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

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

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere." They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.

Intuitive

On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.

So sensors are basically 5 sense people who get information from the material/external world. Intuitors are basically people who get information from beyond the 5 senses, the mind/internal world.

Influential People

I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason.

Browsing across the web I have assembled a list of commonly listed people who have been influential throughout history. These are the types of names that commonly come up when you ask people who the most influential people are in the world. You will find the commonly associated MBTI(s) (and IQ if possible) next to their name.

Person MBTI IQ
Abraham Lincoln ENTP/INTP 150
Adam Smith INTP
Adolf Hitler INFJ/INTJ 141
Albert Einstein INTP 205
Alexander Graham Bell
Alexander the Great ENTJ 180
Aristotle INTP 190
Augustus Caesar INTJ
Benjamin Franklin ENTP 185
Bill Gates INTJ/INTP 173
Buddha INFJ/INFP
Charlemagne
Charles Darwin INTJ 173
Constantine
Francis Bacon INTJ 180
Galileo Galilei INTP 180
Gandhi INFJ/INFP 160
George Washington ISTJ 140
Isaac Newton INTJ 195
Jesus INFJ
John F. Kennedy INTJ 119
John Locke INTP 165
Joseph Stalin ESTJ/ISTJ
Julius Caesar ENTJ 175
Karl Marx INTP
Leonardo da Vinci INTP 220
Ludwig van Beethoven INTJ/INFJ 165
Martin Luther INTJ/INTP 170
Martin Luther King Jr. ENFJ
Max Planck
Michelangelo INFP 175
Muhammad ENTJ
Napoleon Bonaparte ENTJ 145
Nicolaus Copernicus
Niels Bohr
Nikola Tesla ENTP/INTP 200
Pablo Picasso ISFP 160
Plato INTP 180
Rene Descartes INTP 175
Sigmund Freud INFJ/INTJ 156
Steve Jobs ENTP/ENTJ
Thomas Edison ENTP 180
Thomas Jefferson INTJ 195
Walt Disney ENTP 123
Warren Buffett INTP
William Shakespeare INFP 210
Zoroaster

So hopefully that somewhat shows that the majority of people who have contributed to society in a great way (as agreed on by most people) are almost always N's, whether for good or for bad. The N's dominate the world. But it is all too obvious. We know that leaders and smart people are rare. N's are also the most rare when it comes to the MBTI. E's and I's are close. T's and F's are close. And J's and P's are close. But N's and S's are the furthest apart.

The breakdown is roughly:
The E-I split is close to 50-50.
The S-N is close to 75-25.
The T-F is close to 40-60.
The J-P is close to 55-45.

N's make up 25% of the population (and I would still think this number is high). But it's showing you that it is more common to be stupid and not a leader, which is true. Most people aren't leaders. Most people don't do great things. That's not me being negative or mean, that's me being accurate. At anytime people can choose to be a leader but that takes work and work isn't associated with entertainment so count them out.

Who brought us the automobile? Who brought us the personal computer? Who brought us the Internet? Who brought us the best form of government? Who brought us free market economics? Heck, who brought us Socialism/Communism even though it's a straight fraud? N! They do things. They're innovators. N's run the world and the S's are the employees for the N's.

IQ and MBTI type

And don't think IQ isn't tied to this, because it is. If you look at the IQs listed above you will find they are ALL above average. That is because above average people have above average IQs. Yes, IQ isn't the only thing that has to do with intelligence, BUT it obviously shows that all the most influential people have high IQs. That's just the way it is. High IQs lead. High IQs innovate. Show me an influential person with a low IQ. Show me an influential person that's an S. It's rare. And I'm talking real influence. Some puppet Prime Minister or President isn't influential -- that's an employee for the N's.

Some popular S's

I'm not saying S's are bad. I'm saying they're not smart. They are not the leaders of the world. They rarely make a most respectable people throughout history list. I'm sorry for having to be the one that breaks it to you, but somebody had to. It is what it is. S's may be good at entertaining you or making you laugh. They may be good at sports. But they're not good at running countries, running businesses, innovating, improving the standard of living or anything else of higher value than simply entertainment. They don't make the lists for a reason. They don't have what it takes.

As good as entertainers like Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Justin Bieber and Barack Obama are at entertaining they're just not going to make the cut for being historically influential. And the entertainers of Plato's time, Jesus' time, Muhammad's time, Bacon's time and so forth also sadly didn't make the list. That is because they're not influential.

Evolving

There is still much more to this than simply being influential. I think the vast majority of N's start off as S's as they are children and slowly start to wake up and outgrow being an S. S is a stage of taking in your environment and learning the basic dynamics behind life. S's love their senses because their senses are their teacher. But once you learn the basic dynamics behind the physical world you start to move onto the more abstract and deep things. You move out of the physical and into the mind. You move out of the shallow everyday things and into the more philosophical. It doesn't mean that you don't appreciate or understand the immediate, physical things -- it just means that you're past that.

So as children we don't have to worry about money or growing or taking care of ourselves or leading or anything like this for the most part. Most of our life is taken care of by our parents or the socialist government. Young people look good, their bodies work good and hardly any effort is needed to get by in life. They have everything given to them and don't need to develop themselves. But as reality kicks in we either wise up or become a slave. Most choose to become slaves and collapse under the fold of tradition and authority. But every once in a while you will get that solitary, free spirit that has the need to venture into the unknown and leave the crowd, despite the whole bunch of S's trying to pull them back down as hard as they can. This is the evolution away from group-rule into self-rule. This is the evolution from animal to human -- a truly sovereign, capable human being.

Now I know what I'm saying will piss a lot of people off and I think that's good. It pisses me off even more to see people not talk about these things or even propose them. So rather than me be pissed I'm gonna make you be pissed for a while. If what I'm saying is such BS show me why. All the smart people I talk to about this kind of stuff know what I'm talking about. They might not explain it with the MBTI, but they know what I'm saying is true in their own language. There are certain parts of life that can be proven through a number of tools, and the S/N relationship is one tool proving a reality of life and evolution. Some people are smarter, better, and more capable. Not very socialist sounding is it? Oops. Looks like nature isn't a socialist then.

Take the test

If you have 10 minutes of free time take the test and see what you are: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

 Filed under: Personal Development, Intelligence, MBTI

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

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 ...

More

475 Comments

Ben: This is the dumbest article I

This is the dumbest article I've read all day. If it proves anything, it's that N's are not very bright people.

Louisa: Jesus Christ as INFJ

It's a surprise seeing Jesus being INFJ like me, omg that makes my day haha...It's said to be the rarest personality of all, and I think it fits in with His Holy status. However, do you mind explaining how you typecast him or where you get the proof? I agree that Jesus is definitely a intuitive (N), from all the parables spoken and how He is able to decipher the evil thoughts of the pharisees and teachers of the law, and feeler (F) because of His healing ministry and a deep compassion for the sick and lost :) I also can see how Jesus most likely be an introvert when He withdrew to the countryside to pray. Pls do share how Jesus is a J.

Thanks in advance :)
Fellow INFJ sister in Christ

Dastrin: P's are extremely open minded
@Louisa (view comment)

P's are extremely open minded as a strength, but as a weakness they have a hard-time making a decision. Someone like the Historical Jesus would have to have been able to make a strong commitment to his message in order to overcome his introversion, and also to dedicate his life to putting out his message. To me this is clearly a strong decision, one he stayed extremely dedicated to, and therefore it makes sense he would be a "J." Otherwise, as a "P" he most likely would have sat around thinking how he thought the world should change, but not been sure enough, or motivated enough to move forward.

INFP: Hi, I think you forgot to

Hi, I think you forgot to take note that there may be different kinds of intelligence.

Your point that "S can't do what N can do but N can do what S can't do" seems not right. Don't we N need them S to "run the show" while we're brainstorming ideas?

There's concrete intelligence and then there's abstract intelligence.

I think you need to reconsider your take on this.

INFP: I also have to say that you

I also have to say that you are correct that it seems N people are more influential because they are outside-the-box thinkers.

it's the whole "S can't do what N can do, but N can do what S can do so we'd be better off without S" that I'm not sure I agree with. Can u clarify? Thanks.

Quinton Figueroa: Sure, I'll clarify.
@INFP (view comment)

Sure, I'll clarify.

Pretend there is a 1st grader and a 6th grader. There are certain skills a 6th grader may posses like multiplication and division that a 1st grader does not posses. The 6th grader can do 6th grader things and ALSO do 1st grader things. The 1st grader can only do 1st grader things, they can't do all the things that a 6th grader can do. So in this sense the 6th grader is more capable than a 1st grader. The 1st grader doesn't have an edge on the 6th grader, the 6th grader has an edge on the 1st grader.

I see S's and N's almost the exact same way. I see N's as the higher level student in general. N's posses most of the traits that S's have, while S's do not possess the traits that N's have. N's can more easily do things S's do than S's can do things N's do. That's what I am saying.

Yes of course there are exceptions. But in general this is the trend.

INFP: so let's put this into

so let's put this into perspective: Einstein who is INTP can be an ESFJ- organizing parties, arranging meetings, entertaining guests, and smartly handle the logistics of such things....but an ESFJ can't theorize principles and theories like an INTP if he tries to?

Quinton Figueroa: It would be more accurate to
@INFP (view comment)

It would be more accurate to put an ENFJ up against an ESFJ in which case yes, an ENFJ would be able to do all those things very well. ENFJs are very organized, very good with people, very good with logistics and all these things. They would crush it. Would an ESFJ be able to motivate people around them and lead a movement? Not so much. ENFJ > ESFJ when it comes to ability.

Anonymous: "Intelligent" people don't

"Intelligent" people don't believe in a discredited piece of mid-century pseudoscience, Q.E.D. There's not a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence (and blog entries, newspaper articles, and popular press self-help books are not "scientific evidence") in favor of the MBTI. You might as well be jerking off about how your astrology sign is the smartest (which, pfft, EVERYBODY knows it's Aquarius).

Anonymous: So N's are leaders because S

So N's are leaders because S's do all the hard work while the N's are theorising? N's don't bother with detail and how to get things done because the stupid little S's can do that for them.

Anonymous: IMHO anyone stating "I don't

IMHO anyone stating "I don't know who Faraday is" can't legitimately be stating that their type is more intelligent.

Alex: Man, way to fondle the egos

Man, way to fondle the egos of 100+ N's. I'd want to say congrats, but you have something pretty dangerous here. Conflating type with intelligence (musical, visual, spatial, verbal, linguistic, logical, mathematical, bodily, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligence, I mean, they're all the same, right?) creates a tidy hierarchy. The implicit thrust of your whole argument gives ammo for brain dead narcissists to leverage themselves. You set N's, biologically and inexplicably, above Sensors (just like how Hitler did with his own people vs homosexuals, foreigners, crippled, etc). Through the most unscientific means, hokey personality typing and falsified IQ testing, you frame yourself as an authority on the matter and can say that another person is biologically better than another person? I'm just going by what you said, I mean, evolution connotes progression, so those "primal" sensors seem too dumb and animal-like (note the rhetoric). Really, these are just the trappings of an overactive ego, and I really hope nobody comes your way, reads this blog, and internalizes what's been said, thinking they're either a cut above everyone else or a notch down the rung.

Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the response.
@Alex (view comment)

Thanks for the response.

Why do people always get so worked up about intelligence? Why is it okay to say somebody is more detailed but not more intelligent? Why is it okay to say somebody is more social but not more intelligent? Why can somebody be more artistic but not more intelligent? Why does everyone else bring ego into it when it's not an egotistical argument? It is simply an argument based on observation that some people can be more intelligent based on their personality the same way people can be more friendly, cold, sloppy, determined, etc, etc.

The point of this post isn't based around N's being biologically better. When I use evolution I am not talking about mere physical, biological evolution. I am talking about the evolution of your self, your own personal growth. N's are more evolved when it comes to non-physical evolution for a number of reasons, many which can easily be discovered by simply reading the descriptions of N's vs S's. You have to ask yourself why do so many people accidentally test as N's? It's because they lie because they want to be N's. They know that the N description sounds better and more mature. It's because it is. N's are more likely to be long-term, this is intelligent. N's are more likely to see how multiple pieces of information relate together, this is intelligent. N's are more likely to trust unseen things, and not simply their 5 senses. N's are more evolved insofar as personal growth is concerned.

All you have to do is read some books on philosophy, spirituality or even science and you will quickly find the links between these and N's. I have barely even mentioned the whole spiritual aspect of this topic because all the S's will be like, "your thesis doesn't fit into my little scientific box that matches my 5 senses because I would never go beyond science". I could go much more into detail on the whole spiritual side of this argument. But it doesn't matter, the point of this post wasn't to give the be-all, end-all on why N's are smarter. It was to simply make that point briefly and allow people to research it more themselves and make up their own mind.

But I had to say something because nobody else is. I go throughout the web reading about personalities and MBTI and nobody is stating the obvious. They make shallow claims that everyone believes but when somebody makes one of the most coherent and deep claims everyone gets all bent out of shape over it. This same type of thing happens throughout the whole world in a number of other topics. If we were to question our education, our religion and even our government people would get all bent out of shape again. People are happy with the way the world is and they don't want change or new views. So stay happy with your cookie-cutter S world, but I'm not buying it.

The fact that I have to constantly re-iterate my point and explain it over and over again should say something. People don't even listen to what I have to say and have no arguments against what I say. They poke at petty details like "oh Einstein's IQ isn't that high" or "how do you know the personality of somebody that is dead, LOLOL". Yeah, great argument. Somehow I think you missed it yet again.

Erin: Love it.

Thank you! I'm not sure of the scientific validity behind everything you said, but overall I agree that the inability of many Ss to see the forest for the trees - much less see beyond the forest! - is beyond frustrating and leaves Ns feeling like they "just don't get it." I know that intelligence and being bright can be defined in many ways, but when I'm sharing innovative ideas and thinking outside the box in a rational way (even if not necessarily proven or "right") and Ss just can't even process what I'm saying, it is hard not to feel a little contempt for them. I often tell my SO to think of what I'm saying like a spider web: everything is related. He says "but X has nothing to do with Y!" With a more open, flexible mind (P?), he could at least process my ideas in order to discuss them properly or even deconstruct them, which would be fun. I respect how you made connections between your ideas and at the end of the day, it is a good, thought-provoking discussion. Therein lies the main value of the argument for me! Maybe some Ss have traits that make up for their difficulty connecting the dots outside the box (to use a mixed metaphor), but they could still be effective, influential leaders. That's not what it is about to me. Moral of the story for me is that you have put into words why I find it so difficult to make myself understood by some Ss.

Berry: nope

I'm an N, and this is an absolute drivel. nope nope and nope.

Quinton Figueroa: For those of you harping on

For those of you harping on about the cognitive functions... This article is not meant to be about the cognitive functions. You don't need cognitive functions to see the patterns that are obvious in just the letters, descriptions, people, etc. But since you Ss are so into finding 1 irrelevant point to somehow disprove all the other relevant points allow my ISTJness to fancy you:

</ISTJ>

The cognitive functions illustrate the exact same point that has been made throughout this article. All Ns have Intuition as either their 1st or 2nd function and Sensing as either 3rd or 4th.

All Ss have Sensing as either their 1st or 2nd function and Intuition as either their 3rd or 4th function.

Sensors don't lead or even co-lead with intuition. It takes a back seat. Sensors lead with the visible rather than the invisible. Sensors lead with what the world shows them rather than what their inner voice shows them. Sensors rely on the visible rather than the invisible. We know that thoughts and unseen things create the seen reality, but this doesn't take place to sensors until later.

Intuitives lead or co-lead with the unseen because they are connecting closer to the source of reality. Unseen comes before seen. Before matter there was first a thought. Thought comes before physical manifestation. Physical manifestation is a servant to the non-physical. This is why many of the smartest people in the world are and were N. They know this. And until the Ss open their eyes outside of the immediate, physical world of sensing they will never know this and will only marvel at the brilliance of people connected outside of the narrow frequency of sensing, of closing yourself to higher energy.

So hopefully we can end the petty distraction of the cognitive functions because the cognitive functions tell the exact same story. The closer you are to starting with intuition the closer you are to deriving your intelligence from the world of infinite possibilities rather than the world of finite.

The thinking/feeling part is highly irrelevant as that is just a matter as whether you are into things (T) or people (F). Ts work with things while Fs work with people. They're both important and don't really make a difference. But the Intuition and the Sensing makes all the difference which is why Intuitives prioritize Intuition higher on the list.

Oh wait, let me guess... I didn't cite the source for these images right? No source for image = S doesn't want to do research = OP is wrong.

Rosiejones: I am an INTJ and I agree with

I am an INTJ and I agree with a lot of what you are saying and I get it when you say that Ns are more influential whereas Ss are just for entertainment. But if you look at it really abstractly, why is being entertaining not as good as influential? Why do we try to influence people - to make positive changes which - make people happy. Our end goal is always to make people happy and in an S's defence, that is what they do by entertaining others, they make them happy. What else is life about apart from happiness (CRINGE)) but tis true. Or maybe not. I dont know all the answers okay.

INTerJect: Of course N's are smarter

No question. S's and N's might get the same grades and stuff but not IQ scores. Now there are smart Ss and there are dumb Ns but in general, Ns win. Let's be honest, it's true, not everything is equal and happy. Men are better at sports, feelers are better at socializing, woman are better at multitasking, etc., Look at it this way, 3 quarters of the population are Ss and 3 quarters (rough estimate) of influential people are Ns, do the math it's that simple. Being an N is all flowery either. Ns do lack common sense and have trouble socializing with 3 quarters of the population after-all.

Lindy Petts: It is very true. As a female

It is very true. As a female ENTJ,sometimes a P and with I tendencies I've always found that being with "Ss' drives me almost mad. They can be very limited in their vision and stick with the most mundane of facts and assumptions which will never take the human race forward (or even an organisation). They are no doubt highly intelligent in the most obvious of ways (hence the fact that so many doctors are Ss - it's all about the data darling! But they miss making links and that limits them. Many doctors are basically a bit thick). It's hard being a female NT. I think research has shown they're even fewer of us than men. When I'm with another NT I can relax into the sheer conceptual gorgeousness of it all, the broad arc of discussion and depth of insight. HG Wells had it right after all.

Uryed08: Sigmund Freud was an ISTJ,

Sigmund Freud was an ISTJ, and I know 6 American Presidents who were defined ISTJ. It's a matter of having the ability not having the intelligence.

James Santiago: This article is dead wrong,

This article is dead wrong, beware, this is another mentality that destroys others and creates chaos. Don't assume.

Quinton Figueroa: How is it wrong?
@James Santiago (view comment)

How is it wrong?

Anonymous: Good debate

Well well, this certainly has stirred up a lot of good debate about this particular subject.

I can appreciate the intellectual writing style of this article, and the point I think it tries to convey. However, I believe this point was lost amongst the rather unnecessary bashing of sensor types. I agree that intuitive types are often better at directing society in new and sometimes better directions, as well as creatively articulating novel ideas about whatever interests them (eg science, religion, art, politics etc). That is a direct consequence of their dominant cognitive function of either extroverted intuition or introverted intuition. But for as good as they are with coming up with these new ideas, they are, in my experience, equally bad at actually implementing them and seeing them through to completion. Perhaps this is because the intuitives I know best are perceiving intuitives, who's extroverted thinking function ranks lows on their cognitive function stack. My point in saying this is that I think intelligence and leadership qualities are less determined by the S vs N designation, but more by what the dominant and auxiliary cognitive functions of the individual are. For example, leadership is best determined by the ability to get things done (extroverted thinking) and also by the ability to both motivate employees and carry the project through until completion. Because of the extroverted thinking component, it's often believed that ENTJ's and ESTJ's make the best boss's because they are both Te dominant. They differ in their auxiliary function, with ENTJ's utilizing Ni and ESTJ's utilizing Si. Because most of the working class employees are stereotypically ISTJ's or ISFJ's (people who are SI dominant), it could be argued that the ESTJ would actually perform better as the manager of these employees because he can better relate to their thinking patterns. It could also be argued that in the long-term, overall success of the business, the ENTJ would be the better manager because of the Ni's ability to piece together how things work based on their internal "gut feelings."

My point is a feeble attempt to illustrate how we all have certain talents and abilities that can be utilized to make a difference in the world. We need senors just as much and we need intuitives in order to have the optimally functioning society. Every person plays an important role as a cog in the complex machine of society, whether than be as an employee crunching numbers for a data analysis spreadsheet, a scientist repeating an experiment for the 700th time testing a different variable hoping this time (s)he'll get good results, a politician writing up an inspiration speech to win over the hearts of the masses, or a college professor gifting knowledge to the future generation of doctors, teachers, accountants, engineers, or artists. The MBTI is merely a framework for understanding how people think and why people act the way they do. Correlations do exist between certain job and certain personality types (stereotypically the INTJ scientist) and that is a direct result of the cognitive functions. Someone with Si as their dominant function will be happiest in a job where that function is used the most (ie bank teller, accountant etc etc) while someone who is Fe dominant will be happiest doing something completely different.

This is a well-written article, but I think it is flawed in its hast to make broad generalizations about people with certain personality types rather than delving in to the actual reasons why these generalizations are often true (ie the cognitive functions). Sensors play a role in society just like intuitive do - their roles are markedly different, but that is why both are necessary. An intuitive would almost certainly be depressed and disillusioned doing the job a senor type may enjoy immensely. It is the job of all of us to do what we can to make this world a better place with the gifts and functions that we have been given. That will look different for different people, and that doesn't mean one type is by default superior to any other type. We can all learn from people who have a different perspective than us, and this is important to becoming well-rounded, high functioning individuals. Recognizing that learning is a life-long process, and that it is absolutely necessary for personal and societal growth and development is, in my opinion, far more important than whether or not someone is an intuitive vs a sensor.

Anonymous: There's no women on the list.

There's no women on the list.. Unless I am mistaken. Although there will be less of them recorded, i think the list is not accurate unless they are included.

Uryed08: I was offended at first

But I do understand now what you were trying to say. I'm an ISTJ and it's true that I can't handle abstract ideas before. It's true also that S people are mostly employees for N. I thought at first that you were really aiming to say that S are unnecessary people, sorry for that. But I want to share my sentiments with you. When I first took the test which is from another website, the result was ISTJ. I didn't like it but I would say that it was true. But I got more obsessed with the MBTI and I wanted to change so badly, and I think I did. I am taking up fine arts (contrary to what a typical ISTJ wouldn't take). And my classmates were mostly N types. And I think I got used to the idea of what they are with the help of MBTI that when I took other, my result would be either INTJ or INTP. But I'm answering the test truthfully, I think it's possible that some of the S could evolve into N. And I guess you're an INTJ, am I right?

Cazzy: Can I guess you are an Entp?

Can I guess you are an Entp?

Anonymous: You, sir, are an idiot.

You, sir, are an idiot.

infp: I honestly now think that the

I honestly now think that the "N's are rare" belief is a myth.

If you look at Keirsey's descriptions, the N types are almost always exaggerated: All scientists are more or less NTs, all visionary idealists who have changed society are NFs, all entertainers are SPs, all prudes are more or less SJs, etc.

Analyzing the original MBTI, I don't think Ns are supposed to be clear-cut these types of people, even!

Ns are witty and yes they are abstract compared to S, but not all scientists are clearly NTs. Not all reformers are clearly Ns.

For example, I think INTJ is supposedly an "executive" type of person, one who stands firmly by his principles and convictions and all that, but this person could also be found in the realm of entertainment. But Keirsey almost always types INTJs as the "mastermind rationals", the scientists, etc. This seems like an illusion.

I think that maybe you will be surprised how there are much N's as much as there are S's in the society. I honestly don't think changing the world is about whether one is N or S, it has more to do with bravery to go against the norm (and S can be this brave as well), more than anything else.

I know one ISTJ who is an atheist because past experience/s dictate her that having faith in a "God" is useless. If you think about Hermione Granger, the character from the Harry Potter series, who is ISTJ, started revolutionizing about the rights of the house-elves in that world because based on her experience, she concludes that they don't deserve the treatment that they're getting. An INTJ could very well lead to the same conclusion but with a different way to get there. Likewise, an INTJ could very well be satisfied in a "clerk" or a "guardian" role because his insight lead him to the conclusion that it is a worthwhile job!

Leading, changing the world are more about being "brave" more than the MBTI preference for either S or N.

Super Janice: Hermione might be an ESTJ!
@infp (view comment)

Hermione might be an ESTJ!

infp: I also have to add that,

I also have to add that,

you may be judging people based on the S vs. N preference when you should be judging them by their WHOLE personality type.

For example, you have reiterated many times that many spiritual dogmas tell that Intuition is superior to Sensing because matter, before it becomes "concrete", is energy/form/impression/whatever.

Now, the interesting thing is that, in the MBTI, the N types (for example, INTJ) doesn't necessarily mean they're being "Intuitive".

Can I argue that ESFPs are more "wholehearted, authentic and intuitive" more than INTJs, for example? I don't know what the teachings say but it seems if you look at it as a whole, before you could access your Higher Power or whatever it is, you have to stay "grounded" so in a very interesting twist, Sensors are actually more intuitive than the Intuitive types of the MBTI! Likewise, Intuitive types (because of their intellect) often apply their Intuition preference (consciously) somewhat awkwardly or by force or by applying it 'hands-on' in the real world, resulting for them to be a lot more hedonistic and ambitious! It's like, the smarter you are, the farther you are by staying grounded, staying in touch with your Inner Center or your intuition!

What do you think?

I just recently thought about this.

Having said that, I am now thinking Einstein might be ISTP after all.

Quinton Figueroa: I like the twist that you
@infp (view comment)

I like the twist that you added and I appreciate the thought. It's interesting and I see what you're saying. I don't agree but I do see where you're coming from and you may have something to it.

Like you said, just because Ns are called intuitive doesn't mean that it means they are intuitive. It's a word used to describe a lot of attributes and things behind the N character.

Keep in mind that my main argument isn't about intuition, it is about influence. We would have to define intuition and grounded if we wanted to delve deeper into that discussion.

How would you define intuition? Is intuition different than emotion? Are you born with intuition? Is it possible to gain or lose intuition?

How would you define grounded?

infp: I also think that you are

I also think that you are ESTP after all. (so in a way you are attuned to your Intuition because you are an ESTP....when you are 'grounded', the "third eye" opens..?)

infp: so if you follow the logic

so if you follow the logic that Ns are smarter than Ss, but Ss are more "practical" and are "down-to-earth" with "good common sense", Ss actually build things from the ground. They are actually more intuitive as oppose to the over-complication of Ns (seeing patterns, exaggerating things).

If you see this, then Ns become good bosses but Ss become good entrepreneurs!

(Remember that Keirsey's take on MBTI over-complicates things by exaggerating things. However, if we go by the purely MBTI take on things, this should be the case.)

Correct me if I'm wrong?

Quinton Figueroa: Building things from the
@infp (view comment)

Building things from the ground doesn't make you an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs don't take directions from other people and usually follow their own desires. In a way this is more of a J/P discussion than S/N. Obviously the least likely group to be entrepreneurs would be SJs because they love tradition and authority more so than the other 3.

I still haven't fully meshed out what you mean when you say grounded or from the ground up. I think what you are saying is that people who work from their 5 senses up are more intuitive because the 5 senses are more foundational towards intuition than getting it somewhere else. I'd have to better know what you mean though because this doesn't make sense to me on a number of levels.

As far as bosses, entrepreneurs and employees go, let me make give you my take. I've put a lot of thought into this one.

It starts with entrepreneurs. These are the highest level business people. They start businesses and have the creativity to see a vision that nobody else sees. They also have the balls to believe in themselves and actually take action to make it a reality. These are the highest level people in the business world. These are almost always Ns because they are influential, especially the really good ones like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and on and on. Entrepreneurs are the influential people of society because creating something out of nothing that makes other people's lives better is influential. Influential people are smarter and usually Ns.

You then have the bosses or managers. These people don't start companies, they don't have the balls to do that. They don't believe in themselves enough. These people usually went to high level Ivy League schools and got really good grades. These people take over the day-to-day activities for the entrepreneurs. These are a lot of the executive management you will find in businesses. This is also why a lot of the times when the entrepreneurs hand over their companies to managers to run they often times start to decline. The managers don't know how to steer companies well, give or take. They only really know how to do what they're told. So Managers are closer to being S and are almost always Js. SJ is very common here, especially ESTJ.

Then you have employees at the bottom. These are pretty much the rest of everyone. So here you will have everything that isn't an entrepreneur or manager.

So I totally disagree that Ns are good managers and Ss are good entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneur: N
Manager: S
Employee: S

infp: "I still haven't fully meshed

"I still haven't fully meshed out what you mean when you say grounded or from the ground up. I think what you are saying is that people who work from their 5 senses up are more intuitive because the 5 senses are more foundational towards intuition than getting it somewhere else."

Yes, pretty much.

This is what I meant.

I just thought intuition gets to them more reflexively because they're not CONSCIOUS about it. N types are somewhat the sneaky, manipulative, middle-men people. (secretive, playing it safe, reading between the situation)

So you are an S and the people you think are losers are actually Ns!

It is true SJs operate on tradition but I think if you take into account that Intuition seeps into S reflexively as compared to Ns then those S who start out as slaves find out something is "off" or "unjust", and then organize rebellion!

Ns will most likely see something's off but in the end of the day because they're reading between the lines, a little bit more manipulative, and always playing it safe (e.g. the longevity of the trickster), they will just mutter to themselves, "that's reality" and just coast through without changing anything! These are the middle-men people. They don't really revolutionize!

To Keirsey's interpretation, though: ALL Ns are THE reformers. However, if you analyze what really the original MBTI was saying, this isn't really the case. N is about reading between the lines and S is about literal facts. It is true that N's are a little bit more abstract than S (especially INxx types) but this doesn't mean that pure, "unedited" Intuition is seeping from the unconscious mind.

It's like S gives way to REAL intuition but N gives way to REAL sensing.......interesting indeed? For example: INTJ is probably the most sexual of all the types.

Your turn.

Quinton Figueroa: Appreciate the response. I
@infp (view comment)

Appreciate the response. I will give you a more detailed response later, but first:

How would you define intuition? Is intuition different than emotion? Are you born with intuition? Is it possible to gain or lose intuition?

infp: "If you don't change

"If you don't change direction, you just might end up where you are heading..." -Lao Tzu

In the harry potter series, when Dumbledore put the sorcerer's stone into the Mirror of Erised (a mirror where you could see your reflection achieving what you desire) where you could only get it if you see your reflection HAVING it, the dark wizard couldn't GET it because he SEES himself only presenting it to HIS master (anyone who wants to use it will see themselves in the mirror using it but not having it!) but not HAVING it - but when harry wants to have it in order to protect it, he sees his reflection having it so he GETS it.

If you apply the same analogy to this Sensing-versus-Intuition brouhaha, you will find that people who prefer the Sensing preference are actually much more intuitive (because they don't seek it) more than people who prefer the Intuition preference.

If you keep on thinking of not wanting to think about pink elephants, you are more likely to think about them...

I'm not sure if you're following me? (Keep in mind that Keirsey exaggerates a lot- e.g. NTs are scientists, NFs are the dreamy idealists, etc. so we'll have to go back to the basics)

infp: I would define Intuition as

I would define Intuition as this "extra-sensory perception". Its operation is very much unconscious. I would say it IS reading between the lines, forming impressions, hunches, gut feelings.

The "Aha!" moments and the likes.

I'd say intuition is different from emotion.

I'd say all people are born with intuition, just some people are more in tuned with it.

yeah, I think, as with any other skill, it's possible to "increase" or "decrease" one's skill of Intuition.

infp: Hi,

Hi,

I realized I mull over things a little too much.

LOL, anyway...

There is a shift from Myers-Briggs to Keirsey's interpretation. And I would say if we stand by Keirsey's interpretation, then you are correct that "N's are smarter than S's". What I did was backtracked and see what original form of the MBTI was supposed to be. But if we move forward going into Keirsey's tunnel, he actually revised a lot with the MB preferences. The S/N preference now is not so much as literal facts vs. reading-between-the-lines but as it is now concrete vs. abstract. The confusion lies when Keirsey's descriptions (having been spread all over the Internet) gets intertwined with the original MB descriptions and this is where my "intuitive" brain seems to be not contented. I realized the two models aren't exactly the same! Keirsey's is, maybe an improved and revised version of the MBTI.

If you go by Keirsey's interpretation, you'll have to change "sensing" to "observation" and "intuition" to "introspection" (concrete vs. abstract) because if you've read his book, that's actually how he REVISED them! He said the concrete types are "earthlings" and the abstract types are the "head-in-the-clouds". He actually even admits he took the MB literature and made it more practical and understandable. This is what he said Myers really meant for the preferences:

I/E= Reserved/Expressive
S/N= Concrete/Abstract
T/F= Tough-minded/Friendly
J/P= Scheduling/Probing

Myers-Briggs likened the Introvert/Extravert scale to the abstract/concrete scale but Keirsey stepped forward and corrected this "mess". He said the abstract/concrete scale APPLIES more as similar to the S/N scale, not the introvert/extravert scale as according to Keirsey, it IS actually the least important scale as it only deals with a person's social attitude, e.g. gregariousness. He said that Myers-Briggs did a lot of introjection/projection and concluded that introverts are "interested in ideas and concepts" while extraverts are interested in "people and objects". He then went on and said this is where the error started. Introversion/Extraversion are NOT about the abstract/concrete scale, it is ONLY merely about social attitude. That one properly fits to the S/N scale. Of course, Keirsey justifies this by saying it is based on his decades(?) of typewatching and observation, saying that the "Intuitive" types (based on Myers-Briggs terminology) are the ones actually interested in ideas and concepts, not the Introverts. So in my very humble opinion, I think you need to stop using the Myers-Briggs four letters because they're not supposed to reflect your opinion on this matter.

Just use "according to Keirsey, the Introspective types are smarter than the Observers".....you would be using his terminology too and drop the four letters entirely.

It gets confusing. I think Keirsey is saying that his model correlates to the MBTI (it is an improved version) but is not really similar at all with it.

so when it is MBTI, it is:

Sensing= literal facts
Intuition= reading between the lines

Keirsey corrected it and said:

Sensing= concrete
Intuition= abstract/ideas

so at the end of the day, I actually agree with you.

Quinton Figueroa: I think you're over
@infp (view comment)

I think you're over-complicating this. If you Google MBTI and research the top websites they all pretty much say the same thing in regards to S/N.

I find it interesting because you're doing what a lot of Ss do. You're trying to pin this down to one official or correct definition. Maybe that's not possible. Maybe they're all going to differ a little bit but still share the same core meaning. They may not all say it the exact same but they will still share a clear insight into what they're getting at. I'm talking about this core essence of the S/N relationship. You don't need to get detailed and over-complicate it. You don't need to find the one true definition or original definition. All you need to do is see how people are using it, see the current patterns with it and see what value you can gain through that. That's all I'm doing.

For example you say:

so when it is MBTI, it is:

Sensing= literal facts
Intuition= reading between the lines

Keirsey corrected it and said:

Sensing= concrete
Intuition= abstract/ideas

This is pretty much the same thing. People who like literal facts are usually very concrete. Ss are most certainly into facts and concrete information. People who read between the lines are generally abstract. This is most certainly N. So both of these definitions you provide are not different at all. And in both cases the difference between S and N is quite clear. From both definitions you can easily see where they're going with it.

Now let me address your earlier point about intuition and being grounded. I agree pretty much exactly with your definition of intuition.

You say that in order to access your Higher Power you have to stay grounded. I totally disagree with this. The accessing of higher power is not done through your senses. Senses can actually get in the way. That's why many spiritual people talk about a 3rd eye, a sense outside of your 5 physical senses. That's why many spiritual people talk about meditation and turning off your mind and your thoughts. Your brain can and often does become a liability when it comes to spirituality. In a lot of way accessing higher power happens when we are outside of our senses. This is why those intuitive blips of insight happen often times when we are sleeping, before or after bed or when we are just completely relaxed and not "thinking" about anything. It happens when we are outside of our senses. It happens when we are not forcing it. You can't concrete or factually get your way to intuition.

If you want to take it further, before we were grounded in the physical world we were in the Higher Power arena and not grounded. Being not grounded comes before being grounded. When we become grounded on earth that is when we learn and take on all these physical sensor characteristics. The Higher Power nature is still our foundation but often times we lose touch of it by getting too caught up with the physical, sensor world. So no matter what everyone is intuitive, but it's a matter of how covered up and forgotten it becomes by the 5 sense, grounded world. Religion, parents, society, governments and all the other institutions we have start to tell people how and what to think. This is all very S. This is all authority telling you which way to live. As you go from being a child to a teenager you become very indoctrinated with the rules of society. You slowly diminish your own inner voice (intuition) and replace it with the voice of others (sensor). You believe the facts and rules they tell you. And that's not necessarily wrong. But it's not intuitive. It is very concrete and literal.

Most people stop here. Most people never get outside of this box. Most people come into the world intuitive as a child and then slowly kill that intuitive connection after like 10 - 20 years.

But for whatever reason a lot of the Ns don't kill that intuitive spark. And the really, really influential Ns actually harvest and grow that spark. That's what people like Jesus, Gandi, Steve Jobs and others do. They don't let the world shut them down. They don't let the world drown out their intuition. For whatever reason their desire is stronger than the rest of the world telling them that they can't follow their intuition. Seriously, listen to the first 40 seconds of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHPm8l2gSYA. Steve Jobs says it all right there. He is saying exactly what I am saying. Does that sound like something an S would say, or an N? It's pure N. And it's pure intuition.

So after a great deal of time or lifetimes or whatever you want to call it Ns eventually recleaim or never let go of that intuition. Instead they harvest it. And this doesn't mean that they don't learn 5 sense things. They do. They may even be more into the 5 senses than a lot of sensors. It just means that their primary driver in life is not their senses but their intuition. Intuition flows first and then their senses act on that intuition. Sensors do this a bit differently. Sensors pull information not as much from their intuition but from society and institutions. Sensors are less likely to break the rules because they are less likely to follow their intuition. This is the core of my article. And this is what I am talking about when I talk about evolving past being a sensor.

So you don't need to be grounded to have intuition. And you can be grounded and intuitive. Most people are born intuitive, turn to sensors and never reclaim their intuition. Ns are born intuitive, learn to user their senses to varying degrees, and then choose to what degree to continue or grow their intuition. I could obviously go on and on about this and mesh it out in greater detail but I hope this somewhat clarifies my point.

infp: oh, I get it so much and I

oh, I get it so much and I really loved that long explanation!

BTW, I just got here to say that I may have over-complicated things.....but you beat me to it.

I was trying to see the S/N dichotomy from all angles that I confused myself and it was a mess.

I have to say,

I thought at first when you "meditate" you are trying to "feel" your environment in order to get to the Intuition.....but I guess that impression was wrong.

Quinton Figueroa: That's good you try to see it
@infp (view comment)

That's good you try to see it from all angles. I try to do the same thing. Sometimes it will throw you off on a tangent and that's fine too. That happens to me all the time when I research things as well. You're much better off doing what you did and going off on a tangent that you create yourself than simply following what everyone else does and never forming your own, original tangent :) There is much more value in you trying something and not fully getting it than you not trying anything at all.

I don't think your impression about meditation and feeling is wrong. Meditation is much closer to feeling than it is thinking from my understanding.

ISTP: Well I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt....

I just spent the better part of my evening reading this and most of the comments (some comments by others were great). Sadly, I wish I hadn't.

I wanted you to redeem yourself but it just.... didn't happen. Even if we could take MBTI seriously.....the entire article is about as useful or informative as claiming hair color influences intellect.

What is "smarter"? Seeing the world for what it is and working within it? Ie climbing the wall?

Or

Agonizing about possibily? And pounding my head against said wall?

See I can be biased too.

-ISTP

Cb. ISFP or INFP. : Well said. I think that Ss
@ISTP (view comment)

Well said. I think that Ss are the survivors of the bunch.. Maybe why there is more in society?? Put a problem in front of them and they will get it done.. Ns will sit and think and argue about it and when an S finishes it the N will take credit for the Idea and the S won't care cause he gets shit done and doesn't like to brag.. Sounds like the N that wrote this article is a little jealous of the focus and practical abilities of Ss.

infp: "I don't think your

"I don't think your impression about meditation and feeling is wrong. Meditation is much closer to feeling than it is thinking from my understanding."

Yeah but what I meant is that I thought when you meditate, you have to feel the environment through your 5 senses but you have explained how it's wrong. So that's what I meant.

Maybe you should do a separate article solely about Intuition, it will be an interesting read.;) .

Quinton Figueroa: Ah okay, gotcha :)
@infp (view comment)

Ah okay, gotcha :)

An article about intuition might be interesting, I will consider it.

infj: Ss have better common sense?

Ss have better common sense? Oh really.
More like: Ns are bad at what Ss consider common sense. And Ss totally fail at what Ns consider common sense to the point that they are usually completely unaware of it.
And since the vast majority are S, their inferior, primitive common sense is considered to be the norm.

blue_green8: Presidential Temperment

Are you at all familiar with David Keirsey's work in this area?? You list John F Kennedy as an N, but Kennedy was an ESTP Artisan, according to Keirsey. Also, you put down President Obama as an S "entertainer." But he is an INTJ according to Keirsey.

Also, where do you get your IQ estimates?? They are fantasy numbers. Have you taken a statistics class? You are assigning IQs of 180 or 200 in such a cavalier way. Do you know that an IQ of 175 is five standard deviations above the mean and do you know how rare that is? Most successful people are a combination of intelligence, luck, and often charisma. I see so many IQ attributions online that have no reliable assessments for reference.

Alejandro Ixxx: Just wanted to weigh in

Just wanted to weigh in before this goes stale, I think the world being predominantly S can compel Ns to assimilate and possibly even relinquish their gifts. Speaking from personal experience I believe that for most of youth I was very much infp/j but after so many years of trying to fit in I, at the very least, now look like an S on the outside. Additionally, I appreciate that you believe one's type can change, this is a belief held by myself as well and which is supported by psych (neuroplasticity), but flies in the face of mb fundamentalists.

Alejandro Ixxx: Also tesla, like newton, was

Also tesla, like newton, was textbook intj genius, they called him a prophet because of his profound insight into the physical world, look up some of his predictions if you doubt it

anon: N aren't smarter than S, but

N aren't smarter than S, but it's a very strong "supportive" force to help one to overcome it's obstacles in a better way, so it can be interpreted as "better".

My brother (ISTP) usually (always) wins over me in chess, and many other are smarter than me. I know some more ISTP, and I adore them, they're an inspiration. I can only work like
them for a while, but only at few projects, not in that scale they usually have or do.
I have high standards in quality of my work, often in their range, but my N are always hungry, so I have to move on, tmake plans, to relax and think out new solutions instead of trial and errors. (being lazy or effective?!) :)

Few as me haven't gotten a such deep understanding of the small things, the inner life of what peoples are, the inner life of computer codes, all these invisble connections who intertwined in themselves, creating filaments. I am INFJ/INTJ, and it's really a curse, a deep pain to never be alive in the moment, always present in all other places.
(INTJ and INFJ are closely related, very very closely, males are usually forced to be more "thinking" than females, I am trying to develop more of my feelings)

I am mostly as an ISTP on surface, my harsh upbringing forced me to yield too much of my personality, if I was a ESxP I suppose that I either would be dead or in prison.

And where is Princess Diana?
Your list are flawed in a skewed and biased way.
I see some of circular logic into it, please be careful with your own train of thought.
Somebody else gave a detailed critique, and you ignored it. Shame on you.

The surroundings has more to say than a person, the driving force behind a person is more than a MTBI tag. I think that I know a ISFJ person, a very gentle person, but he had a strong driving force to start a company who fits into his vison.
I am also trying to be an entrepreneur.

infp: "I still haven't fully meshed " : You'e too literal. N takes a lot of time to mature, give it 10 years, and you'll be knifesharp. N is not just about lies and manipulating, an another INFJ here wrote beatifully about water and wine, and it's the most accurate description I ever had seen. Read that.

I experienced recently a strong N-force to buy stuff, and if I followed that, my home would be more beatiful, whith a integrated design on a higher level nobody (?) else would have.
But I resisted, I didn't understand why I "was told to buy" Damn! Lesson learned.
I think that's one of the difficulties of being a N, it takes time to find out, know, decide, that one have to trust oneself into it's iNutions.

intj: Ns are only smarter than Ss

Ns are only smarter than Ss according to IQ because the construct of IQ is biased in favour of intuitive personalities. All personality types have their own kind of intelligence; it's just different for each one.

Anonymous: Are you an idiot? Or just a really dumb genius?

This is the most utter bullshit I have ever read, and to make it simple, I am an ENFP, but I am not an arrogant fuck like you are. S's can be just as smart as N's and even just as influential, and by the way, Alexander the great, Steve Jobs, and Henry Ford were all S's and look at theor accomplishments. Also, remember that Barack Obama and a lot of celebrities are all N, but they couldn't even figure out out to piss in a sewer. If you were competent enough to think about the concept of personality, would you find that personality is defined as someone's motivation and not what they're capable of? No, because your brain is one of the trillions beyond trillions of the tiny molecules in the world and it barely has the ability to influence the particles next to it. Good day to you, fucktard.

Rahim: some one pointed at the start

some one pointed at the start of the article that the authors grammar is inappropriate, good to hear that from you, you prove yourself to be an S types as mere trivial things such as rules of grammar tend to be just piece of crap to N types who are more towards whether something is going to make sense or not rather than perfectly written article with grammar which makes no sense, there will be lot of grammar mistakes in my comment but only thing is that it will make some sense.

I am a doctor who is fed up with idiots around myself using the society for just monetary personal and family gain and no sense of compassion people, these people will believe nothing other than their book says,

Any I wanted to point out that at the level of subconscious there are feeling of either being inferior or superior the other state of feeling not bothering these issues is tranquillity which is hard to achieve and reached

Being inferior is the feeing(not just feel, feeling at subconscious is what they know in truth about themselves) bothered to the most which makes them hard working striving to make perfection with the given job(you can relate to whom I am speaking about in the context of article) and project them with ego defence mechanism as being perfectionist and down to earth people in fact they are depressed and inferior feeing people, which on other hand there are people feel (not just feel as above they know the truth) they are superior in thought and bring out a ego defence mechanism of being of narcissistic tendencies because society was always rude their very existence and they have to pacify their existence, and the feeing of being rejected consciously so they tend make up with fact and appear narcissistic to other so called down to earth in fact if they were not opposed they would not mind bothering about the other class.
It doesn't make any sense to me if I was good with the grammar any way English is not my mother tongue, so I tend to do mistakes but what makes me happier is the sense it should make, a language of emotional importance( a function of non dominant lobe in brain) which is above all grammatical thing.

thanks for the read.

Jo: And here we have....
@Rahim (view comment)

another mistyped, arrogant, special snowflake Sensor.

Some Misinformed Sheep: Worthess nonsense, all I am capable of producing.

This probably won't do very much to influence your opinion, as it seems your head has grown quite fond of you anal canal, but here it is nonetheless: oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/type-iq-and-school-grades

Some Misinformed Sheep: Typo correction
@Some Misinformed Sheep (view comment)

*Your anal canal.

Anonymous: I agree but I don't.

>From an INTJ

**If you don't want to read this read the TLDR on the bottom**
As an INTJ myself, I would like to make a few points that I don't think anyone mentioned (I didn't take an hour to read all of the comments though).
In my family there are some N's and some S's. I notice that the N's have a larger imagination, yet they are VERY socially awkward, even if extroverted. The S's I know seem to get things done, and although they may not be that massive, they are relatively better at doing the job, and they are also more organized (on average).

N's are not S's with an extra layer (coming from an N).

Both types have the capability to be ingenius. Sensors spend their time working and organizing, doing what excites their senses. Intuitives work in their heads and are less practical, doing what excites their brain.

I think most N's are dumber than S's overall, including practicality, emotions, thinking, logic, etc.
However, I believe some N's carry out their desire to study the abstract and thus rise far beyond Sensors.
I think most Sensors are in the same boat of being relatively average in smartness, some a bit above or below.
Most N's are a bit under average, but I believe a small percentage of these apply themselves and rise far above the S's. This is b/c they are excited by mental stimulation. S's have the same capability but choose not to carry it out, which is why they often live more enjoyable lives, doing what really matters.

TLDR: S's are more practical and more aware than N's. N's have the capability to score higher on an online test that makes them feel mentally happy. Oh, and they invent some things.

James: Without going through any

Without going through any other comments, let me make my thoughts clear.

You're on the right track with your thinking, and 4 years later you may be spot on. But you underestimate the importance of other roles in society performed by an S, on top of incorrectly placing some forms intelligence above others based simply on the 'influence' that capability has.

Excuse my generalizations, but will the vision the N provides be fulfilled without the thankless S carrying out duties far more capably than many N's could? The credit goes to the N, but who is to say one skill is above another?

When ever your brain can have you performing something well, whether it be sport, or remembering an appointment, you are showing competency. Any form of competency comes from a type of intelligence.

When someone is more naturally good at sport, like you mentioned, is their brain running at a more optimal level in regards to coordination, technique development and myriad of other variables?

This person may not inspire idealistic change, but since when has influence been the measure of intelligence? I have seen absolute genius S's be able to control the emotions of a whole room as if he was using a yo-yo, where as some incredibly clever and influential N's can't even pick up on basic social cues that an ESTP, or another type, may excel at. Try and have an abstract conversation with an ESTP though, and he will not 'APPEAR' intelligent.

Mike: "Any form of competency comes
@James (view comment)

"Any form of competency comes from a type of intelligence."

That's a terrible definition of intelligence. If people believe this, then it's no wonder why they get so sensitive whenever people talk about intelligence. I know of several rocks that are very competent at their jobs.

I personally believe that saying something like "I hate theories" is basically the same as saying "I will never do anything very important." Of all the different types of competencies, I think that intelligence is the greatest. In life, you are either changing, adapting, growing, and innovating, or you are just waiting for the universe to crush you. Maintenance is not enough. Intelligence matters.

from an entp: Not only is the leadership

Not only is the leadership about being a good strategist but also about leading people into action as well.

So N's, as better strategists we are, would only be better leaders than S's sometimes. I guess S's would be better than N's leading people in an emergency situation.

S's are better looking short term, N's long term.

Uryed08: I think you are very wrong about this stuff
@from an entp (view comment)

I'm an ISTJ (go roll your eyes and say "eh, sensor type. whatever"). but, clearly you did not research every single personality type like I did. First of all, SJ types usually end up working for long term projects. It's just that the projects they usually work for is about business. I'm talking about Warren Buffet, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, Ingvar Kamprad who were all businessmen. And all of their businesses are LONG TERM. What you're referring to as SHORT TERM usually can be found with people in the SP personalities, specifically the SFP types. So, all in all, You should consider the two letters when you stereotype people if they belong to long term or short term. I think in the very fist place, N's are influential because they are the cause of original ideas that is why they are famous whereas S's, usually SJ's prefer to work behind the scenes.

johnny: Hmmm....

Hmmm....

Isn't it common sense that all types are equal? You're not preaching equality here or symmetry - you're teaching Pyramid. e.g. Ns are "better" than Ss. Ns are better than Ss because they're smarter (and people will get the idea that you think Ns are better than Ss because let's face it, human beings are only as good as their brains and Ns are 'smarter' than Ss.)

So I think it is pretty justified that Sensors are going to get mad when they read this - if they strive to be "successful", they will serve as only seemingly less than their N counterparts.

This is common sense in regards to personality types: http://codropspz.tympanus.netdna-cdn.com/codrops/wp-content/uploads/2012...

This is essentially what you're going against when you preach that "Ns are smarter than Ss". Basically what you're saying is that, we could get away without Ss. That's highly unlikely.

Sensors are the "doers" of the world - they make things happen. Ns are the thinkers. We complement. It doesn't make sense that the other is better than the other.

johnny: It is more about "intuitive

It is more about "intuitive understanding" than "logic" that ALL TYPES ARE EQUAL. Sensors live in the present moment, Intuitive people think more about future possibilities & implications. They complement.

Mike: Why do all the types need to
@johnny (view comment)

Why do all the types need to be equally intelligent? Is there a scripture you can cite?

It's more like extroverted thinkers are the "doers" and intuitives are the "understanders." So I think that makes sensors people who either aren't doing much or don't know what they are actually doing. I've known several sensors who have told me, in almost the exact same words, "I am not very smart, but I can be a good employee because I will do what I'm told." I've never had an N tell me anything like that.

johnny: What's next? males are better
@Mike (view comment)

What's next? males are better than females? whites are better than blacks?

Are you seeing the slippery slope when you're trying to apply rigid logic to everything?

Mike: Is it possible for a white
@johnny (view comment)

Is it possible for a white person to become a black person? Is it possible for a woman to become a man? Is it possible for a sensor to become more intuitive?

We can't progress as a species if we are afraid of attacking belief systems that suck. Sensing is a set of assumptions about the world that many people will not choose to question. I would say it's a terrific thing to say is worse than something else.

Anonymous: Partiality and error of definition.

I liked the article although it contains some faults and misconceptions. It really revealed some things about yourself as well.

First, your bias to NT types is very apparent. I believe that thinkers are, in fact, more intelligent. As far as the N vs. S types being <80% responsible for the correlation of intelligence? That's a bit too extreme. The way that a person receives data does not make him smarter than another. What is done with that information and how it is applied does. And it looks like you like attribute anything intelligent to the N type. Also, although N types are more creative, that doesn't mean that the ideas are without flaws. Nor does it mean that they understand how it will work. The "grunt" work, the heavy lifting, has to be done by someone. If an N type is averse to the research and deep digging into the finer points, which they naturally are, their ideas would never come to fruition. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but just as the S type is in need of creativity, the N type has to learn how to do the work.

You also seem to have the notion that the N type is an advancement, or evolution beyond the S type, and not a preferred way to evaluate and interact with things. I believe I am an ESTP. However, I share many of the same traits with ENTP types. Innovation and creativity is invaluable, but I understand that you cannot skip the process of creation. The key to understanding this is not that you have to be one or the other. Learning when to use either side is vital to being a well balanced individual. This leads to the point that everyone does not sit on either end of the spectrum. Some are able to sit in the middle, shaded to either side possibly. But again, this only suggests a preference, and is not an indication of intellectual ability.

That is the final piece of my argument. Intelligence, is not determined by where you sit on this spectrum. The reason why N's tend to look "smarter" than S peers growing up, is the fact that they have spent more time understanding the way math, science etc. works. An S is likely to go home and quickly finish his work so that he could go play. The N doesn't naturally know how these things work. He is trained, by himself or others, to spend the time to understand how things work, which leads to him later being able to quickly pick up on new concepts. -Tangent-Given the same time and focus, who is to say that an F is not more intelligent than a T. Using ration does not solve every scenario. It cannot "solve" life. Ration is not inspiring. Ration does not know love. Ration does not always make one happy. Life is not meant to be solved, but experienced. Yet, striving to bring into creation can be all that a person needs to be happy. That however, does not determine his ability to learn the unknown ( a definition of smart that I prefer). -End tangent- Actually - end comment-

Mike: You're right about needing
@Anonymous (view comment)

You're right about needing both sensing and intuition to make something happen in the world.

But I think this is incorrect: "The way that a person receives data does not make him smarter than another. What is done with that information and how it is applied does." I think you're actually talking about wisdom, not intelligence. That comes with experience and well-developed judging functions.

Sensing is remembering data, and only the data---not asking the why behind the data. So, if there is a concise reason behind an array of data (which there usually is), then sensors will miss it and intuitives will not, because intuition is about the "why" more than it is about the "what." That's less memory storage capacity that's required to own a set of data (the vast majority of the time).

So, for example, a sensor might look at how Apple disrupted the established computing companies and might say, "Oh, that happened because X and Y were better with Apple," and then they wouldn't ask the "why" behind that answer. Then, they might see the steel industry's integrated factories get overtaken by the mini-mill steel companies, and think that it's a separate phenomenon, or at least shut down their intuition when it wants to ask why, because analyzing it would be a waste of time they think. Whereas, an intuitive type, say Clayton Christensen for example, might look at it and say, "Wow, I've seen the same thing in two completely separate places. There must be a reason. Why did that happen?" and asking these questions leads him to form a hypothesis that turns into a book and turns him into the man that was voted as the most influential business thinker this century. His preference for perceiving the separate occurrences as being connected by an abstract (intuitive), similar reason made him actually able perceive more than he would have otherwise, and it eventually enabled him to influence the way the US government was combating non-nation nations. Not only are universities dominated by people who think this way, but the influence of the abstract ideas they perceive reach much further into the world than the influence over students they teach, which is itself a big deal.

So I think we should all embrace our intuition a little more. Even if someone's sensing is super immature, at least their ideas can be implemented by other people. That has a much more powerful impact than a day spent in the ditches. By the way, in 10 years, ideas will take the form of software running on fully-capable robots who will all but remove the need for manual labor and jobs that require repetitive, low-level thinking.

johnny rebel: the first commenter is an S

the first commenter is an S moron. and darwin is pretty much always typed as INTP. he's the quintessential INTP right after Einstein.

Anonymous: Most close-minded, ridiculous

Most close-minded, ridiculous, full of stereotypes and plainly wrong thing I ever read about MBTI. Had to laugh the whole time reading it. Thanks for making my day! :D
Seriously, next time at least try to define intelligence (or smartness) as something else then just what IQ tests measure. As some people already wrote, IQ test measure just one (very narrow!) of many aspects of intelligence. And of course, all of them might be useful, just in different situations. For example as an ISTP, I'm usually frustrated by inability of many N's to see (for me, clear and straightforward) solutions to practical (and according to them, complex) problems or lack of spatial imagination. But that doesn't make me call them stupid. Because that would make me feel stupid myself.
Btw. I myself tested on IQ 154. Being an utter and wholly S person. Really, that's not what it's about.

Matthew: I think this is "true" but it

I think this is "true" but it really boils down to "innovative thinking" rather than "intelligence". For example on your list is Pablo Picasso. Did Picasso innovate cubism, no Cezzanne did Picasso and Braque developed it together. Did Picasso innovate collage. No Braque did. Did Picasso innovate surrealism? No. Picasso was an incredibly skilled sensor and could see "the new" as it was emerging and jumped on it. He is quoted saying, "there was nothing new under the sun". He produced what the intuitives were innovating.

The innovators are the intuitives like Kandinsky, Duchamp, Jung, Freud, Einstein.

But I would argue not entirely. Using this example, I think Picasso actually "sensed" more than Braque. Picasso saw the colors and shapes that intuitives need to work hard at seeing but it was the intuitives who always broke the form towards new horizons.

A lot of intuitive artists are "dissociative" so the innovation is often about struggling to actually wake up into the "real" only to realize that most people who seem to be well adjusted sensors can't perceive any nuanced "reality" only socially accepted catagories of "the known".

Anonymous: I love the MBTI, but nothing's perfect...

I love the MBTI for two reasons: 1) because I think it can be useful in understanding that where other people are coming from isn't necessarily wrong, just different, and has its own benefits, and 2) it's vague enough to make room for the infinite variety that is in the human personality while still being accurate enough to be of some use.
Personality types are fun to study but are not meant to box people in. And even if they were, there are always a few people that they seem completely incapable of labeling. For example, the writer of this article: http://brucebyfield.com/2008/07/15/why-i-mistrust-myers-briggs-testing/
My MBTI results have generally been constant for specific tests, but I actually went from an INFP to an INFJ sometime during the latter half of high-school. If people's types can change over time (or even from day to day, as was the case for the writer of the above article), obviously personality types can't be considered law.
But let's face it: Deep (or maybe not so deep) down, everyone thinks their own type is best. That's natural and it's okay. However, opinions don't always match up with the truth. In fact, even scientific studies don't PROVE things; they can only SUPPORT things. That's why there are only a handful of scientific Laws and who knows how many Theories.
And on a different vein, my best friend (who is a great listener) and even my many neighbors think I'm wise and knowledgeable, while my little sister (who never asks me about my opinions) admits that she has always thought of me as naive and ignorant. Everything I've said to her has been filtered through that lens and so she ends up dismissing me instead of listening to me. I know who I am, but she never will if she doesn't ever consider that she may be wrong about me.
I don't want to tactlessly tell you that you're wrong, but it’s one of the worst feelings when someone insists that you're something you're not. Please don't do that to all of the Sensors out there. They are so much more than a single label.
P.S. While I completely disagree with your points, I think it's admirable that you were brave enough to post something so controversial and engage in discussion. It's good to swap ideas.

Disgruntled INTP: This is awful. Have you even

This is awful. Have you even heard of cognitive functions? Everyone has both S and N functions.

Anonymous ISFP: IQ and MBTI

I can see your points, but I totally, completely, 100% disagree.
There is quite a lot I would love to say, but a good majority of it is just venomous hatred for the intuitive bias, and I am not going to let my anger overtake my desire to persuade you.
If you would not mind, I request that you do a couple things for me (when I say "you," I don't just mean the author of the article; I mean anyone who agrees with the idea that Intuitives are naturally more intelligent than sensors).

First, Look up famous sensor types-- it does not matter which one. May it be ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFP, ESTP, it really does not matter.
Now tell me those people are unintelligent.
Tell me that Steve Jobs was dense.
Tell me Michael Jackson was a simpleton.
Tell me Beyonce is stupid.
Tell me Pope Francis is dull.
Tell me John Locke was slow.
Tell me that all these extremely successful people are less intelligent than their intuitive counterparts.
I don't believe you can, because it's not a truth. It's a hurtful opinion rooted in lies and a misconstruing of reality, intentional or not.

Secondly, I request that you consider that IQ is not a good test of intelligence, especially for adults. Alfred Binet, the man who developed the backbone of the IQ test, was doing so for school children. Additionally, he didn't believe that intelligence was stagnant. Rather, he believed that intelligence could grow and develop, no matter who the person was.
Honestly, I believe that IQ tests have their place. But I have quite a bit of disdain for the misuse of IQ tests (and, no, it's not because I got a bad score on the IQ test. I got 152). My mother was in a special-ed class during the first semester of 2nd grade because of her dyslexia. Roughly halfway through the first semester, the school distributed IQ tests to all of it's students. Two weeks later, a few of the school's administrators came into her classroom and told her to come with them. They brought her to a gifted and talented 3rd grade class. I think story that speaks for itself.
Oh, if only that were the only example. Studies have actually shown that IQs fluctuate depending on what situation you're in. There was a study done on Indian farmers not too long ago, and during times of harvest, these farmers tested, on an average, 10 points lower on an IQ than they normally did.
More recently, researchers did another study on IQ, also focusing on emotions/stress and how it correlates with IQ scores. These researchers had the subjects all take an IQ test, and then collected the scores. Then, they divided them into two groups-- the good news group and the bad news group. The day after, the researchers told the good news group to imagine a large check being handed to them. They told the bad news group to imagine a huge car bill being handed to them. They had both groups take the IQ test again, and the results were not unexpected. The good news group did significantly better than their previous scores, and the bad news group did significantly worse than their previous scores.
This is why I don't like the misuse of IQ tests.

Thirdly, I commend you for including people of many professions in your influential people section. But I ask, what about those you didn't include? I am just going to list one person, because I am making a comment, not an article: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Commonly typed as an ISFP. According to MBTI intelligence biases, he has nothing going for him except his introversion. Would you say that he was dumb? Would you say that he is not as intelligent as Beethoven? I fully disagree-- even going by your own standards of using the IQ test, Mozart's estimated IQ was 170, a full 5 points above Beethoven's.

Fourthly, I ask that you take the fact that quite a few of these are ESTIMATED I.Q. scores into consideration. For most of these men, they lived significantly before Alfred Binet was even born.

Fifthly, I would like you to look into the cognitive functions. I am sure there are plenty of comments about this already, but I figured I might as well put it here if I am going to write such a long comment.

Lastly, I would like you to put yourself in a sensor's shoes.
Imagine this:
You are told your whole life that you are just not as intelligent as your opposite.
You are told that you are naturally idiotic, because you were born with a specific personality type.
You are told that you are incapable of what some others are capable of being, just because of who you are.
You are simply told you are an idiot.

Doesn't sound fun, does it?
Yes, well, that's a sensor's entire life for you.
I would suggest you consider the other person's/people group's feelings before you post something like this next time.

This point is a bit more personal than any of the other points, because I have been told this sort of thing my entire life. I am young, I am female, I am an artist, and I am an ISFP. I cannot even begin to tell you exactly how hurt I feel because of all the stereotypes about who I am. I did not choose to be female. I did not choose to be an ISFP. I did not choose to have art as my most prominent and profitable talent. I didn't even choose to be young. If I had my way, I would be a white male engineering ENTJ in his mid 40s, so that when I say something, people respect it. But I am not. God chose me to be a young, female, and artistic ISFP in today's world. That's okay. That's good. Because if everyone was an intuitive, it would be a really boring world. Not because intuitive are not creative, but because everyone thought a certain way.
Thank you for reading this. I appreciate your time.

Random thoughts:
• President Barrack Obama is an ENFJ. His extroverted feeling and introverted intuition are so obvious I genuinely cannot begin to understand how you wold type him as anything else.
• Jesus was not an INFJ. Jesus cannot be typed, because he is God. He is all of the types/functions on display.

Quinton Figueroa: 1. You shouldn't look up only
@Anonymous ISFP (view comment)

1. You shouldn't look up only famous sensors. You should look up ALL famous people, and then see what percentage of them are sensors. Sensors make up about 75% of people so they should be about 75% of the influential people. But they're not. It's pretty much the reverse: the 25% of intuitives make up for like 75% of the influential people.

2. The point of the article isn't really about IQ. That's just a fun little piece I threw in to see the correlation between the two.

3. Tell that to Google.

4. Of course the IQs are estimated. The IQ isn't the point of the article.

5. Done.

6. I may be a sensor, that's the best part! Wouldn't it be great if it turns out this whole time I was really a sensor and I created this bullshit article just to show how dumb these intuitives really are who agree with me throughout?

But to your point, if I was told that I was a sensor and I was stupid I wouldn't care at all. I am talking about a trend. Of course not all sensors are stupid. But on average sensors are more stupid than intuitives. If I was told I was a stupid sensor I would consider myself not part of the majority of sensors (like most sensors reading this article :P). But the ironic part is that by not including myself as the stupid sensors and going out on my own and being independent I would already be doing things intuitives do. By going outside the crowd and not having to conform I would already be acting more intuitive. By not caring what people write and instead caring about what I do with my own life I would be acting non-sensor.

I already know I'm not the smartest person in the world. There are thousands and thousands of really smart people. I don't get hurt by it. I respect them and look up to them. I try to be more like them. I don't care about groups and I don't care about categorization, at least not in the sense that most people do. I care about what I do with my time and my life. Yes, I talk about MBTI because there are patterns that can describe certain things about people. But it's just one thing. It's just MBTI. People have lots of stuff to them. You can't box people into one little category and think that is 100% everything about them. If there are over 7 billion people on the planet who are all unique, but only 16 MBTI types, then of course MBTI is painting a very broad stroke.

"This point is a bit more personal than any of the other points, because I have been told this sort of thing my entire life. I am young, I am female, I am an artist, and I am an ISFP. I cannot even begin to tell you exactly how hurt I feel because of all the stereotypes about who I am. I did not choose to be female. I did not choose to be an ISFP. I did not choose to have art as my most prominent and profitable talent. I didn't even choose to be young. If I had my way, I would be a white male engineering ENTJ in his mid 40s, so that when I say something, people respect it. But I am not. God chose me to be a young, female, and artistic ISFP in today's world. That's okay. That's good. Because if everyone was an intuitive, it would be a really boring world. Not because intuitive are not creative, but because everyone thought a certain way.
Thank you for reading this. I appreciate your time."

I respect this. I would actually take it further and say you did choose who you are. I know a bunch of people will give me shit for it but I don't care. You did choose to be a woman. You did choose the preferences that you have. This isn't your only life. You have lived many lives. You will probably live many more lives. So you are the current result of all your past lives. You are exactly who you have chosen to be. And I do want people to be different. I love difference. I probably love difference more than anyone you will ever meet. Diversity is beautiful. Be happy who you are because you have something unique to offer the world. I am in no way saying everyone should be the same. I am saying everyone should be who they are to the fullest. You did choose who you are and you did choose to be a woman. You may not realize it now. You may not even realize it this life. But at some point you will realize that your life is exactly what you want. Your life has exactly the challenges and lessons that you need in order to expand to your fullest. You are orchestrating your life at a higher level and you are living the life that you want this very moment. So be happy with your life and embrace it. Life isn't meant to be a struggle. Life is meant to be joyous. Artists are great people. Look at Hans Zimmer, he's a badass ISFP who writes some of the best music you will ever hear. I'm by no means saying sensors suck, I'm just saying they're not as smart as intuitives. So? Thinkers are also not as emotional as feelers generally. So? People are different. Not everyone has to be smart. Be what you are.

But I'm telling you, if you had it your way you would not be a white male engineering ENTJ in his mid 40s. How do I know this? Because you're not. And you chose to be who you are. So you are exactly who you want to be right now. I don't know how old you are, but as you get older you will better understand this. So rather than reading articles like this that bring you down, you should instead focus on people and things that bring you up. Focus on yourself and don't care what anyone else thinks. Because you have more power than you know.

johnny: How about the "intuitive

How about the "intuitive understanding" that all types are equal (meaning, they are all equally intelligent but with only different intelligences?)

It's like, you chose to throw this thing under the bus and for some reason, believe in a hierarchical way of seeing things.

A little like Hitler?

Quinton Figueroa: Substantiate your point. How
@johnny (view comment)

Substantiate your point. How are all types equal in intelligence? What are the different intelligences that you speak of?

johnny: https://upload.wikimedia.org

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Yin_yang.svg/2...

all types are equal because all people are equal....we are all meant to complement each other because the universe is balanced! There, I said it.

Quinton Figueroa: How are all people equal? You
@johnny (view comment)

How are all people equal? You mentioned Hitler earlier. Is Hitler equal to Jesus?

johnny: yes.

yes.

hitler is the evil side of the coin, jesus is the good side of the coin. so in that sense, they're "equal" in terms of capabilities. I don't know why this should be any different from how Ns and Ss are equal?

Quinton Figueroa: It's different because of
@johnny (view comment)

It's different because of magnitude. The S and the N don't measure direction (preference) like something like J or P does, or even T or F. They measure magnitude (depth). This is something most people can't wrap their heads around (probably because they're Ss). S/N doesn't have to do with direction (good and bad, ying and yang) but with amount. T and F would be closer to Yin and Yang. J and P would be closer to Yin and Yang. But not S and N. I get why most people would assume this. MBTI is presented this way and most Ss are okay not challenging a system an N invented. But I'm here explaining to people how to improve the MBTI. The S/N relationship is in a category of its own outside of the E/I, T/F and J/P. Yes, I know MBTI doesn't explain it this way, but it should. What you really should be asking yourselves is why did you fail to see this difference but I didn't? Why do most people assume S/N is an equal trade-off when it isn't? Why are most people unable to reach this understanding of their own volition? Why does it take somebody like me to point this out, only to be ridiculed the entire way?

To further explain: Most Ss have a low magnitude in influence, intelligence or whatever else you want to call it. They don't extend very far. It doesn't matter whether it's in a good or a bad direction. I actually go into this in more detail in my book, Rule By Ignorance. In the case of Hitler he extends very far in an evil direction. Jesus extends very far in a good direction. These people are both Ns. If an S tried to be as evil as possible they would be hard-pressed to match the evil of Hitler. If an S tried to be as good as possible they would be hard-pressed to match the good of Jesus. Ss are more or less just there. It's not good or bad, it's just what they are. They go along to get along. But they don't move and shake the world the way an N does. They are much more likely to live the life government, religion, family or some other institution has trained and told them to live as opposed to living their own life under their own accord.

This is what I was talking about in the original article when I talked about evolution. When you evolve you become more capable of something. When you evolve you add to what you already had. But until you evolve and reach a certain level you don't possess that very thing. When you move to algebra in math you don't forget addition and subtraction. You add algebra on top of computation. In this case the N is algebra and the S is addition and subtraction. The N knows both computation and algebra. The S only knows computation. This is what I've been saying the whole time but people just don't get it and instead argue about something that has no relevance and makes no case to dispute what I'm saying. Sensors.

It doesn't matter whether it's personal intelligence, logical intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc. In all these areas Ss extend very low. The Ns, on the other hand, extend much further. This means that the Ns exemplify a much more complete and full picture when it comes to intelligence. Whichever way you want to measure intelligence the Ns will surpass the Ss in general. Yes, of course there are some super smart Ss and some super dumb Ns. But in general Ns are smarter.

Appreciate the reply.

johnny: Do you think I'm an S?

Do you think I'm an S?

Anyway, I see what you're saying but it's a bit hypocritical to claim/nitpick that the other preferences can reflect the yin/yang harmony but then backpedal when we're talking about N and S. This is why I said "intuitive understanding" (although the more you think about it, it's perfectly logical) that the universe is in "harmony" and all preferences are equal, they're just different ways of perceiving reality. Kinda like how a rabbit's way of living is different from a carnivore, but both of them belong in the EQUAL circle of life.

I did see your point when trying to apply "deductive logic" but once you get your head wrap around a greater truth of universal balance, then N being better than S doesn't make sense anymore. It then becomes that S is about present reality while N is future possibilities.

so in THEORY, I see your point that N>S if you think about it deductively ("Ns sound like an improved version of Ss") however if you think about it in the grand scheme of universal balance, N theorizes things while S practices things making them equal.

Ns are often outside-the-box thinkers who can either apply their thoughts to reality or can't. I think it is easy to peg them as "easily to comprehend things" but in reality, the more you know (in your head) can lead to all sorts of problems.

I'm trying to see it all in angles but the greater truth of universal balance trumps the point that you're trying to make - if you can see it. it's not that I can't see the difference or that I don't question MBTI. I feel like you are trying to focus on the specifics when there is a greater truth to that.

Quinton Figueroa: I don't know if you're an S
@johnny (view comment)

I don't know if you're an S or not. You're obviously probably not at this point. A lot of my comments are geared not just towards the person I'm responding to but all the other comments that have accumulated throughout the years on this post.

I see what you're saying too. Don't think I don't. I could just as easily take your position and start arguing on your points. But deep down I feel that my points are more complete, hence my reticence to acquiesce. At the highest level I agree that we're all equal. At the non-physical level we are all connected and we are all one. But as we split into individualized egos we are no longer equal in the choices we make. We're now playing a game that allows of us to bend the rules of equality for a while. We choose to evolve at different speeds. Some evolve really slow. Some do it really fast. It all depends on choices we make as individuals. The universe is balanced, yes. But the choices we make along the way are not equal relative to the choices of others, at least not in one life. And these choices make for uneven lives of individuals. So it really depends on the scope of what we're talking about and it can get really esoteric.

I really do agree with what you're saying about how all things in the universe are working together in perfect harmony. However, I think you are assuming that the MBTI is a system that accurately mirrors this dualistic, harmonious nature of the universe. It isn't. The MBTI picks up on certain truths but is far from being completely comprehensive and perfect. The S/N does not mirror this part of the universe. The S/N part is not a perfectly balanced division. It's just somebody's opinion on what sounded like a balanced preference at the time they put it together. That's like me saying, the universe is balanced therefore 3rd grade and 12th grade are balanced and equal each other out. It doesn't make sense. It's like me saying red and black are opposites, or men and boys are opposites, rather than men and women. With S/N we're not talking about things of equal value on opposite sides (which is most certainly more likely the case with T/F, J/P and to a degree E/I). So if that is your contention then you would need to show me how these two really are opposites that both provide even value on both ends of a scale. Because I do not see it this way and can give countless examples, with data, on why it isn't.

You mention that Ns theorize things while Ss practice things. This is what we are generally told and the way it is portrayed. But if you look at the data (for example influential people all throughout the world) most of them are Ns. And Ss outnumber Ns 3:1. So Ns get stuff done big time. This is because Ns actually do things. They don't just do busy work, they do smart work. They may have Ss do the work for them, but that's just because they are smart enough to be able to pull that off. You don't really see it the other way around.

I think the greater truth that you are referring to is not something that applies to what I am talking about.

Once again, I appreciate the reply.

johnny: I think Ns do come up in

I think Ns do come up in influential people because they INNOVATE things. For example, an unhealthy N would be unproductive stuck in the basement. A productive N would be productive enough to apply his ideals to reality. so while there are definitely productive Ns (who usually make it on the influential list), it's often a struggle for many of them to actually make it because the world is run by S, and it's hard for them to apply their ideals in the world, being that they are often outside-the-box thinkers.

so in reality, an average N would be a thinker and an average S would be the doer.

It doesn't make sense to see that almost all the influential people on the list are N and then say, "this is the average N." because those list are often made up of N who STRUGGLED hard to get there because it isn't very normal for them to apply their ideals to present reality. Likewise, it is often a STRUGGLE for an average S to form some ideal/reflection/conceptualization as they move along with their lives, in present reality.

So what you're seeing is a "biased" version of N, not the average concept of what N/S duality is all about.

What's your take on that?

Quinton Figueroa: The world is not run by Ss.
@johnny (view comment)

The world is not run by Ss. The world is run by Ns who often use Ss (who are replaced with technology when possible) to carry out the everyday, rote tasks. So while the Ss may be doing most of the work, they are doing busy work, not smart work.

And it's not that it's hard for Ns to be a part of the world, it's just that they choose to opt out much more than the S. An S is much more likely to go to school, go to college, get a job with their degree, and follow the same path that everyone else follows. They are average and mediocre. They don't make waves. Ss don't want to do something outside of the normal system. Ns, on the other hand, are okay going outside of the system. And because Ns are okay going outside of the system they usually reach higher levels of personal growth.

You mention an N struggling. This is a sign of intelligence and influence. Almost anybody that becomes influential faces many great challenges and struggles throughout their life. This is how you grow. An N who is struggling is going to end up in much better places than an S who is just going along to get along. Because if at some point the S wants to become more influential they too will most likely face the struggle as well (and dare I say mature into the traits of an N). So the N is once again ahead of the S by taking on the first step to being an independent individual. The S has not yet taken this step. They're still reliant on others and just going along at the same pace as everyone else.

The interesting part about all this is that most of the aspects of an N coincides with sound philosophy, businesses sense, spiritual teachings and general self improvement. All of these teachings are much more likely to express the benefits of being like an N and not an S. Even the Ss know this which is why they are much more likely to mistype themselves as N on MBTI tests. All the time you see Ss mistyping themselves as Ns. You rarely see Ns mistyping themselves as Ss. This is because people know that the N sounds better. People want to be like the N, they just usually do not have what it takes.

All you have to do is look at some example questions:

"You often think about humankind and its destiny" - Ss don't do this. They let somebody else think about humankind and then relay the message to them. But an S will probably lie and think that they do. They will think that by being religious they are thinking about humankind and its destiny.

"You often ponder the root cause of phenomena and things" - Ss don't do this. But they are at least smart enough to know that people who do do this are smarter. So Ss lie about it.

"You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options" - Ss act immediately. Ss rarely will consider various options before acting. Ss don't have the mental vision to see various options.

"When considering a situation you pay more attention to the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events" - Ss are completely in the moment, not that being in the moment is bad. But they are completely incapable of seeing how a situation will play out. They can't see the future consequences that will result from their current actions. But they wish they could so they lie about it.

"You easily see the general principle behind specific occurrences" - Ss might think they do, even though they don't. But if you lie about this positive trait you will come out more N so why not?

"You are more inclined to experiment than to follow familiar approaches" - Experimentation is pure N. And the only way to create something new is to break the rules of familiar approaches and try something different. Ss know this. But Ss also prefer familiar approaches. So they lie about liking to experiment.

And it goes on and on... People know that the story of the N sounds better because it is better. Yes, of course there are positive aspects of S. But there are more positive aspects of N. And this is why N is something you grow into. And this is why most Ns find it much easier to do S things than Ss find it to do N things. The S can't do a lot of N things the same way a 3rd grader can't yet do a lot of 12th grader things.

If an N really wants to they can act immediately. They just usually don't because they know it's wiser not to. If an N really wants to they can talk about Kim Kardashian and Football. They just usually don't because they know that spending their time elsewhere is usually wiser. If an N really wanted to they could take one side on a situation and call it a day. They just usually don't because they know that if you never consider other sides you will never grow. An N can take a familiar approach for something. They just usually don't because as Einstein said, "You can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it".

The S, however, has a much harder time doing N stuff. The S has a hard time speculating about various options towards something. This requires the vision to see what these other somethings are. The S has a hard time seeing the general principle behind something because this involves compiling lots of information from multiple sources into one sound thesis. This is hard work which requires some serious mental CPU and memory. The S has a hard time experimenting because they are afraid of being wrong and fearful of doing something that others don't approve of. And it goes on and on.

This is also why children are more S than adults. As people mature they take on more traits of the N. This is similar to how younger people are much more into big government but as they grow older they become less into big government. Everything is all telling the same story. I am right here illustrating the general principle being all this stuff, just like it said in the test question above.

Here's another principle:

The S/N relationship closely mirrors the r/K selection theory. The S (r) will put off the future for the now. The N (K) will put off the now for the future. The problem is that the r theory is hardly sustainable for a civilized society. You can only take civilization so far with the r selection theory. This is why all the more advanced civilizations are K (N). Higher level civilization requires higher level control over your actions. It requires higher level understanding. This is why Communism (closer to r/S) collapses and Capitalism (closer to K/N) grows. Obviously this is taking the discussion into a much deeper area but I'm showing you that there is a lot more to this stuff than most people take it for.

Also, you mention productivity in reality. Productivity in reality has more to do with J/P than it does S/N. Js are going to be more productive in a tangible way while Ps are more productive theoretically. I would also say that Ts tend to be a bit more productive than Fs, at least tangibly. Of course the S/N plays into it, but the theoretical vs tangible has more to do with J/P I think. This is why good businessmen are usually TJs. And this is why the best businessmen are usually NTJs.

Anyhow, I appreciate your response and the conversation. You at least make me think and make me look at this from new angles which I appreciate. The interesting thing is that the more I explore this from different angles the more I further reinforce my own view on it. I'm not saying that your view doesn't hold value, because it most certainly does which is why you keep pressing back against me :) And I think I'm on to something as well which is why I keep pressing back against you :) Cheers!

johnny: you really make it sound like

you really make it sound like we'd be better off without S! LOL.

I think that with any concept, harmony is important. whether it be the Rubik's cube, chess, the yin/yang concept, color symmetry....I don't know why we should call it off when it comes to MBTI (and then claim there is universal balance or harmony outside of that or something) What is on the little things can be reflected on some great truths so I really believe MBTI (with all its preferences) should reflect this.

Anyways, it is not *accurate* to claim that N can do the things the S can do efficiently, even if you say they *could* by theory. When you're juggling too many things, it's hard to be efficient at one thing. This is the same problem most N's have, in my opinion. so we're getting at something. Have you ever heard of the quote "Ignorance is bliss"? That sometimes it is better if you don't know a lot so you would have more presence of mind and happiness, etc. so yes, a 3rd grader is equal to a 6th grader (if you double 3, it becomes 6, so that's the fair comparison). the same plight applies to Ns and 6th graders- because they seem to overthink things, it's HARDER for them to stay present. I could just foresee you say something like, "well, that just proves Ns are smarter.." but that doesn't necessarily make them better, does it? and by human beings when we say "better", we actually usually mean "smarter"...so if Ns aren't any "better", they aren't really any "smarter"....you see? balance/harmony.

Would you agree with me that while most influential people are N's, most N's are not influential? Why do you think so? Don't you think this proves the truth that I'm talking about? N's often have several things in their minds, an average N cannot usually apply half of his ideas in "present reality" (I said "present reality" because when I'd just say "reality" that would give the illusion that they're out of touch with reality. so I have to watch myself when I say that). Most who did work hard for their ideas to be utilized in present reality went on and became influential.

An interesting twist came to me...let's look at Sensors...if they're the dual opposite of Intuitives, then could we say that "while most Sensors are influential, most influential people aren't Sensors"?(LOL!) I think it still makes sense because while most sensors are actually influential (they are often busy workers as you said so when you come out of the house, probably about 90% sensors are influential busy workers)...most influential people aren't really sensors because most influential people are intuitives. I might have gotten confused with this riddle but I hope you see my point? I still believe they are two sides of the same coin- N and S.

Quinton Figueroa: In your view is it possible
@johnny (view comment)

In your view is it possible for somebody to be smarter than another person overall? Yes of course some people are better at certain things and other people are better at other things. But is it possible for somebody to be smarter than another person overall? And if not then it's not possible for me to convince you. And if so, then how would you measure it?

johnny: "But is it possible for

"But is it possible for somebody to be smarter than another person overall?"

No.

I guess this is where we cannot agree.

Draconic: I'm a young ISFP and I admit

I'm a young ISFP and I admit that I rejected this theory at first, naturally, by trying to point out irrelevant fallacies using the correlation =/= causation argument (which further sharpens the differences between N and Ss). Once I stepped beyond my personal bias and actually read the article I utterly saw the validity in the point you were trying to create. Intuitives really are special cookies. They do initiate change and warp the environment around us with their immense intellect. I am fascinated by intuitives and their insight. I have an INFJ friend that has helped me through tough times by seeing the big picture. She makes a great counselor and helped me figure out issues with one of my other friends. I can see her going far, perhaps in psychology or art (she loves art like I do). She naturally leads people and everyone gravitates to her. She has told me the plots and concepts some stories she wrote and I have never seen such complexity, even in some popular stories. She doesn't think she is intelligent or wise from her perspective (probably due to her sense of perfectionism and humility) but from my perspective as well as many others she really is the intelligent and wise intuitive. I have seen so many people follow her lead as well as myself.

I may not understand what intuitives are always saying, probably due to the intellectual gap, but I would like to have more N based friends to gain new perspectives on life, to understand other people more and see past the usual walls I set for myself in my own mind. They really do tend to be more intelligent than sensors and really seem to bring more to the table in terms of originality and innovation which I value a lot.

Thank you for having the guts to share this idea. I realized that so many ideas (like this theory) are really right in front of our eyes and sometimes don't take too much time to figure out, but few can acknowledge it because we are in denial of our imperfections.

Anonymous: This is so idiotic.

This is so idiotic.

v: @James Santiago

@James Santiago
You fail to understand what MBTI is. It is a preference list of functions. There are no Ns and no Ss. There are the N and S functions that people have and they compliment each other, Ne goes with Si and Ni goes with Se. You could have the argument that the N functions provide more intelligence, and so those who have N before S are more likely to be intelligent. But people who have an S function before an N can develop their N function and become more "intelligent".
Also if there was a natural disaster or war, those who have a stronger S are more likely to survive, because the S functions live in the moment and manipulate the physical and notice the details.

Anon: "N's Are Smarter Than S's "- Oh rlly?

Lol this is sooo wrong!! MBTI is about preferences, not about what you can or can't do. Being an Extravert doesn't mean that you can't be alone, it just means that you prefer the company of others. Being a Thinker doesn't mean you don't have emotions or feelings, it just means you'd rather take a rational approach in life. Being a Judger doesn't mean that you can't do anything that isn't in your routine, it just means that you're more comfortable with planning stuff.

Being an Sensor is no different, it just means you'd rather stick to reality and facts than possibilities and abstract thoughts, however you can still do both. It is important to use all 8 letters, since that's the only way you can be healthy. Extreme intraverts become antisocial, extreme extraverts aren't in touch with themselves, feelers become way too irrational, thinkers become cold, perceivers become lazy and irresponsible, judgers become stubborn or boring, sensors become too literal and not creative enough, and extreme intuitives become way too unrealistic and lose touch of what actually is happening around them.

Also, leadership and influence tends to favor Extraverts, since they tend to have amazing social skills, not intuitives. As for being "smart", the term is too subjective to be classified amongst just 16 different types of people. You could probably find someone from each type in any field- be it math, biology, art, or whatever. Stop stereotyping people, mbti is made to understand people's behaviour, not to judge them as "smart" or "stupid". Asshole

Quinton Figueroa: Sensors can't do both. To
@Anon (view comment)

Sensors can't do both. To sensors it is not a preference, it is a reality. The 2nd grader doesn't have a preference towards addition and subtraction rather than calculus -- a 2nd grader is incapable of calculus. Something you can't do isn't a preference away from it. And that's how Ss are with N things.

Sensors don't have a preference towards only seeing the literal world, that's all they are capable of -- they can't see through things. Sensors don't have a preference towards the small picture, that's the only picture they are capable of. Sensors don't have a preference towards tradition, that's all they have the emotional throughput for. Sensors don't have a preference towards surface level things, they don't have the capacity to be deep.

When people grow in life and learn things they then may make the conscious choice to prefer other things instead. But until you have learned and can do those other things you are not choosing and having a preference. So no, it's not a preference to be a sensor.

Joe: Sensing is a preference

Before you start accusing me of subjective analysis, I have always tested as an INTJ on many tests and am certain I am one. Two of my best friends are N, while pretty much my whole family is S.
The sensors I know are more down-to-earth, they know how stuff works, how to fix it, they have good work ethics.
The Intuitives I know often have a vision or ideas, but not exactly sure how the puzzle pieces work in fitting together.

My Sensing Dad (ISFJ) is extremely intelligent and has one awards for math and analytical skills, something you would say only an INT is capable of. My ESFJ cousin constantly helps me brainstorm and do new things, even opening me up to new ideas.
Everyone is capable of everything, people just have preferences. I've seen many sensors intuit, and many intuitives sense.

Serpent (INFP): yeah, the ST folks in my

yeah, the ST folks in my family are good at math/science.
I do think it's possible that humanity might have been all S at first, while N is a later development, but both have been important for creating civilization. N is as inherent as S.

Serpent (INFP): You have a very superficial

You have a very superficial understanding of what S-types are like, or maybe you identify with N features while actually being S with a good Ni/Ne. IMO the easiest way to see the preference is what you prefer to do for leisure - S-types tend to enjoy music, sports, travelling, computer games. N-types can like these things too, but for example as a language learner I like to do these things in another language. And while I've improved my coordination (yes N are often crap at it!!!) through various things as a teen, like playing the guitar, taekwondo, swimming, dancing, I never stuck with these hobbies for long. I still love observing other people do it - yes, mostly sensors. They're also capable of conveying deeper messages through music, dance etc.
But OMG I've seen your other posts, nevermind. If you're really N, then you're the most bigoted N I've seen.

Quinton Figueroa: I love how people say stuff
@Serpent (INFP) (view comment)

I love how people say stuff like you're bigoted but never actually substantiate this claim. That's just name calling with no backing, it's just words. You're racist! You're an extremist! Your response is radical! See, I can do it too.

Serpent (INFP): I've just come across this

I've just come across this post... I disagree that N's are inherently better, I think it's more about the fact that there has always been an N-bias - spirit over body, books and intelligence over physical things, love over sex etc. Now it's slowly changing, sensory pleasures are glorified, sportspeople are becoming more influential, we're all pressured to look good and work on our bodies, movies are valued over books (although to some extent the status quo still remains, as movies are seen as an easier and less intelligent kind of entertainment). But many sensors are unknowingly asserting their type is better just as much as N-types used to (and still are).

However, we all have both a sensory and an intuitive function. It's just that one is much better than the other, and I do think that N-folks face more pressure to develop their S-functions than vice versa. For example, for much of my life I've felt inedaquate for being crap at sensory stuff. I actually found this article when googling "how to watch movies mbti", because I can see symbols and metaphors but I often miss the obvious implications. (And now I'm understanding that this is also due to my inferior Te) I'm consciously working on my weaker functions, for example I've found the "what's going on in this picture" project helpful: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/category/lesson-plans/whats-going-on-i...

BTW, my mum is a painter, and when I told her about MBTI she immediately wanted to know what type Leonardo da Vinci was. He's supposed to have been ENTP. Obviously to create his art he must have developed his Si far beyond what most intuits do. I tend to think that genius is exactly that - developing all your four functions. Many painters have very strong Si or Se but they are nowhere near Leonardo, while others are comparable to him in greatness but have limited N-skills.

I think there are going to be more diverse great thinkers now that the S-values see more respect and more people are literate and aspiring writers have spellcheckers and it's easy to get feedback from more than just friends/family. I see Paulo Coelho as a good candidate for an influential S-person, for example. Many N-folks find him superficial but I feel that he really resonates with my Fi. Of course time will tell whether he'll be regarded as a great mind.

Landon: Short and Sweet and a Little Bitter

I am an ENTP as well but to put it bluntly you need to stop judging differences in people (at least from an "I'm better than you" or an either good or bad mindset/closed box) based on your perspective/perception/context. We are all born into this world given an unique combination social, environmental, and evolutionary factors. We are all the same person, just a different combination of the latter. We are all equally important when everything is properly taken into account.

Maybe you should study integral theory. Now before you read it once through and make a snap judgement try to understand people study it everyday for months before they are finally able to wrap there head around the theory as a whole and see it all as one. I do not 100% agree with the theory, there is more I would add and alter but I don't try and do that before I begin to fully understand the intent of the information. Most people who read the theory immediately try to identify themselves with the higher up levels part/section of the description not realizing they don't stand a chance of ever reaching new hights if they are unwilling to admit to themselves where they honestly stand (have to move up uniformly transforming from one into the next). A professor who knows integral theory could also add significant amounts of insight you might not be able to see. No level is better than another its a natural process. The only true negative is standby firmly in place. A healthy state of mind and paradigm to operate by is that a person's beliefs, values, opinions, and so on should be in a “gradual and constant,” active (conscious/aware) and self-inflicting (actualizing) state of evolving, that parallels and promotes healthy states of co-existence with everyone.

Anonymous: I am INTP woman and 100%

I am INTP woman and 100% agree with you, sensors are just stupid and shallow in general it is a fact
Evidence:
http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/a-synthesis-of-research-on-psycho...
http://www2.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwlect.html

Among inventors 90% of them were intuitives, unfortunately intuitives have harder life than sensors especially NT women. Sensors are always complaining about small, unimportant things they just can't see the big picture so they must rambling on shit, I cant stand this motherfuckers to be honest with you they drive me crazy. Sorry for bad English I come from the Czech Republic
I like your blog

Quinton Figueroa: Yeah, but don't you know
@Anonymous (view comment)

Yeah, but don't you know these tests don't measure true intelligence! These tests are all biased towards Ns! Just like the NBA is biased towards tall people! You're wrong!

Landon: No test can ever measure true

No test can ever measure true intelligence. First of all you would have to get universal agreement on what is even meant by true intelligence. Like I was wrote in brief within the latter post when everything is properly taken into account we are all equally important, if someone thinks otherwise, that is basically the intuitive definition of bias.

Claire: Completely wrong

This is complete trash. I am an ISFJ, yet I understand theory and abstract ideas. I have a huge imagination. I do not listen to everything people tell me to do.

And my IQ score is 150.

ayoj: You honestly do not sound

You honestly do not sound like an intuitive because if you did, you will know everything is relative. Leaders are great but they aren't leaders if they don't have followers. Assuming you are correct and leaders are predominantly intuitives, they still need the validation of the Sensors to accept their ideas as practical and truly useful for living. Being a leader is great but it doesn't essentially make you better than a follower. Besides, every person is capable of leading but they will have different leadership styles and that includes sensors.

Emanuel: I think I agree..somewhat

I'm an INTJ woman, and I don't live in the States - never even been there. My first language isn't English, either, so apologies in advance for bad spelling/grammar. I'm only mentioning this because as far as I can tell the MBTI used to be huge in America, but has only recently picked up momentum in other parts of the world.
That being said, I've made lots of friends and acquaintances take the MBTI over the past few years, and all my closest friends/family members/respected acquaintances have tested out as N's. In contrast, all the people I've found to be toxic or selfish at one point or another, have tested out as S's. I probably wouldn't go so far as to say that N's are smarter than S's (although this was fun to read), but I will say that all the S's I know are a bit on the selfish side, and are generally a bit rude and inconsiderate, not to mention slightly self obsessed. I've been looking for articles that discuss this at length, and your blog post was the closest I could find. Basically I find it next to impossible to connect on a deeper level with S's, because they're all about themselves - "me, me, me." I hope I'll meet an S who can be the exception to that rule, but so far no luck.

Sage: Please Stop

As a self-typed INTP with significant research in Jungian Theory and Psychological Types, your arrogance and lack of understanding of MBTI is infuriating. One type cannot be inherently be better or more intelligent than the other. The basis of your argument is that N's score higher on IQ tests than S's. This is flawed to begin with, as 1. IQ tests are not a reliable test for intelligence, and 2. IQ tests are biased towards N's, because they require abstract thinking and S's naturally focus on what is in front of them, which puts them at a natural disadvantage. Also, a high IQ has very little real-world usage, because society almost always rewards responsible, hard workers instead of intelligent people with less motivation or attentiveness. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Most of the S's I know have great jobs and have their shit together. The N's I know are fun to have a deep conversation with, but some of them are not grounded or responsible. Please do your research next time before you eat some alphabet soup and shit it out on here. Thanks.

Quinton Figueroa: This article isn't about IQ.
@Sage (view comment)

This article isn't about IQ.

So let me get this straight: we can use MBTI to measure which types are more likely to be extroverted, emotional, analytical, interpersonal and a litany of other things, but we most certainly can't measure which types are more intelligent?

Lien: OK, I am forcing myself not

OK, I am forcing myself not to go into detail about some aspects of this article/ the comments, but I just want to say: YES! Finally someone who's telling it like it is! This might sound arrogant but, even though some S's have great qualities, I can't help but feel superior to them very often. Not in a disrespectful way or anything, but I just can't imagine such a small (inner) world to live in. I mean.. look at this article and all those marvelous N-responses and arguments, still going after 4.5 years. N's just get it! Loving this! Xoxo

John Doe: Hmm...

Hi, ENTP here.

I am interested in the MBTI for one month or so and I have randomly found this topic. First, I would like to put this here, it is a page where you can find influental (or at least known) people from history : http://www.celebritytypes.com/esfp.php There are people of all the types. The ones you have stated are just cherry picked N's. On the other hand, it is true that all the scientists, inventors and philosophers are mostly (if not only) N's. S's have mostly writers (who are spread between S's and N's), politicians and artists (who are also spread between S's and N's) - but S's have them too, which is very important. And to be completely objective, we would need all the people from the world to make a true statistics. Also, it would be goddamn hard to gauge their influence.

Also, I would not link the MBTI type to IQ, since I didn't find any real ressearch here, just some deductions. I am also not saying that it can't be linked to IQ, I am just saying there is no acceptable ressearch to back that statement.

I do not completely disagree with you, since I have noticed few things about sensors that you talk about. First, I need to say that I know many smart sensors, they are fully capable of understanding abstract concepts (they are all SPs, ISTP and ESTP to be specific) but I didn't see them come with their own concepts. This is the thing where sensors and intuitives REALLY differ. But I will be more specific. I have many friends (according to my definition of a friend) and they are of various types, none of my friends is stupid and most of them are creative, everyone in a different way. I am doing this to debunk the statement that S's are dumber than N's, since I would call it differently. My SP friends are:

ISTP - he used to by my roommate, played Magic the Gathering and was pretty good at it, since he was just smart enough. He was also good at analysing problems and knew what parts are unnecessary and which are important, he was never blindly following any pattern and I never saw him under stress. The only thing he needed to pass an exam was just one all-nighter (we were pretty damn similar in this way). On the other hand, he was not too creative or inventive, he didn't even seem to be interested in searching new ways of doing things. But whenever I came with some innovation (mostly a cunning new way how to cheat or some of my insane projects like being the night phantom or manipulating everyone to share the study materials they had), he loved to join me. I was also creating new words, which he started to do too.

ESTP - I know this bro for less than one year and he is very similar to my ISTP friend. He is also capable of understanding (not just blindly learning the patterns) abstract schemes (he is studying computer engineering) but never came with his own. But he seems like an evolving N to me, since sometimes he is very easy to bribe when we are playing board games, which then leads to his direct downfall (since a mutilated enemy is better than 5 treasures, which he sometimes doesn't realize) but loves to debate over things like if the glass is half empty or half full and also supports my concept of "technocratical utopia" and was discussing it with me, other S's just say that "This is not real, over." He still lacks the creativity of an N, since we have formerly created a small circle of story writers (just for fun) and he didn't write a single story (because he doesn't have any ideas yet). The rest of us (we are all N's) don't have problems coming up with some idea.

What I have realized is that none of my friends is a SJ type, since I find most of these people too damn narrow-minded, inflexible and focused on such painfully unimportant things like what someone is wearing for clothes, how is someone talking (instead of what is he saying) , what did someone say about someone else, if my things are ordered in the way they imagine as the "right one." Oh geez, I get pissed whenever I am just thinking of them, the worst thing about them is that they think they know the best and dare to tell me that my way of doing things is "wrong and that I will not go far with it" and then are major butthurt when I have my things done in like 100times better and more interesting way than them or when I get full score after one all-nighter and they end up with a C after a week of by-the-book learning.

Still, they are all people and as a live-and-let-fucking-live philosophy promoter, I would never let them wipe out or something (since most of my family are SJs - which pissed me off for the most part of my life but I didn't know how to call it before), I would just not pay attention to them when doing major decisions.

Btw the types that frustrate me the most are the robotic ISTJ, who can't undesrtand how is it possible for me to even pass an exam when I attend almost no classes. And then the annyoing shouting ESTJ, who is equally as pissing and inflexible. Hell, those types think that the most important thing in your life is to have your room tidy. Also, there is one christian-fanatic that I think could be an ESFJ and he is so freakin' short-minded that he doesn't see the flaws in his own "logic."

Strangely, I go well with ISFJs, since they just seem to chill or support and don't try to tell me what I am supposed to do, although they are always wondered about how my way of life can't like not cause a nuclear explosion. But they are cool, my granny is an ISFJ too and she is fine. But the other three types, who usually try to spread their robotic thinking and laughable values just drive me insane.

Anonymous: Ns tend to see outside the

Ns tend to see outside the box. Ss see inside the box. The idea/concept of being Smart is not defined with accuracy. A lot of people people these days use the word, smart, without understanding it. Hence, a lot of people misinterpret and get offended about it. Eventually, the problem turns into superiority/inferiority issue. A lot of people think there are superior people and inferior people when in fact, it is just conflict arising due to personality differences. Conflicts arising from personality difference are perfectly normal and suppose to happen. In the end, you guys are all just arguing due to different opinions, which formed from different personalities. I am an INTP party pooper.

Anonymous: I hate that this article

I hate that this article repeatedly shows up everytime I look up anything relating to MBTI -_____-

To the writer of this article (and the bimbos who actually agree with this and are idiotic enough to broadcast their stuipidity online) you egregiously overestimate your own "intelligence" and need a flawed and purely subjective tool to give you a superiority complex. Sit back down and go read a book or something.

Smh...wasting my time and precious space on the internet

Anonymous: You may want to check your arguments m8

Also, to be honest, you sound like an ESFP trying to sound logical (not saying you can't have logical ESFPs, but me thinks you overestimate your Te)

enzed: S and N are both essential to

S and N are both essential to evolution. Systems with too small inertia may become unstable.

Marylin: oh come on

oh come on
sensors live in denial, heavy denial
my little stupid sensors you should just read two articles
first this:
http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/a-synthesis-of-research-on-psycho...
Important things:
1. The most common personality types among gifted adolescents were “intuitive” and “perceiving.”
2. Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intuitive, as opposed to the general population, most of whom (70%) prefer sensing"
3. 72 gifted junior high students who were finalists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that the gifted students showed strong preferences for intuition (75%).

then second article
http://psych.wisc.edu/henriques/papers/Sak.pdf

type procentage gifted
INTP 63%
INTJ 59%
INFP 58%
INFJ 58%
ENTP 54%
ENFP 51%
ENTJ 43%
ENFJ 39%
ISTJ 33%
ISTP 28%
ESTP 20%
etc... you see the pattern

case closed sensors stop living in denial

Quinton Figueroa: Yeah but your wrong because
@Marylin (view comment)

Yeah but your wrong because their are different types of intelligence. Also you're sources are biased!! We also need all types of people. Your also wrong because you dont use capitols to start you're sentences!! LOL!! You dont even no proper grammar. I also know a smart S so that meen your wrong. You also dont take into account the cognitive functions. Since you dont mention the cognitive functions your so wrong!!!!! Numbers dont meen anything if your a bad person!! My dad could win you're dad in a fight. And hes blind! NOW WHOSE SMARTER!?!? I have a dog. So wrong its not even funny Marylin.

</sensor>

Marylin: what you should do is just

what you should do is just search in google gitted mbti and you will see that every research say that inuitives are more creative, intelligent, gited etc.
Example site:
http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/a-synthesis-of-research-on-psycho...

"For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school male students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types "

sensors who live in denial, heavy denial read again:
all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types
and again...

case closed
oh i forgot i don't speak and write in english very well it is not my language and certainly for sensor it will be argument against me.

Quinton Figueroa: what you should do is just
@Marylin (view comment)

what you should do is just search in google gitted mbti and you will see that every research say that inuitives are more creative, intelligent, gited etc.

You've already ruled out the vast majority of sensors. They don't do independent research.

Anonymous: The only one reason why Ns

The only one reason why Ns are more valuable than sensors is that they are rarer. If everyone kept producing creative ideas it wouldn't be that valuable and the world would need people who keep things in order.

I was enough lucky to get into an "intellectual", mostly intuitive group of people. And as we know mbti is like a drug if once you take it you'll keep taking it, monitoring yourself. One of the most influencing member - who is basically an entp - shared us her concerns about her actual mbti results. As she spent more time with intuitive people she developed her Se, and Fi and typed as an ESFP. Probably because in the group well developed Se wad rare and it made her more valuable in the group. We can talk about superior people who recognized the fact that the rarest is the most valuable thus they developed their intuition and this ability made them natural born leaders and they probably would have been influencing in an intuitive world.

Moreover the author of the article doesn't know too much about influence (either). The people don't clap after a speech because they heard bright thoughts. They clap because other important people - who probably have some interest of having the speaker in the lime light - clap, and it'd be awkward not to clap.

lilyy: you are handsome :D

you are handsome :D

Anonymous: wow u r so rite when i read

wow u r so rite when i read that i was lik yes tru tru tru yes amaze ns unite lets defete the ss cuz they sux

John Sandeson: Not really accurate

The issue here is that the majority of N's are not this smart. You are picking a VERY small minority of N's that have revolutionized science and culture. This is no way implies that an N will do the same. The same issue arises if you believe S's will turn into Eli Manning or Mariah Carey.

The most you can say is that there is a correlation.

An intuitive has a preference for seeing the big picture; in saying that, it doesn't mean that their conception of the big picture is at all aligned with the actuality. They can more readily traverse information and deduce the essential elements of a situation or idea, but this ability again is contingent on the correctness.

If you have a person with a McLaren driving in a straight line to a destination vs. someone with a shortcut but only equipped with a 1980's economy vehicle, who will win?

The point of this post is not to be an apologist for types. It truly is to ensure that people understand that their type does NOT imply aptitude. I cannot stress this enough. Simply because you are N does not mean that you will be innovative in physics, and if you are S, you may not ever be able to play for the NFL.

Preferences != better. Creativity != utility.

Quinton Figueroa: So more Ss have
@John Sandeson (view comment)

So more Ss have revolutionized science and culture than Ns?

HM: I am an INFJ and I can see

I am an INFJ and I can see where I can be smarter than an S type, but I can also see what their strengths are too. I envy them in some ways and visa versa. I do feel very drained by them, but I have to find ways to deal with it because I am surrounded by them. I'm sure they get frustrated with me too. I think my IQ is around 120, so I am definitely not the smartest; I do ok but know I could be better. I guess if you are an N with a high IQ you will have this attitude that you are smarter than an S at your level or below. But you are only at some things. An N really needs to realize this, especially if you are so smart.

Jennifer : I never comment on things like this...

but your article and the comments are absolutely hilarious. I have to know your type; I couldn't find it in the comments. Are you an ENTJ?? I thought INTJ because of how blunt you are ("not trying to be rude but it's the truth") but all of the business talk has me thinking the former?

Vee vee: DID YOU REALLY START A REAL BIZ OR IS IT JUST YOUR "s" ego

Sorry bro, but you are way off on the dumbness thing.. The top of the class is usually an "s" , Warren Buffet is an "s", etc etc ...the education system and testing is designed for "s", and without them the world would crumble because intuitives like me daydream deeply half the day about a few things that interest us, and how it is feasible it relates to the world ... That's where all the ideas come from.. Intuitives are dreamers ... But besides intp the rest only dream about how to get rich or how to be more loved by for doing something substantial for society as a whole... Nothing scares an intuitive more than dying as a nobody , and not leaving their mark... Lastly, most "good" comedians are entp or entj , that is a known fact, they daydream about what to put into heir material all day , ie Larry David and sienfeld are great examples ... Please dude, why do this world such a disservice by writing so confidently on a subject your kinda not too familiar with?? Somebody New and naive to the subject may take you serious and spew the same bs

Quinton Figueroa: Haha, the most prophetic

Haha, the most prophetic movie ever.

Just a random INTP: N's looks deeper than S's

N's looks deeper than S's into most things and looks for meaning rather than sensation, that's a fact. N's on a population average level is more intellectual than S's, that's also a fact. Statistics don't lie, and examples of smart S's don't bring the average back to balance.

However if we view "intelligence" as simply a descriptive term explaining just one aspect of a person, and is not the definitive in determining a person's capability to contribute, then this article can hold true, at the same time don't put N's any higher than S's in any forms of status quo.

Society operates not just based off the few intelligent persons. N's innovative mind is also their own downfall as it makes them less agreeable and incline to follow the masses, which S's is stronger at. Any forms of innovative advancement needs supporters. Leaders need followers. S's may not create but they provide the foundation of any significant movement. It is a symbiotic relationship and hence none more important than the other.

Vee vee: Article says Obama and Bieber being "s" ??? Idk bout' that!

Your article confidently states bieber and Obama are "s" and won't be important in big picture of history like Jesus , Ceaser, etc... First off, your probably right, I consider musicians modern day poets. Today we write songs, 500 years ago we wrote sonnets or hiku's (idk how to spell that poetry shit. There are famous ports like edgar Allen Poe etc etc , that are icon status and so called by you " remebered forever smart" , if bieber made a timeless cultural impact like them, he will be remebered as a super dude (paraphrasing your idea" forever (highly unlikely). If not he will still be rememeberd as the biggest star of the 2010's in history of pop rock classes in 2500. Obama also will likely be forgotten because his presidency was a big bore. He was not bad ,!and not great , if you not bad or great you are only rememeberd in history books. On a side note, contrary to Obama , this is the same Logic used by pres. bush, he wanted to leave a big footprint so he decided to proactively change world forever by impacting what he considered the most noble and important cause of next 100 + yrs, peace in the Middle East. all countries, especially tribal, are violent for 10-50yrs after a revolutionary change, if Iraq finaly becomes a peaceful democracy in 50-100yrs and that peace sets an example to its neigh. BUSH will be rememebered as a God King angel being catalyst to change , and even if knowingly exaggerated wmd ,it won't matter, ends justified the means. He maybe thought of as more of a hero for going against the world to do what's right even if it meant he had to spend his later yrs being nonstop ridiculed and hated. If Iraq is still a cluster fuck or worse in 100yrs, he will be thought of as an another western devil in Mid East and one of the epic failures to be president. Anyway my point in all this is obvi bush is an "s" and Obama is an "n" , who is going to leave the bigger mark in history ???
In 100 yrs Who will think about bushs gaffes if he's the prince that was promised (to bring world peace)? "N" or "s"!or intellect have little to so with smartness in a historical sense ..

Lastly, if you believe in the physical look of mbti's , bieber and Obama both are N's. Almost all n are skinny scrawny dudes/gals, especially before 35yo, later on the may get a little belly etc ... But they live too much in their mind to enjoy food and sex the way sensors do. Also "n" tend to look after their physical self and prefer lean and mean to muscle look , and they have long thin faces , all fitting Obama and bieber. Lastly Idk much about bieber but I saw him finish a rubics cube under 2 min , and that's something he can always do , so maybe he is "n" level smart like you think you are? Obviously Obama mr Harvard law is without question.

N: So I take it the author is an

So I take it the author is an S then, as this article contributes nothing terribly influential to society. Although I agree that N's generally tend to be more innovative, I see no point in starting a pissing contest.

Anonymous: It looks like you only have

It looks like you only have two Sensors. That's really not a fair comparison.

Anonymous: The article writer:

The article writer:
Clearly knows nothing about the functions, ignores function attitudes, and describes sensing more in terms of extroverted sensing as opposed to introverted sensing.

Bases his entire argument on intelligence based on "guesses" of MBTI types of dead historical figures done by armchair experts on forums.

REALLY doesn't understand functions if he writes idiotic stuff like:
"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.
Defines intelligence in terms of IQ, ignoring other aspects of intelligence."

Introverted Sensing is heavy on factual data over mental models. 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 he tries to portray it.

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, if I say, "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. You can make that same exact argument about high school jocks being more attractive to women than nerdy nice guys or atheists being smarter than Christians or Muslims which is considered true by statistics, but correlation /= causation.

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.

Also, this guy is just another Republican troll on the internet according to his articles and you typing Obama as a sensor does show how much you hate him when he's actually an ENTP.

IQ tests are BS and do not any value whatsoever, it's no different than your average SAT.

Also, when you say shit like S's lack N, but N's do not lack S's, it clearly shows your lack of understanding of the MBTI, especially in the cognitive functions when that matters more than the dichotomies. Isabel Briggs-Myers created this theory and she has said all sensors are just as capable of using their intuition just as much as vice versa.

Not to mention, MBTI is just a pseudoscientific scientific theory just like astrology, it has not been proven true, therefore, that just proves how strawmen your argument is.

I'm an INTP, but I don't believe I am anymore intelligent than the average ISTP. Both types are Ti-doms, but we just perceive in different ways. You have to look at how they accumulate evidence when making a decision. ISTPs are all about tangibility - what can be measured, what is known through direct observation (empiricism). They are less likely to trust hypothetical scenarios which appear truthful, but are without real-world application. It's within the application that ISTPs are different. Whereas INTPs are generally less concerned with reproducible variables, and are more interested in investigating as many different intellectual ends as is available - even those that have no apparent value to the immediate discussion at hand. It's in the exploration that INTPs are different. Neither one's method make them smarter than the other and both methods can be very useful. Also, assuming the INTP's tertiary S function is equally well-developed as their auxiliary N and the ISTP's tertiary N function is equally well-developed as their auxiliary S, what would make one of them either an ISTP or INTP wouldn't be if they are more intuitive or sensing, it would mean do you fit more with the Ne-Si axis or the Se-Ni axis. Also, you can't change your MBTI type, if an ISTP has felt more comfortable use their N function overtime, they won't become INTPs especially considering ISTPs won't use Ne, they will use Ni like the INTJ and INFJ. Same applies for the INTP whose S function develops overtime, they won't become ISTPs especially considering INTPs won't use Se, they will use Si like the ISTJ and ISFJ. You also have the Enneagram to tie into it, INTPs are most likely to be Type 5s and ISTPs are most likely to be Type 6s, but there are also plenty of Type 5's ISTPs (who will appear more abstract than the average ISTP) and Type 6's INTPs as well (who will appear more pragmatic than the average INTP).

I understand when you say things like we need to understand the big picture, but you don't need to be an N to do this and a sensing type can't change to an intuitive. But being pragmatic and getting things done is also important, but you don't need to be an S to do this and an intuitive type can't change to a sensor. Intuition isn't always better. Intuitives may think outside the box better and understand the big picture more, but sensors are better at getting things done

And you're wrong, this is an SJ society, it's not a N society. You're always expected to get straight A's in school, get a college degree, find a high-paying job that involves sitting in a cubicle from 9 to 5, get married, have kids, and make your kids repeat the cycle. How is that an N society? Also, leadership hardly has anything to do with N, after all, studies show that the ESTJ and ESTP are the ideal leadership types. The INTPs (my type) and INFPs are known to struggle with leadership the most, they have the highest job satisfaction, they struggle with day-to-day skills like paying the bills and doing taxes, despite their intelligence, they are likely to not do well in their classes either due to laziness, lack of motivation, or some learning disorder. I am an INTP who has went through this, my younger brother is an ESFP, but he has one of the highest GPAs in his school, enrolled in all AP classes, he's in the school's marching band, and he is qualified for the MENSA program. Your MBTI does not reflect on intelligence neither does it tell you about your whole personality. And it's not about ability, it's about energy. Just like how introverts can enjoy socializing, how extroverts can enjoy being alone, how thinkers can be emotional, how judgers can be adaptable, and how perceivers can be organized. Sensors can understand the big picture and Intuitives can be pragmatics and get things done, but Sensors get more of their energy from the concrete, physical world and Intuitives get more of their energy from the abstract, theoretical world. Try thinking about that and study MBTI more before you make up BS you call a well-written article. Also, I've seen you once on an MBTI thread and it says you are an ESFJ, so it sounds like you feel envious when it comes to intuitives ruling the MBTI world. Well, you were right, sensors are dumb, you're on of them.

Quinton Figueroa: Thanks for the response. I
@Anonymous (view comment)

Thanks for the response. I agree with a lot of what you're saying and it's not clear cut.

Let me address a few things:

Clearly knows nothing about the functions, ignores function attitudes, and describes sensing more in terms of extroverted sensing as opposed to introverted sensing.

http://www.slayerment.com/comment/7009#comment-7009

Bases his entire argument on intelligence based on "guesses" of MBTI types of dead historical figures done by armchair experts on forums.

Which ones are off, moreso on the S/N?

Defines intelligence in terms of IQ, ignoring other aspects of intelligence

Like?

Introverted Sensing is heavy on factual data over mental models. 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 he tries to portray it.

No, he's not stupid. Again, I'm talking in general. Of course there are smart Ss.

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, if I say, "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. You can make that same exact argument about high school jocks being more attractive to women than nerdy nice guys or atheists being smarter than Christians or Muslims which is considered true by statistics, but correlation /= causation.

Fair point. I'd agree sensors don't feel the need to buck the system as much. I see what you're saying with the cooks example, however, I don't see it as only a few Ns being smarter than Ss. To use your example I would say there are more men who are good cooks than women. More men cook better food than women. People like eating food cooked by men more.

Also with the high school jocks and atheist example I would agree and say this is evidence for these cases being true. High school jocks are more attractive to women than nerdy nice guys. Atheists are smarter than Christians and Muslims.

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.

Taking risks is a big, big, big part of intelligence and influence. This is a main reason why I used influential people as an example. Julius Caesar succeeding is the difference between him and the less influential people. Many people would attribute his success to luck. And sure, luck does play a role. But any entrepreneur knows it is much, much more than simply luck to become successful. Elon Musk is going to win at most businesses he goes after. This isn't true for most people. Why does Elon Musk succeed?

Also, this guy is just another Republican troll on the internet according to his articles and you typing Obama as a sensor does show how much you hate him when he's actually an ENTP.

I'm actually closest to a Libertarian, but great argument.

IQ tests are BS and do not any value whatsoever, it's no different than your average SAT.

Maybe for you they don't.

Also, when you say shit like S's lack N, but N's do not lack S's, it clearly shows your lack of understanding of the MBTI, especially in the cognitive functions when that matters more than the dichotomies. Isabel Briggs-Myers created this theory and she has said all sensors are just as capable of using their intuition just as much as vice versa.

Not to mention, MBTI is just a pseudoscientific scientific theory just like astrology, it has not been proven true, therefore, that just proves how strawmen your argument is.

I get the cognitive functions and I understand the history of the MBTI. And as you say, MBTI isn't a concrete science. And that's kind of what I'm saying. The way it is currently defined we know isn't 100% accurate and we know things don't balance out correctly. I see value in MBTI but there are a lot of things that are off with it insofar as measuring human behavior and patterns. But there is still a lot of value in it. I'm working with it. And when I look at it I associate its patterns with other things like philosophy, spirituality, IQ, business, etc.

I'm an INTP, but I don't believe I am anymore intelligent than the average ISTP. [...]

Fair enough.

I understand when you say things like we need to understand the big picture, but you don't need to be an N to do this and a sensing type can't change to an intuitive. But being pragmatic and getting things done is also important, but you don't need to be an S to do this and an intuitive type can't change to a sensor. Intuition isn't always better. Intuitives may think outside the box better and understand the big picture more, but sensors are better at getting things done

Ns are more likely to understand the big picture. Being pragmatic and getting things done is more TJ than S. I agree Intuition isn't always better. But in general intuition is more intelligent. Sensors aren't better at getting things done. Getting things done is more a J thing than an S thing. There are a lot of important things. We should list them all out and see which types are most likely to do them. I can guarantee that most things representing wisdom, virtue, intelligence, accuracy, love, truth, insight, peace, action and any other important traits would be over-represented by the Ns.

And you're wrong, this is an SJ society, it's not a N society.

Did I say it was an N society? I completely agree this is an SJ society.

Also, leadership hardly has anything to do with N, after all, studies show that the ESTJ and ESTP are the ideal leadership types.

This is always such crap. This is the circle-jerk stuff you hear in school about going on to become some CEO at a fortune 500 company. These people aren't leaders, they didn't lead anything. They're managers looking over the business than an N built. They're employees for the real leaders. This is the path your younger brother is on. That's not leadership, that's following the rules of a system created by an N.

And it's not about ability, it's about energy. Just like how introverts can enjoy socializing, how extroverts can enjoy being alone, how thinkers can be emotional, how judgers can be adaptable, and how perceivers can be organized. Sensors can understand the big picture and Intuitives can be pragmatics and get things done, but Sensors get more of their energy from the concrete, physical world and Intuitives get more of their energy from the abstract, theoretical world.

This is making my point. Saying that somebody can be something else means that majority of the time they're not that. If sensors can understand the big picture then most of the time they're not. Once again, people have no problem making generalization about E socializing or Js being organized but when it comes to intelligence that generalization is off limits.

Also, I've seen you once on an MBTI thread and it says you are an ESFJ, so it sounds like you feel envious when it comes to intuitives ruling the MBTI world. Well, you were right, sensors are dumb, you're on of them.

I knew you'd come around :)

Anonymous: You seem to make better

You seem to make better arguments than what you are trying to claim in your article, so I give you points for that.

Let me address a few points:

"http://www.slayerment.com/comment/7009#comment-7009"

That link just makes my point, it's all about the cognitive functions, it matter more than dichotomies. Otherwise, people will feel like they are 50/50 on J and P if they have a hard time wondering if they were an INTP or INTJ, these 2 types share 0 cognitive functions. You have to wonder do you fit more with Introverted Intuition and Extraverted Sensing with Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling vs. Extraverted Intuition and Introverted Sensing with Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Feeling. Without Jung's Cognitive theory, everyone would be considered multiple MBTI types when you can only be one type and you can't change your MBTI type. Again, if an ISTP is able to understand the big picture, he won't turn into an INTP or INTJ, it's just that the ISTP has developed his tertiary Introverted Intuition overtime.

"Like?"

Umm:
Naturalist (nature smart)
Musical (sound smart)
Logical-mathematical (number/reasoning smart)
Existential (life smart)
Interpersonal (people smart)
Bodily-kinesthetic (body smart)
Linguistic (word smart)
Intra-personal (self smart)
Spatial (picture smart)

Need I say more?

"Fair point. I'd agree sensors don't feel the need to buck the system as much. I see what you're saying with the cooks example, however, I don't see it as only a few Ns being smarter than Ss. To use your example I would say there are more men who are good cooks than women. More men cook better food than women. People like eating food cooked by men more.

Also with the high school jocks and atheist example I would agree and say this is evidence for these cases being true. High school jocks are more attractive to women than nerdy nice guys. Atheists are smarter than Christians and Muslims."

Fair enough, I agree that men are more likely to better cooks than women. Male chefs like Gordon Ramsey are more famous for a reason than female chefs.

"Taking risks is a big, big, big part of intelligence and influence. This is a main reason why I used influential people as an example. Julius Caesar succeeding is the difference between him and the less influential people. Many people would attribute his success to luck. And sure, luck does play a role. But any entrepreneur knows it is much, much more than simply luck to become successful. Elon Musk is going to win at most businesses he goes after. This isn't true for most people. Why does Elon Musk succeed?"

I agree, can't argue with that, but you can't say that about every N or every S. Sensor leaders like Jeff Bezos (ISTJ), Warren Buffett (ISTJ), Picasso (ISFP), Sam Walton (ESTJ), and George Washington (ISTJ) took as many risks as many Intuitive leaders to succeed and to get where they are. Intuitives are maybe more likely to change the world, but it doesn't always mean for the better. Hiter and Bin Laden were Intuitives that changed the world, but for the worse. Obama (ENTP) was an Intuitive leader, but what he has done was hardly any different from what Bush (ESTJ) has done.

"I'm actually closest to a Libertarian, but great argument."

I stand corrected, the anti-Trump articles explain that.

"Maybe for you they don't"

More like maybe for everyone they don't, the idea of being identified as intelligent or unintelligent because of some meaningless number makes no sense. Andy Warhol had an IQ of 86 and an INFP, but he was one of the smartest people out there. Trump's IQ is 156 and an ESTP, but he has the grammar of a 3rd grader and he is a complete demagogue.

"I get the cognitive functions and I understand the history of the MBTI. And as you say, MBTI isn't a concrete science. And that's kind of what I'm saying. The way it is currently defined we know isn't 100% accurate and we know things don't balance out correctly. I see value in MBTI but there are a lot of things that are off with it insofar as measuring human behavior and patterns. But there is still a lot of value in it. I'm working with it. And when I look at it I associate its patterns with other things like philosophy, spirituality, IQ, business, etc."

Fair enough, I admire you for doing that, keep up the good work on that.

"Ns are more likely to understand the big picture. Being pragmatic and getting things done is more TJ than S. I agree Intuition isn't always better. But in general intuition is more intelligent. Sensors aren't better at getting things done. Getting things done is more a J thing than an S thing. There are a lot of important things. We should list them all out and see which types are most likely to do them. I can guarantee that most things representing wisdom, virtue, intelligence, accuracy, love, truth, insight, peace, action and any other important traits would be over-represented by the Ns."

Good points on that, but ISTPs and ISTJs are more likely to be seen as left-brained, pragmatic logicians than their intuitive twins. Being a left-brained, pragmatic logicians is all about knowing the facts, being realistic, and learning about the actual science. That's not to say INTPs and INTJs can't do that, but they are more likely to be idealistic and philosophical and them relying on gut instincts can sometimes cloud their logical decision making, it's not just feelers that do this and thinkers do not. Even SFs can be more pragmatic than NTs because of this. The sensors care more about the facts and the science, the intuitives are more about the theories and the philosophies. That's why I don't how are the INTJs the scientist type when I feel like that belongs more to the ISTJ. I find the INTJs to be more of the rational mystics.

"Did I say it was an N society? I completely agree this is an SJ society."

You did say the sensors work for the system created by Ns, but that system is a part of what our society wants us to be which is SJ. System or society, whatever you want to call it is not created by Ns, it's created by SJs or at least by most sensors.

"This is always such crap. This is the circle-jerk stuff you hear in school about going on to become some CEO at a fortune 500 company. These people aren't leaders, they didn't lead anything. They're managers looking over the business than an N built. They're employees for the real leaders. This is the path your younger brother is on. That's not leadership, that's following the rules of a system created by an N."

Maybe by your definition of leadership, it isn't. You're right that sensors are more likely to follow the rules of the system, but that doesn't mean it isn't leadership, leadership is not a one size fits all or always one type. Jeff Bezos (ISTJ), Sam Walton (ESTJ), Sigmund Freud (ISTJ), and Warren Buffett's (ISTJ) leadership skills were hardly distinguished from those possessed by Steve Jobs (ENTP), Bill Gates (ENTJ), and Mark Zuckerberg (INTJ). What do you make of that? And again, you're wrong, the system or society was not created by N's, it's created by SJs or most sensors.

"This is making my point. Saying that somebody can be something else means that majority of the time they're not that. If sensors can understand the big picture then most of the time they're not. Once again, people have no problem making generalization about E socializing or Js being organized but when it comes to intelligence that generalization is off limits"

Good argument, people are oft to make such hasty generalizations and stereotypes based on someone's MBTI type, so I see what you are getting at. People always says INTJs and INTPs are smart and ESFPs and ESFJs are dumb which can be so annoying. But you being an ESFJ and my brother being an ESFP just shows that those stereotypes are silly.

"I knew you'd come around :)"

Ok I was wrong, sensors aren't dumb, you seem very smart and intelligent for an ESFJ, but that still debunks your article's argument, but I'll let you win for being well-spoken and having great arguments.

Canadian INTJ Lady: Obama is an iNtuitive, though

Obama is an iNtuitive, though.

Anonymous: As an INFP, LOL! I didn't
@Anonymous (view comment)

As an INFP, LOL! I didn't even know they had a sensor reddit. The INFPs and INTJs exposed articles made me ROTFL and spill my coffee.

ESFP: N's are more influential than

N's are more influential than S's, because S's are more common than N's.

INTP: This is biased

IQ, first of all, tests your personality rather than your logical intelligence. I does better than E, N does better than S, T does better than F and P does better than J. The only way to accurately compare results would be to have INTPs of the same level complete the test. This has been proven through numerous case studies on the correlation of IQ and MBTI which you can find on the internet.

In addition, you are most obviously an N and, quite possibly, an INTJ going from the fact that a large amount of the people and qualities of intelligence you listed are possessed by said type ( If you are not, i apologize for my assumption). As such, you have a natural bias towards your own type. Also, in the article you suggested that you had read papers on the subject- however, you were very vague on the opposing argument, suggesting that you had not read too much on the other opinion, if at all. Even when writing to convince people, you should include the oppositions view- something you have neglected to do. This suggests that you are not only biased and unable to write a balanced argument, but also uninformed on the subject, therefor making your argument invalid.

Also, INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT EQUAL LEADERSHIP, rather LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNICATION IS A TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE. If you ask an INTP to talk about their feelings (emotional intelligence) they will more than likely not be able to do so efficiently, but rather it is someone with an S preference (who is able to focus on what they are experiencing at that moment) who would have a higher rate of success.

And please don't use words such as 'smart' in an informative article. It is a purely subjective word that is personal to the perception of the reader. Due to this, it allows room for inaccuracy that does not leave the best impression of your intelligence to the reader.

ENTP: iN types are certainly more

iN types are certainly more interesting - they see more deeply into the world, despise small talk. They can milk insight out of a stone, find meaning anywhere. They may even be more intelligent *on average* because of this ability to think abstractly.

But they are certainly not more effective than S types, and 100% not more likely to be leaders. iN types without a J are often in the clouds, they may be "visionary," but getting shit done and most importantly caring about / relating to normal people is much more of an effort for them than for S'. I do not think iNs in general have any natural advantage over S', and if we were to do a test on our Politicians and CEOs I think that would be proven.

Sciences are probably split 50-50 between iNs and S's (which means a lot more iNs given their number in the population), and a *handful* of ambitious and impactful iNs may have sneaked their way into the higher rungs of power. But mostly management and leadership of the real world is done most consistently by S'.

Finally, though I am profoundly biased towards iNs, S' do VERY well in sciences that are data heavy. They plod onward and make most discoveries in these fiels. iNs may take more risks and break into new fields, but they are no more likely (maybe even less likely) than S' to develop them.

GoingDumb: You clearly knew nothing of

You clearly knew nothing of cognitive functions at the time you wrote this article. Maybe even now. You have no drive of learning about it like the real INTPs.
You have no Extraverted Intuition or Introverted Sensing. Means you are either SP or NJ. That's why you should learn about this. It's fun and wouldn't have made you look stupid.
Even if you have learned about this, it's just superficial knowledge, why? I don't know, maybe because you're not curious about it. C'mon it's been four years.
You haven't even read Psychological Types, and you make a controversial argument that Sensors are more stupid than intuitives. That is actually a legit argument (and most likely wrong and useless and harmful) but at least get some time to learn about the subject.

What a stupid arrogant prick. Call himself an INTP. Pffftt, you wish.

GoingDumb: Also let me make this easy

Also let me make this easy for you.
It's not about S vs N. It's about Se/Ni vs Ne/Si. Se and Ni complements each other, just like Ne complements Si. The rest you can look up on your own. And then realize how unnecessarilyt dumb you were being.

GoingDumb: Another point.

Another point.
The typing in that article is not accurate. I know you've been hearing this a lot, but it seems like it never stucks in your brain. People are biased against sensors. That's why many people type influental sensors as intuitives. Many intuitives in your list were actually sensors. Simply put, some deluded "intuitives" type those people as intuitives because they like them. For all we know about your knowledge of the subject, you could be a sensor deluding himself thinking he is an intuitive because he's supposed to be smart. You see your stupid way of thinking? Those statistics isn't fact, because the typing itself is incorrect if we're arguing about the real cognitive function, the original idea behind this whole system. So whatever S vs N you're measuring there, it's not the sensing and intuition that Jung meant. These functions are supposed to be complementary.

I hope I'm not wasting my time for you. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm being personal with you. Not because I'm sensor (which I'm not btw), but because your attitude is one of many things that is most despicable about humanity, "choosing to be ignorant".

Anonymous: Have you read Philosophy: Who

Have you read Philosophy: Who needs it By Ayn Rand? she compares a Percetual mentality to a Conceptual Mentality. She also talks about an anti-conceptual mentality which she links to evolution

Krzysztof Grzeskiewicz: Look down your shirt and spell "Attic"

Let's roast the iNtuitives!

INTJ
"Blessed with great insight"
"A true genius"
"Just knows things"
"Mastermind"
“I’m open to ideas” yet so stubborn
Masters of the A Priori Argument.
The most close minded NT.
“#BestType. Highest IQ”, but still useless.
"Better than those filthy sensing ISTJs" yet they make the same amount of money (and probably achieve just as much as you)
Can understand every concept except interacting with people
All that contemplation, all that Te empiricism and purpose, thrown out the window because “ew spotlight”.
Masters of self-righteousness.
Smart, All-knowing, Masterminds. All from the comfort of your own room. Impressive.
All the great insight, foreseeing and such, yet you’ve admittedly bumped into things and not seen things coming to hit you right? Incredible.
It’s sad knowing that so many people of your “best type”, who unlike their perceiving brethren actually YEARN to achieve something, will do so little in their lives.

INFJ
“Wow I'm unique and special”
Someone claiming they’re INFJ is like a mystery box. Is it an INFJ? INFP? … ISFJ? Who knows?!
(Also does anyone remember that ENTJ here that thought he was an INFJ before? Nothing surprises me anymore from this bunch)
Whose great idea was it to put auxiliary feeling on an intuition dominant mind?
INFJs. The anxiety machines.
Where INTJs search for facts to back up their hunches, you just skip that don’t you?
In fact, why are INFJs considered such intellectuals? Ever tried going NT on them? They get tired as fuck when analysing things.. RAPIDLY.
Famous for constantly thinking about your own thoughts though, but of course not sharing them.
Fe on an introvert? Must be tough.
On a side note... Why do some INFPs want to identify as one of these special bananas so badly? Don’t worry boys and girls… they’re both equally worthless, pick your brand of shyness and anxiety.
Also, you guys think because you have Ni you’re open minded. Nah it’s just your thoughts are vague enough to kinda align with new information.
Also as for this “insight to see other people’s perspectives”, in my experience, ISFJs have been better at this. Or at least helping people BESIDES not being able to understand their perspective.
You THINK you’re that insightful, but in actually y’all are so removed from reality that I doubt you even notice there’s people around you to even feel their emotions or whatever.
Also all of you have your own personal mini-Hitler inside of them.
Just remember when you wanna feel like a good person and a special snowflake and you wanna do that by identifying with the INFJ label, you're putting yourself in the same box as this guy and this guy.
If you don't believe me, research it yourself, I know you have PolR Te and weak Ti, but still try.

ENTP
“Innovative”
“Idea people"
“Smart”
“Inventive”
Doesn’t want to actually do anything… great…
How does it feel to be THE most useless of all the NTs?
Some of you have already come up with 100 witty rebuttals.
Do you realize that this is the fullest extent some of you will take your Ne-Ti? Witty rebuttals? Really?!
I suppose… in your own shadow INTJ way… you’re taking NT powers and using them in the best way possible for humanity… Giving them the gift of laughter.
Not only do you guys make some really good jokes, but most of you are jokes yourself.
Banter > Wealth and Success... But.. did you know that while we have some successful idiots out here, the successful people usually have the intelligence or at least care about things enough to give you that debate/challenge that you think you deserve?
Speaking of debating/devil’s advocate which is the hallmark of ENTP type, how much time do you spend ACTUALLY doing that when you can, as opposed to making off-the-wall-dick jokes?
ENTP, basically an ENTJ that doesn’t actually do anything, congrats.

ENFP
Low key, the ENFPs have gotten a free ride with the “N = smart” stereotype, one that they would not have gotten without the other 6 types covering for them (Don’t you dare claim the Manic Pixie Dream Girl INFPs are smart enough to be covering for ENFP stupidity)
ENFPs are like ENTPs without the logic limiter. Virtually uncontrollable, even if it’s for their own good.
Again, with the decision making and analysis... Still a bad idea to have feeling be the "back to earth" function on an intuition dom.
It’s really a good thing you can usually see the bright side of things, because wow some of you make your own lives objectively terrible.
If an ENFP says “My life is great” it could mean anything between I have everything any man, woman, or puppy can desire, I’m the richest person on Earth, have the love of my life, and still have free time to just chill with my friends to I am homeless starving and alone, but at least I have a cardboard box and I could have been completely without shelter
“Who doesn’t love ENFPs?” Everyone when you get offended. I mean really anyone with high Fi is the worst person to be around when they feel bad/offended, but you guys throw a mix of extraversion and intuition into it in a way that allows maximum use of that negative energy by bringing it to everyone else in every possible way… congrats.
Honestly, maybe there’s the buzzing of ideas in your heads, but I don’t see it in your words or actions.
To be honest, you're just really sensitive, unfocused ISTJs.

INTP
“smart”
“logical”
“analytical”
Indecisive.
The best part? The logic and system by which you try to be the most accurate analyst… Is in itself subjective.
Accuracy before everything… but Theory before facts?
That in itself seems to be logically inconsistent.
While I’m at it, why do INTPs always appear to be crying and whining and angry and sad and all that, but then you’re like
People: “Hey what’s up? Why are you feeling this way?”
INTP: “No I am not feeling anything”
Really mate?... I’d try to figure out why that is, but I’ll leave trying to find out pointless things to you Ti-Ne users.
Speaking of useful/useless: INTPs with their machinations, fascinations and other such actions are so smart, yet so indecisive.
“But what if I didn’t do this?” “Maybe I forgot something important” “I forgot to account for the probability that X might happen didn’t I?” “Did I leave the microwave on?” “If I did, then what are the chances of that microwave causing a housefire?” “Do microwaves cause house fires?” “I bet…”
SMH.
An INTP is the type to discover the cure for cancer, go “Hmm. Interesting. Cool” and just put it down and go research something else.

INFP
I know plenty of you read the INFJ one already, trying to see what I had to say about cough cough your type. I’d roast you guys too, but I think in the spirit of Te efficiency, I’ll make this short….
r/INFP
Plenty of material there MPDGs

ENTJ
“tfw rich”
“Founders of Make Your Dreams a Reality Inc.”
“Will bulldoze a puppy for a better outcome”
The least “N” of N types out there.
If ENTPs weren’t trying you’d be the greatest assholes of MBTI.
Able to conquer everything, and fear nothing except letting people see that you have feelings... Including yourself..
Here's a good question, though this is less N bashing and more ENTJ online bashing… You’re “always busy”, “Don’t have the time to upload a picture here”, “an important person trying to achieve real life success” … How the fuck do you still have time to lurk and PARTICIPATE on online discussions? And if you say time management I swear I am going to get very mad.
Y'all ENTJs are also guilty of many things the INTJs are.
Able to form an opinion based on limited information, but requires a shitload of information for anyone BESIDES YOURSELF to convince you that your original opinion might be false.
Most likely type to respond “Great idea, glad I thought of it” to your idea.
Perhaps the dumbest of all the NT types.
Let’s get the best one out of the way. Such great hardworking people right? You laugh at your ENTP cousins who have just as much (if not more) creativity than you, but not your drive? How does it feel to augment creativity with hard work and perseverance? The answer? You don’t know. You’ve delegated the work to lackeys long ago.
You guys are also more stubborn than you think you are. (Summed up “Hey I listen to all your ideas, it’s just that all your ideas are stupid.”)
Also one of the worst and most destructive dom-tert loops in all of mbti (after the INFJs)

ENFJ
I've saved the perfect type for last.
“Perfect type”
“OMG, so sensitive, so kind, so successful, and so smart”
“Can connect to anyone”
I have to admit you guys are smooth as fuck. How did you manage to be feelers, yet survive the “nice but stupid” stereotypes? Need I remind everyone of INFERIOR Ti?!
ENFJs are the main N type who gets their dom function shitted on when they’re being criticized.
“Fe so manipulative omg”
… About inferior Ti? The leaps in logic you make are astounding.
If you think an ENFJ is smart, just offend them, half of that intelligence goes out of the window. Also IRL, Fe-Ni is so hit and miss. If you are steamrolling people for the cause, who are you ENFJs actually helping?
Honestly you possess Ni in its most useless form.
And least ESFJs are consistent and deal with how people actually feel, and what’s actually going on rather than some hunch based vision. (P.S. none of you are psychic, don't let Ni fool you)

Bonus round for all NTs: So you're innovative and creative thinkers, capable of solving complex problems etc. right? So like... What have you innovated besides memes? What complex problems did you ACTUALLY solve?

CuriousManWhoLi...: It Saddens Me to See Everyone Arguing

Guys, I understand how it feels to hear these revelations Quentin made to you and I understand you're not totally used to hearing such an unfiltered opinion. At the same time, I completely agree with Quentin. I'm an ENFP myself and while this may severely damage my credibility due to the apparent seething hatred of N types on here, unfortunately I see all of his arguments as valid.

I mean, if you think about it, Quentin's right when he says that N types can use both N and S, but S types cannot use both S and N. By definition, S types take in their information seeing what's around them, not by making inferences about the invisible. Many less professional sites discussing MBTI will claim that S and N are simply preferences and that people can voluntarily alter how they take in info as they please, but to me, it doesn't make any sense. Making an analogy (analogies are like crack to an N), an electric guitar is capable of being played both acoustically and electrically, but the same cannot be said for an acoustic guitar. It's only capable of the initial type of sound (acoustic) and while there might be TRACES of the advanced form here and there, they're very rudimentary traces and not at all developed or the norm for the acoustic guitar. From what we know, Ss cannot use their primitive N as they're not ingrained for it to be as developed or as dominant as an N type.

Additionally, it makes complete sense that N types usually are the innovators society remembers, while Ss usually only fit the available roles at the time and usually are forgotten long after they have died. N wants to expand upon or alter the current system because they realize that it is both possible and true that just because a current tradition or mechanism is in place, doesn't mean it's the only or dominant way to do things and that there's potential for improvement. Tying into their ability to clearly see the big picture, they care about the outcome and not the means or the particular details for why a current system is in place, provided their vision is more efficient then the current system in place. Ss on the other hand are usually unable to see past what society has implemented because they aren't designed to look past what is in front of them. By nature, they work with what's in the current system almost completely, if not completely. If an S and an N were solving a problem, here is how it most likely would go:

Problem: Fueling cars

S: We should be using oil. It's worked for so much time and besides, the claims that it's bad for the environment have no proof. Where are the facts for it?

N: We should be researching into alternative methods of fuel. While I cannot prove that fossil fuel is necessarily bad for the environment, ever since the explosion of fossil fuel in society, apparently the average temperature has risen fairly significantly. Even if this isn't true, why take the chance of damaging society when we could create a safer, more consistent form of fuel? Shouldn't we be minimizing the potential for harm?

S: It's not harming society now and it's worked! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Additionally, while there were a few Ss on the list Quentin provided, I can explain why at least a few were on said list. Picasso was probably on the list because while he was no innovator, he was a widely revered artist who's often cited as being one of the most talented in human history. He learned how to perfect his system and admittedly, some Ss are capable of doing this, but usually only mastering the current system and not altering it or expanding it. I might be rusty on my history, but I'm pretty sure Washington was more of an administrative figure who was chosen to be the first President precisely because he was good at enforcing the system that intuitives such as Jefferson and Adams devised. He was good with administrative details and probably agreed with the system via his tertiary Fi, but I don't recall him being essential to the actual formation of democracy. Regarding his success as a general, while again, I know little about him, I can assume that he most likely perfected previously implemented systems of combat, rather then innovating any particularly new ones. As I said before, an intelligent S perfects their current system, while an intelligent N adds onto or alters their system.

Regarding the arguments regarding different types of intelligence, perhaps this is true. However, while this may be true, the type of intellect that IQ tests call for generally is the one best suited for the type of innovation and creation Ns are responsible for, as well as thinking outside the box, making connections and noticing patterns that aren't immediately obvious. This type of intellect allows people to make substantial differences to their societies because they are able to successfully form theories or conclusions based on a set of information that isn't completely available. Sure, I can buy the idea that there is musical or linguistic intelligence, but from what I can infer, these types of intelligence seem to be more related to perfecting an existing system rather then expanding upon or altering a current one without all the information. Tell me what's more useful? Knowing how to build a contraption that's already a widespread part of society (mechanical intellect), or devising a brand new contraption based on patterns you've noticed, ideas you've collected and theories you've formed and are willing to experiment with? What's more beneficial to society? Being able to BUILD a serviceable, but not perfect sort of transportation device with many flaws, or being able to build off the existing to device to create a much more efficient and useful transportation device that allows people to get to their destination more quickly and speeds up progress and activity in the society?

And technically, many of you are correct that Ss are necessary to society, but not in the way you would have thought. Ss are necessary to carry out the grunt work in an Ns vision that the N themself is too busy to focus on and to focus on the minute details that Ns are too ignorant of and uninterested to care about.

Another post that I noticed that irked me was regarding an ESTP who said that ESTPs generally can be as intelligent as N types and tried to justify their argument by including Donald Trump as an intelligent and influential ESTP. I will not disagree that Trump certainly is an ambitious and highly successful ESTP, but he's only really successful in the system that currently exists. Trump isn't known for any sort of sweeping innovation (maybe being the first completely mentally ill person to become President counts :P), but rather that he's good at a PRE-EXISTING system. ESTPs and other S types certainly can be ambitious, just that it's only with what is in the existing system, rather then adding onto or altering the system.

I hope I was able to clear up any potential confusion with you guys.

CuriousManWhoLi...: Some Additional Thoughts

I was looking over the comments again and nearly bursted out laughing after reading some of the attempts at convincing Quentin that there are many more influential Ss then he posted on the list. I'm going to look at some of the examples and explain why they would not count:

1. Ronald Reagan: Technically, it is true that Reagan was an important President as he influenced people, albeit not in the innovative N way that moves past the current system and forges a new one or makes a new alteration to the system. Reagan influenced people in that he basically said: "Stop trying to analyze everything and find newer methods to deal with this problem! The good ol' days were when America was TRULY happy! Innovation would cause us to forget who we are! Fervent patriotism, morality and faith are what we need! Not fuddy duddy "theories" or ideas to move society forward! Critical thinking is the work of the Soviets! Go America!" Nowadays, people such as W Bush and Trump are elected precisely because they want to move the system backwards instead of forwards into the potentially better, while people like Clinton and Obama are elected because they keep methods that worked in the past alive, instead of legitimately trying to make alterations to their government.

2. The Pope: I can't remember which one this post mentioned, but that's not relevant. How are most Popes influential? Most of them simply maintain the current value system instead of finding grievances with it and moving onto a more advanced system. Quentin made it very clear in his post that there's a difference between leading and managing. Leaders are responsible for moving towards a newer, better path, one that is more efficient then the current system and realizing that just because something current is working, doesn't mean it's ideal or the best. A manager on the other hand is a person who deals with the grunt work the leader is too busy to worry about and too uncaring of the details to do anything about. They already have the plans laid out for them and simply make sure people stay in line. There's no innovation involved, no theories, no forging a new path, simply maintaining the one that the leader made. Think about it using this analogy:

* Several men are on an island with little to no food and there doesn't seem to be any method of growing new food. One of the men (the leader) suggests that they find a new land so they can thrive off of the food there. Eventually with some coercion, the men comply and set sail on a ship. The man who thought of this idea is leading the path to the unknown land. He realizes that while the ultimate goal is to make it to this land, there are some annoying details that must be accounted for to conceivably make it to this land. Since he's too busy and doesn't care about minute details, he needs someone less forward-thinking and focused on grander ideas to enforce these ideals for him. He calls upon one of the men to make sure the subordinates behave themselves, do their chores, keep the ship clean, etc.

Tell me, which man was responsible for the move forward? Who simply kept the system maintained?

In this case, it would be Jesus, while the maintainer is the Pope. Christ allegedly began an entire movement that broke away from the current one that people of the time conformed to, by showing people there was a system better then theirs. Does the Pope normally do anything innovative or add onto the system? No, he simply keeps his followers in line and maintains it. That's not innovating.

3. Bill Clinton: I briefly mentioned him in my Reagan dissection and I'll go more in-depth this time. Except that's the problem, there's nothing to go that in-depth with. Clinton was a decent President because he didn't severely damage the country or throw us into peril, but did he do anything particularly revolutionary that changed the course of our country? No, he simply maintained the decent standing we had, instead of veering us into a potentially greater path. Name one of his accomplishments. Okay, technically he had the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, but there was nothing particularly revolutionary about this. Did he concoct this idea? No, he simply signed it. Can most people sign legislation? Yes. Can most people devise a completely new idea that improves upon or adds to the system instead of keeping it stagnant? No, they cannot. Sadly, while Clinton certainly wasn't a terrible President, he wasn't innovative or creative enough to stand among the all time greats.

4. Andy Warhol: Technically he wasn't mentioned in the post I'm referring to, but somebody did mention him in another post and I feel that he's worth discussion. It's been said that Warhol's IQ was a mere 86 and while some might initially be flabbergasted to see such a controversial, "eccentric" man be listed as having relatively low intelligence, if you examine his art and some of his quotes, it makes complete sense. He frequently discussed the idea that he wanted to make art accessible to the common man and remove the barrier between sophisticated art and commercial art. What did he do? He didn't lead an abstract movement, target any new questions or make us think differently about much at all, or challenge people. He made vapid commercialism and shallowness the norm, encouraging people NOT to veer towards more complicated, abstract works, but instead treat their shallowness as art. He gave self-encouragement to people who were only obsessed with what was on the surface. Tell me if a particularly bright man would say things like this:

"I love Los Angeles and I love Hollywood. They're beautiful. Everyone's plastic, but I l love plastic! I want to be plastic."

"I am a deeply superficial person."

Yes, because looking at things only on the surface is VERY influential to society, VERY revolutionary to our attitudes and VERY unique.

Tommy Pavell: What about ENFP

Your upfront-ness and directness is stabbing me in multiple places that would instantly kill me. But, I still have a question.

What about the ENFPs? On every test I take, I score ENFP with moderate preferences on the two formers and extreme preferences on the two latters. On your data sheet, ENFPs don't bother to exist on it. Are ENFPs the "false intuit" as I'm going to call it?

CuriousManWhoLi...: ENFP Question
@Tommy Pavell (view comment)

That's a decent question. I wouldn't say that ENFPs are false intuitives, as they clearly are able to envision ideas that most sensors only could dream to. In the simplest terms, the difference between a sensor and an intuitive is that a sensor perfects an existing system, while an intuitive creates a new system. While ENFPs may not be known for their mechanical innovation abilities like INTPs and INTJs, they have much more creative innovation in them then an S would ever dream of having, or be capable of having. Take two film-makers for example: Walt Disney and Michael Bay. The former is an ENFP, while the latter is an ESFP. Tell me which of the two creators is hailed as a revolutionary and which one is seen as a joke, only suitable for vapid morons?

ThisSiteIsDumb: This site is exactly why MBTI

This site is exactly why MBTI will never be taken seriously by professional psychologist. It's full of bias and tend to glorify one type over the others, dumb arrogant intuitive like you just pour more oils to the fire.

MBTI is a study of PERSONALITY. Saying "this personality is smarter than this" itself should be regarded as a dumb sentences. Intuitives tend to be more interested in the abstract while Sensors are more interested in a practical, doable thing. Smart intuitives will be the inventive man who can see potential in things, dumb intuitives will be the useless, impractical man who can only think abstractly and disregard reality. Smart intuitive respect sensory ability and is practical enough to balance their self. Dumb intuitive throws reality away and will jerk of to the idea that they're smarter than everyone else.

Smart sensor have strong grasp of reality and have excellent attention on details, very practical, and know best on what to do with informations they absorb. Dumb sensor only think in one dimensional way, no depth, and disrespect everything that seems too unpractical to them.

Its about balance. Both are good at their own ways, so a healthy human would have both sensory and intuitive ability, but prefer one over the other. Its called Jung's function. So please stop misusing the actual theory to please yourself.

CuriousManWhoLi...: Re: Rant
@ThisSiteIsDumb (view comment)

ThisSiteisDumb, you did make some points I'm inclined to agree with, but I'd love to make an analogy to explain why intuitives are almost always smarter. Take the tortoise and the hare for example. The hare would be the intuitive and the tortoise the sensor. Now, he did lose the race, but not because his ability was weaker then the tortoise. Rather, it's because while it was true that he was more gifted then the tortoise, his inability to actually finish the job caused the slower turtle to win. He only lost because he didn't finish the job. Hypothetically, if he never stopped, he would have won that race in a curb-stomp.

As for what you said about smart/dumb intuitives and smart/dumb sensors, you're right that intuitives can be dumb. But generally, the dumbest intuitive is smarter then the smartest sensor. Why you may ask? Well that's because a smart sensor perfects his system. Any intuitive can at least envision a better one, if not create it. They are capable of creating ideas and objects that society hasn't theorized yet or deemed acceptable. Again, like I said in one of my other posts, is it more useful to be able to fix any car, or to be able to invent, faster, sleeker cars that don't rely on oil? I thought so. You're correct that an intuitive who does not use his sensing to any degree is misguided. Even the best ideas need some sort of practical do-how to actually make them a reality. But still, most sensors are not capable of this level of higher thought. That's why intuitives will always be better.

Chuck: Not becoming a slave

There are more valid personality tests around. Someone once said the MBTI is so popular because all "scientific" tests don't feed the narcissistic ego so much. However, as i've seen, science is not really science.
When i read "anal", "oral" and "genital stage", to me it's a joke and not serious psychological literature.
I could list hundreds of other examples. Jung is not much more serious than astrology.
The only way of not becoming a slave is to write down every single thought or seemingly important observation into some sort of diary and then to think carefully about it until you have understood it.
"Openness to experience" is also important, so read anything you can get in front of your eyes, especially if it's abroad from (or out of?) the mainstream media. Stuff that is banned or medical literature is also very good. You'll need some years and a thorough diary until you aren't too naive anymore to get into the trap of their institutions.

Anonymous: please...

please...
direct quote from
http://sengifted.org/a-synthesis-of-research-on-psychological-types-of-g...

"Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory, and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school male students in a college-preparatory curriculum were compared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had higher scores than sensing types"

sensors have lower IQ sorry it's official, proven

John Stevens: Wrong interpretation of the S/N dichotomy.

I have to say, that N= intuition and S= sensation are wrong titles. It is more appropriate to call N as introspection and S as intuition! If you review what these preferences really mean, that's what it's all about.

so you have it backwards. Sensors are more in tuned with their natural intuition compared to "introspectives" (who always have their head in the clouds).

The problem is beyond the original MBTI literature (especially when other typists took over), there have been some great exaggeration to the descriptions relating to the N types. example: the INTJ would have been just a good business negotiator but once the other typists took over (especially keirsey), the INTJ is greatly exaggerated as the "Mastermind Rational". If you review what the original N is all about, it doesn't really go to that exaggeration.

If you get where I'm coming from, most common in the population would have been ENTJs (as materialistic businessmen) and ENFJs ("charming celebrities") and the rarest type would have been either ISFPs (lone artists/adventurers) or ISTPs (hands-on inventors). It would also not be true that Sensors are more common than Intuitives (or more appropriately called, "Introspectives") as now you'd think that there would be 55-45 split between the two.

The mistake is the typists who have taken the MBTI and put a really false interpretation of this dichotomy.

CuriousManWhoLi...: Re: Type Definitions
@John Stevens (view comment)

John, I'm curious as to what led you to this conclusion that certain types had different definitions during their inception? Do you have any proof for this? Also, how would sensing qualify as any sort of intuition. Sensing means that you simply take what is seen in front of you and accept it as merely that. Faith is not intuition, so please do not get those two confused.

John Stevens: The original descriptions for

The original descriptions for the 16 personality types are found here, under the spoiler tag on the MBTI (2nd Ed.) pages, on post #37: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/727753-jungian-cognitive-...

". Sensing means that you simply take what is seen in front of you and accept it as merely that. Faith is not intuition, so please do not get those two confused."

To use that definition of Sensing for the MBTI is crude since no human being ever just takes in information via the 5 senses without holistic understanding. The Sensing preference of the MBTI is more appropriately termed "common sense" or "natural intuition" as oppose to the other: Imagination (in the MBTI language, they call it "intuition"). The term Sensing is a misnomer! The term "intuition" for the MBTI makes sense but compared to "Sensing" it is actually imagination or introspection and "Sensing" is actually the intuition! This link http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/01/some-questions-and-answers/ supports my view, check out their last question which pertains to this.

Faith is definitely not intuition but you have to have intuition in order to have faith about something. but where exactly are you going with this?

The definition of Sensing being limited to "just the five senses" is funny and inaccurate. Sensing IS common sense and the other part of the dichotomy is Intuition which is actually a play on ideas or reading-between-the-lines or imagination or reflection or introspection(We're talking about the MBTI dichotomy. Review and get the impression of their definitions here: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-... ) . So people believe Sensing is stupid when what they understand about it is false - mainly it is the fault of Keirsey and the other typologists who misunderstands the theme of this dichotomy and creates exaggerated type descriptions for the N types which automatically dimishes the entire S club making people also believe that N types "are rare snowflakes". It goes on and on.

The real "intuitives" then are the Sensing (common sense/natural intuition) types who tend to be more effective in inciting change than the Introspectives who are prone to creative inferences. The former is good with common sense, the latter with 'abstract thinking' (what society espouses as "the true measure of IQ" which I don't agree with).

It is not true that N's are rare. I would say there is 55-45 split between the two of S and N. How many people do you know as imaginative and witty? Answer: many. But because MBTI enthusiasts are so hung up on the belief that N's are abstract, 'geeky' types of people, they never see this and so they relegate people who are imaginative/witty/animated/creative under the 'SP' temperament of Keirsey, while holding on to the belief that the geeky abstract types are the N's creating false stereotypes.

Superibis: Ok I read it and I can see

Ok I read it and I can see where he's going but seriously... N and S aren't a matter of intelligence (otherwise S types would tend to disappear). Same for the list he made. I don't know if it's accurate but I doubt it since many names are mistyped :/ But it doesn't mean intuitives are generally more intelligent. It means THOSE intuitives are more intelligent (or at least have a higher IQ as we know it's not directly related to intelligence). This post is 100% biased toward N types as the author may be one of them. On the other hand N ARE more visionary and S more realistic (and realism is necessary to rule a country as he says).
So please people, don't believe any shit that's thrown at you ^^ this guy has good arguments but he illustrates them with terrible examples and so his article is just pure 70% of the population bashing. Believe in your strenghts but don't start thinking "that person is better than this one". Otherwise you'll become the idiot of the group. This post is just meant to split people appart (just read the comments of N types saying "yeah I knew it, now I'll just have the right to humiliate S people". THat shit is scary)
You guessed I'm a sensor so you may think I'm just being a little emotional bitch but no. I'm extremely objective when I read that kind of article (I can accept that my type isn't as smart as others if you give me actual arguments. After all my IQ is superior to most people, including intuitives ^^) and if what I just wrote doesn't please you it's not my problem ^^

Alexandra : Hate to burst your bubble,

Hate to burst your bubble, but S's can be smart, too. S and N simply describe HOW a person takes in information. It has nothing to do with how smart someone is. Take Donald and Ivanka Trump: ESTP and ESTJ, respectively. They are two of the most innovative, creative, reasonable people I know. Tiger Woods, who is an INTP, doesn't appear to me to be very smart. That's just my humble and personal opinion.

Brian: Alexandra, explain to me
@Alexandra (view comment)

Alexandra, explain to me exactly how the two Trumps are innovative, creative and reasonable. It is true that Woods is a rare INTP athlete, a field dominated mostly by SPs, but one unmemorable N being an argument for Ss being as influential does not make. While the two Trumps are undeniably very successful in their pursuits, what exactly have they done that's changed the equation? Try to convince me and maybe I'll reconsider my stance.

Quinton Figueroa: Providing exceptions, such as
@Brian (view comment)

Providing exceptions, such as Donald and Ivanka Trump and Tiger Woods, only proves the point. Naming exceptions means they are a minority in their respective area which means they are not the general trend. Of course there are exceptions to anything. If you have to name exceptions to make your point then you are proving the opposite of your point.

Brian: Re: Exceptions

Quinton,

I was arguing in favor of the argument you just conveyed. Were you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Just wanted to be clear. It's never a good idea to name just one or two supposedly influential Ss when you're trying to convince someone that Ss are just as influential as Ns. The best way to convince someone of equal talent between Ss and Ns would be to give someone a list of 100 Ss and 100 Ns and if the amount of influential people from both lists are even, they made be onto something. But that is not the case. On the list of 100 Ss, you'll probably see 5 influential ones, while on the list of Ns, you will probably see 95 of them.

Quinton Figueroa: I'm agreeing with you and
@Brian (view comment)

I'm agreeing with you and what you're saying. Showing exceptions only proves that the point is indeed true, otherwise they wouldn't be the exception, they would be the majority.

Brian: Re: Agreeing

Quinton,

I'm glad you agree with me. The level of denial and entitled self-esteem some people have here is absurd. This would be like saying, "Muscular people usually are better athletes" with a bunch of skinny nerds whining about how great they are in bowling and fencing, with maybe only one or two skinny football players.

Kilough: Love this article because

Love this article because well basically - it's accurate. It's not patronizing, it's not biased, it's accurate. And I'm amazed and thankful that someone hit on the spots you're talking about with this razor sharp precision that many, many people (as I have surfed the net) missed so far.

Anonymous: This article is poorly

This article is poorly written.

Anon: N types are rare (your N

N types are rare (your N classification is incorrect), it is no wonder they change the world as they tend to see it in another way. It does not mean that we (N here) are smarter (your IQ results are not even correct), but we sure are able to contribute. Many N die unknown in the suffocating situation to be the weirdo in their environment. Not to mention that even N to N can be a weirdo sometimes. I think you are going too far with your analysis but I must agree that this concept of the useful people is often neglected in society that values the similar over better. Both N and S can put an idea above self-serving purposes and I am pretty sure there are countless of unknown S that helped any of these known N on their way.

Dastrin: The majority of

The majority of undergraduates are sensing students. Based on data from the Center for Applied Psychological Type (CAPT) between 56% and 72% of over 16,000 freshmen at three state universities were sensing students. Interestingly, almost 83% of national merit scholarship finalists and 92% of Rhodes Scholars were intuitive students.

Donna: Read

I'm an ISTP. I'm a pretty understanding and open-minded person. You can compare ISTP -INTP. In my opinion I know I can and will do anything that comes to my mind. Currently I'm planning on learning physics and mechanics on a deeper level to get a better understanding of mechanics and see what I could do to invent something to make a difference for myself. No I'm not an N. I do have a well developed level of (Ni) which is unrelated. I think we don't give enough credit to the Thinking function. Anyways, I also enjoy making creative furnishings myself. It seems simple but it requires geometry and math, and some things require physics which I have always been good at since school. ISTP's are known for not following the rules just to follow them. So I'll say I never cared or payed attention in school because I didn't see the current value in it. My P function put me only in the moment, I didn't look at the future possibilities I could have with schooling. So I showed up 2 days a week enough to make up my failing grades and cram. I passed math test based off common sense, instead of actually studying. I'd like to think everybody is smart, but only when we want to be.

N's usually learn because they want to, sometimes with no hope of applying it. S's are more about enjoying life and being happy doing whatever interest our senses at the moment.

Like I said before I'm pretty open-minded. Sometimes N's will say something that just isn't logical and impossible and you guys think it makes since to you then become frustrated with S's. Credit should be given to the S for seeing through crap and it's NOT! I will never argue a theory that makes since!! I love what if conversations. People admire Charles Darwin for example, and he is the epitomy of a stupid N. So is the big bang THEORY. I always believe in taking things apart in order to fully understand it and would never accept something I couldn't fully explain in detail. That being said I know the truth which is conversation I don't want to argue about with people who rather believe their what if's than the truth.

To sit up here and say N's are smarter is foolish on your part. Period point blank. regardless of what the data shows this world is made up of a majority of S's and value the N's (less amount) rare input as gifted but if it where the other way around S's would be considered gifted. If you can't see through that maybe you are not as smart as you think you are!

Then to say that the S's work for the N's is also stupid. The same could be said back. The N's stereotypically spend their life 70 hrs a week in a research lab coming up with new systems and things for S's to experience life enjoying themselves. Don't for a second think S's hate physical labor just because you do,which keeps them busy, minds occupied, and even requires a special skill to master.

When you believe in evolution it's very easy to believe that in life others are superior than others. There is no purpose to life in evolution, I supposed bacteria is smart enough to know we need different personalities to survive. Maybe even throw in some non survival recreation like art skills for the thrill.
It would make since your line of thinking reminds me of racist. Which I could conclude that majority of racist/sexist/prejudice could be N's since you all think the same.

Olive: Skip to the end of this comment if you don't want to read it all

I'll begin by saying that I'm not an "angry, irrational S!!1!1!1" I'm an ENTP, who's near middle ground on everything except the Intutive vs Sensing scale. I have used Cognitive Functions and tests to determine this.

---

I find all of this, not just the article but the comments, sort of disgusting and basically meaningless.

"I say S for stupid!!!"
"THAT shows that Ns are stupid."
"It's the S's that are stupid, everybody knows."
"You're clearly saying that while /thinking/ as an S, as an N I know better."

How can you be so unaware? How can you not realize how terrible, how immature, and how closed minded saying those things are?

And so I am going to argue with the things you're saying.

1. Myers-Briggs isn't reliable: You're basing all this off one thing - MBTI. Something that has been relentlessly critiqued, isn't used in psychology, and hasn't been proven to work.

Yes, it has its uses. It can help you feel understood. It can help you understand others.

But it's questionable, and to make such a big deal about it - by making ridiculous assumptions about intelligence, the personalities of dead people, and how people behave - is also questionable.

2. The way you're testing yourself isn't reliable: "I'm an INTJ," one can say, "because sometimes I act like one." And hey, so do I. When I'm around people I don't like I assume an INTJ like personality. So I take the test and that's my result. All of a sudden I'm acting more and more like an INTJ.

Then I learn about cognitive functions and I realize that I'm not.

Look.

You are not able to tell your personality based on your behavior, which is what most people do. So chances are the people in the comments and you yourself were not testing yourself correctly, so you got the wrong personality type. You might not be a "special" iNtuitive.

Plus, if you think that all iNtuitives are smarter, that skews your results. You force yourself to act like an iNtuitive and all of a sudden you are.

So you may not even be an iNtuitive.

3. The way you're testing others isn't reliable - With the assumption that iNtuitives are smarter, better leaders, you (and others) decide that all smart people and great leaders must have been iNtuitives. You make them iNtuitives and say, "N-types are smart."

Even a five year old can see what's wrong with that.

I don't think the people on your 'list' took a personality test, and I don't think you (or any others) are an accurate indicator as to who they are, especially when you're biased. Chances are, some are S's.

4. The way you're talking about intelligence isn't reliable - You're acting as if there's only one kind of intelligence, but there isn't. Intelligence has many different aspects. Your interpretation is not 'supreme'.

I could as easily write an article titled "S's are smarter than N's" and I would be entirely correct, because in some manners they are.

And sometimes they aren't. But I'm not going to judge the fish on its ability to climb a tree, or the monkey on its ability to breathe underwater.

5. You're generalizing

Not you specifically, but so many in the comments. All N's are smart. All S's aren't. Or even - all N's are good at abstract thinking and S's are good at data or whatever.

That isn't necessarily true. An S can learn N things just as an N can learn S things. And if we're going by that obvious assumption, while at the same time assuming that N's are naturally smarter, then we end up with genius S's and dumb N's.

And if we stop assuming that one type is superior, then we end up with a (more or less) even distribution of overall intelligence (if such a thing could be measured.)

And finally, my last, most important point.

Why do you care?

Why are you - and not just you, but to all those who have commented - so all consumed by the idea of intelligence?

Why would you insult others, generalize, and say ridiculous things, /just so you can say I'm smarter than that/? Why is there this obsession to be smarter? To be better? Why can't you just accept that we're all different, unique humans, without trying to make a point of classifying and of telling group A they're special and group B they're not.

Because I can tell you one thing.

/You are not better than everybody else./

Mike: Mostly right
@Olive (view comment)

1. The Big 5 is used more because it is better. That doesn't invalidate MBTI. They share much. Look up Dario Nardi's work. There are good examples of real, neuroscientific findings that agree with, and add value to, the MBTI.
2. You're absolutely right.
3. We can't be 100% certain about dead people, but we can be very certain. I'm reading the biographies of these people, writing down every description of their personalities, and weighing all of them to see what type seems most likely. It's easier than you would think. It's not 100% reliable (cause they're dead), but even 80% certainty leaves Quinton's argument extremely convincing.
4. The ugly truth is that there is one type of intelligence. Only people unfamiliar with IQ research claim otherwise. Watch this: https://youtu.be/PY4sShDt9to
5. Yes

I care because I care about intelligence itself. I want to understand it better. WHY are intuitives smarter than sensors? Maybe the answer to that will have utility; something I can use to increase my own intelligence maybe.

Not sure it was worth my time to write that up since your emotions probably drove your reasoning, but your argument was more skilfully and logically crafted than most, so here you go. Have a good day

Hans: Hogwash

For every N who's a visionary or revolutionary, there are 999 N's who are delusional.

You forgot to list the latter.

In fact, the median N is no smarter than the median S.

an S type: Well this was motivating. I

Well this was motivating. I know I'm not any less intelligent than Ns or any less capable, but it's articles like these that make me wanna get up and prove stereotypers wrong. So I gotta thank your narrow mind in a way, I feel more determined to defy my stereotypes! :P

Add new comment