Equation for intelligence

[Void]

Alex Wissner-Gross: A new equation for intelligence | Video on TED.com

There is a new equation for intelligence, as you can read in the link, which translates to: "Intelligence is a physical process that resists future confinement". By this definition, and assuming this is all true, does this make P's more intelligent than J's? And what are your thoughts about this equation itself?

 

[Cognisant]

Looks like every optimisation program ever.

Just as if you want to sort beads by size you would put them in a jar and shake it, causing the smaller beads to sink to the bottem and the largest to rise to the top, it's possible to make a program that randomly does stuff, run it over and over, and keep only the most efficient iterations.

So in a sense he's right, optimisation is an essential component of intelligence, but it's not the entirety of intelligence, you need to make a program that can optimise its own optimisation process, to not only learn but learn faster by applying old lessons to new problems and do all of this with multiple (often conflicting) goals.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The program would not do something on its own. It would do it if it was a possible outcome, or a task of this program.

As this was implied that this outcome was not its task, then it had to be one of multiple outcomes, one of which produces a favourable output.

As such I could hit every surface I walk past with a metal spoon until I produce a perfect D flat and I would present this outcome to the public.

 

[TBerg]

Perceivers are slower and deeper, Judgers faster and more shallow. The former is the submarine looking below the surface of the waves, but the latter is the ship pushing full-steam ahead navigating (using actionable intelligence) the surface.

 

[Brontosaurie]

intelligence = cuteness of face

 

[WALKYRIA]

no big news here really.
(also you should keep in mind that intelligence has no clear definition. INtelligence is a concept and common experience( collective unconscious) such as love that we can subjectively feel or intuite but will never really be able to define in a objective way. So the attempt is vain here. !).

 

[Cherry Cola]

haha intps are judgers, pwnd infj+intj=most intelligent

 

[WALKYRIA]

IN*Ps are the smartest when it comes to natural intelligence... I mean natural understanding of the world and its functioning. We are natural knowledge and idea generators(hence the P).
IN*J are the smartest when it comes to reproducing IN*P ideas( hence good at school) and applying or upgrading IN*P ideas.

I am always amazed at how I wondefully explain things to NJs and they formulate things better on paper and get best grades than me lol.... isnt it ironic? I'm sure they would be able to explain relativity-- to their professors -- better than Einstein himself.. lil bastards.

true true...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Its the other way around you got it backwards. Ni is dominant and a perceiving function, it is also non-verbal and ethereal and so does is not readily rendered formal.

Seriously I dont know or care which of the types are the smartest of Inps and Injs but so far ya'll are arguing for Injs while thinking you're arguing for Inps.

Perceiving is superior!! Injs are dominant perceivers Inps are not..

Injs express themselves so clearly!!! No they fucking don't. Precision in language is a Ti thing though and Ne being extroverted makes for common ground intuitions.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Oh and "natural understanding of the world" lol, that descript also fits Injs better, pi=spontaneous/natural ji=deliberate/calculated

Basic MBTI srsly

 

[Brontosaurie]

goes without saying you're more in touch with the world if you have a main perceiving function directed outwards, no?

 

[Cherry Cola]

In touch is not the same as naturally understanding unless you presuppose a subject/object distinction which is all but natural.

Both Pi and Pe see the world, you mistranslate Jungian terms if you say that Ni sees a subjective image and Ne an objective (ie the world).

Else I don't get your argument. Ne connects dots, Ni is holistic. The latter is a much better fit etymologically speaking when it comes to natural understanding as it relies on impressions Se, while Ne relies on facts Si.

"in touch" instead of "naturally understanding the world and its processes" really makes a difference are really not interchangeable since the argument was etymological to begin with.

Also typing on phone so language sux cause cba.

 

[Base groove]

All this NJ<>NP talk...

It's not accurate to proclaim that NJs are predisposed to have more ability at reproducing ideas,

IN#J are more predisposed to perceive, as CC has pointed out. They consume perceptual information at a faster rate than their auxiliary judging function can handle. When conditions are right for Ni to work (I.e. Introverted, can't be interrupted), they are able to get a clear image, and this is like a green light for the auxiliary to proceed.

 

[WALKYRIA]

IN*P knows( or actually sees) everything but expresses nothing. IN*J knows nothing(because they don't have Ne= natural understanding of surrounding !), seeks knowledge in a artificial-structured thus unreal way( school) and then reproduce it in artificial and unreal way(Fe and Te).
IN*J Fe comes from early socialisation(early contact with parents). INTJ Te comes from schooling and ocntact with organized structures.
BAsically, we develop the best functions we encoutered first or that we used the most.

example:
I lived all my life in chaos( I'm starting to get a bit out of it) , so I pretty much had to use Ne and Ti if I wanted to get out of it effectively... with accuracy(Ti precision> Ni) and with effective error calculation( Ne>Te, because Ne takes in tridimensional or even quadri-dimensional informations and integrates everything!).
I'm convinced that if I were anything others than INTP than I wouldnt be here. I laugh sometime when people claim that INTPs are losers. I laugh hard. I'm convinced that INTP grows with difficulties because problems are the masters of INTP. The more problems we have-- and not IN*J theoretical paper problems but real life problems- the best we become at using Ti-Ne. I know it souds odd and crazy, but my guess is hat we INTP put ourselves naturally in troubles in order to grow. I know I did. They call it procrastination sometime.


Anyways, My hypothesis is that IN*J knowledge comes with language,school, all the Te school/ Fe social organized institutions... While our Ne who is somehow the sum/the integration of what is perceived by our 5 senses begins very early.(with onset of five senses). And thus basically we don't need school to know things. We don't need structure and ultimately we dn't need language, communication, to know that we know(since we take in the whole world, actually we are one with the world). Also our Ne works constantly. We constantly take in informations about our suroundings.
( actually this description might also be N vs S, don't know exactly..)

The advantages of NJs in this world has to do with random characteristics of our language/human communication hallmarks... For some reason IN*P don't love to communicate their ideas because they fear loss of accuracy. Look at nature, does it communicate? Same as IN*Ps.

 

[Base groove]

Both Pi and Pe see the world, you mistranslate Jungian terms if you say that Ni sees a subjective image and Ne an objective (ie the world).

I would say that Ni sees a subjective pattern - or association, hidden meaning

And Ne an objective pattern, association, hidden meaning.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Walkyria you have no idea what you are talking about and your post reeks of defense mechanisms. Your understanding and usage of MBTI is completely warped by your need to excuse your failures to retain superiority by going for a scapegoat. This is Facebook-MBTI group level reasoning.

Sorry I would pick your post apart in detail if it wasn't already way past bedtime for me.

 

[Base groove]

Yeah it's bullshit dude, the whole thing.

I will say this, the way you describe yourself is much more like an INTJ. That's kind of funny I guess.

*takes time to reread* so it's not all bullshit...

Yup, definitely talking about Ni in that post. "Taking in something from your surroundings" "lifetime compilation of pattern discovery",

"Taking in" is a dead giveaway of the introverted attitude.

Or, you think you are an INTp then? Yes, maybe.

 

[WALKYRIA]

uurgh, I'm an INTX actually.

Yeah, but my ultimate excuse is that MBTI is fake anyways. SO why agreeing? why agreeing on something that doesnt and will never have a truth objectivity?

I'm pretty convinced that IN*Ps are smarter than IN*J. point. I don't need a great understanding of MBTI or Jung's theoreis to be aware of something as obvious as this.

INTJ are just too realist in their approach of things. Too practical and too efficiency oriented to really be tha genius. They narrow the possibilities to the known ones. While INTPs go way further. They seek. everyday. all the time. Ya know. And that is the ultimate hallmark of smartness anyways.

 

[Goku]

Alex Wissner-Gross: A new equation for intelligence | Video on TED.com

There is a new equation for intelligence, as you can read in the link, which translates to: "Intelligence is a physical process that resists future confinement". By this definition, and assuming this is all true, does this make P's more intelligent than J's? And what are your thoughts about this equation itself?

I find this an appalling view. Some male probably came up with it when he didn't want to commit to marrying his girlfriend. And, now all men can reference this TED video when they want to keep their options open. It's like "hey hunny, I'm just being intelligent by resisting future confinement. Don't take it personally." Views like this which perpetuate through society contribute to the persecution of women. We should boycott this video and TED for distributing and endorsing such chauvinistic crap.

 

[Latte]

Recapping.

You claim that according to MBTI, you are INTP and not INTJ, and INTPs are as you described, but if you're wrong, it doesn't matter because MBTI is wrong, but you're "INTX" actually, and also your classification of INTP and INTJ is definitely correct in terms of MBTI.


@Goku: Pretty sure you're making a trolling commentary in reference to the feminism thread, but I will reply as if it's serious.

I think you may have misinterpreted the broadness in what is meant by having future options open. "Comitting" can be regarded as investing in having the future option of a set of interactions with someone that one might not get of the same quality or at all elsewhere and would be regarded as an investment towards longterm freedom of action availability. It can also be regarded as constricting future action.

The individual circumstance and the view of the individual regarding a situation will determine to which degree and in what ways entering 'the' relationship will be viewed as safeguarding future possibility (options open regarding interaction with the person) and denying future possibility for mutually exclusive things. Whichever one is weighted higher will likely be the way the relationship is primarily seen at any point time. As something that entails possibility or restriction.

The reason many people don't leave relationships is after all because that shuts off access to what was available in them.

Confined to being lonely or unhappy.

 

[pernoctator]

I find this an appalling view. Some male probably came up with it when he didn't want to commit to marrying his girlfriend. And, now all men can reference this TED video when they want to keep their options open. It's like "hey hunny, I'm just being intelligent by resisting future confinement. Don't take it personally." Views like this which perpetuate through society contribute to the persecution of women. We should boycott this video and TED for distributing and endorsing such chauvinistic crap.

No poster more consistently gives me uncertainty about whether he/she is serious than you.

 

[Base groove]

No, it's obvious. A tongue in cheek criticism of people who make these rash comparisons and then blow things out of proportion and act irrationally as a result, while simultaneously acknowledging that it would be equally irrational to dismiss these comparisons without examining them.

One way to take it apart is to recognize that women can and do exhibit the same behaviour he is talking about, and feminism should theoretically be supportive of it considering its official stance on equality.

 

[Brontosaurie]

In touch is not the same as naturally understanding unless you presuppose a subject/object distinction which is all but natural.

Both Pi and Pe see the world, you mistranslate Jungian terms if you say that Ni sees a subjective image and Ne an objective (ie the world).

Else I don't get your argument. Ne connects dots, Ni is holistic. The latter is a much better fit etymologically speaking when it comes to natural understanding as it relies on impressions Se, while Ne relies on facts Si.

"in touch" instead of "naturally understanding the world and its processes" really makes a difference are really not interchangeable since the argument was etymological to begin with.

Also typing on phone so language sux cause cba.

actually i wrote "in touch" just to abbreviate.

a holistic introverted judgment informed by abstract perception is optimally "naturalistic" imo. hmm informed is the wrong word though. i reckon the Ji, especially Fi, represents an intrinsic and fundamental egoism which informs (in a nitpicky philosopical sense) all other pursuits (and thus is most honest to lead with). but the Ne provides material for it.

it's the facts Si that rely on Ne. the personal conviction Pi is subordinate to the external perception Pe, which makes the NP more "naturalistic".

there's a lot of variables to take into account, too many for me to bother with exposing at this point. hopefully you got an idea of where i'm going with this.

 

[WALKYRIA]

You claim that according to MBTI, you are INTP and not INTJ, and INTPs are as you described, but if you're wrong, it doesn't matter because MBTI is wrong, but you're "INTX" actually, and also your classification of INTP and INTJ is definitely correct in terms of MBTI.

Yeah dude... whatever the argument, I'm right lol. Echec et maths.
Seriously though... The great thing about pseudoscientifical bullshit is that anyone, whatever their knowledge can be right. Wether the argument is fallacious or not. I find it funny to use myself as the experiment.


Lol Goku... I empathize greatly with you genius comment.

No poster more consistently gives me uncertainty about whether he/she is serious than you.

SO you should eventually check my posts.. I even doubt myself.

Its the other way around you got it backwards. Ni is dominant and a perceiving function, it is also non-verbal and ethereal and so does is not readily rendered formal.

I find INJ to be too normal; seriously( While INP tend to stand out). They are just too normal. An normal people can't naturally understand the world.

-->1° What I intuitively get is that environmental informations(= understanding of the world) are collected by the main extroverted function( Fe, Ne,Te,Se). Of the 4 functions Ne vortex is largely the best.(so ENTP>ENTJ and ENFP>ENJ in terms of smartness). THus in terms of information gathering INTP and ENTP are the champions.(that's why we are better researcher and brainstormers than NTJ.)

-->2nd: Ni, Ti,Fi, Si... are like the processors of the gathered information. Now here are things becoming more complex. Ni is fast, mysterious, flexible, holistic, integrative and analyze Fe/Te informations multidimensionally.... sure, while Ti although slow and linear is the most accurate and precise function, don't forget that. I prefer Ti over Ni. But I can't objectively say which one confers the greatest intellectual powers. My guess is: it depends from the task. INTJs are empiricist scientists. INTP are researchers.
SO we have Ne>Te and Fe; than we have Ni=Ti. INTP wins.

anyways... INTX is better. But what is INTX? INTP who get things done or lazy or hesitant INTJ?
I was INTP, my job is turning me into a hyperdecisive INTJ. SO INTJ inside my job; INTP outside of it. Bit frustrating and exhausting.

 

[pernoctator]

The great thing about pseudoscientifical bullshit is that anyone, whatever their knowledge can be right. Wether the argument is fallacious or not. I find it funny to use myself as the experiment.

Are you saying the framework is incoherent? Even if it's bullshit, that's no defense for getting it wrong as long as its own rules don't contradict each other.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i don't understand what he got wrong though

"which type is most d33p" is basically the question here... does the MBTI framework contain a definitive answer to that?

 

[Cherry Cola]

if only the framework was the issue here

also what pernoc said

also there is no INTX type and your work doesn't make you change types. how can you even dismiss mbti when you dont get it

there isn't some kind of definite line between science and pseudoscience y know, mbti isn't astrology, it isn't astronomy either, nor sociology but its not that short of other soft sciences

Dario's brain scans did some in way of confirming it, and before that it was known to be scientifically valid to some degree either, there's traits corresponding with the big 5 and more.. (http://www.celebritytypes.com/blog/2013/02/is-jungian-typology-scientific/)

Bronto@: yeah see what you are getting at, still disagree but seems pointless and trivial to debate it :O

 

[Base groove]

What he's "got wrong" is that he makes conclusions based on stereotypes that he has created based on a flawed understanding. This means his axioms are faulty, for starters.

In addition, his statements are non sequiturs ~ regardless of whether the principal axioms are accurate (which they are not), his conclusions are not sound, so everything he is stating as conclusion/fact is logically invalid.

 

[Cherry Cola]

basically maximum wrong

 

[QuickTwist]

IN*Ps are the smartest when it comes to natural intelligence... I mean natural understanding of the world and its functioning. We are natural knowledge and idea generators(hence the P).
IN*J are the smartest when it comes to reproducing IN*P ideas( hence good at school) and applying or upgrading IN*P ideas.

I am always amazed at how I wondefully explain things to NJs and they formulate things better on paper and get best grades than me lol.... isnt it ironic? I'm sure they would be able to explain relativity-- to their professors -- better than Einstein himself.. lil bastards.

true true...

You raise a good point although if an IN*P knows how they learn best I would argue that they can put things on paper pretty damn well especially if they have devoted time into learning the core concepts of the idea they are studying. Then it is just a matter of taking what they know and organizing it (which INTPs are excellent at). You are right in that in terms of getting things done I think the IN*Js are best but IN*Ps can be excellent communicators.

In my personal experience I am much better at getting good grades than implementing the knowledge into a usable fashion. When I am doing a lab for school I am very good at understanding the math that the lab is asking me to do but when it comes to producing the result that is needed for the lab for example, making the circuit work, I admit it takes me a bit longer. As it stands I am getting the best grade in the class right now for my AC/DC electronics class and I have the best grade on the midterm because I understand the core concepts the best. Hard work doesn't hurt either.

 

[Base groove]

my personal experience I am much better at getting good grades than implementing the knowledge into a usable fashion.

He doesn't make a good point though and neither do you really.

Implementing knowledge into an usable fashion is a feature of thinking and I believe in this context you're referring to extroverted thinking,

Things like envisioning a desired end result, planning, accessing stored knowledge, and implementing, following through with the feedback system ... this isn't extraverted perceiving it's introverted perceiving coupled with extraverted judging (aka ~~~J).

For a P type to exhibit this kind of behaviour necessarily relies on effective use of the tertiary or inferior function so it is safe to say that in all likelihood J types will probably be more efficient and sophisticated in its demonstration.

The part that makes it erroneous is that he is contrasting NP and NJ on the axis of idea generation vs. idea reproduction.

 

[scorpiomover]

All this NJ<>NP talk...

Mainly because there's a ton of people on the internet, who claim to be INTJs, INFJs, and INTPs, who have this personal war on about who is smarter. Like it matters. I've sat MBTI exams for sales jobs. Never for a field that required technical proficiency. We can test for technical proficiency very easily. We just get real techies to talk to the candidates, and the techies will know if the candidates answer like they know what they're talking about, or if they're just BSing to people who don't know enough to know they don't know what they're talking about. So this "I'm smarter" part of MBTI is usually more ego-stroking, which happens a LOT on the internet.

Personally, I look at the behaviour of the majority of the people with the same MBTI type, what ideas they produce, and how they handle it, to judge intelligence.

A smart person who finds his theory has been blown out of the water is not fazed, because he knows that he can come up with 10 more, and 10 more, until one is right. He does not need to defend his ideas. He just keeps coming up with better ideas.

 

[scorpiomover]

The part that makes it erroneous is that he is contrasting NP and NJ on the axis of idea generation vs. idea reproduction.

idea generation vs. idea application.

 

[QuickTwist]

uurgh, I'm an INTX actually.

Yeah, but my ultimate excuse is that MBTI is fake anyways. SO why agreeing? why agreeing on something that doesnt and will never have a truth objectivity?

I'm pretty convinced that IN*Ps are smarter than IN*J. point. I don't need a great understanding of MBTI or Jung's theoreis to be aware of something as obvious as this.

INTJ are just too realist in their approach of things. Too practical and too efficiency oriented to really be tha genius. They narrow the possibilities to the known ones. While INTPs go way further. They seek. everyday. all the time. Ya know. And that is the ultimate hallmark of smartness anyways.

Yeah dude... whatever the argument, I'm right lol. Echec et maths.
Seriously though... The great thing about pseudoscientifical bullshit is that anyone, whatever their knowledge can be right. Wether the argument is fallacious or not. I find it funny to use myself as the experiment.


Lol Goku... I empathize greatly with you genius comment.


SO you should eventually check my posts.. I even doubt myself.



I find INJ to be too normal; seriously( While INP tend to stand out). They are just too normal. An normal people can't naturally understand the world.

-->1° What I intuitively get is that environmental informations(= understanding of the world) are collected by the main extroverted function( Fe, Ne,Te,Se). Of the 4 functions Ne vortex is largely the best.(so ENTP>ENTJ and ENFP>ENJ in terms of smartness). THus in terms of information gathering INTP and ENTP are the champions.(that's why we are better researcher and brainstormers than NTJ.)

-->2nd: Ni, Ti,Fi, Si... are like the processors of the gathered information. Now here are things becoming more complex. Ni is fast, mysterious, flexible, holistic, integrative and analyze Fe/Te informations multidimensionally.... sure, while Ti although slow and linear is the most accurate and precise function, don't forget that. I prefer Ti over Ni. But I can't objectively say which one confers the greatest intellectual powers. My guess is: it depends from the task. INTJs are empiricist scientists. INTP are researchers.
SO we have Ne>Te and Fe; than we have Ni=Ti. INTP wins.

anyways... INTX is better. But what is INTX? INTP who get things done or lazy or hesitant INTJ?
I was INTP, my job is turning me into a hyperdecisive INTJ. SO INTJ inside my job; INTP outside of it. Bit frustrating and exhausting.

I made my previous comment addressing what was initially said way too soon. It seems like you have a pretty good understanding of what it all means. I don't believe I need to make an apology however badly I feel it would help but I am totally on board with these comments.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am sorry, you have made your choice. I will probably ignore your posts from now on so I will give you that much though.

 

[Fukyo]

QuickTwist, you do have a tendency to see animosity and overreact when someone questions or criticizes your posts.

That said, I've split this little conflict between you and Base groove, so please don't derail here any more.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18981