INTJ & Emotional Intelligence Quota.

[Nate08]

I've started a discussion on this as I could not see any topic in close relation. I suggest you read this first.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vayate]

Sounds like something a bunch of Feelers who are easily intimidated made up so they could tell us Thinkers that they're just as intelligent as we are, but in a different way. Not that they can't be, but the rubbish argument is pretty much an insult to intelligent people regardless of temperament.

...I guess the above statement means my EQ is pretty low. :( Then again, I've always seen the whole multiple intelligences business in that light.

[melon]

I've always thought of Emotional Intelligence as being created by a group of people that wanted an excuse for having a low I.Q. If I took the E.Q. test though, I'd probably score very badly. :P

[iamnotspock]

I found that if I take serotonin-enhancing drugs, my EQ is through the roof, at least as measured in the abilities model. Otherwise, it's dismal. There is no equivalent drug for IQ.

So I suspect the emotional brain hardware is far more primitive and easily to manipulate than the intellectual wiring. Indeed, animals seem to have a lot of emotions going on. But not a lot of intellect.

But this EQ idea does capture the basic truth that a salesperson is gonna be a lot more adept at the popularity contest than a mathematician. No reason I see not to slap a label on it and start quantifying.

[Rei]

EQ is what I'd say makes people great leaders.

I'd think because of an INTJ's ability to not attach themselves/get affected by the emotions of others, our intuitive, rational thinking, we should actually be very good at managing the emotions/direction of groups of people (and hence have quite good EQ).

[Nate08]

That is correct Rei.

[Chainsaw Dundee]

EQ is what I'd say makes people great leaders.

I'd think because of an INTJ's ability to not attach themselves/get affected by the emotions of others, our intuitive, rational thinking, we should actually be very good at managing the emotions/direction of groups of people (and hence have quite good EQ).

Meh, I'd consider that more to be strength of will and initiative exacting influence over their unused mental zones, rather than empathy. The sheep dynamic is what I call it. Weak/unfocused willpower and a tendency to be led. It seems that for some people, rationale is a weakly-developed subconscious tertiary task.

I think quite a few presidents were intj's.

[Rei]

Meh, I'd consider that more to be strength of will and initiative exacting influence over their unused mental zones, rather than empathy. The sheep dynamic is what I call it. Weak/unfocused willpower and a tendency to be led. It seems that for some people, rationale is a weakly-developed subconscious tertiary task.

I think quite a few presidents were intj's.
Nah...
You need to have a way of being able to relate to the people you lead to be a successful leader. *Because to be a successful leader is to be one who can lead ones with strong will as well, not just those with no opinion. *Imagine a military leader, or a sports team coach, the prep talks; they have to appeal to every one of the people they're talking to.

I must say, I don't have much of a will to make others do what I want; it's too much trouble. *But when it comes down to being forced to lead, I can do a damn good job of it.

The lack of will to lead is part of my introversion, but my ability to lead has to do with my N which controls my ability to relate, T keeps me from going overboard in terms of compassion/empathy and promotes control. Introversion is seperate from intuition and thinking.

People with a large range of interests are said to have high EQ.
I think most NT's should have high EQ...

[Chainsaw Dundee]

People with a large range of interests are said to have high EQ.
I think most NT's should have high EQ...

It could be actual relation. I always thought of it to be more like defining what appeals to them, pacing, then leading through manipulation, rather than actually relating with them as equals. Then again, I have very little genuine experience in this so-called 'relation'.

[Rei]

It could be actual relation. I always thought of it to be more like defining what appeals to them, pacing, then leading through manipulation, rather than actually relating with them as equals. Then again, I have very little genuine experience in this so-called 'relation'.

That's exactly it, relating to "what appeals to them." That's the stuff of a competent leader. That's also what, emotional intelligence is...
ability, capacity, or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups

Having purely strong will is not going to do very much for you other than give your stubbourn arse a crap load of trouble. Speaking from personal experience :-X

[Nate08]

People say I'm the most stubborn person they know. :D

[TheLastMohican]

Have any of you taken the Emotional IQ test at queendom.com?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I suggest you all check it out so we know what kind of emotional "intelligence" they are talking about. This test is supposed to be one of the most scientifically accurate ones. It consists of questions about you and how you feel about things, and also a more sensible portion in which you must correctly judge a people's facial expressions and body language. It is scored on the unrealistically restricted scale of 55 to 155.

My own experience with this test: The first time I took it, I answered honestly and scored 94. I was a bit offended by this; I have good control of my emotions, have a generally positive (but of course still logical and skeptical) outlook, and am relatively socially savvy.

So to prove that I was smarter than the person who wrote the test, I took it again, and this time I answered with all the weird baloney that I thought they were looking for. (I never get angry, I feel comfortable professing my love to strangers, I burst into tears on a regular basis, I am never irritated by anything, etc.) Of course, this was the emotional profile of a psychopath.

I scored 153. :thumbsup:

My reasoning: The writer of the test had designed the questions to be answered on a scale (many on a an 11-point scale, some shorter). But it's difficult to decide where on the scale the ideal answer should be, so the "correct" answers were those at the correct extreme ends of the scale. So when I took the test, I chose the most extreme responses, which is why my above examples sound so ridiculous.

This scoring made no sense for a lot of the questions, especially those that compared certain scenarios to each other. For example, a few questions were asking how effective certain solutions were for an awkward social situation. When I took the test the first time, I entered reasonable comparisons, and because some "solutions" were downright destructive, I scored them as "totally ineffective" and scored the nominally ineffective solutions as nearer to the center of the scale. Second time 'round, I declared that the moderate options were just as bad as the outrageous ones, and got a higher score for saying so.

My point: The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them. They promote both emotional instability and impossible lack of emotion in a terribly contradictory fashion. I do believe that emotional intelligence is a valid measure of success and is something that should be strived for, but these tests do not define it correctly. There should be a valid test (maybe written by an INTJ?:idea:) using proper social norms and healthy reasoning.

[RoqueBear]

I would just like to clear up one thing first. Though, many INTJ's seem to have this idea of an emotionless robot paradigm in their heads, we're still humans. We may not be governed in our thoughts by emotions, however, they're still there. Even when working and problem solving with others, its important to understand that emotions can be there and that they are real. A solutions might not be the most logical answer, however, it can be the most effective when looking at from a different perspective.

I'd consider myself to have a fairly high emotional intelligence. Part of it is internal, being able to accurately understand your own feels and opinions about something before they start to cascade or snowball. I would have to credit my own understanding of this to the ala-non reading I did as a kid. This thinking about emotions brought an immense amount of stability to my life.

Externally, this really plays a huge role in effective communication. I have a high extroverted intuition score, which I feel is effective in understanding what people are saying, even when they might not be clear in what they're communicating. It can be just as important to hear how someone is communicating, as it is what they're communicating.

[Haphazard]

I am actually fairly emotional but that's not the part of my brain that does the decision-making.

That said, I scored a 93 on the test. :P

It's important to be able to get along with people and understand what's going on. I get when people are upset and usually when I should back off, I may get angry but I know how I react so I can take steps to make intense emotions the least damaging as possible. And that's the INTJ way. That said, beats in conversations totally throw me off, especially when it's about something that I don't care less about.

I do agree that the test is, well, bull. Not sore because I had a low score, but I noticed the same things that TheLastMohican did. The touchy-feely people need to enlist people who actually know how to write tests and program computers -- likely, INTJs.

[NoahAddle]

This subject is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. I've been reading the book, 'Emotional Intelligence', by Daniel Goleman. One useful idea he introduces in the book is that once you get up to a certain level in an organization like a corporation, everyone is pretty smart and technically adept. At this level, those qualities aren't big differentiators. What tends to separate the really good people at that level and the not so good people is how well one gets along with others. I think that he has a valid point.

The fact is that it's not always enough to have the right answers and be 'smart'. Outside of school, the right answers are still worthless if you can't get other people to buy in and support them. In this sense, it can be even more important to consider how you present the message than the content of the message itself. This is where the application of EQ comes in.

The reality is that most people don't care all that much about searching for truth or getting the 'right' answer. What they care about is feeling good about themselves. As INTJ's, I think we have a tendency to lose sight of that sometimes. At least personally, I tend to be very blunt with what I say and neglect to consider the emotions of the person I'm speaking to. I don't know if INTJ's tend to have a good or bad EQ. I suspect that as a group we would fall on the bad part of the scale. But, I also think it's worthwhile to try to get better at being able to relate with other people. I'm working on it now by trying to be more aware of the emotional states of people as I talk with them.

[Antares]

To me, EQ is the ability to be touchy-feely to people and probably let go of anger and grudges. Mine's 118 according to the tickle test.

Perceiving emotions - the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts- including the ability to identify one’s own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
Using emotions - the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
Understanding emotions - the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
Managing emotions - the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.

I still think that EQ is for people who want to feel good about themselves though. "Hey, MY EQ is 140. It's the attitude that counts, not smartness! :yuck:"

I feel uneasy in situations where I am expected to display affection.

ETo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I think this question will totally kill my score.

I have an urge to flee when someone gets touchy-feely around me.

This too.

HA! HAHA! I beat all of you! 71!!

[httc1978]

I have not read the book on EQ, though it has come across my path a few times.. but i have read critics about it from readings on critical reasoning.. so i will not comments on my own to be fair to the whole subject but i guess, INTJs could well tend not to do well on the subject of EQ..

Some excerpts from the following site:

I shall argue that it does make sense to speak of emotions as being, in some given context or other, "intelligent" or not, and, consequently, that it does make sense to speak of emotional intelligence. However, I will also suggest that the way the concept of emotional intelligence is now being popularized--by psychologist Daniel Goleman (1995), in his book Emotional Intelligence--is fundamentally flawed.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Haphazard]

Antares, I'd say a low score is meaningless in this case.

I don't understand this EQ test. If you weren't irritated or upset a lot, how could you cry a lot? And so many things. And there's a huge difference between not crying because you aren't brought to tears easily and not crying because you believe that it's a sign of weakness. (I tend to ask myself, 'would it hurt myself in this situation to start crying' before I do but sometimes it happens anyway.)

Does this test need what you honestly feel or rather does it want how you try to behave to other people? You ought to get some credit if you have the urge to flee when people get touchy-feely but decide to suck it up anyway, for their sake.

[TheLastMohican]

HA! HAHA! I beat all of you! 71!!


Well, being proud of the 71 score might or might not be valid. See, I'm pretty sure I aced the section where I had to read faces and body language, and that's a good thing. (I was actually surprised to find out how well I did on that part.) So if you know you aced that, then about 80-100 should be ideal, because you probably were "wrong" to the appropriate degree on the scale questions. But if you did what they wanted with those questions, then you flunked the reading section, which is not good.

Haphazard,
Please...don't even try to understand it. :rolleyes:

The thing about INTJs is that we do feel emotions (probably not as strongly as most others), but we do not have the need to show them nearly as much, if at all. We do not go around talking about them as if we think other people want to hear all about our mental disturbances. Those who do not have this trait might be a bit jealous, in my theory.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I wonder if this is what sociopaths lack.........emotional intelligence?

[ps646566]

95

A bit higher than I expected.

I agree with those who say or imply that EQ is largely a cop out for those lacking real intelligence.

I also think that preoccupation with it represents a losers' charter for :- conformists, brown-nosers, surface skaters, social manipulators, the politically correct brigade, and all those who duck or fudge necessary tough decisions on the grounds that it may upset or offend someone.

[CardinalXiminez]

95

I agree with those who say or imply that EQ is largely a cop out for those lacking real intelligence.


You know, I'd say the same with IQ tests!
They are so easy to figure out, always a repetitive pattern. Even for a totally random, emotional ENFP like I am.

I'd say I'm not the most gifted amongst ENFPs, I only obtained 132 in EQ.
But this was interesting, as long as you consider this test only as a little game, no more, no less. :laugh:

Intelligence has nothing to do with MBTI type (if ever it could be clearly defined) but it seems EQ does.
A proof that demonstrates how vastly flawed is this test, doesn't it? :p



So to prove that I was smarter than the person who wrote the test, I took it again, and this time I answered with all the weird baloney that I thought they were looking for. (I never get angry, I feel comfortable professing my love to strangers, I burst into tears on a regular basis, I am never irritated by anything, etc.) Of course, this was the emotional profile of a psychopath.

I scored 153. :thumbsup:

I don't believe you. Not a single word.

You were jealous and annoyed, that's all. :p


My point: The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them. They promote both emotional instability and impossible lack of emotion in a terribly contradictory fashion. I do believe that emotional intelligence is a valid measure of success and is something that should be strived for, but these tests do not define it correctly. There should be a valid test (maybe written by an INTJ?) using proper social norms and healthy reasoning.


Do you really consider yourself as an intelligent person, just because you failed miserably at this test??? :laugh:

Ridiculous!

That's one of the most immature answer I have read so far. :dork:
The way you want to justifiy, and justify, and justify...

[TheLastMohican]

I don't believe you. Not a single word.

You were jealous and annoyed, that's all. :p




Do you really consider yourself as an intelligent person, just because you failed miserably at this test??? :laugh:

Ridiculous!

That's one of the most immature answer I have read so far. :dork:
The way you want to justifiy, and justify, and justify...

I am not lying. I also was not jealous. I was annoyed, because I wish I could find a valid test.

I never said that I considered myself intelligent because I "failed miserably" on the test. I did not fail miserably, anyway. I did ace the one good section that was validly scored, and in the others I gave answers that were reasonable when compared to each other, not just extreme in all ways.

I will not bother trying to prove all this to you; if you just experiment with the Queendom EQ test yourself you will see that I am telling the truth. I did answer on the correct [I]side[I] of the range, but I did not make all my answers the most extreme, hence the low score. This test in particular is flawed mainly in the computerized format of scoring (the questions are not that bad).

And by the way, I am intelligent and mature. An immature response would have been to declare the test to be entirely stupid and feel deeply wounded by the low score. Instead I concluded that the score was unreasonable and went back to find out why, and then discovered the problem, which was the limited ability of the computer system.

You know, I'd say the same with IQ tests!
They are so easy to figure out, always a repetitive pattern. Even for a totally random, emotional ENFP like I am.

I'd say I'm not the most gifted amongst ENFPs, I only obtained 132 in EQ.
But this was interesting, as long as you consider this test only as a little game, no more, no less. :laugh:

Intelligence has nothing to do with MBTI type (if ever it could be clearly defined) but it seems EQ does.
A proof that demonstrates how vastly flawed is this test, doesn't it? :p

I think that both types of intelligence have a lot to do with personality type. Personality type describes the way we think, and IQ tests test how good we are at thinking in whatever way. Therefore those of certain personality types would tend to have higher or lower EQ and IQ. IQ focuses on problem solving, pattern recognition, spatial abilities, etc., mostly stuff a computer could do. EQ is more complex, and varies a lot more with cultural influences.

[CardinalXiminez]

IQ tests test how good we are at thinking in whatever way.

IQ tests only test how good you are at passing IQ Tests.

They are deeply biased, and not an accurate tool for any research.

[Haphazard]

I consider both IQ and EQ bullshit, but I have to agree that this particular EQ test doesn't seem to be very well written or at least scored in an inconsistent manner. It may be computer error, or it may be human error. The difference between computer IQ tests and computer EQ tests is that with IQ, there's one right answer, and with EQ, many of the questions are personal and it's so easy to lie and forget about yourself, along with the computer error and that compounds the falliability of the score.

It's like a computer trying to grade a literary analysis of Huckleberry Finn compared to a sheet of math problems. It's impossible, or at least impossible to do well.

[CardinalXiminez]

I am not lying. I also was not jealous. I was annoyed, because I wish I could find a valid test.

No, you wanted to prove you were cleverer than the ones who did the test.
Believe me, for a gifted ENFP like I am (you have no idea how much), your mind is transparent. It's easy to read what your real intentions were.

We are born empaths.


And by the way, I am intelligent and mature.

Who do you want to reassure? Me, you, the audience?

IMHO, a mature response would have been to say this test is only a game, and as a game it has limits.
But you have to accept its results, how it works even if it's flawed.


An immature response would have been to declare the test to be entirely stupid and feel deeply wounded by the low score.

That's exactly what you did.

"The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them."

Typical response. :rolleyes:

Pride, pride, pride...

[Haphazard]

Darn it, Cardinal Ximinez, I'm trying to pick a fight with you! Why aren't you putting up your dukes?

*sigh.*

Love your avatar, by the way.

[CardinalXiminez]

many of the questions are personal and it's so easy to lie and forget about yourself.

How can you lie? I'm curious.

---

Is it reassuring to know a question only has one possible correct answer?

---

BTW, I'm not defending this particular test. Exactly like you so courteously said, I also think that "both IQ and EQ [are] bullshit".





CardinalXiminez added to this post, 6 minutes and 55 seconds later...

Darn it, Cardinal Ximinez, I'm trying to pick a fight with you! Why aren't you putting up your dukes?

*sigh.*

We ENFP are the most benevolent MBTI type. Even if you try to fight us, we'll still love you, and try to understand your reasons, eventually giving you excuses in the process. :clown:

Love your avatar, by the way.

Yours is not so bad, too. :)

[Haphazard]

How can you lie? I'm curious.

---

Is it reassuring to know a question only has one possible correct answer?

---

BTW, I'm not defending this particular test. Exactly like you so courteously said, I also think that "both IQ and EQ [are] bullshit".

I'm either a very good liar or a very poor liar because I can't tell when I'm lying or not.

For example, I believe that on one of these tests there was a question about waving when you met somebody you knew? I promptly answered 'No' to the question, even though I remembered today that I actually do wave to people I know quite a lot. Knowing this, how else would I know what I've lied about?

I just believe that questions that have one correct answer, like math problems, and open-ended questions can't be graded on the same scale. Thus, if it's even possible to have an 'intelligence quotient,' then is it even possible to make 'emotional intelligence' into a quotient? Emotional intelligence may be fine and dandy, but yes, perhaps people who were sore about scoring low on IQ tests made up the idea of an EQ, and people who weren't very good at emotional intelligences made up the IQ in the first place. And if that's the case, it's all rather silly.

I have two thoughts on people. On one level I love them and always think the best of them, and on the other I haven't met a person that hasn't annoyed the hell out of me. Make of this what you will.

[CardinalXiminez]

I just believe that questions that have one correct answer, like math problems, and open-ended questions can't be graded on the same scale.

Do you know quantum physics?

but yes, perhaps people who were sore about scoring low on IQ tests made up the idea of an EQ, and people who weren't very good at emotional intelligences made up the IQ in the first place. And if that's the case, it's all rather silly.

Maybe it's as silly as you think it is...

Have you read "The mismeasure of man", written by late Stephen Jay Gould?
Somehow, IQ tests were deliberately created to prove the superiority... of the people who created the test.

In France we have a saying: "Chacun voit midi à sa porte"... :rolleyes:

[Haphazard]

Do you know quantum physics?

Oh God, if we get into quantum physics, we're NEVER going to get out of here.

Let's just put it this way. Most of us don't go to Wayside School. For the most of us, 2+2 ALWAYS =4, and does not sometimes =5.

Maybe it's as silly as you think it is...

Have you read "The mismeasure of man", written by late Stephen Jay Gould?
Somehow, IQ tests were deliberately created to prove the superiority... of the people who created the test.

In France we have a saying: "Chacun voit midi à sa porte"... :rolleyes:

It could be that silly. I wouldn't put it beyond test writers to do that. Never read the book though. Writing a year-long presentation on villains has kind of eaten up most of my reading time.

[TheLastMohican]

IQ tests only test how good you are at passing IQ Tests.

They are deeply biased, and not an accurate tool for any research.

The first part is very true. IQ tests determine how good you are at taking IQ tests. There are a few factors that detract from the test being an absolute measure of intelligence, like time constraints, poorly worded questions, etc. But the problems on IQ tests require use of the brain, and IQ is meant to be a measure of the brain's abilities.

What kind of research are you talking about? IQ tests are valid tools for research involving the problem-solving functions of the brain, because that is what the problems on IQ tests exercise. Please explain what "deep bias" an IQ test has. I presume you do not actually mean that IQ tests give no indication of intelligence, but what do you mean?





TheLastMohican added to this post, 15 minutes and 58 seconds later...

No, you wanted to prove you were cleverer than the ones who did the test.
Believe me, for a gifted ENFP like I am (you have no idea how much), your mind is transparent. It's easy to read what your real intentions were.

We are born empaths.




Who do you want to reassure? Me, you, the audience?

IMHO, a mature response would have been to say this test is only a game, and as a game it has limits.
But you have to accept its results, how it works even if it's flawed.




That's exactly what you did.

"The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them."

Typical response. :rolleyes:

Pride, pride, pride...


I hate to burst your ENFP bubble, but my mind is not transparent to you. Your statement there is obvious, since I wrote that already in an earlier post! :rolleyes:

I am not trying to "reassure" anybody. I am trying to figure out what you think was immature about my earlier post. Maybe the personality gap is leading to a total lack of understanding.

I did not take the EQ score seriously when I saw it, nor was I "deeply wounded." My pride doesn't have anything to do with it. I am confident of my emotional intelligence (an INTJ thing; we have very strong confidence in what we know that we know, and often people think it is arrogance.)

If you are truly a talented ENFP, then you should understand this perfectly: even though I was not shaken by the score, I was still irritated that I had found yet another flawed test that claimed to scientifically accurate. In this case, however, I was more intrigued, because (as I mentioned in an earlier post) the questions were pretty good, and it seemed well-structured. So I experimented to find out what the problem was. I like to take things apart and know how they work. And sure enough, it was the scoring system.

Earlier you said you didn't believe me, though, so maybe there is no point in explaining why I did what you think I did not do in the first place. :thinking:

And why should I accept the results of something when I already have figured why it doesn't work? Huh?

[sm80403]

First, I am new to the board and think that this is one of the kewlest forums I have seen, but maybe that's because there is so much 'INTJ' ;) flying around. It's nice to finally find people like me, all in one spot. Many thanks to the creators.

After reading about EQ, IQ etc. discussions (and going to the site and taking the test--122) I think that the Cardinal, Last Mohican and Hazard have pretty much beaten the topic into the ground. . .very interesting reading a non-INTJ opinion, BTW. And love Cardinal's avatar; brings back great memories of seeing "No one expects the Spanish inquisition!!" skits and others from Monty P.

I think everyone involved in the discussion has had good and valid points--but maybe there may be some "you protest too much" conversation over somewhat of a topic that probably doesn't deserve the attention it's getting from bigger minds than those that created the tests?

I always take tests like these with a grain of salt. I suspect that the EQ tests were made up by a coven of HR managers ;) and the IQ tests have been around for so long I suspect it was just a way to easily 'slot' the masses. Neither really have an emotional effect on me. I think I got the 122 EQ because I think over time, INTJs learn to use their 'N' to make up for a lack of 'F' or, if we don't learn to fake it with our 'Ns', we have a hard time doing that exhausting 'caring' (in a business environment) when stupidity abounds, and 'enjoying' business meetings and participating in BS things at work that are pretty mandatory (and hope to God that we can make it back to our hotel rooms or homes before we go nuts). Anyway, I haven't been on the board long and this has probably been said before, so if I am redundant, please forgive. And thanks for the lively discussion; even if we are supposedly less than 1% of the population, it's nice to have a place to see comments that I might have made myself (and would have the other 'outgoing' personality types stomp all over).

Thanks everyone--I'm enjoying this immensely. My husband, a nerdy and analytical INTP, just pooh-poohed my ideas on how personalities are somewhat hardwired (what INTJ hasn't wished to be a little more naturally outgoing and people oriented--even just a little bit??). It's so nice to see fellow INTJ's and know I'm probably right and he's well, wrong ;). We can fake it because we're good.

[Antares]

And by the way, I am intelligent and mature. An immature response would have been to declare the test to be entirely stupid and feel deeply wounded by the low score. Instead I concluded that the score was unreasonable and went back to find out why, and then discovered the problem, which was the limited ability of the computer system.

The test may nor may not be accurate, but doubting its validity or its original purpose does not constitute discontent that I got a low score. I felt the same about EQ tests when I got a 120 (relatively exceeded my expectations) on the Tickle test. No, it's not about being sore that I got a low score; it's not caring. To many of us, it's just another test. By the way, I have quite a few questions about the EQ test myself. Does the desire to keep emotions to myself imply that I'm emotionally unintelligent? Does the tendency to trust logic over emotion imply the same thing?

That's exactly what you did.

"The emotional IQ tests tend to be written by less intelligent people than those who tend to fail them."

Typical response.

Pride, pride, pride...

No, you wanted to prove you were cleverer than the ones who did the test.
Believe me, for a gifted ENFP like I am (you have no idea how much), your mind is transparent. It's easy to read what your real intentions were.

We are born empaths.

Whoa. Do I see pride in your post as well? INTJ's aren't nearly easy to read. Perhaps you're too sure of yourself? How do you know what he wants? Are you TheLastMohican? How can anyone's mind be completely transparent to you? I can see the source of our conspiracy theories now 0___o

FYI, I've been acting in front of my ENFP friends for years. Not once was I found out.

[eMachine]

Decided to read about ENFPs and found this little tidbit rather amusing...

Less mature ENFPs may need to feel they are the center of attention all the time, to reassure them that everyone thinks they're a wonderful and fascinating person.

:stunned:

As for my EQ, I scored around 90 on that test and it doesn't surprise me, I'm always a little at a loss when communicating with people expressing alot of emotion and I can't help but wonder how I'm expected to react to it. I know that we have control over our emotions and it astounds me that some people choose not to. At the same time, I have a great deal of social anxiety, so I'm always conscious of how a comment could make an emotional person feel and generally I keep my comments to myself to avoid controversy or confrontation.

I don't score very highly on some parts of IQ tests either, because I am pretty uneducated in some subjects. My social anxiety caused me to avoid school from 3rd grade on, as much as I could, and I dropped out in 11th grade. I have always read alot and tried to educate myself, but without formal education forcing me to learn things that I'm not so interested in, my knowledge is not 'well-rounded' enough for me to score highly on IQ.

I don't mind having low scores on some tests, I've never come across a test which is well-suited to my individual strengths. I'm aware of my weaknesses and my strengths.

[CardinalXiminez]

Does the desire to keep emotions to myself imply that I'm emotionally unintelligent?

To ask the question is to know the answer. :rolleyes:

Does the tendency to trust logic over emotion imply the same thing?

Depends what kind of logic you are talking about.

If we analyze "The Last Mohican", it seems quite obvious that his logic is heavily biased thanks to the emotions he felt.
It is flawed because he can't or doesn't want to recognize the emotional part that is overwhelming him.

It's a bit like shifting sands: he more he fights, the more he sinks. :undecided:

Taming our emotions should not mean repressing them, or pretending you are not affected by them.


Whoa. Do I see pride in your post as well? INTJ's aren't nearly easy to read. Perhaps you're too sure of yourself? How do you know what he wants? Are you TheLastMohican? How can anyone's mind be completely transparent to you? I can see the source of our conspiracy theories now 0___o

As I have already said, most INTJs express very crude or very raw emotions. Somehow, they are like childs with very primitive needs.
And like childs, sometimes they are transparent (especially when they try to lie), and sometimes, they are too complex to decipher.

I'd say INTJs males are usually easy to analyze, while INTJs females are... weird? :stunned:

FYI, I've been acting in front of my ENFP friends for years. Not once was I found out.

That's what you want to believe. :cool:

Decided to read about ENFPs and found this little tidbit rather amusing...

Less mature ENFPs may need to feel they are the center of attention all the time, to reassure them that everyone thinks they're a wonderful and fascinating person.

Well, it's partly true. Why should I lie?

But you know, I have not decided to join an INTJ forum to be praised as the wonderful and fascinating person I certainly am, unless I'd feel very masochistic and self-destructive... :cool:


I don't mind having low scores on some tests, I've never come across a test which is well-suited to my individual strengths. I'm aware of my weaknesses and my strengths.

And this awareness is the key to wisdom.

---

To tell the truth, since I am here, I have noticed two drastically different species of INTJs. The firsts are obnoxious arrogant braggarts who constantly lie to themselves... while the seconds are calm-mooded, very objective thinkers who often express very clear thoughts, ask genuine questions (and thus are very pleasant to read).

And there is a wall between them.
There seems to have no connection between the two.

Let's say I like what you have written. :)

[Haphazard]

Eh, acting in front of my ENXX friends has always been a chore. People are quick to pick up that there's something 'not quite right' about this sweet fifteen-year-old, and not just the normal teenager way, either.

You know, like a horror movie. I'm not very good at hiding things.



That said, I don't understand this logic of not repressing or pretending you're not affected by emotions. For us INTJs, sometimes they're so muted and overwhelmed by other factors, or even what appears to be emotion tends to be something else. If there's no difference between repression and not being affected, then what's an INTJ to do? The emotions may be there, but they're muted unless something snaps, usually. Must we express these muted emotions to their full extent? I cannot imagine how awkward this would become for everybody involved...

Let's take enthusiasm -- that's something INTJs tend to be lacking. It's apparently the 'attitude' to get something done well, but INTJs do things well all the time, and they don't need enthusiasm to do it. What are they supposed to do? The only purpose I can see to fake it would be if you were someone in command and had to get others enthusiastic.

For me, enthusiasm is not natural, and it's never been natural. It's a waste of energy that could better be used for actually doing the thing you're supposed to be enthusiastic about. The only times when I act it is when I need to present something, and even then it can be downright painful.

And because INTJs aren't easily enthusiastic, there's apparently something wrong. And that's just cruel and unusual.

[simoncpu]

To tell the truth, since I am here, I have noticed two drastically different species of INTJs. The firsts are obnoxious arrogant braggarts who constantly lie to themselves... while the seconds are calm-mooded, very objective thinkers who often express very clear thoughts, ask genuine questions (and thus are very pleasant to read).


And there are cute INTP trolls here too. As an ENFP, can you please give me insight on why I find it so fascinating to observe how people react? Why do I find it so delighting to deliberately respond with unusual posts just for the sake of response experimentation?

Maybe I also like typing my thoughts out. Blabbering pseudo-funny nonsense on the Net is a bit cathartic. :)

[Haphazard]

And there are cute INTP trolls here too. As an ENFP, can you please give me insight on why I find it so fascinating to observe how people react? Why do I find it so delighting to deliberately respond with unusual posts just for the sake of response experimentation?

Maybe I also like typing my thoughts out. Blabbering pseudo-funny nonsense on the Net is a bit cathartic. :)

I think it's because as an ENFP, he's avoiding active confrontation. He wants to say his piece and get out of here, undisturbed. He's not an INTJ who would stick around to argue to the DEATH.





Haphazard added to this post, 6 minutes and 22 seconds later...


Nothing should be forced, or else it will look artificial.

This is something I yoinked from Ximinez on another thread.

There may be emotions there but trying to express them in a healthy manner would be forced. I'd be pulling out the emotional part of my brain, kicking and screaming like a small child about to get an injection. It'd be a terrible mess and there'd likely be blood and hair everywhere.

Forcing this would likely be more dangerous than forcing a type of clothing style. If you're apparently emotionally intelligent, what do you say we should do? It's unnatural to us, and if what you've said is true, we're very transparent when we try to lie. Are we always doomed to fail? :irked:

[simoncpu]

He's not an INTJ who would stick around to argue to the DEATH.

We INTPs can argue to the death too, as long as you can be patient with us when we start asking "what is the meaning of death?" "Is there life after death?" "Can we resurrect a dead frog that has been frozen for several hours inside a freezer?"

"Oooh, Wacraft! I like to play a Scourge character! The Undead is pretty cool. w00t!"





simoncpu added to this post, 78 minutes and 12 seconds later...

Ei, just took the test. The result its:

Subscale IQ score = 120
Subscale percentile = 91

Eh? Seems a bit high for a socially-awkward cute weirdo. :)

[TheLastMohican]

"If we analyze "The Last Mohican", it seems quite obvious that his logic is heavily biased thanks to the emotions he felt.
It is flawed because he can't or doesn't want to recognize the emotional part that is overwhelming him.

It's a bit like shifting sands: he more he fights, the more he sinks.

Taming our emotions should not mean repressing them, or pretending you are not affected by them."


So now you have lost all your standing on the EQ issue, so you resort to unfounded attacks. You have no examples of what you describe, and those who "analyze" me will find that your claim is baloney. It is obvious enough that I treated the test in an objective manner and did not emotionally react except for being somewhat surprised and irritated that it was faulty. (I did say I was " a bit offended" by my initial score; that was poor wording on my part. There isn't really a word for my thought process, but I simply recognized that it was not valid, after a brief run-through of how my abilities compared.)


As I have already said, most INTJs express very crude or very raw emotions. Somehow, they are like childs with very primitive needs.
And like childs, sometimes they are transparent (especially when they try to lie), and sometimes, they are too complex to decipher.

I'd say INTJs males are usually easy to analyze, while INTJs females are... weird?


I don't know what you mean by "crude" or "raw" emotions. INTJs tend not to be very emotionally expressive, but more logical and objective. What's crude about that? You seem to have chosen your words carefully to be as demeaning as possible: "They are like childs (sic) with very primitive needs." That it true, if you take this way: "Primitive needs" are simply the most basic ones, excluding emotional "needs" like the need for constant social interaction. INTJs do happen to need oxygen, food, water, and shelter from the elements. But then, so does everyone else.

We are not like children, though (at least, those of use who are not still really children). Children tend to be at the mercy of their emotions, and lack higher levels of logical capability and objective reasoning (not that I blame them, since that part of the brain is not fully developed until adulthood).





TheLastMohican added to this post, 5 minutes and 44 seconds later...

"To tell the truth, since I am here, I have noticed two drastically different species of INTJs. The firsts are obnoxious arrogant braggarts who constantly lie to themselves... while the seconds are calm-mooded, very objective thinkers who often express very clear thoughts, ask genuine questions (and thus are very pleasant to read).

And there is a wall between them.
There seems to have no connection between the two."


The second type you describe is very close to a true INTJ. The first group is your impression of INTJs when they disagree with you. It appears that the emotional bias is coming from you, and you project it onto those you dislike, hence the very un-INTJ-ish type that you claim lurks around on this forum.

[sm80403]

And there are cute INTP trolls here too. As an ENFP, can you please give me insight on why I find it so fascinating to observe how people react? Why do I find it so delighting to deliberately respond with unusual posts just for the sake of response experimentation?

Maybe I also like typing my thoughts out. Blabbering pseudo-funny nonsense on the Net is a bit cathartic. :)

We INTPs can argue to the death too, as long as you can be patient with us when we start asking "what is the meaning of death?" "Is there life after death?" "Can we resurrect a dead frog that has been frozen for several hours inside a freezer?"

Typical INTP--just stick it with a pin to see what will happen. Discuss. Discuss. Discuss. My INTP husband is waaay into that, argument for argument's sake alone, whoaaa hey there, no decision making. Discussing anything and everything to death (to always play the devil's advocate when you're an INTP to your INTJ spouse--it's just cruel and unusual punishment). How do we get back at you INTPs? My way is to generally exit the room. . .(they hate that).

[liger0]

I scored a 55 on that test. Am I doing it right?

[TheLastMohican]

I scored a 55 on that test. Am I doing it right?


That sounds a bit low. First of all you should try to find out how you did on the "people reading" section. As for the rest of it, if you answered the questions at the right side of the scale but did not make all your answers equally extreme, you probably did just fine. As I said before, the main problem is the scoring method, not so much the questions.

[ginandsour]

I got a 78.

I think it's interesting that we've got several threads asking for advice on and/or bemoaning having to relate to people at all, expressing issues about avoidant tendencies, some posters who claim not feeling any emotion whatsoever, all while generally projecting a cavalier attitude towards intelligence scores.

And yes, there are problems with how IQ tests are constructed however I am not as up to date on the literature, so I can't engage in a study contest at the moment.

[INTJoe]

I got 104.

Anyone else think the image of the two young folks on the bench was really creepy? haha.

I'd taken a similar EQ test before and got like 102. My INTJ and INTP friends got 103 and 104. So the three of us, although easily top 5% in IQ, were borderline in EQ.

[melon]

I found an interesting study on the connections of Emotional Intelligence MBTI types here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). From the 2nd page of the link:

While at first blush, Feeling judgment seems to be what EI is about, those who have studied the connection more closely believe that skillfully executing these desired behaviors depends on effective use of both Thinking and Feeling . . . and for that matter also effective use of Sensing and Intuition.

In a the recent issue of the Bulletin for Psychological Type (Vol. 29, No.3 2006), one of the authors, Henry “Dick” Thompson (2006, p. 18), reported on some of his research into EI and Type. One finding I found quite interesting was that of the 5 personality types with the highest overall EQ score, three preferred Feeling and two preferred Thinking. In fact the top 2 were ENTJ and ESTJ ! (followed by ENFJ, ESFP, and ENFP). Of the 5 personality types with the lowest overall EQ score, three were Feeling types and two were Thinking types. And surprisingly, the bottom two were Feeling types: ISFJ and INFP! People looking for a correlation between EQ and Feeling won’t find it in Thompson’s research! About the only conclusion Thompson seemed willing to risk from this study was it appears that the EQ measures have a bias towards Extraversion.

Another authority of Personality Type, Elizabeth Murphy (2006, p. 26), reported on a study that found a correlation between dominant Intuition and high EI scores. Murphy noted that this same study, like Thompson's, found no relationship between EI and Feeling.

So it seems that all of us INTJs don't necessarily have terrible "emotional intelligence," but that most of us (myself included) try to suppress feelings often in order to make objective decisions.

I scored 94 on the EQ test that was posted earlier. According to that test, I have slightly below average emotional intelligence; I actually expected my score to be a bit lower. :p

[AgentofGaming]

hmm somewhat expected
Subscale IQ score = 81
Subscale percentile = 10

[Antares]

To ask the question is to know the answer. :rolleyes:

Oh? Really now. So what's the answer?

Depends what kind of logic you are talking about.


What kind of logic can I be talking about? The one labeled 'objective', of course.

If we analyze "The Last Mohican", it seems quite obvious that his logic is heavily biased thanks to the emotions he felt.
It is flawed because he can't or doesn't want to recognize the emotional part that is overwhelming him.


And you know what emotions he felt? And your logic is better? He doesn't recognize the emotional part (which may or may not be true) can be due to his need to analyze things logically and objective part. I find it highly amusing that you can tell when someone's emotions are 'overwhelming' them, seeing you're not reading his face or following his eyes, but merely reading off HTML formed by pixels.

It's a bit like shifting sands: he more he fights, the more he sinks. :undecided:

Taming our emotions should not mean repressing them, or pretending you are not affected by them.


Why do you allege that we 'pretend' that we're not affecting by them?

As I have already said, most INTJs express very crude or very raw emotions. Somehow, they are like childs with very primitive needs.
And like childs, sometimes they are transparent (especially when they try to lie), and sometimes, they are too complex to decipher.


If I'm so obvious, then maybe we should be F types. I find it strange that those who know me personally didn't peg me as INTJ after the first meeting, if I'm so 'transparent'.


I'd say INTJs males are usually easy to analyze, while INTJs females are... weird? :stunned:

Opinion.

That's what you want to believe. :cool:


It's not about what I want to believe, but what is true.

[TheLastMohican]

And you know what emotions he felt? And your logic is better? He doesn't recognize the emotional part (which may or may not be true) can be due to his need to analyze things logically and objective part. I find it highly amusing that you can tell when someone's emotions are 'overwhelming' them, seeing you're not reading his face or following his eyes, but merely reading off HTML formed by pixels.

He might have had a hard time accepting that our type is more rational, so he is seeking to undermine that fact by making these claims about how we are "overpowered" by emotions.

*searches brain for that elusive overpowering emotion*

But anyway, he was banned a while ago, and cannot post any more attacks on this thread. To read more (from his perspective) about his venture into our forum and his theories about the abominable nature of INTJ's, go to:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(Be sure to read at least through the second page)

[sm80403]

I'd say INTJs males are usually easy to analyze, while INTJs females are... weird?

I'm an INTJ female and was just wondering why someone would call an INTJ female weird, just based on gender? I can't believe that statement made it through the discussion without someone (or several someones) flaming the writer to a cinder. But that whole rant was rather silly (and the writer is banned now, I believe?). . .and describing INTJs making use of the practice of lying. . .I can't think of a MBTI type with less use for lies. It may be the communication of the truth (and only when we've analyzed something carefully and we're sure of our facts) that may be our Achilles heel. . .hard to soften the truth when you've had your Eureka! moment. As an INTJ involved in dealing with "people" problems every day, I have to remember where I left my kid gloves to communicate with they types that need the facts rolled up in something warm and fuzzy. . . Anyway, the whole diatribe was geared towards the writer getting his rocks off by stirring things up. Ho-Hum.

[simoncpu]

People would also label male INTJs as weird. The difference is that INTJ females are very rare...

[meanlittlechimp]

Scored 124

I would think EXXPs would typically do better than most other types. My guess is J's, and to a lesser extend Is, wouldn't do as well for EQ. I don't think the queendom test is necessarily accurate, but I do think such a thing as EQ exists.

I've met people that consistently and significantly lack Emotional intelligence; and they tend to be J's, and then I's, in that order. I would also think women tend to better than men, but not sure if that's socialized or innate.

Not to say Emotional intelligence is the end all. I would rather have linear, analytical, intelligence over Emotional intelligence, personally.

[SimplyOtter]

My own experience with this test: The first time I took it, I answered honestly and scored 94. I was a bit offended by this; I have good control of my emotions, have a generally positive (but of course still logical and skeptical) outlook, and am relatively socially savvy.

I have just tryed the test and i had the same experience as you ! I scored below average (106) .... and i'm an INFP!!! :irked:

[Astaemie]

102 and I'm meant to be an ENFP! :disappointed: It must be rigged!!!*sulk*

[sriv]

102 and I'm meant to be an ENFP! :disappointed: It must be rigged!!!*sulk*

Your reaction says it all. :)

[TheLastMohican]

I have just tryed the test and i had the same experience as you ! I scored below average (106) .... and i'm an INFP!!! :irked:

102 and I'm meant to be an ENFP! :disappointed: It must be rigged!!!*sulk*

As I explained earlier, the problem is that the scoring is based on how extreme your answers are. If you always answer at the far end of the scale, even if your true answer is close to the middle, you will get a high score (unless your answers are really strange). Most people will be leaning towards the same side; but for the test you have to sound like you are "more right" than others who take the test.

[elsdfr]

Pfft emotions... they make me so, so umm... I don't know.

[azelismia]

I just took this test


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

if my score were to be compared with IQ I think it would mean I am retarded
apshot Report Self-report Component
Subscale IQ score = 81
Subscale percentile = 10 According to your self-report answers, your emotional intelligence is somewhat poor. People who score like you may at times feel that they have trouble dealing with their own emotions and those of others. They sometimes struggle to overcome difficulties in their lives and they are not always able to control their moods. It may be hard for them to understand how best to motivate themselves to overcome obstacles and reach their goals. In addition, they find social interactions difficult at times, for several reasons. They may have trouble allowing themselves to get close with others, finding it difficult to be vulnerable enough to establish intimacy or perhaps lacking understanding of, or comfort with, social interactions. Perhaps by working on your problem areas, you can become more confident in dealing with your own emotions and those of others.

[True Rune]

I figured male or female, the INTJ is kind of rare...
Snapshot Report
Self-report Component
Subscale IQ score = 69
Subscale percentile = 2


69
According to your self-report answers, your emotional intelligence is very poor. People who score like you do feel that they have trouble dealing with their own emotions and those of others. They struggle to overcome difficulties in their lives and they are unable to control their moods. It’s hard for them to understand how best to motivate themselves and reach their goals. In addition, they find social interactions quite difficult, for several reasons. They may have trouble allowing themselves to get close with others, finding it difficult to be vulnerable enough to establish intimacy. They also report having trouble offering support to others, likely due to the fact that they do not understand where others are coming from or they lack ideas about how best to help. Perhaps by working on your problem areas, you can become more confident in dealing with your own emotions and those of others.
I thought I did good too..but no kidding..

[azelismia]

I figured male or female, the INTJ is kind of rare...

I thought I did good too..but no kidding..

yeah, I thought I was doing good too.

[True Rune]

I wonder what the right answers were.. I guess I can tell how other people are feeling and know what not to say, but that's about it. But that's all you really need, because 10 out of 10 people don't really care how you feel..

[comet]

I suspect INTJ personalities feel emotion just as much as anyone else, afterall we are still all human!! In saying this however, I suspect we internalise our emotions to a greater degree than the rest of the general population.

Viva la difference I say, it would be just awful if we all felt needy, if we continually needed reassurance, if we were all touchy feely types.

P.S. I should go do an EQ test, I really hope I score 42, it's such a perfect number!!! pmsl

[JasonM]

For the queendom.com test, don't go by the "snapshot" that they give you. Those are only for the subjective questions you answer at the beginning of the test. In order to get your complete results, you have to pay. I posted a link about this in the tests section, because I was confused over the snapshot and thought that I was emotionally retarded. When I saw that you had to pay for the results, I wanted to take it down, but it wasn't possible. I actually retook it and paid for the results and I got 115. I think the problem with the test is that it's actually too easy. Anyone, regardless of their actual emotional IQ, could tell you, for example, that happiness is associated with sunny weather. That has less to do with dealing with your emotions and more to do with general knowledge. Also, most people can read the facial expressions of others. I would guess that most people here would score above average.

As for the content of the test, I don't think everything is "touchy feely" in the sense that it's about expressing and perceiving emotions. For example, there are questions about how you are able to control your emotions and questions about motivation.

Finally, I think EQ is a fairly new concept and people are still working out the bugs, so I don't think it can be established how well it correlates with anything in real life. However, for those that said that IQ is meaningless, you are failing to recognize that IQ is well correlated with school and work success.