IQ And MBTI: Correlations?
- Thread starter problemz
- Start date
I once believed there was a connection and I'm sure studies have claimed there is some correlation but the response is always going to be considered elitist or snobbish because it is going to imply that some types are naturally smarter than others without considering the different types of intelligence or strengths each type brings to the table. Stereotypically, TJs are generally considered smarter in logical or mathematical intelligence while NFs are considered smarter in emotional and social intelligence. But that's not necessarily true. But because we buy into the stereotypes so easily, we don't question their veracity.
Last edited:
To answer the question you wanted to ask: no, you are not smarter than everyone else just because you are a rare type.
Being insecure and Looking to prove that you're better than most people by trying to associate as many positive qualities that you value with your type of person (which btw says nothing about your own abilities) as possible: Correlations?
Ladies and Gentlemen: The Te Bitch-Slap.
(If I'm not mistaken.)
Otherwise, there probably is a correlation, but IQ is based on what is, IMO, a very narrow view of what intelligence is. I personally subscribe to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences -- or at least its implications -- that attempts to break intelligence into discrete subsets: Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, etc.
Well, from reading the Wikipedia article, there seems to be a lot wrong with that particular theory...but, I stand by the general principle. Take, for example, two people widely considered to have possessed, heretofore, unapproachable genius in their respective fields: Newton and Shakespeare. It's extremely unlikely that either one of them could have produced the works of the other -- because they're two different kinds of genius.
Last edited:
I'm fascinated by Dario Nardi's work to show that there are 16 major regions of the brain and that the different types light up these areas differently as they approach problems. Chief Judge is one of those areas: it doesn't think very well, but thinks it does. That's Niffer's response, which I think we should lay to rest.
As for Gardner, I think this is a better approach. Some areas are more valued in our society: kinesthetic for instance not so much as logic. Einstein trumps Nijinsky. And yet both are amazing in their own respective areas.
I do think the standard IQ is probably a measure of the purely logical areas. If a test is given on vocabulary, I always ace it. The problematic area for me on intelligence tests is seeing four patterns and finding the fifth one that supposedly fits the pattern. I often see nine or ten ways it could match, but am not sure of the one intended by the puzzle maker. My wife who is a professional photographer always aces those. She has trouble with the analogies, which I again always ace. I think there used to be a notion that IQ was one big area of the brain. It now seems that it may be connected to precise areas. If you watch a point guard in the NBA take a ball up through traffic it is amazing to think of the intelligence involved. Einstein could never do that.
But I doubt if Kobe Bryant could do what Einstein did, or what a poet can do.
Why is this the case?
Nardi seems to be on to something.
As for Gardner, I think this is a better approach. Some areas are more valued in our society: kinesthetic for instance not so much as logic. Einstein trumps Nijinsky. And yet both are amazing in their own respective areas.
I do think the standard IQ is probably a measure of the purely logical areas. If a test is given on vocabulary, I always ace it. The problematic area for me on intelligence tests is seeing four patterns and finding the fifth one that supposedly fits the pattern. I often see nine or ten ways it could match, but am not sure of the one intended by the puzzle maker. My wife who is a professional photographer always aces those. She has trouble with the analogies, which I again always ace. I think there used to be a notion that IQ was one big area of the brain. It now seems that it may be connected to precise areas. If you watch a point guard in the NBA take a ball up through traffic it is amazing to think of the intelligence involved. Einstein could never do that.
But I doubt if Kobe Bryant could do what Einstein did, or what a poet can do.
Why is this the case?
Nardi seems to be on to something.