PHQ | QUESTIONS: Personality | Ethics | IQ | Emotional Intelligence

29 comments

• 

  • Foday
  • August 27, 2015 at 9:11 am

  It is simple really…
  INTJs are educated but stupid and INTPs are smart but less educated.

  INTJs are more into static intelligence called IQ, a type of intelligence that requires a lot of memorization. INTJs are more likely to be teachers who are presenting to students principles created by an INTP, a creative mind.

  INTPs are more into dynamic intelligence: pattern recognition and CQ, a type of intelligence that requires little data (that is of interest to them) or memorization and lots of processing power. They will add two things, completely different, together and come up with something new. INTPs will create models and take it out to the real world and test it then modify it. If INTPs created the IQ test, the IQ test is probable a model and the test subjects are the people taking the test.

  INTPs like to debate their ideas so it can be tested, filtered, see if it needs to be modified. INTJs just want you to listen, not debate or question them about what they are presenting because the idea is not their own.
  I am an INTP who likes to enter into a dialogue with a teacher because that is the best way I can understand the material.
  In the classroom my body may not be active but my mind is, it is all over the place running around the classroom like a child who over dosed on sugar.

• 

  • Taylor
  • August 26, 2015 at 8:26 pm

  Two points came to mind listening to this

  a. Does how one defines intelligence change with the ages just as fashions and culture do?

  b)is genius or intelligence innate ability or more simply having a passion?

  For point a), I like to look at historical epochs as having personality types. The interwar years, for example, I see as being tugged by the Se-Ni poles—the roaring 20s, capitalist and economic boom, rise of the celebrity, almost hedonistic enjoyment of life, speculation, rise of mass media. A Rockefeller-type may embody a 1920s definition of intelligence more than perhaps a Neil degrasse Tyson type would. Today, the developed world is very Ti-Fe polarized: there is a scientific study and logical explanation to prove just about anything (even things where common sense would suffice) and social media, Fe…need I say more. Thus, we are apt to see Ti-qualities as the height of intelligence. In the mid 1800s Romantic Era, a Goethe Fi-type was probably seen as the height of intelligence. Our definition changes as what we value in society changes.

  as for b) surely what makes genius and intelligence is more than simply the tool box you are born with. Its innate ability + the 10,000 hours + love. By that definition, intelligence has less to do with any mental skill you naturally possess, and more to do with the willpower to develop and use that skill. My mentally handicapped brother has achieved far more in his life than many college graduates I know, largely because he possesses zero fear of failure or shame, and really loves what he loves. I’m want to label him as possessing more intelligence in that respect, because natural skill is meaningless if you can’t effectively use it in some way.

  I guess what I’m trying to say is…yes, I agree with Antonia and Joel, that intelligence is a subjective concept.

• 

  • Charis Branson
  • August 26, 2015 at 1:59 pm

  Thanks for the interesting comment, Fermi! I think your idea has merit. I do see some personalities more interested in ethics vs morals, and vice-versa.

  I would draw a sharper distinction between Feeler types, however. Introverted Feelers (aka Authenticity users) seem more likely to be concerned with ethics because their feelings are introverted. What you described as Introverts in general, is actually Introverted Feelers. Their internal rubrik is the gauge by which they judge the world. Whereas, Extraverted Feelers (aka Harmony) are going to be more interested with societal morals.

  For instance, I’m an INFJ. So, I am Introverted but I use Harmony as my copilot function. Therefore, I have a tendency to mirror the dominant morality around me. I am also a Judger, which makes me more likely to respect structure and laws as set by authorities. Whereas, INFPs (Fi users) are Perceivers and more likely to choose their own ethics over societal demands. In fact, they are willing to be total pariahs in behalf of their own convictions.

  I’m wondering of your interest in ethics is more a product of being a Perceiver. Although, I can see Thinkers choosing impersonal subjective data (ethics) over popular opinion (morals).

  I can also see it as a learned behavior. After being raised in a strict paradigm, I have decided to set my own morals and never allow anyone else to prescribe a set of morals for me – this in spite of being a Judger. Whereas I’ve known Perceivers who still have rigid morals due to a lifetime of programming.

  Maybe it’s all relative…

• 

  • Fermi
  • August 26, 2015 at 1:41 am

  Great Question from that listener, and a very good discussion from Joel and Antonia. Well done.

  I’m one of those INTPs and have been considering such questions for a while now. Not that I have distilled and great answer yet to share with you here – there are so many factors to consider. Also, I would not consider myself an expert on personality typology having only been researching typology for 9 months or so.

  I generally agree with Antonia that personality is not a determinant of ethics and morals, though for further discussion I might suggest that some types will have a greater leaning toward ethics or morals. Let me explain.

  For the purpose of this discussion, a couple of definitions (not meant as ultimate definitions).

  Ethics: What a person decides for themselves in the present moment considering all the relevant factors they can manage.

  Morals: Lessons from the past which the person or their group/society has found beneficial or destructive. Or, possibly rules set by authorities, whether they be as laws or commandments or what have you.

  Ethics are more active cognitive decision making whereas morals are more shortcut ‘rules’ to guide one’s living. I would like to make a possible distinction that sometimes people seem to consider themselves as being ‘ethical’ by applying ‘morals’.
  [add whatever thoughts you like on this, and feel free to disagree and build your own ethics]

  With that said, now the possible relation to personality and IQ/EQ.

  I’d suggest that those with higher IQ’s and the Thinker types will be more inclined to spend more time and thought on ethics as opposed to morals. I’ve found this as an INTP. I think ethics are more in line with free and independent thought.
  On the other side, those types who are happy to go with the social norms and maintain group harmony (EQ and Feeler types) will be more inclined to spend time knowing what the social norms and social expectations are. Thus they will be more inclined towards morals.

  Another factor could be along Introvert/Extrovert lines. Introverts being more concerned about their internal world and what’s ‘right’ for them and so more inclined toward ethics. Extroverts being more concerned with what’s ‘right’ in the outside world and so more inclined toward morals (group ideas of what’s ‘right’).

  In summary:
  Accuracy (Ti) users; more interested in ethics (though it’s debatable whether other people would call them “ethical” or not).
  Harmony (Fe) users; more interested in morals (and would probably be known as such).
  Other types maybe less clear. Add your thoughts/comments.

  As I said, these are all suggestion, not firm positions. I’m open to input.
  Yes, I’m one of those ‘weird’ INTPs who likes independent thought (maybe too much) and tends to disregard social norms etc. So maybe I’m biased and not making sense in a relatively short discussion. That can happen.

  Discuss…