As in not an INxP. I was just curious which type you think he is, if not an INTP.
Why MBTI sometimes gets on my nerves.
- Thread starter the
- Start date
As in not an INxP. I was just curious which type you think he is, if not an INTP.
U
Untitled
Oh no!!! I'm a married heretic!
...Anyone got any good ideas on how to fake your way into med school???
...but seerrrrhiouslyyy... poor guy. Imagine how long it took him to make that s____t up? It ain't easy coming up with such detailed crackpottery.
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
Well, I completely agree with the article. In fact they should have gone even further. All sensors are dumb, all extroverts are vain, all feelers are wildly over-emotional and all perceivers are lazy.
Hm...why that means INTJ is the best type. What an expected and not at all surprising revelation.
Hm...why that means INTJ is the best type. What an expected and not at all surprising revelation.
That's not even data. For one, it would be impossible to verify his IQ, that's just a random number thrown out there. Secondly, it's impossible to verify his type, so whatever people say his type is, is pure conjecture. Third, he's also only one person, and one person cannot represent any one type. Also, it's not like IQ's a reliable measure of intelligence, anyway. There are many ways to be an idiot, just as intelligence presents itself in a variety of ways.
When I hear things like "N's are better/smarter/more sparkly than S types" my first thought is "lol, bullshit."
U
Untitled
Yep. Although sparkly is actually true, but only for INFJs. We are sparkly. And we glow in the dark. And attract rainbow ends. It really pisses off the leprechauns.
T
The Jester
I see what you did there.
Making generalizations about generalizations. How did my head not implode when reading that?
U
Untitled
I think you got Asarya wrong there.... She was purposefully doing that, employing the same method of hack MBTI in the same manner that the author was in the first place (note the stylistic move of using the word "stupider" which is a great indicator that this, indeed, was poking fun at the original online text). :bounce:I see what you did there.
Making generalizations about generalizations. How did my head not implode when reading that?
Sarcasm. The flower that blooms on this forum like nowhere else on earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd really prefer not to say. Sorry about that. I just don't think now is the right time.
Einstein likely didn't have an IQ of 205. Almost nobody has an IQ that high, and the rare few that do tend to end up living menial lives. Einstein was probably around 160. Shakespeare was probably much lower than that.
Also, there are highly intelligent S types, and I'm not sure that MBTI has a baring on the linear/sequential versus visual/spatial ways of thinking. Highly intelligent people can do both at high capacities. So you could have an S type who is some sort of genius. I don't think MBTI necessarily limits one in terms of their intellectual achievement- we just see tendencies based on preference (i.e. an INTJ is more likely to correlate with a scientist, but that doesn't mean other types cant be just as good scientists).
In other words, just because you favor a certain capacity doesn't mean that you are necessarily worse at using your other capacities than other people if you practice. So for example, ESxx types would probably do better at sports than INxx types, but that is probably because they favor it more and spend more time at it. If you had an INxx type that enjoyed sports and spent as much time practicing, they'd probably be just as competitive. Same is true in reverse for things like being a scientist.
I feel like people who write articles like that have no clue what they're talking about in terms of MBTI and especially IQ.
Also, there are highly intelligent S types, and I'm not sure that MBTI has a baring on the linear/sequential versus visual/spatial ways of thinking. Highly intelligent people can do both at high capacities. So you could have an S type who is some sort of genius. I don't think MBTI necessarily limits one in terms of their intellectual achievement- we just see tendencies based on preference (i.e. an INTJ is more likely to correlate with a scientist, but that doesn't mean other types cant be just as good scientists).
In other words, just because you favor a certain capacity doesn't mean that you are necessarily worse at using your other capacities than other people if you practice. So for example, ESxx types would probably do better at sports than INxx types, but that is probably because they favor it more and spend more time at it. If you had an INxx type that enjoyed sports and spent as much time practicing, they'd probably be just as competitive. Same is true in reverse for things like being a scientist.
I feel like people who write articles like that have no clue what they're talking about in terms of MBTI and especially IQ.