| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1229249716 | Sunday, 14-Dec-2008 |
|
|
| What's the correlation between type and intelligence? I've heard that INTp types are the most intellectual? Does that make ESFJs least intellectual? Which type is the smartest? And which type is the dumbest? -- Courtney |
|
| A1 The answer is NO correlation. NT types are most "sientifical"-minded, that's true. But the intelligence is wider than just having strong analytical skills. How can you compare the intelligence of great mathematician and, say, great artist? It's apples and oranges. -- Cynic (ISTp) |
| A2 37% of INTJs have IQs that put them in the top 2% followed by INTPs (20% of them have IQs in the top 2%. -- Anonymous |
| A3 IQ tests are based mostly on logical aspects of thinking. And no surprise that inroverted intuitive logic are most successful to solve them. And logic types overall are more successful. But this is only one facet of intelligence. It's just stereotyped to be the criteria of intellience. -- Cynic (ISTp) |
| A4 @A2 - are those MBTI statistics? They may not apply to Socionics, due to differences in typing methods. -- Krig (INTj) |
| A5 There's obviously SOME correlation. I believe generally INTp and INTj types are the most intelligent, but there are an infinite number of other factors. -- Anonymous |
| A6 INTjs are smart. So are INTps. ISTps usually are. ESFxs can be studious but usually aren't super intelligent. ExTps are usually pretty dumb. ESTjs are smart. -- Anonymous |
| A7 There is definately a correlation between type and intelligence - from my observations. As an INTP - computer programming just comes naturally to me. Other types that I've worked with - feeling types particularly - on programming, they just don't get it. Of course - if you go into something incredibly detail oriented - I as an INTP don't do so well, especially if I don't care for the subject. Even if I do sit down and look at the details - they are quickly forgotten, tho the general ideas and the conclusions stay with me. Of course - details ARE important, and I wish I had a better ability to retain detailed information. Ironically - I can be VERY precise and detailed in how I word things when in a debate. My dad on the other hand is one who can read 100's of books and retain extremely detail oriented information with little effort. And art has already been brought up - while I love art, and have gotten decent at drawing - I cannot compare to true artist. No amount of practice will bring me to an artists level - because art is centered around both feeling and detail. What I'm trying to say is that intelligence is definitely tied to your type - but it's not that one type is more intelligent than another. Each type has it's own strengths - it's own area of expertise where other types could never attain the 'intelligence' of that specific type. -- Anonymous |
| A8 I have to give A3(cynic) credit, for what it is worth. I have taken a few generalised IQ tests, and a mensa test. What baffled me was that I scored almost 30 percent higher on the mensa. What does that say? To me the mensa test was more appealing, narrowed in more on my prefential thinking, than the general tests did, and with general I mean the standard IQ tests for the population one might come across in the psychological trade. I think the outcome of such tests are more related by the extent of; how the "architectural" mean layout are tuned to the subjects preferred frequency of reasoning, than conveying an objective summary of the subject vs others as such. IQ by design vs design really. And what the heck is the objective definition of IQ anyway? The universal consensus about the fundamental premises in the concept are still to be hammered down concretely. If they ever will. IQ by typing?, I don't believe so. The entire concept holds too many unknown and misleading factors but still unfortunetely embraced by what I consider elitistic reasoning. ENTP -- Anonymous |
| A9 Stereotype, stereotype. The IQ tests are made by people with certain kind of intelligence and they are just a way of finding out if the people who take them have the same kind of intelligence as the people who make them. There's scientific intelligence, there's social intelligence, there's practical intelligence. And so on. Every person possesses a certain amount of each and it's difficult to measure them. Especially because it is possible to develop or neglect them during your life. And it's even more difficult to make an analogy with Socionics as SF people don't necessarily possess social intelligence, NT scientific intelligence and so on. There are NT musicians who have problems using Microsoft Word, there are SF technicians who don't know how to deal with people. That's also one of the aspects that make typing people difficult. -- Ezis (ESFp) |
| A10 People have said that I'm very intelligent, but have absolutely no common sense -- Simon the INFp |
| A11 ISTp. IS** type people, ISTps to be more specifically always amazes me by their solid logic that are based on facts and proven past experiences. Being an N and growing up in a family full of N I always struggle to know a concrete answer because N types are vague and not enough detailed in their thinking and explanations. Growing up I remember I've always gravitated towards IS** types. IS** types help me out a lot when it comes to step by step processes cause I tend to focus on the big picture which makes me overlook the detailed mapping. I'm really impressed as well by how they remember facts so well. When I ask an IS** type a question, I know I can trust the answer. Oh and I have an ESFj friend who gets As in complex math based classes easily while all the N types are struggling. I could go on all day why I think S types are really really smart. =D -- Anonymous |
| A12 ISTps are the smartest, ENFjs are the dumbest. -- istp |
| A13 Hi, I'm not super smart, I'm on the 50th percentile and I'm almost sure I'm an ENFj. But people keep telling me I'm smart, or at least I use my skills at its maximum, something pretty lacking on high IQ scorers as far as I know. I believe that NT and NF may have more intellectual passion than sensing types, but not a high IQ necessarily. So, in my opinion intellecutal capacity don't have relation with type, but an intellectual passion and a desire of knowledge yes. -- Jose D. |
| A14 here's a quote from Richard Lattimore's introduction of the Iliad by Homer, he is describing Odysseus' intelligence: "Sophron - it means, not necessarily that you have superior brains, but that you make maximum use of whatever brains you have got." Personally I've met plenty of ESFJs among other types who fit this description perfectly, as often you hear the words: "I'm not smart, I just work really hard". I've fallen victim to my own grandiose vision of being more intelligent and capable than I really am, resulting in constant failure in academia; even to the point of being arrogant and disillusioned as if academia could not handle my genius. Lattimore emphasises the contrast between Odysseus and Achicelles, the latter does have superior intelligence but can not keep his emotions in check. - my point is not discovering the socionic types of Odysseus and Achilleus! InTJ. -- Anonymous |
| A15 Whats the definition of intelligence? The ability to store facts and details? The ability to think outside the box? The ability to solve problems? Wait here it is- 'the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience' I think experience is the key word actually. Is the ability to make fudge intelligence? Because Im crap at that. -- Anonymous |
| A16 There is ABSOLUTELY NO correlation between type and intelligence. Thinking, feeling, sensing or intuiting are PREFERENCES for a cognitive way of perceiving the environment. These preferences aren't necessarily the strongest ability of people. There are totally stupid thinking people, blind or deaf sensing people. Intuiting people can be perfect observer of small details, feeling people absolutely logical, however it's not their preferred cognition-style! I'm a sensing feeler who has absolutely no problem with abstract thinking. But if I can have the choice, I PREFER concrete domains! -- piccolo_michel |
| A17 yeah, N's crave knowledge. S's crave sex. -- Anonymous |
|
|
| A18 And... I don't think you should catgorize by smartest and dumbest. I agree with more or less intellectual, but smartest and dumbest, seem a little rude and stereotypied. In my opinion. -- Jose D. |
| A19 hahahaha S's crave sex, not that much -- Jose D. |
| A20 We are tender mind reaching maturity.The right of claim that I am relatively sure which the intellect accumulated the specialized social I.Q. we never have the fourth dealt that can expressed wouldn't much of the work in the purpose of the college institution or to give the reporter the rewritten of publishing grayish sensation I idealized the orderly studies the integrated progress of the popular mind "bright rise of the destiny of Filipino"-Jun JuN -- edgarjr |
| A21 If you believe intelligence is only measured by your scientific and mathematical abilities then you're probably not the most progressive thinker. You are saying that one side of your brain is far suprior to the other. A psychologist by the name of Thomas Armstrong proposes there are multiple kinds intelligences. They are: Word smart (Linguistics), Picture smart (art & spatial), Music smart, Body smart (athletic & dance), Logic smart (math and logic), People smart (Interpersonal people skills), and Self smart (self-knowledge, self-awareness and seeking). If you think about it, this lists the unique strengths of all the personality types. The reason we have such a narrow view of "intellect" or "intelligence" is that most of us grew up in an education system that taught us that Word smart and Logic smart (& sometimes Body smart) are all we need to know. -- abc |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
|
| Would you like to add anything? |
(
