o_19kdfsn0q18e31dfraas1esh19vta.pdf

INTJs and the Intellect
I.Q. Testing and Type
Many people avoid discussing the relationship between type and I.Q. because they assume that
people can't deal with the truth. Unfortunately, the silence of the experts has led to rampant
speculation instead of fact-based discussion. The internet is full of arrogant type bigots (see
Appendix 2) and people with crushed self esteem who either believe their type is particularly smart
or particularly dumb. However, they are both wrong.
We do not know if type is related to intelligence. However, type is related to your ability to score
high on an I.Q., SAT, or ACT test. Here's the rub: intelligence is not precisely the same thing as a
high I.Q. score.
You probably think I'm just being politically correct, but no, I'm a Rational. Are we known for that?
Let's get real here: it may still be unknown whether type is related to intelligence, but you can use
an I.Q. test instead of the Myers-Briggs to figure out a person's type preferences. I.Q. tests measure
abstract reasoning skill (Intuition), the ability to solve problems alone and silently within your head
(Introversion), the ability to think objectively about non-people oriented problems (Thinking),
flexibility in solving never-before-seen problems (Perceiving), and the ability to work swiftly (N—
I’ll explain later). There is nothing new here; all of this is predicted by type theory.
And indeed, the more of those preferences you have, the higher your score on an aptitude test (SAT,
ACT, I.Q., etc.) is likely to be. Introverts tend to do better than Extraverts. Intuitives tend to do
better than Sensors. Thinkers are slightly preferred over Feelers. Perceivers have an advantage
over Judgers. These are average trends, of course, but they all add up to a clear ranking based on
personality characteristics.
For this reason, INTPs are predicted to do the best of all types on I.Q. tests, 189 with INTJs and
ENTPs right behind. Does this mean they actually are more intelligent than average? We don't
know. And in fact, studies of type and I.Q. have produced variable results, which we will look into
shortly. Furthermore, while INTPs are predicted to do best on aptitude tests (this means all general
ability tests such as the SAT, ACT, etc. not just I.Q. tests), a survey of studies actually found that
INTJs scored slightly better than INTPs, though in general Perceivers did outscore Judgers. 190
So, things are complicated. What we do know is that the very format of an aptitude or I.Q. test
introduces confounding factors that tend to give types with I, N, T or P preferences a leg up on
everybody else. Not to say that I.Q. tests are completely worthless, but there are strong type-based
biases that may result in junk data. (Remember the Lego man test? Can you imagine how the
parameters of that test could be tweaked to prove that one type or another was the "most
intelligent"?)
Let's take Mozart, the Artisan child prodigy who couldn't have looked less like Einstein, the INTP
paragon of our cultural definition of intelligence. Mozart was a frighteningly brilliant guy, but his
brilliance would have been shortchanged by our current I.Q. tests, which measure type as well as
genuine intelligence. In fact, type strongly determines how intelligence is expressed. An Artisan
genius won't work math problems; they will make music. An Idealist genius won't do shop work;
they will write literature. Mozart may have been able to compose original music at age 5, but that
189 Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998
190 Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998