PHQ | QUESTIONS: Personality | Ethics | IQ | Emotional Intelligence
Download Episode Here – right click link and select “Save Link As…”
PHQ | QUESTIONS FROM COMMUNITY: In this episode Joel and Antonia answer a question about personality types – ethics – IQ – and Emotional Intelligence.
To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:
Subscribe with iTunes
Non iTunes Link
Download The Android App
Subscribe on Soundcloud
Subscribe with Stitcher
If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!
Want to learn more?
Discover Your Personal Genius
We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…
Showing 0 comments
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.
I know quite a few INTJs and none of them are stupid.
As a side note, I am continually entertained by the tendency to view one’s own personality as a super-power, whereas everyone else’s is inferior.
John knows 1/4th of INTJs that are stupid, Bill knows 1/2 of INTJs that are stupid, Jane knows 3/4th of INTJs that are stupid, you tell me which one is right.
If being smart was my super power then being less educated would be my weakness.
Re Side Note: For a while now (before knowing typology) I’ve thought that different people have different things to offer and different types of people are better at certain things than I am. Now that I know more about typology and multiple intelligences it makes it so much more sense how there’s no one super-power type (including my own). But I can see how it might be easy to slide in to that viewpoint for anyone discovering their “Genius”.
Hope I haven’t come across as self-righteous at all.
The podcast on Tribal Leadership deals a bit with this subject.
The vast majority of people believe, “I’m awesome. Everyone else sucks.” It’s actually a scale up from the belief that “I suck.” Ideally, we want to get to the point where we realize everyone has their strengths and all personalities are necessary for the the smooth functioning of society.
Trust me, with my Ti tertiary I am constantly having to fight the belief that I’m smarter than everyone else. 😉
Yeah…I wouldn’t be so inclined to make such a brash simplifying statement that “INTJs are stupid”. But if you’ve got the empirical data from a substantial population sample, then power to you. Let’s wait and see if an INTJ jumps in on this!
Your INTP description is good. I’m putting out some ideas and wanting feedback as to their validity. So thanks for you replies 🙂
You do understand that there are two ways of looking at this. The glass can be half empty or half full, looks like you choose to see it half empty.
Did you not say INTJs are stupid (and educated)?
BTW: The glass is always full – part liquid, part gas 🙂
So you are telling me you are full of hot air.
Haha. Who’s the funny man!
I think your logic may be a little skew-whiff.
What MBTI type are you, I am just curious.
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.
Interesting thoughts Taylor.
Definitions are a funny thing. They can sometimes be precise and then also quite imprecise. For example ‘intelligence’ started off as one thing: ‘book-smart type ability’. Then people realized that’s not the only measure of one’s ability, and so it expanded to multiple intelligences. I like the multiple intelligence idea as is allows us to be more precise about what we are talking about and how different people have different abilities that make them shine. So i wonder if are you referring to a particular type of intelligence in your brother? A “mentally handicapped” person may be very intelligent, and even a genius, in a particular field or type of intelligence and lacking in others (which I think we all do to some degree).
Also, a lot of hard work, practice and training can lead to a very high ability, but is that really ‘intelligence’ of any particular type? I’d say that is in the realms of ‘competence’.
What do you think?
Great comment Taylor! I especially like the addition of history to your analysis. I do think certain kinds of intelligence were celebrated differently throughout history. For instance, the wealthy magnates of the past (Rockefeller/Carnegie/Ford/Astor) seem more like they were using Te/Ni. They weren’t so concerned with the human element as they were with reaching their ultimate goal. Nowadays, such thinking is not celebrated by the western world (more of an Fe culture). So that even when someone reaches a pinnacle of success (Bill Gates) he sees the need to give back to the world.
What I think is interesting is how our Ti/Fe world is colliding with other cultures who are in the same place we were 100+ years ago. Cultures that are focused on achievement at any cost (under-developed Te) are drawing the censorship of the western world that has realized the world cannot sustain such myopic growth.
The problem with society, however, is that it evolves in its own time. Will an Fe/Ti dominant society be able to push a Te dominant society into Fe? I don’t think so. Unfortunately, everyone has to level-up in their own time.
(This is me just spit-balling here. Feel free to agree or disagree. 😉 )
I absolutely agree. I like to envision the different “worlds” like the inside of a clock tower. You have several interlocking cogs–the developed countries are one cog at one place on their cycle, interlocked with cog of developing countries which is at a different place in the cycle. Like you said, it evolves in its own time–I can’t make any of the cogs skip ahead in its revolution, it has to go nook for nook at a time (nook? I don’t know the word for the things on the side of a cog…ha, hopefully you know what I mean). This all harkens back to graves model/spiral dynamics thinking, each level emerging in a specific order.
Personally, I believe there is a correlation between the graves model, cognitive functions, and historical epochs. I decided one day just for shits and giggles to average the percentage of each dominant cognitive type to see if there was a pattern, using figures from several studies. In order from most common to least common its: 1. Si dominants, 2. Fe dominants, 3. Fi dominants, 4. Se dominants, 5. Ne dominants, 6. Ti dominants 7. Te dominants 8. Ni dominants. Maybe I am just looking for a correlation because I want there to be one (What the thinker thinks, the prover proves right?) I see the values attributed to those cognitive functions are much like the values at each graves level/the inferior qualities too. I’m not suggesting Si users are Graves level 1, I’m only contemplating whether the emergence of the graves levels follows the same pattern of emergence/evolution of the cognitive functions in our species.
Si/graves level 1: internal body sensations, security
Fe/graves level 2: tribal values
Fi/graves level 3: the individual
Se/grave level 4: hierarchial order (think aristocracy)
Ne/graves level 5: endless possibilities
Ti/graves level 6: egalitarian (this is where we are now) This might seem like a stretch. I guess I’m thinking of Albert Einstein–a Ti user/pacifist humanitarian. The Ti-Fe poles I spoke about above.
Te/graves level 7: systems thinking (this is where we are headed next in the developed world)
Ni/gravels level 8: holistic thinking (the last stage? then the cog repeats the loop?!?)
The US in my mind was at level 5 post WWII, with an Ne-Si polarized society (we can go to the moon, anything is possible/questioning and overturning old traditions like segregation in the South. the traditional role of women.) The 1980s/end of the cold war marked the transition into a more graves level 6 Ti/Fe world. This we can see in the rise of world humanitarian efforts, rise of the tech/internet and social media.
Whats interesting is, at each transition of an historical epoch you often see the emergence of new communication technology. Printing press, transatlantic telegraph cable, phone, airplane, radio, internet. Consciousness itself is communication between the different neurons. I’m a paleoclimatologist, and its the same situation for the planet. The earth tends to transition between climates and phases each time new “communication” opens up between ocean basins and circulation because of shifting continents/plate tectonics. Ha, yes that takes a grand leap of the imagination to see the correlation. I guess, the more I study ice ages, the more I realize cyclicity, the interconnectedness of everything, the constant pattern of rise and fall, and the role of communication in systems has played in the history of Earth and life.
Wow! Thanks for sharing that. How fascinating! I have explored the Graves Model and I find its macro (societal) and micro (individual) application fascinating.
I have intuited that ideals are evolving and we are seeing, what I believe, may be an upswing in intuitive personalities as people (at least in the western world) are becoming more intolerant of stagnation and traditional ideals (Si).
The era after WWII has always intrigued me. I’ve often felt like we took two steps forward and one step back after the War. Due to the War, Americans in general were forced from their insulated lives out into a world they knew little of. Then they came home the conquering heroes to a nation that celebrated by adopting more traditional ideals and forgetting, for a time, everything they had learned. Women were forced back into the home after feeling like their work had held a warring nation together. Men settled down to work corporate jobs and live in safe suburbs after seeing and experiencing the world. The 50s seemed very Graves 4 in its reliance upon institutions. But, I think it was a tenuous hold since it all exploded in the 60s.
(I was born in the 70s, so my reckoning of those decades preceding mine is more theoretical than experiential.)
As to your comment regarding climate – Fascinating! Antonia has observed that Graves shifts (macro and micro) are often accompanied by wars and/or conflict. So, you are saying that those shifts are also accompanied by climactic changes? Does that include the climate changes we are experiencing now?
hmm indeed, it seems somewhere in the 60s the transition from graves 4 to graves 5 happened. I find this intriguing because, one would think, as you said, after the boundaries the war forced the nation and people to push, its surprising it all snapped back instead continuing its forward trajectory. I was born in the 80s so I can’t speak from experience either 😉
As for the climate comments, I meant it in the symbolic sense, although, there are plenty of theories on the environments role in the emergence of human civilization. I’m a huge fan of Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel)–he argues the reason societies in Europe and Asia are more advanced and countries like Papua New Guinea are tribal (still Graves 2) is due to geographical position ie access to arable land, indigenous animals and plants that can be domesticated for agriculture, resources like coal, climate, and the role those factors played in what countries got ahead on the world stage.
I look at humans like little planets, since we are acted upon by the same physical forces and made by the same basic material as the planet itself. I was wondering if the patterns we see over time on Earth are analogous to the patterns we see over time in humans (and big changes in Earths history usually happened when communication between systems increased or decreased. Polarity is also a big theme in Earths history). To bring up Bill Gates again, he teamed with David Christian to start a Big History program which teaches history from the Big Bang until now, and combines this idea of human history and Earth history being intimately connected.
Thanks for sharing your insights. Very interesting.
From the podcast on Graves Model I had thought a bit about the correlation of cognitive functions to societal Graves Levels, but not as deeply as you seem to have thought it through.
How about the correlation of intelligence types to Graves Levels? Does the society at a particular level/era celebrate people with a particular type of intelligence more than others? Eg, IQ in scientific eras, kinesthetic intelligence in hunter-gatherer eras, etc. Without a society labeling multiple intelligences, what they consider “intelligent” may be whatever type of intelligence best suits that era/level?
Just intuitive thinking/rambling here. In true intuitive style we are going from intelligence and ethics to Graves Model and continental shifting and communications 🙂 Gotta love it!
BTW (in case you wanted to know) I knew what you meant by ‘nooks’ but you could say they are ‘teeth’ in a gear.
teeth! that’s the word I was looking for. ha, thanks.
Yes, a correlation to Graves level/historical epoch/cognitive functions/intelligence was what I was inferring in my first comment.
I’ve been playing with this idea though its not fully formed yet and still a lot of holes. Super brief run-down with the order: Si, Fe, Fi, Se, Ti, Te, Ni.
The modern era in the Western world starts in roughly 1500. Lets call that the beginning of the cycle.
a lot of wild speculation with types of famous people/assigning cognitive functions to movements, I don’t have a long list in mind, just ones off the top of my head at this moment. You can find geniuses of any type in the eras, but perhaps some shine more in certain periods.
1. Si/Graves level 1: Si-Ne poles. 1500-1620s, Renaissance (Ne), Reformation and Counter Reformation (Ne-Si), Age of exploration (Ne) . Geniuses of the age: Da Vinci (probably an Ne type). Graves level 1 values: well, dark ages right up to this point were largely about survival, very little going on culturally until the renaissance (Ne).
2. Fe/Graves level 2: Fe-Ti poles. 1620s-early 1800s . Enlightenment (Ti), Baroque (Fe), Revolution (French, American-Bill of Rights–Fe). Graves level 2:”we” feeling with peoples revolutions. Geniuses of the age: Newton (INTP: Ti-Fe)
3. Fi/Graves level 3: Fi-Te poles. 1800s-1900. imperialism (graves level 3 “warlord”) The industrial revolution (Te), Romanticism+transcendentalism (Fi), Geniuses of the age: Goethe, Emerson, Thoreau (Fi types?)
4. Se/Graves level 4: 1900s-1940s. Se-Ni poled. Edwardian age+Roaring 20s (Se), mass media+propaganda (perceptions-Ni), massive patriotic/nationalistic fervor before WWI (graves level 4) quite interesting to read primary sources from before the outbreak, everyone speaks of this strange feeling in the air of national spirit they had never sensed before.
geniuses: well, Einstein but he was most likely a Ti type. mind blank at the moment, but, we do see the rise of the celebrity in this period, many with Se traits. hmm the golden couple Zelda (Se) Fitzgerald and Scott Fitzgerald (Ni). Well, then there’s Hitler, who I believe to be an Ni dom. Again, Ni-Se. Churchill: Se-Ni type. )
5. Ne/Graves level 5: 1950s-1980s. (see earlier comments)
6. Ti/Graves level 6: 1980s-now. (see earlier comments)
yeah, the idea is still in its scatterbrained phase.
I know Graves level 1+2 hardly fit the renaissance period and the age of enlightenment–enlightenment Europe was far from tribal. I’m thinking of it all in poles. Grave levels 1+5 for the renaissance. Graves level 2+6 for the enlightenment. Graves level 3+7 industrial age. Like…a wheel with spokes. The spoke connects the two opposite points on a circle.
Very interesting conceptualization of the correlations. I could partially follow with what you were saying, but I haven’t studied much history myself so perhaps I lack some of the background information to grasp the whole picture.
I’m sure you could write a good essay on it. I’d like to read it when you do.
Fascinating! I know Antonia has broken down the Graves levels on a much more expansive basis (Graves 1 being the caveman era; Graves 2 being the tribal level which immediately followed the caveman; Graves 3 being Genghis Khan era; etc).
But society does not go through all levels at the same time, of course. We still see Graves 2 scattered around the world even now. So the concept that there can be a resurgence of different Graves levels as they pull against other is an interesting concept.
I really like how you characterized the 19th century. I have studied that era quite a lot, from a religious perspective, and I have read a lot of the poetry from the time.
I have heard it also referred to as the Age of Skepticism and, believe it or not, it was the era from which much of the apocalyptic religions were born. It seems to me that as society began to look toward the Industrial Age as their salvation (Te), the moralistically inclined (Fi?) resisted. You will find a lot of poetry about the death of God during this time. And religion became more reactionary. Armageddon threats became more prominent and the idea of the Last Days gained its foothold.
I can definitely see that as a potential pulling between Te/Fi.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing your insights!!
Thanks for humouring me and reading them.
Oh I love the 19th century too. I like your idea! Applied to one age before, Enlightenment ideas (Ti) preceded and pushed revolutionary humanitarian (Fe) ideas forward. The industrial revolution (Te) as you said, served as the tension which sprung the age of skepticism at the latter half of the century.
We talk about the Graves model applied on micro (individual) and macro (civilization). I think my idea makes a distinction between 3 levels– micro (individual), macro (civilization)–, and, hm, supermacro? (species). Graves model 1 as a species is yes, caveman. Graves model 1 as an individual is birth/baby. and Gravels model as a civilization is also “birth”. Civilizations, like people, are born, rise, mature, and die out, at least thus far in history, civilizations and empires rise and fall. Each time new civilizations get further and further, built upon their predecessors, just like individual generations.
And I will stop there, as Fermi pointed out, this has gone way off topic. But thanks you both for listening nonetheless, much appreciated.
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’).
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.
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…
Thanks Charis. Your observation of Feeler types is spot on I think. The P/J dichotomy I also thought was relevant but I didn’t tackle it initially as I thought one comment might turn into an essay. I agree with your points.
I was unsure of how it would work out for the types with co-pilot functions Fe and Ti. Perhaps in my summary I should have said Fe and Ti Drivers.
So a revision may be; IPs are most likely Ethics people and EJs are most likely Morals people?
That’s a tough one. I can see how IPs could be more ethically driven (taking out the equation paradigm/environment). But as to EJs being more moral – do you think Te (Effectiveness) Drivers would use morals or ethics? I can see that a ESTJ (Te/Si) would be more interested in morals because of the Si copilot. But what about ENTJ (Te/Ni)? The Ni copilot might show up as more ethically driven, theoretically.
Good question. I suspect that an ETNJs Te would dominate with morals. The Ni co-pilot would back it up with intuitive conclusions based on information gather from the environment and used in judging “what’s effective in the environment”.
Of course these are speculations and I think there’s a continuum between using ethics and morals, so anyone can use either or both.
I’d be interested to hear your description of Ni in this context since you drive with it and it would be more conscious for you than even and ENTJ. I’m not an Ni user so I’m not so personally familiar with it.
As an Ni user, I see the reasons for morals since I can see and understand people’s motivations and cultural paradigms. But I am rather judgmental of people who use morals alone. I find morals limiting, to a certain extent. Ni has the ability to “see” into the future based upon the observations it makes, so I have a tendency to see the world as being limited by a moralistic perspective (kinda like the past 😉 ).
That may be me misunderstanding and judging morality harshly because of a strict religious paradigm I was brought up in. Again, we have the dichotomy of nature vs nurture. :/