Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Intelligence
¶
Is socionic type related to intelligence? Or to different kinds of
intelligence?
Intelligence in psychology
¶
Intelligence
is a property of mind that encompasses many related
abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think
abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. Although
intelligence is sometimes viewed quite broadly, psychologists typically
regard the trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character,
knowledge, or wisdom.
1
Intelligence in psychology may differ from popular definitions of the
term. Here is a definition signed by 52 intelligence researchers in
1994:
a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves
the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly,
comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It
is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking
smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for
comprehending our surroundings”catching on”, “making sense” of
things, or “figuring out” what to do.
2
This description includes problem solving skills, rapid learning, and
the ability to understand one’s environment in addition to abstract
thinking and comprehending complex ideas. In the popular awareness,
intelligence is commonly associated with success in school, but we can
see that psychologists’ definition of the term is significantly wider.
Intelligence and socionics
¶
Sometimes socionic definitions of
intuition
and
sensing
(and to a lesser degree
logic
and
ethics
) can give the impression that intuiters are more
intelligent than sensers, possessing greater abstract thinking
capabilities (modeling, visualizing, and recognizing hidden meanings).
However, a close study of the subject reveals that socionists usually
mean something slightly different by “abstract” than do psychologists.
In socionics, intuitive types are more interested in
intangible
things
than sensing types, which prefer more to concentrate on
tangible
things that can be experienced and seen.
In contrast, here is a standard definition of
abstract thinking
:
Thinking characterized by the ability to use concepts and to make
and understand generalizations, such as of the properties or pattern
shared by a variety of specific items or events.
3
In other words, abstract thinking describes the ability to generalize
experience and information and express these generalizations using
concepts. This trait can probably be exercised equally well by intuitive
and sensing types, logical and ethical types. Intuitive types will tend
to generalize
information
of an intuitive
nature, sensing types - of a sensing nature, logical types - of a
logical nature, and ethical types - of an ethical nature. The socionic
concept of
dimensionality
is an attempt to explain
these differences.
Other interpretations of abstract thinking may lead to logical
contradictions. For example, if abstract thinking is attributed to
intuition, then, according to
intertype relations
, the best match for a high-IQ
intuiter would be a lower-IQ senser. Research of married couples,
however, indicates that people are most
compatible
with partners of a similar level of intelligence. Using the reasoning
applied
de facto
by most socionists, the best match for a high-IQ
(“high generalizing”) intuiter would actually be a high-IQ senser.
A review of the
Benchmark Type
List
compiled
by Russian speaking socionists in 2006 shows that socionists placed
highly talented and intelligent individuals in all types. However, some
types indeed seem more likely than others to become famous for
contributions to theoretical science and philosophy. Also, Chris Langan,
the man with possibly the highest IQ in the world, has been typed as a
LSI
- a sensing type.
4
Certain socionists, however, maintain the view that only intuiters are
prone to think about anything other than the immediate here and now. In
particular, this view is held by
Meged and Ovcharov
, who report a much higher percentage of
intuitive types in the population compared to sensers.