare someone who construct math proofs with someone who acts in movies for a living. Then we can ask, "who is more intelligent?" Well, that's obvious. Now, "who makes more money?" Well, that's also obvious. "Who is having a more indulgent lifestyle?" That's obvious too. (INTPs are not good at getting women/men and that's a price to pay for the intelligence.)

I do know that for some reason, the world values intelligence greatly. However, without a proper context, it is quite shallow to praise intelligence and to assume that intelligence implies much more.

We can easily make the same argument for social skills, which non-NT types are good at. Hence, it doesn't make much sense to single out any these traits and value them without a proper context. I know that I value my intelligence because I would like to make meaningful contributions to the academia, and related areas, while I am still alive.

[Kim]

Here you say:

The smartest people are those that are actually interested in knowledge and overall, NT types are probably more interested in knowledge than any other type. To answer the OP's question, most INTjs are probably intelligent (in this sense) because they possess the characteristics that cause them to pursue knowledge and be as smart as possible.

You are saying here that those who are interested in knowledge and strive to get it are more intelligent.

But here you say:

You are misunderstanding my definition of intelligence (and I thought I was clear by linking it with just plain knowledge), which is, "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I believe this is the kind of intelligence the OP was referring to.

The desire to acquire knowledge and the capacity to do so are two different things.

[Kim]

From this we can see that your comparison isn't very insightful and isn't very fair. It is much better to perhaps compare someone who construct math proofs with someone who acts in movies for a living. Then we can ask, "who is more intelligent?" Well, that's obvious. Now, "who makes more money?" Well, that's also obvious. "Who is having a more indulgent lifestyle?" That's obvious too. (INTPs are not good at getting women/men and that's a price to pay for the intelligence.)

How is that obvious? The actor is not necessarily incapable of learning how do to the same thing. He just doesn't do it, which tells us nothing. I'm working on an advanced degree, which by no means indicates that I'm more intelligent than the cleaning lady. I'm just doing different things. Your argument for NTs being more intelligent really has not convinced me yet.

[schrödinger's cat]

The confusing thing is: the INTJs I know appear to define "intelligence" as "excelling at whatever it is INTJs focus on". So, "intelligence" = being good at TiNe stuff. All the other stuff that other people focus on, well, it exists, but it doesn't really count.

I'm exaggerating, and I'll hasten to add that everyone else does the same thing. Everybody thinks their own ass smells sweet.

[Rocky]

The smartest people are those that are actually interested in knowledge and overall

This is where I disagree with you. We define intelligence differently. What I am saying is that you don't have to be interested in knowledge and spend all your time reading science books, etc... to be intelligent. I am saying that some people are intellingent in the sense that things come easily to them.

The points that Kim made are actually related to my Billy-Bob story. See, it doesn't matter how much time he put into it, or how interested he was in football, because he was genetically inferior to all the rest of the natural football players who never really practiced or tried hard or anything. According to your logic, Billy-Bob was a better football player than the giant kid who hit him.

[Phaedrus]

Intelligence does not increase with level of education.

That depends on what you mean. Intelligence does increase with level of education in the sense that there is a correlation between the level of your education and your IQ. To reach the highest levels of education you simply must have a certain level of intelligence, but that you are intelligent is no guarantee that you will reach that level. So, from the fact that a person has taken a doctor's degree you can deduce that he or she can't be dumb, unless there is corruption involved. From the fact that a person is intelligent you can't deduce anything about his or her level of education.

You are implying that education makes you intelligent. Not so. Try again.

That is not true. Education usually makes you more intelligent than you would be without that education. It is simply a matter of intellectual training and stimulation. But it is true that there is a limit to how much you can increase your inborn intelligence by education.

[Mariano Rajoy]

rocky: i deleted the post you quoted because i didnt want this forum of intelligence to invalidate itself through silly, supposedly ego-boosting arguments. that was quite a display back there. hope you had fun.

i maintain what i posted before. you cannot be intj and dumb. intj may be immature and unable to articulate what is going on in his head, but the intj is not dumb. you will never see SF contributing to theoretical physics.

type has a direct relation to genetics. it is pre-determined. if someone can be genetically inferior physically, then they can be genetically inferior mentally.

yes, some people may not like what i say. i refuse to be another politically correct wet noodle that refuses to follow an argument to its conclusion. if you dont like the conclusion, then you should reevaluate the premises.

[Kim]

yes, some people may not like what i say. i refuse to be another politically correct wet noodle that refuses to follow an argument to its conclusion. if you dont like the conclusion, then you should reevaluate the premises.

Well....dude....as of right now you refuse to follow through with backing up your claim as to why NTs are all intelligent. Care to elaborate on your idea of what intelligence actually is to then relate this idea to the Socionics type of INTj? Just throwing a claim out there and backing out as soon as it's challenged might just not cut it for us ignorant non-NTs.

So, argue your position. You know, claim, logical reasoning to convince people that your claim holds water, that whole deal. I'll be curious.

[Mariano Rajoy]

this should make the thread more explicit despite being very rough.

1. dna/"genetics" are given to us at conception
2. dna/"genetics" are pre-determined
3. dna/"genetics" influence our physical characteristics.
4. physical charateristics that are determined by "genetics" are synonymous with type.
---type is pre-determined.---

1. intelligence is the capacity to acquire knowledge
2. knowledge is subject to three conditions: truth, belief, and justification.
3. a belief is justified if there is evidence of its truth.
4. a belief is justified only if the anti-belief is not obligatory
5. evidence can come internally or externally
6. internal evidence comes in two forms: insight or logic
7. external evidence comes in two forms: insight or logic
8. insight and or logic is directly related to knowledge
---insight and or logic are pre-requisites for intelligence---

1. intelligence is the capacity to acquire knowledge
2. knowledge is subject to three conditions: truth, belief, and justification.
3. sensing relies on the five senses.
4. sensing is absent of truth, belief, and justification.
5. sensing can not provide evidence
6. sensing is not knowledge
---sensing is not intelligent---

1. a belief is justified only if the anti-belief is not obligatory
2. ethics is a function of emotion
3. ethics does not have the capacity to consider the anti-belief
4. ethics can not be justified
5. ethics can not be knowledge
---ethics can not be intelligent---

[Creepy-]

Mariano Rajoy how about you show how Intuition and logic are intelligent?

[Mariano Rajoy]

i was trying not to be a complete asshole by saying that N and T are always truth. i left that open intentionally, if i were to, i would show how N and T reflect truth more accurately

[Creepy-]

i was trying not to be a complete asshole by saying that N and T are always truth. i left that open intentionally

But saying that S and F are necessarily non-intelligent doesn't suggest anything about whether N or T are. Also it appears you have poor understanding of both Sensing and Ethics.

[Kim]

So you are under the impression that Sensors and Feelers acquire and integrate knowledge through sensing and feeling? If you were one of my students, my comments would be the following:

a) Inaccurate/non-precise use of categories. What is this? NT vs S vs F?
See my point?

b) Gross oversimplification!

c) You will need to very clearly explain how, according to this "model" Sensors and Feeler acquire and process knowledge. And what about STs?
NFs?

I still am curious, but to claim ultimate intelligence based on your supposedly superior logic and insight, you have to do better than this.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i was trying not to be a complete asshole by saying that N and T are always truth. i left that open intentionally

But saying that S and F are necessarily non-intelligent doesn't suggest anything about whether N or T are. Also it appears you have poor understand of both Sensing and Ethics.

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

[Kim]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Sensors just sense, feelers just feel and you just think, eh? Isn't that a bit limited to make an argument like yours?

[Mariano Rajoy]

So you are under the impression that Sensors and Feelers acquire and integrate knowledge through sensing and feeling? If you were one of my students, my comments would be the following:

a) Inaccurate/non-precise use of categories. What is this? NT vs S vs F?
See my point?

b) Gross oversimplification!

c) You will need to very clearly explain how, according to this "model" Sensors and Feeler acquire and process knowledge. And what about STs?
NFs?

I still am curious, but to claim ultimate intelligence based on your supposedly superior logic and insight, you have to do better than this.

sensing and feeling functions do not acquire or process knowledge. its not over simplification, it is being definite and explicit. i don't like being a wet noodle.

i would consider the issue of looking at emotions from a logical standpoint. but then could any type accurately type another type?

[Kim]

You are aware that all types use all functions, aren't you?

[Mariano Rajoy]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Sensors just sense, feelers just feel and you just think, eh? Isn't that a bit limited to make an argument like yours?

i never made the commitment from sensing to sensors, etc.

[Mariano Rajoy]

You are aware that all types use all functions, aren't you?

indeed i am

[Kim]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Sensors just sense, feelers just feel and you just think, eh? Isn't that a bit limited to make an argument like yours?

i never made the commitment from sensing to sensors, etc.

Then how does that relate to the argument that NTs are of superior intelligence?

[Creepy-]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Intuition is also absent of belief! Sensing and Intution are characteristically separate from ideas and constructs - and this is why they make good evidence, and good means of acquiring knowledge.

Sensing is also not "limited to the five senses", it is necessarily an interpretation of the senses. It is a perception, not merely a sensation.

Ethics can't be held as evidence, but neither can logic. They are constructs, evidence is meant to support them.

Poor understanding is not inconsequential.

[Kim]

You are aware that all types use all functions, aren't you?

indeed i am

So? What makes you think that other types cannot rationally and logically acquire and process knowledge if they have the same functions at their disposal? I we want to assume that this is related to function use.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Sensors just sense, feelers just feel and you just think, eh? Isn't that a bit limited to make an argument like yours?

i never made the commitment from sensing to sensors, etc.

Then how does that relate to the argument that NTs are of superior intelligence?

its not that SF types cannot use their NT. only by using N or T can knowledge be acquired. N or T dominat types "stay in the N or T" for longer periods. this is why SF types will never contribute to theoretical physics, if they even gave a shit. so, non-NT types don't focus as sharply on knowledge for extended periods.

furthermore, i defined intelligence very narrowly and see no reason why anyone should take offense, unless they are attributing other values to the term than what i explicitly articulated.

[crazymaisy]

I would say there is more than one sort of "Intelligence". The NT's may very well all be "Thinkers" but that is not where one should limit the definitions to flow from.

There are very well many intelligences. For more on this google Howard Garner for his Multiple Intelligences theory. A lot of people have concentrated the info down for simpler reading on their sites (in trying to find them you might want to think of alternative spellings i.e. Gardener, a common mispelling, for one, of course you can find a lot just googling 'Multiple Intelligence')

Basically it's the idea of a natural capacity towards excelling in understanding/being something. That's a very diluted definition, by the way.

Multiple Intelligence is theory, but very interesting, and quite fun in some ways for those that have great talents, but usually aren't recognized for it due to what "Schools" promote, particularly in English speaking schools.

Here's a tad bit of info pulled from the first site on the google search I did:

Gardner continues in the tradition of Thurstone's proposal that there is no g (general intelligence) but rather multiple, distinct intelligences. Gardener proposes seven intelligences (although he does not limit the possible number)

1. Linguistic intelligence
2. Musical intelligence
3. Logical- mathematical intelligence
4. Spatial intelligence
5. Bodily-Kinaesthetic intelligence
6. Interpersonal intelligence
7. Interpersonal intelligence

Additional 'candidate' intelligences are:
# Naturalistic intelligence (ability to discern patterns in nature - e.g. Darwin)
# Spiritual Intelligence - recognition of the spiritual
# Existential intelligence - concern with 'ultimate issues'

Towards an understanding of what intelligence should be defined as.

[Kim]

its not that SF types cannot use their NT. only by using N or T can knowledge be acquired. N or T dominat types "stay in the N or T" for longer periods. this is why SF types will never contribute to theoretical physics, if they even gave a shit. so, non-NT types don't focus as sharply on knowledge for extended periods.

furthermore, i defined intelligence very narrowly and see no reason why anyone should take offense, unless they are attributing other values to the term than what i explicitly articulated.

You need to look at these:



if anything. Then we can continue this.

[Mariano Rajoy]

i would disagree on the poor understanding bit. however that is inconsequential. sensing is absent of belief, is it not? can emotions/ethic be held as evidence?

Intuition is also absent of belief! Sensing and Intution are characteristically separate from ideas and constructs - and this is why they make good evidence, and good means of acquiring knowledge.

Sensing is also not "limited to the five senses", it is necessarily an interpretation of the senses. It is a perception, not merely a sensation.

Ethics can't be held as evidence, but neither can logic. They are constructs, evidence is meant to support them.

Poor understanding is not inconsequential.

i would not disagree that intuition is absent of belief. now, i would like you to prove that intuition has a direct relation to truth. and if intuition has a direct relation to truth, where does that put sensing? if sensing and intuition are seperate from ideas and constructs, then what is the "thing" that holds senses and intuitions to be good evidence?

furthermore, how do you deal with the issue that everything exists within the psyche? how is intuition not a construct?

oh, and what do you think of crosstyping?