Originally Posted by
Traveler
Why not dispute my argument point by point instead of just saying I'm wrong with no evidence. Clearly, the IQ test is wrong, you are probably a stupid NT with no verbal ability to prove your point.
I really don't know my IQ, but used that statement because it was not in line with the previous part of my post.
Anyhow, the "findings" that you're discussing is most likely based on stereotypical typings of people based on stuff like: This person is an excellent athlete - he's probably a SF/ST,
or based on statistics showing that some types are overrepresented where certain kinds of skills are needed.
This might be true and to the untrained eye indicate stuff like what you presented, but it is in no way a correct conclusion to be drawn.
Another, not as interesting but much more likely explanation is that different types have different pesonalities which makes it more likely for their type to come in contact or be interested in certain fields, like someone that have a very competitive personality might be drawn to sports where the individuals achievement is more recognized than the team effort.
This leads to a greater training of the body functions that are used when the individual is doing what he or she finds interesting.
Of course people are born with different potential for things, but it is the active use of those functions that determines how good the individual will become in them,
and some fixed order would be ridiculous... if we rigidly apply this that would mean that if someone train their least favoured function, the individual would become better at all other functions to compensate, alternatively the person would change type...
my list
1 mental abilities - excellent, easy learner, good memory,
2 gross motor skills - very good, athlete, above average in all major sports
3 verbal skills - okay - average, would'nt make a good speaker
4 fine motor - okay-poor, I can play instruments and stuff, but my hands shake constantly so I would never make a surgeon.