Keirsey tactical vs strategic: S(P) vs NT and IQ

[ENTP lurker]

NTs and their IQ get readily touted on the internet and among their social sphere. However, modern IQ system puts lot of importance on performance, straightforwardness...

See thread from archive:
http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16639


ISTPs I know usually have very high IQ. Those tests are like made for them. Ti combined with Se here and now problem solving. Games like chess (referred as stragedy) are still largely tactics based.

The thing with ISTPs is that their Ni is not very long range. I have seen loads of ISTP writings and videos where they try to conceptualize in long term. Eventually it all falls flat. The connections are short or too narrow and based on experiences more than models etc.


SOCIONICS BASED ANALYSIS
In socionics ISTP is the ultimate human computer. They rely on TiSi loops (where Ti logic is checking the Si database with Se willpower). Many ISTPs type themselves as INTJs because they would like to be good in Ni. INTPs rely on TiNi loops (logic projecting towards models and symbolism long term outcome looking for Ne possibilities). As a result they love to dissect information, compare and reflect on it. IQ tests are not optimized for this kind of intelligence.
As an ENTP I tend to supervise ISTP false potential.

Keirsey strategist vs tactics

People usually call me ingenious, wizard, intelligent, original still my IQ is just around 120. My brain is not readily quantifiable.

Ashkenazi Jews the Nobel prize people (with disproportionate number of NTs?) are somewhat high on IQ, they tend to lack in immediate (tactical) intelligence but are excellent in fields where immediacy is largely downplayed. They survived in Europe using stragedist skills.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

Re: Keirsey tactical vs stragedic: S(P) vs NT and IQ

I actually took an IQ test. One of the sections I didn't agree with was about fact recall. Fact recall shouldn't be included in an IQ test. ENxPs that might have brilliant pattern recognition could fall flat at that. I understand the train of thought, but it seems like something based on savant level recall or something, I don't think it should fall under IQ. I can't fully explain it but, yeah. That, combined with other sections like symbol copying and whatnot are rather stupid also, imo. Also, speed is factored in. You could ace the test but if you take a minute a question, you could score lower than somebody who got half right inmediately.

Now I don't want to debate the validity or necessity of IQ sections or methods, but In terms of functional performance and intelligence, I would say this:

ISTP and INTJ share Ni, but the INTJs Ni is up front and is always concocting things, the ISTP's Ni is a long term, occasional function. Ti and Se would likely make the ISTP good at pattern recognition given enough time, whereas the INTJ is going to get pattern recognition faster, but still possibly delayed. The INTJ merely has to stare at it, whereas the ISTP is going to puzzle through it and might succeed faster. The INTP is going to immediately get vibes into the patterns or tasks, but won't be certain until after careful study. The ISTP will approach each task to check each specific bit before grasping the entirety, the INTP is going to grasp 3 or 4 likely solutions and then narrow it down as they check each section.

Idk, just guesswork I guess. Ramblings.

 

[Alias]

Re: Keirsey tactical vs stragedic: S(P) vs NT and IQ

I usually think about tactics vs. strategy. Tactics would be techniques, like firing skill. Strategy is a plan, a process. Tactics uses the root tact, meaning physical and hands-on. Strategy uses strata, meaning categories and classifications. A video game tactic is Solid Snake hiding in a box. A video game strategy is Team Fortress players assigning each other roles and going for high-priority objectives and kills.

Thanks for this rant opportunity.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Keirsey tactical vs stragedic: S(P) vs NT and IQ

Tactic is action. Strategy is command. I don't think there's a more succinct distinction. Would love to be proved wrong though.

Anyway i suck at both. Insert typology.