N's Are Smarter Than S's -- MBTI

When it comes to leadership and influence iNtuitive people have an edge over Sensing people.
by Quinton Figueroa on June 11th, 2011
Albert Einstein
Einstein was a damn smart INTP with an IQ of 205.

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 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.


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
Charles Darwin INTJ 173
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

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.


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

 Filed under: Personal Development, Intelligence, MBTI

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Scottsdale, AZ, USA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...



Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Ummmm
3 years 3 months ago


Anonymous's picture
adam brown: You might want to tune up your MBTI skillset.
3 years 2 months ago

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

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Darwin was not an S.
3 years 2 months ago
@adam brown (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
Adam Brown: Myer briggs is not about
2 years 9 months ago

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-...

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Would you agree with me that
2 years 9 months ago
@Adam Brown (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
Adam Brown: Again: Myer briggs is not
2 years 9 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the response Adam.
2 years 9 months ago
@Adam Brown (view comment)

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?

Anonymous's picture
Adam Brown: I am saying leadership has no
2 years 9 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Tim: Slayerment is one hundred
2 years 8 months ago
@Adam Brown (view comment)

Slayerment is one hundred percent right. Leadership does depend on NT, and everything he said was written from an Ni perspective, he basically took the words out of my mouth. I can one hundred percent relate.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Couldn't have said it better
2 years 4 months ago
@Adam Brown (view comment)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Interesting article, though

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Unfortunately this is true.
3 years 2 months ago

Unfortunately this is true.

Anonymous's picture
Václav: Although I am an INTP (IQ
3 years 2 months ago

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?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: In reviewing the writings and
3 years 1 month ago
@Václav (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
milton: an article on Steve Jobs that touches upon this
3 years 1 week ago

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......

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Why would you waste time
3 years 1 week ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Themanintheshadow: Ohh, the irony...
2 years 5 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

Ohh, the irony...

Anonymous's picture
ENFJ: Does this count as irony if
2 years 3 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

Does this count as irony if you're an N and you anticipated this exact response?

Really, it's all very subjective. But from an N perspective, I do agree with the majority of what's written here, in spite of my usual preference to be willfully objective. I think it's like when you see from higher up on the color spectrum than others do. When you shout down the latter and say, "Purple is beautiful up here!" they might respond from yellow, not pondering or caring that purple exists, denying that it's worth anything to see that color anyhow, so why should you worry if it's pretty or not, much less bring it up and try to impress upon them the theory of purple.
But it's the people perched on purple who see it all happening to begin with, so they're used to this response, and they do with their higher visibility what they please, whether it be help, gain, or stand by observantly.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: Oohh..., thank you so much
6 months 4 days ago
@ENFJ (view comment)

Oohh..., thank you so much for this, because you have talked to me as an old wise master and untied the issue that we the NTs type have regarding to being the only that see purple... Thank you so much... :D...

Anonymous's picture
brown: i'm surprised there's someone
3 years 6 days ago

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

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: Surprised? There's a lot like
6 months 4 days ago
@brown (view comment)

Surprised? There's a lot like us! But very few that we know it's a N/S thing... It's quite several years since I'm studying the issue and that solving this could be key in making the world change for better...

Anonymous's picture
Robert Jackson: true
2 years 11 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Very well said and I would
2 years 11 months ago
@Robert Jackson (view comment)

Very well said and I would have to agree.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Correlation sure, but your
2 years 2 days ago
@Robert Jackson (view comment)

Correlation sure, but your argument has a lot of faults. First is "according to research..." um what research you idiot, people do this all the time and 90% of the time it's bullshit. I believe there is research that agrees with you but seriously you just seem dumb starting a sentence with that.

Secondly, a higher percentage of intuitives are intelligent, but there are also a LOT less intuitives. I know some intuitives who aren't very intelligent and some sensors who are in the IQ 140+ range at one of the most prestigious schools in the country. Sure this is anecdotal, but your generalizations disregard the fact that while there's less sensors who are very intelligent, there still are a lot.

Also, this is more against the article rather than against your comment, but with historical figures, it's impossible to tell their actual types. I've seen many other people label people such as JFK and GWB as ESTP (I used to think I was ESTP also which is why I remember haha actually I'm ENTP though), so the entire premise of this article is based on intuitives being smarter (seems statistically true but not enough to say that all sensors are dumb) and saying that historical famous people are intuitive (which is all guesswork and people have guessed like 4 personality types for each person on this list).

Anyways I'd agree with "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". So that's good. I just think you're wrong when you assume all sensors are idiots, and also when you assume they'll feel bad when they know they're idiots. The smartest person with computers that I know is an ISTP, and the best person at my school with actually doing his homework and still performing well on tests and joining all the committees and college-politics groups and everything is ISTJ. I'm actually a bit jealous because even though I'm N I can't keep my mind on ne thing for more than a few months and get too distracted by stuff I'm interested in to be active in my school lol :p. He comes up with intelligent ideas too. I do a lot too but I always forget them because I forget to write them down. He is less down to debate/argue about the world than everyone else is though.

Lastly, I'd take your shallow/superficial comment to be a compliment lol I wish I could focus on just money like D. Trumps :D

Anonymous's picture
Justin: This post actually makes you
6 months 1 week ago
@Robert Jackson (view comment)

This post actually makes you look like the moron. Many sensors have an average IQ so how are they in general stupid? You are talking as if they are retards. I am an ISTP and we are considered very analytical and logical and succeed at engineering. My thinking is not shallow.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: Clap, clap, clap clap clap
6 months 4 days ago
@Robert Jackson (view comment)

Clap, clap, clap clap clap clapss... :D

Anonymous's picture
Jay: Steve Jobs was an ISTP. Are
5 months 4 weeks ago
@Robert Jackson (view comment)

Steve Jobs was an ISTP. Are you calling that man dumb?

Also, wouldn't it be hilarious if you were a Sensor and you didn't know it?

You should probably think about that before you go spouting off ignorant crap.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Haha, sounds like somebody
2 years 11 months ago

Haha, sounds like somebody got dumped by an S. ^

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Show you an S?
2 years 11 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: I agree, George Washington is
2 years 11 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
R WITT: mbti
9 months 4 weeks ago

I loved this article (of course I would being an entp). I was just thinking about this very thing while reading an autobiography of Jacques Rousseau. Endeavoring to combine two theories ( In mid abstract thought) I was distracted by the din of the today show in the background. Yes my wife is an S . She has great traits that compliment mine, but she doesn't do abstract thinking. The S's I know (most people) want to hear the president tell them they will be taken care of. They are likely to go to the latest movie and feel good. It's a no brainer to me, Kobe beef or Big mac? But I am an entp, so what do you expect?.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: We all loved this article...,
6 months 4 days ago
@R WITT (view comment)

We all loved this article..., the NTs I mean, (me also being an ENTP..)... hey, you must be a mature entp..., I, being still quite young, still can't stand the general stupidity of the S world..., but today "ENFJ" user showed me the way to where you are nowadays..., nevertheless, I'll use this new aceptance to try to change the world in a not so fed up way.. :D :P ...

Anonymous's picture
INTP: This is ridiculous and
9 months 2 weeks ago

This is ridiculous and shallow: to claim because YOU haven't heard of someone, they must not have been of any use to society. This simply proves my point that sensors' contributions to society often go overlooked, whether it is due to them physically creating and perfecting an idea an intuitive originally had, or due to the contribution being a crucial detail that would be necessary to the running of the concept, but being something that is easy to overlook. And if you think any of those people aren't influential, imagine how many appliances in your house wouldn't work without that circuit board.

(Also we have, actually, more than five senses. Do your research.)

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: You are right about the Ss
6 months 4 days ago
@INTP (view comment)

You are right about the Ss being complementary about what comes from the Ns..., but you still forget about the main point Quinton has tried to spot in the whole article..., that the Ns OVERPASSES the Ss abilities..., this means that the Ns could have done that overlooked job you did, but the world needs the Ns in more important places than mere labourer positions... "physically creating and perfecting an idea???"... Oohhh.. come on..., don't you think that if an N was able to project a whole idea, they are not able to assemble it physically...?... You definitely show you are an S..., as usual, answering with fallacies...

("More than five senses"...??... What says this man...)

By the way..., thank you for assembling our ideas..., ah! and about this guy making the circuit board..., he was given the job and research by an.... yes! you guessed! An N!... (Do your research)...

Anonymous's picture
Paul: Then explain to me, please,
2 years 11 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Hi, thanks for the response.
2 years 11 months ago
@Paul (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
Peter Kearney: Abstraction
2 years 9 months ago
@Paul (view comment)


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.


Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: All very good points and I
2 years 9 months ago
@Peter Kearney (view comment)

All very good points and I agree with you completely. Thank you for sharing!

Anonymous's picture
Eric Blair: Do some research in the
2 years 4 months ago
@Peter Kearney (view comment)

Do some research in the origins of the current educational system and you'll see that it was designed by NTs in the early part of the 20th century. John Taylor Gatto has done a great deal of work on the topic of public education and its aims. (Most teachers and school administrators are completely unaware of this. They don't know where the cirriculum they were taught in college or are given to teach in the public schools comes from.)

The current political and economic/business systems were also designed by NTs.
It seems that NTs designed these systems with the control of the vast majority population of SP people in mind. This hasn't been good for humanity or the state of the planet.

The world needs more NTs like Thomas Jefferson . . those who will help inspire all people to take up self responsibility and true personal Liberty.

All people are likely capable of much more than they think currently. If one is an NT with some ability, perhaps it would be best to use your talents figuring out how best to reach others in ways that would be effective with them.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: All good points, yeah, but
6 months 4 days ago
@Peter Kearney (view comment)

All good points, yeah, but still somehow kinda changing the point of discussion, that Ns are vastly more influential and improvers of the quality of life of humanity.

Anonymous's picture
Peter Kearney: Influential People List
2 years 9 months ago

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

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Yes, that's a very good point
2 years 9 months ago
@Peter Kearney (view comment)

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...

Anonymous's picture
jolie: US Presidents
2 years 9 months ago

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)

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: I have seen this written
2 years 9 months ago
@jolie (view comment)

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 :)

Anonymous's picture
Teksong Eap: From the perspective of an INFP
2 years 9 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Of course everyone is capable
2 years 9 months ago
@Teksong Eap (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I would probably trust the
2 years 4 months ago

I would probably trust the article more if you were an S. Which are you?

Anonymous's picture
Nate: I admire your....well actually I don't admire anything about you
2 years 9 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Not that I disagree with
2 years 9 months ago

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

Anonymous's picture
Mags: Hmm... I don't know, man.
2 years 9 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: I agree with what you're
2 years 9 months ago
@Mags (view comment)

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.

Anonymous's picture
Mags: Well alright. You're not
2 years 8 months ago

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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Wow, what a fantastic reply.
2 years 8 months ago
@Mags (view comment)

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!

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Subjective view here, but so
1 year 12 months ago

Subjective view here, but so many more Ns that I know <3333333 drugs than Ss. Some S's do definitely but esp. SFJ and STJs I don't see them doing drugs much. ENTP, INTP, INTJ, and INFP I see doing lots and lots of drugs.

Anonymous's picture
Justin: Sensors only care about Sex,
6 months 1 week ago

Sensors only care about Sex, Drugs, Politicians and Basketball? And you continue to be a little fucking prick dumb spic.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: "It's very Sensor-like to
2 years 5 months ago

"It's very Sensor-like to think they're all equal in intelligence"
Really? How so? Wouldn't someone who bases what they know off what they perceive (i.e. a sensor) be more likely to see things in shades of gray than someone (i.e. an intuitive) who feels the need to generalize their beliefs, and make conclusions? As I see it, N's are extremely idealistic, and S's are extremely realistic. You yourself said something to that nature elsewhere on this page. It goes without saying, but realists are much more likely to acknowledge shades of grey than idealists.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: It's sensor-like because the
2 years 5 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

It's sensor-like because the tradition of MBTI says that there isn't one type that is smarter than another. This is what all the books written about MBTI say. And since sensors go with tradition and authority it is sensor-like to view them as equal. Sensors simply are parroting what an authority (most likely an N) said about the topic. They didn't actually reach a conclusion of their own accord. I am saying that they're not all equal in intelligence and I am going against the tradition on MBTI.

If S's are realistic they should be able to be realistic about the data in support of N's being smarter. They're not realistic. They're upset that they're not part of the smart group and they ignore the realistic facts supporting such a basis. High IQs are almost always N's. Yes, I know IQ is just one metric for intelligence. Leaders are also N's. This is another metric. The best scientists are and were N's. There's another metric. What metrics would you like to go off? In your S realism please define your realistic metric in which we can measure smart by and I will investigate the facts in a very real matter.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: You're saying S's are
2 years 5 months ago

You're saying S's are unrealistic because they choose to believe the official MBTI statement- that all types are equally intelligent- and not your conclusion- that N's are smarter than S's? That's a bit ridiculous. You've definitely provided some data to support your conclusion, but I'm not sure it's enough to replace the official- and likely better researched- conclusion reached by the very people who devise the MBTI test.
Either way, I think a better way to look at any correlations that exist between MBTI types and intelligence... is to not. Even if N's tend to be smarter than S's, there are many stupid N's and many smart S's. I don't see a reason to so much as take note in the trend, because there's no sense in judging people by their MBTI type, instead of any other aspect of their personality.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: I'm not saying that S's are
2 years 5 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

I'm not saying that S's are unrealistic for believing the official MBTI statement -- I'm saying it's sensor-like to choose to believe the official MBTI statement.

The part that is unrealistic is ignoring the data that points in favor of N's being smarter. Please show me the data that shows S's being smarter or at the very least N's and S's being the same intelligence. You can't do it. That's what's unrealistic.

It's kinda funny really. I could care less if there is data to back something up or not. All I care about is if something makes sense or doesn't. But even when there is data to back something up the people who are supposedly into facts and real-world things choose to refuse to accept them. Sensors choosing not to accept the facts and being unable to present their own facts to the contrary is yet another fact on why they are less intelligent. They're hypocrites. You guys are supposed to be into facts, not me. But you're not. You hide behind calling yourselves pragmatic and realistic but you are neither. Remember what I said about evolution?...

You may not see the value in noting the trend in intelligence but I do. Why even study the MBTI at all then? Why even care what personality type people are to begin with? If we're all just people and we can all overcome our personality and grow into other things why even bother to type people to begin with? Because there is value in it, that's why. There is value in knowing how people will react to certain situations. There is value in knowing how to work with other people. There is value in knowing how to place people. There is value in knowing people's strengths. There is value in knowing people's shortcomings. There is value in knowing which people are going to be more intelligent. If I was looking to hire and collaborate with smart people I would know to look for N's. That's why.

Anonymous's picture
Justin: Your an arrogant asshole
6 months 1 week ago

Your an arrogant asshole

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Not an argument.
6 months 1 week ago
@Justin (view comment)

Not an argument.

Anonymous's picture
Jay: ''And since sensors go with
5 months 4 weeks ago

''And since sensors go with tradition and authority it is sensor-like to view them as equal.''

You are clearly an uneducated moron who knows nothing about what Si and Se mean.

Si is comfortable with what is familiar, not necessarily ''traditional'' as these are two different things.
Se isn't comfortable with the familiar. Se is constantly seeking *new* experiences.

You need to learn a lot more about typology.

Anonymous's picture
Nathan: Wow
2 years 8 months ago

"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.

Anonymous's picture
ENFJ Marie: Here's our sensitive sensor.
2 years 3 months ago
@Nathan (view comment)

Here's our sensitive sensor. Awesomely appropriate example of the S-specimen we're examining.

I had a- what I thought to be an objective and insightful- conversation with an ISTJ once. When I brought up points that fit respectfully into my stance, but didn't necessarily flatter him, he responded very similarly. With more attacks than solid reason. Then he marched off in a fury and it was never brought up again.

Here's what I think you're missing out on: you say, "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)." We're not talking about "right" and "wrong". We're speculating trends and finding patterns that seem evident, despite subtle nuances thrown here and there. It's not about being 100% convinced on either end, it's about stepping above and watching the movement of it all. And when we reach such a compelling theory as this one, we take pleasure in examining it further to see if it really fits. We've already thought miles above "right" and "wrong".

We cannot get off our high horses. We're here because we climbed up, and we left you down there. Not that S's can't be awesome members of society; they just don't typically transcend to our level of innovation and influence (except cases which are few and far between).

Anonymous's picture
David: My dad is istj and I am intj.
2 years 8 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Jo: Uh
9 months 3 weeks ago
@David (view comment)

You "feel" you outsmart him? Doll, feelings aren't facts.
Not to mention, intellectual =/= intelligent. something the wide-eyed NTs and followers of the MBTI theories have a childlike faith in are in desperate need of understanding.

Anonymous's picture
nz: the iceberg
2 years 8 months ago

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)

Anonymous's picture
MS: Just for the record, I really
2 years 8 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
This INFJ: NT or What?
2 years 6 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I love how loosely you relate
2 years 6 months ago

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.

Anonymous's picture
Baron: A Better Explaination
2 years 6 months ago

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:



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.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: This is a very interesting
2 years 6 months ago
@Baron (view comment)

This is a very interesting take on the subject and I agree with what you are saying. Thank you very much for sharing :)

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: >I've tried to avoid
2 years 5 months ago
@Baron (view comment)

>I've tried to avoid practical tasks since I was a kid
jesus christ how horrifying
if at least being a *useful* sack of skin and bones is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Anonymous's picture
Baron of Cleveland: Hmm
2 years 5 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

Just as practical tasks (apparently) please you, they disgust me, and I find them, in general, a waste of my time. I spent all of yesterday accomplishing practical tasks and felt bored, unstimulated, and generally useless since I was not soing what I was inherently designed to do. The most "horrifying" way to spend my time is to conduct practical tasks and menial chores. If you are the type who thinks this is important, have fun. Yippee.

Also, the assertion that only practical people are useful is ludicrous.

Here's a larger view of this subject: Neither the S nor the N is more important to mankind. The "types" developed so that all of humanity had a better chance of surviving by allowing certain personality types to fill certain roles. If you fill the role you are naturally designed to fill, you have a better chance of helping society and finding happiness.

The best thing is to let the practical people do practical things, let the visionaries do their things, and allow humanity to move forward.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Fortunately for them, S's are
2 years 5 months ago

Fortunately for them, S's are less likely than N's to care about their personality type, or quantified intelligence, or similar abstract concepts- much less care about comparing theirs to others'. Perhaps that lack of concern for such inconsequential things reflects a sort of intelligence that's (at times, at least) more important than the sort of intelligence reflected in one's IQ or influence.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Unfortunately Jung's original
2 years 5 months ago

Unfortunately Jung's original work is meant to be about cognition as in 'the mind' and has nothing to do with your capabilities.

Even Isabel Myers-Briggs' original book introducing MBTI called 'Gift's differing' does not mention MBTI types in terms of capabilities. At the most she describes each type in a grouping of two in relation to their dominant cognitive function and gives some tendencies, but no absolutes.

There is a problem which has arisen online from influences such as David Keirsey, who sought to type people based entirely on social roles and outward behaviour, which has more to do with persona than true personality or inward cognition. Sadly this has resulted in nothing but a series of biases and stereotypes which do little to improve our understanding of ourselves which was Jung's original goal.

If you actually read Jung's work 'Psychological Types', (which MBTI stems from), you will realise that in his opinion most scientists are Sensors because they believe in the reality of their senses over the speculations of their Intuition. In contrast Intuitives are more likely to be those who hold superstitions or religious belief's.

Also Jung believed, through his heuristic evidence of having travelled the world and experiencing different cultures, that his psychological types were actually evenly distributed across the population.

Statistics on MBTI types cannot be trusted because of the nature of what it is the tests are measuring.

How can anyone know what a person truely thinks of themselves? Are they who they think they are? Are they who other people think they are? Or are they truely what they are? How do you sift between the persona and the ego to find the true cognition of the mind underneath?

Very often people take these test's in ignorance and possess no understanding of the material, thus picking rudimentary answers based around what 'seems' to be correct. On the other side are people who are well versed in the material, but these people tend to fall victim to biases and prejudices and so instead twist their answers to get the result they desire.

These same pre-conceived idea's are the reason that such a claim as intelligence being attributed to Intutition will always be true in your perception because you cannot conceive of the idea that a Sensor is intelligent. Thus we end up with intelligent sensors being defined as intuitives because people who possess no real understanding of MBTI or Carl Jung's work are letting their biases get in the way of intelligent understanding and rational reasoning.

How did you go about gathering the information for your famous people?

What empirical methods did you use? Are you aware of the difficulty in trying to acertain such information as IQ and MBTI type from a historical figure? More so the further back you go.

Now it is true that there is more empircism in the MBTI statistical method than Jung's heuristic one, but as I said; based on the nature of what it is that is being measured, all statistics are likely to be quite inaccurate.

We need to find a more reliable way of measuring personality if we are to truely gain any insight from such numbers.

Oh as a final point of interest, take a look at Karl Pilkington, he of Idiot Abroad fame. I suggest you listen to the podcasts with Him, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.

He is a fantastic example of an unintelligent INTP desperately trying to make sense of his own speculations and the systems of the world around him, which he cannot help but take apart and examine with his introverted thinking, (Ti) while coming up with assumptive concepts using extroverted intuition, (Ne).

Afterall intelligence is a multi-faceted concept which cannot be wholly defined by simple definitions.

It is not just what you think, but also what you do and how you do it. Unfortunately people are still not ready to let go of this perception that intelligence needs to be a competition instead of merely a tool to be utilised as best a person can.

Just remember, research the cognitive functions, dont read descriptions or trust online tests and most of all remember that it is about cognition.

Taking information in and evaluating it. That is all that it is.

I wonder what type you might consider me to be?

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Very well said and all
2 years 5 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

Very well said and all important points. Thank you very much for contributing :)

Oh, and I am pretty sure you're an INTP ;)

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: INTP? Now that's interesting.
2 years 5 months ago

INTP? Now that's interesting.

Im actually an ISFJ, at least by going on cognitive functions. If we go by behaviour, (which unfortunately is what far too many people do), I could be anything from an ESFP to an INTJ.

Sadly, as I said before, going on behavioural cues as is the premise of theories such as David Keirsey's temperments causes problems when we start to realise that people change their behaviour based upon different contexts. Now I do believe there is some correlation for cognitive functions and some behaviours, but it is extremely difficult to sift between these and those that are merely the product of persona or social roles.

The sad reality of type theory online is that most people only understand it in the most minimal sense, thus doing nothing but building up stereotype upon stereotype in an attempt to more easily confirm their own perspective biases.

I would not be surprised if most people who believe themselves to be N's are actually S's, convinced of this ridiculous idea that cognitive functions are related to capabilities, such as intelligence. I also wouldn't be surprised, (and yes I know I am repeating myself again...Si perhaps there), if the data put forth by Isabel Briggs-Myers on the percentages of N's vs S's was completely incorrect.

I suppose this is an interesting discussion though, even if the premise is somewhat off-putting for me.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I wouldn't call Pilkington
2 weeks 4 days ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

I wouldn't call Pilkington stupid. He has made a career out of doing nothing but what he normally does anyway. He gets to travel the world around, thanks to his playful speculations. I feel pretty sure he knows exactly what he is doing, pretending to be a "clown".

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: http://blog.minitab.com/blog
2 years 5 months ago


As everyone should know yet choose to ignore: correlation does not equal causation.

Is there a correlation between intelligence and iNtuitives? Yes.

Does that mean all iNtuitives are smarther than Sensors? No.

Is it possible that people-- especially "smart" people, and especially those who relate their own self worth with their intelligence -- sit down and take a Meyers/Briggs test and mistakenly type themselves as iNtuitives because all the "N questions" sound "smarter" than "S questions"? Surely.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Hey look, another idiot who
2 years 5 months ago

Hey look, another idiot who thinks Ns are smarter than Ss.

Anonymous's picture
va$: Most geniuses are N. People
2 years 5 months ago

Most geniuses are N. People with the highest IQs tend to be N. These are facts.
However the leadership premise is wrong. Ns are not always the best leaders. Being
N means you have doubts and are often in your own world. Not good leadership qualities. Most leaders in society tend to be S.

S are required to keep the world running. N are required to change it. The reason there are less N than S is that if there were too many N we would keeping shifting from one point of view to another and never get anything done. S are the back two wheels on the car that keep it moving. N are the front two which change the direction. Both are needed for the car to function.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Well actually none of this is
2 years 5 months ago

Well actually none of this is fact, the original work by Jung was heuristic. It's about correlation through observation.

The closest that this can ever come to 'fact' is Dario Nardi's neuroscience. Intuitives are much more likely to believe in this theory because they trust unseen implications and connections over empirical evidence. By the same token intuitives are much more likely to hold spiritual belief's than sensors.

Once you actually examine this work and read some Jung you start to realise that many of the premises of MBTI are actually completely wrong.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: It's not a fact that people
2 years 5 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

It's not a fact that people with high IQs are more likely to be N?

Where is the empirical evidence that N's are somehow missing that states that N's are not smarter?

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Well where is the true
2 years 5 months ago

Well where is the true empirical evidence that the N's ARE more intelligent by some inherent trait of speedy pattern connection?

The problem is that these are theories OF THE MIND! You cannot measure them with any accuracy using traditional scientific methods.

And no, it isn't a fact in any sense of the word. If I pick up a pen and let go over an area of empty space on this planet I am 100% assured that it will fall, that is a fact.

If I prick my finger, (and barring nerve damage of some kind caused by whatever), I will feel a sensation that we call pain, this is a fact.

A psychological theory built entirely upon heuristic evidence at it's core cannot ever be a fact unless something revolutionary is developed in the field of neuroscience. I find it slightly odd that as Ni dominant type you have not considered these possibilities.

The statistics you use cannot be proven where we are at this current moment in time. Test's are useless and usually put forth obvious questions with obvious motives.

All you have done is gathered a series of other people's statistics and assumptions, (historical figures? Oh dear me...), and then collated them while waving your arms in the scissor motion going: "See? proves it."

These theories came about to allow people to better understand themselves and others and help them lean more towards a bit of introspection of themselves, even introverts do not introspect in a truely analytical manner sometimes.

What they were not created for was for people such as you to affirm their own biases and stereotypes just so they can garner a feeling of superiority and dominance over others.

You still havn't addressed my original points > Karl Pilkington a stupid INTP. I know a great deal of people like Karl in day to day life and while this is just anecdotal evidence I could easily gather them up, tailor myself a nice confirming test and claim that these statistics prove my point beyond all doubt.

Also even if I were to accept your premise as true, how would we even know that the people you consider stupid or intelligent are of the types you might believe them to be? You are already so convinced of your own evidence as truth that it wouldn't matter as you would confirm your own biases because it pleases you to think in such a manner.

Incidentally did you know that INTJ's are perceptive dominant when it comes to JCF? Their cognitive function lineup in MBTI is Ni>Te>Fi>Se.

The point being that the empirical and applicable data that Te often uses for it's evaluations will actually be subordinated by your more dominant Ni meaning that most of what you hold to be true will essentially be part of an irrational system of hunches and gut feelings.

The only thing that is true is that there are more 'stupid', (depending upon how you define stupid), people than there are intelligent ones.

Ive never seen a Ni dominant personality so trapped by the systems and frameworks he has built for himself before.

Also as a final note: Once you understand the fragility and intangibility of these theories you will start to understand the difficulty in getting any definitive description of any function or type.

ps: (Im still laughing about the notion of me being an INTP).

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the response
2 years 5 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

Thanks for the response Andrew.

For starters IQ is true empirical evidence that N's are more intelligent than S's. N's are more likely to have a higher IQ's than S's. I will agree that IQ is just one way to measure intelligence. What other methods would suit your liking?

It doesn’t really matter that these are theories of the mind. By calling somebody a certain type you already are measuring something. You can measure a mind by the results of the mind. I agree, some things are more factual than other things. But that doesn't mean we only stick with hard facts. Many of the best scientists go against science. If we only go off things that we have very hard evidence for then we are limiting ourselves.

If MBTI is a theory not built upon fact then why study it at all? Why type people? Why say this person is that and that person is this if it's not 100%? Because there is value in it. There is nothing odd about any of this. I know that if somebody is an F they are going to be more emotional and people oriented than a T most of the time. If somebody is a J they are going to be more orderly than a P most of the time. You can say all you want that there is no evidence proving any of this being true but in my life I am able to take these tendencies and work with them to enhance my life.

The statistics I use may not satisfy you but others are satisfied with them. These statistics are mostly historical figures but the same can be done with present day figures. I was using historical people to show most of the influential and respected people of the past, and obviously present, are N’s.

These theories came about for whatever reasons we choose to use them for. By saying they came about for introspection on ourselves is your take on it. That’s what you want to get out of it and that’s fine. I want to get something else out of it. I am pretty confident that if I am hiring somebody to do a technical job I am going to be much better off with an Introverted J than an Extroverted P.

Why is it that people don't get upset when MBTI talks about certain people being more likely to party, socialize, read, be creative, follow rules, nurture others and so on, but as soon as we talk about people who are more likely to be intelligent we get upset? It’s all fun and games until somebody starts talking about intelligence. Then all of a sudden MBTI is no longer about that. We can measure tons of other things with MBTI, but for some reason MBTI can’t quite measure intelligence... why? Because somebody says it can’t?

I checked out a few videos of Karl Pilkington and I don't really know what to make of him. It seems most of what he is doing is an act and he's super sarcastic. If he’s not acting he very well could be a dumb INTP, if that’s what he is. So? There’s lots of dumb N’s. There just happens to be even more dumb S’s. Also, there are different degrees of N. One person may barely be an N while another may be almost 100% N. Someone may barely be an S while another may be full S.

Most of this data was taken and compiled from other websites. I didn't source everything and get all anal about that crap because I don't care about that. But most of these are not my opinion and even the list of influential people was assembled from other sites. Of course these MBTIs could be off on some people. The data doesn't have to be 100% right for the theory to be right.

If you're really upset about the data show me who was typed incorrectly, but even better, show me a list of S's that are leaders and influential. I highly doubt they will outmatch the list of people I have listed.

You are assuming that empirical and applicable data is the authority when it comes to things. I don’t accept this premise. What makes something true is not the data but rather the reasoning and validity of it. If I have no facts to prove my investment strategy, but am consistently able to outperform the investors that go off empirical facts then do I really care? All I want is the right answer, I don’t care about all the crutches people create for themselves to reach the truth.

I agree with you about there being no definitive description on any of these. I'm going with estimations and generalities as well. I don’t take anything as 100% ever. I simply try to recognize patterns and look for trends.

And I don't know why you would find it funny that I called you an INTP. I know virtually nothing about you and was going off a tiny little post you made. Let’s ask 100 other people to type you based off that and see how they do -- it’s difficult to do.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Wow....that's amazing. You
2 years 5 months ago

Wow....that's amazing. You are just a walking contradiction aren't you?

You bang on about the validity and accuracy of your statistics and then you say this:

"You are assuming that empirical and applicable data is the authority when it comes to things. I don’t accept this premise. What makes something true is not the data but rather the reasoning and validity of it. If I have no facts to prove my investment strategy, but am consistently able to outperform the investors that go off empirical facts then do I really care?"

I mean I really dont know what to say, so your statistics are correct, but empirical data is not the best way to measure such things? So....your statistics are meaningless, just like I said right?

You still do not understand my point, perhaps im not explaining it well. The reason people study this theory is because they wish to gain a better understanding of themselves and others. It's a guideline NOT a rule.

What's dangerous is when people like you decide that it is a tool to be used solely in the catagorisation of others, what's more dangerous is when you believe so strongly in the theory that it is like a concrete system that really exists in your mind.

All that does is serve to divide and break apart human beings, it doesn't benefit anyone, least of all you.
The reality of MBTI is that it is a belief system at it's core, it has reality if you wish it to. Human beings have an interesting habit of putting pattern to things so as to more easily understand and explain them. While this is is all fair and good, it is also important to move past such a primitive stage and realise that you are doing this in the first place.

You start to see the strings of things tugging at everything we do, all these systems tangible and intangible that we build; empires of the mind that are constructed to house our cognition. Not to say that once you realise this you are ouside these systems, of course not, but it helps as a liberation of the mind from linear thinking and poor assumptions.

"The statistics I use may not satisfy you but others are satisfied with them."

That's just an appeal to popularity, (aka
argumentum ad populum), it's a logical fallacy and it proves nothing, im somewhat surprised you didn't know that.

The interesting thing is, you seem to think I have a problem with intelligence in particular, you are incorrect in that assumption. I have a problem with what this article represents. Im sure you are aware that you are not alone in your opinion, (and yes this is just your opinion I dont think you have proved anything you are merely using a method of convincing others), but there is a problem with this mindset.

The mindset im talking about is those who research this theory, (barely), and then fall into the terrible trap of believing that people are no more than their type. I am as annoyed by assumptions such as which types will enjoy parties, or which types will be more sociable, just as much as I am annoyed by ones of intelligence.

The problem with intelligence is that others see it as a competition, which is ironically a very stupid perception. They also see it as a factor of dominance over others. While I suppose no one can truely escape falling into the pitfall of the first sentence from time to time, it is still wise to try and pull yourself out of it once in a while.

Now it might sound like im just a baying wolf, howling at the moon and denying everything. But the real truth of the matter is that im just trying to get you to see a different perspective on this, to see the damage and pointlessness of such an idea.
Ive seen this perspective far too much to have any hopes that you will examine it with any kind of critical thinking, but a person can hope all the same. Besides that is the great driver of humanity; hope....that and a secret denial of death.

"f he’s not acting he very well could be a dumb INTP, if that’s what he is. So? There’s lots of dumb N’s. There just happens to be even more dumb S’s. Also, there are different degrees of N. One person may barely be an N while another may be almost 100% N. Someone may barely be an S while another may be full S."

Oh dear, you are joking right? You mean you believe those sad, poorly constructed pieces of rubbish that people call tests? Those useless and obvious questions which put a percentage on your dichotomies at the end? Read some of the books surrounding this theory or better yet; read Jung since it comes from his work and you will gain a better understanding. As for Karl, I was proving a point, I can also bring up evidence like him and assume that it represents a greater implication for the population of intuitives.

"Most of this data was taken and compiled from other websites. I didn't source everything and get all anal about that crap because I don't care about that."

Yeah I know you dont, that's the fucking problem, you assume your premise to be correct from the start based entirely on assumptions, your knowledge of this stuff is awful and while knowledge most definitely does not = intelligent it certainly helps to give new information with which that intelligence can use.

'The data doesn't have to be 100% right for the theory to be right."

No no no no, let me correct that for you: "The data doesn't have to be 100% right for the theory to be a considered line of thought in regards to reasoned speculation upon a certain subject".

Ive never known of a theory being completely right before. A theory is a speculative guess of things based upon an observation and correlation of information surrounding whatever the subject matter happens to be.

If it is right, then it becomes a fact and is no longer a theory.

"All I want is the right answer, I don’t care about all the crutches people create for themselves to reach the truth"

You mean like the crutch you have created for youself on the assumption that your premise is already correct? A crutch allowing you to feel affirmed and supported in your view?

It's not just about data here, it's the biased mindset behind it. As I keep saying: There is no way you could ever know what someone's cognition is based upon the behaviours you observe around you, that's generally just an extention of a persona. And even if you could I seriously wouldn't ask you to type anyone because no doubt anyone you like, or who is successful or intelligent, will automatically be deemed an Intuitive and anyone else a sensor. You've made this into a delusion where you cannot possibly be wrong, it's ridiculous.

You have to peel back the layers of a person to get to the true personality underneath. Incidentally you want truth? Real truth?

Try looking at this in as unbiased a manner as possible, instead of pulling statistics from websites that only make assumptions to reach their conclusions, really research the theory, get into the meat of it and then gain a deeper understanding of it.

"And I don't know why you would find it funny that I called you an INTP. I know virtually nothing about you and was going off a tiny little post you made. Let’s ask 100 other people to type you based off that and see how they do -- it’s difficult to do."

That's the one thing I do agree with you on, it wasn't fair of me and I apologise.

All im saying here is: Just consider what ive said. Ive considered what you have said far too much, not just here but echoed across internet forums and websites. It's damage that needs to be undone.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: What I'm saying is that data
2 years 5 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

What I'm saying is that data is just one piece of the puzzle. Interpretation and analysis of the data is a totally different piece. This is what separates philosophers from scientists. You could have the most accurate data in the world but still be interpreting it incorrectly. You could also have data that is 80% accurate and be forming a conclusion that is almost 100% true. Data is just a tool like anything else. And only using data to form your views in life is lazy and lacking. Actual real creative thought should be taking place. To quote Einstein (maybe he's an N)...

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

I totally agree with you that this is a guideline and not a rule. I've never said anything that I am stating is a rule and 100% right.

That's just an appeal to popularity, (aka argumentum ad populum), it's a logical fallacy and it proves nothing, im somewhat surprised you didn't know that.

My quote is not an appeal to authority, I'm not even trying to convince you with that quote. If it was an appeal to authority I would say, most people believe this way therefore I am right. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying everyone is different and requires different levels of reasoning and information before they change their views. Some people are okay with the information I have provided and they're not complaining. This quote has nothing to do with me trying to prove that I’m right because of it and it’s things like this which really make me question your ability to synthesize information and reason clearly. You are looking for any little thing to use against my argument even when it makes absolutely no sense.

I am as annoyed by assumptions such as which types will enjoy parties, or which types will be more sociable, just as much as I am annoyed by ones of intelligence.

If you are annoyed by assumptions people make based on temperament then you are annoyed by truth. Certain temperaments are more likely to do certain things. I know not everyone can be boxed into one temperament and I know there are tons of other dynamics to it. But as a whole certain types are more likely to do certain things. It matters very little to me if you care about people typing which groups of people are more likely to do certain things. You may not personally think this is of value and you may think this is damaging. I don’t and I do get a benefit out of it. Everybody is not the same and the differences in people reflect in the differences of temperament. Deal with it.

I really do think I see your perspective clearly, I simply disagree with it completely. I see what you're saying. And I think you see what I'm saying. We just disagree with each other straight up. Big deal, it happens.

You mean you believe those sad, poorly constructed pieces of rubbish that people call tests? Those useless and obvious questions which put a percentage on your dichotomies at the end?

I'm not even talking about the tests... If MBTI holds any weight then when we type people they are going to fall under different degrees irrespective of taking any tests. You don't need to take a test to be an MBTI type. Two people may both be N's. One may have greater N tendencies than the other. It has nothing to do with a test, it has to do with traits of what being an N represents.

I didn't reach my opinion on this topic from nowhere. You know very little about what I know about the MBTI and how it fits into life. All I do is research these kinds of things and think about them. For being so into data you have still done absolutely nothing towards disproving my data, providing better data or even coming up with a better way to measure intelligence. And to even bring up my qualifications is futile. You should be disproving my points, not disproving me. Ad hominem?

[...BLAH BLAH BLAH...] If it is right, then it becomes a fact and is no longer a theory.

You're arguing semantics. If it is right it doesn't always become a fact. In this ignorant world if a consensus of people decide something is true then it becomes true. If something is true and the majority of people don't think it is because they're too busy living like cavemen then it remains a theory or untrue. Facts are just as subject to being wrong as anything else. Facts are never 100% right.

Calling something biased is worthless -- everything is a bias. Call it what you want, I can know what people are going to do based off their MBTI. Of course it's not exact, but it does hold weight. It is another piece of the puzzle towards how I view others. It's like calling somebody male or female. Males are more likely to do certain things than females. Males also happen to be T's more often while females also happen to be F's more often. Surprise, surprise.

I definitely consider what you say and I appreciate your view. I don't disagree with everything you're saying but I obviously don't agree with your overall view. I think your view is more damaging than my view. We could continue to go back and forth if you want but I only think you are going to do more damage to your view. You are convincing me less and less with each response.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Oh damn I forgot to mention:
2 years 5 months ago

Oh damn I forgot to mention: Have you ever considered the theory that IQ tests are made by intuitives for intuitive pattern recognition skills?

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Of course I have. Have you
2 years 5 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

Of course I have. Have you ever considered that creative, intuitive modes of thinking are of a higher consciousness than robotic, rote, 5-sense modes of thinking?

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: I think this is a lost cause,
2 years 5 months ago

I think this is a lost cause, you really dont understand my perspective despite your claims to the contrary.

"Of course I have. Have you ever considered that creative, intuitive modes of thinking are of a higher consciousness than robotic, rote, 5-sense modes of thinking?"

Yep but what's that.....ZOOOOM it's the point, going right over your head. My point was that if these tests are designed by intuitives for intuitives then they are clearly going to benefit intuitives and be useless for sensors. Thus if this is coupled with opinions like yours it results in a clear slant towards intuition without even the remote consideration of error on the part of those who created them.

Such a person would not even consider the perspective of a sensing view so his or her IQ test would be useless as an objective form of measurement.

But yes I have considerd that thought before, because as Aristotle said:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

What you said about statistics is actually my view on them as well, I have no idea how you fail to realise that given that my original post here WAS A CRITIQUE on using statistics for something such as this.

Also you claim that your appeal to popularity was not an appeal to popularity? WHUT?! Why mention that others agree with you then? Agreement by consensus does not make something true.

You even said this again in the post above this one

"Some people are okay with the information I have provided and they're not complaining."

So you are not trying to convince me but you are still arguing your point using that same method?

If you arent trying to convince me of anything why even bother replying? Why even bother having a debate? It IS an appeal to popularity no matter how you try to wriggle out of it. There is no other reason to bring up the point about others having no problem with your information.

"This quote has nothing to do with me trying to prove that I’m right because of it"

As above, why mention it then? If you use critical thinking and analysis you can narrow things down to the most accurate eventuality, there is no reason for you mention people being happy with your statistics in the context of our back and forth other than as an appeal to popularity.

"I totally agree with you that this is a guideline and not a rule. I've never said anything that I am stating is a rule and 100% right."

Well actually....you are, this article is entitled: N's are Smarter than S's, the premise of the article and it's content is that this IS a fact of people, 100% accurate and without fault, just because you dont directly use the words: "This is 100% accurate" does not diminish the fact that it is in fact the core premise of the article's presentation.

"For being so into data you have still done absolutely nothing towards disproving my data, providing better data or even coming up with a better way to measure intelligence. And to even bring up my qualifications is futile. "

Once again you miss the point, I am not 'so into data' as you presume me to be, I merely pointed out the flaws in using random information cobbled together from around the internet.

"I didn't reach my opinion on this topic from nowhere. You know very little about what I know about the MBTI and how it fits into life. All I do is research these kinds of things and think about them."

So do I and the way you think is flawed, im surprised you claim to research this information because if you did you would understand the grave error in how you are using this theory, there is no practical or theoretical usage of your view. No one could ever entertain a brilliant and insightful discussion with this as the discussion point. All it does is divide people up just for the sake of it, I would like to see how you could actually use this in your life, without it being used for a mere self-confidence boost.

"And to even bring up my qualifications is futile. You should be disproving my points, not disproving me. Ad hominem?"

I didn't bring up qualifications I questioned your knowledge of this subject. As I mentioned before: What about the cognitive functions side of this? What of Jung's work? And talking of ad hominems......:

"it’s things like this which really make me question your ability to synthesize information and reason clearly."

Hypocrisy thy name is you.

My questioning of your knowledge is an ad hominem I agree, but let us go over why this no longer matters.

Firstly you have repeatedly admitted that statistics and data are nothing but meaningless traps for people, that they mean nothing, this means that your own data is worthless, but since neither of us care about data, it doesn't matter.

Secondly, with data out of the way this becomes nothing but your opinion vs my opinion. You are not right just because you say you are. This is negative Fi all over the shop. This also means that your view of Sensing and Intuition are irrelevant; because the data isn't important and you were using Wiki as your source. Hypocrisy thy name is you....again.

So essentially this is meaningless and we are just shouting at each other from across the street.

"You are looking for any little thing to use against my argument even when it makes absolutely no sense."

That sounds a lot like a projection of your argument onto mine, hypocrisy again I see, afterall you never once argued against my point about cognition and behaviour.

"In this ignorant world if a consensus of people decide something is true then it becomes true"

I couldn't agree more, which is why you should turn these perceptions upon yourself, this view you hold is actually one of the more prevelant amongst those who research such theories as MBTI, unfortunately those who hold such views do so because it helps them feel better about themselves, it grants a feeling of superiority, they are so biased by this view that they will not consider any other.

And yes I read your article, it's irrlevant though because my point is that this bias clouds even the consideration of another view, yes we are all biased as is the nature of the ego, but it means nothing in the context of this opinion exchange being as ive considered yours and seen it far too often but you continuously misconstrue my own.

"I think your view is more damaging than my view. "

How so? My view is that based on cognitive function theory each type percieves and evaluates the world differently, this has nothing to do with capabilities such as intelligence or understanding.

It is merely that each person of the 16 types will see things differently. From my perception an ESFP can be as intelligent as an INTJ, but they will reach conclusions on things differently. This is not about niceties either, I am not one to shy away from harsh truths of inadequacy or the realities of life, such as the fact that not everyone can achieve or rise to great heights of success, whatever your personal idea of success happens to be, whether it be a material one, a spiritual one or even one of human progress.

This is not about letting people down easily, it is about looking at things from a different perspective, turning things over and examining them. Ive looked at it your way and seen your way echoed by others, it is a dry and overly used perception with no originality attatched to it.

My view of it is about as unbiased as you could be, except for it being MY view, because from my perception what your type is has bearing on the way you take in information and the way you judge it, it doesn't define your capabilities. This isn't even about fairness, it is merely the way I have learned the various personality theories that exist.

At the end we both agree to disagree, but I want you to at least take some enlightened thinking away with you from this exchange:

1) This is just your opinion, same as my own, so dont try to pass it off as anything else.

2)Your views are not more true just because you think they are, or because they are less prevelant, (despite the ironic twist that your view is closer to majority view than my own).

3) Examine the applicability and usage of your view in real life, what is it's application? As an INTJ you will possess strong Te so this ought to be of priority for you. If there is no use for it, why hold it? If there is a use for it explain it with some reasoning. The only way this seems to help anyone is you and making you feel better about yourself, I suppose it has some application there, if only there. At least im seeing a lot of Ni from you which is appropriate, shame it is such a defensive form of Ni.

When labels and opinions go against you, deny all definitions, that is the flaw of Ni users. And it is something you have demonstrated; first in your approach towards data and secondly in your approach towards facts.

4) Always look at yourself first before others, examine the theories in depth and subject yourself to the same perceptions you would subject the world to. With these theories the understanding and learning starts with you, so start learning.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: You're so right. Too bad this
1 year 12 months ago
@Andrew Parkinson (view comment)

You're so right. Too bad this comment isn't at the top of the article.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Heh I suppose I should take
2 years 5 months ago

Heh I suppose I should take this argument a bit more seriously, but I cant help but be a little faecitious.

I actually thought you were joking in this blog to provoke a response...

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Parkinson: Incidentally I forgot to add,
2 years 5 months ago

Incidentally I forgot to add, you mentioned temperament theory?

You do realise that this is David Keirsey's work and even though he borrows the letter terminology from MBTI that's where the similarities stop. Id go so far as to say that it is basically a completely different theory based around behavioural observation, persona's and social roles, none of which really define a personality, but hey ho to each their own.

Which is precisely why you shouldn't cross it with a theory like MBTI which is mainly concerned with cognition and the inner workings of the mind.

Anonymous's picture
Andrew Crowther: IQ and EQ
2 years 5 months ago

Thanks to all the contributors to this debate, which I've thoroughly enjoyed. I'm an ENTP, and as some might be aware, we do like a good joust, and can play devil's advocate. So I'm going into bat for the Sensors.

Slayerment, I enjoyed your article, which reflects a very high IQ, but may I say your emotional intelligence (EQ) is very low. As Frank Zappa said, "If you take a dickhead and put him through an MBA, what you get is a dickhead with an MBA." I hardly think you did we iNtuitives any service at all by such alienating aspersions against the alternate qualities Sensors bring to the table.

Just remember that the only viable alternative to the socialism you despise is the tyranny of mediocraty that democracy delivers. You're hardly going to win hearts and minds this way.

If there's one fundamental truth our MBTI teaches us, it is that we iNtuitives are as much inverse cripples as Sensors. Too much of one thing, and not enough of the other.

You would do well to remember that MBTI measures dichotomies between extraversion and introversion, sensing and intuition, thinking and feeling, and judging and perception, and does not place value judgments on them, as you have.

You might like to consider the words of Niels Bohr (whom I've seen suggested is also an ENTP), who said "The opposite of a true statement is a false statement, but the opposite of one profound truth is more often than not another profound truth."

As an inverse cripple myself, I've spent many years trying to develop the exact things which are absent in my personality profile (i.e introverted iNtuition, feeling and judgmentalism). Find the humility to undertake such a personal journey to complete yourself, Sir, and you might even find a following at the end to change the world.

Best regards,

Anonymous's picture
Eric Blair: Terrific comment !
2 years 4 months ago

Terrific comment !

I'm an INTJ and like you have worked over the years to grow in those areas that are my natural weaknesses. It has taken many years and a lot of mistakes to come to the point where I no longer make myself 'wrong' or 'bad' for my weaknesses - - - or overly proud of my strengths. There is the flipside to a strength or a weakness, and MBTI theory has been a tool to help understand that.

I am of a libertarian bent. One of the people I admire most is Thomas Jefferson, an NT.

He was a man who helped inspire people toward Liberty. I think that freedom is the only way for people to grow into their best selves, and thus for a society of people to grow in the best manner. Given humanity's history and the current state of the world, this might be worth trying out. Perhaps talented NTs might best use their abilities to figure out how to educate and inspire others who approach the world differently than NTs. A great man, Thomas Jefferson, did so. Study his life. Just read the Declaration of Independence - - - which has inspired people throughout the world for over 200 years.

I am repeating a bit of the theme that I wrote in an earlier statement, but wanted to include it again with more recent posts at the end of these comments on the original article. I think it particulary approrpiate on this July 4th Independence Day.

Anonymous's picture
Ivan from the thirdworld: Elitism everywhere... kill him before becomes the new Hitler
2 years 4 months ago

N types have been more influential in the world... it depends from the perspective, from the fat-ass humans perspective yeah, from a universal view where we're almost invisible parasites then it wouldn't matter if someone built CERN, invented halo or is a football player, sings crappy songs or is a hipster that believes is the deepest person of the world...
by the way i'm not sure if i'm a istp or intp some part of me feels offended... anyway if i'm an istp i would like to be a slave of a intj he/she would know how to use me properly, no a annoying nf please god... neither a stupid sj worse if it's a feeler...

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: This convo may be getting old
2 years 4 months ago

This convo may be getting old but just wanted to add my analysis of a couple "historical figures." (just for fun of course. this can't be called science)
My background is lit and psychology and I am a scholar studying author psychology and its relationship to prose style. In my pseudo-professional opinion Shakespeare was not an INFP. I myself am a hard INFP and though I love Shakespeare we are very different.
In my opinion Shakespeare was a definite ESFP, the "Performer" as it is sometimes called. He was literally an actor (a "performer"). His plays are filled with fast paced conversation, showy forms and spectacle, realistic, complex and colorful sensory images and fast moving plots. He innovated very little in the forms of plays, his comedies generally ending with traditional marriages and his tragedies ending with as much external signs of destruction and anguish as possible. Even his poetic style is very traditional and can sometimes feel rote, though in this as well as in the matter of the overall form of the plot his natural genius usually came through to powerfully illuminate the traditional.
He definitely had strong Intution, because he was a genius which often implies the high development of many faculties. But he was a definite S dominant, in my judgment.

Samuel Beckett, in my opinion the greatest prose-poet of the 20th century and one of the greatest geniuses of literature of all time was likely an ISFP, known as the "Composer," and is sort of like the introverted Shakespeare. Which is what he comes off as when you read his style. He is one of the most Shakespearian writers ever. And in fact if you read the chapter of Jung's Introduction to the Psychological Types, the description of the Intuitive Sensing type is almost an exact description of Beckett. The Subjective Sensations are so overwhelming that when they are expressed, if one can even express them that is, they seem strange, otherworldly, as though the person sees something completely different than "what is really there" when they see the world, even though the impulse comes from the senses rather than the intuition. Jung himself says it is the characteristic type of "Modern" artists, which might include people like Picasso, Kandinsky, and many other Impressionist, Expressionist, or post-Expressionist painters. Again, Beckett's Intuitive function was likely highly developed, but this is not necessarily a rarity among S's.
I would not be surprised if Beethoven was also mistyped in your data and is closer to this. (as many other "composers," hence the name. Music is highly sensory, though it is certainly found across the board)

Henry David Thoreau, in my opinion, was an ISTJ, that is the "Inspector." He was possibly but less likely an ISTP, "Crafter." His life was spent in a material pursuit of "Nature." He was in love with and OBSESSED with being in Nature, feeling nature, experiencing nature bodily. He LOVED facts. He accumulated notebooks and notebooks full. He was a botanist. His last great work that he spent 20 years on and never finished was a "Natural History of Concord" detailing painstakingly the "progress of the seed" and the changes in the forests. All this of course did not preclude him from being one of the greatest life-philosophers in our Literature, a genius in abstract and metaphorical thought, and one of the greatest pure prose writers ever. And a leader in his quiet way through his powerful force of character.

So anyway that is my take. I think that many people jump to the conclusion that if someone is a good creative artist or writer they must be N dominant. I think F. Scott Fitzgerald was ENFP, the Champion. Nietzsche was INFP/J, the Intellect or whatever. But this is not a requirement, and as it plays out complexly in real people and in real geniuses, S often can take the lead. I think many historical figures have been poorly typed so please don't hold that list up as ANY kind of evidence. It is at best a fun game.
That is my INFP take. Please read the chapter on Intuitive Sensing in Jung's Introduction to the Types NOW. Sensing is more complex than I think you realize, although Intuiting maybe sounds cooler.

Anonymous's picture
Sapphyreopal5: Hmmm
2 years 4 months ago

This approach on intelligence reminds me of Piaget's theory of cognitive development and his stages of development disregarding the ages he gave for those stages, particularly the concrete and abstract stages. It is said that only about 1/3 of the population or so ever reaches the final stage in his theory (abstract thinking). http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html for more information on this theory if you're interested in reading :)

It's rather interesting that a lot of the people you mentioned are INs or at least stated to be. It would've been interesting to see a little more insight as to why that may be. I do agree that while each type does have their own skill set, in the big scheme of things intuitives on average are more intelligent as far as deeper thinking, seeing the big picture, thinking of possibilities (in that, creative thinking), etc. goes. However, this shouldn't be a reason to pass off Sensors as not as influential. I tend to think a lot of our politicians here in the states are SJs (or perhaps SPs), particularly a lot of our previous presidents. If you mean influential in the sense of change or innovation, then intuitives would be considered more influential for sure. And btw, I am considered by the MBTI to be an INTP.

In that, I will admit I too am prone to think that intuitives are more intelligent and to be slightly biased in that sense too. Most of the people I know in my life are sensors and they frustrate me with their more shallow thinking and inability to think and see past the present moment. I do however admire their being able to care about "practical" things and only wanting knowledge that's useful. I like knowing things for the sakes of knowing even if there's no way or need to directly apply it, although I love seeing the concepts behind such things.

Anonymous's picture
Charity: "Now I know what I'm saying
2 years 3 months ago

"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."


The thing to remember when writing an article, which has a strong standpoint and conclusion, is to find and fill the holes in your argument before your audience finds them. I will admit that at first read, it was quite convincing, but as I read through the comments and the information processed through, there were a few things that stood out. Just for clarification, I'm not saying that you cannot firmly believe in what you've come to the conclusion of. I am just suggesting some things that could strengthen the presentation of your argument and further the understanding amongst N's and S's (which is what seemed to be your intentions from some of the comments above).

First of all, when a person is writing an argument (and plan on publicizing it), they should be aware of who their audience is and how they will come off to them. In this case, it's anyone with access to the internet and anyone who has an interest in personality types- all S's and N's alike. It's safe to say that with a statement like yours, S's can/ are going to be defensive, especially if they do not see what you're trying to say (and they won't most of the time because that is exactly the S nature). It would have been wise to use this information to your advantage, rather than to your disadvantage, using your feelings/beliefs (frustration probably) as your reasoning or justification of your stance. Knowing what kind of information an S would be sensitive to would aid you in wording your ideas to get them out there in a respectful and logical manner. If you're already thinking, "they're not gonna like this statement, but whatever" then you should re-word that statement (and there are plenty of ways to say things). Furthermore, S’s are more about detail, so when you pose an argument there has to be lots of facts and figures. They aren’t going to understand when there’s only some numbers with lots of concepts thrown in there- it will seem unsupported to them. They like it when numbers speak for themselves. Hence, when N’s are putting an idea out into the world of S’s, it almost always has to have numerical proof for it to be considered Truth (N’s gotta play by S’s rules if we’re going to challenge/live in an S world). By avoiding these things in your argument, you're not taking the responsibility of the knowledge (of the 16 p-types) that you've gotten the privilege to learn.

On a side note, you should try to be careful with what you say. Because the S nature happens naturally, it would be going against nature's laws to try and change S's views via your counterarguments (which btw were indirectly caused by your invitation of "If what I'm saying is such BS show me why.") If you really paid attention to your essay here, you would see that it has its holes in it (even if you have provided reasons/excuses for those holes- they are still there giving ammo to your audience).

Reading your post, my ability to recognize nuance suggests that your argument is trying to come across as Truth supported by logic, when really it is just another perspective, seemingly based off of your personal beliefs (nicely hidden). Of course, the internet is easily a second home to miscommunication. Hence, the S's will process your information how they do naturally and take it in differently than what you were trying to convey. This is going to happen in almost all social situations, offline or online. Because it is known that people understand things differently, it would have been better to apply more tact, especially because this is an online post. Any post online is always able to be revised BEFORE the posting, but whether that happens or not is dependent upon the poster. You say that you're "not really bashing S's," but that is how they are going to take it no matter what you say. It is THEIR perspective/cognitive processes and your counterarguments (no matter how much sense your point makes to you) most of the time will not change anything. People have a hard time changing the way they take in information and people have a hard time changing the way they put out information. Being humans who came from nature, it's definitely hard to go against the laws that created your mindset/being. Through maturing of our types, we all have the ability to learn how to cope to exist in a world with 15 other personality types.
Lastly to address your actual point, saying that N’s are smarter than S’s is again arguing against nature. Nature does not create a thing that is better than another thing. It is only interpreted (via humans) that X is better than Y. “Some people are smarter, better, and more capable.” This statement you argue is subject to change in different contexts. Being an INTP, I’d say that I am not smarter, better, or more capable in an S world. In fact, through current experiences I am finding just the opposite. Even though I consider myself smarter than average in certain areas in my life, I am not smart in social contexts. This is how one can see the inconsistency in the statement that people are smarter, better, or more capable. Nature creates things in dichotomies so that you can know what the definition of one means (i.e. you wouldn’t know hot, if cold didn’t exist). Understanding other personality types and what their cognitive processes are should be used as a tool to understand and accept, not to compare which is best/better/worst/most annoying/etc. Your paper is proof of people who understand this type of information and yet are not utilizing it appropriately.

The whole point of learning these personality types is to have the knowledge of the patterns that emerge from nature so we can all have an easier time coping with each other. There is no such thing as complete harmony, but we can have an easier time finding the harmony within ourselves if we use this information in the best manner.

Anonymous's picture
Richdad: I would say this MBTI is
2 years 3 months ago

I would say this MBTI is something not to be taken seriously. I do think that NT, NF, SP and SJ are there like there is choleric, phlegmatic, Sanguine and melanchonic. BUt being smart is something else its more on persons self develop.

I think MBTI is true to some extent that each persons ability is inclined towards a certain thing. Every one find something thing easy and somethings hard. Like in childhood it was easy for me to solve maths, but I had hard time understanding other. While it was vise the versa for my friend.

But my friend who was not good in maths and science became an engineer and is working in a reputed science lab. Wow its his MBTI. No, its his hard work, I know how he made it.

Also about E/I and P/J, guys its in your hands, I will describe here:
1. So you are an NT do nothing, sit on net enjoy video, eat your meal, sleep and contemplate (Most easiest thing for NT) you get IP.
2. Now do hard work, burn sweat get your job done but forget about people, you become a confident INTJ.
3. Ok now get interested in people you wanna make friends, have lots of party, you become an hot ENTP.
4. Okay now do work and get interested in people thing 2 and 3 at the same time, you become the dynamite ENTJ.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I think the thing is not that
2 years 3 months ago

I think the thing is not that Ns are smarter than Ss but it`s just that sensors are more simple-minded and not so much concerned about deep things like Ns. They just prefer to live a normal life while Ns feel more like they want to change the world in someway.

Anonymous's picture
Mushroom Man: Yeah, and that's what makes N
2 years 3 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

Yeah, and that's what makes N's generally more intelligent than S's. If you don't prefer something, you probably aren't going to spend much time or thought in it, therefore not developing it as well as someone who does care.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: INFJ here.
2 years 3 months ago

INFJ here.

Your arrogance reminded me of this story I assigned my students (all of them...most of whom were S's) to read and think about critically: http://www.smartercarter.com/Essays/Thinking%20as%20a%20Hobby%20-%20Gold...

Anonymous's picture
Dafdaf: Hi,
2 years 3 months ago

Listen. According to MBTI, which stems from Carl Jung's insight into the unique kinds of people that make up our species, there are four temperaments. They have been noticed before throughout history, with the Natives, for example. It's beautiful really, the symmetry that the word "different" stands for. We are each different, each unique. Noone is better or worse, more or less, or, yes, smarter or dumber, than anyone else.

Let me demonstrate to you!!!

SF: they pride themselves on their loyalties and values, and embody their causes with their whole being

NF: they live for the unity of existence

NT: they live in their thought processes, their guided streams of logic and reason, they look for perfection

ST: they live for life!! they experience, they live for here and now


I could look down at you because you are looking for perfection, not seeing the UNITY that IS perfection....

BRO!! Listen.
Break your head over this one!!!

Hahahah. ok I know.

See, I know something that you don't: unity.
You know something that ST's don't: perfection.
And SF's know something that I don't: embodying causes.

We all have stuff to learn.

(If you want to, you can think that you know everything. And you may be a genius!! Be a genius!!!!! BUT, even the most genius person in the world, even ALBERT EINSTEIN, did not know everything. He died still not knowing the formula to everything. We STILL don't know everything.)

So dude...!!!!

Anonymous's picture
Dafdaf: Ohh ok
2 years 3 months ago

Ohh ok
I looked back at your replies to people and now i feel i have more to say to you, fella.

Who are the people you don't get? The people who seem to know something you don't - so you respect them or even fear them - hopefully you don't, you should just be aware, though, that they are there as nature's system of checks and balances.

The people you don't get are the spiritual people. To put in an image in your mind: the guru on the mountain top. In The Karate Kid, in the Avatar: The Last Airbender (I loved that show!!!), and in reality, the Dalai Lama, some yoga enthusiasts, rabbis and priests.

Dude. you're probably gonna fall in love with an SF! OK!!!?? So there IS something lovely about sensors, even if the non-NT non-genius folk are NOT NECESSARILY ALL ABOUT THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS STRANGE PERFECTION Y'ALL LOOK FOR. Everyone's different. There is no comparing apples and oranges. They're all fruit, we're all people. Who's to say oranges or apples are better.

BTW!!! Have ya heard of the theory of MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES.


The IQ test is a test made by some people. What do we know??

That returns us back to the point we talked about earlier,


And spiritual people find that we may indeed know everything, somewhere very central to our being, our existence.

enjoy life, dude. (and it's OK if you found my comments confusing. Because your feeling function if your least developed function, you probably will. See, that's why NT's have their blindspot in NF's, NF's have their blindspot in SF's, and SF's have their blindspot in ST's. It's nature!
But again, even if you find my comments confusing, they are meant to show you that you

HAVE A BLINDSPOT. And that we're all human BECAUSE of our blindspots.)

I can sense that this may disturb you. But returning from this place of unknown foreign territory you may become a stronger NT!!)


Anonymous's picture
Billy: Wrong
2 years 3 months ago

A few points:

1. youre using MBTI wrong... just way wrong.
2. how could you POSSIBLY know all those peoples IQ scores?
3. how could you POSSIBLY know those peoples MBTI types?

the entire premise for this article is beyond faulty and reeks of the need to differentiate yourself as an N away from the S's. Its idiotic.

<-- INFJ by the way.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: 1. Substantiate this.
2 years 3 months ago
@Billy (view comment)

1. Substantiate this.
2. They're estimations taken from various places on the Internet.
3. They're also estimations taken from the Internet.

Please tell me how the entire premise for this article is faulty.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: First off, Stalin was an ENTJ
2 years 3 months ago

First off, Stalin was an ENTJ, and Alexander was an ENTP. JFK, on the other hand, was an ESTP. Second, the quality you're referring to here is insight. Inutitives are more insightful and better at providing visionary leadership, and are also deeper thinkers who see how things fit together. However, insight isn't measurable by an IQ test; the kind of intelligence that IQ tests measure aren't suited to discovering the next Nietzsche, Socrates, or Goethe, so S/N will have a negligible effect (Sensors will probably score higher on nonverbal intelligence, intuitives will score higher on verbal intelligence). But yes, when it comes to revolutionary leadership, vision, and innovation, intuitives are much better at it than sensors are.

Anonymous's picture
Ignite: Faulty Logic on Faulty Premises
2 years 2 months ago

This article is so deeply incorrect and poorly reasoned that it pains me to see it in my Google results.

To begin with, it's questionable to suggest that S/N might have to do with evolution in a "better" direction. Evolution is about survival of the fittest, and the N-most of the Ns often have trouble detaching their heads from the clouds long enough to notice they're hungry, much less that they need to procreate.

Sensing and iNtuiting are two separate ways of perceiving the world, but neither is "pure". Sensing data is not as simple as taking in only what the senses provide, and iNtuiting data is not as fantastic as seeing all possibilities. Both break down into extraverted and introverted varieties, which perform 4 very different functions. Introverted Sensing accumulates concrete definitions; Extraverted Sensing forms holistic environmental assessment; Introverted intuition accumulates reductionist principles; Extraverted iNtuition forms holistic pattern assessment. Your statement coupling Sensing with the material/external world and iNtuiting with the mental/internal world is by definition incorrect, as all cognitive processes are mental and external/internal is a separate division entirely.

I would tend to agree that iNtuitives show up more often in lists of influential people, but I believe that is also true for Thinkers and some other non-MBTI-related groups (artists, scientists, military and political leaders) - and your percentages seem largely drawn out of thin air, sans references and clear calculations.

Moreover, your assertion that great contributors tend to be Ns begs the question of what it means to be a great contributor. Ss by nature are less interested in big-picture changes, and more interested in day-to-day living, with SPs being experts at task performance and SJs being the cornerstones of family and institutions, ranging from the political to the academic. But does your name ending up in a history book make you a more worthwhile person? Ns by nature are often unhappy seekers of change, devoting their lives to theoretics and upheaval and missing out on the very life they are seeking to idealize. And while society may have changed by virtue of N innovations, did it change for the better? As you cited, Hitler himself is the most infamous example of an N - an INFJ, no less, a humanist, idealist type.

If you speak to Ss in real life, they are often passionate about change for the better on a smaller, more practical basis. My mother is an ESFJ and works with developmentally challenged children to give them a better chance at a good life. My brother is an ISTP scientist, recently winning awards for his analysis of and innovations in mechanics. My grandfather was an ISTP fighter pilot and policeman. These are not stupid, passionless, or unworthy people. They simply work on a smaller scale than Ns - and are often more successful at life itself, in my opinion. For every S leader or innovator you're asking for (which, by the way, look at ESTJs, I'm sure you'll find plenty), show me a happy N, a well-adjusted N. For every N that's leading a company, there's a handful of unemployed dreamers who are weighing down the economy.

The main problem here is that you're defining "smart" as people -you- think have been good for this world. Let's take Hitler again, he's a fun example, and pit him against Mother Teresa. INFJ versus ISFJ. Who did more good for the world, the genocidal racist or the humanist nun? The problem is that "influential" people in the history books aren't always actually the most influential - they are the ones who get their stories recorded, for whatever reason - and even then, influential people are not always the best people. How about a new theory: the people who make it into history books are most often those who incite change. Ns, always looking for new ideas, are often the ones to incite change. However, that does NOT make them good at running countries, running businesses, or improving the standard of living or anything else of higher value. It makes them good at inciting change. But change isn't always good - sometimes it's just change. You could say the Industrial Revolution was a huge scientific step forward, or note that it began hundreds of years of rapid, widespread environmental destruction. Not exactly the best in terms of evolutionary survival, ironically.

As to people "outgrowing" S, there is considerable evidence that most cognitive preferences are formed early. Children actually have relatively poor perception, considering object permanence and other cognitive developmental oddities, and they learn abstraction early via language. Something interesting to note is that language is technically all abstraction, supposedly the realm of Ns, but there is plenty of beautiful, fascinating literature written by Ss. While you say that Ns don't lose competency in the everyday, the same remains true for Ss: simply because they do not prefer the realm of the abstract, they do not lose competency in that realm. They do not PREFER to work in that realm. They move "past" imagination to reality.

It's also funny to portray the N as the lone "free spirit" in a pack of Ss, because SPs are very often termed free spirits, and SFPs are notorious hippie types, while it's mainly TJs who are running groups. It's furthermore entertaining that you suggest that we move forward from group-rule to self-rule, being that government is a contract between people for the exact purpose of acknowledging that we are more successful pooling our efforts than by remaining solitary. This is not the difference between animal and human: this is the difference between the uncivilized and the civilized, between the competitive and the cooperative, between those who lack the foresight to recognize that there is life beyond themselves and those who seek a better life for all.

You've pissed a lot of people off not because your idea is revolutionary or world-shaking but because it's faulty logic heaped on top of faulty premises. But then, Ns are, so often, quite divorced from reality.

- N dominant

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Evolution is not about
2 years 2 months ago
@Ignite (view comment)

Evolution is not about survival of the fittest, especially in the context I'm using it. So this has nothing to do with survival of the fittest, it has to do with growth and development.

Intuition is more pure than sensing. Intuition is closer to reality than sensing. Everything in the world is energy and for something to become a physical reality it must first be a spiritual, creative reality. The spiritual trumps the physical. Almost all known philosophy and religion teaches this. So to place things of the physical 5 senses as equal to that of the spiritual all is a foundational error. Sensing is not equal with intuition because intuition deals with ideas and concepts outside of the physical. The physical world is an illusion restricted by matter. The intuitive world is limitless. Sensors are blinded by their eyes.

Yes, they both break down into introverted and extraverted. But that is an irrelevant point. Introverted intuitives break things down much differently than introverted sensors. Introverted intuition is more pure than introverted sensing. An INTJ is generally capable of introverted sensing (more so than sensors often). An ISTJ is generally incapable of introverted intuition. It’s not an even trade off. Just as a CEO usually can be an employee. An employee usually can not be a CEO. They’re not equal in regards to capabilities.

Yes, it does beg the question of what it means to be a great contributor. What factors would you like to use to define greatness? Is the average S working for the government greater than a Bill Gates creating innovations that make our lives better? I don’t think so. Do you? Is an expert engineer greater than Steve Jobs? I think not. Do you? Would we better off having more people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates or more people like “expert” politicians and academics? We need both? Says who? Ns can do the jobs “expert” Ss do. Ss can not do the jobs expert Ns do. A parent can do the things a child does. A child can not do the things a parent does. Evolution again.

Of course there are going to be good and bad people on both sides. There are good and bad Ss as there are good and bad Ns. As a whole society has greatly benefited as a result of Ns. The good Ns far outweigh the bad Ns just as the good Ss far outweigh the bad Ss.

Let's talk about success in life. You say that in your opinion Ss are more successful at life. In what way? How do you define success? Are they successful because they live a happy life? Do they live a happy life at the expense of others? Are they capable of taking care of themselves or do other people take care of them? Are we here to grow or to stay the same? Is it successful to cut yourself off from greater things and only focus on smaller, more immediate things? What are we really talking about when we say success? Are we talking about collapsing under the fold of society and going along to get along? Are we talking about never challenging existing ideas and never contributing towards new ideas? Are we talking about a happy life of slavery through ignorance? Are we talking about suppressing the gift of free will and creativity to that of an animal?

I agree with you that making things better on a small, practical level is good and necessary. But you don’t have to be smart to do that. Being good does not make you smart. I’ve met plenty of dogs with good hearts too. Doing things on a small scale is almost always easier and requiring of less intelligence than things of a large scale. It is much easier to make $1 in business than $1,000,000 in business. It is much easier to educate and help 1 person than it is to educate and help 1,000,000 people. It is easy to take orders from the school administrator and teach a class regurgitated state content. It is hard and requires great intelligence to actually organize a school system and structure one that is better than the current system and that will educate millions of students for years to come.

Most ESTJ leaders are not really leaders -- they are managers for a company an N built. Managers and leaders are two very different things. Leadership takes creativity and vision. Management takes supervision which Ss love.

Again, not being smart is not a bad thing. Everyone takes it so personal. If you are not smart who cares? If Ns are smarter than Ss why do people get so offended? I’m not saying Ss have no value. I’m saying Ns are smarter. Does this make them better? At some things maybe, but as a person no one is better. We are all equal as individual spirits. No spirit is better than another spirit. Some may choose to evolve quicker and become smarter quicker. Some may choose to evolve slower. Big deal. People should be accepting of the results of their personal choices.

I'm not defining smart as people I think have been good for this world. I stated in the article, "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." I'm not making ethical distinctions here. I'm saying that smart people are influential, and yes there are tons of different ways to define smart. This is how I am defining it for this article for the purpose of some type of foundation. How would you like to define smart? Because no matter how you choose to define it I can immediately start poking holes in it too.

People looking for new ideas and change does make them good at running countries, business and improving the standard of living. Look at all the great countries and businesses. America was founded on change and new ideas. If it wasn’t for change we would have remained under a monarchy. Look at any business. If they don’t change and keep creating new ideas they will slowly deteriorate. Yes, obviously there is a lot more that goes into it, but new ideas and change is definitely an argument in favor of somebody being good at running a country or business.

Ss don’t move past imagination to reality. You can’t move past imagination to reality because imagination is reality. What you term reality is below imagination. Imagination (non-physical) is reality when what people call reality (physical) is really just an illusion. So what you are inadvertently saying is that sensors do not PREFER to work in reality. They move past reality into illusion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Civilization has more to do with wisdom and consciousness than it does with anything else. Being an individual does not mean you are not in favor of cooperation. It means you are your own entity capable of your own reason and creativity and that you are looking to share it with the world through cooperation. Being an individual means that you can take care of yourself and that you don’t need to force others to take care of you (often times through government).

Which by the way, if you want to talk civilization and cooperation government is the last thing that should be brought up. Do you really think that having a government force people to do things is cooperation? Government is not cooperation -- it is tyranny through force and it always has been. Cooperation has always best been handled in a free market where individuals are free to individually allocate their resources as they wish. If people really had the foresight to seek a better life for all then government would be at the bottom of their list. History and reason both show that government is the last place to find a better life for all.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond Ignite :)

Anonymous's picture
Irritated at Ignorance: *Facepalm*
2 years 1 month ago

Just when I thought this idiot author couldn't get any worse...do you realize that nothing you've written in this entire page is based on actual evidence? All of this is just your bullshit opinion.

Anonymous's picture
Ti-Ne-Si-Fe: The author clearly has a very
2 years 2 months ago

The author clearly has a very shallow understanding of MBTI.
It's not about T/F, N/S divides as you might easily think.
Learn more about the different cognitive functions (Fe, Si, Ni, etc..) in order to have a wider appreciation of the topic.
Nowhere it is near the intentions of Jung, Myers, and Briggs to separate smart people from those who are not.
Well, you could interpret any bit of information in every possible way but that doesn't mean that each and every one of those interpretations would be correct.

I also believed this s*** that N's are smarter than S's when I was introduced to the topic. Then I read up on the topic more and found and gradually realized that that is not true. Read up on recent developments on the field like Lenore Thomson's and John Beebe's works.

Note: Lady Gaga definitely projects a no-nonsense-crazy-s***-grab-b*lls ESTP image in most of her videos and performances, But I genuinely believe that she could be an INFP from most of her interviews.

Another note: Mother Teresa is another influential S: a rumored ISFJ. You could say that yes, there is a disproportional amount of influential N's compared to S's given the former's relative rarity. But that does not mean that being N CAUSES that. Correlation /= Causation.

I'm an INTP by the way.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: INTP here.... I think most N
2 years 2 months ago

INTP here.... I think most N's always feel disconnect from the society in general ... they strive to give their best efforts to get recognized in the society (((much like a child trying to connect to step mom...hates any kind of rule she imposes and constantly trying to outshine his step-siblings)))... because of their constant effort they are most likely to make it to the top ... it might be possible that whenever you might be mistakenly typing a smart Sensor as N based on stereotype ((( I find it weird people typing Aristotole/Plato ...cats/dogs.. 5 year old child... when most people cant even type themselves))) ... I believe the world is moving towards higher abstraction (Newtons laws -> Einstein's general reletivity -> theory of everything) , so the world would become a better place for the intuitives in general.... NTJs will always be the most successful .... success for the NTPs depends mostly on science funding from government which would be cut to a minimum in the future ...hence their future is doomed ...

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Also I believe Hitler may
2 years 2 months ago

Also I believe Hitler may have prepared his own IQ test questions to get such a high score.....

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: While I think your hypothesis
2 years 2 months ago

While I think your hypothesis is correct, there is way better data available to make the argument (there is data on the % of gifted students, by MBTI). My central problem is that the IQ data is made up in many cases (some of the people on the list predate IQ tests), the MBTI assignments are highly conjectural (and often the assignment of an N is based on the fact that somebody was influential in the first place), and most importantly, I don't see how the list is a representative sample.

Oh look I made a list:
Henry Ford: ISTJ 140
Robert E Lee: ISFJ 180
Richard Nixon: ISTJ: 140

S's must be supa-smart!

So how can you conduct a better empirical test? Well for starters, don't select on the dependent variable (I suppose you can argue that there are more S's than N's, therefore the prominence of N's in the list of influential people shows something). Focus on people whose type is actually known, not ass-backwards typing of historical figures. And read up on conditional probabilities before looking at IQ AND influence simultaneously. Your list doesn't actually tell us anything about IQ, because it is only looking at people GIVEN that they are influential people. Perhaps high-IQ S's are less likely to be influential. You are slicing off a tiny segment of the population, one that we know is unrepresentative, and drawing broader inferences. That is just plain sloppy.

A. find a basic book on research design principles.
B. don't quit your day job.

An aside, I find it staggeringly improbable that the average IQ of any list of influential people (unless it is a list of great researchers and scientists) well over 140 (which is over the top 1%, and was probably even rarer in the past due to the Flynn effect).

Anonymous's picture
Irritated at Ignorance: Confused Author
2 years 1 month ago

I think you need to get your facts straight. Several of the IQs in your list, such as Lincoln, Darwin, and Einstein are inaccurate (Lincoln’s was around 130 and Einstein’s and Darwin’s were around 160). Given your incorrect data and lack of any sources, I don't think anyone should bother to trust your typings of famous people either. Most, if not all, of the US presidents are SJs (authority, remember?), so your typings of Kennedy and Lincoln are incorrect. Michaelangelo was very likely an SP, given that he was such a gifted sculptor. Also, I don't see how you can assert that Barrack Obama is just an entertainment figure when right above that, you say that intelligent people run countries. In case you haven't noticed, Obama is our president! I presume you think he’s not that intelligent because he’s an SJ? For some reason, you contradict yourself about government leaders. You say S’s are only “puppet Prime Ministers and Presidents”, yet you say that only N’s are smart enough to be world leaders. Then you (incorrectly) put Lincoln and Kennedy on your list of high IQ Intuitives to assert that you think they are intelligent. It seems that you’re trying to assert that government leaders are smart but only if you think they are N’s (*cough* bias and inconsistency *cough*).
Churchill and Napoleon were two other great leaders, and they were SPs. Napoleon is actually considered one of the most influential leaders who ever lived. My viewpoint is that if you, “slayerment”, encounter Sensors who meet your qualifications as smart, influential leaders, you'll either chalk them up as exceptions to your own psuedoscientific rule of Intuitive-only intelligence or incorrectly type them as N's. Forget that Picasso was one of the most influential artists who ever lived, forget the incredible presidents, prime ministers, and leaders whom I've mentioned above, forget that Warren Buffet (who by the way, is an SJ) a wildly successful businessman and CEO in the free economic market, which you previously stated was only smart enough for N’s. If even the most successful person doesn't meet your ever-changing, narrow-minded scope of intelligence, then s/he probably isn’t smart to you anyway, right?
On another note, why don’t you consider artists and performers influential people? Marlon Brando and Bob Dylan are two examples of people who completely revolutionized their respective fields, and they were SP’s. How does that make them less accomplished? They were leaders in their crafts, weren’t they? You can chalk them up as exceptions to your “rule”, but you have to consider that most art-based fields are Sensor-based. If you wouldn’t consider their accomplishments, then why are Picasso, da Vinci, and Michaelangelo on your list of accomplished people? (BTW, your score da Vinci is overinflated. Also, it’s stupid to make a guesstimate of someone who lived so many centuries ago, when IQ tests are a recent development).
Furthermore, considering your incorrect evidence on who is which personality type, your speculations on the trends of N's and high IQs are void. And even if there was a correlation, correlation DOES NOT equal causation.
Your point about evolution is stupid and completely incorrect. Sensing and Intuition preferences are inherent and present from childhood. Children do not “outgrow” their sensing preference in favor of intuition. That’s not how Personality Types work. In fact, everyone has sensing and intuition, according to Jung. Some people just have intuition in a higher preference than sensing, and vice versa. Please stop asserting that Sensors have no intuition, because they absolutely do. All people have varying degrees of Thinking, Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition.
In no way is Myers-Briggs at all connect to evolution. Evolution is the process of natural selection which allows the organisms suited to their particular environment to survive and flourish. Besides, if it were connected to evolution and if N’s are superior to S’s, wouldn’t the S’s die out, leaving more N’s by default? Also, animals don’t evolve into humans in one generation and individuals don’t evolve over the course of their lifetimes. That was a terrible, terrible metaphor you tried to make at the end.
I agree with your point that some people are more capable than others, but your essay (i.e. rant) did nothing to prove that N’s are the ones who are inherently more capable than S’s. You’ve only listed the people who meet your biased interpretation of intelligence, and there are several mistyped Sensors on that list anyway.
Instead of crafting an argument of any worth, you’ve created a psuedoscientific and fairly offensive article. Furthermore, you’re contributing to S vs. N misinformation online and creating more stigma in the Myers-Briggs community. I truly hope that no one reading this article believes your drivel.
I’ve made my attempt to spread some truth and reason, but as Mark Twain says: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

Anonymous's picture
Ailldemo: Do you consider mbti
2 years 1 month ago

Do you consider mbti entertainment? Cause it was developed by an S! That's not me being mean. That's me being accurate. Soo

Anonymous's picture
nottie: Sorry, but this terribly
2 years 1 month ago

Sorry, but this terribly worded and obviously biased post doesn't prove anything. It's true that Ns are often perceived as more creative. Maybe that is what you meant to convey - the innovation that often comes from intuitive natures, and the leadership that can be derived from that.

Your main failures were assigning IQ scores and MBTI types to people dead long before either theory was born. You likely didn't do the guess work yourself, but you have to know that's all speculative. Never mind how much IQ tests don't measure. Also, good luck compiling an unbiased list of the most influential people

This is coming from a very strong intuitive, by the way. Please don't make us all sound like assholes.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: maybe you should start here..
2 years 1 month ago

maybe you should start here.....


Anonymous's picture
milton thomas: cognitive process
2 years 1 month ago

Quinton, take note of the intp above describing Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. INTP's understand cognition better than anyone. Both Jung and keirsey were INTP's. Im an ENTP and it took my Braniac intp son a few weeks to teach it to me properly. once I grasped the cognitive patterns it was like seeing one of those hidden 3D models! This after 18 years of strictly following the MBTI. Like you I spent this year writing a book and developing a website I believe you will "Get". Its at


Now I've gone full circle.... my intp friends and son don't get what I discovered based on their understanding! "Time and Space" is just to vast of a subject and intp's need to fully understand something before they give it any credence...

Godtype.com Ties human cognition and its breakdown within the human population with both the Bible and Time and Space. The coincidences are just to many for my ENTP brain. You will see them and understand it quickly... ....

Anonymous's picture
an INFP: Lady Gaga is an INFP. (Her
2 years 1 month ago

Lady Gaga is an INFP. (Her efforts to 'stand up' for bullied children) I don't support him, but Barack Obama is probably an INTJ. (Judging from his analysis of T.S. Eliot and how his ex-girlfriends described him) If you want your article to have some credibility, please don't let your personal biases to get in the way of your judgement. Science is science, politics is politics.

Also, how did you come up with those IQ scores? Highly improbable that Shakespeare sat down and took an IQ test as a child. Does a correlation exist between talent and iQ? Michelangelo was an artistic genius, but I haven't heard of iQ tests that measure artistic talent.

i agree that Ns are *conventionally* 'smarter', but people with the S function have their cognitive strengths as well. My S friend is good at small talk and hands-on tasks that make my head hurt. Granted, tying a perfect bow won't change the world... but we're not here to change the world now, are we? If one knows how to live a full life and love the people around him, perhaps that is intelligence. :)

Anonymous's picture
I knew it: hey, all waht you said is
2 years 1 month ago

hey, all waht you said is right! I hate it that those sensors are trying to tighten my grip, but they can't for long...

I hate japan cause it is all bunch of sensors creating a goverment. It sucks how they try to draw me into their rabbit holes emotionally, I want to find a shot gun and boom blast them all. But what can I say, enough patience and developing strong boundary functions, I will no longer have to cope with them, but rather enjoy that they cannot influence me anymore.. And guess what! I'm a doc and I know some docs are plain idiots, others suprises me by amazement!

Anonymous's picture
Rabndom: Ok
2 years 4 weeks ago

Let me make this straight
Intuitive people are not "better" than sensors over ally speaking
It's just that they have different strengths
Intuitive people generally think deeper and are able to apply a knowledge in a deeper broader way
While sensors get facts for facts and follow them in a way intuitive e are unable to
Intuitive a think
Sensors act
They both can be leaders
But iq speaking intuitive are higher because they READ BETWEEN the lines where as sensors read the line so carefully they can tell you what's the line made of physically

Now regarding leadership
I would say entj
E vs I : enjoy working with or working for the crowd
N vs s : fact for fact vs fact for future
F vs t: bias vs unbiased
J vs p: far sight vs near sight

Anonymous's picture
Sanzi: I don't understand one thing.
2 years 3 weeks ago

I don't understand one thing. How can you know the IQs of dead people who didn't take the test, and why are those numbers, albeit ubiquitous in that list, don't even exist today? Do those numbers come with inflation included or something?

Anonymous's picture
Cristina: “There are three kinds of
2 years 1 week ago

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”

I have doubts about typing dead people because they use to type for what have been written and any feeler can sound like a thinker while writing and being straight to the point and so on.
I’m not sure – have doubts- Plato was INTP and many other dead people. About Shakespeare I guess you people might know he could of never existed. Socrates (who they use to say was a INTP) also have high possibility of been just fictional character created by Plato.
So I’m just cutting dead people from your list.
And I would like to point out your research and statistics are subjective once you may think you’re an NT but I would say your text sounded pretty much SPish and as your arguments as well.
That being said, I would like to say that it might be probable that most ideas born from either INFX or INTX but theirs is no point on birthing ideas around and do not make ‘em come true. It’s pointless.
As you might know INTPs like theories by the sake of theories and don’t feel the need on applying (read as test) them and most INTPs have ideas and lack the discipline to apply or long test these to make ‘em becoming true.
I’m saying that by own experiences being an INTP. I have great ideas but I’m lazy I am not disciplined to apply my ideas so I mostly try to give em around and see if somebody (probly an S) apply ‘em.
Let’s suppose the idea –which is important of course- is a seed, but it can die and turn out anything useful, so there is a need of somebody to turn that seed out a tree. There is the importance of every type. Preferences doesn’t make any type best than another.
“Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.”
To add more information for your list: Steve Jobs was a ISTP (http://careerassessmentsite.com/assessments/mbti/965-celebrity-mbti-istp...).

That’s my two cents.

Anonymous's picture
James: S for Stupid.
2 years 1 week ago

Hey great article. I've always said S for stupid, it doesn't normally take much time talking to a sensor to work that one out. Although as you have pointed out they are useful as they will follow protocol without question.
Now I noticed you have Einstein's IQ as 200, I can't find any evidence to back that up and as far as I know he never actually did an IQ test. Could you show your sources?

Anonymous's picture
Erik: If IQ = intelligence, then N's might have an advantage
2 years 1 week ago

If you count an IQ test as a measure of intelligence, I would suspects that N's do better, since most of those tests test exactly what N's are good at: relationships between objects and patterns.

I think N's think they are smarter, and that might be true, but it doesn't matter. There is no way in hell I would let Einstein build my house, or fly my plane or operate on me if I got sick.

He was good at what he did, but in order for the world to go around, you need people with other skills as well.

If I had to choose to live in a world with just S' or just N's, I think I would go with the S'. Then things would actually be done. I would have a hard time finding a stimulating conversations, but the overall infrastrucutre would be in place.

Anonymous's picture
Baron of Cleveland: No insults intended, although
2 years 6 days ago
@Erik (view comment)

No insults intended, although I am sure someone will read this and be offended, I want to quote Erik, from above, because I find that the highly practical people I speak to, usually strong Sensors as far as the MBTI is concerned, all basically share this philosophical viewpoint.

"…in order for the world to go around, you need people with other skills as well."

This, to me, sounds like a good representation of the sensor’s worldview.

There is no room in the concrete Sensor perception of the world that this world they want to help go round is oftentimes a construct designed by other people. They know only that the world exists and deal with the world on that level.

I posit sensors are psychologically tuned to the world going round and are interested in the practical tasks that are associated with the world going round. But sensors are not psychologically equipped to deal with WHY the world is going round the way it's going round, nor are they interested in the WHY very much. Nor do strong Sensors, in general, care to question the validity of the world. To put it another way, put a box in front of a strong sensor, he will say it’s a box and his relationship to the box ends there. Put the box in front of the strong iNtuitive, and he might question the box, why the box is there, does it have to be there, if it does not have to be there can it be replaced by something else/something better, realize that the box doesn’t need to be there at all, and preplace it with a cylinder or a pyramid. The strong Sensor then says, okay here’s a cylinder, and that’s it. While the Intuitive goes right on questioning the cylinder, etc. Where I work the executives are always refining and changing strategy, and the workers continually berate the executives for changing. A sensor would tend to think an iNtuitive who reacted to the box with this level of thought was a jackass, but the iNtuitive might tend to think the Sensor who said “it’s a box” was dense for taking the box as a box and not representative of something more. The literal, concrete, it-is-what-it-is way that sensors understand the world makes them not naturally equipped to decipher the WHYs behind the surface. To say it another way, sensors are at a disadvantage in any context that requires abstract reasoning or design. On the other hand, a Sensor is at a natural advantage in any context that requires literal understanding or the carrying out of practical applications. The why tends to be the domain of the iNtuitives. I see this illustrated everyday where I work. We have a number of mills where raw materials are ground into powder and all of the mill operators are of a very concrete mindset. They discuss things like their lawn, oil changes, a leaky basement and a mildew problem; whether the mill is running correctly, fixing the mill if it is not milling correctly, getting the raws milled, processed, etc. When I go to the factory floor, I start talking with them, generally about abstract things, their eyes glaze over. They just aren’t interested. When we talk about practical deals like car loans and insurance and cell phone plans, things I give two turds about but make them go bonkers with excitement, I am inevitably informed I am getting screwed on interest rates, and they laugh at me and tell me I could be paying hundreds of dollars less every year if I was just more practical and worldly and didn’t let people screw me on the details. Then they call me an egghead and think I’m stupid. I’m not stupid, I just function in my level of competency, and I get to rebut their perceptions with this: “This year I redesigned the warehouse layout to increase productivity, saving the company half a million dollars in labor, of which I received a 20k dollar bonus. I guess that makes up for me getting screwed out of a few hundred dollars on my interest rate!”

As mentioned in the original article, Ns designed America, they also designed Socialism, two abstract and contradictory systems for ordering the chaos of the world. The sensors, in whichever context they find themselves, are compelled by their nature and design to help either system (America or Socialism) go round. That’s the nature of it.

Which brings me to the point of this long-winded comment.

I've been wondering if the amount of practical tasks that fill the day, which, for all I can tell, take up almost the entire day, is directly related to the amount of sensors in the world. If psychologically the world is comprised of 75-80% sensors then—I posit—approx. 75-80% of tasks will be practical in nature. I posit this because, as far as I can tell, humans try to balance their world, and people try to find and solve the problems that they are naturally equipped to solve. In this way, if sensors are the majority of the population, a majority of the population will be searching for—and if none are found, CREATING—concrete practical issues that they can solve. And further, I posit, a sensor does this because a sensor who is participating in and solving practical issues is a happy sensor.

(Of course, my Sensor friends would tell me that there are just more practical tasks to solve in this world because practical issues are of supreme importance.)

And, likewise, iNtuitives do the same thing. And an iNtuitive who finds a place in society where he/she can function in a Big Picture way, you have a happy iNtuitive.

It's like if you were born a wrench, you'd be on the lookout for bolts you could turn. If you were born a hammer, you'd be on the lookout for nails you could pound. If you were a wrench you would feel useful if you found bolts to turn because it’s in your nature and potential to turn bolts—this would provide you with happiness. If you were a hammer you'd feel useful if you found nails to pound because it’s in your nature and potential to pound nails—this would provide you happiness.

Wrenches cannot turn themselves into hammers, and hammers cannot turn themselves into wrenches. (Of course, we have multi-tools, but that’s another discussion.)

Likewise, with human beings. If you are a sensor, you cannot turn yourself into an intuitive. You might be able to improve your big picture thinking, they way you could hammer a nail in place with the rounded side of a wrench, but you will always essentially be designed to take in the world in a concrete way. If you are iNtuitive, you might improve your practical abilities (might even have to because there are so many practical tasks and people out there), but you will never take the world in in a literal concrete way. That is, you will never, if you were a hammer, be optimized to turn bolts. If you are a concrete, practical sensor, you'll probably find the most happiness in solving practical, concrete tasks. If you are intuitive, you'll probably find the most happiness in solving big picture questions.

When the two types crisscross, when the Intuitive is sucked into the practical world, you are in most cases going to create unhappiness on both sides—in the intuitive for working counter to his natural design, and in his employer who needs practical tasks completed. And when the sensor is sucked into a world of abstract reasoning, you are also going to generate unhappiness—both in the sensor who does not care for abstract thought and the employer who is running a think tank not a machine shop.

The most fulfilled society will have practical people carrying out the tasks that make the world go round, and intuitive abstract thinkers designing that world.

In the end, it’s symbiotic. Sort of.

Anonymous's picture
Baron of Cleveland: I just wanted to add to my
2 years 6 days ago
@Baron of Cleveland (view comment)

I just wanted to add to my above comment.

Sometimes Sensors get upset when an iNtuitive sounds superior (I think understandably so) and the Sensor might cite proof that Sensors have in fact been very successful in leadership positions, like the Office of the President of the USA. (Or as people like to argue CEO Sensor Steve Jobs is a brilliant refutation of the iNtuitive claim to dominance, without mentioning the dude who actually came up with the computers that Steve Jobs made look so pretty was Steve Wozniak, most likely and NT rational.)

This isn't the argument that's being made here.

Take certain contexts that we likely perceive as leadership positions, like CEOs of fashionable computer companies, VPs of North American Marketing, or the Office of the President of the United Stated of America, and you can see that even a context as high and powerful as the Presidency is still a created context and not necessarily a context of leadership, but one of execution. Leadeship is different than execution, no matter how high the executive position is in the hierarchy of the organization. Leadership is more about the vision needed to design and create the organization, not the execution of positions once the organization is put in place. Make no mistake about it, the USA is a designed organization just like Apple or Microsoft is. America is an abstraction designed to make a certain type of sense out of the chaos of the world. It takes a visionary to design the concept and system behind the country, and a visionary to foresee the type of behavior that will destroy the organization. But the Presidency is a created office and can be executed just as competently, although with differences, by a Sensor as an iNtuitive, just as any other job can. The execution will be different and focus on different things depending on who sits in that office. For example, contrast Obama, Reagan, Truman, and Lincoln. But either side can execute the office.

I think one of the points Slayerment is making is that even positions such as President of the USA, or the VP of sales, etc, are positions that Sensors can execute, and execute well given a high functioning individual, you won't really find the Sensor who possesses the Big Picture vision to dream up the architecture behind the position. That's where the visionaries excel.

Executive positions (even when perceived as a leadership positions), such as The Office of the President of The United States of America, are created by men and most likely by iNtuitive Thinkers—rationals.

Who were the men that created the highest executive position in the USA?

Thomas Jefferson, Bejamin Franklin, and John Adams—all NT rationals.

Anonymous's picture
Erik: As a firm believer in
1 year 9 months ago
@Baron of Cleveland (view comment)

As a firm believer in evolution, I think you might be on to something

Anonymous's picture
Phoedolyn: While I can see some truth to
2 years 4 days ago

While I can see some truth to this hypothesis, it doesn't help explain why my INTP husband seems to have a harder time getting employed as a professor while his ISTJ friend seems to have no problems at all. The world values the SJ's. Seems like NTs are more appreciated when they are dead.

Anonymous's picture
Dr. Nicolaes Tulp : A Few Observations
1 year 10 months ago


Your article was entertaining, fairly well written, and clearly interesting, otherwise I would not be taking the time to write this (and maybe I should find better uses of my time). I apologize if the thoughts I am presenting here were already mentioned and discussed in detail -- I have no doubt that I am repeating some of the sentiments already stated.

For starts, the personality "test" (the MBTI prefers to be called an instrument, not a test) you posted is not an accurate representation of the MBTI test you are using to make your point. The MBTI usually costs money and must be administered by a certified professional. Yes, I have taken the "real" MBTI. Posting a link to one of these faux MBTI questions only adds to the confusion and I imagine has some bearing on the statistics people seem to insist on using as facts for their arguments (wherever this magical data comes from anyways).

Guessing types I believe is also considered an "unethical" use of the instrument according to the MBTI (http://www.myersbriggs.org/myers-and-briggs-foundation/ethical-use-of-th...). I understand that this is all for argument's sake though, but I thought I would make mention of it. Yes, I know discussing this "ethically" would take all of the fun out of it, and you already mentioned that you do not believe in the "pros and cons" of the S/N types as you do not believe they exist. Based on the MBTI descriptions, you do need all types as they all have a role, like in a roleplaying game -- we can't all be a mage, and let's face it, the rogue is pretty cool, and healers are nice to have around.

To go further, these exams/tests/instruments in both the IQ and personality realms were more than likely created by the "iNtuitive" types. Based on this, it could be argued that there is great overlap or bias in what clearly lends itself to favor a certain kind of thinking and way to process information. In this way, it would seem that none of these "tests" really do an accurate job of telling us much of anything as many aspects and results are highly disputed and subjective. In this way, your article puts its faith entirely in the "truth" of these tests and does not account for an entire spectrum of qualities and variables, such as society, upbringing, culture, time, and place that also affect leadership, influence, and so forth -- there were many great women that you left off your list (and I suppose we could argue that based on these tests and your list there is also a gender bias). What personality type were Amelia Earhart or Mother Teresa, for example? We can only guess, which is deemed unethical by the MBTI anyways. But really, just for fun . . . I'm sure somewhere the unfailing, paramount of truth that is the internet has the answer.

To continue, the examples you use are completely based on your value judgments. For instance, you appear to place little value in the entertainment industry. Influential people were entertained or were even entertainers themselves. There are a host of the "N" types in the entertainment industry. Stanley Kubrick (a mage type, no doubt) was probably an "N," but that's just a hunch. Clint Eastwood (a rogue type), another notable director and iconic figure is labelled an ISTP (how unethical). But this is the entertainment industry: who needs that? By your argument, all presidents had some influence and were great leaders. Also by your logic, you consider them pawns when all of the names you mentioned were also pawns for someone else, realistically and in the grande scheme of nature. What about great authors? Are they also needless entertainers?

And to conclude, if you are claiming to be an "N" type, I'm surprised that you would put so much stock into labels and categories like the MBTI. Does being associated with an "N" type personality label makes you "feel good" about yourself? And I don't need to mention that your article was entertaining in a Rush Limbaugh kind of way -- I don't think I've read so many ad hominems in one article. But it was interesting and obviously something I was doing a little research on.

Well, enough playing devil's advocate.


-ESFP/INTJ (on a bad day)

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Great point about the MBTI
1 year 10 months ago
@Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (view comment)

Great point about the MBTI test and I would have to agree. Obviously a 10 minute test created by who knows who is not going to be as accurate or insightful as a complete test taken elsewhere. That said, there are still going to be trends and things to gather. For example, most people I know tend to view themselves as more N when taking these tests. When given the opportunity to lie about themselves, many people do. Number 8 on that test I linked says, "Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome". Many people will lie about this and be like, "Oh yeah, cool, I don't follow the rules!! I'm so clever!!" when in reality their whole life is built around established rules, religion, the state, etc and they don't have the understanding to know what's wrong with them -- and even if they did, they don't have the fortitude to stand against them. Another one, #11, "You often think about humankind and its destiny". I bet everyone answers yes to this one when you know they're lying. Most people could care less about humanity and spend a lot more time thinking about what's in it for them. So if anything I would think people error on the side of N on these tests, similar to somebody lying on a job interview to appear more interesting than they really are.

Hah, yeah that's funny about ethics. I think I broke all the ethical guidelines in this article. I would much rather be unethically aware than ethically unaware. Data is data. We can make of it what we will. Some people can ignore data, others can work with it. That's how discernment works.

It's true the tests could be created by more intuitive types and that could be argued in favor of them or against them. In contrast to what you're saying it could also be said that intuitives made these tests because they are curious enough to care or make such correlations. S tests would, perhaps, provide less value. There is obviously a free market as to all types of tests and if N tests happen to rise to the top that would lend some credence towards the accuracy and wisdom of the creating force behind such tests in the first place.

In addition to what you're saying about the people on my list (and all the other commenters as well), these people were compiled by going through the Internet and tallying up all the votes. There are obviously tons of ways to do this and I'm by no means saying this is a complete list. Anyone can go to Google and search for most influential people throughout history. Check all the different lists and things people say and why they say it. You're going to confirm similar trends to those that I found. I'm not saying who do I think is the most influential. I'm saying who does everyone else think is influential and then let's see what patterns arise.

I disagree with you about entertainers. Sure, it does depend on how you define entertainer, because people like Kubrick are far from an entertainer IMO. You don't find him on the screen performing, you find him behind the screen planning. You would never find most actors directing, especially to the caliber of Kubrick -- brilliant director BTW, highly under-rated. Clint Eastwood is probably an exception, he's a smart dude. But again, while he does "entertain/act" his influence shines much more in his directing, again something most entertainers could not pull off. I'm not saying there's no value in entertainment, I'm saying the front people in entertainment (actors, politicians, etc) are not influential or necessarily intelligent, especially when compared to the true brilliance behind them (directors, writers, businessmen, etc). There is value in the creation of movies, stories, art, all these things. There is less value being the tool to perform it. Is there more value in John Williams creating a score or the orchestra performing it? There are tons and tons of orchestras who can play his music close to perfection. But there is only 1 John Williams who can capture such emotion, depth and imagination in a score.

As for presidents... some were pawns, others not so much. It depends and it leans a lot on history. And there can still be smart pawns, like Woodrow Wilson for example. But there can also be stupid pawns, like George Bush Jr. and Jimmy Carter. It would require a full American history discussion to really go into detail about the presidents.

Now please stop with this unethical behavior of judging others before somebody deals with you. Don't you know you're not supposed to question things in this world? Just put your head down and let your masters guide your life for you like a good sensor. How dare you! ;)

Anonymous's picture
Dr. Nicolaes Tulp Jr.: Touche'
1 year 10 months ago


Thank you for taking your time to respond. I came back to this and decided to go through some of the previous comments, and when I did, I realized I reiterated many of the posts above, namely Andrew Parkinson's. So, that was pretty much a waste, but again, thank you for taking your time to respond. I probably wouldn't have bothered posting if I had read those first.

But while we're on this . . . I see now what you mean about entertainers and the like. I suppose I will add to that and simply say good actors, like Marlon Brando or Heath Ledger, really brought a vision to life, and actually had visions of their own. They told the director "I want to do it my way" and came up with their own vision for the character. Christopher Nolan, whom I believe to be a good director, had a great vision for another person's creation, but it was really Heath Ledger, the actor, who made the movie in my opinion. Of course, it really is a symbiotic relationship. The same goes for “The Godfather” or “Apocalypse Now.” The vision was great and well done (both movies based on books, of course), but Marlon Brando used his method acting skills to bring those characters to life. I would hardly say it is just "entertainment" -- there is so much depth and analysis one can do on that character alone (and it is speculated, based on internet information, that The Godfather is an INTJ. Funny, and Brando, speculated to be an ISTP, convincingly acting as an INTJ?). Either way, they were both visions based on a creation that was really the idea of someone else. And even to that end, Stanley Kubrick, while he brought stories to life, really based his ideas on a lot of books. Of course, Ridley Scott did the same with some of his biggest movies as well as a host of other visionary directors. I am in no way discrediting them for their vision or greatness, however as they are two different mediums. Also, this isn't to say I don't understand what you mean when you speak of fickle entertainers, but something to that effect would be "Glee" for me -- I really don't see the draw. Or even worse . . . American Idol. To that end, I completely agree with you. It was really about sorting out what you meant by "entertainment." Also, I especially liked your John Williams example. All this to say, I think we're on the same page here, I just want to clarify, which is difficult to do through a form of communication like this. If we were face to face having a drink, I'm sure this would all go completely different. Or, perhaps we will evolve some kind of telepathy to make this all easier.

And we all "judge" people. I have many "sensor" friends (at least this is how they came out on the MBTI) that are terribly judgmental in areas that I find utterly superfluous, like petty ethical judgments and so on. While I’ve found they give worm’s eye insight to my bird’s eye perspective, I find some of them to be greatly missing the point, or when trying to have an intelligent discussion concerning, oh let's say Woody Allen's "September" (based on Chekhov, of course), all I get is something along the lines of "not much really happened. They just kind of talked a lot," which drives me mad. But I have to understand that . . . it's true. They did "just talk a lot." But a whole hell of a lot happened when you "look closer," to borrow from American Beauty (or Pleasantville and a host of other books and movies). Basically, it’s all about point of reference; it’s just too bad we don’t have Lorentz transformations for opinions.

I’ll keep going a little more. In some ways, if a movie is too esoteric, I consider it a part of my criteria to attribute that negatively to some degree because it can't be understood on a universal level like Beethoven or John Williams (arguably). For instance, no matter how much I love Tom Waits, there are just some people that will think he sucks, which is a shame. But I can hear it from their perspective and just think they're missing out. But then you could argue "what is the point of it all anyways?" That is a good point. Being an intellectual might help you become a great strategist, but when you become a POW, you're in deep shit! But I think we both agree that great leaders need great bodyguards. Where would Emperor Palpatine be without Darth Vader? When it all comes down to it, it really is about vision, but I try to see it as an inevitable, symbiotic relationship where both perspectives are needed to make the whole, not just the “Ns” alone.

I would be interested in coming up with a better theory that is more comprehensive rather than the "either or" nature of the MBTI. I also wonder if the "N" type is really just a more intelligent person that is drawn to more "intellectual" things, and that is simply all it is -- this "N" thing doesn't actually exist at all. In the little research I've done, I've found descriptions of "gifted" people and children reading like introverted "N" types. Some additional research I was doing on the correlation between personality and IQ can be found here, but it is inconclusive and not entirely reliable:


Again, thank you for responding. I enjoyed your article.

Carpe Annum,

- Dr. N.T. Jr.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Yeah, I agree with you on
1 year 10 months ago
@Dr. Nicolaes Tulp Jr. (view comment)

Yeah, I agree with you on entertainers and I agree with the examples you've provided.

I agree with what you're saying about sensors. I think one of the main things it comes down to is they lack curiosity. Sensors, I find, are less curious than inuitives. Intuitives really want to see all the angles and gain the full perspective. Intuitives dig and dig and compare -- they're curious. Sensors don't dig as much and they're not as curious. They take things at face value and come across as naive. They often don't see the complexity or fullness of a topic.

I also agree about the judging part. Sensors judge on different things than inuitives. Another interesting aspect is how the MBTI is grouped. Ns are grouped with T and F. You have NTs and NFs. Ss are grouped with J and P. You have SJs and SPs. From my understanding that is because that is what matters more to them. Inuitives care more about the T and the F while sensors care more about the J and the P. I view the T and the F as more philosophical and inward oriented where I view the J and the P as more superficial and outward oriented. Sensors care about what people wear and the presentation more than the content often times. Intuitives want the info. This is why T and F will matter less when dealing with a sensor. You won't see them pull as strong in either one of these directions, they will pull stronger in J or P. Inuitives won't pull as strongly on J or P stuff, they are focused more on the T and the F. Yes, the functions obviously play into this as well but there is still much more to it than just the functions. The Ti of an INTP is still different than the Ti of an ISTP. But I digress.

You bring up another great point about understanding things on a universal level. I'm in agreement again. The top selling and most popular music is pop. We all know a pop song usually follows the same structure and has similar progressions. Pop songs are super easy to make yet they resonate most with people -- I freaking love pop songs too. It's hard not to like them. But there are also those other songs which are more complex or different that are still just as good, if not better. Quite interesting how things work.

I agree with you 100% about what you're saying about the "either or" nature of MBTI. I think I hinted at this in my article and nobody ever talks about it. I think one of the flaws with MBTI (and most things) is how they break things into duality and opposites. I don't really view anything that way. I view things as containers and as how full each container is. I would see the S and the N as not contrasting polarities, but rather two individual containers containing their own unique qualities where each individual can choose to fill them however far the wish. I actually go into this topic in my book quite a bit. It's quite interesting really. I think you can easily have an N who is 90% N, but also say 80% S. You can also have an S who is 40% S and 10% N. So in this case the "intutive" person would actually be a stronger sensor than the "sensor" person. It's similar to people who study English and Math. Women are generally geared towards English, Men towards Math. But every once in a while you get somebody who is good at both, regardless.

Anonymous's picture
Dr. Nicolaes Tulp: One More Thing . . .
1 year 10 months ago

Hello Again Quinton,

I hate to be overbearing, but I forgot to add something else about the MBTI types that I found interesting in going through your writings and your biography.

I noticed at the end of your response that you mentioned being a good "sensor" means not questioning in the world. I know this is a cute generalization, but I thought I would add something that I've found interesting in my observations about this within the scope of the MBTI.

I have several ISTP friends, one of which recently took the "real" MBTI and after several diagnostics came out as an ISTP -- he actually answered the written questions and came out as an INTJ initially. He also dropped out of college, had his own business, and did quite well as an entrepreneur just like yourself. He is a master of the electric guitar, a multi-instrumentalist, and enjoys composing music, albeit very different from my more conceptual style, but still just as good to my ears. He is also a very good artist and a great carpenter and sculptor and is very concerned with the mastery of these things. He and I have similar movie tastes, such as Kubrick, James Cameron (for the most part), and Christopher Nolan. David Lynch kind of leaves him in the dust though, which is fine.

He questions all of the established norms and dislikes college, our current society, and our current government. He is very much "his own person."

If you read about the ISTP type, you will find that generally they are all about "doing their own thing." That means, they are the natural rebel or rogue type. I have several friends who came out as an ISTP, another of which who's dad is a psychologist and administered the MBTI to him. So that is at least two that have taken the actual MBTI and have come out as ISTP types, which actually surprised me. I get along with them very well in this way as we all greatly admire and value autonomy, not "following the rules" or "traditions." This is not to say that I don't think that these things have their place, they just usually don't sit well with me.

Here are a few snippets of internet info that I've pulled. I asked one of my ISTP friends if he agreed with these statements, and he said they were fair assessments:

"ISTPs are fiercely independent, needing to have the space to make their own decisions about their next step. They do not believe in or follow rules and regulations, as this would prohibit their ability to 'do their own thing.'"

"ISTPs avoid making judgments based on personal values - they feel that judgments and decisions should be made impartially, based on the fact. They are not naturally tuned in to how they are affecting others. They do not pay attention to their own feelings, and even distrust them and try to ignore them, because they have difficulty distinguishing between emotional reactions and value judgments. This may be a problem area for many ISTPs."

"Like most SPs, ISTPs may have trouble with rote and abstract classroom learning, which tend not to be good measures of their actual intelligence. They tend, sometimes with good reason, to be highly skeptical of its practical value, and often gravitate towards classes in industrial arts; part-time vocational/ technical programs can be useful to even the college-bound ISTP."

I read your bio and saw that you also hated college like my ISTP friends. Your generalizations on the teachers and students sounded exactly like my friends, who basically summed up their whole experience as "trite, impractical, and depressing." They would talk of conversations they would overhear and talk about how the professors didn't have anything valuable to say. You also attended a technical college, which is fine. This is what I am referring to in my comparison to you as an ISTP type:

"College sucked. I hated it. The people were dumb. The teachers were dumb. It wasn't for me. It was easy, time consuming and irrelevant to real-world problems. Even though it was a computer school it was terrible. I knew more than the teachers."

"N" types have a hard time hating college, and a lot of them are the "dumb" professors you mentioned. You also clearly mentioned "real-world problems," which is p-r-a-c-t-i-c-a-l-i-t-y, or practical application, a massive XSTP need. You claimed you knew more than the professors about the subject, which sounds exactly like what my ISTP friends would say about hands-on experience. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that practically speaking in your mind, you might be right. Do you enjoy philosophy, physics, art history, and so forth? How big is the pile of books that you are eager to read but will never have time to? Or are you more interested in getting out there, doing your own thing, and being action/mission-oriented? The former are big "N" giveaways; the latter are a big "XSTP" giveaway.

Have you taken the actual MBTI? I am not asking about how you came out because that is none of my business, but it would just appear that with your value of practical application, computer aptitude (I have another ISTP friend who took a job as a computer technician and learned the ins and outs in one month, which is extraordinary -- did not go to college either) and views that you sound quite a lot like my ISTP fiends. I am just wondering if you have taken it because you might be surprised that you yourself are an XSTP type. I am of course not calling you my friend nor am I concluding that you are an XSTP because I don't even know you and am basing this simply on your writing style and viewpoints, but I think it's plausible.

"He was pretty good at getting traffic from search engines. He showed me the tricks of the trade. This was new to me and very interesting because it complimented my skillset. I knew how to build and develop websites, but I never knew how to market them and manage them really."

It sounds like he was the "N" and you were the producer, which is a big XSTP thing. You could build, but you didn't know how to market or m-a-n-a-g-e. This would have come naturally to you were you an "N" as you wouldn't know where to begin with marketing your vision and strategy for your (his) company. This also sounds like my entrepreneur ISTP friend who got others to do his marketing while he built his products for his business using his extensive skill-set. Either way, I am not trying to take away your pride in your work as I think what you're doing is admirable and you obviously have talent and skill; I am just making a case here because you read a hell of a lot like my buddies.

To sum this up, I think questioning the government, disliking society, and valuing autonomy is more a function of the "P" than the "N," because I have several INTJ friends who are lawyers and politicians and absolutely love it all just for the debate. Also, none of us believes "The man" actually exists -- in the words of Don Draper, "the world is indifferent." Naturally, "N" types can talk for hours on their analysis of themes in books, movies, and overall academia; "N" types would not have fun in a technical field or building or producing something.

These were just some patterns I observed in your writing and sharing of yourself. You also are very to the point when communicating your thoughts and use a lot of concise sentences. This reminds me of:


Sensing - The period
Intuition - The comma


I would also like to inform you that I am debating with myself just as much as I am with your internet persona -- I enjoy playing both sides, so this is all in good fun to me. Since this article was based on the MBTI, I thought I would throw out a few MBTI related questions. Notwithstanding, I do think it would be especially amusing if you were an XSTP type insulting yourself.



Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Hah, you look into this stuff
1 year 10 months ago
@Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (view comment)

Hah, you look into this stuff as much as I do, I love it!

That would be something if it turns out all this time I was an ISTP :P. I could go on for hours talking to you about this stuff. I think a lot of this comes down to what you hinted at before when you mentioned "either or", and I think my article kinda talks about this. BTW, I use lots of concise sentences because I find it more effective in communication. I try not to use big words and I try to make it short and easy -- people have low attention spans.

But anywho, I think it is entirely possible for somebody to possess basically all the qualities of an ISTP and still possess qualities of another type like INFP for example. Some people more than others. I think a lot of Ns are this way. I think when they really want to they can emulate an S pretty well. I think they just find that eventually they get sick of the rote crap and just find somebody else to do it. That's kinda how I operate with computers. I know the stuff very well myself, but I find people to replace me because I care more about the end result and less about doing it. Yes, I love doing it too, but if you want to be most effective you need to learn to delegate. I think some people are just able to be more things and do more than other people. Many entrepreneurs and businessmen could easily go back to being the employee sitting behind the desk for the greater part of 8 hours each day, but they have moved past that. Conversely, many of the people sitting behind the desks for 8 hours each day probably could not become the entrepreneur off hand. It would take lots of work and even after lots of work they still may not be cut out for it. So this is where I think the MBTI, and most things, fall short. They don't see that you can have both and they try to put it into one camp. Obviously you're not doing this, I'm just trying to make my point.

Back to what I said earlier. It's like a math whiz who is also a master in English. This person is just probably smarter than most people. They are able to do 2 things really well where most people struggle to just do 1 of these things well.

Thanks for the great posts and observations. You really brought up some great points :) I agree with everything you're saying and I think you have sound reasoning behind it.

Take care my friend.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: And BTW...
1 year 10 months ago
@Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (view comment)

You should see the stack of books I have that I'm waiting to read. I spend close to 1/3 of my time reading. One of the books I'm currently reading is called, "Lectures on Ancient Philosophy" if that is any hint. And no, I've never taken an official MBTI, all online tests and research.

Anonymous's picture
See me ISFPing: lol
1 year 10 months ago

I'm an ISFP.

My IQ is only slightly above average. I'm repulsed by abstractions.

I'm an S because I prefer to feel it, breath it, do it, see it, hear it, smell it. I want to LIVE it. EXPERIENCE it.
I'm one of those persons that gets bored shitless listening to lectures, I'd rather do it, use it.
N's being more 'free'?
If you want to talk stereotypes SP's are the embodied stereotype of being adventures.
All those people doing the most insane and risky things are SP's, living life at the edge. Extravertes more so than introverts.

Having read here and there with some people claiming to be N's, they seem quite dumb for N's. Telling all the lesser intelligent folk they meet in life must be S! So dumb they are! Stupid S barbarians! OMG <-- this reaction seems to be the opposite of true intelligence to me.

70% of those idiots here saying so are S's... 75%-25%, remember? If they all are indeed N, than I hope it will forever be 75-25 so those N's with their shitty personalitys will forever be in the minority.

ISFP out.

Anonymous's picture
See me ISFPing: Also, yes I HATE leading. Now
1 year 10 months ago

Also, yes I HATE leading. Now why do I hate so and why will I turn down every chance I get to lead?

I hate being bound and shackled into doing things I don't want. I hate telling people what to do, I find it quite uncomfortable too. I'd rather go my OWN WAY. This is my preference and there's nothing wrong with that.

If you so desire to yell at people all the time and having to put up with all the shitty fuss around it, than do so if you enjoy it.

Anonymous's picture
Dr. Nicolaes Tulp Sr.: To Conclude
1 year 10 months ago

Hello (Once More),

Thank you again for taking your time to respond thoughtfully and without taking offense to what I wrote. I find it extremely irritating when someone responds with hostility and emotion, and you have managed to objectively look at my posts and follow the reasoning behind them without taking it personally. I was being garrulous more than anything, though.

You are probably right about me looking into the MBTI too deeply. Psychology and theories in general are a lot of fun to banter around with, and I suppose it got the better of me here, even though it was never discussed in any kind of depth. I am torn with the MBTI because I can break it down or at least observe it at work in people, but I am not sure I entirely believe it can be restricted to personality alone, or that some of the elements are really strong enough to strictly constitute personality.

In case you are not aware of this, one more thing I would like to clarify is that the MBTI does not assign percentages to what preference an individual chooses. I'm sure you are familiar with this, but the preferences work like using your right or left hand -- an intuitive type might use some sensing abilities, but an "NT" type will probably have a damned difficult time becoming a carpenter (or enjoy it for that matter) like an "ST" probably would. You are stuck with that preference from birth as it relates to functions of the brain (from what I've read). A sensing type can work on intuition, but it will never come as naturally or as freely as it will to an intuitive type and vice versa -- I can work on a sink, but it will take me more time to get in there and physically fix the problem, or even figure out the details of the problem; conversely, one of my ISTP buddies will just pull out an allen wrench and fix it in five minutes (this has scenario has happened before) without even completely knowing the problem -- it is like some kind of magical mechanic intuition. My "ability," or lack thereof, comes from standing back and figuring out how to dismantle the sink or go about getting to that portion of the sink, and sometimes I see opportunities for making the repair more efficient. But that isn't practical for actually fixing the sink, which is what needs to get done, even though it can be helpful and save considerable time. However, when it comes to impractical things like over analyzing everything until it doesn't exist, that I can do.

Anyways, I hope this clears this up a little. If you are an intuitive, you have a preference for intuition, just like if you are right or left handed. If you are left handed, you can try to use your right hand, but you won't write nearly as well no matter how long you practice. The same goes for personality types.

I've enjoyed writing, and again, thank you for your thoughtful responses. I don't know if you've read this, but here is a funny, over-exaggerated breakdown of the MBTI types just for fun. I don't think I have to tell you this, but . . . don't take it personally!


Enjoy the introduction on ancient philosophy. Books like these will never leave your stack because you will always want to come back to them. I was not making any kind of judgment on you for disliking college as you can always learn on your own, which is commendable and is something anyone should do whether or not attending college and beyond. I of course always think fondly on this man's wisdom:

"I've never let school interfere with my education."

Zum Wohl!

Anonymous's picture
Karlee: What I have to say to a few of you jerks :P
1 year 10 months ago

This theory categories the perceiving function under two contrasting methods. How can anybody who has been labeled intuitive claim knowledge over the process of sensing without the experience a sensor would have? Perhaps your sensing function is just weaker than your intuiting one, and so you generalize it as weaker. Intelligence is so subjective and complicated that it is nearly intangible and almost guaranteed to be misunderstood in it's manifestations.People always use it to determine things in the wrong ways. Calling somebody dumb because they are not articulate, when being so is a skill based on specific and complicated internal variables manifested in a certain way (not something you could possibly generalize as intelligence, not when if they were clearly separated you would not. You wouldn't say that confidence is a direct result of intelligence, right?) In my math class I, being an INFP, was the "stupid" one. I was a consistent C- average compared to the majority of my sensing acquaintances decent marks :P

I cannot do many things that are so easy for people who are sense inclined. Probably because where my mind is usually busy, theirs are dealing with something else in another realm. I almost failed P.E. class, can you believe that? Both are valuable, and I appreciate the qualities in others that are weak in myself.

Anonymous's picture
Liz: your article is nonsense. it
1 year 9 months ago

your article is nonsense. it's OK to make leaps of logic, but your "insight" here is just regurgitated pop psychology and pseudo science clearly formulated to feed your narcissism. whatever you claim your motive might be aside, your data (citing wikipedia, typing the deceased, which goes against MBTI ethics, and estimating IQs for the deceased, which is probably frowned upon by most IQ test administrators) is invalid and unreliable, which renders your conclusion meaningless.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Angry S's
1 year 9 months ago

It seems to me that most of the angry commenters on this tag are the stereotypical angry, undignified, and refusing to allow themselves to be wrong, S types. And to whoever said this writer appeared to be an S, the fact alone that he put together the patterns in relation to MBTI, IQ, and historical influence proves in and of itself that he is obviously an N. Nice try, sensor.

Anonymous's picture
Cynical: Bull Shit
1 year 9 months ago

I find this article complete crap. Can you even call it an article? The author makes a stupid claim, gives half ass "evidence" and then asserts that he has proved his case. A "real NT", or whatever he is, would obsessively observe all the flaws of such a theory. This guy just accepts it because the completely subjective--and therefore inaccurate--tests floating around Google gave him a description he likes.

Moreover, the typical IQ exam only tests one or two types of intelligences: recognizing patterns, etc, something that an N would have an obvious advantage. In other words those tests are biased and favor Ns. IQ exams do not test for the other six types of intelligence: spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. "Sensors" would probably dominate in those areas.

I don't believe in mbti theory at all, but because of the moron above me said that those people angry with this article are stereotypical "S types" I thought I might add that for the past ten years I have got a very strong "INTJ" with all percentages in 80s-90s.

Anonymous's picture
Sensotard from La-La land: I'm a sensotard
1 year 9 months ago

(My mother tongue is not English)

Where's my S switch?

As an N I'm a complete sensotard. S types have literally saved my life (and money) several times. I'm really grateful to them.

It was very impressive to see an ISFJ to handle an emergency situation at hand when handling really expensive lab equipment while I was in the La-La land.

I just can not function as a sensor. Driving while paying attention to traffic signs and stuff is hell. One of the curses of wandering mind.

Sports... if you need to loose I'm there for your team. ;) It's pure hell to concentrate physically.

My memory is shit. I like concepts but suck at detailed information. It really created number of problems (aka sometimes lower grades) during my education (currently M.Sc).

I need sensors, badly.

I actually tested as an S several times because I wanted be one. Well, I'm not.

Anonymous's picture
1 year 9 months ago

Personally I feel we need both entertainers and inventors in the world. If we had no one inventing things, then the quality of life due to technology would never advance. On the other hand, if we were incapable of stopping to 'smell the roses', what would be the point of life? Also, the list you have composed of influential people seems to be extremely biased. I don't know how the hell you decided Albert Einstein's IQ was 205, every thing I can find says he had an estimated Q of 'only' about 160.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: I agree we need entertainers
1 year 9 months ago
@ESFPuMad? (view comment)

I agree we need entertainers and people should be free to be whatever the hell the want to be... that still doesn't make them smarter.

My list is biased? What does that even mean? Data is biased? Is this biased?: http://www.eoht.info/page/IQ%3A+200%2B

The exact IQ of Einstein is irrelevant. It's amazing how many people focus on the actual IQ rather than realizing that the IQ being above average is the point being made here -- sensors again. It doesn't matter whether Einstein is 120 IQ or 500 IQ. He is still above average. My point is on ABOVE AVERAGE IQ. It has nothing to do with the amount above average. None of the IQs listed are below average. Who cares what the IQ number is exactly, nobody really knows. What matters is that these people are above average IQ and most people are not. That's all there is to it.

Another point you people like to make: We can't know the IQ or MBTI of dead people? Bullshit. We can guess very closely. If we can guess the IQ or MBTI of a LIVING person and VERIFY these by having them take both tests then we can measure how close we are in GUESTIMATING the IQ or MBTI before the tests are ever taken. Some people will be better than others at guessing what these values are. Most people lie on the tests anyway and you're probably better off having a few other people talk through it. So to say you can't figure out the IQ or MBTI of dead people is ludicrous and another barrier people like to put in front of themselves. You can figure anything out if you really want it.

Moreover, this article isn't even about IQ. IQ is just a small correlation to be made. The greater point being made here is on influence. These people are influential. These people are influential N's. There are more influential N's despite there being 3 sensors for every 1 N. Smart people are always more rare than dumb people. It is common to be dumb. It is rare to be smart. These are the greater points being made.

Anonymous's picture
ESFPuMad?: S>N
1 year 9 months ago

I'm saying your list is biased because you were the one who chose the list of influential people. The only fair way to conduct and experiment like this would be to take a list of ALL influential people throughout history and the determine the ratio of Ns to Ss. I could just as easily compose my own biased list, by scavenging for influential people and compiling a list biased in the favor of sensors. Say that experiment were conducted and the ratio of Ns to Ss was far higher. It doesn't necessarily mean that Ns are smarter, it could mean any number of things. Maybe Ns tend to have a different outlook on life, maybe they're just more likely to be interested in things that will have a lasting effect on society. Also, I guess the point about Einstein's exact IQ isn't really that important. It was more of just me noticing something that I thought wasn't true and pointing it out. As for the 'another point you people like to make' speech, I'm a sensor and I don't completely agree with that. I understand that psychologists can read up on dead people and make inferences about their personality based on what has been written about them and their accomplishments. On a side note, I also noticed from an earlier comment you said that you hire Ss because they're very good at taking directions and bow down to authority. I don't know if this is unique to ESFPs, but that definitely isn't true of me. I don't think anyone should be respected just because they're in a position of authority

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: And what exactly would a non
1 year 9 months ago
@ESFPuMad? (view comment)

And what exactly would a non-biased list look like? There's no such thing. Please assemble your list of influential people, I would love to see what it looks like. Here is a starting point for inspiration: https://www.google.com/search?q=influential+people+throughout+history&aq...

Or perhaps: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=smartest+people+i...

If you actually do the research and care to assemble an accurate list you will find that many, if not all, of the people on my list corroborate with the people you will find on Google. That's how I made my list. I didn't use any one source or one "non-biased" thing. I went to Google and researched it and checked off which names appeared the most. The pattern was very easy to see which names appeared and which types of people were found to be influential.

Anonymous's picture
ESFPuMad?: S>N (cont)
1 year 9 months ago

I also noticed an inference you made that bothered me. You inferred that because I pointed out that Einstein's IQ was inaccurate that I didn't understand the point of the article. Not true, I understand the point of the article was to point out that Ns are smarter and more influential than Ss in general. I was just pointing something out that I thought to be inaccurate.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Fair enough, I appreciate the
1 year 9 months ago
@ESFPuMad? (view comment)

Fair enough, I appreciate the reply :)

Anonymous's picture
Praxis: Sigh. Learn about the cognitive functions.
1 year 8 months ago

Your understanding of MBTI is extremely weak. Your definition of sensing is *extremely* weak. Use the Jungian definitions; the Myers-Briggs organization took his work and dramatically simplified it to the point of stupidity. Your definition for sensing is extremely weak (as it is from Myers-Briggs material instead of Jungian cognitive functions).

And, the Jungian model is far more useful than what Myers-Briggs presents, and actually lines up to modern brain scans.

I wrote this to explain the function model to people.

Your definition of sensing is far more in line with Extroverted Sensing (Se) found in xSxP types, particularly visible in ESxP types. (ISxP types have it lower in their function stack. ISTP's, like Randall who writes XKCD, have Introverted Thinking as their dominant function.)

Introverted Sensing is heavy on factual data over mental models. Introverted Sensors (xSxJ) have this. For fictional characters, I would consider Mr. Spock of Star Trek to be an extreme example of an ISTJ. He might not be as charismatic of a leader as Kirk, but would you call him stupid? He'd crush Kirk in an IQ test. Intelligence is not as linear as you try to portray it. Many doctors and researchers are ISTJs.

Read up on the function model in the link I sent and try again please.

My theory: Intelligent sensors don't feel as strong of a need to "buck the system" as intelligent intuitives. But, bucking the system very rarely works. When it does work, you're immortalized in history. To analogize, "the best cooks in the world are men, but most good cooks are women". That doesn't mean "men are better cooks" or "women are better cooks". And yes, totally sexist example that might not even be true, just seems to be in anecdote.

The most influential people in history are intuitives. I'd bet tons of smart people in history are sensors. The intuitives are just more likely to take risks. For every Julius Caesar there were a hundred failures. The fact that the people who took the big risks and won are more famous doesn't mean the people who did very very well in large numbers and aren't as famous because they made things *more efficient* instead of tearing something down and building something new are less intelligent.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the link, I
1 year 8 months ago
@Praxis (view comment)

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed your article and agree with what you say. I could very well write an article on the cognitive functions but that would be completely unnecessary. There is still accuracy in the MBTI. It may be lacking and people may lie on the tests and not all the tests are the same and on and on. It doesn't matter. I'm not talking in precision, I'm talking in generalities. INTJs are going to read more books than ESFPs generally speaking. ENFPs are going to be more personable than ISTJs most of the time. Yeah, the cognitive functions shed more light on the MBTI. So? It doesn't negate the existing light that exists within the MBTI.

You bring up IQ in your comment. If introverted sensors are so smart why do introverted intuitives generally score higher on IQ tests? Being "heavy on factual data" doesn't make you smart. Being able to accurately draw correlations and creatively develop value is of much more importance towards intelligence, as evidenced by the most influential people throughout history. There are tons of people who can crunch numbers all day long and do rote tasks with precision. This isn't smart, this is a robot. You need to be more than just somebody that does what they're told to be smart. You need a level of independence, vision and creativity. That is why the people on my list are found to be influential by others -- they actually did something of creative value with their intelligence. Of course intelligence isn't linear, that's why Ns are smarter. Ns are less linear than Ss, among other things.

And why don't sensors have a need to buck the system? Why are intuitives much more open to change? It's hard to buck a system if you don't know what's wrong with the system. It's hard to buck a system that you are disillusioned by. This again is part of why intuitives are smarter. Robots don't buck systems, leaders do.

Isn't taking risks part of being smart? Isn't trying things part of being smart? Isn't venturing into the unknown part of being smart? Tons of smart people in history are sensors. But tons of smart people in history are also intuitives. Failing doesn't make you not smart. Failing is a sign of intelligence.

The fact that the people who took the big risks and won are more famous doesn't mean the people who did very very well in large numbers and aren't as famous because they made things *more efficient* instead of tearing something down and building something new are less intelligent.

This makes very little sense. First of all you're assuming the people in large numbers made things more efficient on their own accord, and that the people who took big risks didn't make things more efficient. Those people who did well in large numbers would be doing very little without the creative direction of a visionary leader. People were directing these large numbers of sensors to make things more efficient under their directives. Of course the leader gets the credit, they organized the entire venture and told the large numbers of people what to do. Moreover, tearing things down doesn't mean they are any less efficient than not tearing things down, and more efficient doesn't always mean not tearing things down. Totally not true at all.

Anonymous's picture
not an English speaker: Are you an INTJ/ENTJ?
1 year 3 months ago

Are you an INTJ/ENTJ?

NJs are more likely to be leaders. As an NP I don't crave such power. For me (ENTP) ideas, theories and system building are the things that are much more important than visionary leading and goals which are more important for NJs. I have very hard time to understand Ni Te combination sometimes. Te is such an ugly function for a Ti user when it comes to theories and stuff because they are more interested in practicality ie. outer world.

Ne: I'm always wondering and making connections
Ti: I'm using this to make decisions and evaluating Ne. It's kind of perfectionist and demands absolute clarity in my head but it is not really interested in stuff that happens outside of my head. Yes, I'm messy (Ne+Ti). Not as strong as Ne.
Fe: It is somewhat important to be nice to others and all that jazz.
Si: Kind of despise it but keeps me a bit grounded. :) INTPs rocks at building very detailed models because of better Ti+Si.

And my weakest: Ni, Te, Fi, Se. My Se really sucks. Big time.

As we can see INTPs really benefit from their Si. I would like to have little bit more Se. Se is the carpe diem. I don't really have capability to "live in the moment" even though I can be spontaneous and fun but it happens alternative reality.

Anonymous's picture
Jo: Not to get too OT but
9 months 3 weeks ago
@Praxis (view comment)

how exactly is this sexist? -

"To analogize, "the best cooks in the world are men, but most good cooks are women". That doesn't mean "men are better cooks" or "women are better cooks".

I think people also don't know what sexism means on top of intelligence hear (not meaning to sound rude). Women generally are more interested in cooking therefore they would know how to cook better than someone who usually doesn't care (men). Not sure where hating or having a low opinion of women or men has to do with this.

Anonymous's picture
matt: It seems a lot of the
1 year 8 months ago

It seems a lot of the arguments here are either (understandable) knee-jerk emotional reactions, or critiques based on differing definitions of intelligence, or the MBTI for that matter.

Suppose we define intelligence as a measure of cognitive processing power, so that we can say highly intelligent people think (according to their type) in a faster and more efficient manner than less intelligent people of their type, in the same way faster runners outrun slower runners, or stronger weight lifters out lift weaker ones. An smart XXXX will come mostly to the same conclusions as a typical XXXX, only they get there more expediently. A highly intelligent or genius XXXX extends past normal bounds.

We can ask then what are the effects of high/low intelligence on the different types.

I would say that intelligence thus defined would have the most profound impact on NT and NF types. Highly intelligent NT/NFs would have powerful intuitive insights, finding true new ways to think about things. This is how science and art makes progress -- in jumps born of seeing something in a new way. The genius NT/NFs create whole new sciences or artistic movements. They move beyond the current frameworks.

In the same way, dumb NT/NFs are probably mostly failures, because their intuition let's them down. They fail to make significant insights, or worse, make plenty of wrong ones (they lack a powerful T or F to check their intuitions) On top of that, they could lack the ability to "fit in" socially as well as SJ/SF types. (I'm thinking of Milton Waddams from the office, or that "writer" friends who self-publishes a 500 page Twilight inspired book of poetry.)

In a sense, they don't have the mental fortitude to effectively fight against the system, and they lack the S abilities to fit in and follow and utilize the rules to survive, so they get gobbled up by it.

As far as smart and less smart S types…well…...General>Lieutenant>Private. Problem solved.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: This whole article stinks of
1 year 7 months ago

This whole article stinks of someone suffering from a little case of narcism. I admit I'm using wikipedia for these descriptions and I'm not a psychologist, but its just so obvious.

Hotchkiss identified what she called the seven deadly sins of narcissism:

1. Shamelessness - Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
2. Magical thinking - Narcissists see themselves as perfect using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
Arrogance - A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
3. Envy - A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
4. Entitlement - Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Any failure to comply will be considered an attack on their superiority and the perpetrator is considered to be an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
5. Exploitation - can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
6. Bad Boundaries - narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist will be treated as if they are part of the narcissist and be expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other.

I can see a lot of points 2 to 5 in your answers.

Another list of traits described David Thomas on narcissists:

-Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
-Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
-Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
-Pretending to be more important than they really are
-Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
-Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
-Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
-Difficulty with empathy
-An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges

Most threads on narcism identify NTs as being the most likely to suffer from the disorder, especially INTJs due to your functions. I probably should make a list with a bunch of famous narcissistic NT people and use that as my evidence but thats just ridiculous way to prove my point.

You are like a troll that doesn't know they are a troll, very entertaining.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: This whole response stinks of
1 year 7 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

This whole response stinks of ad hominem.

Anonymous's picture
Somebody: Just one more opinion
1 year 6 months ago

My intention when I read this article was to read all the comments because I didn't want to repeat an idea but then I found it tedious and time-consuming and I simply said to myself that, even if an idea was repeated, I would like to express it with my words, so here I am. I don't want to praise you because I think your post is rude and many of your replies (and the comments of others, that I suppose (and some I don't suppose because they said it) are ns that maybe have felt belittled by the sensor world around them) are simplistic (I'm thinking specifically about the ones where you said sensors are dumb, that are only tools and that they only care about not-deep stuff). I have self-typed as an intp for months (years, probably) and I have even thought if I was an infp instead. However, I also consider istp (and isfp?) as plausible options. Why? Well, because I think I have the ixxp functional structure (JiPe) that I see as the structure where I care firstly about forming myself a compass (Ji) to guide myself though life and to explore it (Pe). So, yes, I often seek entertainment, that it's just another form of exploration, but the ultimate purpose is to broaden my perception on things. I wouldn't say I care about concrete things (maybe just having enough money to go by and other basic needs, I guess), but I wouldn't say I disregard them or avoid them. I watch TV once in a while. I can talk about a movie or other trifles. I don't think I'm doing it so unwillingly. I'm doing it to pass time. I do not consider myself a potential leader or outstandingly influent. But I also do not consider myself shallow or superficial. I reflect on things, even the stupid ones. I also analyze my day-to-day life, including the more dumb things I "invest" (actually waste) my time in. I have never felt those things ns have expressed in forums and pages like this and this only makes me doubt. I really wish there was a more objective way to self-type, not an instrospective one, which could be tricky because of ideal awareness and variation in interpretation. I'm saying this because the purpose of the mbti is to classify too (also to understand), so it would be nice to have it all more "even" (knowing that persons of the same type resemble each other). I have tried with visual typing, but it's difficult to be aware of those things (maybe recording me, but even so, there's also room for mistyping due to the same "flaws" or maybe just my flaws: variation in visual recognition and ideal awareness (acting like the ideal self instead of acting naturally)). I'm saying all this (that is more personal), because I don't know with certainty my type (and to be honest I also want to see that consistency between different persons with the same type) and because I could easily be an istp and I feel, well, I feel insulted, because of two reasons: that some part of the shoe fit and I wore it (is this an existing expression?) (specially the non-leadership material and non-influence and slavery concept you use) and because some of those things were false (like the ideas I said before: shallowness and superficiality, also conformity (I would say I'm more resigned that conformed, but I think that can change with will) and obedient nature. I'm not your traditional, do it by the book type of guy and I think some SJs are like that, but some others, maybe more awaken, are not. I'm also not the guy that care about popular and unevolved physical non-abstract things and I think some SPs are like that, but some others, maybe more awaken, are not. I'm saying that probably they tend to to behave like this, but that doesn't mean there's not room for imporvement. Is that what you said about evolution? people changing their gears? like changing type, which could be or could be not?

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for sharing. I agree
1 year 6 months ago
@Somebody (view comment)

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you that it is hard to put people into a box, especially one that only allows for 16 options. There are almost 7 billion people on the planet and each one is unique and special. So to take these 7 billion people and try to group them into 16 categories is going to have limitations. To take these 7 billion people and group them into the 2 categories of S and N is going to be the most limiting. That's like grouping people into male and female and saying all males will do this and all females with do this. It doesn't work that way. Of course there are going to be exceptions and of course there are going to be discrepancies.

The purpose of this article, as stated from the onset, is to establish general trends. There are trends between males and females just as there are trends between Ss and Ns. I'm just hinting at broad, broad trends.

The evolution topic looks at this from a spiritual level. Spiritually speaking we are all on individual journeys exploring life through many incarnations and many scenarios. As we grow in wisdom and understanding we develop certain characteristics which are results of the time we have put into living. The more time we put into living and the more things we experience the more wise we become. Spirits that are more experienced with life possess characteristics that differ from spirits that are less experienced with life. Again, it's not clean cut, this is just a trend. This is what I mean by evolution.

I, myself, test as a certain MBTI and many of the traits pertain to me. But that doesn't mean I don't also test as other MBTIs and that other MBTIs don't apply to me. There are 3 or 4 that fit me very strongly and even my opposite MBTI I can pull off. Yes, MBTI, is about your natural tendencies, but what happens when you've developed yourself to the degree where everything is a tendency? What happens when you become a chameleon and are able to blend in with any audience? Why only be good at math when you could be good at math, English, history, science, sports and so on? This is also what I mean by evolution. Why stop if we can keep growing? Why limit ourselves to just S if we can be S AND N?

Anonymous's picture
Somebody: Thanks for responding. In
1 year 6 months ago

Thanks for responding. In that case, I agree, limitting yourself to just sensory perception is going to keep you from growing, that many influential people that are highly probably smart exhibit the use of intuitieon. In that case, I would like to say it's not really about skill (or maybe it is, I'm thinking more about potential) but about preference. A preference to stay with your skillset that is probably more natural to you but not the best in a world that threatens you with mediocrity.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Horrible article.
1 year 6 months ago

Horrible article.
1. You have no idea what you're talking about.
2. You're being purposefully ignorant and inflammatory whilst appealing to popular misconceptions to get more people to view your blog and you get paid.
3. You're a deluded narcissist.

If it's number one, which I really am hoping it is, check out the Socionics wiki and educate yourself.

Anonymous's picture
anonymous: Wow.
1 year 6 months ago


Have you ever been tested for autism?

Anonymous's picture
Terri: Wow
1 year 6 months ago

First, I want to say I always tailor my writing to my audience, which annoys me. Most of my life is spent trying to cope with the fact that ideas must be intricately packaged. If done in an effective-not correct- way, the audience greets the package and accepts, opening happily, without knowing whether a turd or diamond is in the box. Rest assured, even if there is a diamond in the box, you will be considered a turd for wrapping the box in such 'haphazard' way. *Sigh*

Anyway, I am of the theory that dichotomies exist beyond the single letters (E,I,T,F, etc.) ENFP's are smarter ESFP's. ENTP's are smarter ESTP's. ENTJ's are smarter ESTJ's and so forth. If you read the descriptions and think about it, this is so. To me, you can either accept this or buck the system. One of the issues Quinton has is that the S is not willing to make that leap. Instead, they attack his character and article. The ENTP made some excellent points, but admits to playing Devil's Advocate which is fun for his type anyway.

Another truth that I hold to be evident is that an N may not be as practical as S, but surely the N is more innovative than the S, which is why it takes every kind of people to make the world go around. I wouldn't want to live in a world without S's, nor would I want to live in a world without N's. It is annoying and painful for both types to feel like they cannot get through the skull of the other. Yet, S's should understand that it is far more painful for the N because there are more S's. (So, if you happen to be an SF, maybe show some sympathy :-) Humans tend to adhere to pack mentality after all. Which is why introverted-intuitives tend to be more innovative. They don't need your approval as much because their energy is derived from internal sources. They don't need to be out with you as much because it drains them. They certainly don't take your criticism personally either, thinking you are too stupid to be taken seriously

The most beautiful part of this whole exchange is the fact presented by Quinton: the spiritual manifests the physical. I always wondered *why* the majority of people who consider themselves religious and follow *certain rules* of religious texts did not seem very religious in their actions. It makes perfect sense (lol)- The spirituality is missing.

Basically, without N's there would be little societal evolution and that evolution would not be maintained for the necessary amount of time without S's.

I wonder if S's would refute Quinton's claims if accepting them as truth would be better for all of us. Probably.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Very well said and
1 year 6 months ago
@Terri (view comment)

Very well said and interesting insight, I agree with you. Thanks for sharing :)

Anonymous's picture
Nad: In political setting
1 year 6 months ago

I'd also like to add, N's are also more than likely to be liberal than conservative. Also, Obama is an N.

Anonymous's picture
doesntreallymatter: Issues
1 year 5 months ago

Speaking as a judging intuitive (and this post wreaks of it, so I'll suppose that it's pretty likely that you are one as well), I have some counter points to make. For one, you essentially said that you can't type someone unless you have an intimate knowledge of them. This is problematic, as you've cited, in some cases, pretty dubious examples of people who have been dead for thousands of years. While in some cases it wouldn't be terribly unreasonable to infer that some of these people were intuitives, it's pretty difficult to say with any reasonable amount of certainty. Secondly, I have no doubt that intuitives are far more inclined to come up with influential ideas that change the world, but what I take issue with is the many completely inane ideas that they've come up with that change the world for the worse (sometimes simply because they were poorly implemented by sensors, and sometimes because they had ideas that served their own goals and were against the best interests of humanity). My point is, is that being influential and changing the world isn't always a Good Thing. Influence is merely an amoral tool whose outcomes are subject to the whims of its wielder. I hope you can drop any biases derived from an almost certainly flawed and man made test and acknowledge that human personalities are incredibly complex, and that cherry picking examples of historical figures whose personalities can't be consistently verified without attempting to provide counterexamples doesn't make for a very strong case.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Both fair points. Thank you
1 year 5 months ago
@doesntreallymatter (view comment)

Both fair points. Thank you for sharing :)

Anonymous's picture
The Denbox: I am an INTJ just to get that
1 year 5 months ago

I am an INTJ just to get that out of the way. I agree with you that most of the population is s dominant, and that these great leaders were n and had a high IQ. N's are more rational than s type and they make good efficient leaders but it is all subjective. Do good leaders have to be efficient? Do they have to reach towards a goal to be a good leader? I think that there are s types in smaller scale leadership positions. I think that they are more people oriented, and could be better at making people happy rather than productive. Also it is important to point out that most of the people here are n types. We care more about discussions than s types do.

Anonymous's picture
jajajajaja: hey guys...
1 year 5 months ago

I'm an INTJ.

First, this was absolutely intriguing.

I have many things to share, but I'll just share a couple.

1. Intuitives really do not have to have trouble with sensing. I've done a bunch of sports, and I've excelled in the sports I had a passion for. I've had a few basketball games where I've scored more points than the rest of the team combined. That really doesn't mean anything to me anymore except that it is only our nature to be intuitive. We can be the same as everyone else, but our instincts tell us that we would really benefit by asking, "Why?" And we do benefit. That's why I understand math the way I do, and it's why I love physics, which is the reason I will make more money than most of y'all ;) (Money is not the ultimate end, of course).

2. I am fascinated at the response. It's obvious from the article that you wanted a discussion to ensue, but if I were you, I would have hoped that it would have been more productive than it turned out to be (unless this really was only intended to make you feel good about yourself). Unfortunately, the majority of the comments have been emotional reactions, both from N's and S's. There were some good comments too. But nobody has really talked about the IMPLICATIONS. I guess the average person would rather get stuck on the details, blinding themselves to learning new knowledge, removing themselves from a position to make use of a truth, rather than finding a way to better their lives. People who say this is not applicable have no imagination, and only base this claim off of the fundamentally flawed belief that anything that makes people angry is wrong and therefore useless.

What I want to know now is how to train sensors to use their intuition more. We are surrounded by sensors who are great people. Even if they are unable to develop intuition successfully, hopefully they will gain more understanding of intuitives. What really bugs me is that they truly believe that sensing is better than intuiting. It gives them results they can touch and feel, as if touching and feeling were real determinants of the value of something.

Also, Obama is an N. He is probably an ENFJ, because he reminds me so much of my brother with the way he talks and feels. Absolutely sickening sometimes. And maybe he is proving to be more influential than you are aware of. I think N's tend to be more liberal... but I think that is a flaw of intuitives. Sometimes it's bad to be in the habit of wanting to change everything all of the time. It only depends on whether it is effective. It depends on absolutely nothing else, like who made it, how it has been used, who likes it, where it came from, how long it's been around, etc...

And way to go for attaching something political to such a correct article. That was well calculated for both an NF and NT audience.

Anonymous's picture
jajajajaja: Also, Karl Marx was certainly
1 year 5 months ago

Also, Karl Marx was certainly an INTJ. Read some of his quotes, or better yet, read a book about him. That is where I really how I came to understand why communism is fundamentally flawed.

After reading lots of information about people, as well as things they've said, it really isn't hard to type someone from the past.

Anonymous's picture
Delafere: "I don't know who Faraday was
1 year 5 months ago

"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."

I think this golden little set of remarks speaks for itself. You, sir, are propounding your personal opinions as facts, using inflammatory rhetoric to attempt to justify your inflated ego and sense of elitism, and openly ignoring the REAL facts. You are dishing up strawmen as the main course with this absurd mockery of science.

Yes, N types often perform better on IQ tests than S types do, but you're apparently unaware of the fact that IQ tests only measure a very narrow range of thought processes, and that studies have proven that as a rule, IQ and success only correspond up to about 120, after which, to paraphrase, "it doesn't make you more successful, it just makes you weirder."

Sensor types follow the rules, pay attention to detail, double-check facts- something that you could stand to try. If I needed a knee replacement, I'd actually prefer a Sensor surgeon. He or she would be much more likely to sterilize, take longer to do it right and not lose their scalpel inside my knee.

One more thing- you want to claim that "becoming an N" is "evolution", and in the next breath, that you can "choose " to become N, instead of "being a slave". Really? Seriously?
I think I'd like to evolve myself some telekinetic ability, in that case.

If you want to talk about human evolution, first learn how the theory works.

For the sake of understanding where I'm coming from, in case anyone cares, I am INTJ, have a genius level IQ and am a pretty nice, if antisocial, person, except when I read narrow-minded, unscientific, elitist drivel like this that promotes negative attitudes toward any people group.

Sensors invented your favorite foods, sing your favorite songs, likely designed your house and your favorite clothing. The particular Sensor brand of genius colors our world every day- walks down fashion show runways, lands jumbo jets safely, protects our various countries, CEOs massive financial empires. Without Sensors, the world would be in shambles.

Anonymous's picture
jajajajaja: Right...
1 year 5 months ago


"I think this golden little set of remarks speaks for itself."

So not knowing one irrelevant thing makes you incapable of being right about the thing you actually care about? Okay (this is a huge issue sensors have - inability to ignore facts that aren't in any way important). And were you using your own opinion or someone else's consensus that doctors are "smart" as some kind of proof that he was so obviously incorrect, nobody needed to explain why? Are you sure you are an INTJ? Maybe you were just being lazy, and you didn't want to prove why the average, "store mounds of vocabulary in brain and regurgitate upon reception of examination" doctor wasn't a moron.

Do you know what a straw man is? Give one example of one he used.

"Sensor types follow the rules, pay attention to detail, double-check facts- something that you could stand to try. If I needed a knee replacement, I'd actually prefer a Sensor surgeon. He or she would be much more likely to sterilize, take longer to do it right and not lose their scalpel inside my knee."

Like an intuitive would do that. Like an intuitive would not sterilize because... it's so much a procedure thing? Whatever. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Also, my INFJ brother wants to become a pilot. Will he be unable to because he is not an S? I don't think so. And who gives a crap about fashion show runways, even if an intuitive didn't know how to look good while walking. (?) There is nothing that a sensor can do that an intuitive could not do as well. There are things, however, that an intuitive can do that a sensor has EXTREME difficulty doing.

"One more thing- you want to claim that "becoming an N" is "evolution", and in the next breath, that you can "choose " to become N, instead of "being a slave". Really? Seriously?
I think I'd like to evolve myself some telekinetic ability, in that case."

Well, I like the example, but you're wrong. An ape can't choose to act like a human, but a human can CHOOSE to act like either an ape or a human. The evolution makes the choice available (in this case). I think he's saying that N's have the ABILITY to exercise intuition, but they don't have to. They choose to. And if you could fly, why would you choose to walk? Because you're used to it? I don't know if a sensor can't, or if they just choose not to use intuitive thinking, but their one dimensional thinking limits them, if anything.

I wonder how to find out if a sensor can develop intuition or not. I'm going to become a math teacher some day, so I really would like to know this. I wonder if it comes partly in the form of "critical thinking." I really don't know. Now, my favorite math teacher was a sensor. I love sensors still. I just think they could accomplish more if they thought outside of the box every once and a while. I wish that they would pay more attention to the reason WHY the right answer was the right answer, instead of just memorizing what they see and repeating it back again later. There would be a lot more innovation and progress in the world.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Sensors will be more likely
1 year 5 months ago

Sensors will be more likely to survive a catastrophic world event caused by all the "N" leaders of the globe. When the world goes to hell you may want to join up with some Istps.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: LOL
1 year 4 months ago

This looks like a list of randomly selected influentials and intellectuals. Seeing that little to none of these people were able to take a Myers Brigg test, speculating on what their actual personality type is would be about as stupid as the conclusions made. The author of this article obviously needed an ego boost and assembled a squad of high-IQ N's to satisfy his own hidden agenda. If Myers Briggs was as cut and dry as this article makes it out to be, I would probably take it at face value that N's are smarter than S's. But because this article doesn't even mention any of the eight cognitive functions in relation to the dominant types, I can't even take it seriously.

Even the average person knows that intelligence doesn't translate to influence. Ask the presidents of the United States of which half are typed as sensors.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: So let me get this straight..
1 year 4 months ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

So let me get this straight...

  • If people can't take an MBTI test they shouldn't be typed
  • Using Google to assemble a list of influential people is a bad idea
  • Finding trends is making MBTI out to be cut and dry
  • If you don't mention the cognitive functions when discussing MBTI it can't be taken seriously
  • US Presidents are influential

Am I getting this right?

Anonymous's picture
Sinan: Mohammed is clearly an INF,
1 year 4 months ago

Mohammed is clearly an INF, CLEARLY; it does not take a lot of reading about his life in order to realize that.

Anonymous's picture
Sinan: By the way, a great article
1 year 4 months ago

By the way, a great article by itself. I shared it with my 3 intuitive brothers. Thanks!

Anonymous's picture
J: Intuitives smarter than Sensors?
1 year 4 months ago

The first time I became aware of the MBTI was two years ago when I was taking a college interpersonal communications course.This course was online and the instructor had all students take a free online MBTI assessment. My MBTI on that free online assessment was INFP. Now, two years after first learning about the MBTI personalities, the MBTI just popped back into my mind with no specific reason whatsoever. Not going deeper into research about MBTI when I took that online course two years ago, now two years later, I looked deeper into it after it just popped back into my mind.

I took various other free online MBTI tests and came out as an INFP. These tests always had two choices for each question. On rare occasions, I came out as an INTP after going back and redoing the same online tests that I came out as an INFP, changing some of the answers to the questions I did not have a clear preference for.

Now, here is the interesting part. I do not feel like I fit the entire description of an INFP or an INTP. I am a free spirit and like freedom. I do not like being controlled or controlling others nor do I like rules and regulation. So that seems more like an ISFP. However, unlike the ISFP, I do not like competitiveness and unlike an ISTP, I am not that into doing adventurous activites, such as climbing mountains, surfing, and riding motorcycles. Furthermore, I do not like judgmental individuals as they are a turn off to me. But, I do imagine things a lot and I try breaking rules to see if I can get away with breaking those rules. Even though I am in college, I am not exceptional at all, and I even wish I had dropped out of high school because to me it was a waste of time. I feel like I taught my own self how to read and write to the best of my ability and did not learn any of these skills in the United States' public schools systems. I enjoy reading editorials and articles from all types of media outlets with various ideologies; therefore, I am not biased. My political ideology is very progressive/liberal to the point that i think I am more of a socialist/communist. As someone who hates authority and tradition, I do not like punishment, hence, I am against the way the criminal justice system is set up now. With me cherishing humanity more, I do not even think prisons and jails should be called that or correctional centers. I think they should be called rehabilitative centers instead and there should be more focus on diversion programs and programs that if completed would not result in a criminal record. I am against incarceration overall, the death penalty, and life imprisonment.

Now, I do not know if these beliefs tell you more about my MBTI personality type or not, but from my online research intuitives tend to have progressive ideas on issues such as crime as opposed to sensors who favor traditional approaches.

Based on what I have said in this post, what does my MBTI seem to be to you?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Really depends on what aspect
1 year 4 months ago

Really depends on what aspect N's are smarter than S's. If your car breaks down in the middle of the road or if you have some kind of emergency, ISTP is the best person you can have by your side because of their Ti->Se function.

Anonymous's picture
scorpiomover: Saying some are better than others...what does it really say?
1 year 4 months ago

"Why is it that people don't get upset when MBTI talks about certain people being more likely to party, socialize, read, be creative, follow rules, nurture others and so on, but as soon as we talk about people who are more likely to be intelligent we get upset? It’s all fun and games until somebody starts talking about intelligence. Then all of a sudden MBTI is no longer about that. We can measure tons of other things with MBTI, but for some reason MBTI can’t quite measure intelligence... why? Because somebody says it can’t?" Because usually, when people start saying someone else goes to parties and they don't, they don't follow on with "I'm better than you", while they do with intelligence.

If someone really is better than another person, then it shows, because everything they do is better than the other person. They don't need to say it. If they do say it, it's normally because they need to, because if you just looked at the facts, you'd say that their life is a piece of shit, and is probably due to them being incompetent morons.

Anonymous's picture
kshy: On Being Incorrect
1 year 3 months ago

Mr. Figueroa,

You do not understand the full nature of the dimension, and have conflated development and achievement with preference.

So yes, people should be pissed off at what you have written, and you should retract it, because the conclusion(s) you have reached are flawed.

I am MBTI certified, have worked in corporate, non-profit, education, healthcare, and government contexts with the S - N dimension, literally with thousands of people, in Europe, Canada, and the US.

Sorry to be the one to point this out to you, but you are wrong.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Please point out what is
1 year 3 months ago
@kshy (view comment)

Please point out what is wrong rather than just saying it is wrong. Be specific.

Anonymous's picture
bri598: lol
1 year 2 months ago

Damn. I must admit, the writer of this article has dominated every sensor who has tried to debate him in these comments. The sensors are not debating with anything factual, and I notice they are pointing out great military leader types, however those people do NOT represent intellect at all so its a bit irrelevant. The problem is that this gap between S and N is ONLY visible to N's so the only ones who will ever acknowledge its existence will be N's. (Also because they can gloat about it). If a Sensor understood or believed this argument at all, they'd have to be evolving into an Intuitive..so its a catch 22 or somethin..

I want to be clear though, I don't agree with you saying things like "I give them work and they do it," I mean they're not dogs, their people. And coming from the INFP tribe (pretty sure we are the dumbest of the N's, dead last as far as IQ) I can tell you that there is an undeniable gap in understanding complex issues, even if it is not purely an intelligence gap. Even INFPs who's 8th function is introverted thinking (awful, I know lol) we are still higher than most sensors in IQ. That being said I think saying sensors are only good for manual labor and such is insane, I tihnk they are worth much more than that.

Anonymous's picture
John Tsirigotis: So incredibly wrong.
1 year 1 month ago

So incredibly wrong.
Tarantino - ESFP
Thomas Hobbes - ISTJ
Steve Jobs - ISTP
Eminem - ISFP

Need I continue?

Anonymous's picture
DIALECTIK: Often N's behave as S's in the grip of their inferior function..
1 year 1 month ago

Great article and some great answers too (didn't have the time to read them all though).
However what needs to be said is that not all N's behave like N's because as N's we are SURVIVORS (as clearly we can anticipate the future / potential course of events while S's clearly can't) and therefore what we do best is adapt so often, unfortunately, as we grow up we will unconsciously adapt to our environment so that we can survive !
The problem is that, over time, we might fixated with this adaptation and believe in the end we truly S's... In fact we might adapt so much we might become extreme caricatures of S's !!
However, usually as we get more conscious of our true selves and the sick superficial world we live in, we will come to terms with reality and start using intuition correctly to direct ourselves.

Anonymous's picture
Flayo: Well.. As an NF guy I ll say
1 year 1 month ago

Well.. As an NF guy I ll say slowly. This is a BUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLSHIT. :DDDDDD

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I actually read this post
1 year 4 weeks ago

I actually read this post about five months ago and agreed with it; however, since I’ve studied more about personality typology, I now see that your limited understanding of MBTI is quite apparent. The dichotomies may represent the types on the surface, but the cognitive functions define each type. It’s typically okay to type people with the dichotomies, but when you start listing people as two possible types that have no functions in common at all, your credibility is tainted.

Now for the real matter of discussion—your actual argument. The academic integrity of your assertion is quite poor. The vast majority of your so-called evidence is quite subjective. You never reveal how you define “influential person.” How influential is influential enough to be on your list? What is the objective standard?

Anyone can assemble a table of names, letters, and numbers. Haven’t you ever heard of legitimate academic research? C’mon, this is basic statistics. You need a representative sample of the world population, not a biased list that you subjectively chose.

I realize you’ve already commented that you have collected the generally accepted types of these figures from various websites, but the least you could do is provide links to your sources so that we know you didn’t get your information from your mama’s blog.

I think the validity of your argument has convinced me that you’re a sensor.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Well hey, everyone is
1 year 1 week ago

Well hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I use to think the same way kind of, th king that iNtuitives are probably generally smarter than Ss, but i'm pretty new to MBTI, knew about it last year and came out as a INFP ( very strong intuitive preference ) . I'm a MBTI fan also, but I dont think any type is better than the other lol. I just think iNtuitives prefer to look deeper into things than Sensors. Toning this down while your stating your opinion will keep people from "attacking" you like this.
But you're right on the part where there are smart sensors and smart intuitives.
But I don't think MBTI should be taken seriously, I use it take it quite seriously because it's "too accurate to be a theory". I don't take the MBTI compatibility seriously. Back to the point, whatever you're saying can be true or not, but we dont truly know ( that's MY opinion ). I think Sensors ( with concrete ) and Intuitives ( with abstracts )can be smart equally in their own ways.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Bullshit mate. Numbers made
1 year 1 week ago

Bullshit mate. Numbers made up, mistypes etc. not to mention that average 100IQ fluctuates and you did not define average or time frame. LOLed a lot.

Anonymous's picture
Kendall: This article doesn't have value
1 year 4 days ago

You are dehumanizing a group of people based on their personality traits. You may think that it is fair because: you think you are accurate, you feel like you are getting closer to "truth", you are helping people with bad personality traits grow to be more intelligent, etc. The truth is if you want to help people to grow to think more obscurely then encouragement would be better. Attacking simply makes people defensive. Superiority is certainly preferable to the alternative of self-analysis and criticism that may lead to individual growth (the only kind of growth you have any control over). Humans have found ways to minimize the perception we have of each other's inherit values for all of our recorded history. We find ways to make each other "less human". If you are less human I don't have to take the same time, energy and effort into understanding or appreciating the differences that you have from me, I can disregard them as wrong and stupid.

Rather than saying this is inaccurate, I would say that this article has the same motive that has caused discord and hate between groups of people for all of time. I think if this was articulated in a less condescending tone I might have agreed with it. The analysis seems to be driven toward a conclusion that the sensing types are inferior. I don't agree with that.

I am attacking your article for the sake of the readers who would be persuaded. I don't expect to persuade the author who has too much invested in the idea to be able to back down at this point.

Anonymous's picture
Kristin: Why is there not a single
11 months 3 weeks ago

Why is there not a single woman in this post? Where is Mother Theresa? Where is Mary Wollstonecraft? Where is Indira Gandhi? Where is Marie Curie? Where is Simone De Beauvoir? Etc etc etc. Tragic to post a list full of men. Typical of today's society. Ironically the reason to why there are no women in the list is that they were never let forward in the past in any field. The few that TOOK place anyway, well, they're still not in the list...because not much has changed unfortunately.

Anonymous's picture
Jo: Calm down, Steinem
9 months 3 weeks ago
@Kristin (view comment)

It is actually typical to include women for the sake of including them to avoid hurting our delicate female fee-fees, which you might have noticed if you'd chilled out for a second. I agree including women would have been good (I see no reason not to) but... chill.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Inb4 someone actually reads
11 months 1 week ago

Inb4 someone actually reads the article and undoubtedly realizes that Quinton is an ESTJ.

Someone had to say it.

Anonymous's picture
Robert: Agreed
10 months 3 weeks ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

1. He's so obviously an ESTJ who wishes he was an Intuitive (probably an ENTJ or INTJ). It's funny how disparaging of sensors he is when he clearly is one. This whole blog reminds me of the kid at school who wishes he was part of the popular group and tries so hard to be like one of them but isn't at all.

2. Also the amount of Intuitives (especially Introverted Intuitives) posting to agree with him so clearly want to collectively ego stroke "We intuitives are so great and misunderstood by the awful Sensor society

Anonymous's picture
YYZ: N vs S
10 months 4 weeks ago

This isn't even worth analysis. To respond is to admit I even bothered looking.

Anonymous's picture
Tiff: Haha you wish
10 months 2 weeks ago

In addition to being clearly delusional, you're a piece of shit. N and S has nothing to do with intelligence. The main difference between S and N are the former is down to earth and based in reakity , while the latter is fantasy prone, and caught up with things that don't exist.

I'm an ESTP. I'm quite smart. Am I good at math? Science? No. When it comes to reading people, assessing situations, knowing how to adapt (Se) understanding and processing pretty much anything (Ti). The Ns I know in real life are simply delusional. The NFs are emotionally unstable, always overreacting to perceived insults, overanalyzing social interactions and people motivations. The NTs have absolutely no social skills and because they are inherently nerds, computers, math, science and shit make them high so naturally the gravitate towards all that stuff. Any S could be a technology freak, most just don't have interest but the ability is there.

As have an easier time in society. Most great leaders were As, and majority of society is S.

This pathetic article makes apparent your inferiority complex at the silame time your grandiose, delusional thinking. Get off your contrived high horse. Any SMART person with half a brain knows can see this article is horseshit.

Ns and As have different strengths and abilitys. None is better or smarter than the other. Every person has their own area of expertise and intelligence and together we make the world go round. That's the truth. That's reality. It hurts I'm sure, and your contrived narcissistic image of you being smarter than Sensors to make yourself feel better about being a loser has probably been shattered, I'd you have any sanity left, but you'll survive.

In conclusion, Intuitives and Sensors bring something to the world, however Sensors always have and always will have the upper hand:)

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I am impressed to see tht you
9 months 2 weeks ago

I am impressed to see tht you don't know who Faraday was and claim that you are "knowledgeable"

Anonymous's picture
INTP: IQ tests use a lot of
9 months 2 weeks ago

IQ tests use a lot of questions that would be answered easily by someone with Ni or Ne, but that a Sensor might struggle with. The same is true of T over F and P over J. You're thinking in a manner that suggests when you discuss "intelligence," you mean only one kind: the traditionally praised logical intelligence that uses reason to generate new ideas, solve conundrums, and imagine possibilities. It's the kind that solves the three-body problem in physics or figures out Goldbach's conjectures. This type of thinking is highly useful, but it doesn't include a lot of the contributions to society that have been made by people whose strengths lie in other areas, such as a more artistic, aesthetic approach. Many writers, for example, are ISFP, such as Neil Gaiman, whose literary works are considered brilliant pieces of fantasy. You don't even mention Pablo Picasso or Vincent Van Gogh, who are both sensors, but are both regarded as highly gifted artists and influential individuals. (Also, Barack Obama is not an entertainer: he is a world leader, and a fairly good one at that.) Some of the wold's best military commanders, explorers, revolutionaries, and emperors are all sensors, but are they on this list? I don't see them. (Amelia Earheart is ISTP, Sun Tzu was ESTJ, and George Washington was ISTJ). You need to broaden your thinking. Sensors have an appreciation for beauty, an ability to make concrete, realistic connections and solve problems that an intuitive might disregard entirely. The ones posessing Se are adventurous, risk-taking, and have produced wonderful inventions and artwork. Those possessing Si make excellent leaders, are capable of making decisions and drawing conclusions in situations where others would be hard pressed not to fall apart in a tantrum, and are often the ones to remind us when we may be liable to repeat a situation that had been disastrous before. They are just as capable as being intelligent as intuitives, and al too often their contributions go unnoticed.

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Name any test that sensors
9 months 2 weeks ago
@INTP (view comment)

Name any test that sensors will outperform Ns on...

Anonymous's picture
INTP: Most standardized tests, most
9 months 2 weeks ago

Most standardized tests, most athletic performances, and any test that requires concrete observation and connections.

Anonymous's picture
Basic: Yes
9 months 1 day ago

I'm glad I found this as it's exactly what I suspected. Very interesting.

Anonymous's picture
abe lincoln: You do know Obama is ENFJ,
8 months 2 weeks ago

You do know Obama is ENFJ, right? Not a sensor? Did you even bother to research Obama's MBTI, or did you just threw his name in there in blind hatred without fact-checking?

Anonymous's picture
T: Sad
8 months 1 week ago

To the author of the article, this makes me sad. It's the only way I can describe it.

I'm not prone to judging others at first glance or from comments from others, which is why I went to check out your other articles. For example the 'intuition is from a collection of past lives' one, I found it interesting. Even the other MBTI article, was better than this.

And it surprises me. Because it's not as if you can't be 'sensitive'. Your other MBTI article on which is the smartest type takes into account EQ too instead of only IQ. That smartness is not only attributed to intelligence. Though maybe that's because it was published after this? Perhaps.

You're entitled to your own opinion. And I do agree with you on some points. But I don't agree with the way you put it across. You could have been more sensitive. As a Thinker, I tend to hurt others with my blunt words and I'm trying to rectify on that. This comment may be out of place amongst all the logical arguments, but so be it. It isn't intended to be logical. I'm sure I'm nowhere as knowledgeable on the MBTI as you and many others are.

So I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm trying to see from others' POV. That's all. You seem to be a Thinker too (though I could be wrong) so if you want a more logical explanation, well maybe I can just say, 'This article creates an adverse effect instead of letting others see from N's point of view' - which I hope you were trying to do. Good day to you, Sir.

Anonymous's picture
Jenni: ENFP -- I don't know about smarter ...
8 months 1 day ago

I don't know if anyone else already said it, but I have a feeling S(s) tend to be happier than Ns.

Anonymous's picture
hussein hashi: iam intp
7 months 2 weeks ago

i wish i meet infp oneday. besides that i think nobody is better than no body...every type has weaknesses and strenths and i believe u can become intuitive or sensor or whaatever if put more work and develop more skillls for examples i wasnt good social my early life but once i developed social skills i dont feel like feelers are better than me and same goes to evr function.....besides that i also believe intuitive people have alot weaknesses for example my extraverted intuition have alot problems with me like having problems of routine work and hard to go through plan to the end so sensor are easy to divide their goals into small and achieve without fear of routine also my extraverted intuition has alot problem with fear of failure while sensors are confident when it comes starting sommething new...so everyone has their own weaknesses its all about deciding to change and do something about it .......dont let anythimg make u bever they believe whatevr they want

Anonymous's picture
andrew: I'm no expert but here's my take
7 months 1 week ago

guess there is probably a single definition for intelligence but I wonder if there are really different kinds of intelligence.

I know an N and they pick up so much that I miss and put very likely 2 and very likely 2 together and make definitely 4 so so much quicker than me and are so often right about their "knowledge.

But they never seem to be able to quite explain usefully why they" know" and I don't think I would like them on my jury because, while they may spot the patterns better than others, they can often mistake supposition for clear knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.

Also while Ns may be very visibly conqoring the world, I'm sure many of them are just visionary in harnessing the indispensible intelligence of the many Ss that never get or want visibility.

I think envisaging something new or implementing what the intuit cannot always properly articulate are just two different kinds of intelligence. Both are necessary.

And BTW I think the spam question should ask what digit not number.

Anonymous's picture
aqzarp: Fallacies, fallacies everywhere
7 months 4 days ago

After reading several comments, I think that the reasoning:

Premise #1: Not all N's are more successful/influential than S's.
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that N's are more successful/influential than S's.

is a fallacy! Let me give a simpler explanation:

Premise: There are some bears that grow smaller or run slower than wolves.
Conclusion: Therefore we can't say assert the conjecture that bears grow bigger and run faster than wolves.

Of course this is not true! We know that, the trend is, bears tend to grow bigger and run faster than wolves and no matter what approach you take - whether you look it up in an encyclopedia or even if you take several hundred random samples of wolves and bears, or whatever. To say otherwise would be denial of a fact.


Premise #2: You have no right to judge other people.
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that N's are more successful/influential than S's.

Premise #3: You wrote the article in a 'condescending' tone.
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that N's are more successful/influential than S's.

Premise #4: Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that N's are more successful/influential than S's.

Premise #5: OMG U incorrectly typed a person on the list!!
Conclusion: Therefore you cannot say that N's are more successful/influential than S's.

I can go on and on. I'm not saying that the idea that N's superiority over S's is absolute, it's just that after reading the comments, I simply could not find anyone who says otherwise and was able to come up with a really reasonable, logical argument!

Anonymous's picture
Wayne: First of all I am an Ne. If I
6 months 4 weeks ago

First of all I am an Ne. If I would have read this post months ago I would've tended to agree, but I've noticed things about S types that make me realized they're not dumb. A few times in the comments mentioned above it was suggested that all N's have sensing abilities but sensors have failed to "Evolve" to being able to use intuition, it is because they don't need it to become successful. Using your N means not using your S as much, theres a give and take...All finalities are in the pursuit of happiness anyway. If an S is able to work well in a society in which it is rewarded then he/she has succeeded if he/she has found happiness, and maybe they are smarter than we think? Maybe their smart enough not to waste their time on the complexities of the universe, or the patterns seen in culture. Personally, I have met plenty of lazy, living in parent's basement, N-types. Having no money and nothing of your own doesn't seem so smart. I'm just saying that Ss are underestimated, they're a lot smarter than we think. I think a better argument would be: S is more boring than N.
P.s. I think Donald Trump is an S. You'd have to admit he is very influential and a great leader.

Anonymous's picture
hello: S types are smarter when it
6 months 3 weeks ago
@Wayne (view comment)

S types are smarter when it comes to awareness of surroundings. S types can also be very ambitious. For example, most athletes have to be S types. You don't dominate a sport by contemplating the universe. ESTPs, for example, can be some of the most ambitious types (e.g. Donald Trump). Intuitives lack hand-eye coordination and are physically awkward. I know an ESFP who is incredibly gifted at sports; I envy his physical talent.

Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe that ambition is a result of environmental factors. As an ENFP, I notice many other ENFPs are lazy, but I'm ambitious because I was raised in an environment where money was scarce, and I'd do anything to hustle out of that situation. Psychological type factors play a small factor. N's are definitely more motivated to improve themselves rather than S types because N's more easily see how actions have consequences over time, so they make smarter choices. S types simply don't worry about this. The good thing is that they don't torment themselves with existential questions, which intuitives do, but the bad thing is that they prepare poorly for the future, and thus live mediocre lives.

What is the optimal situation for both N's and S's? When an N has the universe and most subjects grasped (which is achievable for an N, but almost impossible for an S), worry becomes alien. Almost everything is prepared for, and the N is certain of almost everything coming his or her way. The N is living a very fulfilling life and is never suffering existential/negative what-if scenarios/abstract ideas. The only challenge is in grasping the present situation and making the most of it, otherwise he never really lives (almost impossible for an N).

In contrast, when an S completely grasps the present moment and uses the present to improve himself in all areas of life, the S dedicates more time to grasping the universe and all ideas, and he or she doesn't have to waste time dealing with present-moment issues that could have been avoided if only he or she paid more attention to preparing for the future. The S is living a very fulfilling life in this scenario because the S isn't bombarded by issues that come up out of nowhere due to his neglect of intuition, and the only challenge is in dedicating time to understanding ideas and utilizing those to improve his or her life.

This is why S types and N types need each other. They both complement each other perfectly.

Then, like you said, you have your lazy N's. My INTP roommate is the laziest and most apathetic person I've ever met. He has no ambition, finds little meaning in life, sleeps in til 3 every afternoon, and stays on the computer 12+ hours a day watching movies and playing games. I don't blame him, most of it you can attribute to his INTP type because INTPs are not only poor at navigating the external environment, but they naturally have very little energy.

The ENTPs I've known are equally lazy. They talk an ambitious game (it seems they are only energized by debating :P), but they put little work into implementing their ideas. INTJs and ENTJs come equipped with natural workaholism and ambition. As for NFs, ENFJs = workaholics, ENFPs and INFJs = lazy 10 hours a day and work 2 hours a day, INFPs = lazy potatos. =P I like potatos.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: Ss are jealous about Ns sayings andUsually answer with fallacies
6 months 4 days ago

I've been studying this difference for several years now, and what I also see is that in general the S type of people perceive us as N (even they do not know about mbti), and generally get irritated and jealous and usually try to invalidate our sayings usually with fallacies, which obviously irritates us in the way that we realize that they act like this because they are not able to see a wider picture.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: The world needed a post like
6 months 4 days ago

The world needed a post like this. Monsters Inc. movie is totally aggressive, bad hearted and disapproving about how the Ns type "can't do the job", which I totally disagree... (as if that N type monster (Mike) were the only one N type in the monster community... (yeah..., I totally despised that movie... specially the SECOND one...) )..., and as if there weren't quick, smart and high self-steem N type (ENTPs for One example...)... Bufffff!!..

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: I find it problematic to
6 months 1 day ago

I find it problematic to determine the personality types of people on the basis of the nature of their accomplishments. While an accomplishment may be stereotypically N, that does not mean an N accomplished it. For example, I have someone in my math course that seems istp, yet he can solve many problems that most cannot in virtue of his ability to trial and error very efficiently. My main point here is that to judge the personality types of historical figures on the basis of their influence and accomplishments is allowing for the insertion of a covert assumption, namely that this can only be achieved by someone strongly intuitive. Take Johannes Kepler for example. Regardless of whether or not he was intuitive or not, his refusal to accept a seemingly negligible anomaly in measurements made by Tycho Brahe led to him positing his three laws of planetary motion, which strengthened the paradigm of heliocentrism that was not yet fully accepted. What shall we attribute his drive for perfection to? Was it the desire for truth led by his strong NT? Was it his unyielding desire for perfection, something typical of many SJs? I believe many would answer that an SJ seeks perfection in things more practical than theoretical. This may be true, but one facet of the human psyche that has been largely ignored here is the power of one's environment. According to MBTI, I am a putative INTP. I have come to doubt my type because I am aware of my own biases, which likely skewed my answers. These biases, I suspect, stem from my environment, viz., university. I major in philosophy and chemistry, and I see quite clearly how others make connections more clearly than myself. That being said, I have written works before that have made others' ideas seems dull, not in virtue of any intuition, but because I refused to accept anything less than utter perfection. I have written things that would make you swear that I am intuitive. I've gained an interesting perspective on the MBTI due to my awareness of my being a sensor coupled with influences by my environment that draw me toward intuitive pursuits. If someone really wants something for what it is, conjoins the spirit of who they are with that very thing, and take the time to learn how to achieve it, I cannot say I would expect them to fail (extenuating circumstance aside).

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: What a load of biased
5 months 4 weeks ago

What a load of biased nonsense.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: INFJ here.
5 months 3 weeks ago

INFJ here.

I have mixed feelings about this article. I agree with the notion that Intuition is a more complex, abstract mode of thinking than pure Sensing, but I do not believe one's preference for one mode of thinking necessarily determines their intelligence level or their ability to make a difference in the world. Ideally, a truly intelligent, influential person should have a combination of BOTH traits and know when to use either mode of thought.

For instance, I happen to have a huge preference for Intuitive thinking, and my roommate at college has an equally huge preference for Sensing. I am 100% reliant on him to remember things that don't jump out at me at first, such as the zip-code and mailing address of our college, the names of streets, the number of our classrooms... even what teachers say in class on boring days! I am totally clueless about details like that, and I have to be reminded of them over and over again, even though I have a really good memory for most things. Those kinds of details just don't appeal to me, so they don't stick right away. He usually remembers them once and never forgets. I usually have my head in the clouds thinking about things, but he is a very grounded, practical sort of person.

On the other hand, I think it's fair to say I am way, way better at abstract thinking than he is. When we're both in a class and some weird new concept comes up, I pretty much always grasp its meaning first, and he can really struggle with it. I usually come up with some sort of metaphor or hermeneutic to help him understand, and then he gets it once he can visualize it.

Between the two of us, we can probably do anything. But on our own, we are both intelligent people with gaping holes in our abilities!

As another thought, it's very rare for someone to have 100% preference for one mode of thinking or another. Highly intuitive people still have to sense a bit, or they would be totally blind to the world. People who primarily sense also use a bit of intuitive thought now and then, for that is what makes us human (in my opinion).

If this is true, couldn't a person who primarily thinks by sensing be influential with just a little bit of intuitive thought sprinkled in? It's very hard to accurately type others with an MBTI type, so I wont attempt to list any famous sensing people. But surely, one can imagine a brilliant sensing person who is phenomenal with data and figures, something an intuitive person would struggle with, spending hours and hours with raw numbers and data, then one day applying just a spark of intuition and discovering some new mathematical law or formula. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that most of the world's mathematicians, scientists, detectives, and inventors are Sensing people that know just when and how to apply intuition to their commanding knowledge of details!'

As a final thought, consider this. Sensing thought is water, Intuitive thought is wine.

Water is a common beverage. There doesn't appear to be anything special about it at a glance. However, it is practical, sensible, and useful. It's primary trait is that it sustains life better than anything else.

Wine is a sophisticated beverage. It calms the nerves and, in small quantities, clears the mind. In its purified state, the mind may come up with brilliant new ideas that may not have sprung up otherwise. But if too much wine is taken at once, the mind succumbs to a drunken stupor.

If one were to only drink water, they would survive, but they would miss out on the richness and clarity of wine. If one were to only drink wine, they would become so drunk that they could not grasp the simplest details of life. To become truly wise, I feel, one must have a healthy mixture of water and wine, Sensing and Intuition, details and inspiration.

So, I don't think Intuitive people have a tendency to be smarter than Sensing people. It doesn't matter how much a person thinks in one mode or another. Everyone has some degree of capacity for Intuitive thought. It's how the person USES that intuition that counts. I would argue, though, that one's preference for Intuition or Sensing would probably affect the way a brilliant person would contribute to the world. Sensing people would probably come up with ideas about data and details, and Intuitive people would probably come up with philosophical ideals and radical new processes for things. That's probably why George Washington was speculated to be such a brilliant Sensing person - military strategy and thinking of concrete ways to handle the minute details of government would drive a primarily Intuitive person such as myself insane!

So yeah, Intuition alone doesn't make one smarter. It just makes you drunk! :)

Anonymous's picture
Ben: I just wanted to remark how
5 months 3 weeks ago

I just wanted to remark how funny and embarassing at the same time I find it that you idealize what being an xNTP is and pretend to find yourself by adjusting to a label, saying things like "sensors again".
I also want to add that being an iNtuitive type doesn't mean that we are unable to use Sensation, as well as Sensors are not unable to use iNtuition. Human personality is more complex than that and can't be divided in (just) some types.

Anonymous's picture
Evan: Consider the following
5 months 4 days ago

Another INTP here. I am a strong N, but I feel compelled to put a defense to people who are S. I intend on striking an argument to satisfy this logically, and with less tangible arguments with equal validity. I don't have hard data, but the data presented here and its assumed meaning, make me feel like I can put the train back on the course that it should go. I also want to emphasize that I am not making this an argument full of abhorrence and the desire to back you into a corner. I've been through that and I feel that anyone who is brave enough to put themselves out there deserves a due amount of respect. So don't sit so tense in your chair.

First off, you used data to prove that people who are better abstract thinkers are smarter than detective types, and I find it interesting that you identified S as short for "Stupid" instead of "Sensing". (I understand you aren't saying S's are stupid directly, but they are, apparently, less smart statistically than N's. And this opposition suggests that the people in the other group are less smart, so if anyone should be called stupid, it's them, to put it this way, right?) Of course, Sherlock Holmes has a strong intuition yet he values the importance of observation strongly and frequently. He would be nothing, or at least much less than he is now, if he were not able to see enough to make strange yet true conclusions. Yes, he is fiction, but we can learn from him a lot.

So, to respond to you when you said:
"So let me get this straight...
•If people can't take an MBTI test they shouldn't be typed
•Using Google to assemble a list of influential people is a bad idea
•Finding trends is making MBTI out to be cut and dry
•If you don't mention the cognitive functions when discussing MBTI it can't be taken seriously
•US Presidents are influential"

•Well as far as "they shouldn't be typed"? I wouldn't quite go that far, granted. I am self-assessed, but I spent several weeks testing its validity. I researched a ton about INTP's. I have encountered so much that was spot-on that I'm a believer. I looked at similar types, but they didn't describe me as well. The point is, testing oneself and using informal tests can yield fine results, but there is a point where being superficial about it can make incorrect assumptions. I feel that using science on people who 'claim to be' certain types is harder to take seriously. After all, I'm sure someone who researched it could probably find an mbti type that may be most likely to mistype itself.

•Well... Sorry, I can't say that it is very credible, coming up with a list of influential people. Here's why: the sources you got it from are likely to have thought of Einstein and Sir Issac Newton, but not Winston Churchill. This is an extremely inclusive hypothetical researcher, but my Ne, probably, is what is most of a skeptic.

•If there were thousands of Mbti types, taking generalizations, while not ideal, may be the most practical thing to do with trends. But, lucky for you, there are eight S and eight N types. These are all unique and as you become an Mbti geek, you realize the letter has less to do with it and the unique permutation of preferred functions more. Get onto google images and look for a chart that shows what the stereotype of each type is. Mine is the architect, and honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Plus, taking mbti as seeing all of the functions as tools, in metaphor, is inaccurate. It is more like handedness. Being lefty (as I am) doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination mean my right hand is the hand with a complete neurological defiance, just as a delinquent has. While J/P borderline is completely erroneous, I/E borderline? Our world has many ambiverts, and, from someone who has surveyed and typed ambiverts, these people are like the Exxx, only less so on the social aspects, or possibly thought of as a blend between the two.

•It definitely would have been more convincing and more refined if you would have done that, actually. As I just said, Mbti identity is more your unique hierarchy of personality inside your mind. Not that everyone would suddenly agree with you after you do that, but without it, you're missing the point.

•US presidents are influential, aren't they? Maybe not now, where everyone is fully on one candidate's right side and against another, even when the elections are over, but Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Ronald Reagan? Who hasn't heard of these wise, brave presidents? Being president, as I see it, gives one chance to be very influential.

Now, I will state that Sensors are differently intelligent from iNtuitives, not less. Intuition is not always correct (though it deals with non-concrete topics very well). Let's approach this from a different angle: instead of correlates, ask why Sensors would tend to be less smart. Intuition does act as an aid, and the thinking of an N is allowed to be hypotheses and fuzzy data. On the other hand, Sensors' heads (from my understanding) like the water to be clear as they look inside and pose fewer inquiries that could get them into controversial areas that can't be proven or put into studies or numbers. I might be mixing it up, though, because that sounds like a logical thing. Sensories also get more input from which they can directly understand, whereas intuitives often will wonder why they think a certain way. Like when I meet people, sometimes I have very strange conclusions that enter my head uninvited. Sometimes my Ne becomes suppressed over time as I find them completely unlikely to be as N thinks. I do have trust issues (no human being, not even myself, has more than 80% of my trust), too. I imagine that the intuition can be useful, but it can be a real pain. Gathering information from sources that are more likely right than my own mind's resources excluding senses that require that I am a natural S to see them. I think it's possible that the IQ test is better geared toward N than S. Maybe the N just makes it easier to look smarter. Typing a computer as S, it would be able to beat anyone at chess once it knows how. That depends on the quality of the teacher, or programming in this case. However, people aren't computers, and they can think like one regardless of what their second letter of the Mbti type. Therefore we establish that the IQ test is biased towards people who prefer thinking in terms of being a good program editor. So let me get this straight...
•If people can't take an MBTI test they shouldn't be typed
•Using Google to assemble a list of influential people is a bad idea
•Finding trends is making MBTI out to be cut and dry
•If you don't mention the cognitive functions when discussing MBTI it can't be taken seriously
•US Presidents are influential

I think this argument is weak, if you don't mind my saying so. You are getting stuck on the details that critics put (I moderately agree with every one except the first). Instead, what people are saying is that your methods of proof could be better and that they are possibly biased enough for me to say that the way you presented this info has a sufficient number of questionable parts to it. Arguing with people who see problems with your claims, especially for such a controversial topic, is not going to support yourself. Sorry.

• Gathering a list of influential people? Sorry. The word influential is too broad, any amount of research will be difficult to put into proof of anything
• Yes, the way Mbti works is not the individual letters in your type; it would have benefitted you to have put out there the individual permutation of function preference. Unfortunately for you, that is what you need to have more trustworthy research-claim compatibility
• Presidents most certainly are influential! Their actions throughout their terms are studied in school and influence individuals as some of them are personal heroes. Abe Lincoln happens to be my hero.

I think the IQ test may be biased towards N thinkers and that S thinkers are no less smart than N people. Both types are just differently intelligent. Take a robot that has state-of-the-art sensory input devices. They have less of a program editor that works by itself and creates programs for arbitrary problems they haven't encountered before, to a robot that is mostly processing, with an amazingly idiotic input processor that requires the culmination of input over time, but it has a knack for identifying algorithms to figure something out. Call the former S, the latter N. Which robot, given the IQ test, will be better? It depends on how old the robots are, as the N robot (the latter) has an edge here only as long as it's old enough that its processing has figured out how the world works and how many legs a chicken has, and how the number of chickens affects the leg count. A robot that knows what a chicken is and what a leg is but can't do math is no better than a processing robot that goes, "Chicken? Leg? I'm missing critical info."

Most people have the array of common knowledge, so they don't have the problem of the new N robot. Therefore IQ tests aren't representative very well of the fact that the supposedly smarter robot is no match to the other at a concentration test that requires one to count the number of a certain object that fly across a screen. N's, please tell me if I'm right that if IQ tests were set up based on those questions, we'd be fried at IQ and therefore stupid, and sub average (because 3/4 of people would be "smarter" than us. Unfortunately, this fact is the reason S's have lower estimated IQ scores. This concentration is only one example of how S people are smarter in some areas. Anyone who wants to argue besides the author is an N, as S people generally won't call themselves stupid, unless you relate it to the resolution of the liar paradox (Cretin says, "All cretins are liars" intending to say all except him). If you guys are smarter, prove to me that IQ tests are ***reliable*** ways to call someone smart or stupid.

Anonymous's picture
Kylie: So Leonardo da Vinci took an
4 months 4 weeks ago

So Leonardo da Vinci took an IQ test?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: good as entertainers like
4 months 1 week ago

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.


Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: Obama is a perceiver? Haha.
4 months 1 week ago

Obama is a perceiver? Haha.

Anonymous's picture
pzycho: inconsistencies
4 months 6 days ago

Alright. I have alot of problems with this article. Not just with the inherent idea that n means someone can lead better than someone with s (they have their positives and negative). But ignoring your beliefs for a second, the structure and evidence for your argument are ridiculously poorly constructed. First off, I will start by assuming you'd be either ENTJ or ESTJ, as you have no regard for feelings, extremely judgemental and are expressing thoughts without first understanding the basics behind your argument. As to n/s you are either an n, who wishes to feel better, or a mistyped s, as you have left out many factors in the matter.
My first comment will be on your use of IQ as a a defining factor. First of all, alot of your IQ estimates are way off, especially as the absolute maximum for IQ now is 200 due to the actual test. Now yes, some of those estimates may have been before this change, but that just means that these estimates are out-dated evidence. My second point about IQ, is that the measurement of IQ is highly limited, as there are much more comprehensive tests of intelligence, and especially ability to lead, such as EQ tests which also have a bearing on how well you can communicate to subordinates, as leadership is not just about the ability to make decisions.(which I must admit, NT types do very well) Another point about IQ, is that it is based around a very narrow view of intelligence. (there is no one universal definition and it changes depending on culture) This in and of itself gives N, and in particular NT type personalities an innately higher IQ score than other people. My last point about IQ, is that each individual test has its own innate biases, for example it may rely heavily on one form of learning, or a language, which disadvantages certain participants. For these multiple reasons the IQ test has become obsolete and not really used heavily now.
The second argument I wish to present, is that you have supplied multiple people who were influential in the past. alot of these people have been mistyped, for example, bill gates is consistently typed as extravert, and Nikola Tesla has, and always will be typed as an INTJ. This, along with the method of this shows a lack of depth, as your evidence could be extremely biased. You cant say that those people are representative of all influential people, the only possible way is to list every single person who had a large effect on every society. This in and of itself is impossible, and is compounded by your ability to select specific people. For example, i noticed that you included many influential scientists, which is a field that is dominated by NT types (with almost none of them being leaders) and left out some of the most influential people, who could communicate or express ideas in songs to inspire others (a staple requirement of leaders).
My third and final counter argument, is that you assume because "every" important person in history has been an N, they are smarter, or make better leaders. The key focus of all social research is that correlation, does not mean causation. If I have to spell it out to you, this means that if "people who wear red die on Tuesdays", it doesn't necessarily mean, that wearing red makes you more likely to die on Tuesdays. . This idea shows that just because one thing happens to coincide with something else, it doesn't mean that it is the cause of it. This is an example of a logical fallacy.
Just a few inconsistencies I've noticed on your "logical" and "scientific" viewpoint from my own INTJ viewpoint. ENJOY

Anonymous's picture
Evan: Yeah... What he said!
4 months 5 days ago
@pzycho (view comment)

Nice! I was planning on elaborating my comment! Mind if I quote you in arguing against Quinton?

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: People who constantly gripe
3 months 3 weeks ago

People who constantly gripe about IQ's being a measure of a narrow aspect of intelligence are just trying to make people with low IQ's feel better. People with high IQ's tend to have an advantage in almost all areas of life. Do you know what the average IQ of an NBA player is?

What would you rather give up? Your top 5 favorite bands, or all of your electronics? To put entertainers and "leaders" at the same level as scientists is ridiculous. Science is a lot harder than music. Besides, I read somewhere that intuitives were over-represented in all creative areas. As an INTJ, you shouldn't be surprised. Do you know any ISTJ's? Who is more likely to make something unique, you or them?

Logical fallacies are not flags for incorrect results. Usually when somebody calls somebody out on some logical fallacy they learned about in their philosophy class, they are hoping to save their brains the work of deciphering what could actually be true from the argument, and sometimes they are misunderstanding the claims of the argument entirely. It's your loss if you can't see the overwhelming evidence that something about intuitive preference enables the most gifted people to influence society in the GREATEST ways.

The way I see intuition is as a gamble. If you win, you're something like Elon Musk. If you lose, you're one of the guys that died playing WOW.

Anonymous's picture
Evann: Well the argument that "IQ is
3 months 3 weeks ago

Well the argument that "IQ is narrow" does seem a bit cliché. But you need to think about it.

IQ tests ask questions. Some require pattern identification, visual and in word form, some involve math, some other subjects, but the point is, it is only about the ability to quickly spot patterns and what exactly they want you to figure out. NBA players need some of that, but maybe there's something that causes the correlation from working out, playing sports (i.e. Healthy body) and being "smart" (i.e. Healthy brain), instead of the other way around. And, lo and behold, there is a such link. Working out and some cognitive advantages, like executive functioning, have a connection, and they are presented as reason to work out, not to tell people they will never amount to much. Watching TV certainly shouldn't help, and few sports players do that as much as most. Also, Quinton identified basketball as a Sensor activity, so that doesn't help you much.
I noticed something I may be able to identify as hypocrisy in your post;
"Usually when somebody calls somebody out on some logical fallacy ... they are hoping to save their brains the work of deciphering what could actually be true from the argument, and sometimes they are misunderstanding the claims of the argument entirely."

And, you also said this:
"People who constantly gripe about IQ's being a measure of a narrow aspect of intelligence are just trying to make people with low IQ's feel better.People with high IQ's tend to have an advantage in almost all areas of life. Do you know what the average IQ of an NBA player is?"

So, I realized something. You appear to be telling people to be fair and look into arguments and see if there may be some truth to it even if logic can do some sort of a job at disproving it, after biting right into an argument that was said. No half-validation, no display of credibility. You just followed it up with a logical fallacy in the opposing viewpoints.

The reason I bring this up is, if we are going to debate, it has to be fair. We both have to follow the rules. And if, in a debate, the rule is that logic should be less important, you're missing the whole point of debate! You're right, logic in an argument does not conclude who is right and who is wrong, but don't bring it to such an extent where it has been brought. I need to be able to disprove stuff.

I actually did notice earlier today that the school system is set up for sensors. And if most teachers are sensors, they make a difference. School is very influential. Now you could bring up the points that "Maybe Ns would be better if they were more common in schools." " Ns have 'better' things to do with their time". (So not true; teaching is one of the most altruistic professions, and I'm noticing the type of offensive things being put out there. Teachers reading this, don't be offended). To the first, nope. Sensors speak the sensor language best, and the nature of the intuitive is to take details and put them into concepts, but sensors in a school of intuitives would feel deprived of interactive lessons and important information. Same thing applies to your "moronic sensor doctors" theory. My point is that you are missing that the army of sensors are taking their place in the world and being ultimately very influential. Not as a leader, or as a philosopher, but as someone capable of what they are naturally good at. Likewise for Ns.

Anonymous's picture
Mike: So, everybody who works out
3 months 2 weeks ago

So, everybody who works out should, on average, have the same IQ as the average NBA player? Is that what you're saying? Working out is what causes it, right? And btw, I was talking about IQ's, not MBTI. Although, if you think that above average IQ's in the NBA should point to an over-representation of N types, then this list http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?23601-List-of-athlete-MBTI-...(exhaustive) has 96 S's and 66 N's in the NBA in 1998. That's a 41% composition from a demographic that only composes 25% of the total population. (See that number 1998? Isn't it tempting to blurt out some irrelevant criticism about that?)

No, you cannot correctly identify anything in my post as hypocrisy. The point of a debate is to communicate persuasively, not point out a logical fallacy and then walk away without expounding on the idea. For example, I could have taken this sentence: "My third and final counter argument, is that you assume because "every" important person in history has been an N, they are smarter, or make better leaders", and I could point out that it's a straw horse and just walk away. Instead I assumed that anyone with a high enough potential to influence anything meaningful would have a high enough intelligence to recognize the straw horse themselves, and I passed an opportunity to make myself look like a great philosophy student, and I offered an explanation of what I thought the correlation actually meant.

And I don't think the "correlation != causation" fallacy is very relevant, because I don't think it's very likely that a list that long would RANDOMLY all happen to be N's, and I don't think that being influential causes people to change their personalities and become N's. That means to me that being an N helped THOSE people become the most influential, and would probably help others as well. This is an example of cognitive laziness, pointing out that logical fallacy without actually thinking about it or expounding.

Everyone and their dog has heard the "IQ is narrow" rant before. That's why it needed no additional explanation. I really think the only thing to be gained from it is that people like to defend stupid people. That's a nice sentiment. But as a counterargument, I challenge you to give an example of ANY activity where "the ability to quickly spot patterns and what exactly they want you to figure out" wouldn't give you an advantage. Being an entrepreneur? Changing the world? Who do entrepreneurs serve, themselves? Being a scientist, where "they" is actually nature? Driving a car, where "they" is law enforcement and the laws of physics? Isn't an innate trust of authority something that S's are famous for, and not N's? So why would N's excel at a quiz that tests their ability to find what "they" want you to find? Oh, it's because they have like minds, isn't it? If that's why N's score higher in IQ tests, then there should be no benefit of having a high IQ, other than being able to have a high IQ. But this: http://www.highiqpro.com/high-iq-benefits

It seems like IQ might actually be the most researched aspect of psychology for a reason. I would like pzycho to give a reason why he thinks people are dropping IQ, because, according to the first link I found, http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/12/26/top-10-psychology-and-m... psychologists are still interested in it. I think it's more likely that the stupid idea that IQ is such a narrow measure of intelligence is grabbing traction because people are trying to embrace stupidity and failure in our culture in general by denying its existence instead of trying to find out how to solve those problems.

So how do you get a higher IQ? How do you become more intuitive? That's the fruitful debate that we should be having, but people can't seem to allow progress to happen if the original premise makes them feel sad. News flash: Some people are better at making choices than other people. Heaven forbid we find out why (N vs S, IQ).

Anonymous's picture
Mike: In response to your teachers
3 months 2 weeks ago

In response to your teachers comment, I'll just make a couple points:

1. Sabastian Thrun (Udacity, ENTP maybe, definitely an N) taught more people in his intro to computer science class than all the teachers in the world combined in the course's first year
2. Sal Khan (ENFJ, Khan Academy) is the teacher with the most influence in the world today

Aside from that, I'd take a good S teacher over a bad N teacher any day. My high school Calculus teacher was an S (I am pretty sure...) and all 30 of us got 5's on the AP test. My worst professor in college has been an INTJ.

Anonymous's picture
Mike: Oops. I meant straw man.
3 months 2 weeks ago

Oops. I meant straw man.

Anonymous's picture
Evan: Well, not exactly.
3 months 5 days ago

No. "People who work out" means something different from "People who work out doing a specific type of exercise, are well-known, and proven phenomenal". Other than that, the lifestyle of a basketball NBA player is probably different, since their motivation stems from needing to stay fit for their job. I also noticed that you could correlate basketball players to being taller and skinnier than the average person. Basketball also requires strategy and tactics, very quickly. Lifting weights, not at all. One's ability must also be assessed well, before shooting a hoop. The point is that I stand firm in my argument that sports cause better brain function, not people with good brain function swooning over sports randomly.

What you're doing with IQ is associating it with Ns. You haven't talked about what the alternative is. What happens to somebody who can't see patterns? Do they just wither and turn into completely stupid people with few talents, and those talents they do have, eroded down by their inability to readily see patterns? Or is there a compensating quality here? Take the Enneagram 7. Don't call it a hedonist or say its contributions to society. It is bent on experiencing, learning, and getting sensations. It is very good at SEEING inconsistencies rather than INTROSPECTING them. My sister, an ESFP, watches a movie and is really good at telling me why something shouldn't have happened a certain way in a movie. Meanwhile, I try to argue, to tell her, yes, it could have happened. She is quite formidable at what she does, though. She is a good artist too, and if art doesn't influence people, I'm not sure I can assess how deeply my mind has become delusional. Art is full of iconoclastic movements changing how people feel about certain things. It is enriching. Creative concepts can be come up with by S and N alike, but the S has an edge here because they know the rules of the world personally and the N has been using their gut, mostly, to figure out how the world should work where certain rules are founded. Memorization is also a niche of the S. Who is better at memorizing history, of playing detective? The S gathers invaluable information sometimes. My ISTP friend is the best video gamer ever. This talent people have-- it's so common, the intuitives forget they don't have a right to declare the sensor useless.

I read more about what a fallacy is, and as fun as straw man may be to pull, or the famous lie, I must resist. I see value in not conclusively using them. Obviously, though, sometimes there is truth to them and a fallacy can be a foundation of argument. At least, some types of fallacies. But the thing is that if you don't see a fallacy is true, you can usually give a sentence explaining why. Unless it is the improvable or proof burden, there is often something you can argue with them about it. That's one reason, I understand, that we are dissuaded from it.

I respect the idea that you see IQ beaters with. I believe there is information in every situation and the two different approaches are drawn to certain ways of receiving information, and it doesn't mean they need or should have genetic engineering. (Jung believes that personalities as genetic. Whether or not you believe with him, there is no evidence I've seen one way or another.

"News flash: Some people are better at making choices than other people. Heaven forbid we find out why (N vs S, IQ)." You need to remember, Judging trait is where ease with making decisions come in. S/N is purely information-gathering. The information we take in does not make us smart. The different approaches are both valid.

As far as teachers, if an N can break an argument up, they can make good teachers. I agree with you. I don't know Sabastian but you never said anything direct about his actual teaching. But Sal? Yeah, I love his mode of teaching. His style works for most people better than some other teachers. I learned trig on Khanacademy. Loved it.

Anonymous's picture
Mike: "The point is that I stand
3 months 3 days ago

"The point is that I stand firm in my argument that sports cause better brain function, not people with good brain function swooning over sports randomly." I didn't say it was random. I don't understand your thinking at all. Can you point out any mental task than that strengthens your IQ without a high IQ being beneficial in the first place? You say that sports strengthen IQ but don't give high IQ players an edge. That makes no sense to me.

From the big paragraph, I guess even if you decide that artists are as influential as people like Ghandi or Hitler, I think you are implying that sensors are more likely to be successful at art than intuitives. What do you think about this list of musicians? http://www.theattackzone.com/music/singers-and-musicians-on-the-myers-br... Down at the bottom, I counted 30 N's and 47 S's. Can you show me a source where S's are over-represented in art? By the way, 47 S's would be 60% of them. If you were right, it should be more than 75%.

The line between information gathering and decision making can be blurry. When I'm brainstorming or planning for the future, my brain is constantly switching back and forth between intuition and thinking. I don't understand Jung enough in depth to know whether he tries to define them super clearly, but I doubt it's really that simple. I would say that most poor decisions are made because of bad information. Besides, T vs F doesn't affect a person's IQ score that much. You would think that it would, since IQ tests are all about DECIDING which answer you should choose, and Judging is all about deciding. But it doesn't. N vs. S does matter, though.

I think I agree with everything else you said.

It would be cool if type was genetic. That would mean that there is a lot more to learn about it. In my family of 9, 8 of us are J's and only 1 is P. 5 are N's and 4 are S's. I'm not sure that means anything, but I do have a feeling that type is genetic. The problem is, people are too delusional to get they're own types right. I know an INFP that has gotten a different type each of the 4 times he took the test. None of them were INFP, but he is the most obvious INFP in the world.

Anonymous's picture
Evan: Maybe this will shed some light...
3 months 2 days ago

Ugh... Research... Okay, fine!
I picked the three I glanced at that looked like they would do the job for me. I've heard sports with cognition like you claim to have seen the IQ disclaimer. There are probably at least twenty websites showing the correlation in the way that I think shows true cause and effect. I think that people who are drawn to sports generally do fairly well at them (of course not always), and they do it because they enjoy the excitement of playing them, along with a dash of strategic and tactical quickness sports require. During games, Sensors and Intuitives seem to have different advantages. My guess is that sensors should do better at seeing attentively the game, intuitive in which options are present/make the most sense. I don't think people join a sports team because they're smart. Maybe they have what it takes to play a game. I agree, a bit of intelligence helps. Same with reading. If you teach your kid to read, she needs to be at least able to learn things at a certain level. Once she knows how, she can find harder books and read her way to a more intelligent brain. Does that answer your question?

Also, as much as it may frustrate you, I want to argue that music is not representative of all types of art. There are rules that govern everything, but for art less so. For music, sensors get what things are supposed to sound like, and it is crystallized into their mind. Sensors pick up details very well, and, operating at the best of their talents, are like computers, and they have a better judging function to help them, and a small bit of intuition mixed in there too. Now, the average IQ is 100, and since 1/4 of the population is intuitive, the bell curve shows that, even assuming that intuitives are at the top of the population, true or not, sensors ought to have an IQ that is fairly smart. My guess, from what I have seen from the graph a long time ago, is 115-130. However, you need to consider that intuitives may be rotting their mind doing inhalants, and other sensors may be born from really smart parents and get a good score. What I'm leading into is that sensors do have a lot of potential. They can definitely have high enough IQ scores to meet the requirement for sports, perhaps as much as intuition can.

Now, what you said about the judging/perceiving functions, and all of that, I see what you mean. I would say that both T and F are rational functions, meaning that they both use their brain to consider factors each sees as significant. I am not sure if you have heard of cognitive functions. The rules for the cognitive function determination, just in case:
- If you are I, your first and third functions will be introverted. Vice versa for extraverts.
- If you are a P, your first Extraverted function (no. 2 for introverts) will be Se if you are an S (extraverted sensing), or Ne, the opposites. Your first introverted function will be your judging function, Ti (introverted thinking) or Fi. If you are a J, the placement of the judging and perceiving functions flip, being extraverted judging and introverted perceiving functions for the first two in the correct order.
- Top function is met by the opposite in its dichotomy, of the opposite orientation (Ne-Si, Si-Ne, Ti-Fe or Fe-Ti) on the fourth function. Same goes for second and third functions.
Okay, sorry if you've heard of it and I bored you. What I want to say is, there's a theory that clear-cuts all of this stuff. The jump between P to J functions are harder to assess, but what each type receives as information and what it is likely to do decision making, for each type, are explained. (Again, didn't mean to bore you by presenting this information if you already knew it). When describing which of the types are "smarter", the functions on the dominant and secondary (2) functions are what affect how the person is better in certain situations where their dominant-secondary give them the edge. For example, the ISTJ does excellent in school because it does so well at making and following a plan with Si (comparing present with past concrete information) and Te (Ensuring structure in their environment and planning constructive action). This talent makes the ISTJ competent in a lot of life, and no doubt makes up for weaknesses it has being a sensor. Its raw doing and completion power make it a great and competent contributor to society. Its sensing function is dominant as well.

Plus, men are typically sensors and women intuitive. We both happen to be intuitive guys, and for 75% of the population being sensors, there are going to be many sensing women. But in an overwhelmingly male-dominated society with street names (made primarily to help sensors, I barely know my address and four other streets near where I live :P), why are we saying sensors aren't being significant in the battle of being powerful? A ton of politicians are sensors, and if it weren't so hard on my phone to keep my comment and search the web, I would have a website to present.

I agree with the "denial of type" thing and I have little patience for those who can't be bothered to be honest with themselves or "want" to be another type.

Also, sensors might really loathe trying for an introspective life and don't care about this intelligence issue nearly as much as NTs do. Not an argument, but I doubt they really care more than just the being called stupid issue. I know several sensors. They all seem to enjoy life.

Anonymous's picture
Caspion: Why exist several articles claiming Ns over Ss
2 months 3 weeks ago

Besides this one, and other threads opened at forums (yeah, I didn't get the urls, but you'll find them if you look for them), and this article too

Ah! and the "Wayseers" movement...
And many productions of this kind that originate from the Ns superpowers

Why they exist you Ss? That try to underestimate this and many other similar articles out there?

Read up what Anonymous wrote (http://www.slayerment.com/comment/2298#comment-2298) about color spectrums..., I think it's time you Ss that underestimate Ns superpowers accept that you don't get the wider spectrum of colors we are able to see..., you just don't see it, and when we try to make note of this to you, you just try to underestimate it.

Ah, beside this, there are a lot of opinions of Ss here that try to move the point of discussion, writing extremely long articles to try to justify what they can't understand. Just get it. Ns are simply mostly more influential than Ss (This is not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH, it's and STATISTICALLY VALIDATED TRUTH (I say this for specially for aqzarp, up there... http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti#comment-6252 )).

INTPs usually accept Ss (must be because of the Extroverted/Introverted complementarity), but also they usually are jealous about ENTPs (must be because they percieve us as the only type apparently more intelligent and carismatic that them (yeah, INs usually underestimate Ss secretly and are confortable with them around, but they'll NEVER say this (mostly))). Yeah, I've validated this quite a lot of times...

Thank you All..., Quinton should be President of the United Nations of the World!

Anonymous's picture
A sinner: INTJ´s opinion about the depth of the issue
2 months 1 week ago

As one mentioned before, it is very likely for S´s to visit this kind of conversation for the sake of personal development, unfortunately. The main socioemotional pullback being pride. When one does compare one self only to ones personal material development inevitably, one will see massive lifespan evolution from being a child to being an adult and will get confident about ones supreme talent of surviving. U see, these entities do not compare themself with better, nor perfection. Ever. They do not meet the vivid concept of humbleness because of their narcisissm and ultimately megalomania

Getting deeper into these aspects, ultimatelly N´s will confront with value systems like religion, or even better the Truth and will understand that everything, ultimatelly, is black and white. For those levels on consciousness one would be prefered to realize who runs this dimension, what does that entity desire and what is that entity rebelling against. When an N realizes this, the core solution is right there. Because you see, when all other religions take one towards theosophy; there is only one remaining still and ferm. Then when we understand what is the original form of that system, the one that is truly special then the truth sets us free. How? By offering us certainty of what happens after individual death. How? By repeating the Jesus prayer literally continously.

That is the first level of science, and the ultimate meaning of this life. Because u see, N´s, S´s, does not really matter, they all enjoy the 4 levels of Love. But the key here is, as for N´s, I think there is a responsability for us to COLLABORATE for an environment that canalizes people to encounter different forms of love. Because truly, even though one may argue MBTI is somewhat of genetic or social at the end of the day a human being is the sum of it all. The importance here might just be to get N´s run the show. How?

As mentioned by others N´s being the minority (sub 25%) sociologically speaking, the only drastic solution to a real global change is for N´s to purify themselves from social programming (=vices) using desert fathers decidion making as a model of morality and then by non-collaborating with the monetary system by generating own production based communities fullfill the law of the fifth monkey. Cause u see when the fifth monkey from one hundred-monkey-population turned and went towards north, the rest of the population followed

If this does not manifest, with nowadays tech innovations, we will see something historically never met before tangenting us iminently over this generation born after 1948. But if the Creator desires this to happen, surely He´s more intelligent than I will ever be so I suppose that´s just ok as well, cause you see, why save something worth 80 years, when there is also the eternity - better just to purify own filth and generate a personal relation ship with God. When I was a young boy, I though psychology was great, then later I thought philosophy was even greater. But now when I compare all those to Agape.. ..it makes me wanna cry and so I share my testimony, so that perhaps one other person in this universe will test drive the Jesus prayer - and will be free

A hug for all u guys, N´s S´s does not matter that much

Anonymous's picture
Sandy X. Cumley: N's Are Smarter Than S's -- MBTI | Slayerment
1 month 3 weeks ago

Saved as a favorite, I love your blog!

Anonymous's picture
T.Baggins: True Fact
1 month 2 weeks ago

I'm assuming Quinton that you are an S then. Correct?

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: Unfortunately
1 month 2 weeks ago
@T.Baggins (view comment)


Anonymous's picture
Ahmed: I agree about the influential
1 month 1 week ago

I agree about the influential part if you're talking about having influence across a whole city, country or all over the world. S's can have influence in a department, company or even ministry. Actually, most N's are not influential, but most highly influential people are N's. But I disagree about the N's can be S's part. I'm an INTP and I can never act like an S. I'm so bad at practical stuff, and I can never be as good as S's at them.

Anonymous's picture
mack: Thoughts from an INTJ
1 month 6 days ago

There are some N's that grow up to be highly influential and intelligent leaders. However, there are many more N's who grow up to be nothing at all because they are so incredibly impressed with themselves that they never form meaningful relationships. N's, if we don't continually improve on our ability to genuinely empathize and collaborate with people who are different than we are-- not only is it a lonely life, it's also an ineffectual life.

Anonymous's picture
A: Quinton, you responded to
3 weeks 4 days ago

Quinton, you responded to someone as follow:

"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."

S's may do well on standardized tests, but your statement does not explain the fact that N's are the majority. "Standardized tests, especially in verbal sections, tend to favor intuitive types" (https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-021508-211201/unr...).

Even though the view that S's do well on ACTs is because the school system is designed for them, your statement quoted commits an injustice against N's. "Almost 83% of national merit scholarship finalists and 92% of Rhodes Scholars were intuitive students" (http://www2.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html).

As someone (I believe it was you) mentioned in a previous response, the education system was created for the S's so that explains why S's do better when it comes to academic achievement measured by grades. As is widely known, N's are good at abstractions, symbols, and theories while S's are good at facts, memorization, and details. Yet, your aforementioned quoted statement does not explain the phenomena of N's doing well on standardized tests if ACTs "measure memorization and rote thinking."

Of course, the test used for national merit scholars is the PSAT (pre-SAT) and the SAT and ACT or somewhat different. Many may see the SAT as more correlated with IQ scores than ACT, but "in practice the two sets of scores (SAT and ACT) are highly correlated" (https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-021508-211201/unr...).

I would assume your aforementioned quoted response was meant to be a generalization along the lines of most S's do well on standardized tests, but a minority of N's who are a highly developed S's do well on standardized tests to the point of overwhelmingly outnumbering N's as national merit finalists. Am I correct? If so, this generalization seems inaccurate as studies show that N's do better on standardized tests than S's. This is because of their quickness despite the time constraints and the abstract reasoning that these tests "supposedly" measure. Note: Actual IQ tests (Stanford-Binet and others) are standardized.

Obviously, not all N's will score high on standardized tests and/or IQ tests and not all S's will score low on them.

Do not take my word for any of this because I am a horrible standardized test taker and I have tested as an INFP mostly, but also as an INTP. I have also tested as an ISTP (but nowhere near adventurous).

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous: The author of this article
1 week 5 days ago

The author of this article seems to fundamentally misunderstand personality theory. His very first argument is that our MBTI traits are a "choice," which is a blatant falsehood. At this point, most researchers understand personality to be heavily influenced by genetics. Our "preference" for introversion or extraversion, among many other traits, is determined by the temperament we are born with - yet this author is stating that it's like "choosing which color crayon you prefer." Where is the science backing that claim? Furthermore, all healthy and well-adjusted individuals naturally grow their "inferior functions" throughout their lives - Sensors become more comfortable using their intuition, and intuitives become more comfortable with sensing. This idea that "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" is not accurate - we are all born with a dominant function that we are adept as using, and an inferior function that needs to be strengthened. But, for argument's sake, let's say that this article WAS based on empirical studies and actually did have a foundation in scientific fact - I would still be left wondering what this author's motivation is for writing it! Are intelligence, influence, and leadership objectively positive qualities? Or does it matter more to what end we use these traits? After all, Hitler and Stalin did make the list. I would argue that the smartest and most influential people in the world are those who use their gifts for the good of humanity - to inspire and empower others, which is exactly the opposite of what this article does. But, then again, I'm a sensor, so perhaps everything I've just written should be taken with a grain of salt - after all, I'm "not good at...anything else of higher value than simply entertainment"!

Quinton Figueroa's picture
Quinton Figueroa: When I said "choosing which
1 week 5 days ago
@Anonymous (view comment)

When I said "choosing which color crayon you prefer" I am talking about how it doesn't matter. I'm not saying it is strictly a choice. I am saying whether you are E or I, T or F, J or P doesn't really matter -- it's just a color. They all pretty much balance each other out and they each have pros and cons relative to their counterpart. What matters is whether you are S or N. These are not equal and these do not balance each other out. So no science is necessary because I'm not making the claim you think I am making.

Intelligence, influence and leadership are objectively positive qualities, yes. You've got yourself a pretty big challenge to argue otherwise. If more people possessed these traits as opposed to ignorance and being followers not only would the individual be better off, other people would be better off as well.

To what end an individual chooses to use their intelligence or leadership is irrelevant. You are going to have intelligent people who do good and you are going to have intelligent people who do bad. In the same way you are going to have stupid people who do good and stupid people who do bad. Being intelligent doesn't make you more evil and I would argue it makes you less evil. Of course there are going to be bad intelligent leaders like Hitler and Stalin. But there are also going to good intelligent leaders. And more intelligent people usually are more wise. That's why we educate our children and teach them principles as parents. We want to raise our children to be good. We aren't bringing them away from intelligence. We are bringing them closer to it.

Add new comment