Intelligence

[Fallenman]

It seems to be a common theme amongst INTP's that while we are generally above average, it seems to be the case that our peers constantly state that we are vastly more intelligent than we ourselves think we are.

All comments to above statement aside, I wonder do you think perhaps it is that we are just intelligent enough to recognize that we actually know very little? We are very capable people, but perhaps our intelligence gives us the ability to distinguish between true genius, and average intelligence, which the average populace is ignorant of.

Or maybe I'm really a genius and just need to gain some confidence .

 

[Coolydudey60]

I think we have the level of the intelligence to realize that even we, aren't really that smart. We are nothing more than just a little bit above aveage, and a lot less than a true genius. Or at least that's what i Think...

 

[BigApplePi]

Fallenman this is a sort of contrary opinion, not a direct response to what you say.

It's my understanding that there should be as many people of 90 I.Q. or less as 110 I.Q. and above. Who is to say a person with 80 I.Q. cannot be an INTP? I could visualize them thinking a lot about very shallow things, listening to others talk about astrology, being clumsy and reclusive. They might still be an INTP. Just because a person thinks doesn't mean they think well.

Otherwise INTP's are much smarter than Exxx's, xSxx's, xxFx's, and xxxJ's.

 

[Fallenman]

lol why do you say we're smarter than xxxJ's?

 

[Glordag]

Fallenman this is a sort of contrary opinion, not a direct response to what you say.

It's my understanding that there should be as many people of 90 I.Q. or less as 110 I.Q. and above. Who is to say a person with 80 I.Q. cannot be an INTP? I could visualize them thinking a lot about very shallow things, listening to others talk about astrology, being clumsy and reclusive. They might still be an INTP. Just because a person thinks doesn't mean they think well.

Otherwise INTP's are much smarter than Exxx's, xSxx's, xxFx's, and xxxJ's.

He asked about intelligence, not IQ.
(Edit: I guess your disclaimer kind of covers that. I just hate when people relate IQ and intelligence, I guess.)

I think the OP hit on a key point in that INTPs tend to have low confidence. Additionally, I think the fact that we tend to see things from multiple angles plays into this. If someone says "wow you're smart" to an INTP, the response might be something along the lines of "Naw, I just know how to move objects with my mind. I kind of suck at things like perception."

I think that INTPs are generally viewed as "intelligent" just because of how we speak and discuss things. We are generally very precise with our speech and approach things in an open ended manner. Those are traits that most people associate with intelligence. I'm not sure if I'm ready to say that most INTPs are genuinely "more intelligent" than other types. I'm not even entirely sure what that means .

 

[BigApplePi]

lol why do you say we're smarter than xxxJ's?

Because if xxxJ's say, "This is true" or "It must be this way", they are too #%*@ to realize it could go other ways and they can't see the alternatives can have truth also.

 

[BigApplePi]

He asked about intelligence, not IQ.
(Edit: I guess your disclaimer kind of covers that. I just hate when people relate IQ and intelligence, I guess.)

Then you will have to live with your hatred. I don't know why I picked I.Q. I suppose it's the most biased form of what people think intelligence is. Those who have the other kinds of intelligence can do awfully well with that but are recognized for musical ability, bodily skills, people skills, etc. and not intellectual intelligence even though they are intelligent.

I think the OP hit on a key point in that INTPs tend to have low confidence. Additionally, I think the fact that we tend to see things from multiple angles plays into this.

I would guess INTPs are vulnerable to lack of confidence because if they lack social skills, they are less able to promote things. People love to follow strong beliefs and people of action. INTP's don't ordinarily push those things.

 

[BigApplePi]

Or maybe I'm really a genius and just need to gain some confidence .

Yes that is a strong possibility. Why don't you think on that while others here think that over? After a week or so of combined efforts we may come up with something. If not, there will be a week's worth of thought to discuss.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

INTPs are not inherently intelligent. We just do not fully believe rationality and irrationality, the skepticism allows for the most eclectic and refined ideas to enter the mind of an INTP.

 

[snafupants]

Other people evaluating the INTP personality as intelligent probably relates to us being somewhat dogmatic and "showy" in our knowledge, or at least bookish in our approach. As far as rebuffing these claims, your guess is easily right: we do tend to differentiate between bright, very bright, near genius, and genius and, thus, be super aware of our own limitations and demarcations of certain labels given to us by others, or even whether those labels are valid.

 

[Fallenman]

I wonder though, perhaps we don't have the minds of a genius running a million miles a minute, but do you think there are pieces of information beyond our abilities to grasp? What I will allow is that as far as I can tell, there isn't anything i'm incapable of learning. And I daresay if I ran into such a subject, i'd be all the more fascinated for its difficulty (so long as I think its worth learning)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I wonder though, perhaps we don't have the minds of a genius running a million miles a minute, but do you think there are pieces of information beyond our abilities to grasp? What I will allow is that as far as I can tell, there isn't anything i'm incapable of learning.

Most definitely

What about 'incapable of perceiving'?

 

[Fallenman]

I don't think that, given all the relevant data, and having gone through the necessary process, there isn't much I am unable to grasp, but this is in regards to intelligence. I feel like there are plenty of things with regards to emotions that I am unable to learn. And physically, and all the other branches of intelligence. But concepts, abstract thought and the like... Things with regards to academia I excel on all fronts.

 

[BigApplePi]

I wonder though, perhaps we don't have the minds of a genius running a million miles a minute, but do you think there are pieces of information beyond our abilities to grasp? What I will allow is that as far as I can tell, there isn't anything i'm incapable of learning. And I daresay if I ran into such a subject, i'd be all the more fascinated for its difficulty (so long as I think its worth learning)

Ever pick up a text in advanced mathematics at Barnes and Noble? Go ahead. Take a look at one. I have and I have a degree in mathematics. I find it impossible to skim over what is there. Ten pages in and I am lost. One has to put in a great deal of study to grasp what is going on and have a good memory if some things are arbitrary and don't flow logically naturally. I lack that kind of memory. That's one reason why I failed to get a Ph.D. I couldn't bluff my way though it. I see a clear limitation to my intelligence.

 

[snafupants]

BigApple beat me to the punch. I was going to say that the mathematics behind quantum mechanics is over my head, and will probably always be. Theoretically, the concepts make sense - as far as they can make sense - but the mathematics, especially the cutting edge stuff - is beyond my capabilities at the moment and most likely all future moments.

This brings me to another question? Do folks think people are hardwired for either understanding words or numbers? That is, is there a predisposition, it could be learned I suppose, towards language or maths? For the exception of profound geniuses, it seems most poeple who excel in one area are relatively lackluster in the other. This of course is a generalization, but does it have merit? Isn't it fairly common to see a high verbal SAT score or a high quantitative SAT score, as opposed to 700s in both (granted this is just odds too)? If this has merit, what are the implications? One area of the brain dominating the other? Why are these physiologically systems mutually exclusive?

 

[BigApplePi]

BigApple beat me to the punch. I was going to say that the mathematics behind quantum mechanics is over my head, and will probably always be. Theoretically, the concepts make sense - as far as they can make sense - but the mathematics, especially the cutting edge stuff - is beyond my capabilities at the moment and most likely all future moments.

This brings me to another question? Do folks think people are hardwired for either understanding words or numbers? That is, is there a predisposition, it could be learned I suppose, towards language or maths? For the exception of profound geniuses, it seems most poeple who excel in one area are relatively lackluster in the other. This of course is a generalization, but does it have merit? Isn't it fairly common to see a high verbal SAT score or a high quantitative SAT score, as opposed to 700s in both (granted this is just odds too)? If this has merit, what are the implications? One area of the brain dominating the other? Why are these physiologically systems mutually exclusive?

snafupants. Well I'm glad I found someone who understands the situation. The mathematics behind quantum mechanics is not like knowing a movie or a post on this bulletin board or looking out the window. For the latter it's usually easy to have an opinion. Not so with the mentioned. One has to absorb a whole bunch of requirements and get them right. That is not easy. It's like climbing a mountain. Each step must be taken. No step can be omitted.

A less precise example is it's like learning a skill. One has to do lots of practice before mastery. Is this hardwired? Well SOMETHING is hardwired. I just wonder if anyone knows how to describe what that is?

 

[Glordag]

snafupants. Well I'm glad I found someone who understands the situation. The mathematics behind quantum mechanics is not like knowing a movie or a post on this bulletin board or looking out the window. For the latter it's usually easy to have an opinion. Not so with the mentioned. One has to absorb a whole bunch of requirements and get them right. That is not easy. It's like climbing a mountain. Each step must be taken. No step can be omitted.

A less precise example is it's like learning a skill. One has to do lots of practice before mastery. Is this hardwired? Well SOMETHING is hardwired. I just wonder if anyone knows how to describe what that is?

Seconded. My degree is in mathematics and physics. I was going for my Ph.D. in pure math and dropped out when I realized it's not what I wanted to do any longer (I was also going through a stressful period of my life, at the time). While my ego would like to say that I can learn anything, I now realize that there are certain concepts that I most certainly would not be able to grasp. I think it's naive to think otherwise.

 

[BigApplePi]

Seconded. My degree is in mathematics and physics. I was going for my Ph.D. in pure math and dropped out when I realized it's not what I wanted to do any longer (I was also going through a stressful period of my life, at the time). While my ego would like to say that I can learn anything, I now realize that there are certain concepts that I most certainly would not be able to grasp. I think it's naive to think otherwise.

Hi Glordag. That's a tough one. I hate to give up on not being able to grasp concepts. Concepts or involved proofs or what? If mathematics (my love was pure math but I had no creative ideas at all at the time) is made up of extremely simple steps each of which are easy, something else must be involved. I read or heard somewhere that a good teacher can get across most concepts. It could be the approach. Something wrong with the approach we take if we lack an interested teacher as a guide.

 

[Glordag]

Hi Glordag. That's a tough one. I hate to give up on not being able to grasp concepts. Concepts or involved proofs or what? If mathematics (my love was pure math but I had no creative ideas at all at the time) is made up of extremely simple steps each of which are easy, something else must be involved. I read or heard somewhere that a good teacher can get across most concepts. It could be the approach. Something wrong with the approach we take if we lack an interested teacher as a guide.

It wasn't that I couldn't understand the material in grad school, I just lacked the discipline and stability to do so at the time. I was very stressed, and I wasn't getting much sleep, had a hard time being motivated to study, etc. I guess my main point was that the difficulty of some of the more advanced undergraduate courses and grad courses illustrated to me that there absolutely -are- concepts I would not be able to understand, and plenty that take quite a bit of work to grasp.

Of those, I would say the abstract theory behind some of the more applied areas like advanced complex variables, calculus of variations, etc. were the worst. I also found my quantum theory of matter classes to be a pain, but luckily most of the tests/coursework didn't involve the moer difficult material. Still, trying to grasp some of the stuff in the reading material/practice exercises was rough...

 

[BigApplePi]

It wasn't that I couldn't understand the material in grad school, I just lacked the discipline and stability to do so at the time. I was very stressed, and I wasn't getting much sleep, had a hard time being motivated to study, etc. I guess my main point was that the difficulty of some of the more advanced undergraduate courses and grad courses illustrated to me that there absolutely -are- concepts I would not be able to understand, and plenty that take quite a bit of work to grasp.

Of those, I would say the abstract theory behind some of the more applied areas like advanced complex variables, calculus of variations, etc. were the worst. I also found my quantum theory of matter classes to be a pain, but luckily most of the tests/coursework didn't involve the moer difficult material. Still, trying to grasp some of the stuff in the reading material/practice exercises was rough...

Glordag when I went to grad school I dropped out also. I was unable to study being seduced by being away from home for the first time. All the distractions there and the availability of women had me not wanting to study. Some of the math courses repeated my undergrads and others couldn't arouse my interest.

I've lost you though when you say, "there absolutely -are- concepts I would not be able to understand." I Googled calculus of variations and don't understand what couldn't be understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations

If you don't mean what the calculus of variations is for, do you mean proofs, theorems created, tricks to get to the proofs or what? I want to claim that with suitable guidance (and motivation) you could get to those concepts. Of course without motivation due to whatever, then understanding could never be achieved.

Personally I believe I (and you) should be able to understand anything (conceptually) someone else can understand provided (1) I want to, (2) it doesn't take more time than I have available, and (3) I have the physical tools. Am I wrong?