I disagree and believe it can be stated as a general truth - and it is, in Gifts Differing.@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.
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.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.
None do, at least no commonly used ones that carry any weight. The maximum iirc is 160.
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.Even a score of 110+ is going to be uncommon.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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
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.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.