Which Is The Smartest MBTI Type?

We've all thought about it. Which MBTI is the smartest? Which one is the dumbest? Hopefully this article will provide some insight.

by Quinton Figueroa on December 30th, 2011

We first need to define what we mean by smart. Smart can mean a lot of different things to different people. To one person it may be creativity. To another it may be mechanical. To another it may be interpersonal. And to yet another it may be impersonal. The way we define smart matters a lot on the application at hand.

But for the purposes of this article we are going to measure smart as the influence one has over others and society. People who are smart are people who have influence. People who are smart generally rise to the top of influence and are revered and sometimes even worshiped by others. This is what we mean by smart -- having other people rely on you where you don't need to rely on them.

Also, of course there are going to be exceptions. I am talking in general. There can be smart people in any type and there can be dumb people in any type.

The 4 Basic Dichotomies

Let's start by breaking things into categories. There are 4 main dichotomies:

  1. E/I
  2. S/N
  3. T/F
  4. J/P

Of these 4 dichotomies we should figure out which of these is more influential before breaking it down further. So in order of importance for intelligence I would rank these as follows:

  1. S/N - 85%
  2. E/I - 10%
  3. T/F - 5%
  4. J/P - 0%

I would weigh whether or not somebody is an S or an N as being the most important part of influence. This is the one big giveaway towards intelligence IMHO. I would estimate that roughly 85% of influence and intelligence can be ascertained through whether or not somebody is an S or an N. Following that we have E and I at around 10% which matters a lot, lot less than S/N. Following that we have T/F at around 5% and finally J/P at 0%. Again these are all my opinion but I am going to explain my reasoning below. As you can see most of this stuff doesn't matter that much except for S/N.

Digging deeper into each dichotomy

S/N

We first start with S/N. I am of the opinion that N's are smarter than S's. I have gone into more detail in another article as to why this is. N's are almost always more influential than S's. N's usually create things that the S's use. The N's pretty much run the world while the S's manage the world and work for the N's. If you really look around you will see this all over. The N's invent, innovate and build. This is less common with the S. So when we are dealing with intelligence we are dealing with N's more so than S's. Almost any N is going to have an edge over an S. So I would put N above S when it comes to who is smarter because the N has much more influence than the S.

As stated earlier, this probably is about 85% of which MBTI is smarter. The other letters really matter a lot, lot less. So if you want the quick way to find the intelligence of somebody just figure out if they are an S or an N. This will take care of most of it. Once you have figured this out you can break it down even further, but remember that all the other stuff is only around 15%. This needs to be emphasized because the other stuff really matters very little compared to the S and the N.

E/I

Are E's or I's more intelligent? This one is a bit harder to see. There are smart E's and smart I's. I can name countless influential E's and I can name countless influential I's. E's are usually influential in the foreground as leaders while I's are generally influential in the background as philosophers. Many of the influential E leaders that we see had influential I philosophers in the background working behind them. Many of the E leaders that we see were put in place by I's.

Moreover, I's seem to have a better attention span and are able to focus more and for longer. This doesn't necessarily equate to influence, but it does equate to where they derive their energy. E's derive their energy from I's. I's derive their energy from the universe. So E's are in a way dependent upon I's. The I's don't get their energy from the E's. The I's get their energy on their own. The I's are more independent than the E's. So because of this relationship I would give I's a slight edge when it comes to intelligence.

T/F

Okay, now what about T's and F's? Well, this gets even more tricky. T's are generally more mechanical and technical. F's are generally more involved with less mechanical things and more involved with personal things and emotional things. T's care about things. F's care about people. T's are more into reason while F's are more into emotion. Both of these aspects are extremely necessary and both of these matter greatly in influence.

With that said, I am of the opinion that reason is above emotion and therefore place T above F. The thing that separates humans from animals and lower species is our intelligence and our reasoning abilities. Animals share the emotional traits that humans possess, but they don't share the reasoning traits. Reasoning traits, in my opinion, are a higher end form of intelligence than emotion and therefore more akin towards being influential. I am not saying that emotion is not valuable and doesn't have its place. I am simply saying that I view reason above emotion. It could very well be that emotion is above reason in which case F would be above T. I see them both as much needed but I give the edge to the T when it comes to intelligence.

J/P

And how about J's and P's? At this point it is much harder to present an argument as to why one would be smarter than the other. This comes down to the task at hand. When it comes to imagining something new P's are great at that. When it comes to actually turning that imagined thing into reality J's are great. There are tons of influential P's and tons of influential J's.

If I had to give one an edge I would give a slight edge to P's as they are generally more involved with abstract things which are more primary and closer to a first cause than the more physical and real world things. I think P's have a slight edge here as they are influencing at a more esoteric level before the influence perverts itself to the physical level with errors. But it is so small I don't even think it is worth noting.

I would put the smart P's and the smart J's pretty much in the same boat. They can both do the same things if they both really want to. A smart INTP can pretty much do what a smart INTJ can and a smart ENTJ can pretty much do what a smart ENTP can -- but a smart ENFJ probably can't do what a smart INTP can do. So I would say these are about even with a small edge going to the P just because it seems that abstract things are of greater importance than physical, concrete things.

Breaking it down

Okay, so being smart starts first with N. Then it goes to I. Then it goes to T. Then it is about even between the P and J. So if we were to list them from smartest to dumbest I would break it down as follows:

  1. INTP/INTJ
  2. INFP/INFJ
  3. ENTP/ENTJ
  4. ENFP/ENFJ
  5. ISTP/ISTJ
  6. ISFP/ISFJ
  7. ESTP/ESTJ
  8. ESFP/ESFJ

A few notes

INF vs ENT: The 2nd place showdown

According to this breakdown an intuitive, introverted feeler (INF) is usually going to be smarter than an intuitive, extroverted thinker (ENT). This is a tricky one because they both have pros and cons. On the one hand an INF has great attention and focus, while on the other the ENT goes more off reason and data. So who really is smarter?

Well I think we should first look at this from an accuracy standpoint. An introvert is going to be more accurate than an extrovert. An introverted feeler is going to bring in greater accuracy than an extroverted thinker. Even if an extroverted thinker is using reason, the way they are focusing and putting the data together may be lacking due to the extroversion. On the flip side, even though the feeler is using emotion the way that they are pulling the emotion through introversion is going to bring a great level of precision and accuracy.

So this begs the question, would it be better to have an accurate representation of something that is a little big lacking (INF) or a less accurate representation of something that is a little bit more true (ENT)? And that is the paradox. It really depends. In some cases an ENTP may have more to offer than an INFP. But in other cases the INFJ may have more to offer than the ENTJ. These are both so close and it matters on the goal at hand. This is kind of like the J/P relationship. They are both so close and there are plenty of arguments on both sides.

But with all this said I would still give the introverted feeler the upper hand. Feeling is usually a less logical approach to things, but when coupled with introverted intuition is becomes more logical as it is normalized through a much more precise channel. An introverted, intuitive feeler (INF) is going to be more rational than an extroverted, sensing feeler (ESF). They are being rational with emotion. They are doing something that most emotional people don't do: being logical in a way. They are organizing emotion in a way and using it as a different means for pulling data. The introverted, intuitive feeler (INF) is more of an alternate lens to that of the introverted, intuitive thinker (INT). While the INT will usually reach a conclusion from a technical, more logical approach the INF will usually reach a similar conclusion from an emotional approach. Both will reach very similar conclusions but from different angles. So in many ways the INF is very similar and close to the number one spot of the INT.

So how close is the ENT to the INT? They are also very close. They share the same rational approach to finding conclusions, but like the S/N relationship, ENT's are like an S when it comes to precision and putting it all together. They don't have the organization and precision aspects that the INT's have. Like an S who hasn't quite developed their intuition, an ENT hasn't quite developed their focus, where the INF has.

And feeling doesn't always equate to emotion. Feeling usually involves people. Feelers are the social innovators of the world while thinkers are the technical innovators of the world. Being a good social innovator still involves much thinking and can easily be argued as important or even more important than technical innovation.

So with all this said I would put the INF above the ENT. Again, it is very close.

Feelers vs Thinkers

I am somewhat sticking my neck out by putting feelers above thinkers in many of the ways that I do. Thinkers almost always score higher than feelers when it comes to IQ. But IQ is just one way to measure intelligence. Using IQ as the main basis for being smart or intelligent is just one measurement. That is why early on I defined smart as something like influence as opposed to sheer technical ability. Being smart isn't about being a thinker or being a feeler. It is about being BOTH. That is why being smart is more than just one or the other. And that is also why IQ tests are just one piece of intelligence.

If you really want to know which one is smarter from an IQ metric you can just run a bunch of tests and crunch the results. But that still leaves a level of dissatisfaction for most people, especially feelers who know that they aren't stupid. And feelers aren't stupid. Which is why we need to broaden our definition of intelligence as more than just a technical measurement. Intelligence is a hard thing to define and even harder to measure and I feel AND think that our society leaves out many of the important emotional and personal aspects when measuring intelligence.

So there you have it

I am curious to see as what others think. How would you rank it?

 Filed under: Personal Development, MBTI, Intelligence

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Los Angeles, CA

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

107 Comments

Charlie: INF vs. ENT intellignece

This same debate arose in a psychology class I took a while ago. However, it was a case of we had to order them based on maximum mental processing power. In the end, the instructor showed us the actual grouping; the two were an exact tie. In actuality, they were the only tie on the list. He described it as a "Two different ways to yield the same processing power" relationship. It's a case of each is just better at yielding solutions a different kind of extremely -but equally- difficult and complex problem.

Quinton Figueroa: Very interesting... I'm
@Charlie (view comment)

Very interesting... I'm surprised people actually talk about this kind of stuff. I could see the two being a tie. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing :)

milton: INF vs ENT

ENT vs INF, Im in agreement with your breakdown (as an entp) I would argue the ent brings external "wisdom" which is not easily measurable to an IQ exam. that is why they often do better on these exams - Not because of being smarter but because they are great "guessers". I once partnered with an INFJ managing a State presidential Campaign - My partner was brilliant, and one of the few people to earn my respect - And yet when it came to "Strategic and Positioning" (Guessing) decisions he always deferred to my ENT thinking because he understood we were dealing with relating to many different personalites which the ENT has a natural understanding of. NF's and NT's make great partners and are often found to marry each other with statistically impossible numbers. other great partnerships include Bono (nf) and Edge (nt)

David: First off im intj. I believe

First off im intj. I believe that intj's are better than intp's at critical thinking. Intp seem to be more "spiritual". It seems as though they value their intuition more than their thinking preference, and us intj's seem to prefer our thinking more. Of course we are both very similar, however. By the way, if this doesnt convince you, maybe this will.
http://advan.physiology.org/content/262/6/S1.full.pdf
they dont specifically state that the most "intelligent" is the intj (multiple were included in this article). But you will find that a majority of the studies points more towards those who are (I), those who are (N), those who are (T), and those who are (J). (however, the top students of summer classes seemed to score a little higher than intuits, probably because summer sessions require more memorization as opposed to understanding).
my inputs
enjoy!

INTP: I'm not here to claim that
@David (view comment)

I'm not here to claim that the average INTp is smarter than the average INTj, or otherwise. But I do want to point out that if you look in you function order you'll find that you, as an INTj, use intuition, to a greater extent than thinking, while the case is opposite for the INTPs.

D: this guy knows whats up. its
@INTP (view comment)

this guy knows whats up. its either intp, intj, or entp..

Nathan: INTJ == INTP in intelligence
@David (view comment)

INTP, funny you should mention that INTPs seem to be intuitors more and INTJs thinkers. In reality, that is what they extravert, or use most in interactions. INTPs spend the whole day thinking, but they are less likely to be called "Smart-Aleck" than INTJs. In the same way, INTJs use intuition to plan, act, make themselves certain of their judgments. They have the same intelligence and thinking ability, but where they go with it, what they do, are different. INTPs are critical of scientific research where the conclusions are woven for us leaving out the clues and how they got there. Often we'll question it if this isn't the case. We ABSOLUTELY LOVE complex logic puzzles, and critical thinking is no challenge to us.

Famous INTPs seem spiritual on some level, I agree... We make motivational quotes and carry wisdom. This is probably the result that for all analysts (NT) their feeling is hidden deep within. But INTPs and ENTPs extrovert their feeling (Although as this is deep, they aren't well equipped to deal with emotion, though they don't knowingly hurt feelings much. In fact, this is considered the INTP's Achilles heel). INTJs and ENTJs introvert feeling, often being seen as self-centered or cold, when really, they just get all emotional validation from within and don't see why everyone else can't, although that's an assumption. I'd try if I could, but I've never been inside an INTJ brain before.

Enjoy! ;)

Anonymous: Classroom performance on a
@David (view comment)

Classroom performance on a single subject is certainly not a definitive indicator of intelligence or aptitude. (Says the INTP, offended by being ranked so low.)

Killua: Er did you perhaps mistook 1
@Anonymous (view comment)

Er did you perhaps mistook 1 for being the lowest? I would have suggested you being sarcastic, tho something in your syntax is suggestive of otherwise, see. (another INTP who is definitely trying not to get carried away by being ranked 1st... mwahahaha-- ahem ahem.)

Drezz Drezzlason: Entp

Entp's are the most influential. Perhaps not the smartest, but definitely the most influential. We carry out what the "background philosophers" dream about. We apply, tweak and execute these concepts in the real world and over the general masses. This accords us a greater degree of control and conspicuity.

Catman: I would argue that N types

I would argue that N types are smarter than S types, because N types are better at picking up patterns, conceptualizing and planning. Also, that T types are smarter than F types, because NFs do not apply "critical thinking" to their patterns, conceptualizations and plans. Therefore NT types are the smartest, this is their strength, but they can have weaknesses in social skills. For example, INTJs lead with Ni and they have weaknesses in Se; INTPs leas with Ti and they have weaknesses in Fe. These strong and weak functions make these types rather academic, there isn't much application of their intelligence in the real world. Therefore the extraversion of ENTPs and ENTJs is an advantage, because they are less academic and apply themselves in the real world. Of course these types vary in IQ - there are also pretty dumb ENTPs and ENTJs.

Turnip: No NFs apply critical
@Catman (view comment)

No NFs apply critical thinking to other stuff e.g. where they are going in life or how something affects them or their group. They aren't deficient in that regard.

Victoria: Bullshit.
@Turnip (view comment)

Yes, regarding the topic. Your comment falls under this category. INFJs are smart, but idealists by no means hold a candle to rationals. It's like Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw at a quiz bowl. Just go home.

S: NF's do use critical thinking
@Catman (view comment)

NF's do use critical thinking as well. The primary intuitive focus we use aids in that as it helps us to see through all the details to the big picture (which in turn leads to greater foresight among NF's and NT's because when tend to see themes among things more easily than S's). ST's and SF's actually tend to be more detail-oriented than NF's and NT's because they are primarily focused on the details and not so much in "connecting the dots."
I say NF's use critical thinking as well primarily because we simply tend to use our critical thinking in insight and in finding universal truths to apply to common (or even rare) life circumstances. Additionally, most famous writers tend to be INFPs or INFJs. Being a proficient writer of fiction requires an adept utilization of symbolism, foreshadowing, use of metaphors and similes, etc., in addition to a great sense of imagination. The use of similes and metaphors alone requires creative critical thinking because of the connection between two seemingly unrelated things or ideas. In addition, NF's tend to have a greater imagination than NT's which often comes from a creation of "something from nothing" which in itself is an evolution in the thinking process. NTs tend to use their critical thinking for deductive and inductive reasoning. Generally, this is very useful in scientific fields. So NFs and NTs both tend to use critical thinking but in different ways.

Fred : INF

Generally agree.
Catman, I don't think that "NFs do not apply "critical thinking" to their patterns, conceptualizations and plans". As an INF, "I" alway push INF to review their weakness, find it out and to fix it. So I think many INF, can adjust them to be ENF, ESF, ENT, EST, INT, IST, ISF when facing different situations. F turn to T and N turn to S is much easlier than reverse. So that, I think that many agree INFP and INFJ are the so most unpredictable type, expecially INFP. INFP and INFJ often feel that no one understand them because they don't understand themself and their charaters always change.

Jill: Introverted Intuition Not Same As INxx

To break down the differences in type this way is a bit too superficial to be accurate.

If you want to create a stronger ranking of the types, I recommend basing it off the individual functions of each type, rather than on just the Big Four. For instance, many believe Introverted Intuition to be the source of the most intelligent/insightful/enlightened thinking and ideas. If that's true, then you are correct in that you list N's as more intelligent than S's, and I's as more intelligent than E's. However, your mistake is in thinking this applies to any Introvert who happens to be Intuitive.

The two types which actually have Introverted Intuition as their primary functions are INTJ and INFJ only. Thinking and Feeling have their respective strengths and weakness, but the most important thing is the way a person uses their Intuition to collect and understand information (N/S), and not the decisions they makes using that information (T/F).

You would have to look into the individual functions (Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe, Ti, Te, Si, Se, etc.) and rank them based on your understanding or interpretation of "intelligence," then see which types have which functions as dominant.

...So the short version of this comment is that INFJ ought to rank as a tie for #1 along with INTJ.

The #2 spot should go to those types which display whatever function you believe is second best to Introverted Intuition. Is it Introverted Thinking? Those are INTP and ISTP. Or should it be Extroverted Intuition? Then #2 would go to ENFP and ENTP. etc.

Quinton Figueroa: Very well said, and when
@Jill (view comment)

Very well said, and when viewing this on the basis of the functions I would have to agree with you.

Blaine Smitley: what about the cross dressers

I end up doing this goofy test about twice a year and never know which I'll be. INTP? or INTJ..

It's always one of the two, and it makes me think that there's probably really not that much difference. Is the fluctuation caused by mood? Some time of situational external influence that I'm not even aware of? Not that it's that important..

I think I'll have another dorito..Yep! That's the ticket.

Jack: INTP and INTJ are actually
@Blaine Smitley (view comment)

INTP and INTJ are actually the precise opposite, which becomes clear when you learn the theory and stop basing things off the inaccurate tests.

omtawon: well, i like your article

well, i like your article here. I would agree with you, but for the most influential, i look upon ent, don't get this wrong I am Intp myself, but when it comes to reality, ent always the one that has a charge of anything, entj would be like natural born leader and entp would promote their thougts in charismatic way, well just my 2 cent

The Denbox: Facts?

I'm an INTJ so don't think I'm just an S raging about how stupid I am. What information do you have regarding the influence of each dichotomy? I find it very hard to take this article seriously without any facts to back your ideas up. Also, Jill is right. There is a lot more than just the four dichotomies going on. Please incorporate socionics.

Anyway here is an interesting article about type intelligence.
Don't quote me on this because I forget where I read it, but according to the article, INTJ's had the highest average IQ, and INTP's came in a near second. (I know this does not equate to intelligence, but it is a good measurement). However, among geniuses, INTP's had the higher average. In simpler terms, Average INTJ's have a higher IQ than average INTP's, but genius INTP's have a higher average IQ than genius INTJ's.

The Denbox: Wait..

Also forgot to add this.
Interesting article
http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/a-synthesis-of-research-on-ps...

Seven: I really don't think dominant

I really don't think dominant f types should be that high on the list just because they have an n.

johnbb5: INTP #1

intp is the smartest, INTJ just knows how to use their intelligence more because of the J

slavering slayers: In fact CG Jung typed the

In fact CG Jung typed the most remarkable scientists as T dominating personalities. N dom personalities were not very high regard on his list (ENxP and INxJ).

So the answer is is EXTJ and IxTP when it comes to scientific smartness. It should be noted that there were only 8 types in Jung system (ETJ, EFJ, ITP, ESP, ENP, ISJ, INJ, IFP)

Paco: Interesting, though i think it might be misleading!

Nice reasoning and approach.

Questions.

1. Being intelligent vs being smart? Any difference?...
2. Intelligence.. shall we break it down ? (emotional, social, mathematical, logical, kinestethic, etc)....
3. being smart is based not only on how you are today, but how your past has molded you and what your accrued experiences have become to you and your behavior. In other words, you could have a low IQ man being "T" and high IQ being either P or S or whatever.

4. the way people learn and develop their preferences evolve over time as they gain insight and "polish" their "cognitive processes/preferences".

In any case, nice article since I was looking for an approach to this topic, and I found it thanks to you!.

Regards
Paco

D: wrong.

you need to go into the cognitive functions. the definition of "smarter". You should dig a little deeper because you barely get past kiersey.

Daniel: intereting

i think this is an interesting "start" to answering this idea of smartest type, but at the end of the day its convoluted because to mbti there are 8 functions of general strengths and only a handful of different ways to see intelligence quotient. I think i have a project on my hands

-from the enfj who apparently has a high iq, whatever that means.

Aurelie B: Although the article is

Although the article is interesting I believe that you need to validate your theory by going in the street and test people.
As I am an N and a scientist I enjoy debating and talking with other N, but only educated/smart people, to discuss on how to improve the world. However I believe the N in people not so smart leads them to believe in paranormal activity, psychics... their "ability to grasp theories" make them more gullible than their equivalent S that tend to be practical and not as easily fooled.
Same goes with the T/J divide, following a T debate is beautiful when based on fact and science, following a T debate from an uneducated person based on fact found in magazine is frustrating!
I could go on further, but in short I believe some types are more keen to become smarter but the potential is a mix of genetics and education.

curious: Not to argue or anything, but
@Aurelie B (view comment)

Not to argue or anything, but intuitives who believe in the possibilities of paranormal activity, psychics, etc, are probably smarter than those who don't because they can see how their perception of the world is only limited to what they can actually perceive instead of what there actually is. In short, they're more open to new ideas and can theoretically see how those ideas fit in the existing ones, and they don't close themselves off to unfamiliarities. On the other hand, people who you described as more practical, are just realistic and not as imaginative, so are probably lower on the N.

Narelle: The extroverts always lead

The extroverts always lead because they can connect with their fellow humans. INTJs find it most difficult to know what motivates others, because they are from another planet. There are probably loads of them that could make the world a better place, but no one will listen because they are too logical and not in touch with "feelings".

mike: I don't think INTJ's have
@Narelle (view comment)

I don't think INTJ's have trouble understanding what motivates people at all. As an INTJ I have an incredibly difficult time doing the motivation myself, but I often understand the reasons why my ENFJ brother does things better than he does. Most people tend to be so predictable it's boring.

CromG: that was very incorrect... i
@Narelle (view comment)

that was very incorrect... i'm INTJ myself and never had problem with seeing other peoples motives... the thing is i can't see it at all if i don't except from someone an hidden motive but if i want to or suspect someone it becomes so clear that it's boring... and about being too logical and not being in touch with emotions ... if someone doesn't listen cause i'm being too logical then it's not even worth my time you're talking about worst of human kind and we are in touch of emotions and to such extent that no F would even imagine such thing it's just too deep and too well concealed being emotional and having poor control of it are not the same...

BRUINTP: Credibility

I would like to know where you got your numbers from, this all seems to be assumption and to me cannot be put down as a credible source unless you have facts to back up your theory's. I have not looked at this websites editing policy but if you could back up your theories with some set in stone fact, than maybe I will come back and view this in a new light. I hope you do not take this as utter rudeness, I just think that It may help readers in the future, thank you. -INTP

Eli: Emotion vs Jungian Feeling

Feeling cannot be used synonymously with "emotion", at least in the interpretive sense of information processing theory in Cognition/Biopsychology.

Emotion is a physiological reaction that is required to process both forms of rationale - of feeling and thinking to reach judgment and decision mechanisms.

The distinction lies within that "Feeling" is the evaluation of ethics (whether focused on the object or subject), and "Thinking" is the evaluation of logical systems. Both use their rationale in a specific way. Feeling however is regarded frequently to having close ties to emotion due to cultural bias (although I agree, irrational physiological processes tend to gather around more subjective processes, such as evaluation of ethics).

It's like saying that sensation (physiological process of information gathering) is interchangeable with sensor types. Everyone uses their senses. It's how we interpret the information that comes into our minds.

I'd agree with your conclusion on that thinkers are more "smart" than feelers in this context, however, as strong emotions are far more easily arised from ethical evaluation, which is subjective by nature. Rationality however, is BOTH contained in intuiting/sensing feeling/thinking processes.

Other than this, great article! Outliers are there, and many people may bitch about this, and get butthurt/offended through taking things waaaay too personally. Which is fine. Anything on a broader scale and bell curve is bound to poke at those snowflakes. (-; This is speaking from an INFJ perspective.

Samuel: Bullshit

You're a fucking idiot and this very blog entry proves that you are one. Your ability to cognitively abstract the types beyond the stereotypes that are presented to you despite knowing about the theory behind the letter code, shows that one can indeed be dumb and still be a supposed N, lol. I know my ESFP girlfriend outsmarts most of you who comment on this site, since she after all applied for the Ivy League and is above average IQ. How do I know she's an ESFP and not an ENFP? Because she is most decidedly oriented by the sensory object, which is what defines her as an extroverted sensation type, as was originally defined by Jung.

Anonymous: From your local ENTP.
@Samuel (view comment)

ESFP, eh? She may work hard, but her innate intellectual capacity is unlikely up to par with the thousands of N's who are simply too lazy to apply to an Ivy. Don't allow your emotions to dictate your perception of theory and speculation. This article is fairly accurate and logically sound, though I'd still debate INF vs ENT.

Khalil El Alami / ENTJ: This is a very loose analysis

This is a very loose analysis and sorrowly inaccurate. The analysis should deal with the cognitive functions and not the letters. The letters (traits) are nothing but to help the definition of the cognitive functions which are divided into Judging functions (Thinking extra/intro, Feeling extra/intro) and Perceiving functions (Intuition extra/intro, Sensing extra/intro). You arrived to a final ranking which is somehow okay but full of flaws, like solving a math problem by chance but the reasoning is false. Please read more about Jung cognitive functions and how Meyers & Briggs created types by combining them. Then you'll have the ability to judge. Plus you're analysis is not backed by any scientific research or numbers. The way you divided the importance of traits, and I repeat it was wrong to do so, was made on your feelings, which is not the way we write a decent article. Sorry mate, but you fail on this one. A big fail.

Quinton Figueroa: So let me get this straight..
@Khalil El Alami / ENTJ (view comment)

So let me get this straight...

-This analysis is inaccurate, yet somehow okay, but full of flaws
-This has to talk about the cognitive functions to be right
-This has to have science to be right
-I divided the traits based on feelings
-We don't write decent articles on feelings

Ryan: I agree completely with

I agree completely with Khalil El Alami. It's all about the cognitive functions. Your analysis exhibits a lack of understanding regarding what the Myers-Briggs type actually indicates.

Ryan: Interesting.

I am an INTP so I am theoretically flattered, and would tend to agree. Although i would switch 2nd and 3nd places. I think T/F is almost as important as N/S as a blind-man's guide for guessing intelligence.

Turnip: Would you type an ST on
@Ryan (view comment)

Would you type an ST on average as more intelligent than an NF? For you to think T/F is nearly as/as important in defining intelligence as N/S implies really you have no clue what you're talking about.

NeshIV: (I am ENTP 147iq) For my

(I am ENTP 147iq) For my personal experiment INTP scores (statistically and i got the figures) generally higher on IQ test despite not seeking to score as highest as possible (because of the P part) so these people are profoundly intelligent, if you take this into account.
Secondly INTP score higher in more component of an IQ test than any other type , while other MBTI Type could score high in one item but less in another item...
In fact INTP: they can be as talented in math as they could be in Music or whatever...
ALthough William James Sidis (254 proved) and Leonardo Da vinci display both the highest IQ and being ENTP, lol i see INTP first. INTJ score high because of the J part.
Dont forget it is a mean : The highest IQ now is VISHALINI (235) the indian girl INTP ; with Marilyn vos savant (228) who is INTP also. Enstein was only 160 IQ (15 sd)
Sorry for my bad english since i come from france ^^

yuen theng: Intp

I am an INTP with an IQ of 142(Member of mensa). ;) i have many INTx friends (also members of mensa) whose average IQ is between 130-163. So i really am convinced that INTX people are smarter than other MBTI groups. But then again, there are exceptions and there sure are people with othet MBTI letters with IQ 130 plus. But the average IQ for INTx people are generally higher than the average IQ of other MBTI types. :0 cheers!

yuen theng: INTP be happy with what you are

I am an INTP with iq 152 in mensa and i believe Intp/intj are the smartest and moat intelligent. I have many mensa member friends who are also INTP, mu class mates with IQ above 140 usually are Intj or intp, there are some who are entp/entj too. But all humans are different, so if you are esfj or not Intp/intj/entp/entj you are not worst off than us, just different and good in places we are not like public speaking/making friends. All types are special in one way or another cheers! And be proud with your type!

Me: Define smart please... :)

Define smart please... :)

Quinton Figueroa: "But for the purposes of this

"But for the purposes of this article we are going to measure smart as the influence one has over others and society"

yuen theng: define smart

The ability to see what other normal humans dont, the ability to think what other people dont, and yet it works way better than other ideas. When others take 20 minutes to figure something new, you take 5 minutes to do so, and its new to you too. When you find what others do are ridiculous as you have a way better idea amd solution than them, and when u tell them your idea, they say its genious,and then u know u are smart...

Emily: It's obviously not easy to

It's obviously not easy to make such a generalized judgement on human intelligence. There's a lot of different ways you could take a shot at it using these personality profiles. I do think that the author does a good job with his approach. Here's a bit of where I stray:
Maybe I don't quite understand what's meant by influence being the marker for intelligence in this case, but I'm not sure I'd choose that as a unit anyways. For argument's sake, I'll go with it. On that end it really seems to me that extroverts should hold a little more weight. Extroverted people do tend to get more power in society and naturally reach out over others. I personally don't think that makes someone more smart, but certainly more influential. Most of us introverts have noticed how our world is tailored towards the extroverts. Does that not imply they've had a larger influence on society? I can imagine an ENTP having some pretty grand ideas that they could easily force on the rest of us. An INTP may spend more time developing those ideas, but less time sharing them with others.

I'm also not sure how I feel about this: "The thing that separates humans from animals and lower species is our intelligence and our reasoning abilities. Animals share the emotional traits that humans possess, but they don't share the reasoning traits. Reasoning traits, in my opinion, are a higher end form of intelligence than emotion." I've always thought the biggest strength of humanity is our compassion for one another. People who are lacking here are more likely to act on selfish whims and engage in archaic, 'animalistic' behavior. Further, there are actually lots of non-human animals with extraordinary logical reasoning capabilities. But we often make a point to distinguish the most empathetic creatures as the ones like us- even if they are also relatively logical. It seems pretty clear that the two go hand in hand. Of course animals feel emotions. But this is about applying that sensitivity to your decision making process, which most animals do not do- they tend to make choices based on instinct. People consider both logical and emotional reasoning above instinct, and that's what makes us human. I think most animals would have neither T nor F as an option- these are both equally human traits.

On that note, for T/F I would argue that the highest aptitude for intelligence will be found somewhere in the middle. Those with who can find a balance between their logical and emotional reasoning when they make decisions are capable of solving a puzzle that many on either edge don't know how to attack. Maybe it's just best not to force an either/or choice on that one.

That's coming from an INFP- but I'd like to think that doesn't matter.

Honestly, this whole thing is like trying to cut water. It's just inherently problematic. I did like the article though! Thanks!

beep: dumb article written by a

dumb article written by a dumb person.

it's not about the letters. learn the cognitive functions.

Quinton Figueroa: If it's not about letters
@beep (view comment)

If it's not about letters then why have letters? Why not only have cognitive functions?

Bogoris: Instinct ?

@Emily : not all animals use only instinct, which refers to genetic memory. Mammals can learn and make decisions based on what they learned. We should not call that instinct.

Davy Jonesy: Different strokes and such.

Most lists I've seen have been very similar to yours, even to the point of giving a P a slight edge, but I don't know. I'm an INFP, so I don't want you to think I'm conceited when I say N's steal the field in theoretical intelligence, which is great for big picture thinking, but S's have an advantage in here-and-now pragmatism. I think each type and function has it's own unique brand of intelligence you know? For example, INFP's have an edge over all types in linguistic intelligences (writing, foreign languages, vocabulary), but are absolutely abysmal with planning and verbal fluidity.

Alex: Virginity and tool making makes intj smarter

Intjs are more likely to be virgins longer or die as virgins and invent practicle tools. Dying as virgins for science is true dedication to nerdship.

Famous intjs like Newton and Tesla died as virgins; and they both invented practicle tools( i.e. reflecting telescope, Tesla coil and more). Intj like Stephen Hawkins married only once at a late age and had few kids.

Intps like Einstein and Richard Dawkins have great ideas, but never invented praticle tools. Also both married 3x or over. Intps like Darwin had many children.

It seems Intjs are more focused and serious to their pursuit than intps. Virginity and the amount of partners seem to distinguish intjs from intps.

Myself, virgin, 27 years old, I (90%) N(100%), T(80%), J(60%). It's my conscious decision/choice to remain a virgin and single while my mind is still fertile for knowledge and creative ideas at a young age. Rather than wasting energy on a girlfriend.

Anonymous: What about istp aka me there

What about istp aka me there 1% of the population and I'm in the top of my class ap in all but I do lack in ela but that just may be me for istp

mr douchebox: I think real logical high

I think real logical high intelligence correlates best with xxTP types. They revel on manipulating systematic structures. Estimation of things FP. TJ on mobilizing. FJ on interpersonal.
NP on comparative. NJ on causality. SJ on routine. SP on performance.

Nicholas: Excellent (logical) research without data.

Excellent (logical) research that is based on nothing but opinion and not reasonable at all

You stated correctly that this is your opinion, frankly, your opinion does not matter at all because you have nothing to support it, which makes me question its validity right away, as well as its replicability. I want to see facts, isn't that logical? I want to see how many people you recruited to conduct this study and the results of your data analysis. So much for the poor research.

Now to your analysis:
The only thing I can agree with is that N people are probably more open-minded than S people, because they think outside the box, the bigger picture, and they constantly want to improve, try new things and are little inventors so to speak.

The F/T dichotomy is very flawed, because you mustn't forget that just because we have a natural preference does not mean we cannot use the other. e.g. I can think logically, but I do not believe I should always follow it. And you know how many times people have followed logic and failed? 99% of what humans do based on logic fails. It it also false to assume that T means more intelligence. What kind of intelligence are we talking about here? Obviously logical intelligence, but someone who is emotionally and socially dumb might be good at logical stuff, but would fail to survive in this society as a human being, because it is not even human, and therefore not to be worshipped.

Sincerely,
An ENFP with an IQ of 142, which means nothing, because I could be socially and emotionally retarded, and therefore not even categorized as human.

R: PERFECT!

loved this article!

Ae: There's a lot of what looks

There's a lot of what looks like one-upmanship masquerading as credential-providing going on.

Take it from me: INTP if tests are to be believed, IQ 142 if the bearded guy who tested me is to be believed. By those measures, I'm smart. I'm also basically useless.

I'm 24, unemployed, I can't drive, and I don't even have a good excuse for any of those. I'm in an academic limbo, where I've finished the courses for my degree, but haven't actually requested to graduate, and I've been in said limbo for well over a year for reasons even I don't understand.

But I'm smart, somehow. Intelligence alone won't get you nearly as far as you think. Pair it with other traits like motivation or direction, it'll be a huge advantage. Huge. But strictly on its own, it's borderline useless. To put it in video game terms, it's like a weapon upgrade.

I expect I'll offend, and I expect in many cases I'm wrong, but I suspect many who flail around their IQs and personality types as credentials are a lot like me, basing their self-worth on abstract numbers and combinations of letters because they haven't much else to prove it, be it as obvious as a scientific discovery, or subtle as a well-worded, original argument not relying on self-professed expertise as evidence. The latter of which I've failed to provide, ironically enough.

Patty: There so many wrong,

There so many wrong, incomplete and ilogical assumptions in this article that is hard to know from wich one should we start to comment/correct. Please read more, learn more, starting from the the multiple inteligence theory. Understanding math is a piece of cake comparing to understand emotions. Then, maybe it could be usefull if you learn a bit more about empathy, and how it is the skill that developed our cognitive system, and maybe you could take a look about how oxytoxin plays a critical rull in civilization progress...

Quinton Figueroa: How would you order the MBTI
@Patty (view comment)

How would you order the MBTI from most intelligent to least?

P.E.M: INTJ, iq estimated to be in

INTJ, iq estimated to be in range 240-270+ when i was 18...

Jacob: My thoughts on the matter.

I think this is terribly inaccurate and biased by your own world view instead of objective analysis. As you said F types can be very intelligent despite you prefering T over F. I can also argue that people who prefer S instead of N can also be very intelligent. The MBTI just isn't accurate enough and can only tell you about the way people might prefer to do things, it can not estimate intelligence because even the concept of intelligence is biased by what you think it is. For instance as an INFP I could very much disagree with T indicating superior intelligence. I put emphasis on my F type because to me intelligence can mean the knowledge of being able to predict what people want and read between the lines in order to provide it to them. My close INTP friend while incredibly intelligent and can remember details in a phenomenal way that I usually can't, can many times not realize how sometimes people can react badly to things she does and turns to me for advice. So is she less intelligent because of that? No, just means the way her brain works is different from mine, so in some ways she would be the smarter one and point out illogical things which i say that contradicts previous data she received from me and in some ways i can point out things i see as irrational behaviour from her.
Also as I said S types can be more intelligent than N types, just in a different manner. They can process information given to them usually faster than I can, even if i might be able to precieve the concept more easily, actually applying it might take me a lot longer than an S type. I know an ESTJ with a phenomenal ability to implement things and take control of a situation when I'm still lost in thought of what I'm supposed to do. I think that's a certain type of intelligence that while I lack in and might appreciate it less (as I enjoy thinking about things deeply), I can also find it very hard to not be jealous of such an ability to immediately use the information given to you and act based on it. This person also can explain things to others in great detail and very clearly, while me, at that same position will be stumbling to find the right words as I grasped the situation intuitively, and would find it hard explaining it to people in detail. TL;DR Intelligence comes in many different forms, you might rate it as you wish, but your rating will be greatly influenced by the way you and only you see things. And that doesn't make it objective nor fair to other personality types.

Quinton Figueroa: How would you objectively
@Jacob (view comment)

How would you objectively rate intelligence?

Jacob: Not with the MBTI types, that

Not with the MBTI types, that's for sure. Since intelligence is very subjective I think it can't be quantified. While IQ tests may attempt to do so, they cannot accurately predict a person's ability to take in information and process it in real life situations. Because these situations themselves vary too and will be quite different from the test. I also think it cannot be done objectively as a certain assumption needs to be made in the first place for what intelligence is from the tester's point of view.

Quinton Figueroa: Fair enough. So no matter
@Jacob (view comment)

Fair enough. So no matter what I will say, or anyone else will say, you will not be convinced that it is possible to rate intelligence.

Loser: My thoughts

I think INTPs are smarter than INTJs, because INTJs are only good at getting medals, getting ribbons, passing a test without even understanding most of the questions, self-admiring, speaking formal, big vocabulary, having blank stares, being inflexible whining like an ISFP half their age, and and relies on comprehensive context of an idea to understand it wholly.

anon: Cognitive Functions

Quinton, why is it that you completely avoid developing your knowledge of cognitive functions? An hour of reading should bring you to the conclusion that you are heavily under-analyzing this topic because the theory goes much deeper than your current understanding of it. Sure, there may be correlations between what you believe to be intelligence and what you believe to be MBTI, but if you ignore what type of feeling or thinking contributes more to being,"smart," then you are analogous to a scientist drawing conclusions about the world with instruments from the 1800's when there are more detailed and accurate instruments in today's modern world. Once you come to that understanding, you will see that it is impossible to discern which specific cognitive functions contribute most to intelligence. I've known brilliant INFJ's, ESFP's, and ISTP's. I've known dull INTP's, ENTP's, and INTJ's. There is no pattern there which is why there is absolutely no statistical evidence to support your claims.

Quinton Figueroa: Why don't I include the four
@anon (view comment)

Why don't I include the four humors? Why don't I include the Enneagram? Why don't I go outside of personality and start talking spirituality? Why don't we talk Chakras? Why don't we talk environment? Why don't we talk experience? Why don't we talk left brain vs right brain? Why don't we talk lots of other things that would also lead to greater understanding? Because I don't need to. This article isn't about the cognitive functions. You don't need those to gain the understanding I am illustrating. Could we talk about those? Yes, we could. Would it give more insight? Yes. But I wrote a simple article to illustrate a simple point.

I also responded a while back about the cognitive functions because people love to keep bringing them up as if it somehow magically disproves what I am saying: http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti#comment-7009. They really tell the same exact story. Cognitive functions reinforce what I am saying.

I'll make the cognitive functions very simple for you. Anyone who has intuition first or second is going to generally be more intelligent than someone who has intuition as third or fourth. You will notice that all Ns have intuition first or second. It follows the same pattern I am already talking about.

The funny thing is, my conclusions are in no way a result of the MBTI. This isn't some self-contained, external-association-sterile S article that was contrived in a narrow vacuum. Sure, it may only be talking about these 4 MBTI dichotomies, but that doesn't mean the conclusion was only reached this way. My conclusions are from spiritual, entrepreneurial, educational and tons of other material that illustrates the exact same point that I am illustrating with MBTI. So I didn't just only use MBTI to be like, oh look, he's why some people are intelligent. I instead have lived life, taken in lots of experiences, data, feelings and the like, and then I've said, oh interesting, MBTI fits in well with these other things.

I published this information knowing there are going to be tons of people who get upset about it and disagree with it. And I'm not even saying I'm right. But I know I'm on to something. And I'm tired of seeing the countless sheep all say the exact same stuff about all MBTI types being the same intelligence and yadda yadda yadda. People have absolutely no problem -- no problem at all -- saying that a J is more organized than a P. They don't go, what about the cognitive functions? Where are your sources? How do you define organization? You're wrong because that's not what MBTI is about! You're biased! But as soon as you say an N is more intelligent than an S everyone goes crazy. Yeah, great research guys, way to not be "biased".

Of course there are going to be lots of people who have a big problem with this article. But this article isn't written for them. It is written for the people who read it and think to themselves, hmm, I've never really seen it that way before and this does make sense and fit in with a lot of the things I've researched as well. Cool.

anon: Cognitive Functions

So you like being that scientist using those outdated tools to draw conclusions because they make you feel fuzzy inside? Fair enough. Also, the chart you gave could mean two things: 1. Like you said, those who lead with intuition may be perceived to be by some to be more,"influential." 2. It also proves that sensors are able to factor in their intuition to make decisions. As they get older, many sensors start to rely more and more on their intuition because they develop their 3rd and 4th functions later in life almost to the point that they can be mistaken for intuitives. But, you're stuck in a vacuum of confirmation bias and seem like an ST so you will stick to your guns no matter what, so I think I'm just wasting my time trying to show you the error of your ways. Ignorance is bliss I suppose!

Quinton Figueroa: Where are my conclusions
@anon (view comment)

Where are my conclusions wrong?

jay: I think, simply through

I think, simply through observation that these traits tend to be true. I don't understand why people are so defensive to state that MBTI is useless when a simple yet complex trait is mentioned: intelligence. However, stating this the opinion that comes to mind is the simple fact that if a person is raised in a meritocratic environment ("if you work hard, get into a good university, get a good job you'll do well and advance in society" (let's ignore the fault in logic for a moment)), they are more likely to dismiss the idea that there are intelligent and non-intelligent people. I think intelligence is, as you've stated, a lot more complex than a simple dichotomy, but there are obvious traits that society in general determine as smart.
For example, if you are resourceful, cunning and ambitious with a high IQ people tend to believe you are smart or "intelligent". If you are lazy, unmotivated or a "ditzy blonde" people tend to believe you are "unintelligent". If we go by these assumptions on human behaviour, we see predictable patterns that we can analyse thoroughly: intuitives tend to show more of the "intelligent" behaviors and sensors the "unintelligent" behaviors. Can an intelligent person pretend to be unintelligent? Absolutely. Shakespeare developed a whole art form surrounding this phenomena. Can an unintelligent person convincingly pretend to be intelligent? Rarely, if ever, is this possible.
I think that there is a space for political correctness in certain forms. Arguably, complete anarchy would be terrible for the middling masses (mostly SJ's) who dislike the idea of any job that does not involve a 9-5 job with a 2 week paid vacation, a nuclear family and a lack of questioning. And it would also be bad for creatives, because they would not be able to come up with certain ideas because there would not be the existing framework of society to uphold them to a certain degree (sure you can be creative in a desert, but wouldn't it be easier in a city with a whole system in place?). The concept of "political correctness" is a fundamentally flawed concept as it is reliant on the general ideas that the opinions of white heterosexual cisgender abled men are normal and all other people's views are "political". Ironically, politics is mostly centered on the needs of white cisgender heterosexual men, the very group whose "ideas" are normal. That being said, the concept of politics is a very sensory dominated group, due to its strong uphold of the status quo, even in the most "liberal" of liberals (who arguably are not that liberal because if they were they would be defending the rights of people of colour, queer people, women and trans people, which is depressing that someone's existence is deemed "liberal justice"... oh well)
Where I am getting at is "political correctness" (let's ignore the problematic nature of the term in and of itself for the moment) in MBTI and Jung Typology is unnecessary. Some people are short relative to the population in which they live, some people are tall, some people are fat, some people are skinny, some people are fast, some people are slow and some people show behaviours people consider unintelligent. It would be ludicrous to say if there was a race between a very fast person and a very slow person that a) they were the same in skill and b) that the slower person was better, and yet when MBTI and intelligence is discussed, this simple concept is often met with shameful vitriol.
As an intuitive person myself, I know this may sound self-obsessed and biased, and truth be told it is but show me a piece of research, no matter how scientific that does not have any bias at all and it will be impossible. Bias is inevitable in the modern world. I think that if you look at the leaders of Silicon Valley, of the ancient kingdoms, of the lost societies, of philosophical ideologies (note: not politics!), you will find that they are mostly all introverted intuitive thinkers, with some feelers and with equal J/P. I think the profound difference between intuition and sensation is that sensation says "what" and intuition asks "why?". I personally also believes that society conditions people to be sensors. Young children have a profound sense of idealism about the world and they ask the most bizarre questions like "why do shapes exist?". This is met with ridicule or scorn. Anyone who pushes past this and continues to ask long into adulthood is rare because it takes a certain character to do this. We could develop a society that praises intuitive thinking/feeling (and I believe it would make the world less burdened by racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism as these are sensory concepts of "we've always done it this way").
So in short, intuitives tend to show certain traits that people associate with intelligence. This does not negate the positives of sensory people, however it shows that in certain areas intuitives have an advantage which is supported by clear historical facts. In any case, thank you for reading and I hope you have a better insight into why MBTI exists: not to be the be-all-end-all to humanity but to exemplify certain patterns of thought and behaviour in humans. All I'm saying is don't dump your date because you find out they're ESFJ/ESFP, though if you do that's your life I guess.
[case in point: I'm 17 years old]

Quinton Figueroa: Very well said, you're hired.

Very well said, you're hired. If you're in college drop out and come start a business with me :)

anon: They're wrong because you don

They're wrong because you don't take into consideration all the factors you need to draw the conclusion that you have. It's like a crime investigator taking into consideration only one piece of evidence to decide who committed the crime when his department is telling him that there are multiple pieces of evidence to take into consideration. There is a reason the scientific method is used, it gives the most accurate model of reality and truth because a scientist is willing to factor in every scrap of evidence that supports AND negates his theory to develop the most accurate theory. If you're someone who always has a counter-point for why your theory is wrong, then your theory probably isn't a model of reality but rather a comforting conclusion. It would be rather interesting for you to write the same article and explain how each order of the cognitive functions contribute most to influence because you would really be going out on a limb even more.

Quinton Figueroa: You're not saying what
@anon (view comment)

You're not saying what exactly is wrong. You're just saying that I'm wrong because I didn't do it the way you think I should. Tell me why Ns are not smarter than Ss.

anon: Because its't A LOT more

Because its't A LOT more complicated than N's and S's. For example, Si and Ni are both incredibly close-minded in my experience. Very few who lead with those functions are open to new ideas and aren't able to arrive to a conclusion that doesn't jive with their personal beliefs. But according to what you're saying, you would pick the INFJ over the ESTP every time because the INFJ is smarter the majority of the time even though you could be missing out on a genius in the ESTP.(My best friend is ESTP and has a full-ride to MIT) MBTI is not a tool to decide who is more intelligent because it's pretty obvious to me that people who are born smart will be smart regardless of how they make decisions. Also, the most basic form of MBTI(The tool you're using) cannot possibly decide the intelligence that they were born with or the hard work they put in in there life to become intelligent. Therefore there is no correlation between personality type and intelligence. It's the reason why you see no data to support your claims.

Quinton Figueroa: Are there any patterns in
@anon (view comment)

Are there any patterns in MBTI/Cognitive Functions that can be used for intelligence?

Zac Reid: I would just like to say that
@anon (view comment)

I would just like to say that I am an INTJ and my Ni function allows INTJs and INFJs to see the perspective and motives of others better than any other, thus allowing us to extrapolate those perspectives and make the most open- minded decisions. You are simply wrong if you think we're close-minded. You may of received biased information, making your judgements based on unhealthy or unintelligent people who happen to be Ni; or you could have biased information based on your own close-mindedness and inability to fully grasp the concept an Ni was trying to talk to you about. I don't know you, but I know that you're experience isn't correctly representative of the Ni type, whether you already knew that or not, I simply had to aware you.
Furthermore, I do agree that emotional intelligence and cognitive ability are more important in determing a person's intellectual success than an mbti result, but I will say that it is highly probable an mbti result will determine how effective a person is likely to be intellectually. I believe that an ESFP can definitely be more intellectually successful than an INTJ. INTJs can be dumb , too, and they have their own problems trying to succeed. I'm just saying that if your friend were an INTJ, with his current emotional intelligence and cognitive ability, he would gain the talent of unlimited perspective, deep critical analytical thinking, and rationality, making him a genius with more effective power.
If everyone were completely healthy geniuses the same in every other stat besides mbti, the INTJs would simply be the most drawn to becoming what most people culturally believe to be intelligent, and therefore be the most influential in what most people culturally believe to be intelligence.
INTJs also have a better shot at this than INTPs, because while INTPs think the deepest thoughts the most, INTJs validate what is biased and not biased much more, therefore being the more accurate to the outside real world. This is if all people were equal in all other stats, once again. I will point out that S types are probably more likely to succeed at an average intelligence or lower, around less than genius range at least, because they take better care of themselves, thus allowing them to be more physically stable, whereas the N types get caried away with dreams if they aren't intelligent enough to be as realistic as S types. I would say the same about a varying mix of Es and Fs versus Is and Ts. At a more intellectually devolved and immature state, Es definitely would do better with moving on from thoughts to survive with better efficiency, and F types would definitely be better at emotional motivation.
INTJs are the most effective super-geniuses, and ESFPs would probably be the most effective out of under-average minds. Regardless, either can be smarter, and in most cases, INTPs are the most likely to have the highest IQ, according to non-proven but some of the closest to accurate statistics.

anon: A popular theory with

A popular theory with cognitive function is that the functions are like muscles that can develop with use and diminish with no use over time. For example, if an ISFP grows up and his parents expose him to math, theory, and information a lot and it almost begins to be a family bonding thing, the kid will be much more analytical and display himself as an INTJ/INTP/ISTP to the outer world. He can grow up to invent things, get straight A's, and even influence the environment heavily all while being ISFP. This may seem like a rare case, but a case I see far more often is a NT growing up in a family of sensors. The NT may be ridiculed for reading, love of debate, and abstract thinking which would have him use his other functions like sensing and feeling to fit in more to the point that there are only faint traces of the NT traits. Sure, you may meet extremely intelligent INTP's and INTJ's on a regular basis, but believe me when I say there are countless examples of people who are dumb as hell and test as INTP's and INTJ's, just as there are people who have high IQ's that test as ESFP/ISFJ/ESTP. So to conclude, the software that comes with your computer doesn't determine the processing power of the computer.

Zac Reid: I'm actually doing some
@anon (view comment)

I'm actually doing some personal studies about this involving experiments on myself and friends. I think I can at least discover whether these functions can be manipulated through successful persuasion in the form of hypnotherapy. I personally think mbti "personality" types can change due to exercising separate functions in different prioritizations, so mbti really stems from motivations, which influence brain function, so a subliminal logic decides which mbti behavior is needed for survival.

Anonymous: I'm loving it to know how

I'm loving it to know how some people are getting butthurt by this innocent article. Why some got so much offended having to post novel-long comments? If you think this article is wrong: either live your intelligence on your own or make your own article with your personality type ranked first. LOL -I'm an INTJ but i dont care that much. Have a nice day

Robert: Critiquing the Analysis

I created my own religion once...

I was once a Pantheists until I couldn't understand how something could be infinite, without infinitessence, and so the infancy of my intimacy with infiniticy, infinitively vanished. It was a paradox; and thus my religion was conceived: Paradoxitheism. It consisted of zero verses, within zero chapters of zero books, wrapped up in one simple binary, triple-oh sentences: That everything was a paradox; resulting in massive mix-ups, confusions and dupedoms ~ All based on subjective opinions, analyses and ...frankly, relativism.

I found a way out, because my orthodoxive causation was and still remains an ever-lasting regression. The irony of my problem, in the existential paradigm became self-evident. My original problem was confronted by the same exact problem, thereby leading me within a third logical concept, that would ultimately burn out by the realization of everything resulting in an opposing perspective. Pantheism wasn't just my answer, but a variable in an unknown equation. Paradoxitheism, was replaced by Pantheism, but it was the two that needed to balkanize, to present a third factor. So I split them apart, assigned their own variables and came to my senses that this was all simply, an algebraic equation; in philosophic-linguistic form.

The problem with this answer is that if the original problem and first two variables could be completely flipped, so could this one... Which means that this answer is okay; it's valid and could be, but doesn't have to be, nor is it maybe, necessarily sound. But I still found my third variable... And though it too, may have an opposing end, maybe this regression is not only unwelcome, but necessary to function; to survive along an abstraction of metaphysicality.

By holding on to this concept; before appointing it's substance as a substrate, perhaps it can help define the boundaries in which to progress. So now I'm using it as a survival mechanism.

----

What I've just explained is how I've engineered and manipulated myself into the perspective of an 'E' indicator. And the same could be done with the others. I am an INTJ-T on most days and an INFP-A on random others. So though you admit to speaking in generalities, this analysis is hardly the truth. And I mean no disrespect -- I actually agree with much that you have said, however now I'm trying to find out why this agreement, could be based entirely on individual and/ or group bias, and I'm just trying to royally rip apart my argument for such assumption... And it's working.

So if you or I, are able to come to disagreements concerning our opinions -- and much more -- the boundaries that we have selected -- based on our own themes and experiences -- to 'guide' us through this subjectivity, than we both likely have little understanding into the infinitive dynamic of social-psychology.

It's nice to sit here and think that only sixteen personalities can define our species, but likely, this is just us trying to once again, categorize and generalize ourselves within the holistic processing of acknowledgment: Another psychological bias. And I guess what's really frustrating is the endless regression; as if the concepts never seem to place one step in front of the other, but to push with all our might, utilizing all we have, to only hop in place. It's damning!

But overall, I really appreciate your articles and the way you teach this stuff. I really enjoy reading it. I learn constantly and although on the surface -- my appeal may not seem too engaged -- I can admit that I am an "includer" and appoint value to what someone else, is truly trying to say.

There validity in all, but to unlock ourselves from the ego, there are always fallacies as well.

entpmastery: Real Life ENTP's

Intelligence and Influence. Kardashians have a lot of influence bit I wouldn't necessarily call them intelligent. But we can put the two together if you like. Socrates, Leonardo DaVinci, arguably to of the most intelligent individuals to ever walk the planet. Don't forget Voltaire and Benjamin Franklin. All of them ENTP's

Gavin: Very interesting. Not sure I

Very interesting. Not sure I agree with your definition of "smart", though.

Snolock ENTP: Smartest?

I don't think you can just say "smartest". If you want to base it on logical and analytical ability, then it's probably the INTP, yet they have a tendency to be exceedingly lazy. INTJ's aren't AS smart, but get things done. ENTJ's get even more done, but are even less intelligent than INTJ's. And finally, ENTP's, who arent as logical or as intelligent, but definitely have better people skills and are better for making and connecting disparate ideas.

But that isnt a very fair way to judge intellect. Because, although an INTP may be much smarter than the other types, they generally lack social skills, as do the other NT types, as a general rule. ENTP's tend to have the best social skills. The other issue with INTP's is that they lack drive, as do most Perceiving types.

Unfortunately, I can't accurately list which types are the most emotionally intelligent, but if I had to guess, I'd say either ESFP or ENFP.

Nooshin: in general i'd agree with you

in general i'd agree with you. I'm an INTP and my IQ is 160 ( 17 years old). I don't know INTJs are smarter than INTPs or not, but they know how to use there intelligence in a usefull way, and that makes them usually more successful than us. I think intelligence is just a tool for learning knowledge. It doesn't matter how smart you are, when you don't use it, there is no difference between you and a dumb person. However thanks for this interesting article.

Sleeper Smith: INTP and INTJ are fundamentally different

INTP is too busy making things work that they have no time to plan.

INTJ is too busy planning things that they have no time to make things work.

Monitor42-ENTP: What an excellent article,

What an excellent article, really well done. Despite the excess of criticism here in comments--to which you've given ample reply--your analysis is as sound and thorough as can be expected with present empirical data.
Now for my two cents: in contrast to traditional "intelligence", I see propensities for consistency as alternate forms of intelligence. Case in point is measured influence--suggested in-article as a definitive element of intelligence--which ESTP, ENFJ, ENTJ and (uniquely) ENFP often enjoy in abundance. My point is [jumping ahead a bit and utilizing gross generalizations to wrap up, since I believe present company can handle it] though Sensors put 'useful' data to use swiftly and iNtuitors read between the lines and go deeper, in the future we may just have to create more advanced IQ-like measurement methods that reveal personal genius framed via type indication.
How's that for ENTP; basically "I say reverse-engineer IQ tests!" Cheers, lol

KingAlfred: Which is the smartest MBTI type

This is a great article, well written & insightful breakdown of the MBTI types.......although I would like to add & highlight ........"How are you describing what "smart" or "intelligent" as being?? You have to define this first before trying to come up with the conclusion! Surely?
K~A

KingAlfred: Which is the smartest MBTI type

How are you defining what being smart or intelligent as being??

Actuarial Scientist: Rationals top

Speaking from my own life experience, I have seen rationals being by far the most intelligent of all other types since primary school to the world of work.I am 23 now.Rationals being ENTP, INTJ, ENTJ and INTP.The category of intelligence I am considering here is logical and mathematical intelligence which is often what is generalized as intelligence by the public(and the most huge component of typical IQ tests).Rationals have an exceptional ability to fully understand complex abstract phenomena and align it with reality-in the case of Judging rationals i.e. ENTJ and INTJ.

I studied actuarial science in university which is a pretty tough discipline.We did all kinds of mathematics(both abstract courses and more realistic courses) and a few programming courses.All the time rationals came top of my class.If I would order them ENTPs seemed to be top of all, followed by INTJ then ENTJ and lastly INTP.Of course this order could be biased as you know INTPs are slackers/lazy but could be in fact be most intelligent of all if they put equal effort with other rationals.In fact I had an INTP friend that ended up dropping out not because he was not smart but he got distracted and fell in love with politics.

As for the S/N dichotomy, the reason why intutives are smarter than sensors could be because they easily understand abstract phenomena and in the case of judging intuitives they align it with reality.Its like they create models of reality.'Intuitive' models so to say.However sensory types are certainly more intelligent than intuitive types in say Bodily/Kinesthetic intelligence or musical intelligence.I would see SPs leading in such.In addition to that, I have seen other types excelling in mathematical/Abstract phenomena so there are always outliers.Such include ESFJ and ISTP.

Idealists i.e INFP, ENFP, ENFJ and INFJ in my opinion are the most spiritual of all types.If there was spiritual intelligence these types would easily top all other types with once again the top being a possible tie between INFP and INFJ.When it comes to logical and mathematical intelligence, its unfortunate idealists are behind rationals.It is the precise reason why most scientists are rationals or NT types.

When it comes to creativity, which I believe should be another form of intelligence, Perceivers have an edge over Judging types , who prefer structure.

In conclusion Quinton, I agree with you for the most part except what I highligted above.So perhaps the homework you need is to first ascertain what type of intelligence you are rating the mbti types.Some have said define "smart".As for me like I said , I was focusing on Logical and mathematical intelligence.Sorry again for using D. Kerseys terminology.Please do look at his classifications, he is of the most accurate mbti analysts in describing and classifying the 16 types.HTH.

Quinton Figueroa: Very well said, you really
@Actuarial Scientist (view comment)

Very well said, you really hit on a lot of great points here.

Scarlet: INTJs and INTPs

I am of the opinion that INTJs and INTPs are roughly equal when it comes to intelligence. I am an INTJ myself, and I have a friend who is an INTP. She usually comes up with the ideas, and I usually figure out how to apply them to real life. I believe that we are equally intelligent. She's smart in her way, and I'm smart in my own. As everyone is, for that matter.

Anon: INTP with the curse of

INTP with the curse of curiosity. I N P must be in the 90%, T prob 70% tending toward F. I have known many intjs and i believe they have stronger innate deductive abilities whereas INTPs are better at inductive reasoning and less bent on following rigid procedures and rules. INTJs have quicker and sharper minds but INTPs make up the deficit by carrying the analysis for longer sometimes to the point of obsession which is the cause of many great discoveries.

INTJs are logical; INTPs are theoretical.
INTJs work better with numbers
INTPs work better with language
INTPS are more interested in exploring possibilities, INTJs in solving the problem efficiently

Einstein is a clear case of the INTP style, and whats more extraordinary is that he's lived and transitioned into the lifestyle of an INTJ. In fact its said that after reading Kant at age 14 and Hume at 15, he switched to physics and then self taught himself calculus at age 17. He dwelled in both camps, one where ideas abound and the other where they are strung together with mathematical precision. There must be other such cases of INTJs gone INTP, perhaps Feynman.

all in all INTJs are better with logic of the kind A+B=AB
Whereas INTPs are better with logic of the kind A+B=C. The first is axiomatic and self evident. The second is inferential mainly, which is why INTPs are better at connecting the dots from apparently unrelated ideas

Both are equals. Their energy are just spent in different directions and at different intervals

Quinton Figueroa: Great input and I would have
@Anon (view comment)

Great input and I would have to agree. Thanks for sharing :)

Hermilion: It is not a data - it is opinion

And therefore - no data / no good. Opinions are baseless unless confirmed by some hard data .. and there is no data here ..

Andrew: I do not think I/E has

I do not think I/E has anything to do with a person's intellect. It is easy to see why the demeanor of an I appears more intelligent than that of an E, but when it comes down to actual ability to understand complex ideas, I think I/E goes out the window. I myself am a strong E, and am also very, very smart. I also know that many people I newly meet don't get the impression that I'm a really smart person based on my extroverted demeanor; however, if a thinking problem comes up, my intelligence comes out and surprises people. When it comes to actual thinking, I can match (and usually far surpass) the I sitting in the corner reading.
I's may prefer to think more rather than talk, but that doesn't mean they are better at thinking (in my experience).
I am an ENFP by the way, according to the test I took a few days ago.

Sam: I have to say that this is a

I have to say that this is a pretty interesting study. It explains quite a bit of the intellectual gap I feel is between me and my significant other, considering I'm an ISFJ and he's an INTJ. I always struggle to keep up with his thought pattern and it diminishes our conversations.

Shelley Sweeney: This was very interesting -

This was very interesting - really enjoyed it and agree with your conclusions. Very happy to find my family's various four personality types at the tip-top of the list. :-)

Good: Interesting. I personally

Interesting. I personally could not say which type is the most intelligent of all. But i can say, SJ types are the least intelligent of all with several reasons :
1.They are not interested to really use their intelligence to begin with. Neither are SP types, but SP types, due to their tendency to just do whatever they want to do in life would still intentionally use their intelligence to support their desire. Most SJs are usually only being "educated" without really being logical or intellectual at all.
2.Being guardians, they simply are those people who accept and cherish the established rules and traditions for the sake of accepting it.
3.They rely too much on their experience as if their life is the center of the universe.
4.They generally have no idea what they want to do in life beside following and or defending rules. They don't even want the future. They just want security.
5.Let's just say there's no other type or temperament except SJ, we would have still been stuck in the stone age.

jck_s77: my vote is on : INTJ >>>>>>>

my vote is on : INTJ >>>>>>>> THAT fckin Ni dominant function !!!! they are masterminds
BTW im an ENTP
all the NT types are more intellectual but ST types can have equal IQ

Jon: Based on my own personal

Based on my own personal research regarding MBTI and intelligence, I'd say the most intelligent type is the INTJ. I'd rank my letters from most to least influential as N/S, I/E, T/F, and J/P. The N letter is the most important, making up 47% of intelligence, but I also believe introversion is important, making up 29%. The T is 14% and J is 10%. With this data, the types from most to least intelligent are:

1. INTJ
2. INTP
3. INFJ
4. INFP
5. ENTJ
6. ENTP
7. ENFJ
8. ISTJ
9. ENFP
10. ISTP
11. ISFJ
12. ISFP
13. ESTJ
14. ESTP
15. ESFJ
16. ESFP

Now granted, there are plenty of other genetic and environmental factors that can impact one's IQ, but the general trend seems to follow the above pattern. (Correlation does not imply causation)

Betsy: Mensa data

We periodically take informal polls on this topic on a Mensa forum - just asking people to report their type. Someone has been keeping track and produced some graphs. The most prominent feature was the frequency of the NT combination: all four NT groups displayed the greatest frequencies. NFs were next, except for one particular type, ISTJ, which came after all NTs and before all NFs. For what it's worth.

The Schmave: Wow - you people really

Wow - you people really believe this stuff? Amazing. To stretch your thinking a bit about what it means to be intelligent, I refer you to Howard Gardner's excellent work on the different types of intelligence. See, e.g., http://www.tecweb.org/styles/gardner.html.

PS - you do realize that often one question separates an n type from an s type. So does that person become that much smarter by reason of how (or perhaps how strongly) they answer that question? Does your intuition tell you that is likely?

PPS - Also interesting that, in my very unscientific survey of the number of these kinds of posts out there, Ns overwhelmingly seem to want to prove this issue more than any other type.

PPPS - That goes double for Mensa members.

Fav : ENTP

As if I didn't need another ego booster.

Nate: Great Concept!

Yeah, so I read through the article, I read through the comments and this is what I have observed. Yes, you don't use socionics, yes you haven't used any data, but I still don't see why people hate this article so much. Socionics and MBTI are pretty closely related (I think. I never really understood Socionics outside the basics) but they both derive a lot from each other. Two different schools of thought which lead to the same answer. As for the lack of Data? So what? This isn't an in depth study. You are posting your opinions on a topic. Like you've said in an earlier comment, one fine day a person shows up, reads your article, says 'I never really thought about it like that before', and DOES AN ACTUAL STUDY! This article is conception of the idea, you then have the planning of how to implement the idea, the actual implementation of the idea, and the reading of the data. So yeah, it isn't complete, but it is far from bad. In fact, this is one of the most thought provoking articles I've read. Yes, I may not agree with you on some points, but I haven't done a study either, so I can't say you are wrong.
The only thing I didn't quite get along with is the definition of smart used. The amount of influence? E-types definitely have the upper hand there. S-types are generally more practical than N types, but are far more rigid. F-types have that invaluable ability to empathize with others, so they have a huge advantage over T's in influence. J's are generally more organized as compared to P's therefore viewed as much more reliable.
So in terms of pure influence ESFJ's should be winning.
Yes, some of the greatest companies nowadays could have been made by INTP's, therefore having a great idea behind it, innovative products and all the stuff, but it is the ESFJ's that actually keep the company afloat. History will remember the INTP, the magazines will talk about ESFJ's. So all in all, influence? Doubt it can be a deciding factor on smartness.
I'd like to look at intelligence as seeing how likely you are in reaching your goals. There the E-types will be leaders, the I-types in the background. The N-types reaching the innovation posts, while S-types try to make those innovations practical. The T-types thinking about what the world needs while the F-types tell the world about it. The P-types in less organised workspaces while J-types in the more structured jobs.
Not everyone wants influence, but most people want contentment. Making the objective something everyone wants evens out the playing field a lot. So if you try to think about who actually is most likely to getting the maximum satisfaction from life, the entire order you proposed changes.
Other than that, the conceptualisation of the subject is great. Props to you.

Add new comment