NF's and IQ testing

[GOD]

I was looking at some data that related to IQ and "types".

Now, I fully believe that "Type" testing has a correlation with IQ on the basis that IQ tests invariably relate to pattern forming and prediction (The N & T functions).

So, its no wonder that INTJ has the highest percentage of its type in the top 2% (37%) followed by INTP (20%)...

However, I find the INFJ with 15% in the top 2% very interesting. To me it strongly points to a very high NT, but an even higher sense "group" purpose. (remember that for the F & T function questions they are mutually exclusive for test selection purposes) These are very rare people indeed... its 15% of around 1.5%, or 1 to 2 people per 1,000.

If you look at the potential elasticity of the T/F function in these people it must huge (I believe high IQ people must score very highly in the T function).

Interestingly, theres little to absolute zero information that assesses the total scale range of a person, in their various functions. (T v F etc).

[Louie]

My IQ, (adult)..(tested by professionals), was 138...don't ask which tests, had a few of them.

INFP=73%.....86%......68%......67% or thereabouts, all the paperwork is um, around here somewhere.

Our family member adult, (female, blonde) was 128 IQ before her acquired brain injury, now is about the 92....interesting, she is still the same "essence of the person", just facing different challenges now, has just returned to work, and although it is not her/the University level (trained) work, it is office work and she is coping okay, (actually quite well), apart from mental exhaustion from concentrating, and the other physical disabilities she has.

My partner, (again, an adult)....the Manager, ESTJ, is around the 116 IQ.

I do very well on emotional intelligence of course, a way of life for me nonetheless. And it is very important to me. Just my preference/perception, naturally I suppose. I'm no sucker, airhead though if you understand, I do think we can manifest ourselves, strengthen the not-so-strong parts of ourselves...(well, can't call them weaknesses, we are what we are).

All of that is just a small part of us too, maybe this is the core? Then comes the layering?

We are so interesting it drives me nuts.

[GOD]

I'm in the 133-145 range depending on what test I do.

But ability and use are two different things, and I also believe IQ tests while useful, play (mostly) on the conscious thoughts, in effect the more T elements, although I would say that N must be a factor. Creativity is not part of the test (It sort of indirectly tests it in the pattern association recognition).

What IQ does not do (and conceivably cannot do that well) is tap into people that have a wonderful subconscious, that problem solve over longer periods than an immediate reaction (Which IQ tests focus on). Also, IQ tests cannot see both sides of the brain working in parallel and creating new perspectives on the same "object,idea,issue". What I'd call linear thinkers can still do very well in IQ tests.

It’s well known that most of the most innovative research scientists are not the highest grade performers. Innovation and insight are a special quality.

With respect to your family member, maybe you should look at trying to stimulate underused portions of the brain (say musical ability) which might also take on some of the other functions that have suffered impairment.

In a different sort of way, this is one of the reasons why I got into trying to work out how the brain works. Simply because I have a shocking short term memory and I cannot remember names of people for the life of me.. even when I can clearly see them in my mind. As a kid, in order to learn I simply had to do what I'd call "associative learning" in other words everything had to logically reference and fit something else (like a jigsaw) before the information would be retained. While other kids just memorised the stuff and forgot it after the exams. Which then brings me to the likes of Einstein.. he suffered academically (I recollect) as a kid, and I'd say that he had the same sorts of issues, but this vast interconnected and logically referenced framework paid huge dividends as he grew up.

I think there's a lot to be improved in the way we think and the way we train our minds to think.

[Louie]

I have a question..

It's not necessarily directed to anyone/thing, just thinking out loud.

As people, are we feelers that think, or the thinkers that feel?

Does not information stream into our sensory system, then processed through our limbic system- onward to our cerebral cortex for higher thinking, BUT we have already placed a "feeling" upon how we view that stimulation...

...am reading through this:

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/CE.%2...nd.Emotion.pdf

Is really interesting.

[GOD]

I have a question..

It's not necessarily directed to anyone/thing, just thinking out loud.

As people, are we feelers that think, or the thinkers that feel?

Does not information stream into our sensory system, then processed through our limbic system- onward to our cerebral cortex for higher thinking, BUT we have already placed a "feeling" upon how we view that stimulation...

...am reading through this:

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/wjf/CE.%2...nd.Emotion.pdf

Is really interesting.

This article requires a lot of background reading to pick holes in... So it’s pretty hard to critique simply based on intuition!

I've always said that all senses are ported via the subconscious systems and then processed/filtered at the conscious level. Just that those that act on instinct act before the conscious processing or do not apply a lot of processing (or it’s of poor quality).

Conscious thought to me is just an adaptation, a filter to improve the application of instinct.

Some interesting things did appear in the article though. I was interested to read the passage "Questions of how the brain can a priori create its own goals and then find the appropriate search images in its memory banks are not well handled." Essentially because I believe the subconscious works on mental imaginary but with low resolution. (If you look at the animal kingdom you will see many examples of this). Nb: I believe that the conscious then acts as a lense to sharpen these images and give them a range in depth.

I have a healthy scepticism for imaging techniques to analyse the brains firing and so forth, as basically I believe it really only captures the most obvious interactions, quite possibly there is some 3 to 7? times more low level firings and connections that are below the threshold for detection. As an analogy, we can detect the tree trunk but what of all the roots??

As said before, I think there's lots of paths that sensory information can take, a depressed person will route everything towards those parts in this "winner takes all concept". If my logic is correct people with variable emotions are more likely to have greater cognitive abilities.