Types of intelligence

[mclane]

I came across this concept: https://exploringyourmind.com/discov...-intelligence/

Generally, when we think of a smart person, we think of a mathematician who solves problems most people would never understand. Someone who is capable of doing calculations faster than we could even write them down. This follows a traditional idea of intelligence as a unique skill that has to do with abstract thought.In 1988, the psychologist Howard Gardner proposed a theory that changed this reductionist idea: the theory of multiple intelligences.
According to the theory of multiple intelligences, there isn’t just one single form of intelligence, but rather several, which develop in different ways within each individual.

“Each human being has a unique combination of intelligence. This is the fundamental educational challenge.”

-Howard Gardner-

So I've tried to match up each type of intelligence with a +/- function:

1. Linguistic-Verbal intelligence: Sounds like -Fe and also a bit -Te.
2. Logical-Mathematical intelligence: This is clearly -Ti. I wanted to mention that when people usually refer to others as "intelligent" (and IQ test mainly test this, along with others I will mention), and when people speak of "intelligence agencies" (and shows like CSI and other american shows where there is a focus on this aspect) there usually talking about proficiency in this IM. But it is only one aspect in the scope of "intelligence".
3. Spatial intelligence: This is +Si. Every technical drawing teacher I've had has been an alpha SF. This is also tested in "IQ tests".
4. Musical intelligence: This could be +Fe, most likely, but also as it's described, -Si, translated as skill. Could be +Ni too (as music is a pattern).
5. Bodily Kinesthetic intelligence: This sounds like +Si again.
6. Intrapersonal intelligence: This sounds +Fi.
7. Interpersonal intelligence: This sounds -Fi.
8. Naturalist intelligence: This sounds -Si.


So as we can see, in this theory, some aspects of reality are overrepresented (+Si), while others are non-existent (all the other +/- functions here that would correspond also with particular "intelligences"). I would perhaps propose two very important ones:

*9. Cosmic/Holistic intelligence: +Se
*10. Spiritual intelligence: +Ni
*11. Transcendental intelligence: -Ni

And one that should have been included in the original theory:

*12. Problem-solving intelligence: +Ne



Might come up with more later.

[thegreenfaerie]

This is neat and a lot of it seems fitting

[Tallmo]

Regarding Ni and music. I think it's because music consists of complex patterns of sounds, rhythms, harmonies in time. That's the concrete reality. But Ni perceives intuitively the inner psychic image from this.

Si as naturalistic intelligence is pretty accurate I think. That's basically what Si is: Perceiving the psychic "imprint" of the natural world. Nature as a strong impressionistic experience.

But, the way it is described in the link is not Si. They talk about understanding the natural environment, but Si is limited to pure, raw experience.

[Sumdumho]

While interesting I think it would be a good idea to tread carefully here. Surely there is some correlation but things like this can be overplayed and potentially used to type people when perhaps it shouldn't be.

[mclane]

While interesting I think it would be a good idea to tread carefully here. Surely there is some correlation but things like this can be overplayed and potentially used to type people when perhaps it shouldn't be.

I highly doubt anyone would use this correlation to type anyone, and in the remote possibility that someone did, they would most likely be on the right track (as in, at least identifying which functions a person is proficient at, which may or may not correlate with their Socionics type -- most likely it will).

[Sumdumho]

I highly doubt anyone would use this correlation to type anyone, and in the remote possibility that someone did, they would most likely be on the right track (as in, at least identifying which functions a person is proficient at, which may or may not correlate with their Socionics type -- most likely it will).

I'm not so sure about either of those statements. In reality I've seen all kinds of people in virtually every field with virtually every innate skill. I think it would be a massive over simplification that could lead to major problems. I mean just look at what a joke mbti has become due to all the ridiculous reasons armchair typologists type people certain ways.

[mclane]

I'm not so sure about either of those statements. In reality I've seen all kinds of people in virtually every field with virtually every innate skill. I think it would be a massive over simplification that could lead to major problems. I mean just look at what a joke mbti has become due to all the ridiculous reasons armchair typologists type people certain ways.

If they're proficient at it, most likely the function involved has a relevant position. You're more likely to find an EII psychologist, than an SLE psychologist, and in the event there is an SLE psychologist, they would probably not be very good at it. However, due to people having more than one type, it is possible to use a secondary type's cognition to employ the required functions for a particular occupation/task, but it will never trump the cognition of the primary type.

[mclane]

Socionics needs as a whole more emphasis on the functions. I've provided the tools for this (with the addition of the functions signs that separate them in two versions). Using the functions people could be typed more accurately and without error. A test could be devised using the +/- functions that could prove very effective. I might try to do it some day if nobody does it.

[Sumdumho]

If they're proficient at it, most likely the function involved has a relevant position. You're more likely to find an EII psychologist, than an SLE psychologist, and in the event there is an SLE psychologist, they would probably not be very good at it. However, due to people having more than one type, it is possible to use a secondary type's cognition to employ the required functions for a particular occupation/task, but it will never trump the cognition of the primary type.

That's a very narrow view that doesnt correspond to reality. Someone's type alone absolutely does not preclude them from being good at a certain profession. I never said there wasn't a correlation, in fact I actually said the opposite. Types of intelligence can be losely correlated to functions in some cases, otherwise it's a dangerous game to play.

[mclane]

That's a very narrow view that doesnt correspond to reality. Someone's type alone absolutely does not preclude them from being good at a certain profession.

If they are not naturally proficient, then the only option is to faux-employ other functions to make up for it. In this sense, some unique results can occur. I wonder how you have come to such set conclusions. Have you studied this issue in-depth?

[Tallmo]

The 8 functions are in themselves types of intelligences. So we don't really have to relate them to anything else. Of course one can describe them.

[Djinn]

Not a fan of this theory. Although, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its utility.

[Disturbed]

@mclanemade some errors. ILE-Ti usually are the very best in logic; LII of either subtype are sometimes too. ILE-Ti also often have great visual spatial intelligence, as do LSI-Se usually. But SLE-Ti and LSI-Se, especially LSI-Se are also often great at math and logic.

SLE-Ti can make good psychologists, especially since they're Fe valuing and not as judgmental as EII. EII often can't even figure out peoples' intentions and they often can't read emotions and they have strong favorites and are easily hurt so they may not be very objective in contrast to the ESI-Se who can read intentions and who don't have as strong of likes and dislikes towards people and are a bit more self-controlled... ridiculous to think SLE-Ti would probably not be very good psychologists. If anything, Deltas would be the worst psychologists because they have the strongest likes and dislikes about people and usually aren't very self-controlled, they're the most likely to lash out. The NF club as a group isn't very good with psychology... EIE-Ni often miss the internal and the external and make all sorts of errors due to weakness in logic, and they're not very self-controlled; their LSI-Se duals are really the superior psychologists.