INTj : 20-40% dumbass

[Creepy-]

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?

How about the scientific method?

Why do you want me to prove that intuition has a direct relation to truth? I doubt it does, and even if it did, it doesn't mean that Sensing doesn't! They are different modes of perceiving the same thing, one is not inherently more "right" than the other.

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

Intuition is not a construct because it is a perception.

What do you mean, "how do you deal with the issue that everything exists within the psyche?". Nothing I have said has contradicted this.

oh, and what do you think of crosstyping?

I think cross-typing might be useful for severely disordered people. According to Jung's dynamics it can't work in normal/healthy people because functions automatically create and repress each other. It could be useful to identify them in therapy in order to develop their natural type and provide psychological ease.

[Mariano Rajoy]

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.

the charge earlier in the thread was for me to prove logically what intelligence was and the relation N and T had to it. i did that. the charge now is that i do not understand the functions because i defined it narrowly and from T. i ask, again, is it possible to understand a function thoroughly that is not part of your ego block? can one type, type another?

[Kim]

the charge earlier in the thread was for me to prove logically what intelligence was and the relation N and T had to it. i did that. the charge now is that i do not understand the functions because i defined it narrowly and from T. i ask, again, is it possible to understand a function thoroughly that is not part of your ego block? can one type, type another?

To simplify our lives because this is clearly not going anywhere: Are you saying I'm incapable of thinking logically? If so, why? If not, how can you still support your claim?

[Mariano Rajoy]

the charge earlier in the thread was for me to prove logically what intelligence was and the relation N and T had to it. i did that. the charge now is that i do not understand the functions because i defined it narrowly and from T. i ask, again, is it possible to understand a function thoroughly that is not part of your ego block? can one type, type another?

To simplify our lives because this is clearly not going anywhere: Are you saying I'm incapable of thinking logically? If so, why? If not, how can you still support your claim?

i want to be clear: it is not a personal attack, i do not know you.
no you are not capable, unless you want all the other negative things associated with the enfp type to present themselves as well. primary functions are inescapable. we will always see from them, even when we think we are not. sure, the ESFj can construct a logical argument, but it is a logical argument from the F. content may change, form will not.

even though ["i want to be clear: it is not a personal attack, i do not know you"] may sound like F, it is still T. the question, can one type, type another? points out a possible logical fallicy in the idea of types actually understanding other types as the primary functions are inescapable.

[Mariano Rajoy]

functional order is inescapable, i should say. if this was not true, then the inter type theory would not hold. you cant just jump from function to function.

[Kim]

is clearly not going anywhere: Are you saying I'm incapable of thinking logically? If so, why? If not, how can you still support your claim?

i want to be clear: it is not a personal attack, i do not know you.
no you are not capable, unless you want all the other negative things associated with the enfp type to present themselves as well. primary functions are inescapable. we will always see from them, even when we think we are not. sure, the ESFj can construct a logical argument, but it is a logical argument from the F. content may change, form will not..

So how is that I did very well on the analytical section of the GRE, taught myself statistics, write argumentative papers in which I make claims and support them logically and all this for T-professors (mostly) who are satisfied with my work and have not yet discouraged me from finishing my PhD? What am I, a freak of nature?

You know, you really blow my mind. Wow. We are not slaves of our functions, you know?

[Mariano Rajoy]

is clearly not going anywhere: Are you saying I'm incapable of thinking logically? If so, why? If not, how can you still support your claim?

i want to be clear: it is not a personal attack, i do not know you.
no you are not capable, unless you want all the other negative things associated with the enfp type to present themselves as well. primary functions are inescapable. we will always see from them, even when we think we are not. sure, the ESFj can construct a logical argument, but it is a logical argument from the F. content may change, form will not..

So how is that I did very well on the analytical section of the GRE, taught myself statistics, write argumentative papers in which I make claims and support them logically and all this for T-professors (mostly) who are satisfied with my work and have not yet discouraged me from finishing my PhD? What am I, a freak of nature?

You know, you really blow my mind. Wow. We are not slaves of our functions, you know?

Reasoning is an epistemic, mental activity. as is intuiting, sensing, or feeling. i maintain that T in a non-T dominant type is understood through the dominant functions. even when we try to escape the mental functions through conscious thought, we are using those very mental functions to do the escaping with. i do not doubt that your work is fantastic and valid and contributing to the study. i also do not doubt that your N has served you well. the archetype is likened to the instincts; both are predetermined in form only, and both are only demonstrable through their manifestations.

[emeye]

Is it just my perception, or does Mariano really fall in the 20 to 40 percent bracket?

See, one can make a personal attack at a person one does not know, and still stay on topic; this probably puts me in the same bracket, but such is life

[Mariano Rajoy]

i thought it funny. i can post anything in the thread and no one can accuse me of straying off topic. too bad extreme T pisses people off...
cheers to you ms.kensington

[Kim]

You missed my point, I'm not looking for reassurance for my capabilities.
My question is this:

You go through a statistical analysis using T and arrive at results.
How do I get my result. I'm not or dominant. Do I feel myself through the analysis? Do I intuit myself to a result? Since I'm not capable of thinking logically, as you say.

Don't be evasive this time. Just answer my question.


Hehe, no. Extreme T doesn't piss anybody off. It's rather entertaining when it's coupled with evasive argument strategies.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[wym123]

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.

You are trying too hard to find a contradiction when there isn't one. Ultimately, the measurement of intelligence is the "capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." However, I highly doubt that those that have great capacity are also those that are completely uninterested in acquring knowledge. People are not smart because they are born with a better brain. People are smart because they have this certain view of the world; they see the world in terms of a learning experience. Of course in my post I hinted that this characterization is not exactly perfect because there are those that seek knowledge but simply do not have the tools and understanding to develop actual knowledge correctly.

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.

If you want to refute me, try to attack the italicized line.

[Kim]

There is no contradition? What, are you blind? You are talking about two different things. You people are so annoying. God. You contradicted yourself, I told you there is something wrong with your argument. You try to weasel yourself out. Doesn't work. Now you are not even acknowledging the contradiction. Dude, if you want to argue, be precise. Funny that an ENFp would have to tell you that. My pleasure.

[wym123]

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.

Unfortunately, you totally misunderstood my definition of intelligence again and the definition that the OP intended.

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 Mathematicians of course. 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, perhaps people skills, which are, in general, inversely correlated to intelligence, are 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.

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.

Yeah that's true, someone's profession or success has nothing to do with intelligence. A person who is more capable to handle abstract problems isn't necessarily more intelligent either. I guess the blur comes between the difference from conventional intelligence and general intelligence. If you look at conventional intelligence then some types are smarter than others, however conventional intelligence is NOT intelligence, since it is only a small piece of the pie.

When it comes to general intelligence, every type is better at one piece of the pie and this is why overall if you look at it this way. Every type is equivalent to eachother in intelligence. Also, the most important aspect is that the type, may make you more intelligent in a certain piece of the pie, however overall it has no impact whatsoever. Overall intelligence is a result of the amount of gray matter or neurons (whatever they call it nowadays) and is something seperate from your personality type, however your type could make you look smarter or dumber than you really are.

[wym123]

There is no contradition? What, are you blind? You are talking about two different things. You people are so annoying. God. You contradicted yourself, I told you there is something wrong with your argument. You try to weasel yourself out. Doesn't work. Now you are not even acknowledging the contradiction. Dude, if you want to argue, be precise. Funny that an ENFp would have to tell you that. My pleasure.

A contradiction is when one refutes the other. I am merely stating a different perspective of intelligence. If you can find a person who absolute hates learning but is extremely intelligent, then I have been refuted.

[wym123]

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.

I never stated that. I said that in some cases hardwork does not automatically translate to result, aka the world is "unfair" and "unbalanced." However, my point is that you cannot extend this generalization to every aspect about the world. There are things in the world that are "fair" and "balanced."

[Kim]

There is no contradition? What, are you blind? You are talking about two different things. You people are so annoying. God. You contradicted yourself, I told you there is something wrong with your argument. You try to weasel yourself out. Doesn't work. Now you are not even acknowledging the contradiction. Dude, if you want to argue, be precise. Funny that an ENFp would have to tell you that. My pleasure.

A contradiction is when one refutes the other. I am merely stating a different perspective of intelligence. If you can find a person who absolute hates learning but is extremely intelligent, then I have been refuted.

I was just going to edit and say it's not about contradictions, it's about being imprecise and semantically inaccurate. And I'm sure there are people like that out there. Wanting to learn is also about drive and ambition and energy level and so on and so forth. Those things have nothing to do with the ability to acquire and process information.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[wym123]

There is no contradition? What, are you blind? You are talking about two different things. You people are so annoying. God. You contradicted yourself, I told you there is something wrong with your argument. You try to weasel yourself out. Doesn't work. Now you are not even acknowledging the contradiction. Dude, if you want to argue, be precise. Funny that an ENFp would have to tell you that. My pleasure.

A contradiction is when one refutes the other. I am merely stating a different perspective of intelligence. If you can find a person who absolute hates learning but is extremely intelligent, then I have been refuted.

I was just going to edit and say it's not about contradictions, it's about being imprecise and semantically inaccurate. And I'm sure there are people like that out there. Wanting to learn is also about drive and ambition and energy level and so on and so forth. Those things have nothing to do with the ability to acquire and process information.

I never advanced that statement as the definition of intelligence. I merely said that smart people like to learn.

Furthermore, those things have more to do with such ability than you think. You can be in denial if you want. Do you think you would be getting your Ph'D if you had zero interest in acquiring it?

I have the feeling that your burst of energy and the need to refute the NT types here is driven by your insecurity from your own perception that F-types are supposedly stupid. I really don't know where you got that idea when there are studies indicating that the highest scores in standardized exams are actually F types.

[wym123]

However, I highly doubt that those that have great capacity are also those that are completely uninterested in acquring knowledge.

F-types can sometimes more interested in acquiring knowledge then T-types sometimes, if they happen to develop certain insecurities about themselves, or even if they just have a general passion for the subject they are investigating.

Um... Did I ever say that F-types are incapable of being interested?? All I said is that NT types have this insatiable need to learn in general.

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.

Ah, now it all comes together! You think that your type makes you smart even though you are actually pretty dense and stupid!

Here is the problem with your thinking. You think that INTj makes you smart. In other words, you are an INTj, consequently you are smart. No, it's the other way around. You have this personality that makes you want to learn, and combined with other characteristics, you end up getting typed as an INTj.

Well, I suppose it is okay for people to try to grasp at outward justifications for how they feel inside, even though those very justifications are tenuous and faulty at best. Keep your delusion, and go wack your decrepit off into a cup, you obviously are a worthless T-type if you can't even form a reasonable unbiased argument, so that is the only use you will be able to get out of your "oh-so-great" tard-logic.

Care to explain precisely what you are referring to?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[wym123]

A thread about the INTj dumbasses, complete with an actual example of one!

This is better then you expected, huh msk?

The only thing you have been doing is calling me a dumbass without justification. Care to prove this assertion?

[Mariano Rajoy]

this is what i get for narrowly (to the point of innacuracy) defined arguments with abrasive conclusions and the gall to actually argue them. i will admit defeat, and admit that i cannot answer the question, and give you props in seeing the contradiction. too bad every argument doesn't have clearly defined premises and conclusions.

i will never abandon me N again...Ti is the devil

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[wym123]

A thread about the INTj dumbasses, complete with an actual example of one!

This is better then you expected, huh msk?

The only thing you have been doing is calling me a dumbass without justification. Care to prove this assertion?

Naw, not when you are doing such a fine job of it. How could I possibly do better?

I'd say that you are doing a fine job of acting like an idiot. The image I get when read your post is someone is who prancing around, acting stupid.

[wym123]

A thread about the INTj dumbasses, complete with an actual example of one!

This is better then you expected, huh msk?

The only thing you have been doing is calling me a dumbass without justification. Care to prove this assertion?

Naw, not when you are doing such a fine job of it. How could I possibly do better?

Oh, you know? I knew that you wouldn't be able to back yourself. What a nice copout. Thanks.

[Rocky]

!!!

Holy shit! What happened to this thread in a matter of hours?

It's gotten to the point where I have lost all apathy for arguing this subject because there have been so many layers of bullshit that it would be a waste to try and point it all out.

There are just a few points I would like to make about this before I slip away from it;

1) We are all defining intelligence differently, and some people think that there are multiply kinds of intelligence.

2) NONE of you have any empirical justification for any of your claims.

3) Some of you are insecure with your level of ability in several aspects of life.

4) All qualities are not directly preportional.

5) Type is genetically hard-wired (and we don't pick our types btw).

5) Evolutionary advancement has nothing to do with what type you are (this can be proven by drastically variable types within families AND the studies done of chimpanzee personalities).

6) I don't think my type (or any other type) is genetically superior or inferior by nature, however, I do think that I am genetically superior to most people. :wink:

[wym123]

!!!

Holy shit! What happened to this thread in a matter of hours?

It's gotten to the point where I have lost all apathy for arguing this subject because there have been so many layers of bullshit that it would be a waste to try and point it all out.

There are just a few points I would like to make about this before I slip away from it;

1) We are all defining intelligence differently, and some people think that there are multiply kinds of intelligence.

2) NONE of you have any empirical justification for any of your claims.

3) Some of you are insecure with your level of ability in several aspects of life.

4) All qualities are not directly preportional.

5) Type is genetically hard-wired (and we don't pick our types btw).

5) Evolutionary advancement has nothing to do with what type you are (this can be proven by drastically variable types within families AND the studies done of chimpanzee personalities).

6) I don't think my type (or any other type) is genetically superior or inferior by nature, however, I do think that I am genetically superior to most people. :wink:

2) NONE of you have any empirical justification for any of your claims.
It doesn't apply to yourself???

As for (5), give us a few links please.

[Rocky]

!!!

Holy shit! What happened to this thread in a matter of hours?

It's gotten to the point where I have lost all apathy for arguing this subject because there have been so many layers of bullshit that it would be a waste to try and point it all out.

There are just a few points I would like to make about this before I slip away from it;

1) We are all defining intelligence differently, and some people think that there are multiply kinds of intelligence.

2) NONE of you have any empirical justification for any of your claims.

3) Some of you are insecure with your level of ability in several aspects of life.

4) All qualities are not directly preportional.

5) Type is genetically hard-wired (and we don't pick our types btw).

5) Evolutionary advancement has nothing to do with what type you are (this can be proven by drastically variable types within families AND the studies done of chimpanzee personalities).

6) I don't think my type (or any other type) is genetically superior or inferior by nature, however, I do think that I am genetically superior to most people. :wink:

2) NONE of you have any empirical justification for any of your claims.
It doesn't apply to yourself???

As for (5), give us a few links please.

I could, although that was based more on my own observations.

Also, keep in mind that even socionics has things like VI (and they also attribute certain movements to types), so if two people of different backgrounds with the same type look almost identical (I have actually seen pictures on Lytov's site of Russian people with confirmed types who look almost identical to people I know here in America with the same type), and appearence is hard-wired, then type is also hard-wired.

And keep in mind that the US goverment (without any knowledge of Jungian types!) have already started identifying people by their "walk". In other words, your body movements are like a finger print.

And, remember that socionics theory doesn't allow for your type to not be genetically hardwired. Why? Because according to socionics, whenever you are around someone, you expect them to fullfill the role of your dual. Yet, no one actually "turns into" the dual, or changes type (even in long, close relationships), which is why there are conflicts, and benefactors, etc... In fact, if it were true that our type was defined by nurturing, then we would all be duals of the person who most raised us. This is the same reason why Carl Jung in 1920 wrote that he observed children of the same mother who didn't vary her nurturing style at all had different types. He said all the way back then that type was genetic.

What they hell, I'll post a link anyway:

http://braintypes.com/btistudy.htm

[Kim]

I never advanced that statement as the definition of intelligence. I merely said that smart people like to learn.

May I remind you?

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.

Quote:
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.

These both go beyond stating that smart people like to learn.

Furthermore, those things have more to do with such ability than you think. You can be in denial if you want. Do you think you would be getting your Ph'D if you had zero interest in acquiring it?

So? A depressed INTj with zero drive can be intelligent. Intelligence does not fade away from inaction.

I have the feeling that your burst of energy and the need to refute the NT types here is driven by your insecurity from your own perception that F-types are supposedly stupid. I really don't know where you got that idea when there are studies indicating that the highest scores in standardized exams are actually F types.

Ah, this took you a while. I have been waiting for the oh-so-sweet "you are insecure" bullshit. No, I just don't like it when people make bold and discriminatory claims and cannot back them up. Plus I graded argumentative student papers all night and was somewhat in the mode. Have a good day.

[Kim]

this is what i get for narrowly (to the point of innacuracy) defined arguments with abrasive conclusions and the gall to actually argue them. i will admit defeat, and admit that i cannot answer the question, and give you props in seeing the contradiction. too bad every argument doesn't have clearly defined premises and conclusions.

i will never abandon me N again...Ti is the devil

Well, well, bold measures for bold claims.

[wym123]

I never advanced that statement as the definition of intelligence. I merely said that smart people like to learn.

May I remind you?

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 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.

These both go beyond stating that smart people like to learn.

Huh?? Let me state my claims clearly for you because I have no idea what you are arguing.

1. Intelligence is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge" and an intelligence person is a person with great capacity in this area.

2. There is a correlation between intelligence and the (conscious and unconscious) desire to learn. Those that have such desire are very likely intelligent. Similarly those that are intelligent very likely have such desire, hence "smart people like to learn."

3. Most INTjs, and NTs in general, are intelligent because they usually have such desire to learn. In fact overall (when you look at a large number of people), NT types probably have more of such desire than anyone else, hence the average NT is probably more intelligent than the average non-NT.

If you think I am missing a claim, please tell me what it is.

Furthermore, those things have more to do with such ability than you think. You can be in denial if you want. Do you think you would be getting your Ph'D if you had zero interest in acquiring it?

So? A depressed INTj with zero drive can be intelligent. Intelligence does not fade away from inaction.

I made no claims about intelligence fading from inactivity and this is not even true on the short scale of time.

Also, how do you suppose this INTj become intelligent in the first place? I am sure there was one point in his life where he was interested in knowledge, (even unconsciously). To clarify, I am sure there was one point in his life where he was constantly asking (quiet) questions.

I have the feeling that your burst of energy and the need to refute the NT types here is driven by your insecurity from your own perception that F-types are supposedly stupid. I really don't know where you got that idea when there are studies indicating that the highest scores in standardized exams are actually F types.

Ah, this took you a while. I have been waiting for the oh-so-sweet "you are insecure" bullshit. No, I just don't like it when people make bold and discriminatory claims and cannot back them up. Plus I graded argumentative student papers all night and was somewhat in the mode. Have a good day.

Well, you can deny it if you want. It is very obvious from your posts. Also who did I disciminate and how? I was only talking about INTjs and NT types in general.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Kim]

1. Intelligence is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge" and an intelligence person is a person which great capacity in this area.

2. There is a correlation between intelligence and the (conscious and unconscious) desire to learn. Those that have such desire are very likely intelligent. Similarly those that are intelligent very likely have such desire, hence "smart people like to learn."

3. Most INTjs, and NTs in general, are intelligent because they usually have such desire to learn. In fact overall (when you look at a large number of people), NT types probably have more of such desire than anyone else, hence the average NT is probably more intelligent than the average non-NT.

You are saying that NTs are intelligent because they have a desire to learn. Intelligence has nothing to do with a desire to learn. And ENFps have a GREAT desire to learn. So are we more intelligent than ISFps? No, it's bullshit. I do not see the correlation between smart=desire to learn. Where are you getting that from? You are saying that intelligence is the "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Then you go on to say: "
"NT types probably have more of such desire [to learn] than anyone else, hence the average NT is probably more intelligent than the average non-NT." It's circular reasoning: INTjs are intelligent. Because they are intelligent, they have a desire to learn. Because they have a desire to learn, they are more intelligent. It's a logical fallacy. You have to make up your mind about how you define intelligence.

Well, you can deny it if you want. It is very obvious from your posts. Also who did I disciminate and how? I was only talking about INTjs and NT types in general.

Don't waste my time with this. I have no reason to be insecure. I'm not being slapped around by a supposedly less intelligent type.

[wym123]

1. Intelligence is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge" and an intelligence person is a person which great capacity in this area.

2. There is a correlation between intelligence and the (conscious and unconscious) desire to learn. Those that have such desire are very likely intelligent. Similarly those that are intelligent very likely have such desire, hence "smart people like to learn."

3. Most INTjs, and NTs in general, are intelligent because they usually have such desire to learn. In fact overall (when you look at a large number of people), NT types probably have more of such desire than anyone else, hence the average NT is probably more intelligent than the average non-NT.

You are saying that NTs are intelligent because they have a desire to learn. Intelligence has nothing to do with a desire to learn. And ENFps have a GREAT desire to learn. So are we more intelligent than ISFps? No, it's bullshit. I do not see the correlation between smart=desire to learn. Where are you getting that from? You are saying that intelligence is the "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Then you go on to say: "
"NT types probably have more of such desire [to learn] than anyone else, hence the average NT is probably more intelligent than the average non-NT." It's circular reasoning: INTjs are intelligent. Because they are intelligent, they have a desire to learn. Because they have a desire to learn, they are more intelligent. It's a logical fallacy. You have to make up your mind about how you define intelligence.

And ENFps have a GREAT desire to learn. So are we more intelligent than ISFps? No, it's bullshit.

I am only talking about academic learning. Are you claiming that ENFps have GREAT desire for academic learning? Are you also claiming that ISFps have no desire for academic learning?

Sounds like you have a logical fallacy, I said correlation and correlation does not imply causation. Hence, I never claimed "Because they are intelligent, they have a desire to learn," nor anything remotely similar. I did implicitly claim in my comment about INTjs that, "Because they have a desire to learn, in general they are consequently more intelligent." In other words, in general one's desire to learn makes one smart (but it is not always the case). If you think it is false, why don't you explain your reasoning.

My definition of intelligence never changed.

Well, you can deny it if you want. It is very obvious from your posts. Also who did I disciminate and how? I was only talking about INTjs and NT types in general.

Don't waste my time with this. I have no reason to be insecure. I'm not being slapped around by a supposedly less intelligent type.

You said I was discriminating. So who was I discriminating?

[Kim]

To save my sanity, would you be so kind as to provide definitions for the following terms:

intelligence:
smart:

[wym123]

To save my sanity, would you be so kind as to provide definitions for the following terms:

intelligence:
smart:

"intelligence" and "smartness" are exactly the same: "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I am strictly talking about academic knowledge (not necessarily from school though). Knowing how to seduce the opposite sex is NOT knowledge in my definition.

[Angel von Himmel]

"intelligence" and "smartness" are exactly the same: "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I am strictly talking about academic knowledge. Knowing how to seduce the opposite sex is NOT knowledge in my definition.

I disagree ... seducing the opposite sex is knowledge if it is done in a way that uses methods that can not be put to doubt [in other words, methods that work in a general context and can be modeled by almost anyone with the same or similar results]. But, I don't think people who allow their sensations to get the better of them when dealing with the opposite sex are very knowledgeable in the methods of seduction, and usually do not fair to well.

I also disagree that smartness and intelligence are the same thing necessarily, considering that one may be aquired and the other may be inborn. Everyone has intelligence, but not everyone is smart.

[wym123]

"intelligence" and "smartness" are exactly the same: "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." I am strictly talking about academic knowledge. Knowing how to seduce the opposite sex is NOT knowledge in my definition.

I disagree ... seducing the opposite sex is knowledge if it is done in a way that uses methods that can not be put to doubt [in other words, methods that work in a general context and can be modeled by almost anyone with the same or similar results, but I am not sure if that is possible in a direct]. But, I don't think people who allow their sensations to get the better of them when dealing with the opposite sex are very knowledgeable in the methods of seduction, and usually do not fair to well.

Blah, I was just about to edit my post and make this correction. Oh well.

I also disagree that smartness and intelligence are the same thing necessarily, considering that one may be aquired and the other may be inborn. Everyone has intelligence, but not everyone is smart.

Hmm. Actually I don't fully understand the distinction you are pointing out. Could you give me an example?

[Angel von Himmel]

Hmm. Actually I don't fully understand the distinction you are pointing out. Could you give me an example?

Intelligence is an inborn capacity for knowledge, smartness is simply a person's aquired ability to use that given compacity.