Types of Intelligence you are strongest in

[Myst]

TI is described differently by different people, but I see it more of a 'correct/incorrect' function

Which i don't necessarily see useful to approaching an equation, but more useful for checking that the equation has been perfomed correctly.. Though maybe it could be used when approaching an equation; "have i seen an equation like this before, yes/no"? and then using memory to do the process, rather than looking at the equation from a 'fresh' perspective and then looking at it from different angles 'NE'


I would see TI as very useful for Verbal reasoning, whereby a large passage of writing is looked at, and then questions based on the passage are to be answered as correct or incorrect. I am so much slower at this stuff compared to math/ other stuff that I'm classed as dyslexic

It would fit what I have seen on forums, whereby TI doms/egos in particular, are always correcting/helping people by breaking large posts down, and correcting them peice by peice

Urgh what What crazy black and white binary view is this? (Don't be offended please, I'm just surprised. Could also be you didn't flesh out what you meant, ofc.)

So basically, no, that's only an output of Ti reasoning to judge something as correct or incorrect. The reasoning itself is way more nuanced. It's not just memorizing, either. It's just not usually shown in full by Ti leads. If you ask them to explain all of it then you might get all of it (it will take time, effort and a lot of patience to write the whole book on it ), but otherwise they tend to show less of their thinking process than some other people. For me that tendency fits for sure, I see it as a bad habit of mine, it's definitely a problem in some situations.

But, yes, that is a very important point that Ti judges correctness. So if that's what you wanted to emphasize then I agree.

TI should also be useful for organising things into their correct place... and many other things I am sure...

Yeah.

[neproblems]

Urgh what What crazy black and white binary view is this? (Don't be offended please, I'm just surprised. Could also be you didn't flesh out what you meant, ofc.)

So basically, no, that's only an output of Ti reasoning to judge something as correct or incorrect. The reasoning itself is way more nuanced. It's not just memorizing, either. It's just not usually shown in full by Ti leads. If you ask them to explain all of it then you might get all of it (it will take time, effort and a lot of patience to write the whole book on it ), but otherwise they tend to show less of their thinking process than some other people. For me that tendency fits for sure, I see it as a bad habit of mine, it's definitely a problem in some situations.

But, yes, that is a very important point that Ti judges correctness. So if that's what you wanted to emphasize then I agree.




Yeah.

Yeah, no offence from me either, i do like to simplfy stuff, and have only seen the/an output of it.

[Skepsis]

Approximations, from strongest to weakest:

Existential
Visual/Spatial
Logical/Mathematical
Naturalistic/Verbal
Verbal/Naturalistic
Bodily/Kinesthetic
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal

[Muddy]

Why do you see Spatial as Te?

I think Ne is strongly connected with Verbal compared to Se at least. Ti also somewhat.

I would think Naturalist can be Se.

The Math part can be N a bit (Ni/Ne) beyond just Ti.

Spatial intelligence has a lot do with figuring out puzzles and mechanisms which is a skill stereotypically associated to Te egos. As a side note I believe @Adam Strange said somewhere that he was in the top percentile when it came to spatial tests, interesting considering he is a Te lead.

[Adam Strange]

Spatial intelligence has a lot do with figuring out puzzles and mechanisms which is a skill stereotypically associated to Te egos. As a side note I believe @Adam Strange said somewhere that he was in the top percentile when it came to spatial tests, interesting considering he is a Te lead.

According to Medusa, strong Te also means strong Se.

I also test as having low Ni compared to most LIE's. Might be why I'm attracted to IEI's and have so many ILI friends.

[ashlesha]

According to Medusa, strong Te also means strong Se.

I also test as having low Ni compared to most LIE's. Might be why I'm attracted to IEI's and have so many ILI friends.

An enhanced focus on the HA due to subtype does not make it "strong" in the same sense in which the ego functions are strong. I focus a lot on my HA and it's important to me but I think the difference is pretty stark when you put me next to an Ni ego. Model A should theoretically stay intact.

[The Reality Denialist]

HA is too one sided and needs to be in some sort of check. However I can be really freaking expressive and dramatic clown when I'm in the right place. It has its uses.
Creative IE is always narrower than base IE. I think it can be caught up by demonstrative making shortcuts. Supervisee gives you your suggestive IE and small doses ignoring (about the same amount as dual).

[wasp]

More symmetrical faces are also more intelligent apparently. It's a well-known idea touted by the scientific community. You can look it up.

And it's also science, so not just drawn from people and their stereotypes about humans.

it's merely a hypothesis and those studies, like all studies, suffer greatly from confirmation bias. I'm pretty sure the average disparity is less than 1% and the sample sizes for those studies tend to be quite small, which skews the results, and I think Dr Pound's study in particular was conducted on 15 year old students, so there's a chance that the slight correlation observed in the students could be a result of slightly more symmetrical faces resulting in higher self-confidence levels. maybe it's a matter of performance anxiety, or maybe it's a simple case of mistaking a small part for the whole. what if the students who scored the highest on the IQ test administered by Dr Pound and his colleagues, had less symmetrical faces than the rest of the students? and what if the ones who scored the lowest had less symmetrical faces, too? so what if the real correlation here lies in there being a greater disparity in intelligence in those with less symmetrical faces (i.e. very smart or very dumb) and those with more symmetrical faces reeling in average IQ scores?

I'm not sure why you'd put stock in studies when nearly every study conducted aims to prove the correctness of their own hypothesis, disregarding uncontrolled variables, but the truth of the matter is that you could probably find just as many studies that propose (and prove) the opposite hypothesis, unless you conduct a nation-wide study with large sample sizes from each school, providing photos of the students, along with their respective IQs.

[Aylen]

According to Medusa, strong Te also means strong Se.

I also test as having low Ni compared to most LIE's. Might be why I'm attracted to IEI's and have so many ILI friends.

LSE have 4D Se, so strong, but not valued. ILI have stronger Te but where is Se in terms of strength for them? LII have strong Te too if you want to go that far and they are Se polr.

@lungs is correct about the difference between a HA and ego. Stark differences.

[Olimpia]

According to Medusa, strong Te also means strong Se.

Um... Literally? I don't think I've ever said that...

Unless you meant the subtype theory... Yeah, Te subtype of Gamma NTs will have boosted Se, but that does not necessarily mean their Se is "strong". An ILI-Te still won't have "strong" Se, but it will surely be better than the Se of an ILI-Ni. Similar thing applies to LIE-Te and Se. Their Se can be "good enough" in some ways, but it is not truly "strong".

[Myst]

Spatial intelligence has a lot do with figuring out puzzles and mechanisms which is a skill stereotypically associated to Te egos. As a side note I believe @Adam Strange said somewhere that he was in the top percentile when it came to spatial tests, interesting considering he is a Te lead.

I'm good in spatial tests too but I doubt I approach these things in the same way Te egos do. It would be interesting to ask @Adam Strange about how he does these things, what his mental process looks like. Then, I'm fine with figuring out puzzles, too. Again I don't see that as a purely Te domain. I'm not really all that into them by default, true, that is, I'm not finding it just "fun" to play with them, I just take it as some sort of task to be solved if someone asks me to do such a puzzle or if it's a task to be done somewhere. I can like the challenge though. So in terms of that I'm OK with them.


Here's a few skills associated with spatial intelligence (quoting from some googled articles):

- transformations of the orientation of objects (e.g., mental rotations) and the ability to imagine the consequence of observer movements around arrays of objects (i.e., perspective taking).

I would say this one can be Se just as much as Te. Interestingly enough, I find that as long as the object (or objects) is full of sensory details, I can move it around very fast in my mind in any way, I can imagine any consequences / take spatial perspectives on it, all this is done lightning-quick, but if the object to be rotated/moved mentally is some abstract schematic thing, I slow down somewhat. I can still manipulate those pretty well, I score well in such tests, but it's not done without mental effort like I do it with the realistic objects with sensory traits. It doesn't feel as neatly natural. Maybe that's a Se vs Te thing, I dunno. Or even some ST vs NT thing. Thoughts?

- spatial metaphors and diagrams to understand ordered relations (e.g., the ranking of Gross National Product among developing countries) or complex hierarchical relations (e.g., social relationships and biological taxonomies). Abstract and analytical abilities that go beyond merely seeing images. Recognizing the image, knowing its relationship to other surrounding objects and displaying the organizational structure of a thought are all involved in spatial intelligence.

This one I'm very good at. I do conscious and easy manipulation of such abstract spatial relations. It's very natural to me. (Unlike the mental rotating of abstract objects. Instead of relations.) I can think in other ways in mathematics but this is one of my favourite ways. I see it as Ti, really. Thoughts?

- ability or mental skill to solve spatial problems of navigation. Map reading: a good example of visual thinking is when someone is hiking and has a compass and map. Though there is no physical path laid out the hiker will use the tools to visualize a mental path using the maps and compass to derive the best route through woods.

Again, natural with this and I see it as Ti for myself.


Gardner also says it's an essentially thing-oriented intelligence so yeah much more related to Logic than Ethics. But I don't see it as purely the domain of Te. It's Ti just as much. Why wouldn't it be?

[Myst]

I'm not sure why you'd put stock in studies when nearly every study conducted aims to prove the correctness of their own hypothesis, disregarding uncontrolled variables, but the truth of the matter is that you could probably find just as many studies that propose (and prove) the opposite hypothesis, unless you conduct a nation-wide study with large sample sizes from each school, providing photos of the students, along with their respective IQs.

Well it's not as simple as that. Maybe some researchers intentionally disregard other variables but often you just don't have the possibility to take into account and control for every possible variable in one single study. You will just have to do more studies later to check out more variables. Studies do try to control a lot of variables still.

Otoh, I do agree that you can't just read 1-2 studies and draw conclusions from them. You do have to familiarize yourself with all studies on the topic to really see correctly as much as possible.

[Muddy]

Here's a few skills associated with spatial intelligence (quoting from some googled articles):

- transformations of the orientation of objects (e.g., mental rotations) and the ability to imagine the consequence of observer movements around arrays of objects (i.e., perspective taking).

I would say this one can be Se just as much as Te. Interestingly enough, I find that as long as the object (or objects) is full of sensory details, I can move it around very fast in my mind in any way, I can imagine any consequences / take spatial perspectives on it, all this is done lightning-quick, but if the object to be rotated/moved mentally is some abstract schematic thing, I slow down somewhat. I can still manipulate those pretty well, I score well in such tests, but it's not done without mental effort like I do it with the realistic objects with sensory traits. It doesn't feel as neatly natural. Maybe that's a Se vs Te thing, I dunno. Or even some ST vs NT thing. Thoughts?

So what you are saying is that if you can physically see an object, you can easily manipulate it in your head, but would have trouble visualizing/manipulating the same object of it was just on something like paper or on the computer? I would imagine this would be linked to Sensing>Intuition but I'm not particularly gifted at things like engineering so I can't really make a firm call. I too though would rather being able to see the object I'm manipulating then having to work completely from a manual.

[Myst]

So what you are saying is that if you can physically see an object, you can easily manipulate it in your head, but would have trouble visualizing/manipulating the same object of it was just on something like paper or on the computer? I would imagine this would be linked to Sensing>Intuition but I'm not particularly gifted at things like engineering so I can't really make a firm call. I too though would rather being able to see the object I'm manipulating then having to work completely from a manual.

It doesn't have to be in front of me at the same time but it would have to be a realistic enough (or "sensed enough") object, it can be photos, the point is just that it should have enough sensory details, not just an abstract schematic. My mind just seems to grasp that much more quickly even though you'd think it's more data to process if there's a lot of sensory detail.

I don't truly have trouble with abstract schematics either, it's just... less natural, slower compared to the very fast processing of sensed stuff.

[Number 9 large]

Er what? I'm very much fine with numbers and I'm ISTx. That to me seems like Te PoLR for @Number 9 large. I hope he enjoys the debating about his typing.




Te PoLR of IEI at its finest with Ti not strong enough to support the Te aspect of concrete calculations.

Btw this part is you talking about Ti but with not strong Ti or Ti not in ego, with Intuition definitely in ego: "Also maths is very precise and pinpointy. I'm about generalizing and thinking in grand schemes. I like to think big, rather than small."

Two women fighting over my sociotype, what a time to be alive

No but seriously, theres no way ive got fe or se creative, im way too antisocial/subassertive for that

[Myst]

Two women fighting over my sociotype, what a time to be alive

No but seriously, theres no way ive got fe or se creative, im way too antisocial/subassertive for that

OK. Do you mean asocial or antisocial? Not the same thing.

I agree on you not having Se in ego.

Do you see how your stuff as above is Te PoLR though? Did my -admittedly short- explanation make sense? I can elaborate on it.

[FDG]

I am really good at spatial intelligente but I always thought it s partially an innate skill, like being good at sports wellncoordinated etc

Imho not necessario type related, i also know ilis and sles who seem to have a really good spatial intelligence

[Number 9 large]

OK. Do you mean asocial or antisocial? Not the same thing.

I agree on you not having Se in ego.

Do you see how your stuff as above is Te PoLR though? Did my -admittedly short- explanation make sense? I can elaborate on it.

A little bit of both, but im starting to doubt if its because of who I am or because of my strict upbringing.

And yes, please do elaborate. Any information regarding my type would be welcome

[Myst]

A little bit of both, but im starting to doubt if its because of who I am or because of my strict upbringing.

And yes, please do elaborate. Any information regarding my type would be welcome

What does the antisocial part look like?

As for the Te PoLR. OK, do you see what I meant by concrete calculations needing Te and not just Ti?

You are focusing on the logical concepts only, you are interested in no "externalizing" of them whatsoever.

Cold/calculating btw can be Ni depending on what you mean by it.

If your thinking is visual/imaginative with words instead of concrete symbols/numbers it also -somewhat loosely- points to IEI>ILI. Lends itself more readily to "touchy-feely" beta NF thoughts.

If you are looking for someone to show you better logic, that also points towards IEI>ILI.

OK hope this helped.

[Myst]

I am really good at spatial intelligente but I always thought it s partially an innate skill, like being good at sports wellncoordinated etc

Imho not necessario type related, i also know ilis and sles who seem to have a really good spatial intelligence

How about the Ethical types you know? SF types? NF types?

[niffer]

it's merely a hypothesis and those studies, like all studies, suffer greatly from confirmation bias. I'm pretty sure the average disparity is less than 1% and the sample sizes for those studies tend to be quite small, which skews the results, and I think Dr Pound's study in particular was conducted on 15 year old students, so there's a chance that the slight correlation observed in the students could be a result of slightly more symmetrical faces resulting in higher self-confidence levels. maybe it's a matter of performance anxiety, or maybe it's a simple case of mistaking a small part for the whole. what if the students who scored the highest on the IQ test administered by Dr Pound and his colleagues, had less symmetrical faces than the rest of the students? and what if the ones who scored the lowest had less symmetrical faces, too? so what if the real correlation here lies in there being a greater disparity in intelligence in those with less symmetrical faces (i.e. very smart or very dumb) and those with more symmetrical faces reeling in average IQ scores?

I'm not sure why you'd put stock in studies when nearly every study conducted aims to prove the correctness of their own hypothesis, disregarding uncontrolled variables, but the truth of the matter is that you could probably find just as many studies that propose (and prove) the opposite hypothesis, unless you conduct a nation-wide study with large sample sizes from each school, providing photos of the students, along with their respective IQs.

Proper studies which have been repeated and peer reviewed don't suffer from confirmation bias. People do. This is the entire point of science, which you don't seem to really have any idea about. Please read about how the system works. I already addressed your other points in my previous responses to Cass. If you had read them more carefully you wouldn't be having the issues you are now. I don't actually disagree with anything you're saying.

[Pole]

Music and kinesthetic

[wasp]

Well it's not as simple as that. Maybe some researchers intentionally disregard other variables but often you just don't have the possibility to take into account and control for every possible variable in one single study. You will just have to do more studies later to check out more variables. Studies do try to control a lot of variables still.

Otoh, I do agree that you can't just read 1-2 studies and draw conclusions from them. You do have to familiarize yourself with all studies on the topic to really see correctly as much as possible.

definitely, I've seen so many contradictory studies on similar topics from equally reputable sources that I'm just left questioning the veracity of studies.

Proper studies which have been repeated and peer reviewed don't suffer from confirmation bias. People do. This is the entire point of science, which you don't seem to really have any idea about. Please read about how the system works. I already addressed your other points in my previous responses to Cass. If you had read them more carefully you wouldn't be having the issues you are now. I don't actually disagree with anything you're saying.

yeah I see now, but I think there's room for (potentially incorrect) extrapolation when the initial claim is simply that there's a positive correlation between higher facial symmetry and higher intelligence. the disparity is so minimal that it's practically moot in my books, in the sense that it's not something I'd rely on too heavily, since I'm more curious about the "why?" than the "what?" would you consider yourself an authority on the scientific method? maybe you have a Bachelor of Science degree and that's why my skepticism/curiosity seems misplaced. from what you've written, we do seem to be in agreement, but I think I know a little bit more than you give me credit for. we're just focusing on different aspects of the same matter, probably.

the bias is strong everywhere tho

[squark]

yeah I see now, but I think there's room for (potentially incorrect) extrapolation when the initial claim is simply that there's a positive correlation between higher facial symmetry and higher intelligence. the disparity is so minimal that it's practically moot in my books, in the sense that it's not something I'd rely on too heavily, since I'm more curious about the "why?" than the "what?"

the why would be due to health. a healthier specimen has both greater symmetry and greater IQ. Poor genetic material or poor environmental conditions lead to poor development which leads to less symmetry and less IQ as well as other problems.

[Myst]

definitely, I've seen so many contradictory studies on similar topics from equally reputable sources that I'm just left questioning the veracity of studies.

The facts they report are usually better quality facts than in many other sources. Same applies to the interpretation of these facts.

yeah I see now, but I think there's room for (potentially incorrect) extrapolation when the initial claim is simply that there's a positive correlation between higher facial symmetry and higher intelligence. the disparity is so minimal that it's practically moot in my books, in the sense that it's not something I'd rely on too heavily, since I'm more curious about the "why?" than the "what?" would you consider yourself an authority on the scientific method? maybe you have a Bachelor of Science degree and that's why my skepticism/curiosity seems misplaced. from what you've written, we do seem to be in agreement, but I think I know a little bit more than you give me credit for. we're just focusing on different aspects of the same matter, probably.

the bias is strong everywhere tho

You were responding to @niffer with this but I can add that I agree with her point on science and if it helps, I do have a MSc (receiving the official degree this summer). But if you go and read books on the scientific method, those are the best authority on it.

And, bias is bias, whatever, there is more to it than just bias, there are impartial conclusions too, the scientific method is the most impartial way of thinking we have. If that's not good enough for you, nothing will be

[FDG]

How about the Ethical types you know? SF types? NF types?

I know a SEE who is good at it, otherwise I think I have a small sample size...my ESI girlfriend is so-so, but not terrible.

[Myst]

I know a SEE who is good at it, otherwise I think I have a small sample size...my ESI girlfriend is so-so, but not terrible.

How about the NFs?

[Olimpia]

I wonder where being good at cooking finds into all this.

Maybe it is a mix of Visual and Kinesthetic, to some extent?

But eh... it seems like this kind of talent requires a different category.

[idontgiveaf]

Sexul intelligence because i feel everybody is stupid when it comes to sex

[Olimpia]

Ahuh.. I see
Yeah. Cognitive is like how you behave.. Not really the actual innate intelligence of the person right

Yes, though I think there is a limit. From all Multiple intelligences, I find Mathematic intelligence the most discriminatory. You won't find an ExFx person who is particularly strong in that domain. Mathematical intelligence is strongly linked to , especially in combination with Intuition. All the other intelligences tend to be less cognition specific, apart from perhaps Kinesthetic intelligence and Interpersonal intelligence; it will be rare to find an xNxp who is particularly kinesthetically strong or an IxTx who is particularly interpersonally strong, but both are not as uncommon or (likely) impossible as a highly mathematically intelligent ExFx.

@idontgiveaf

[neproblems]

I find Mathematic intelligence the most discriminatory. You won't find an ExFx person who is particularly strong in that domain.

Beskova seems to think that both ExFj's can be good at/ interested in Maths


http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Socionics_Type_Profiles_by_Beskova


This link suggests that an ENFp might love mathematical concepts

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/IEE-ENFp/

[Olimpia]

Being interested in math is not the same as being gifted or particularly good at it.

[Chae]

Being interested in math is not the same as being gifted or particularly good at it.

Yes. Put my stamp on that. Curiosity is far, far away from talent.

[neproblems]

Being interested in math is not the same as being gifted or particularly good at it.

So you disagree with Beskova?

[Olimpia]

So you disagree with Beskova?

I guess I'd differ with her on the subject of mathematics specifically, not necessarily the rest.

I could see ESE-Si, SEE-Se, IEE-Ne, and EIE-Ni being better and good enough at math, having boosted Thinking.
Other than that, they'll be around average, or worse. People who are the worst at math have been Fi or Fe subtype, in my experience.

[neproblems]

I guess I'd differ with her on the subject of mathematics specifically, not necessarily the rest.

I could see ESE-Si, SEE-Se, IEE-Ne, and EIE-Ni being better and good enough at math, having boosted Thinking.
Other than that, they'll be around average, or worse. People who are the worst at math have been Fi or Fe subtype, in my experience.

Fair enough...

Interestingly, the part of the IEE profile that suggests that they might love mathematical (and scientific) concepts, is under the 'TE' section... I know other's would debate 'TI' for that...

[Olimpia]

Fair enough...

Interestingly, the part of the IEE profile that suggests that they might love mathematical (and scientific) concepts, is under the 'TE' section... I know other's would bebate 'TI' for that...

Yeah, it depends. Theoretical mathematics is rather . They teach that stuff at university. All other kinds of mathematics can be rather . At the end of the day, it requires being good at both or to be remarkably good at it.

[neproblems]

Yeah, it depends. Theoretical mathematics is rather . They teach that stuff at university. All other kinds of mathematics can be rather . At the end of the day, it requires being good at both or to be remarkably good at it.

Ah, cool... I only did maths at school level (up to 16( though I was very good at it (If I do say so myself (though who says im definitely IEE...)

It seems that the profiles were talking about school level, rather than uni, so who knows?....

[The Reality Denialist]

Ethical subtypes probably have less interest in it. If you combine previous with difficulties with it then it becomes hopeless.


It really depends how you learn it. If elementary school teachers have some sort of preoccupation towards authority and memorization then problems start to accumulate. Never taking proper time to chop problems into pieces and such.

I think I "sucked" at elementary school maths because it was so repetitive and obvious. I have studied it at university without problems so...

[Myst]

Yes, though I think there is a limit. From all Multiple intelligences, I find Mathematic intelligence the most discriminatory. You won't find an ExFx person who is particularly strong in that domain. Mathematical intelligence is strongly linked to , especially in combination with Intuition. All the other intelligences tend to be less cognition specific, apart from perhaps Kinesthetic intelligence and Interpersonal intelligence; it will be rare to find an xNxp who is particularly kinesthetically strong or an IxTx who is particularly interpersonally strong, but both are not as uncommon or (likely) impossible as a highly mathematically intelligent ExFx.

I don't see how the maths one is the most discriminatory of the examples you listed. Why do you think that's the case compared to Kinesthetic intelligence and Interpersonal intelligence?

And, I've known more than one EIE that was fine with this stuff. One of them is majoring in maths at uni right now. Not saying she's the best at it compared to the other students but it does require some ability to be able to do maths major... The other one did computer programming understanding a lot of the theoretical parts of it quite well. I remember reading a forum post mentioning that an ESE family member of the poster did maths stuff quite well.

I think @unsuccessfull Alphamale showed very well in his post how it depends on more factors than type.