lil ISFps smarties

[Raver]

yes, but Y&C tried to sort types by their intelligence, which it doesn't work, because intuition N - in the socionics sense does not imply intelligence. As I showed that is just illusory. Real intelligence is independent of the functions. The functions are just styles of processing the information. Intelligence is what you make of it.

Of course, intuition and intelligence was always two seperate things for me. Untill, MBTI convoluted my mind of course.

Exactly, the stupid is as stupid does quote can be be reveresed.

Here are examples of how MBTI made me think that some types are more intelligent then others, even though that is not the case:

Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP's conscious thought. This fascination for logical wholes and their inner workings is often expressed in a detachment from the environment, a concentration where time is forgotten and extraneous stimuli are held at bay. Accomplishing a task or goal with this knowledge is secondary.

Organized education is difficult for the majority of ISFPs, and many drop out before finishing secondary education. Their interest can be held better through experiential learning, at which many excel. ISFPs will practice playing an instrument or honing a favored skill for hours on end, not so much as practice as for the joy of the experience.

Just notice the difference in the descriptions and it gives you an impression than an INTp is a lot more intelligent than an ISFp even though that may not be the case. Though, the descriptions are a bit messed up of course, since they do not deal with the socionics ordering.

[FDG]

MBTI makes pretty clear the fact that NTs are the type that doesn't get laid and SFs are the types that don't know shit.

[Joy]

Yes, good thing the world is so simple.

[FDG]

Yes, good thing the world is so simple.

Ehehe, not that I agree!

[Raver]

MBTI makes pretty clear the fact that NTs are the type that doesn't get laid and SFs are the types that don't know shit.

Do you think it is even partly true? MBTI is seeming more like a bullshit system when I look at it in a different angle.

[wym123]

Mathematics is a system where many INTPs love to play, similarly languages, computer systems--potentially any complex system. INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP's conscious thought. This fascination for logical wholes and their inner workings is often expressed in a detachment from the environment, a concentration where time is forgotten and extraneous stimuli are held at bay. Accomplishing a task or goal with this knowledge is secondary.

I don't think this is false at all, if you know anything about higher Mathematics. Mathematics is very much like Philosophy except there much more development so there is a lot more to work on (The questions in Mathematics are answerable given sufficient creativity and knowledge, unlike Philosophy). You no longer play with numbers or equations but just ideas, ideas and more ideas, some of which can get extremely abstract. All Mathematicians do is just try to construct proofs for every idea conceivable.

That is not say that other personality types are incapable of studying Mathematics. I think that INTPs are just naturally drawn to Mathematics because Mathematics is a "game" where they can exercise their extreme detached reasoning skills, and creativity in coming up with clever ideas, while following all the rules of constructing proofs (such as rigor), and there aren't many. This is all this profile is saying.

Here is a site that lists Mathematicians as one of the careers that INTPs are satisifed with: http://www.intp.org/job.html

Just notice the difference in the descriptions and it gives you an impression than an INTp is a lot more intelligent than an ISFp even though that may not be the case. Though, the descriptions are a bit messed up of course, since they do not deal with the socionics ordering.

There are many ways to measure intelligence. INTPs are stupid when it comes to emotions and feelings, and other things that are not "logical" but just as important in life.

By the way, MBTI INTPs most correspond to INTj.

[Raver]

I don't think this is false at all, if you know anything about higher Mathematics. Mathematics is very much like Philosophy except there much more development so there is a lot more to work on (The questions in Mathematics are answerable given sufficient creativity and knowledge, unlike Philosophy). You no longer play with numbers or equations but just ideas, ideas and more ideas, some of which can get extremely abstract. All Mathematicians do is just try to construct proofs for every idea conceivable.

That is not say that other personality types are incapable of studying Mathematics. I think that INTPs are just naturally drawn to Mathematics because Mathematics is a "game" where they can exercise their extreme detached reasoning skills, and creativity in coming up with clever ideas, while following all the rules of constructing proofs (such as rigor), and there aren't many. This is all this profile is saying.

Here is a site that lists Mathematicians as one of the careers that INTPs are satisifed with: http://www.intp.org/job.html

I understand what your saying. Of course, a person of a certain type won't be more intelligent than another type. I'm just going along the lines of what if everyone was equally intelligent, but of different types.INTPs would be more naturally inclined to do well and enjoy mathematics. Though isn't that an area that requires more intelligence compared to designing an outfit or understanding people's emotions? I might be wrong though, since intelligence comes in different forms. However, someone who is more inclined to solve complex mathematical equations vs. someone who has a better fashion sense. Who looks more intelligent to you?

There are many ways to measure intelligence. INTPs are stupid when it comes to emotions and feelings, and other things that are not "logical" but just as important in life.

By the way, MBTI INTPs most correspond to INTj.

I agree with you 100%, Yeah and INTP's in MBTI are described as INTj's because they establish them as thinkers or excellent logicians, which is the INTj's dominant function and strongest trait.

[Creepy-]

MBTI makes pretty clear the fact that NTs are the type that doesn't get laid and SFs are the types that don't know shit.

Do you think it is even partly true? MBTI is seeming more like a bullshit system when I look at it in a different angle.

That part at least is bullshit! Aside from NTs being delicious (particularly Gamma NTs but that's only my opinion), you should meet some of the SFs I know... my god... *boggles*

My ESFp brother is a physics nut and last night was planning an elaborate drive-by shooting (from a moving train), involving two gunsmen whose bullets were meant to hit the target (in a moving car) at the same time (so of course they'd have to shoot at different times because they're standing in different carriages).

Physics does odd things to objects... my brother has an idea that being shot by a bullet travelling at 800kph will hurt twice as much than being shot by a bullet travelling at 400kph (I think there might be ethical constraints in testing this hypothesis ). So, if a bullet is shot on a train, in the direction that the train is moving, you want to stay on the train because it will hurt twice as much if you were on the ground. If it was shot in the opposite direction, you want to be on the ground.

*boggle*

[Creepy-]

By the way, MBTI INTPs most correspond to INTj.

As far as the descriptions go, I see what you mean now. It's odd that MBTI INFJ descriptions aren't like either Socionics IEI or EII. Very odd.

[wym123]

By the way, MBTI INTPs most correspond to INTj.

As far as the descriptions go, I see what you mean now. It's odd that MBTI INFJ descriptions aren't like either Socionics IEI or EII. Very odd.

Oh? Well, I really don't know much about others types, nor too much about Socionics and MBTI so I really can't say why. I just really felt that MBTI INTP is pretty much the same as Socionics INTj from everything I have read and understood about these two types and I am rather shocked that other INTjs did not share this view. It makes me doubt whether other INTjs have truly identified their types correctly.

[MysticSonic]

There are answers in Philosophy, people just like to obfuscate them.

[wym123]

I understand what your saying. Of course, a person of a certain type won't be more intelligent than another type. I'm just going along the lines of what if everyone was equally intelligent, but of different types.INTPs would be more naturally inclined to do well and enjoy mathematics. Though isn't that an area that requires more intelligence compared to designing an outfit or understanding people's emotions? I might be wrong though, since intelligence comes in different forms. However, someone who is more inclined to solve complex mathematical equations vs. someone who has a better fashion sense. Who looks more intelligent to you?

You are obviously using the standard definition of intelligence, which is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Hence, for obvious reasons INTPs are probably more intelligent than any other types. However, intelligence is a useless measurement because it doesn't imply anything else in general. In today's world, do we see that a correlation between intelligence and job salary? Not really. There is a certain threshold of intelligence that the highest paying jobs require and all types are easily capable of achieving that level of intelligence. This threshold is obviously much lower than that of a Mathematician. Is intelligence related success? Once again, not really. Discipline, persistence, and such traits are required for success and intelligence is not related to those at all. In fact, it is also easy to make the argument that in certain areas, people skills, which are, in general, inversely correlated to intelligence, are perhaps more important for success. So what can we make of intelligence? Nothing really.

From this we can see that your comparison isn't very insightful and isn't very fair. It is much better to perhaps compare someone who construct math proofs with someone who acts in movies for a living. Then we can ask, "who is more intelligent?" Well, that's obvious. Now, "who makes more money?" Well, that's also obvious. "Who is having a more indulgent lifestyle?" That's obvious too. (INTPs are not good at getting women/men and that's a price to pay for the intelligence.)

I do know that for some reason, the world values intelligence greatly. However, without a proper context, it is quite shallow to praise intelligence and to assume that intelligence implies much more.

We can easily make the same argument for social skills, which non-NT types are good at. Hence, it doesn't make much sense to single out any these traits and value them without a proper context. I know that I value my intelligence because I would like to make meaningful contributions to the academia, and related areas, while I am still alive.

[Raver]

You are obviously using the standard definition of intelligence, which is "the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Hence, for obvious reasons INTPs are probably more intelligent than any other types. However, intelligence is a useless measurement because it doesn't imply anything else in general. In today's world, do we see that a correlation between intelligence and job salary? Not really. There is a certain threshold of intelligence that the highest paying jobs require and all types are easily capable of achieving that level of intelligence. This threshold is obviously much lower than that of a Mathematicians of course. Is intelligence related success? Once again, not really. Discipline, persistence, and such traits are required for success and intelligence is not related to those at all. In fact, it is also easy to make the argument that in certain areas, perhaps people skills, which are, in general, inversely correlated to intelligence, are more important for success. So what can we make of intelligence? Nothing really.

From this we can see that your comparison isn't very insightful and isn't very fair. It is much better to perhaps compare someone who construct math proofs with someone who acts in movies for a living. Then we can ask, "who is more intelligent?" Well, that's obvious. Now, "who makes more money?" Well, that's also obvious. "Who is having a more indulgent lifestyle?" That's obvious too.

I do know that for some reason, the world values intelligence greatly. However, without a proper context, it is quite shallow to praise intelligence and to assume that intelligence implies much more.

Yeah that's true, someone's profession or success has nothing to do with intelligence. A person who is more capable to handle abstract problems isn't necessarily more intelligent either. I guess the blur comes between the difference from conventional intelligence and general intelligence. If you look at conventional intelligence then some types are smarter than others, however conventional intelligence is NOT intelligence, since it is only a small piece of the pie.

When it comes to general intelligence, every type is better at one piece of the pie and this is why overall if you look at it this way. Every type is equivalent to eachother in intelligence. Also, the most important aspect is that the type, may make you more intelligent in a certain piece of the pie, however overall it has no impact whatsoever. Overall intelligence is a result of the amount of gray matter or neurons (whatever they call it nowadays) and is something seperate from your personality type, however your type could make you look smarter or dumber than you really are.

[wym123]

There are answers in Philosophy, people just like to obfuscate them.

I suppose that's the problem inherent in Philosophical thought. This is something that you can't do in Mathematics because everything is axiomatic and rigorous to begin with.