The INTP personality type doesn't imply mental sharpness. Granted, INTP's traits might fall into what is socially accepted as intelligence, but personality types denote preferences not skill.
Contradicted yourself.
"The INTP personality type doesn't imply mental sharpness"
"Granted, INTP's traits might fall into what is socially accepted as intelligence"
What your defining as mental sharpness, is what's socially accepted as intelligence, it's what we're referring to when we say intelligence, therefor INTPs are more likely to be intelligence, because that's what we're talking about when we say intelligent.
It's like saying:
having glasses doesn't imply you'll see better
granted, the benefits of having glasses may fit in to what we consider "seeing better"
but having glasses denotes seeing better, not "seeing better".
The very definition of the word intelligence is heavily related to the cognition in which generally I - N types function by, because that's what we're referring to when we say intelligence. The "societal view of intelligence", "mental sharpness". Just like when I say the word red, i'm usually referring to red, what society and our vocabulary considers the color red. The definition of intelligence used in that article, when referring to the relationship between intelligence and schizophrenia is the societal view of intelligence. So if INTP's cognition fit this societal view of intelligence, then they are in fact intelligent, because you know. That's what we were referring to, not whatever value of intelligence you seem to be referring to when we use the word "intelligent".
People like to say this every time intelligence is brought. It's like seeing someone who's a good painter, then saying, well sure, he's artistic by the societal standards of what artistic is, but he's not REALLY "artistic". No, the definition of the word artistic are made up by those societal standards, like the definitions of every other word. Just because you don't want to make someone feel bad, doesn't mean the definitions suddenly don't apply. And you most definitely can't reference the original definition, while referencing whatever definition you made up for intelligence in the first place. You cannot have a test that measures what society defines as "intelligent", then when someone is theorized to probably score higher on those tests, say: "well, that person is only intelligent by societies' definition of intelligence", not REAL intelligence, when the test is referring to societies' definition of intelligence.
And skill is not what this article is references when they say genius', they're referencing fluid intelligence. It seems people feel comfortable saying type isn't related to intelligence, then when a study proves them wrong, they declare that that intelligence isn't the REAL intelligence, as if they define what we were referring to as intelligence.