INTj : 20-40% dumbass

[Rocky]

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.

That's where I disagree with you.

... and what a stupid topic to debate...

...anyway, point is that McNew has been know to talk out of his ass a lot, so it's best to ignore him. I'm not really talking about one thing, but it's a series of behavior that I and others have noticed, so I thought it was important to point it out.

And seduction doesn't have much to do with type either, people! Sheashhh. Why do you guys have to place everything under the type label? This is completely the wrong place for this.

Poor Ms. K...

[Ms. Kensington]

This is exactly why people eventually realized that is not necesarily "logic" itself, but just an objective system of analysis and connection of any sort.

Nobody really agrees with this yet (and they never ever will, but I am just saying it here so you can put it in the back of your mind, and one day later realize that I was right, I am always fucking right) but being good with logic isn't related to type. It COULD be related to what type you THINK you are, but it isn't related to your intertype relationship type.

Being good with logic isn't really even related to your decisions in life, how you act, or even how smart other people think you are. All it really relates to is how quick you learn things, and how far you go when you sit down and figure something out.

Stupid is as stupid does.

well actually i was wondering if this was the case myself transigent because its like something ive feared from day one- but what in the hell would be an "objective system of analysis and connection of any sort" if not.. logic

[Raver]

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

I agree with Ishy 100%.

[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?

Why does it matter?

As long as you take what you've got, improve on it, and use it towards your own goals, what difference does it make?

for me knowledge is its own gain.

[Creepy-]

for me knowledge is its own gain.

That's the case for me, too.

[Ms. Kensington]

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.

This is something we talked about in the chat kim-- when one thing comes more naturally if you are supposedly more focused on that skill by having it in your ego block. If you are .. wired to see the world a certain way, you look for those things, they just pop out at you, you might even confuse something else for being those things you look for. doesnt mean that the other person of a type with those same functions in their ego block cant do it (what you say is ability). yes, it was poor expression, something i am guilty of too.

it also looks like my title was misconstrued-- i didnt make the claim that 20-40% of INTjs are stupid, but rather that the focus on certain skills not as a matter of desire but as a matter of hard-wiring (i agree you are born with type and noone should be lauded or decried for their type) perhaps prevents one from being completely horrible at those skills.

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

[Creepy-]

This is something we talked about in the chat kim-- when one thing comes more naturally if you are supposedly more focused on that skill by having it in your ego block. If you are .. wired to see the world a certain way, you look for those things, they just pop out at you, you might even confuse something else for being those things you look for. doesnt mean that the other person of a type with those same functions in their ego block cant do it (what you say is ability). yes, it was poor expression, something i am guilty of too.

it also looks like my title was misconstrued-- i didnt make the claim that 20-40% of INTjs are stupid, but rather that the focus on certain skills not as a matter of desire but as a matter of hard-wiring (i agree you are born with type and noone should be lauded or decried) perhaps prevents one from being completely horrible at those skills.

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

I don't think all INTjs (or ENFps, or ENFjs, are any other type) are "equal". Some INTjs are likely going to be better at Ti, Ne, etc. than other INTjs. I maintain the the role of functions within the psyche determines type, so an INTj with bad Ti is still an INTj as long as Ti still acts like the base function, but they are probably a "less-intelligent" INTj.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Ms. Kensington]

This is something we talked about in the chat kim-- when one thing comes more naturally if you are supposedly more focused on that skill by having it in your ego block. If you are .. wired to see the world a certain way, you look for those things, they just pop out at you, you might even confuse something else for being those things you look for. doesnt mean that the other person of a type with those same functions in their ego block cant do it (what you say is ability). yes, it was poor expression, something i am guilty of too.

it also looks like my title was misconstrued-- i didnt make the claim that 20-40% of INTjs are stupid, but rather that the focus on certain skills not as a matter of desire but as a matter of hard-wiring (i agree you are born with type and noone should be lauded or decried) perhaps prevents one from being completely horrible at those skills.

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

I don't think all INTjs (or ENFps, or ENFjs, are any other type) are "equal". Some INTjs are likely going to be better at Ti, Ne, etc. than other INTjs. I maintain the the role of functions within the psyche determines type, so an INTj with bad Ti is still an INTj as long as Ti still acts like the base function, but they are probably a "less-intelligent" INTj.

yeah and the question is that since the Ti in every INTj is first and that's how they MUST see the world, that's how they understand everything in the world-- can they be bad at it? how bad can they be? if you were bad at the basis of your mind-- you are pretty screwed arent you?

[Creepy-]

yeah and the question is that since the Ti in every INTj is first and that's how they MUST see the world, that's how they understand everything in the world-- can they be bad at it? how bad can they be? if you were bad at the basis of your mind-- you are pretty screwed arent you?

I want to be PC and say that no-one is "bad" at their strengths, that they're just "not as good as others", but I'm not really PC. I don't think such a thing would be an impossibility.

[Ms. Kensington]

yeah and the question is that since the Ti in every INTj is first and that's how they MUST see the world, that's how they understand everything in the world-- can they be bad at it? how bad can they be? if you were bad at the basis of your mind-- you are pretty screwed arent you?

I want to be PC and say that no-one is "bad" at their strengths, that they're just "not as good as others", but I'm not really PC. I don't think such a thing would be an impossibility.

perhaps someone needs to write a description of the functions that is even better than any of those we have now, one that would remove all skill from the perception, if that is necessary or possible.

yes, its possible for one's ability and one's interests to be separate. It is possible for you to see things a certain way and not be a master at identifying it. But is it possible for you to process info in a certain way and have just no idea what it means?

maybe you should explain yourself more and i will have better questions, ishy.

also-- the issue of PC just doesn't come into it. maybe thats what you are saying.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Ms. Kensington]

well actually i was wondering if this was the case myself transigent because its like something ive feared from day one- but what in the hell would be an "objective system of analysis and connection of any sort" if not.. logic

Well, I think can notice similarities between different people and things and group them together in some way, finding the connection that is similar to them all. I would probably refer to my favourite socionics sample the ISTj (LSI) for more examples.

Things like...

"People who wear hats are gay."
"Rich people are pansies."
"Blond haired people can't fight."

Also, Ti will compare and contrast things in the world based on certain criteria...

"The Honda has this, this, and this; wheras the Toyota has this, that, and the other"

It divides the important things, from the non important things...

"Well, I want this, and that, so I will get the Honda"

It's not really LOGIC as much at it is just a tool that makes you comfortable noticing similarities and differences, and being able to use these similarities and differences, and set them up in some sort of structure in which to evalutate the totality of these informations, and come to a decision.

The "logic" thing is just kind of a way to say that as the intellegence and perspicuousness of the person increases, the trend towards this function to be similar to pure logic increases.

Having an ENTIRE function devoted to doing pure logic would be gay. Having a function to compare, contrast, and draw out similarities and differences to arrive at a simplified framework of reality....now THAT is a function that is worthwhile to have.


Dimitri Lytov, Rick DeLong (msk of course, cuz this post is to her) and anyone else I am cool with is excluded from the following statement:

To those of you who want to be total fuckfaces and argue with me about this, don't, because I really don't feel like looking up the links right now, but I am fucking right okay, I know my shit, and you can stick your argument up your gay ass!

so the Ti you're describing is not "this man is wearing a hat; therefore he is gay"

but ONLY the skill to say (arbitrarily) "People who wear hats are gay"?

[Creepy-]

perhaps someone needs to write a description of the functions that is even better than any of those we have now, one that would remove all skill from the perception, if that is necessary or possible.

yes, its possible for one's ability and one's interests to be separate. It is possible for you to see things a certain way and not be a master at identifying it. But is it possible for you to process info in a certain way and have just no idea what it means?

maybe you should explain yourself more and i will have better questions, ishy.

also-- the issue of PC just doesn't come into it. maybe thats what you are saying.

I think it is possible. Everyone has arms and legs but some people are terrible at using them and this is quite obvious to the observer.

[Kim]

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

I know what this thread is about for you. I don't think I'm bound to look at the world through NeFi eyes and only those. If that were the case, I could not communicate with a TeNi the way I do.

Who is to say that you suck? All forms of measurement are constructed by people. You are talking about logic and logic can be tested in so many different ways: writing research articles, planning studies, solving equations, doing physics, taking standardized tests, doing a discourse analysis, etc, etc, etc. If you suck at one of these, you have a million other ways to prove yourself. And the correlation between and logic is highly overrated anyway. But you have heard it all before. :wink:

[wym123]

I know what this thread is about for you. I don't think I'm bound to look at the world through NeFi eyes and only those. If that were the case, I could not communicate with a TeNi the way I do.

In my opinion, you did not do a good job with T-based communcation. In our exchanges, I noticed that your arguments were mainly based on your subjective impression. For example, you claimed that I was contradicting myself and I think it is because you had that impression. When shown that none existed, you then claimed that I was being "being imprecise and semantically inaccurate" but I don't see how that would be the case. Even though there is no contradiction, perhaps you probably still felt that there is something wrong with my post, so you were just going to say your next impression. You also claimed that I was trying to discriminate F-types and I am pretty certain I did no such thing but you probably got that idea because of the resulting overall impression of my posts. There are more examples but anyway, I think a T-based communcation would not have used impressions at all and I believe such communication is usually in the domain of N and F (but I am not sure).

[Ms. Kensington]

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

I know what this thread is about for you. I don't think I'm bound to look at the world through NeFi eyes and only those. If that were the case, I could not communicate with a TeNi the way I do.

Who is to say that you suck? All forms of measurement are constructed by people. You are talking about logic and logic can be tested in so many different ways: writing research articles, planning studies, solving equations, doing physics, taking standardized tests, doing a discourse analysis, etc, etc, etc. If you suck at one of these, you have a million other ways to prove yourself. And the correlation between and logic is highly overrated anyway. But you have heard it all before. :wink:

i wasnt saying that you are bound to look at them through those eyes only, fyi.

so I guess I ask for a compare contrast table of logic and Ti (from anyone)

'specially because tranisgent seems to imply that the underlying structure of one's mental capabilities are different than your mental makeup-- and what i want is an expansion on that.

it could be really fun.

[Kim]

In my opinion, you did not do a good job with T-based communcation. In our exchanges, I noticed that your arguments were mainly based on your subjective impression.

Ok, how thick can a person possibly be? I stated that you are confusing definitions. I pointed it out to you and I won't do it again. You will weasel yourself out in any way you can think of. Your definitions were sloppy, your argument confusing and you have received feedback not only from me.

For example, you claimed that I was contradicting myself because you had that impression. When shown that none existed, you then claimed that I was being "being imprecise and semantically inaccurate" but I don't see how that would be the case.

You mentioned the term "contradiction" first, I hastily picked it up. When I went back to edit, you had already replied. I pointed out where you were vague.

You also claimed that I was trying to discriminate F-types and I am pretty certain I did no such thing but you probably got that idea because of the resulting overall impression of my posts.

Claiming that one type is inherently more intelligent than another is discriminatory in my world.

There are more examples but anyway, I think a T-based communcation would not have used impressions at all and I believe such communication is usually in the domain of N and F (but I am not sure).

edit: more on that some other time.

[Kim]

I might get back to you. Right now I'm too tired and irritated.

[wym123]

Ok, how thick can a person possibly be? I stated that you are confusing definitions. I pointed it out to you and I won't do it again. You will weasel yourself out in any way you can think of. Your definitions were sloppy, your argument confusing and you have received feedback not only from me.

For example, you claimed that I was contradicting myself because you had that impression. When shown that none existed, you then claimed that I was being "being imprecise and semantically inaccurate" but I don't see how that would be the case.

You mentioned the term "contradiction" first, I hastily picked it up. When I went back to edit, you had already replied. I pointed out where you were vague.

I clarified in my second post that I never intended my comment about desire for knowledge to be a definition (and even stated the actual definition) and yet you continued to attack it by claiming that I cannot make those two statements simultaneously. That sounds like you are claiming that I have a contradiction somewhere right? As for "weaseling out," you miscontrued my arguments multiple times and I do not get a chance to clarify what I meant?

I might have been vague. I might have omitted things such as how education factors into it, etc. However, it wasn't very nice of you to put words in my mouth and make incorrect assumptions about my claims and you did that a few times.

You also claimed that I was trying to discriminate F-types and I am pretty certain I did no such thing but you probably got that idea because of the resulting overall impression of my posts.

Claiming that one type is inherently more intelligent than another is discriminatory in my world.

Is that what you meant? I thought, you, like Transigent, thought that I said something like, F-types are bound to stupidity forever, which I am sure I did not say. But anyway, you have never made any posts that claim the emotional inferiority of certain types?? If you are the kind of people that believe that everyone is balanced and can use every function perfectly then I don't even know why you are studying Socionics. So please don't be a hypocrite.

You know what? I'm fucking shit of this bullshit. I'm sick of having to be extra-super to convince people that their reasoning is flawed or lacking only because I'm an ENFp. I've had it for today with NTs shoving into my face how superior they are and being able to do so without ever proving themselves. People here are stupid enough to embrace every bullshit as long as it's posted by a T and especially NT. Get over yourselves, people.

I did not treat you differently from any other debater. I don't know what you mean by being "extra-super to convince people that their reasoning is flawed."

T communication? What the bloody hell is that supposed to be? You talk about having impressions after you played the "you are insecure" card on me. God, dude, you really have no clue how oblivious you are.

I never used that as an argument to refute your claims. That was solely my impression of you from your posts just as the last two posts are also such impressions. For the most part I think I am using N (maybe combined with Ti/Te for organization??) but if I am in a debate, I would never use N like this and make arguments because these arguments are usually very weak. For the record, I find it difficult to use pure Ti to assess the minds of people because of the subjectivity of the evidence (it is not as if I can read people with absolutely certainty).

I'm done here. You don't get it and I'm wasting my time. I'll go and make people happy now. That's what I was made for, apparently.

And Socionics sucks.

I am done with this thread. I had enough. You are free to reply if you want though but I am not going to bother with it.

[MySaviour]

My question is if your mind forces you to see things in the order of your first function-- and we are all assuming that the functions or combinations of functions exist as information processing or reception styles-- can you possibly be HORRIBLE at it? Then the implication seems to be that if you cannot, you might be able to make some kind of estimate, or a relative and not ABSOLUTE one about how low you can go with that skill....

again i didnt intend a thread about saying NTs are smarter than F types or that T types are smarter by function.. or more intelligent.. it was about one's strength in the functions in their ego block.

I know what this thread is about for you. I don't think I'm bound to look at the world through NeFi eyes and only those. If that were the case, I could not communicate with a TeNi the way I do.

Who is to say that you suck? All forms of measurement are constructed by people. You are talking about logic and logic can be tested in so many different ways: writing research articles, planning studies, solving equations, doing physics, taking standardized tests, doing a discourse analysis, etc, etc, etc. If you suck at one of these, you have a million other ways to prove yourself. And the correlation between and logic is highly overrated anyway. But you have heard it all before. :wink:

Those are the only eyes you look through. I'm gonna be "closed-minded" and say that. As for the other eyes out there, the best you can do is realize that they exist, and that they are different from yours.

I WANT TO SEE SOMEONE ACTIVELY VIEW THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF ANOTHER.

Like, SERIOUSLY.

Like.. understand an INTp.

Like.. really do.

SERIOUSLY.

Perspective is terribly misunderstood. And its usually by people who MUST have more than one.

The thoughts between "SERIOUSLY" are directed at you, Kim, and the rest isn't.

What say y'all?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[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.

No

I'm afraid so.

[Angel von Himmel]

...anyway, point is that McNew has been know to talk out of his ass a lot, so it's best to ignore him. I'm not really talking about one thing, but it's a series of behavior that I and others have noticed, so I thought it was important to point it out.

Really ... ? Excuse me for implementing the theories of Descartes, the supposed "father of all modern" philosophy, who had to deal with the inadequacy of direct and indirect realitivism and had to find ways to deal with them and if you took the time to do some actual research you would find that I am pretty much in line with Socrates and Descartes both, if that matters to you. And I suppose if that means I am talking out of my ass, then the last four years I spent studying this stuff means jack and Rocky is the fucking God of knowledge and who knows who he will hit next with his smiting dumbass rod. Maybe I should point out your eisegetical habits of reading your own opinions into ideas where they do not belong and looking like someone who should not be taken seriously. I doubt that is going to stop anytime soon, unless of course you truly see that you are like that and strive to change.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Angel von Himmel]

BURN!

FLAME!

[schrödinger's cat]

Open a window. Stand up straight, take a deep breath. Let the air go deeeeep within your lungs. Hold it for a moment. Then breathe out, let go, slowly. Repeat.

[Kim]

Ok, starting over. This is what is offensive:

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.

I, as an NF in academia, making meaningful contributions, must be offended by this. Same with many NTs who have excellent social skills. This is where Socionics goes wrong because stereotypes like this are so limiting for yourself as well as your view of others. You bask in your supposed superiority and pat us on the shoulder "hey, you have great people skills, though!" It is highly irritating for those of us who venture out of our Socionics comfort zone (I'm being mildly sarcastic here), but don't get recignition or at least an open ear because we get to hear accusation of being irrational, blablabla. I often wonder what it would be like to register again as an NT type. It would be most fascinating. Oh, and what about the NF types with poor social skills. Or the NTs who can't do math?

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

In my opinion, you did not do a good job with T-based communcation. In our exchanges, I noticed that your arguments were mainly based on your subjective impression. For example, you claimed that I was contradicting myself and I think it is because you had that impression

Please note parts marked in red. Meta-analyses of conversations are so tedious and pointless. Why not just make sure that the other understands what you are talking about? You are wasting precious time and energy with that. Plus you are accusing me of something you did yourself.

Ok, moving right along:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because desire to learn can translate into many different forms of learning, as in reading fiction, exploring sports, learning math equations, growing crops, etc. My desire to learn takes place in areas that require me to use and and . The ENTp who sets out to study social work will have to muster that , and so on. The desire to learn is only a start. Once you actually go about learning, each type will have to strengthen functions other than the dominant ones. It is not the desire to learn that makes one smart, it is the actual learning (if anything. I think people are born with their intelligence) and the actual learning can involve more than N and T depending on what it is that you learn.

But essentially this debate has run into a wall because I don't agree that people become intelligent as they go through life one way or the other.

[wym123]

I am pathetic. I really really couldn't help myself. Your writing is just infuriating.

Ok, starting over. This is what is offensive:

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.

I, as an NF in academia, making meaningful contributions, must be offended by this. Same with many NTs who have excellent social skills. This is where Socionics goes wrong because stereotypes like this are so limiting for yourself as well as your view of others. You bask in your supposed superiority and pat us on the shoulder "hey, you have great people skills, though!" It is highly irritating for those of us who venture out of our Socionics comfort zone (I'm being mildly sarcastic here), but don't get recignition or at least an open ear because we get to hear accusation of being irrational, blablabla. I often wonder what it would be like to register again as an NT type. It would be most fascinating. Oh, and what about the NF types with poor social skills. Or the NTs who can't do math?

Your comment in response to my phrase "which non-NT types are good at" is soooo F. Is the comment true? I think so. By the way, I am speaking "comparatively" not "absolutely." Certain types have better social skills. I suppose only F types would have a problem with offensive but true comments. I think that's why most NTs actually would not be pissed by the comment. They are T and they probably understand that this is the truth no matter how you slice it.

As for the other comment about why I value my intelligence. Yea, it's is why I value MY intelligence. Some people value their intelligence because intelligence can easily used to show off and impress people. Some people value their intelligence because they think it is cool to be an F-type with big brains. Some may actually have the same reason as me. Blah blah blah, there are so many reasons. Everyone has their own reason if they value it and some people might actually hate the fact that they are brainiacs. Why my reason would offend you off? I have no fucking idea. It is as if you are saying that it is wrong for me to state why I do things. It might have something to do with the fact that you are dominated by F and not T, hence find even the harmless comments insulting. Yea, THIS might offend you but consider for a moment that it might actually be true. On second thought, maybe it offends you because you think I am speaking on behalfs of NTs and also saying that non-NT would never ever do it for this reason. Why you would read my lines so deeply and put these fucking words in my mouth? I have no clue but it probably has something to that F thinking of yours. Seriously, read the fucking line, I am only speaking for MYSELF and ONLY MYSELF. You are so fucking annoying. For the damn record, there is no fucking possible way that I can be speaking for all NTs because a very small portion of any population are even interested in contributing to academia. Most NTs are probably interested in Business or some other thing but definitely not academia. Geez.

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

In my opinion, you did not do a good job with T-based communcation. In our exchanges, I noticed that your arguments were mainly based on your subjective impression. For example, you claimed that I was contradicting myself and I think it is because you had that impression

Please note parts marked in red. Meta-analyses of conversations are so tedious and pointless. Why not just make sure that the other understands what you are talking about? You are wasting precious time and energy with that. Plus you are accusing me of something you did yourself.

Well, excuuuuse me for explaining to you how you came across. Why don't you just drop this fucking matter about how I offended you because "Meta-analyses of conversations are so tedious and pointless" and in your case, annoying. What a fucking hypocrite. For the recording, I spent a lot of wasted effort trying to get you to understand me. Much of it was wasted because you are so prone to misreading and coloring what you read with your damn subjectivity.

Also, don't you dare accusing me of doing the same thing as you. You are insane in you think: "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" resembles an argument. What the fuck is it supposed to refute?

On the other hand, your perpetual misinterpretations are really cute and shows exactly how you are making your arguments. Geez.

Ok, moving right along:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because desire to learn can translate into many different forms of learning, as in reading fiction, exploring sports, learning math equations, growing crops, etc. My desire to learn takes place in areas that require me to use and and . The ENTp who sets out to study social work will have to muster that , and so on. The desire to learn is only a start. Once you actually go about learning, each type will have to strengthen functions other than the dominant ones. It is not the desire to learn that makes one smart, it is the actual learning (if anything. I think people are born with their intelligence) and the actual learning can involve more than N and T depending on what it is that you learn.

But essentially this debate has run into a wall because I don't agree that people become intelligent as they go through life one way or the other.

You misinterpreted my definition of intelligence again. So much for when you can't even keep track of the definitions. People become more intelligent by learning. Given the kind of intelligence I am talking about, "The ENTp who sets out to study social work will have to muster that , and so on." is irrelevant because I am specifically not talking about this kind of intelligence and learning. I have never heard a social worker described as "intelligent" because he or she was good at menial social work, taking care of people, blah blah blah. Similarly, I have never heard a student describe as "intelligent" because this student can recite a summary of what he or she read. On the other hand, I have seen many students being described as intelligent for giving a very indepth analysis of what they read. I also have never seen an athlete describe as "intelligent." Would you just stop it already? If you still don't get my point, you are a lost cause and forgot about trying to assert or because you are still asserting F functions.

[Kim]

You are not getting it because you don't want to get it. As long as your reaction to criticism is based on the person in front of you and not the content of the criticism, you will limit yourself to being yet another self-righteous and delusional T-type. I have seen and heard enough of your kind in the past days to gladly put this to rest. You are not capable of laying out a good argument. Trust me on that one. I teach people how to do that and rule number one: be respectful of your audience. Rule number two: don't alienate your audience by making assumptions. Rule number three: if your audience doesn't get your point, rephrase. Make your point accessible. It's up to you to make sure that they understand. If you cannot do that, you might want to check on both

I'm 100% sure that this conversation would have gone into a different direction if I had "xNTx" in my signature. But that's your problem, not mine.

[Kim]

PS: There is only one reason why I could possibly misinterpret your definition of intelligence once again: it does not make the slightest sense. It's poorly conceived, ambiguous and holds no water. F, sit down.

[wym123]

You are not getting it because you don't want to get it. As long as your reaction to criticism is based on the person in front of you and not the content of the criticism, you will limit yourself to being yet another self-righteous and delusional T-type. I have seen and heard enough of your kind in the past days to gladly put this to rest. You are not capable of laying out a good argument.

Absolutely false. I am not coloring you as F because of your signature or what I already know about you (I know NOTHING about you). I am coloring you as F as a RESULT of the way you put arguments in front of me. Furthermore, I am ultimately responding to the criticism and not to you and I am refuting all your claims about my supposed "offenses" using pure and I am not making inherent assumptions about you in its refutation. Just read, dammit! Am I refuting them by claiming that they are false because you are a non-T type? Absolutely NOT. I have only called you a F type, after I have refuted your arguments because they are so indicative of F.

Let me reiterate my refutations succinctly:
1. NT types are probably not offended because they are T type so your comment is completely irrelevant.

2. There is absolutely no rational way you can claim that my comment about why I value my intelligence can offend you because I am speaking strictly about how I am as a person.

3. Your argument about the futility of advancing "Meta-analyses of conversations" is not well received because you yourself have committed the offensive in a much greater scope so don't "lecture" me about conduct.

4. You refutation about the problems with my arguments are also not well received because you have totally misunderstood the definitions I was using.

Happy? See? I was refuting only your criticism and I have not involved you at all or whatever person you are. Geez. Just stop.

Trust me on that one. I teach people how to do that and rule number one: be respectful of your audience. Rule number two: don't alienate your audience by making assumptions.

In the first four/five? (more if you exclude the incredibly comment about my impression of you) posts to you, you should check and see whether I was disrespectful or alienated you. Maybe that will tell you something, especially about the ridiculousness of your claim. Of course, I don't even know why you are even qualify to teach these given that you have committed these offenses especially the second one perhaps in every post.

Rule number three: if your audience doesn't get your point, rephrase. Make your point accessible. It's up to you to make sure that they understand. If you cannot do that, you might want to check on both

Oh for the record, I have rephrased myself many times. Too bad you were too caught up in trying to find a way to attack my on some logical error that you never caught it. Well, I guess now, you are still trying to ignore your mistakes and are unwilling to admit them by claiming that I was being rude or something. hahahaha. Am I making a dubious claim? Yes, it would be difficult for me to come up with a clear case because "motive" and "intentions" are very difficult to prove. But I think we know deep down inside what really happen.

I'm 100% sure that this conversation would have gone into a different direction if I had "xNTx" in my signature. But that's your problem, not mine.

Don't delude yourself. Arcanum is an INFj I think. Also, read my opening arguments to you.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=20

PS: There is only one reason why I could possibly misinterpret your definition of intelligence once again: it does not make the slightest sense. It's poorly conceived, ambiguous and holds no water. F, sit down.

http://www.wilderdom.com/personality...finitions.html

Classic definitions of intelligence
"The ability to carry out abstract thinking."
(Terman, 1921)
"The capacity for knowledge, and knowledge possessed."
(Henmon, 1921)
"The capacity to learn or to profit by experience."
(Dearborn, 1921)
"The capacity to acquire capacity."
(Woodrow, 1921)
"Intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests."
(Boring, 1923) (including GREs)
"A global concept that involves an individual's ability to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment."
(Wechsler, 1958)
"Intelligence is a general factor that runs through all types of performance."
(Jensen)
"A person possesses intelligence insofar as he had learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to his environment."
(Colvin, cited in Sternberg, 1982, p.30)
"Intelligence is adaption to the environment."
(unknown)
"Intelligence is that faculty of mind by which order is perceived in a situation previously considered disordered."
(R.W. Young, cited in Kurzweil, 1999)
"Intelligent activity consists of grasping the essentials in a given situation and responding appropriately to them."
(unknown)
"Intelligence is the ability to use optimally limited resources - including time - to achieve goals."
(Kurzweil, 1999)
"Intelligence is what you do when you don't know what to do."
(unknown)
"Intelligence is a hypothetical idea which we have defined as being reflected by certain types of behaviour."
(unknown)

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the ones I think are most similarly to my definition. Happy? Once again, I am deflecting your criticism by refuting your criticism. I have not taken note of your behavior so don't delude yourself.

[Rocky]

Rocky is the fucking God of knowledge.

Yeah, I agree. :wink:


Anyway, you didn't explain how Descartes has anything to do with what you said. And I'm not about to attack you here. That is the kind of stuff that I have tried to avoid because it only leads to stress for people when they argue it all out for no reason and no one gets any where. However, what I was referring to was how you give relationship advice even though you complain about how you can never get relationships to work, how you give "hook up" advice even though you said you were afraid of female genetalia, and how you claim to know everything about how socionics works and everybodies socionic type even though you can't differentiate between an INTP and ENFJ. And you know this too because you make it all better by saying, "Well, people don't have to listen to the advice I give" and so on.

Was Descartes giving you relationship advice as well?

[Kim]

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the ones I think are most similarly to my definition. Happy? Once again, I am deflecting your criticism by refuting your criticism. I have not taken note of your behavior so don't delude yourself.

Aaahhhhhhhh! Let's stop. I addressed this and said that I disagree with your premise. Let's put this to rest. I apologize for being a bitch. But I CAN'T STAND it when people start the F-bullshit with me. Please understand that it's a recurring theme. I might overreact and it's nothing personal.

I don't agree with your viewpoint that people get more intelligent by learning. That's the bottom line.

[wym123]

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the ones I think are most similarly to my definition. Happy? Once again, I am deflecting your criticism by refuting your criticism. I have not taken note of your behavior so don't delude yourself.

Aaahhhhhhhh! Let's stop. I addressed this and said that I disagree with your premise. Let's put this to rest. I apologize for being a bitch. But I CAN'T STAND it when people start the F-bullshit with me. Please understand that it's a recurring theme. I might overreact and it's nothing personal.

I don't agree with your viewpoint that people get more intelligent by learning. That's the bottom line.

I am glad that you realized how you acted and I accept your apology. I really didn't want to point it out by accusing you explicitly because it would really have been offensive and rude.

[Kim]

Well, I do think that your comments about me arguing like an F-type and employing F-functions are nonsense. And I still strongly believe that you would have employed different strategies if I were a T-type. And I still think your argument does not hold water. I know I was not necessarily very friendly throughout (and apoologized), but I did not doubt the credibility of your argument based on your type. That is why I got annoyed with the meta-analysis: it is an unfair ad hominem strategy.

It's just so pointless to carry on at this point. You think NTs are generally more intelligent than other types because people are not born intelligent, they seek out knowledge and NTs are the type to seek out knowledge and are thus more intelligent. Or was it that intelligent people will be typed as NTs because NTs are more intelligent?

See, I'm still confused.

[XoX]

Taking my ESTj face...

There is work to do people! This thread is closed go do your job!

Hmm..maybe I should say something more. I'm a result oriented person so I don't find it very important what functions people use to make things happen as long as they happen.

Secondly arguing with your supervisor is quite a challenge no matter if you are right or wrong. I'm not absolutely sure if this was the case but anyways.

Thirdly it would be cool to read through this thread to know exactly what is happening here but uh..that would be too much atm.

Fourthly <3 msk, <3 Diana

Fifthly Kim you spend too much time here arguing what functions you can use and what not. You are luckily in a job where you can prove these things by producing real results so maybe you could take these conversations more "lightly" and focus more energy to workplace Let those who are not there yet argue about whether they have what it takes or not. I'm just thinking about all those students and professors who are in the impression that your thoughts are focused on their "needs". Of course it is nice to defend the rights of people here but still...hush! or something

[Kim]

Fifthly Kim you spend too much time here arguing what functions you can use and what not. You are luckily in a job where you can prove these things by producing real results so maybe you could take these conversations more "lightly" and focus more energy to workplace

Do not patronize me like that. Seriously, who do you think you are to tell me what I should do with my time and how to take things? That is rude and condescending, ok? And I would tell this to anyone who posted such a thing, so it's nothing personal.

Let those who are not there yet argue about whether they have what it takes or not. I'm just thinking about all those students and professors who are in the impression that your thoughts are focused on their "needs". Of course it is nice to defend the rights of people here but still...hush! or something

Are you telling me to shut up? Then just say it. Spare me the sugar coat.

[XoX]

If you feel it is fun and best thing to do to keep going then go on. I just think this thread has seen its best days. Maybe a new thread at least?

Edit: lol! Sugar coat. If I want someone to shut up I say "SHUT UP" or something. I'm just getting bad and unproductive vibes or something. Small break and change of dynamics is at least needed. I mean judging from the last posts you two have went on for a long time and it didn't go really anywhere...

[wym123]

Well, I do think that your comments about me arguing like an F-type and employing F-functions are nonsense. And I still strongly believe that you would have employed different strategies if I were a T-type. And I still think your argument does not hold water. I know I was not necessarily very friendly throughout (and apoologized), but I did not doubt the credibility of your argument based on your type. That is why I got annoyed with the meta-analysis: it is an unfair ad hominem strategy.

Wait a few days and when you feel more calm, come back and read our exchanges. You might notice that my claims about how your arguments are full of F is not really nonsense. Please don't be offended and use this time to learn something about yourself and consider it an area you need to work on if you want to be better at using .

Honestly, from the very start, I was already annoyed by your posts: "Intelligence does not increase with level of education. You are implying that education makes you intelligent. Not so. Try again." I think this was extremely unnecessary in the first counterargument and gave me a glimpse (however incorrect it may be) of your attitude. As the arguments progressed, my impression of you began to worsen but I never stopped giving you arguments (and you can't argue otherwise, seriously). My strategy was perfectly T.

When the debate was finally over, I decided to just tell you my impression of our exchanges and I suppose it escalated from there. It was not a strategy of debating and I never considered it as such. I am 100% sure that I only used T arguments against you, despite what you may think. I really don't make arguments that involve how the debater is as a person. I might made side comments because I tend to find explanations for everything and if I find your arguments "weird," my brain automatically tries to find patterns and figure out why you are making these kinds of arguments, but none of them will ever be used as refutations. As for an "ad hominem" strategy, you really can't consider it as such because I always gave you fully adaquete refutations and never used them as arguments and the one of the requirements of an "ad hominem" is that the "attack" must used as evidence against your claims.

It's just so pointless to carry on at this point. You think NTs are generally more intelligent than other types because people are not born intelligent, they seek out knowledge and NTs are the type to seek out knowledge and are thus more intelligent. Or was it that intelligent people will be typed as NTs because NTs are more intelligent?

See, I'm still confused.

1. Maybe some people are born with better brains than others. I don't know and I am going to assume that it is not true. However it is possible to construct a similar set of claims for the 'yes' assumption.

2. Probably through acculturation, early childhood experiences, etc, some people (children) develop the desire to learn.

3. Given this desire to learn, they probably end up accumulating vast amounts of knowledge. Furthermore, they probably have learned how to exercise abstract thinking, logical reasoning, clear analysis, mental cleverness, etc, very well and hence can use those mental facilities much better than others.

4. A majority of the upper echelon of these (those that are compulsive thinkers and learners) probably end up developing characteristics that are in NT types. Similarly a majority in the lower echelon (those that are moderate thinkers and learners (not compulsive) probably end up developing characteristics that are non-NT types. Finally, those that have not developed this desire at all are probably not NTs at all.

5. If we define these characteristics as intelligence, which is a very fair definition and probably the most intuitive definition (after all, what kind of people would you describe as "smart" or "intelligent"). It is clear that NT types are probably the more intelligent in general because the most obsessive thinkers and learners develop into NT types in general. Furthermore this characterization goes the other way: given an NT type, this person is probably intelligent, and became intelligent because this person had a strong desire to learn.

6. Because knowledge is included in the definition and because application of these facilities does not always yield real knowledge (i.e. believing wrong assumptions and working with them, which is typical for the those that are not educated), some NT types may actually be stupid because they do not have any real knowledge.

NTs are the type to seek out knowledge and are thus more intelligent

Yes

Or was it that intelligent people will be typed as NTs because NTs are more intelligent

No

I am claiming that intrinsic desire to learn is very NTish and such desire usually results in intelligence. There are probably other means of acquiring intelligence but such means are probably extremely difficult to implement and hence, rarely used (maybe extreme discipline without any actual interest?).