> I pulled your type from 2 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guessed my type (incorrectly, it turned out. I am primarily introverted.) based on a tiny data set. That's hardly scientific. Many people have accurately guessed my astrological sign based on my personality, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The fact that you semi-correctly identified my M-B type based on a tiny amount of social behavior, and feel that this comprises some form of proof says little about the validity of M-B typing, and more about your own intellectual methods.
> Yes, really INTJ's are the smartest.
As I said earlier, in order to even argue that point, you would need to explicitly define what you mean by "smart."
Could you cite a study that supports this assertion, or is this your opinion? I'm not talking about a sociological opinion piece, I'm talking about a scientifically valid study. Frankly, it's hard for me to believe that someone who actually believes that is... no offence intended... all that smart. In high school, when I was having academic problems, one of the tests I was subjected to was an IQ test. I got a 162. I have never put much stock in that. I've known people with tested lower IQs who were much more capable than I, in certain areas. When I worked at MIT, I knew people who were much, much smarter than I, but who weren't as capable at some things as I was. Intelligence isn't a linear value, nor can it be directly correlated to any analysis of "personality type."
Let's assume that INTJ's are, as a group, "the smartest." Within that group, you are going to have a distribution of intelligences. If that distribution matched that of the general population, (ie. a bell-curve, centered at around 100,) you could be INTJ and be very bright or very dim. If this data were accurate, then INTJ's make up about 2.1% of the population. If your assertion is that the INTJ group is comprised entirely of people at the top of the intelligence distribution curve, then we have an quite an astonishing coincidence on our hands.
You are asserting that all or most highly intelligent people are of a particular "personality type," all having similar thinking styles, reactions, desires, perceptions, lifestyles, and behaviors. This is demonstrably incorrect. If you examine the set of people having the highest intelligences, you find every type of person in the mix, from Einstein to the unibomber; actors to gas station attendants; programmers to carpenters; chemists to farmers; musicians to bakers; engineers to zookeepers. There are highly intelligent and deeply stupid people everywhere.
Viewed another way: What you are suggesting is amazingly improbable given that there are virtually zero similarities between traditional IQ testing and Myers-Briggs assessment. IQ tests measure problem solving, pattern matching, associative agility, math and spatial skills, whereas M-B testing was originally designed to determine a person's preferences and inclinations for the purpose of placing them in a job where they would function well. For two such completely different sets of tests, the idea that they might produce such perfectly identical or overlapping results is unlikely to the point of impossibility.
I've seen people change. I've seen people change their daily habits, their preferences, their desires, their emotional conditions, their behavior, and certainly their opinions. I've watched people change their thinking based on learning new languages. Furthermore, I have changed myself. Not completely, not fundamentally as a person, but I have changed quite a lot over the past 15 years; certainly more than enough to alter my alleged M-B type.
Furthermore, if by "smart," you are referring to intelligence quotient, that is something that changes over time, as IQ is scored as a function of age. If your IQ changes over your lifespan, and your M-B type (as you suggest) does not, they are not directly correlated. Frankly, I can't think of a single reason why they'd be even loosely correlated.
> People never change they only act differently.
How does one determine a person's makeup, other than by their actions? Isn't a large component of the MBTI® assessment an analysis of human behaviors?
> As an INTJ and a mensa member I find a lot of book and teachers for that matter or wrong in not logical.
Um. Yeah. I can only guess at what you're trying to say here, though I will say that it isn't suggestive of "smarts" or critical thinking.
> I can tell someones type just by looking at them. How the hair is. > The way they stand what and how they are wearing clothes.
Yow. You just demonstrated that you are talking about superstition, not science. Are you, by any chance about 14-15 years old? If so, I could find your thinking forgivable, and would encourage you to stay in school.
You are either an awesome, awesome troll, or someone who isn't quite the critical thinker you believe yourself to be. Having achieved a MENSA membership, why don't you go out for The Prometheus Society, Four Sigma... or, what the hell! Go for The Pi or Mega Societies!
I'm trying not to be insulting, but instead of trying to convince me of these things, I suggest that you make an effort to learn to think critically about them for yourself.
> If you "change" an opinion you never had it in the first place.
This is such a bizarre statement, that I cannot possibly refute it logically. It has no logical basis to address. If a person is capable of learning, they are capable of changing every aspect of their world view. Many linguists assert that our language structures how we think. Learning new languages, particularly very different languages, can change thought patterns enormously.
This is also a good site.
The MBTI® assessment is simplistic and incomplete at best, and a deeply flawed pseudoscience at worst. If you believe in it, that's certainly your prerogative. While so-called "Ladder Theory" has some basis in reality, (in the same way stereotypes do,) it is yet another example of a simplistic way to evaluate potentially complex human relationships. As a simple model, it's clever and fine. As a way to actually analyze real people in real relationships, it is utter bullshit.
The following book and papers support of my position:
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Pseudoscience-Clinical-Psychology-Lilienfeld/dp/1593850700
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/h0043580