I have been a fan of the MBTI for a long time. For a brief period I believed that all personality types were essentially equal and they all had pros and cons. While this is still true for the most part, I think N's have an edge when it comes to intelligence. There are numerous reasons as to why this is. You see, the S/N relationship isn't so much a preference as all the other letters are. With S/N it isn't like choosing which color crayon you prefer. It is about choosing which level of evolution you prefer.
Confused? Well let's look at it a bit more. Taken from Wikipedia:
Sensing
Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere." They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.
Intuitive
On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
So sensors are basically 5 sense people who get information from the material/external world. Intuitors are basically people who get information from beyond the 5 senses, the mind/internal world.
Influential People
I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason.
Browsing across the web I have assembled a list of commonly listed people who have been influential throughout history. These are the types of names that commonly come up when you ask people who the most influential people are in the world. You will find the commonly associated MBTI(s) (and IQ if possible) next to their name.
| Person | MBTI | IQ |
|---|---|---|
| Abraham Lincoln | ENTP/INTP | 150 |
| Adam Smith | INTP | |
| Adolf Hitler | INFJ/INTJ | 141 |
| Albert Einstein | INTP | 205 |
| Alexander Graham Bell | ||
| Alexander the Great | ENTJ | 180 |
| Aristotle | INTP | 190 |
| Augustus Caesar | INTJ | |
| Benjamin Franklin | ENTP | 185 |
| Bill Gates | INTJ/INTP | 173 |
| Buddha | INFJ/INFP | |
| Charlemagne | ||
| Charles Darwin | INTJ | 173 |
| Constantine | ||
| Francis Bacon | INTJ | 180 |
| Galileo Galilei | INTP | 180 |
| Gandhi | INFJ/INFP | 160 |
| George Washington | ISTJ | 140 |
| Isaac Newton | INTJ | 195 |
| Jesus | INFJ | |
| John F. Kennedy | INTJ | 119 |
| John Locke | INTP | 165 |
| Joseph Stalin | ESTJ/ISTJ | |
| Julius Caesar | ENTJ | 175 |
| Karl Marx | INTP | |
| Leonardo da Vinci | INTP | 220 |
| Ludwig van Beethoven | INTJ/INFJ | 165 |
| Martin Luther | INTJ/INTP | 170 |
| Martin Luther King Jr. | ENFJ | |
| Max Planck | ||
| Michelangelo | INFP | 175 |
| Muhammad | ENTJ | |
| Napoleon Bonaparte | ENTJ | 145 |
| Nicolaus Copernicus | ||
| Niels Bohr | ||
| Nikola Tesla | ENTP/INTP | 200 |
| Pablo Picasso | ISFP | 160 |
| Plato | INTP | 180 |
| Rene Descartes | INTP | 175 |
| Sigmund Freud | INFJ/INTJ | 156 |
| Thomas Edison | ENTP | 180 |
| Thomas Jefferson | INTJ | 195 |
| Walt Disney | ENTP | 123 |
| Warren Buffett | INTP | |
| William Shakespeare | INFP | 210 |
| Zoroaster |
So hopefully that somewhat shows that the majority of people who have contributed to society in a great way (as agreed on by most people) are almost always N's, whether for good or for bad. The N's dominate the world. But it is all too obvious. We know that leaders and smart people are rare. N's are also the most rare when it comes to the MBTI. E's and I's are close. T's and F's are close. And J's and P's are close. But N's and S's are the furthest apart.
The breakdown is roughly:
The E-I split is close to 50-50.
The S-N is close to 75-25.
The T-F is close to 40-60.
The J-P is close to 55-45.
N's make up 25% of the population (and I would still think this number is high). But it's showing you that it is more common to be stupid and not a leader, which is true. Most people aren't leaders. Most people don't do great things. That's not me being negative or mean, that's me being accurate. At anytime people can choose to be a leader but that takes work and work isn't associated with entertainment so count them out.
Who brought us the automobile? Who brought us the personal computer? Who brought us the Internet? Who brought us the best form of government? Who brought us free market economics? Heck, who brought us Socialism/Communism even though it's a straight fraud? N! They do things. They're innovators. N's run the world and the S's are the employees for the N's.
IQ and MBTI type
And don't think IQ isn't tied to this, because it is. If you look at the IQs listed above you will find they are ALL above average. That is because above average people have above average IQs. Yes, IQ isn't the only thing that has to do with intelligence, BUT it obviously shows that all the most influential people have high IQs. That's just the way it is. High IQs lead. High IQs innovate. Show me an influential person with a low IQ. Show me an influential person that's an S. It's rare. And I'm talking real influence. Some puppet Prime Minister or President isn't influential -- that's an employee for the N's.
Some popular S's
I'm not saying S's are bad. I'm saying they're not smart. They are not the leaders of the world. They rarely make a most respectable people throughout history list. I'm sorry for having to be the one that breaks it to you, but somebody had to. It is what it is. S's may be good at entertaining you or making you laugh. They may be good at sports. But they're not good at running countries, running businesses, innovating, improving the standard of living or anything else of higher value than simply entertainment. They don't make the lists for a reason. They don't have what it takes.
As good as entertainers like Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Justin Bieber and Barack Obama are at entertaining they're just not going to make the cut for being historically influential. And the entertainers of Plato's time, Jesus' time, Muhammad's time, Bacon's time and so forth also sadly didn't make the list. That is because they're not influential.
Evolving
There is still much more to this than simply being influential. I think the vast majority of N's start off as S's as they are children and slowly start to wake up and outgrow being an S. S is a stage of taking in your environment and learning the basic dynamics behind life. S's love their senses because their senses are their teacher. But once you learn the basic dynamics behind the physical world you start to move onto the more abstract and deep things. You move out of the physical and into the mind. You move out of the shallow everyday things and into the more philosophical. It doesn't mean that you don't appreciate or understand the immediate, physical things -- it just means that you're past that.
So as children we don't have to worry about money or growing or taking care of ourselves or leading or anything like this for the most part. Most of our life is taken care of by our parents or the socialist government. Young people look good, their bodies work good and hardly any effort is needed to get by in life. They have everything given to them and don't need to develop themselves. But as reality kicks in we either wise up or become a slave. Most choose to become slaves and collapse under the fold of tradition and authority. But every once in a while you will get that solitary, free spirit that has the need to venture into the unknown and leave the crowd, despite the whole bunch of S's trying to pull them back down as hard as they can. This is the evolution away from group-rule into self-rule. This is the evolution from animal to human -- a truly sovereign, capable human being.
Now I know what I'm saying will piss a lot of people off and I think that's good. It pisses me off even more to see people not talk about these things or even propose them. So rather than me be pissed I'm gonna make you be pissed for a while. If what I'm saying is such BS show me why. All the smart people I talk to about this kind of stuff know what I'm talking about. They might not explain it with the MBTI, but they know what I'm saying is true in their own language. There are certain parts of life that can be proven through a number of tools, and the S/N relationship is one tool proving a reality of life and evolution. Some people are smarter, better, and more capable. Not very socialist sounding is it? Oops. Looks like nature isn't a socialist then.
Take the test
If you have 10 minutes of free time take the test and see what you are: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
44 Comments
Darwin was ET(S1)
Faraday was ES(T1)
and most doctors tend to be ES(F1+T2) or ES(F1)
There are plenty of good Sensor leaders, who lived as a president. For example ( and this is according to Socionics theory, Napoleon / Caesar where Sensors (ESFp) . . .
b.t.w just from quickly going through your list of people . . .Billgates is a INTP ...
further intresting read: http://www.personalitynation.com/blogs/yukawa/600-yukawa-not-so-intj-pre...
Also based upon your writing style you appear verry S, no metaphors or analogy was used
Darwin was not an S.
I don't know who Faraday was but if he was smart he was probably not an S.
Most doctors are definitely S's since most doctors are morons who only know what they read about in their books written by N's.
We really don't know what anybody is fully. Go to one website it will tell you Bill Gates is an ENTJ, another will tell you INTP. You really can't know what somebody is until you study their character fully. Bill Gates very well could be an INTP, so. He's still an NT.
Myer briggs is not about ability.
This whole predication that Sensors have a low IQ is to funny to be taken serious. If you have ever come to read works from scientists such as Charles Darwin, Antoine Lavoisier, Galileo Galilei, and Michael Faraday. Then you will see that it is predominant filled with Se
Most Ni types tend to be priests, monks, nuns, or doctors according to Jung. It kind of makes me laugh that he actually doesn't consider Ni types to be scientists at all, but rather Se types. He considers Ni to be "artist" or "spiritual" type.
You can figure out people's type quickly if you got access to their child hood, as this video clearly shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDyOG4935E0
b.t.w Jung was a ISTP. http://www.personalitynation.com/analytical-psychology-application/3309-...
Would you agree with me that some people are smarter than other people? Or that some people have a greater ability towards leadership and changing the world for the better? And if this is the case then there are going to be certain patterns that can be measured in these people. And we can look at their personality types and see if they share certain personality types. And when we take the 16 MBTI types we may start to see certain patterns. This is what I have done. Make your own list and show me how they're all even. I would love to see you do this. This isn't what the data shows.
Again: Myer briggs is not about ability.
There are plenty of people in the mesa category that have never invented anything or contributed anything to society/the world and there are plenty of servants of society that don't grasp the unknown faster than those who do(yes that is what intelligence is). So from this point I would argue that they have had more influence.
Some people do have a better ability towards leadership, but that is not depended on type. MBTI sorts for type, it does not indicate the strength or ability. There are plenty of enlightened masters, such as Guathum Budha that have emphasized present moment awareness, which is through the five senses ( Sensory) and whom have explained that intuition comes from the no-mind state «insert theory about intuition from texts like Jung did in his books». Anyway there are so many theories, out there, but putting on the glass and looking towards them from the most frequent theories discussed, I would say that your linear argumentation that sensors have lesser ability than intuitions is not that thoroughly researched as you belief it is. Many professions contain highly competent individuals of different types with complementary preferences.
An example would be Walt Disney whom had a meditation teacher .. yes who taught him about intuition... or Shakespare whom talked about the maiden meditation(fancy free). I can pin point a lot more people from your list that, but that is not necessarily.
(side note)
I have been reading Jung his work for 3 months or so now and I have noticed a hate for sensors, but truthfully, some people just use this system to try to associate groups of people they dislike, without realizing that it is actually their social ineptitude which they are disliked for.
Thanks for the response Adam. You say leadership is not dependent on type, why do you say this? Leadership clearly is. An NT has much more aptitude for leadership than an SP. That is what I am showing in this article. Most of the world's leaders are and have been N's. Enlightened masters like Buddha, Jesus, etc are N's. Remember, being an N doesn't mean that you are not an S and that you are not in touch with the 5 senses. It means that you have moved past it. An N can be an S. An S can't be an N. It's an evolution thing. I know what I'm saying pisses you off, but that's okay. Somebody has to say it. Saying that they're all equal is just perpetuating BS that creates confusion rather than understanding. I would rather be disliked and in understanding than liked and confused. Saying they're all equal has very little foundation -- especially when comparing N's to S's. They're just not the same and that is what this article is showing.
The points you bring up are all trivial. Buddha talked about the 5 senses... so? Professions contain highly competent individuals? Of course they do, they're not leaders... Walt had a meditation teacher... so? Shakespeare talked of maiden meditation... so? What point are you trying to make?
I am saying leadership has no aptitude because type is not depended on ability.
I´m aware of what the theory says about e.g Si not being able to coexists with Ni.
There is research by Paul beirnstyn and another one by J. Silva I belief, in which he talks about research done on intuition and how it is trainable skill, when slowing it down to low brain wave frequency´s and using it to bring it more to the fore front so to speak. Furthremore, if you for example would look at a lot of Budist monks or for that matter analyze the biography of the Gauthum Budha you would find plenty of proof that he was more in touch with Sensory when he was a Prince(young boy). Later on thanks to meditation ( in this case ) his brain changed.
I would also make this claim in case of Jesus as a young boy but the information available is not sound enough. As for Muhammed, same case as with Budha - look at how he was before he ran of to the cave and started meditating...
There are some studies done one monks where they have shown that the brain change dramatically ( mentally ). Nowadays with the research done on the brain entrainment*, intuition is being awakend in a lot more individuals.
So using the sixth sense obviously has more merit than just the five senses,. There is no question in that. A more interesting study would be:
- How strong is the rapport between (of the sensors brain) conscious and subconscious compared to that of an auxilary intuitive, and primary intuitive. What would happend if we would increase that rapport in terms of ability. ... how would that compare to the already dominant N function of an intuitive.
There is so much of the mind that we don´t know, it´s to early to make assumptions what human beings are able to do and what not.
Although I am an INTP (IQ unknown), I'm not influential at all. It is kind of difficult to live with these characteristics and at my 26, I'm still learning it.
Maybe that's why you feel, that there must be less than 25% of Ns. Many of us give up and rather integrate with the majority. When Einstein got an F on the math, he could have easily given up, live with the "fact", that he is math-dumb, find an ordinary job and wife and then die...
Btw how could anyone tell the IQ of long dead people, like Napoleon or Beethowen?
In reviewing the writings and achievements of long dead people, you can't get an extremely accurate idea as to their IQ, but you can certainly get pretty close.
Great site, we possibly share the same temperament and though Im older, your writing style is very professional and one Im working to match. Keep researching... It took me many years of research to understand the biblical truths because of so many "judgemental" and "Concrete" thinking Christians who are held up as the "Elite". Interesting these Elite are prophesied to be fooled by a coming deception - they always gloss over that scripture......
Why would you waste time proving such a point? I'm sorry, I don't mean any disrespect, but this whole article seems rather arrogant and petty.
i'm surprised there's someone who think like me. haha. i'm tired with these stupid S people around me who never understand what i'm talking about. even Ns who have lower iq than me are waayy better than Ss who have quite the same iq. they just don't get it T_T
Sensing is a much more primitive, basic, and simple function than intuiting. Intuiting is a far more advanced, sophisticated function. It's relatively easy to make robots that can sense things. It's very challenging to make robots that can intuit things. I don't think that's even been accomplished yet. According to research, the N/S factor has the highest correlation to IQ out of the four letters. If you are a sensor then that basically means you have the ability to take in the environment but sensors generally have little or no intellectual ability to analyze, deeply understand, etc. the things they sense. They don't have a good ability to recognize patterns or gain true insights into things. Intuiting is intelligent. Sensing is dumb. Sensors basically live a non-thinking way of life. Their level of thinking is as deep and sophisticated as a puddle of water.
I really get sick and tired of politically correct people deciding whether something is true or false based on whether it makes other people feel good. That's stupid. I'm sooo sorry if it makes sensors feel bad that they're idiots, but it's still the truth and I'm not going to deny the truth just because some people don't like the truth.
I've noticed that sensors in general are really shallow, superficial, and basically stupid in how they think. This is why they can't come up with intelligent ideas, because they don't understand things well enough. Many things just fly over their dumb heads.
Very well said and I would have to agree.
Haha, sounds like somebody got dumped by an S. ^
Show you an S?
George Washington-(ISTJ) was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1799. He led the American victory over Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army from 1775 to 1783, and presided over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. The unanimous choice to serve as the first President of the United States (1789–1797), Washington presided over the creation of a strong, well-financed national government that stayed neutral in the wars raging in Europe, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types. His leadership style established many forms and rituals of government that have been used since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. Washington is universally regarded as the "Father of his Country".
Dr. Dwight Harken (ESTJ)
Harken served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps in London as a surgeon. To treat his patients, he found a way to take out shrapnel safely from the heart by cutting into the wall of a beating heart, then inserting a finger to locate and remove the shrapnel. With this method, he became the first person to have repeated success in heart operation after removing shrapnel from the hearts of 130 soldiers during the war without a single fatality.
Jack Kilby (ISTJ) He would talk about his love of his morning coffee more than he would talk about his accomplishments. Invented the integrated circuit aka the microchip. By definition the intergrated circuit or microchip is a set of interconnected electronic components such as transistors and resistors, that are etched or imprinted on a onto a tiny chip of a semiconducting material, such as silicon or germanium. The microchip shrunk the size and cost of making electronics and impacted the future designs of all computers and other electronics. The first successful demonstration of the microchip was on September 12, 1958.
But yes, you are right, S's are dumb and primative. They really are just a waste of space and should be done away with. We should look back at some of the N's who really had this same idea and take a note from them.
You are alll fools for believing something like this, and the fact that you would put your faith in a man made test about men reveals your lack of wisdom and insight into humanity. Please, when you look at yourself introspectively, and realize that you, an N, are quite smart, but need to humble yourself and take the gifts you posse to really help others besides playing on your computer all day and obtaining copious amounts of knowledge you will never apply. We will all one day die, and stand before our maker who will ask you what you did with all that he had given you, but if you did nothing, He will take little Timmy with Downs into his presence because you did nothing but elevate yourself above others. Sad.
I agree, George Washington is an influential S and that is why he is on my list also. George Washington is an outlier and a rare case. The other people you mentioned were not influential. Go on the street and ask people if they have heard of them, nobody has.
You talk about doing nothing, but this list clearly shows that N's are the people who actually do something. The most influential people are N's. Influence is being productive and doing something. So N's don't just sit around all day and talk nonsense, they put it into action. Most of the great things we have are a result of an N. And in order to create something in the physical you need to usually first create it in the spiritual, which starts with INTUITION. It is hard to SENSE something from the spiritual as our 5 senses don't go past the physical.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just stating what I have found to be true and arguing against falsities which are perceptually recited. You have presented your view and I am presenting mine.
Then explain to me, please, how this guy I know, who's anti-social, who does nothing but play silly video games and sporcle 24/7, won various competitions in his high school and had a perfect ACT- better than 99.95% of all who took it. I'm honestly curious; I'm not accusing your article. I simply desire an explanation: I don't understand how someone who's so intelligent can be so utterly, well, dumb and thoughtless, or how an S can be so intelligent and yet so unintelligent at the same time as to waste his gifts like that.
Hi, thanks for the response.
First of all is your friend an S? You haven't really stated whether he is or not. If he is it is totally possible for there to be smart S's. I am simply stating in general N's are smarter. The trend is for an N to be smarter. The trend is for an S to be dumber. But there can be dumb N's and smart S's.
Additionally, the things you mentioned are things that have very little to do with intelligence. ACT's are a test that play perfectly into the S school system. Of course S's are going to do well on ACT's. ACT's measure memorization and rote thinking, exactly what our school system teaches and wants us to be good at. Most people who do well on the ACT's don't go on to become influential. Most of these students work for influential people. Being really good at school and then becoming a high taxed employee for a company is about one of the dumbest things you can do. And this is exactly what S's and people with high ACT scores and good grades do.
Why would a high test score matter if somebody with a low test score can hire these people? Why would a high test score matter if you still need other people to employ you? What good is it to be good at memorization, which Google can do far better than you, but bad at innovation? S's are usually not innovators because they lack the capacity to innovate. Your S friend, if he is an S, may be good at memorization and doing what he is told, but he is probably terrible at solving real world problems and figuring out how to appropriately allocate resources. This is where S's always fail. They can't see into the future. They can't make connections between different things and balance many different factors. All they can do is go through pre-defined plans that were planned for them by N's. This is far from intelligence. This is slavery.
Paul
I would suggest that N and S's are different in that N's are much better at "abstraction" than S's, while S's are much better at memorising and developing a high degree of task specialisation than N's. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this rule, but it does mean that, given the right opportunities and environment, N's should be able to see new and better ways of doing things in their minds and apply them in the real world.
A huge constraint that N's face is that they make up a very small proportion of the population and as a general rule, most things are run by S's for S's. Everything from the way schools work and teach to the way businesses are organised is designed for S's. So, as a result, its often very difficult for N's to find a way to express themselves and in many cases, they don't even know why things are the way they are. As N's develop, they may find that S's feel threatened by them - particularly if they have developed their reasoning abilities well.
I was particularly entertained by the following in Wikipedia about INTP's:
"INTP's tend to be impatient with the bureaucracy, rigid hierarchies, and the politics prevalent in many professions. INTPs have little regard for titles and badges, which they often consider to be unjustified. INTPs usually come to distrust authority as hindering the uptake of novel ideas and the search for knowledge. INTPs accept ideas based on merit, rather than tradition or authority. They have little patience for social customs that seem illogical or that serve as obstacles for pursuing ideas and knowledge. This may place them at odds with people who have an SJ preference, since SJs tend to defer to authority, tradition, and what the rest of the group is doing. INTPs prefer to work informally with others as equals."
If the person you mentioned is a N, there is a good chance that the prospect of having to work in a corporation or in some boring profession is worse than going to hell. N's love to think for themselves and try to understand how things really work. Most "jobs" don't give you that opportunity - including executive or specialised professional jobs like doctors and engineers.
Most N's think that S's favourite word is "no". "No it wont work", "No I don't want to think about it", "No I don't want to try it a different way", "No we haven't done it that way before"... and so on. Then if they try to back up their suggestions with reasoning, then the favourite defense is, "but no-one else does it that way".
Sometimes I think I'd rather sit and play computer games too.
Regards
Peter
All very good points and I agree with you completely. Thank you for sharing!
I'm an INTP, I can completely relate to the spirit of this argument. However, if I may fully deploy my INTP-sourced powers of abstraction and add an additional perspective:
The people in the list have mainly been influential in shifting the society from one paradigm of thought to another. They could visualise and articulate a world or understanding that was different to what everyone else could see. Most N's are like this... and I would imagine that most of us feel like we are constantly on the outside looking in.
In the real world, however, most business leaders and politicians are S's rather than N's and they are influential from a non-strategic because they better able to connect with the majority. STJ's and SFJ's make up about half of "Anglo / Saxon / Celtic" society, STP's and SFP's are 25% and as you say, the remaining four categories of N's make up the rest.
We need our S's to do the work for us as well, someone has to do the boring jobs!! We often also don't develop the skills to articulate our thoughts effectively - so perhaps we should work together a bit more and make sure that more of us can make more meaningful contributions to society.
Kind regards
Peter
Yes, that's a very good point that many of these people in business and politics are influential because they are able to connect with the majority. It's crazy how most people crave such shallow and artificial things. But that's the world of a sensor I suppose...
Btw, Barack Obama is an ENFP and George Bush is a classic ESFJ.
Most liberals and anarchists are Intuitives and most conservatives are Sensors. (surprise surprise)
I have seen this written about these guys but I don't know if I buy it. Barack Obama could be an ENFP, but if he is he's doing a huge disservice to them. He seems more S. He does the typical school, college, politics pattern. He has always played by the rules and been involved in the system. That's not very N sounding. Bush, on the other hand, is harder for me to pinpoint. I know the Bush family is very well connected and has a long history of world manipulation which would lead me towards them pretty much all being N's. But Bush Jr. does seem like a spoiled dipshit so it's hard to tell whether he really is stupid or if he is pretending to be stupid. He probably really is stupid but it's hard to tell. He also seems more introverted to me. I would put Bush more ISTP. Obama would probably be more ESFJ. Obama is orderly, not very innovative and follows rules like an SJ. Bush is easy going like an SP. In the four humors Bush would be a Phleg/Sanguine and Obama would be a Sanguine/Mel probably.
I don't think most liberals are Intuitive because most people are liberals and most people are Sensors, especially younger people. I think most liberals are Feelers and most conservatives are Thinkers. I think as conservatives and liberals evolve they become more Intuitive and lean more Libertarian.
My thoughts anyway, thanks for sharing :)
You make it seem as if N's are so much better than S's. As if the potential to do something somehow makes you a better person, even though you haven't done it. Everyone is capable of intuition, Slayerment. Take a look at the cognitive functions of each type.
I really think you should deflate that over-inflated ego of yours.
Of course everyone is capable of intuition, but most people choose not to use it which is why most people are sensors. These people in my article HAVE done something -- they changed the world. That's what N's do. This article is not about me. What if I told you I was an S? Would you then trust this article more? I am simply talking about OTHER people. It doesn't matter what I am. I am taking data and trying to understand it. If Carl Jung and others never took data and tried to understand it then we wouldn't have the MBTI in the first place. I'm just taking their work and adding to it.
I'm going to protest this "informative" article. I am an ISTJ through and through. I live in reality more than anyone. The N types may be smart, but they all lack common sense. That lack of common sense usually gets them in trouble. Book smarts is not better than street smarts. Book smart people tend to get killed in the battlefield because they don't have shit to go by, only theory and ideals. If you would say that you are an S type, then you are weak. If you are an N, then you are arrogant. Whoever wrote this article, I do believe you can go fuck yourself.
Not that I disagree with everything you're saying but the way you are writing makes me think you are just trying to stir up controversy. I think you may lose some credibility that way and you probably should. I don't think saying that S's are good for a laugh but aren't too intelligent is a fair thing to decide, especially because a lot of intelligences won't show up in statistics or as numbers. I don't know, but it seems biased and that maybe you're saying the intelligence that you value is the more important one
Hmm... I don't know, man. Your article is well-written and very persuasive (and I'd like to commend you for having the courage to appear as the bad guy), but I don't buy everything entirely. While its true that Se dominants are usually short-sighted and Si dominants are hardasses, this doesn't make us intuitives better people than them. Sure, we're awesome at abstraction. And we're proud of it. But its not like we signed up for intuitive intelligence in the first place. Did you really think we "chose our path of evolution"? Please. We merely went with what we felt comfortable with as children. Try not to oversell our origins.
Many of us intuitives get victimized by sensors at some point, but this doesn't justify writing an article with the not-so-veiled intention of screaming, "check out mai datas proving we best people of all!!!11!!!!!111!!!1!!!!" You should know better. We all should know better.
An N can be an S but an S can't be an N? Tell me something, Can you actually turn on your awareness of sensation for many hours without feeling fucked up at the end? If you can, then that explains why you wrote the article. It feels like a sensor wrote it.
Okay maybe you're not a sensor. But honestly, there's little evidence of intuition in your article. Most intuitives wouldn't even bother writing this. Do you know why? It's not because no one's brave enough to do so. It's because honest intuitives would have turned their internal judging functions towards themselves and their like first before even attempting to count the reasons why sensors are dumb. There's just no justice to this, not in the way you used especially harsh words to describe your points. The bias is strong with this one.
If this was an article merely stating how intuitives are more influential and remembered than sensors, it would've been cool. What's next, "Why extroverts suck"?
As a Fi-Ne, I'm imperfect. And somewhat prone to this kind of bias as well. I know where you're coming from. Just think things through more thoroughly next time. Sensors are okay if you understand how to deal with them.
I agree with what you're saying and I'm not really bashing Sensors. I'm just saying they're not leaders, because they're clearly not. Most people are Sensors so I better learn how to deal with them. Sensors make great employees which is why I hire them. Sensors are great at doing what they're told which is why I tell them what to do. Sensors are great at following rules which is why I give them rules to follow. I understand Sensors better than they understand themselves.
I'm not trying to be mean or rude in my article. I am simply stating that Intuitives are smarter. Why is that so offensive? Is it offensive when somebody says adults are smarter than children? Would it be better for me to just keep my mouth shut and let everyone go on without noticing these things? We move forward as a society by people going against the mold and stating a greater truth. More people need to get used to improving on things rather than just perpetuating a flawed system. It's very Sensor-like to think they're all equal in intelligence. There is much more to everything and it's never black and white.
Well alright. You're not trying to be mean or rude, and I believe you. I also understand what you're trying to do. To be fair, I think your motives are honorable (develop or decay!). Honor is so goddamned underrated these days.
But let me tell you something. Try not to refer to Sensors as "stupid". You may not see it like this, but trust me when I say that for some people, it carries a very demoralizing connotation. A little sensitivity wouldn't hurt your article; in fact, it would help it a lot. Sure, accuracy is important and sometimes being blunt is a good way to get your points across. But we don't want to create unnecessary gaps here, do we? That's why, even NTs (such as yourself, perhaps) need to really understand a little something called the human condition, and be aware of it always. That way, the information presented can be smoothly taken in by the audience without them mistaking it for blind arrogance and getting offended. We're not robots, and not all of us can readily accept this sort of data objectively. But an Intuitive presentor can always consider and circumvent problems like these, no? You probably had the foresight to, but you chose to write it in a manner that's obviously meant to not only define the psychological differences between the two preferences, but also to display a slight contempt for people who just can't explore past their five senses. And if that wasn't your intention, that's still how it appears to be.
You don't want to be misunderstood, because this is something important you're trying to tell people. I believe all Intuitives can relate to this article a lot in varying degrees (and despite all the reactions, I think all Intuitives secretly want to say, "thank you my man, for speaking out and telling people things I've been wanting to say since fucking forever"). And you know what? We want you to be understood. It sucks that most people are S and that a lot of them form negative judgements about people who don't go along with popular thinking. That Intuitives are hard to put down doesn't really help our case. We come up with so many realizations about...well, everything, sometimes on auto-pilot, and the more our abstract explorations make sense, the more we become interested in being heard and fulfilling our visions. Unfortunately, the universe works in its own time and often, we're just way too advanced for the rest of the world. Or at least that's what we think.
There are so few Intuitives compared to Sensors. But what if the scales were reversed? The world would go batshit insane. Suddenly, radicals everywhere. Suddenly, whatever became of the status quo. Suddenly, entropic madness. Suddenly, the world starts to fall apart because we have forgotten about common sense and established ways of living in harmony, and in our final moments we realize we'd really enjoy some mindless jokes from ESFPs--but there are none left because for some reason INTJs decided all ESFPs should die.
All I'm saying if I'm really saying anything is that, so fucking what if we're smarter? It's still something most Sensors will not agree with, and if they agree, they most likely will not see the benefits of having Intuitives run society. Because, like you said, they seem to think everyone's equal in intelligence somehow, and that we should go along with what everyone else is doing, that politics = moneymaking, that Transformers = best movie ever, etc. The question now is how to break the hive mind in favor of a higher understanding. That will not be accomplished by highlighting only what makes Intuitives better than Sensors. Maybe I'm stretching what you aim to show with this article, but it has so much potential to make Sensors see our specializations and to make them trust OUR ideas if they cannot trust even their simplest hunches. But it must make sense to them. Telling them we should run things and that they're much better off as workers will not make sense to them. And it's quite demeaning.
Remember: we've built our Intuition all our lives. Like a very large abstract muscle (made up of awesome and epic, and 1 part silly). In its full glory, we not only realize greater truths, but also universal ones. This is where the Intuitive truly shines. This here is N territory. We want a reality that is a representation of our ideals and in accordance with what we think is fair. We want to be ingenious, and that's why we devour knowledge like fat kids at a buffet. We sometimes identify more with counter-culture, because the conventional does nothing anymore to stimulate our internal functions (we "get it" at a snap of a finger). But we must still always know when we're doing things wrong. And we must always consider what works for everyone if we're to be truly heard.
I'm not very smart. Just a twenty-something INFP college dropout, comic book artist wannabe living in a 3rd-world shithole, with an IQ of what, a mere 117 last time I checked? But this reply was written using my full cognition (yes, Si very much included) even though it appears to be just the Fi rambling on. Maybe I'm naive and you understand reality better than I do, but I do hope you can still milk something good out of this extremely long reply.
Good day sir, and btw awesome music.
Wow, what a fantastic reply. Thanks for sharing all this. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I guess you could say this article wasn't really written for Sensors. I am not trying to convert Sensors in this article nor am I trying to impress them. My audience for this article is definitely Intuitives because Sensors only care about Sex, Drugs, Politicians and Basketball and this article contains none of these things ;).
You bring up an interesting point about the scales being changed and I have thought a lot about this. It can be likened to the argument of having more entrepreneurs and less employees. I think it is short-sighted to think that we need Sensors to make the world function appropriately. That's like saying we need children to contribute to society -- we don't. Society works fine with adults participating and is much better than if children were roaming around making important decisions. I know I'm being an ass to sensors again but that's just the way it goes. If we had more Intuitives it would be like having more adults and things would be even better. I agree that we need diversity in people. E/I, T/F, J/P are all the diversity aspects of MBTI. S/N has less to do with diversity and more to do with magnitude. An N has a greater amount of energy going into things. They care more because they are more developed. So with more N's we wouldn't lose any of the human and social aspects. We have funny N's. We have athletic N's. Pretty much anything S's can do so can N's. So we have very little to lose if the scales are turned and I think we have much to gain.
And you are smart. The response you wrote was very well thought out and on point. Dropping out of college is smart. Following your passion is smart. You're already ahead of most people. Just direct your passion into something that can be of value to others. Find a unique way to channel your art that makes the lives of people better and you will find success. Don't travel the same road as everyone else, that has already been done in comics. Venture into and tread a new road. Create something that has never been done before, that is where you will make your mark. Good luck!
"I'm not really bashing Sensors. I'm just saying they're not leaders, because they're clearly not. Most people are Sensors so I better learn how to deal with them. Sensors make great employees which is why I hire them. Sensors are great at doing what they're told."
"Sensors are great at doing what they are told?" Fuck you. You sound as if you are higher than the Lord almighty. Like I said, you are arrogant. I'm an ISTJ who have lead many in my wake. For their good and not mine. You probably don't know anything about selflessness. Apparently George Washington, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Harry Truman and many others were not leaders. Your statement contradicts itself. You are too proud to admit that you are and can ever be in the wrong regardless of the evidence presented to you (much like the intuitive types). Why don't you get off your high horse, get a grip of reality? Grow some balls and give it up. There are many more against your ridiculous claims and you don't know when to shut up.
You like the attention you get from the responses of your article, don't you? How weak.
slayerment, I do believe you can suck on your puny high-and mighty little dick, because no one else will.
My dad is istj and I am intj. He's a doctor, I'm studying to become one. We are like twins, exactly the same except I am N he is S. I can relate to this article well because I feel as if I out smart him. Here's why. he is very simple minded. For instance one time he told me to drive in the right left instead of the left because people in the left lane are more likely to get pulled over according to a study. He did however want me going the same speed. I said to him well maybe that just means speeders are more likely to go to the left lane, they would have probably gotten pulled over driving like that in any lane and if I drive within X speed in the left lane I should be fine. He fumbled around his words and I obeyed simply because he's my dad. I was very disappointed with him not because of simply that but by his linear form of thinking which also goes with stocks. One of the rules of stocks, which many great stock investors adhere to and my dad keeps advocating, is to never short sell a stock. Well one day my stocks were plummeting and I had reason to believe they would go lower in the future. What did I do? I sold my stocks, and then I bought more of the same stocks when they did in fact go lower. I short sold. Simply put, I earned more stocks. My dad however called me a bad investor because I broke the no short selling rule. This is the difference between us, I am not bound by conventional rules. I think of the possibilities, am constantly calibrating my strategies if new circumstances are realized, and am constantly sharpening my edge of logic. It never ends.He, however, remains stuck in fixed simple rules. Us Ns are not bound by rules. We make them. I guess that's why at the end of the day I earned more stocks than him. He might as well have given all his money to me, an N, because his S simply wasn't reaping as much benefits. Clear differences between istj vs intj.
PS: there's a reason why *N*Ts (note the emphasis on the N) is branded as the "INTELLECTS" of the four temperaments.
more than 1-kg of brain (at insignificant dispersion and sensibly same number of neurons throughout human individuals) generates an incommensurable amount of predicates, which lurk in our underwater unconscious, networking silently a (potentially surprisingly) coherent and articulated system of truths... the underwater network breaks sometimes through the thick ice that separates the mind from the unconsciuous, in the shape of scintillations we commonly call intuition... the number and amplitude of these breakthroughs is different from human to human (depending maybe on the ice geometry - thickness, landscaping, etc, which has been / is continuously shaped by nurture, nature and degree of urgence)... but the enormous underwater network... is there (and supposedly the same) in all of us... on the course of being painstackingly-slowly revealed by evolution (and by - who knows what - star bursts)
Just for the record, I really like your response Mags. It showed a lot of MBTI insight and NF touch :). In my opinion, some people here should maybe read some books on the topic, as most of what is discussed here has been discussed already at some length by great contributors to the theory (e.g. Jung, Briggs, Keirsey). These books clearly state that N's, and in particular IN's have a higher IQ, which they support with statistical evidence (e.g. M.B. Gifts Differing). One should notice here however that Intelligence is a very loosely defined concept, but if we use it as most IQ test seem to use it, Intelligence and the IQ describes one's ability to understand abstract concepts and relationships, which is almost identical to the Briggs definition of Intuition. When we expand the definition of Intelligence to how David Keirsey uses it in his book, "Please understand me II", intelligence is rather defined as one's ability to effect something. In his book he then defines four intelligences including Strategic, Diplomatic, Logistical and Tactical. In with this definition of IQ, we would have to argue that current IQ test are somewhat misleading, because they only represent a very specific for of intelligence while neglecting other, I would say equally important ones. In the example here, these four intelligences are represented best by the NT's, NF's, SJ's and SP's respectively. The highly abstract thinker, IN's are not included there. Also not included is the "leader type" EJ or the quiet leader type IJ. What is a bit sad to see here is that people sometimes seem to use the MBTI exactly for the opposite of its intention in using it to unfairly profile people or use type to justify why one doesn't like another, rather than to facilitate mutual understanding. In fact, Gifts Differing mentions that Myers Briggs set out to develop the jungian types during the second world war, one to help women effectively enter the workforce and two, because she believed if people would have a better understanding of each other something like WWII could never have happened. This is very sad because it's actually quite simple: SP have a wonderful tactical ability... They are the first at an emergency and INTUITIVELY know what to do... ISFP's just make the world a more beautiful place without needing to explain it, ESTP's get shit done, ISTP's build this world and give us extreme sports and ESFP's are just funny as hell. SJ's keep our shit together, ISTJ's LEAD our industries, ISFJ's care and care and care and care..... ESFJ's make the best parties etc. etc. etc. Ohh, I forgot, SJ's also invent... just new ways of logistical efficiency and not some abstract blabla that occasionally leads to mass extermination or other serious neglect of human rights. There is so much more to say about this topic, but i really hope that people start to use type to see the beauty in others, and stop disregarding those who are different. Isn't it diversity that fosters change and innovation in the first place?
My opinion here is to read and build on the fundamental MBTI books. there is really no need to rediscover things that have already been so widely discussed and heavily researched.
Ok. For a minute I thought I was 15 again and sitting around the dinner table with my two NT brothers. Hahaha! There were six family members. Five of them were N's. Talk about debates and theories. All the S's called it arguing and "stupid". I believe your theory is true that N's are movers and shakers and on AVERAGE brighter than S's. There are some S's I know that are very bright. Most of them aren't. All the N's I know are very bright. You win that argument.
However, gee, do you think you could have said it a little nicer? But I suppose that's because you're a T and not and Feeler like me.
Also, while N's may be on average more influential, we most certainly need S's. All the great men and women of the past would not have amounted to anything if the S's had not bought into their great ideas. Those SJ's are amazing workers.
All that to say, yeah, good theory. But, being the N you are, you should see the value of the S's that surround us.
I love how loosely you relate all this to "F*** socialism!".
Did you know that studies have shown that people with high IQ are more likely to be lefties on the political scale? And by a lot too! So, since most high-IQ people are N's, you can at least see tendencies towards N = lefty.
That you then link to an article that just is non-arguments lined up is really quite absurd and almost offensive to anyone with half a brain.
And if you still think people shouldn't be "un-natural", then please, by all means, get rid of all your modern commodities and go live in a cave in Africa.
Fun fact; there isn't a single now living species that hasn't been affected by the industrialised world.
The industraliazation is the reason why people doesn't have anything to do anymore, so they have all this spare time to go on the internet and tell people about other people they don't like or agree with. Quite ironic when you think about it.
I'm an INTP and I've spent a long time thinking about this exact subject, mostly because I dated a girl for three years who was every bit an ESFJ. When I say she was an S, she was a big time S. Her practicality dominated everything she did. Her practicality was almost like an internal dictator, because anytime she did get an idea, like opening a coffee shop, her practical side crushed her back to the status quo.
But she was also very intelligent. Her IQ was above average and not in any way insignificant. As a matter of fact both of our IQs are around 140. The difference is when I'm spending all of my time in abstract thought, she's worried about killing her dandelions, and whether or not she needs an oil change, or when she should get air in her tires. That's the kind of crap I don't want to worry about. As a matter of fact, I've tried to avoid practical tasks since I was a kid. I've always considered that kind of activity as a supreme waste of my time.
My point is, IQ is most likely independent of MBTI personality type. But the MBTI personality type will dictate how that IQ is used. I'm certain that even though she is very intelligent and a logical thinker she will never contribute greatly to society, because, essentially, the Sensor part of her personality is so strong it makes her a peasant.
Think of it in this imperfect analogy: Once upon a time there was a clan of human thousands of years ago. They live in a valley where they farm crops and raise livestock. The land, however, acfter decades of farming is getting worn out. Their crop aren't as bountiful as they used to be. A small faction of the clan, adventurers, explores, all of the probably Ns, have this idea that there is another valley out beyond the realms anyone has ever traveled. Maybe beyond the mountains, past the forbidden lands no one in their right mind should ever go. The adventurers try to explain tbheir vision to the more practical, Sensor farmers, who doubt them and ridicule them for "having their head in the clouds" (believe me my girl as belittled me with this phrase before). The adventurers set out anyway, because they have this vision for a better farm land, better crop yields better places to raise livestock. So they go find this better place. Then the whole clan moves there. The practical farmers farm the land and everything works out. But the farmers would never find this new land themselves. For them, the new land does not exist because thapey can not see it with the five senses. But the explorers know it's there.
What it comes down to is this:
Sensors=peasants
Intuitives=visionaries
There's also one crucial element in whether or not a human can greatly contribute to society. I call it TQ. We're all familiar with IQ. TQ is the same thing, but it's an indicator of talent. You won't find anything about this in the Internet because I deciphered this part of human nature through my own systematical breakdown of mankind. So there's no empirical evidence for the existence of TQ. Nevertheless, it exists, and it exists just as profoundly as gravity did before Sir Isaac made us aware that it did.
When you have an N, and more often than not, except in roles such as heads of state, and IN with a high TQ, you get greatness.
This is a very interesting take on the subject and I agree with what you are saying. Thank you very much for sharing :)
