Intelligence is specialization

[Ex-User (5841)]

YOU HAVE TO ZOOM OUT MORE!

^Title of my autobiography.

So what's your goal here?

 

[clockwork]

So what's your goal here?

I have the need to put my theories out there.

(And I have this optimistic insanity to think I can do that here.)

 

[clockwork]

Apparently, the OP does not know about lateral thinking and that a broad set of knowledge is required for this creative endeavor. Read the latest Scientific American Mind on genius, genius.

You equate creativity with intelligence, but one can be intelligent without being creative at all.
(if you count all kinds of intelligence such as emotional, kinesthetic, etc
as was the case I presented in my OP)

If I may skip political correctness, and use stereotyping without offending any F here >> Creativity is an Ne thing, and thus not all types are creative in the Ne way.
That does not mean that the opposite type, the uncreative Si type, cannot be intelligent.
An Si type can for example be very intelligent in keeping/saving stuff that was created by others. After years of learning how to "keep stuff" it will be very good at that! (e.g. if its intelligent).

P.S. Maybe you are an uncreative Si , and my theories hurt your precious worldview, as you are just very intelligent in keeping as much as you can from your favorite magazine, and don't like it if my creativity burns it all. (Just trolling, its a joke, don't take serious. It's not personal at all, the joke just has an enlightening core here which serves as more abstract explanation to what I want to put out there).

P.S.2: You really have to zoom out MORE to understand my theory. (that probably requires Ne/Ni anyway, I was hoping that this is present here).

 

[redbaron]

Yawn. Another N-dom with poorly developed auxiliary trying to convince everyone of the far-reaching greatness of their ideas. How original.

Maybe your Ti just isn't developed enough to realise that this new, "theory" is not even a new idea or even remotely well thought out to be meaningful (Just trolling, its a joke, don't take serious. It's not personal at all, the joke just has an enlightening core here which serves as more abstract explanation to what I want to put out there).

I guess you're just another Ne-dom with a whole lot of creativity and no real intelligence. Too bad. I was hoping as an ENTP you might be able to display some Ti.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

ideas.

"theory"

real intelligence.

Stop projecting your arbitrary values.

 

[clockwork]

I guess you're just another Ne-dom with a whole lot of creativity and no real intelligence. Too bad. I was hoping as an ENTP you might be able to display some Ti.

1) Mix up of the word intelligence again:
The kind of intelligence you are referring to is Reasoning. For a Ti this is the highest form of intelligence, but it is for example low in emotional intelligence. As you could have logically deducted from my OP: I was talking about all kinds of intelligence, not just Ti/reasoning.

2) All types are intelligent in their own way, no need to dish out on another type. Dishing out on me in this case >> If I make a joke out of myself, just for explanatory purposes for you guys, to show that I understand that my Ne is stronger than my Ti, it doesn't mean I am an extreme Ne-lunatic without Ti. I just honestly tell you guys that I am ENTP, and why. Thus by definition of being an ENTP I will never have enough Ti to be an INTP. (unless I would give up being an ENTP, but I don't think so as I haven't seen anybody able to change type, in my life experience)
Also there is nothing better/higher-value about being balanced in Ne/Ti, or being extreme in either end of Ti or Ne. All are specialists of their own kind, with their own advantages/disadvantages (yes even the extreme lunatic with extreme Ne).
This is the main thing I am trying to put out there with my theory, but its just not reaching you.

3) In your worldview you are probably also under the illusion that you can "develop your xx function", which is wrong & impossible for a human. (one can only learn to socially simulate the outward symptons of a function, but one cannot attain the real function as that would change your entire type, and humans that change type have not been observed in real life and have not been around in any time of recorded human history).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hello there unwarranted feeling of superiority and need to find faults in other people so that there is no need to consider their criticism.

Why is it always the mediocre ones...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Hello there unwarranted feeling of superiority and need to find faults in other people so that there is no need to consider their criticism.

Why is it always the mediocre ones...

Who are you accusing here? (Because I can see how... nearly everyone ITT could be accused).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well sure everyone is guilty to some degree or perhaps even the same, nevertheless, people are less obvious about it than this here guy clockwork.

P.S. Maybe you are an uncreative Si , and my theories hurt your precious worldview, as you are just very intelligent in keeping as much as you can from your favorite magazine, and don't like it if my creativity burns it all. (Just trolling, its a joke, don't take serious. It's not personal at all, the joke just has an enlightening core here which serves as more abstract explanation to what I want to put out there).

P.S.2: You really have to zoom out MORE to understand my theory. (that probably requires Ne/Ni anyway, I was hoping that this is present here).

Everyone who doesn't get him are either politically correctness obsessed S-types, unable to zoom out MORE, uncreative Si-types, or why not this:

In your worldview you are probably also under the illusion that you can "develop your xx function", which is wrong & impossible for a human. (one can only learn to socially simulate the outward symptons of a function, but one cannot attain the real function as that would change your entire type, and humans that change type have not been observed in real life and have not been around in any time of recorded human history).

Wait.. what? Developing ones functions is the same as attaining new ones? You can't actually switch functions is that the point? Cause everyone fucking knows that.

 

[redbaron]

That moment when the Ne-doms are too busy being defensive to zoom out far enough to see the abstract point being made

I guess it's to be expected from an unintelligent Ne.

On a more serious note, if you can be intelligent without being creative, can you be creative without being intelligent?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The amount of cognitive dissonance ITT puts the size of whale baculums to shame.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

That moment when the Ne-doms are too busy being defensive to zoom out far enough to see the abstract point being made

I guess it's to be expected from an unintelligent Ne.

On a more serious note, if you can be intelligent without being creative, can you be creative without being intelligent?

ideas.

"theory"

real intelligence.

All of this is complete over-rated bunk that you not only seem to value, but seem to think that others value to the point that it can be used to harm them or threaten their egos.

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.

It must really suck to still be in the stage where mountains don't look like mountains.

 

[redbaron]

Come on Habi, you're better than this.

Take a look at the literary devices used by clockwork in post #103. Now take a look at the ones I used in post #104.

I figured it would be abundantly clear given that it was the first post after his, and that by drawing parallels between the similar literary styles, one would also draw parallels between the flawed reasoning being used in both posts. I mean, I even copied this part of clockwork's post word for word:

(Just trolling, its a joke, don't take serious. It's not personal at all, the joke just has an enlightening core here which serves as more abstract explanation to what I want to put out there).

Apparently your Ne isn't developed enough to understand

Spoiler

I'm joking, un-knot those knickers.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

 

[The Void]

Intelligence is knowing there is nothing as intelligence, only stupidity expressing itself in different forms. Just an irrelevant random line written by some bored passer by.

 

[QuickTwist]

Intelligence is knowing what to do.

 

[Base groove]

but one cannot attain the real function as that would change your entire type, and humans that change type have not been observed in real life and have not been around in any time of recorded human history.

Logic fail, of the highest order.

Your ideas are great, maybe you should stop trying to rationalize them and just let them be the way they are.

You're "more right" before you try to explain why.

Over and over and over, in this thread and others, this is your pattern.

You have to take the time to explain things properly or else it wasn't worth the effort at all. Any hotshot ENTP can claim that if you're not with them immediately it's because you lack vision .... but I don't see these hotshot ENTPs explaining themselves with any conviction ~ you're nothing special.

INTPs follow reasoning and logic more than they follow inspiration and imagination. The job of your Ti is to make sense of your big ideas; you can't just ignore that facet because you favor Ne.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Logic fail, of the highest order.

Peer-reviewed empirical evidence of people changing type...?

You have to take the time to explain things properly or else it wasn't worth the effort at all. Any hotshot ENTP can claim that if you're not with them immediately it's because you lack vision .... but I don't see these hotshot ENTPs explaining themselves with any conviction ~ you're nothing special.

Generally in order to get an explanation you need to ask for it. (I'm guessing you weren't specific enough here for clockwork's... expectations isn't the right word, but it's the general gist. I could probably take a stab at... actually...).

While I accept there are many facets to intelligence, I dispute your reasoning that each kind of intelligence is exclusive to a certain type or function. It's not true.

It could be. The functions are defined nebulously at best as it is. But we could examine the products of functions with a quick factorial: 8 functions yield 255 total possible permutations with size 1-8, assuming shadow functions both exist ubiquitously and are complete.

Does kinesthetic intelligence equate to pure Se, or does it equate to a broader category of synergistic effects with other functions? It's a fuzzy set. The sum of all Se synergy is fundamentally Se.

Muh mountains!

That is considered neurotic by some other people.

*Direct .pdf download

Neuroticism isn't incompatible with intelligence, just intelligence testing. Discussion at bottom of 593.

"the only way" ... just, why? Where did you get that idea? Do you really believe it?

This is true. There's a nice conical gradient ranging from specialization to generalization very similar to the structure within trophic population dynamics. Generalists are capable of filling the role of a specialist if the specialist falters and dies, but they aren't capable of directly outcompeting the specialist. In the same vein, specialists often die because they aren't as flexible as generalists. Mesopredator release is the standard ecological example here.

Intelligence = Specialization

One that does not specialize and tries to practice all types and have a bit of all will actually lose from everyone: The Ti specialist will crush him in logic. The Te specialist will run over him. etc

Wondering what is so different about being crushed vs being run over? Even your metaphors are inconsistent and yield no higher insight.

Basically what I get from that is that Te is the applied version of Ti.

 

[clockwork]

clockwork: Thus it is sticking to a type and becoming a specialist (the best) in that type which is considered intelligent
base groove: That is considered neurotic by some other people.

( Neurotic is catch-all term nowadays, but I guess you mean it in a Jungian sense, since this is an MBTI-related forum: )
In my theory neurotic episodes are local optimums of your neural network. A deadlock situation where you are stuck (no adaptation possible, since it reached the optimum) if you only go in the direction of your type's feedback (and thats all you have). So the only way to get out is through going back (against your feedback), thus through a lot of pain (e.g. your feedback will send pain/wrong/error to your neural network). Since it goes against your feedback, you need force from elsewhere (others, another individual or another higher power / collective as in religion/therapy).
Neurotic people are people who can think normally but are just stuck (and thus get depressed). They are beached whales, they need other types to push them out, since their own type-direction only points to the beach

The problem with the word neurotic in popular terms is that it also refers to emotional instability, like emotional roller coaster kind of people. In that definition I would like to give another explanation. But the above is a nice story about my theory again, so I chose that one

 

[clockwork]

While I accept there are many facets to intelligence, I dispute your reasoning that each kind of intelligence is exclusive to a certain type or function. It's not true.

OK, I can agree with you that these "popular types of intelligence" are not connected 1-on-1 on functions. For example: emotional intelligence can be a few functions, Fe, Fi, or maybe even Ne or Ni, it all depends on your definition of emotional intelligence (although kinesthetic would probably fit on Se best like someone else says).

But it is irrelevant to my theory how these types of intelligences match to functions exactly. My OP was not about defining what all those intelligence types are, I'm just roughly saying its something similar as saying there is 8 types of intelligence for every function (or 16 for every MBTI type, 9 enneagram types, or whatever model you want to use). I am not talking about specifics. I was talking about my intelligence theory which works with any personality model you want to put on top.

So the conclusion is: you are just derailing this thread, by going into unnecessary details and taking attention away from the core of the idea. Maybe you cannot zoom out? Not N enough? I'm just kidding here, but if you don't see that every type can be intelligent in their own way, then not me, but you have actually insulted a lot of people. (good luck with being the superior type all alone.)

 

[pernoctator]

But it is irrelevant to my theory how these types of intelligences match to functions exactly. My OP was not about defining what all those intelligence types are, I'm just roughly saying its something similar as saying there is 8 types of intelligence for every function (or 16 for every MBTI type, 9 enneagram types, or whatever model you want to use). I am not talking about specifics. I was talking about my intelligence theory which works with any personality model you want to put on top.

It's not irrelevant. If you won't define a model then your theory is meaningless, because it's intrinsically dependent on the amount/distribution of intelligence types.

Supposing 8 "options", consider a "balanced" person to a specialist (percentages are the degree to which they "ignore all other options"):

Balanced:
A: 12.5%
B: 12.5%
C: 12.5%
D: 12.5%
E: 12.5%
F: 12.5%
G: 12.5%
H: 12.5%

Specialized:
A: 20%
B: 20%
C: 20%
D: 20%
E: 5%
F: 5%
G: 5%
H: 5%

Your theory says the second person is more intelligent, because he is more specialized in A/B/C/D.

Now suppose we "ZOOM OUT" to a purer model with only 4 categories (W X Y Z) which relates to the first model like this:

W = A/E
X = B/F
Y = C/G
Z = D/H

The same people would be considered as follows:

Balanced:
W: 25%
X: 25%
Y: 25%
Z: 25%

Specialized:
W: 25%
X: 25%
Y: 25%
Z: 25%

Now they are both equally unintelligent non-specialists.

 

[QuickTwist]

That looks like the workings of a mathematical joke. Well done.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yeah that example is exploiting a very specific scenario that does not reflect the entire spectrum.

Also you are comparing balanced to specialist so whilst they are both 25%, they are not actually equal.

That's like filling two cups with liquid, only one is water and the other is apple juice and then you claim them to be the same...

 

[pernoctator]

Yeah that example is exploiting a very specific scenario that does not reflect the entire spectrum.

It's an extreme to demonstrate the problem that exists across the entire spectrum. Other scenarios will not result in the two people being exactly equal, but it will still change the relationship. Without consistent measurement units, any value is meaningless.

Also you are comparing balanced to specialist so whilst they are both 25%, they are not actually equal.

That's like filling two cups with liquid, only one is water and the other is apple juice and then you claim them to be the same...

Yes, that's the point. You can always break anything into any arbitrary number of categories. Given apples, oranges, water, and apple juice, we could say that there are four categories, or two (solids and liquids), and so on. All of these are valid, and it normally doesn't matter which level of specificity you are looking at because everything scales uniformly. But this is not the case for clockwork's theory, because he's talking about distributing a finite resource across every category. Thus, he can't claim that the division of categories is irrelevant.

Put another way: Clockwork is trying to determine an absolute value based on the highest in a set of relative values. He fails to consider that the highest value is undefined because there are multiple sets of relative values that are simultaneously valid.

 

[Base groove]

So the conclusion is: you are just derailing this thread, by going into unnecessary details and taking attention away from the core of the idea. Maybe you cannot zoom out? Not N enough? I'm just kidding here, but if you don't see that every type can be intelligent in their own way, then not me, but you have actually insulted a lot of people. (good luck with being the superior type all alone.)

... but, that's not what I said, at all.

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Cherry Cola]

Hes an intj according to his profile

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Base groove]

So your response is to go around typing Ni-doms as INFP because you don't quite understand the function. meh.

It's a 'no true scotsman'. More stereotyping.

At any rate.... your conclusion in this post is not logically valid. Just because I agree that different types can be intelligent in their own way, doesn't mean I agree that each type has only one kind of intelligence that they have natural proficiency with.

It also doesn't mean I agree that the correct course of action is to specialize in one type of intelligence that might be correlated to your dominant function.

It's possible I disagree with you without resorting to the straw-man. It's possible you have not interpreted me correctly.

Re: details. Don't complain about the fact that people might comb through your posts and look for mistakes that cause leaps and bounds in your reasoning structure, checking for consistency, etc. I'm not pointing out unnecessary details I'm pointing out critical errors that (if remedied) cause a fundamental change in the entire structure of your arguments. Thus, it's actually not nitpicking the way you say it is.

Geez, next you're going to start quoting me and changing the content. "you won't earn respect that way".

Why did you come here if you did not want to have your ideas examined? To set free a bunch of ideas you have without checking to see if they're any good or even ready to be spread around? ohhh such a catalyst for change you are.

 

[Base groove]

Anyway how about you prove your point for once, clockwork?

Find me 3 examples of unnecessary nitpicking in this thread (or, even, any of your threads).

Find one, even. Find one case where I posted something that was detail oriented, missed the "big picture", totally unnecessary, didn't change anything, was just nitpicking .. yeah you get the idea. Prove that I do exactly what you say I do. Prove it.

You don't have to explain anything just do your best not to butcher the truth, and try to look at things objectively.

If you can't do this then how about you stfu...

 

[Cherry Cola]

INTJ? Impossible match with what I have noticed. Thats not how is acting at all here. INTJs are Ni-doms, thus they are uber-discrete and hide. If I would annoy them they simply skip the thread. Such a display of nitpicking as Base Groove displays is a total waste of time for an INTJ. INTJs are totally not nitpickers on what goes on in a new thread with a new person. INTJs would just scan for something nice, and if not they simply skip/leave. Also taking things personally is the last thing an INTJ would do. INTJs are about as impersonal as you can get.

Dude, you fucking suck at typing.

 

[Base groove]

Dude, you fucking suck at typing.

Auxiliary Ti dude. Forget at ever getting through to this guy.

Just let him shit his ideas everywhere. He will follow the same natural progression as every other ENTP who encounters insubordination.

Inevitably there will be a meltdown of sorts and a rebuilding where he comes back quieter and more intelligent, with all the same levels of narcissism but more disdain and contempt, which ironically makes him fit in more, thus reinforcing the change, and this version of clockwork will be buried in time.

Have to give some credit to Ne (the moment when it binds with another function)

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Base groove]

thats quite a good description of what you guys are trying to do: insubordinate me!

anyway, i expected some fire ,as i know i would not be loved if i start saying people are not the type they think they are. we will make this new law: that you should never re-type someone as its not a proper thing to do to take them out of their illusion…or make them even rethink their type… as a proud INFP should stay in its rose-colored INFP illusion

thats a joke and i don't know you good enough to type either of you. But both of you displayed Fi to me for sure, it could be that I am just an uber-asshole (an uber-asshole in text, thats super evil) and that I just get you in this Fi-mood, and you normally never get to that mood. and its just me doing this! That could be…
But your proposed self-typing of INTJ (base groove) and INFJ (cherry cola), both Ni doms, are types with almost the lowest chance of displaying such behavior! Both of you have shown quite different signs than Ni. But yeah, don't listen to an asshole with no manners of course…. just scold him and make him go away

Ah this was much better before you edited in all the bullshit. Foolish.

There is no law against typing people - it's more like prison law, you can't let bitches push you around. You're not making a case for anything now you're just being outright stupid.

That you expect a Ni-dom to "show" Ni, well, I don't mean to nit-pick but Ni isn't really a show-off type of function the way Ne is, go back to the drawing board.

I wish there was some way to crack your skull from here (JOKING ofc.)

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[pernoctator]

constraint 1) The model needs to have functions/nodes/elements that are equally spread over the territory (of the psychological spectrum of all types).

You will definitely need to explain that better. More importantly, give which, if any, existing models do fit your constraint... and if none do, propose a new one.

My example was deliberately unspecific and contrived, but I don't see how it couldn't apply to real models. For example, someone with strong "feeling" intelligence can appear specialized according to an MBTI breaktown, but may appear "balanced" when you pull back and categorize as simply introverted versus extroverted.

As a geometric example of that: In a model of 4 elements/functions, in 3D space: A tetrahedron (a triangular pyramid) of which the 4 corners represent the functions/elements (distance between all points is the same, distance to middle is the same for all points, the middle being the philosophical impossible void of non-existence).

The problem, described according to your geometric example, is that you are not measuring distance to the middle. You are measuring the distance between the nodes, which changes depending on the number of nodes. Any measurements can only be meaningful within one specific model / group of nodes... so which one is it?

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[Cherry Cola]

thats quite a good description of what you guys are trying to do: insubordinate me!

bravo, quite important work you guys do here on this forum.

anyway, i expected some fire ,as i knew in advance that i would not be loved if i start saying people are not the type they think they are. you guys are the reason for this new law: that you should never re-type someone as its not a proper thing to do to take them out of their illusion…or make them even rethink their type… especially a proud INFP should stay in its rose-colored INFP illusion of whatever wrong type they choose (or you get the INFPs Fi fire all over you)

thats just a joke of course, as i don't know you good enough to type either of you as INFP for sure. But both of you displayed Fi to me for sure, it could be that I am just an uber-asshole (an uber-asshole in text, thats super evil) and that I just get you in this Fi-mood, and you normally never get to that mood. and its just me doing this! That could be… As I am pretty much of an uber-asshole stating theories without telling you all the details behind it in like 200 pages, writing it properly, in publisher-ready style. As should be done if one wants to pitch his theory according to you guys.
But your proposed self-typing of INTJ (base groove) and INFJ (cherry cola), are both Ni doms. And Ni-doms are types with almost the lowest chance of displaying such behavior! Ni-s erase all their trails and make sure there is never something bad left (this includes bitching and derailing and that kind of stuff). Both of you have shown quite different signs than Ni, at least to me.

But yeah, don't listen to an asshole with no manners of course…. just scold him and make him go away


its also my fault that i took the bait. I should have acted like a (real) Ni, ignore, erase and leave. those real Ni-guys are uber-smart you know

You've recently discovered MBTI or recently taken your understanding of MBTI to another high. Now you're riding the high of your newly acquired knownledge and you're eager to put it to test on everything and everyone around you as if though were it a new exciting toy put in the hands of a kid with ADHD. You think you spot one little factor of something and you jump to conclusions there and then, someone disagrees with you and thinks you're stupid>He upset>He Fi>He INFP. As you go through this mental process your brain fills everything in for you so that it fits in perfectly with what you know, it keeps the high going it keeps your strawhut steady as a brickhouse, it feels right. This happens to a lot of people who encounter MBTI, especially N-doms.

Problem is they (and you) are just confirming their own mental framework, not the world around them. You don't actually know me or Base Groove. What seems like Fi to you might not be because you can't tell the intentionality of someone you don't know to begin with. You don't know what we are thinking, why we write the way we do etc. This ambiguity doesn't go along with your current state of hubris though, so naturally you pigeonhole us into what you need us to be, g2 stay high.

All in all pretty much everything you're doing is acting like a dopefiend.

 

[pernoctator]

@clockwork Let me try to explain again.

- You are measuring the strength of the nodes, and saying that weakening (or "ignoring" or "limiting") one allows another to be stronger. So as nodes are added or removed, strength is redistributed.

- You assign an intelligence value based on the strongest node.

So how can you guarantee a constant intelligence value when calculated against different sets of nodes?

the nodes have to be equally spread in both versions, in both the before model and after model of your halving of the functions.

I still don't understand how "equally spread" relates to anything concrete, but in any case this doesn't eliminate my example. How do you know they aren't? Imagine the first model as an octagon with consecutive vertices A-E-B-F-C-G-D-H, all equidistant. The second model would be a square made of the midpoints between AE, BF, CG, DH. All vertices are still equidistant from each other and the center.

 

[QuickTwist]

http://youtu.be/UAyh23l1mx4

 

[TBerg]

If everyone has eight functions operating somewhere in their conscious or unconscious, and each function pushes or pulls the other, then it is impossible for someone to have an absolutely pure type of intelligence. It would mean that the absolute center of your ego was consciously suppressing all insights that come from anywhere else. Even severely autistic people, or indeed type one psychopaths, would find this narrow definition of their psyches pretty ridiculous. That would mean that INTPs were incapable of any form of love, and ESFJs would be incapable of rationality. That is a patently absurd portrayal of psychological reality. You cannot operate if you don't have all eight functions somewhere in your psyche. I mean, Ti needs things to organize and Ne needs something to put a sticker on. I stand by my supposition.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Prediction: ITT clockwork discovers both the awesome power of the whiteboard and the futility of attempting to translate visual whiteboard concepts to forum posts.

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[pernoctator]

How does any of that solve the ambiguity of your theory?

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[clockwork]

-

 

[TBerg]

Yes you have 4 out of 8 functions IN YOUR UNCONSCIOUS. That means they are SUPPRESSED to be able to have the other 4 in your conscious mind! This is by definition by the creator of the functions (our friend Jung). See psychological types and other books.

Autistic people might be extreme Ti-doms, so Ti that they almost have no perception function (they say they are mind-blind). Autistic people actually don't know much about love, they are known for almost no positive or negative empathy

all ESFJs are low on logic by definition, as this is the only way to have more of feeling, and ESFJs who are extreme Fe really know almost no logic (you called it rationality) same thing.

By your definition then, autistic people are the only ones capable of having pure intelligence, but even their psyches would be admixtures. All psyches are admixtures, which means that no psyche can be completely intelligent without losing the corrupting influence of all seven other functions. I have read the relevant chapter in Psychological Types, along with hundreds of other pages of Freud and Jung.

Your ideal intelligence is just impossible. That's all. We will always be admixtures.

 

[clockwork]

-