Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
Eh.

Time restrictions on IQ tests put sensors (both types) at a disadvantage because they prefer to have a solid understanding of the question or puzzle before attempting to formulate an answer or solution.

iNtUiTiVe types (both) have an advantage in time-restricted settings as they don't require (nor want) a comprehensive understanding of the question or puzzle, instead relying on their intuition to make sense of it immediately and respond in kind.


This is why intuitives miss things and jump the gun, though they can rush through questions and puzzles, they aren't actually taking in all of the information, some of which might be crucial in order to accurately answer a question or solve a problem.

It's also why sensors take longer and therefore answer less questions, producing lower results overall and seem "slow" to intuitives, because the sensor doesn't feel comfortable jumping in so prematurely, as it doesn't make much sense to them to answer something they don't understand.

TL;Dr who gives a shit about IQ tests, they're useless.

Smartest guy I know makes my coffee at McDonalds every morning. Yea boi.
I said 2 sugars mate. That's 1+1. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
@Turi I think that can be true in some cases, but can't be stated as a general truth. Think about SPs who are excellent at responding quickly. If they're smart, that can apply in an academic setting as well (I've seen this firsthand). Additionally, it seems as if there are many Intuitives who think very slowly and consider too many angles, while Sensors with their practical intelligence just reply in a reasonable amount of time. Think about ENFPs who go crazy thinking about every possible angle and can't stay focused on the question at hand. I can see your reasoning, but I think it's equally easy to apply the reasoning in the opposite manner.
@ClOwNkInG What is your basis for your statement? Raw IQ has nothing to do with type. Many Intuitives tend to excel in an academic environment, and our society has a bias towards valuing academic intelligence above all other kinds, leading to a mistaken notion that Intuitives in general are smarter than Sensors.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
@Turi I think that can be true in some cases, but can't be stated as a general truth. Think about SPs who are excellent at responding quickly. If they're smart, that can apply in an academic setting as well (I've seen this firsthand). Additionally, it seems as if there are many Intuitives who think very slowly and consider too many angles, while Sensors with their practical intelligence just reply in a reasonable amount of time. Think about ENFPs who go crazy thinking about every possible angle and can't stay focused on the question at hand. I can see your reasoning, but I think it's equally easy to apply the reasoning in the opposite manner.
I disagree and believe it can be stated as a general truth - and it is, in Gifts Differing.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but they are just that.

I don't believe this has any impact whatsoever on ones intelligence, it's simply a difference in how the different types prefer to process information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jewl

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Eh.

Time restrictions on IQ tests put sensors (both types) at a disadvantage because they prefer to have a solid understanding of the question or puzzle before attempting to formulate an answer or solution.

iNtUiTiVe types (both) have an advantage in time-restricted settings as they don't require (nor want) a comprehensive understanding of the question or puzzle, instead relying on their intuition to make sense of it immediately and respond in kind.


This is why intuitives miss things and jump the gun, though they can rush through questions and puzzles, they aren't actually taking in all of the information, some of which might be crucial in order to accurately answer a question or solve a problem.

It's also why sensors take longer and therefore answer less questions, producing lower results overall and seem "slow" to intuitives, because the sensor doesn't feel comfortable jumping in so prematurely, as it doesn't make much sense to them to answer something they don't understand.

TL;Dr who gives a shit about IQ tests, they're useless.

Smartest guy I know makes my coffee at McDonalds every morning. Yea boi.
I said 2 sugars mate. That's 1+1. :)
disagree with INFXs plus ENFPs or NFs in general due to deficient levels of logic, but that explains why my mom who's an ENTJ jumps to conclusions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,331 Posts
disagree with INFJs, but that explains why my mom who's an ENTJ jumps to conclusions.
Why do you disagree with INFJs?
Have you observed them? More than one single example you might know.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
659 Posts
Sidis’ parents set out to make a genius child, and a genius child they made with an IQ over 250.
These IQ scores seem like complete bullshit. What IQ test even has a valid scale that goes that high?
None do, at least no commonly used ones that carry any weight. The maximum iirc is 160.

To be honest, people 120+ are so vanishingly rare statistically speaking that I call bullshit naturally when someone has claimed it. It's very much a put up or shut up thing, not that IQ is a comprehensive assessment in itself.

Point is, its funny that on the internet you meet a vast number of individuals considered to be gifted or exceptionally gifted or more.

The standard test should result in a distribution that peaks massively at 100, with a steady decrease the further one drifts in either direction.

Even a score of 110+ is going to be uncommon.

Anyone claiming close to the 160 mark is almost certainly a liar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Even a score of 110+ is going to be uncommon.
I agree with the rest of your post, but that seems like a big of an exaggeration. A normal distribution puts about 34% of the total between mean and 1 standard deviation on the plus side, which seems to be 100- 115 (based on a quick google search) .Another 13% is going to be between 115 and 130, so not uncommon at all.

Edited for clarity: it seems ~20% would be at 110 or above...1 out of 5 seems common in my book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I'm sure there are many other sensors out there with a higher level of intelligence, they're just not necessarily interested in philosophy or the sciences so they don't put themselves out there. You cannot fit half of the population into the 'stupid' category and the other into the 'intelligent' category when you consider that less than 10% of the world's population actually have an above average IQ. IQ tests are also hilariously flawed. I score within the 140 range on most tests I take - does not mean I would ever be able to take on Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking on anything they put forward. Most of them provide false results. I consider myself a nihilist but I couldn't compare with the likes of Nietzsche. An online test won't tell you where you fall on the intelligence spectrum, nor is it an intelligent idea in itself to try and measure something that's so broad and has so many areas.

Really not fair to lump sensors into the idiot category when there are so many brilliant minds with high Se and Si use. Biggest indicator of stupidity in my book is believing you or people like you are more intelligent than anyone else.

I tend to find the smartest people in the world are rarely aware of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I'm sure there are many other sensors out there with a higher level of intelligence, they're just not necessarily interested in philosophy or the sciences so they don't put themselves out there. You cannot fit half of the population into the 'stupid' category and the other into the 'intelligent' category when you consider that less than 10% of the world's population actually have an above average IQ. IQ tests are also hilariously flawed. I score within the 140 range on most tests I take - does not mean I would ever be able to take on Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking on anything they put forward. Most of them provide false results. I consider myself a nihilist but I couldn't compare with the likes of Nietzsche. An online test won't tell you where you fall on the intelligence spectrum, nor is it an intelligent idea in itself to try and measure something that's so broad and has so many areas.

Really not fair to lump sensors into the idiot category when there are so many brilliant minds with high Se and Si use. Biggest indicator of stupidity in my book is believing you or people like you are more intelligent than anyone else.

I tend to find the smartest people in the world are rarely aware of it.
had mine checked in a neuropsychological test based off the Weismann scale and got 131. Only had it checked for school. Knew I could comprehend higher level concepts because my school did achievement testing.if someone were going off a online test, I'd actually deduct points lol. Have a cousin out in la who measured as a genius, but her common sense is null and void.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cal

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
The thing is, when it comes to historical people/figures, we might be going about it in reverse. By which I mean, instead of assessing all historical Ns as extremely smart we might be typing super smart historical figures as Ns just because of it. But how do we really know they were? Sure Einstein seems like a big time N to me, at the same time if we could had valid testimonies from people who knew him personally and told us he was actually ISTP, I wouldn't have a hard time believing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
The thing is, when it comes to historical people/figures, we might be going about it in reverse. By which I mean, instead of assessing all historical Ns as extremely smart we might be typing super smart historical figures as Ns just because of it. But how do we really know they were? Sure Einstein seems like a big time N to me, at the same time if we could had valid testimonies from people who knew him personally and told us he was actually ISTP, I wouldn't have a hard time believing that.
makes sense, however theoretical concepts are the manifestation of abstract thinking. I wouldn't necessarily state sir Isaac newton was brilliant, but I'm fairly certain he was an NT.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
659 Posts
I agree with the rest of your post, but that seems like a big of an exaggeration. A normal distribution puts about 34% of the total between mean and 1 standard deviation on the plus side, which seems to be 100- 115 (based on a quick google search) .Another 13% is going to be between 115 and 130, so not uncommon at all.

Edited for clarity: it seems ~20% would be at 110 or above...1 out of 5 seems common in my book.
Well, as you say - in your book. It comeas down to one's personal definition of uncommon - for me 1 out of 4 is uncommon in general but when we deep dive the stats - people with an IQ 115 and over are most likely to be of East Asian extraction and it's fairly safe to presume that a good number of those will still reside in East Asia. My point being that the 1 in 5 is not evenly distributed and English speaking westerners are not the majority.

So, within the realm of English language internet forums or message boards those with an IQ 110/115+ are going to be even less common than 1 in 5. Course, even that sounds quite high in some cases and I'd agree that many would align with you in the view that 1 in 5 is not uncommon.

I think the visual aid skews my interpretation;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...istribution.svg/250px-IQ_distribution.svg.png
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Well, as you say - in your book. It comeas down to one's personal definition of uncommon - for me 1 out of 4 is uncommon
Well I'm in a health profession field and we're constantly dealing with stats like 1/1000 or 3/1000, so in contrast 1/5 seems common. Just think about how many people you see walking around the grocery store-- if you see 20 people and 4 of those are a particular thing... maybe not common, but definitely not uncommon either.

in general but when we deep dive the stats - people with an IQ 115 and over are most likely to be of East Asian extraction and it's fairly safe to presume that a good number of those will still reside in East Asia.
Huh...? Source..? I thought the fact that Asians were more intelligent was an illusion caused by the fact that more intelligent Asians tend to come to the US... so therefore Asians still in Asia would have the same intelligence distribution.
 

·
Registered
Mature Sage
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Okay I had my coffee.

Let's clear the air first, because I'm sure some will notice that I'm N dominant. Yes I was in the Talented and Gifted program in school. I can assure you, there were sensor types there too.

1. Is there a correlation between typology and iq, and does that correlation favor intuitive types?
Yes. And I'm about to link to a scientific study that backs this claim.
http://www.psytech.com/Content/Research/Intelligence-2009-08-11.pdf
However, personality types only factored into 14% of the variance in IQ. Furthermore, the variance between sensing and intuition is a good predictor of verbal reasoning, only. So if you are an intuitive, you only get to take pride in how articulate your type is, not necessarily how intelligent your type is, over all. The other factors in personality, however (T vs N, E vs I, and J vs P) can be fairly good predictors of general intelligence.

2. Even if a particular type with a high IQ is less common does not preclude they don't exist or are extremely rare. They might be less common, but with a 14% variance according to type, probably not significantly so.

3. Even if N's were significantly more likely to score, say, above 140 on an IQ test, what's there to take pride in? I really don't get it. I'm an N, but I've never scored above 140 on an IQ test, so I can't conclude that I'm a genius based on what appears above my avatar on here. I never understood the whole "I'm an INTJ therefore I'm more intelligent than so you sensor plebeians" mentality. I'm very thankful that mot of the INTJs I've actually encountered on this site don't actually have that mentality. I don't understand what anyone has to gain from these discussions.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top