Erp

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Kim]

I concur, ******.

[MySaviour]

It doesn't matter..

People can only agree with what they want to hear, or what they expected.

That "intelligent people thinking they are NT" is probably the exception, rather than the rule.

Side note:

NT's thinking they are intelligent because they test as NT's is also the exception, rather than the rule.

People who test as NT's who also think they are smart is probably the rule, rather than the exception.

You only notice the NT's who think they are kings or queens of the universe. But if you've ever read the NT description, or have ever been one (i should roll my eyes now), then you know there's more to the story. Huh? I don't think I have ever NOT heard an INTx being accused of being a stuck up "know-it-all," or a condescending whatever.. But I don't think I've met many that actually ARE any of the aforementioned. Pretentious INTPs exist, however, and meeting one is enough to "confirm" what is believed.. its like the one example to rule them all. Eh..

[Jonathan]

This girl would most likely think she is INTj

What do you mean "would most likely think"? The description says she considers herself INTJ (presumably, though, that means that her assessment of having Ni as one of her main functions would fit your assessment of ENFj, since she's using MBTI...not considering the differences in function definitions here).

Anyhow, I think you make some great points.

Nevertheless, here's an interesting thing to note: I think there's reason to believe that when a type that isn't a given type X is performing an activity that stresses the functions of X, then some of the description of that type, and even some of the interpersonal dynamics of the X type, will apply to that person, at least temporarily.

One thing I notice in myself is that when talking to the dual of any particular type, I start feeling the functions of that type being stimulated. I've noticed this for years.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Angel von Himmel]

Even though people try telling me I can not be an ethical type on account of maybe being a little harsh and profane on occasion, I think it is still possible I could be [probably ENFj as opposed to a logical type like INTj] for the very reasons you described.

[XoX]

Well...I know an ESTj who has been top performer in everything he has done. In school, in army and in work life.

I also know an ESFj who is very brilliant, went through school in faster than normal time and started college at the age of 17 etc.

Oh and I can't stop being in awe of intelligent ESTps. Like my sister-in-law. She is not really that good in maths or abstract thinking and stuff like that but in real life situations she just "gets it" really fast and accurately. She is just always one step ahead of you and she is impossible to "fool". She seems to make every person submit to her will (voluntarily) after some time even if her arguments are not that scientific.
She just gets inside your head somehow. Uses Se, Ti and sometimes Fe side by side in ways that dominate people physically and mentally.

Then again I have to admit I have met some exceptionally brilliant very probable NT people (self-typed and I agree) in college. Maybe they were a bit weird and probably not do as well in life as the above people but damn they understood things fast and deeply.

Hmm..I wonder why no one ever gets annoyed if someone says ESTps are more physically capable than INFjs. Or ESFps are more socially capable than INTps. True or not. It doesn't annoy people. But if you say NTs are more intelligent than others then it pisses people of seriously.

Haha. I lost my point a long time ago. Just writing what pops into my mind.

[Gilly]

I love how you people seem to find new and interesting ways almost every week to make me question my type.

[XoX]

Fact: People who are smart or even have a pretention to intellegence are likely to mistype themselves as NT types.

Oh yes...I forgot this. My first tested typed was INTJ...and later a workmate and I changed it to INTP (this was MBTI). This must mean I'm smart

[Jonathan]

Would you please elaborate? This sounds interesting.

Sure. I think it's just that I adapt to whoever I'm talking to; sometimes I adapt by being more like them, but sometimes I adapt by filling in whatever part is needed. It's a natural thing; I generally do this without even thinking about it.

For example, if the other person is introverted, I play the extravert, and visa versa. I do the talking and leading of the conversation if that's what's needed, and I listen and reflect if the other person likes to take charge. Often, this gets me in touch with states of mind that I haven't been using for awhile, and that gives me various insights and revelations. I suppose most people do this to some extent. (?)

When I talk to an ESFj, it sometimes makes me think more formulaically, and I feel I have the perfect environment to think and not worry about anything else, and to do math or play Bach.

Many years ago, I knew an ESFP who caused me to theorize about type and personalities whenever I was walking to this person. We'd be talking about various things or just playing, but I was thinking about various models of personality the whole time.

If I'm around an ISFp, I'm liable to "think beyond" to come up with things to do and to impress the other person.

When I'm around an ISFj, I wind up using a lot to figure out how to accomplish what the person wants.

When I'm around really strong T types, I also sometimes feel more "F" and play that role.

I'm not saying that I necessarily change so dramatically that other people would notice a big change (although sometimes I do), but I do feel internally the pull to "fill in," so to speak.

[Gilly]

I think before we go off on all this bullshit about "intelligence" and it's perceived non-correlation with Socionics, we need to define what kind of intelligence we're talking about. I mean, how DO we define intelligence? I do well in math, I score in the 90-something percentile on the SATs, I ace the SSATs, I score consistently between 150 and 160 on IQ tests, and yet people keep saying "Oh those things don't mean you're smarter than me." So what the fuck does? Can we clear this shit up once and for all before we go on a crusade about typing it? What are we talking about, here?

[Creepy-]

I think before we go off on all this bullshit about "intelligence" and it's perceived non-correlation with Socionics, we need to define what kind of intelligence we're talking about. I mean, how DO we define intelligence? I do well in math, I score in the 90-something percentile on the SATs, I ace the SSATs, I score consistently between 150 and 160 on IQ tests, and yet people keep saying "Oh those things don't mean you're smarter than me." So what the fuck does? Can we clear this shit up once and for all before we go on a crusade about typing it? What are we talking about, here?

Maybe the best thing to do would be for everyone to take a standard intelligence test (the same one so it had the same scale), maybe the Wechsler (WISC/WAIS) which measures both verbal and non-verbal abilities? That or we all make sure we get the percentile results instead (that might reduce the problem of tests having different scales).

[Jonathan]

Oh those things don't mean you're smarter than me

I think that misses the point. The issue being addressed is that some people score very high on all those things, but aren't NT.

You might say, how can they do that without N and T? Well probably they use N and T a lot, but those functions aren't as psychologically relevant for them as they are for an NT. So their personalities...motivations, desires, relationships, subconscious...aren't built around N and T, but the person may have strong N and T functions.

[Gilly]

I think you're missing MY point. My point is that, before we can seperate NT-ness from intelligence, we have to define what intelligence is.

[Creepy-]

Intelligence = the faculty of thought and reason. How about that?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Gilly]

Ok. Now how do you measure it?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Creepy-]

This is how Wechsler does it:

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

WAIS Scales

* Verbal WAIS scales

1. Information: 29 questions - a measure of general knowledge.

2. Digit Span: Subjects are given sets of digits to repeat initially forwards then backwards. This is a test of immediate auditory recall and freedom from distraction.

3. Vocabulary: Define 35 words. A measure of expressive word knowledge. It correlates very highly with Full Scale IQ

4. Arithmetic: 14 mental arithmetic brief story type problems. tests distractibility as well as numerical reasoning.

5. Comprehension: 16 questions which focus on issues of social awareness.

6. Similarities: A measure of concept formation. Subjects are asked to say how two seemingly dissimilar items might in fact be similar.

* Performance WAIS scales

7. Picture Completion: 20 small pictures that all have one vital detail missing. A test of attention to fine detail.

8. Picture Arrangement: 10 sets of small pictures, where the subject is required to arrange them into a logical sequence.

9. Block Design: Involves putting sets of blocks together to match patterns
on cards.

10. Digit Symbol: Involves copying a coding pattern.

11. Object Assembly: Four small jig-saw type puzzles.

So I guess you need to test as many aspects of thought and reason as you can?

[Cone]

Hmm..I wonder why no one ever gets annoyed if someone says ESTps are more physically capable than INFjs. Or ESFps are more socially capable than INTps. True or not. It doesn't annoy people. But if you say NTs are more intelligent than others then it pisses people of seriously.

Ah!

It's like F types are always promoted as being good at knowing other's emotions and understanding relationships and T types aren't, and no one complains (or so they think no one complains...) Why do F types get to have high IQs and high EQs? Heck, even the definitions of the feeling functions describe a skill for emotional analysis. So if the thinking functions do not necessarily imply high intelligence but the feeling functions certainly imply high emotional intelligence (by definition), can someone say "biased"? This is one reason people in the past have argued against the correlation between feeling and emotion.

[Creepy-]

Hmm..I wonder why no one ever gets annoyed if someone says ESTps are more physically capable than INFjs. Or ESFps are more socially capable than INTps. True or not. It doesn't annoy people. But if you say NTs are more intelligent than others then it pisses people of seriously.

Ah!

It's like F types are always promoted as being good at knowing other's emotions and understanding relationships and T types aren't, and no one complains (or so they think no one complains...) Why do F types get to have high IQs and high EQs? Heck, even the definitions of the feeling functions describe a skill for emotional analysis. So if the thinking functions do not necessarily imply high intelligence but the feeling functions certainly imply high emotional intelligence (by definition), can someone say "biased"? This is one reason people in the past have argued against the correlation between feeling and emotion.

I would argue against that, too. Going by my observation, it doesn't really work like that.

[Catholic Schoolboy]

I would like to be the first to say that I have been mistyped as an NT type.

Oh, by the way this is common sense. :wink:

[Gilly]

Hmm..I wonder why no one ever gets annoyed if someone says ESTps are more physically capable than INFjs. Or ESFps are more socially capable than INTps. True or not. It doesn't annoy people. But if you say NTs are more intelligent than others then it pisses people of seriously.

It's probably because athleticism isn't as valued in society as intelligence is. For example, just look at the American school system: there's that mindset that "academics come first, sports and other things come second." Also, it's generally accepted that you will get further in life if you're intelligent, much more so than if you're physically capable.

That's my $.02!

I don't know what planet you're from. Kids with good grades are a dime a dozen, but if you're an all-star athlete, you get all the attention in the world.

[Rocky]

@Sara: too bad you are ILI.

@Gilligan: true, but you would have to be really superior in athletics to make it count for anything. Just being a good athlete doesn't say much. Especially if you plan to have it help you in a career. But I guess true genius minds are just as rare.

[MysticSonic]

The entire topic is semantics.

End it.

The topic about intelligence that is.

[implied]

[Expat]

I would bet that if you gave some top college like Caltech an MBTI test, most of them would be NT types...but if you put them in front of a bunch of socionics experts, most likely ALL 16 TYPES would be about equally distributed.

I agree with your general point, but I really can't agree with the highlighted bit -- nothing to do with academic qualifications.

Among my contemporaries in college, the girl with the most consistently high grades was an ESFp and she went on to get a PhD in engineering. Others among the top 5% were an ISFj guy, two ESTj girls, one ISTp guy, an ENTj guy (yours truly). However, that girl's ESFp-ness was clear in how she interacted in daily life, and her high grades were a direct consequence of high focus and concentration rather than analytical thinking, which was rather obvious.

But on the "equally distributed" bit -- this will probably be discussed forever, but I can only say that I doubt that the 16 types are distributed equally among the general population, let alone in Caltech.

[implied]

[FDG]

WAIS Scales

* Verbal WAIS scales

1. Information: 29 questions - a measure of general knowledge.

2. Digit Span: Subjects are given sets of digits to repeat initially forwards then backwards. This is a test of immediate auditory recall and freedom from distraction.

3. Vocabulary: Define 35 words. A measure of expressive word knowledge. It correlates very highly with Full Scale IQ

4. Arithmetic: 14 mental arithmetic brief story type problems. tests distractibility as well as numerical reasoning.

5. Comprehension: 16 questions which focus on issues of social awareness.

6. Similarities: A measure of concept formation. Subjects are asked to say how two seemingly dissimilar items might in fact be similar.

* Performance WAIS scales

7. Picture Completion: 20 small pictures that all have one vital detail missing. A test of attention to fine detail.

8. Picture Arrangement: 10 sets of small pictures, where the subject is required to arrange them into a logical sequence.

9. Block Design: Involves putting sets of blocks together to match patterns
on cards.

10. Digit Symbol: Involves copying a coding pattern.

11. Object Assembly: Four small jig-saw type puzzles.



I think they did something similar for the entrance test at my university; at least, looking at the categories, it was indeed similar. I recall having quite of a problem with the Picture Completion and Digit Symbol, as well as Digit Span; whereas I was very fast and spot on Vocabulary-Arithmethic and Similarity. Don't know if this means something.

[Phaedrus]

Even though people try telling me I can not be an ethical type on account of maybe being a little harsh and profane on occasion, I think it is still possible I could be [probably ENFj as opposed to a logical type like INTj] for the very reasons you described.

I have told you that you are an F type, rmcnew. It is obvious from your posts and very likely from V. I.

I think before we go off on all this bullshit about "intelligence" and it's perceived non-correlation with Socionics, we need to define what kind of intelligence we're talking about. I mean, how DO we define intelligence? I do well in math, I score in the 90-something percentile on the SATs, I ace the SSATs, I score consistently between 150 and 160 on IQ tests, and yet people keep saying "Oh those things don't mean you're smarter than me." So what the fuck does? Can we clear this shit up once and for all before we go on a crusade about typing it? What are we talking about, here?

You should be talking about intelligence in the sense I have tried to explain here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=7...ghlight=#74515

[Expat]

.

and i agree completely with ISFjs/ESFps/ESTjs etc getting higher grades. i'd say a lot of INTps might not get exceptionally high grades, just due to having a wavering attention span.

Well actually I didn't mean that such types, as types, always get higher grades. What I did mean is that NT types do not necessarily get higher grades, even in technical subjects.

Yet, I do think - and I have experienced it IRL - that original scientific and engineering thinking, in the sense of innovations, is more likely to originate from NT types.

[implied]

[Gilly]

I think we can pretty well do away with this bullshit by saying one thing: whatever type I am is the smartest type.

[Ave]

I think what Transigent meant, actually, is that people might type themsleves as NTs because they are interested in things which are stereotypically NT interests(science, math, philosophy, computers etc), but that doesnt make them NTs. I think his statement was about people who think theyre smart because they like these things, and think that being smart makes you NT.

Transigent please tell me if Im wrong.

[Gilly]

I know exactly what he's saying, and I can think of one million other angles to look at it from. I happen to agree. I'm just pissed because I fail to see any way that I can apply this to my own "type quest."

[implied]

[crazymaisy]

ILI's (INTp) have a wavering attention span?!!! Only if the material is not interesting, or if there's something better to ponder introspectively.

Lucky boy. I drift off all the time. But I seem to be able to keep part of my brain on the task at hand.

As for school I guess I was pretty good. I skipped two years but people were always bitching at me to keep my mind on my work and so on.

[Ave]

I know exactly what he's saying, and I can think of one million other angles to look at it from. I happen to agree. I'm just pissed because I fail to see any way that I can apply this to my own "type quest."

Well maybe you can make another thread in the "whats my type" forum. If you dont know what your type is, you can make as many as you want, I guess.

Maybe that forum really will teach us more about type than this one will, anyways.

[implied]

[XoX]

Hmm..I wonder why no one ever gets annoyed if someone says ESTps are more physically capable than INFjs. Or ESFps are more socially capable than INTps. True or not. It doesn't annoy people. But if you say NTs are more intelligent than others then it pisses people of seriously.

It's probably because athleticism isn't as valued in society as intelligence is. For example, just look at the American school system: there's that mindset that "academics come first, sports and other things come second." Also, it's generally accepted that you will get further in life if you're intelligent, much more so than if you're physically capable.

That's my $.02!

Well I guess every parent wants their child to be smart and get good grades. But if you talk about valuing things...those who are smarty smart can get nobel price and 1m dollars. Then again if you are star athlete you can wipe your a** with 1m dollars

Hehe, anyways I think I get your point. You don't need athletes to make the society run smoothly but you need intelligent people. That is why intelligence is a "must" but being athletic is just a "bonus".

Still good athletes are valued. Olympics, super bowl, soccer world cup are still the most watched events in the world and some people take almost religious approach to them. And those who do well are enormously respected. Would you pay 100$ to see a nobel priced scientist at work?