Question Answer
0 View
Peringkat Artikel
1 звезда2 звезды3 звезды4 звезды5 звезд

What MBTI has the highest IQ?

Emotional Intelligence & Personality Type

An exploration of Emotions, Feeling & Emotional Intelligence — Part 2

By Ross Reinhold, INTJ

Article Index

Book Review: «The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense»The Civil War between Feeling and Thinking?

How is Emotional Intelligence different from IQ Intelligence?

For some, the pairing of the words «emotional» and «intelligence» come close to being a non sequitur. Intelligence (or IQ) is a mostly stable, innate ability that is a characteristic of the higher level cognitive mind; whereas emotion arises from the non-cognitive, primitive part of the brain . . . and can be easily influenced and triggered by experience. Emotion happens; it seemingly arises from within our bodies . . . not from our minds.

In reading Goleman, it becomes clear he is talking about some important knowledge and skills that contrast sharply with aspects of what folks would term rational decision making and have some relationship to emotion.

Goleman’s descriptions (and others’ rendering of Goleman) seem to suggest Emotional Intelligence is closely related to Jung-Myers Feeling preference. As an example, look at some extracts of Goleman’s book «Emotional Intelligence» by one Goleman disciple, Educator Brian Lamb (emphasis mine) :

“Knowing something is right ‘in your heart’ is somehow a deeper kind of certainty than thinking it with your rational mind . . . .”

“Ordinarily there is a balance between the rational and emotional minds but each, as we shall see, are semi-independent faculties. . . .”

“Boys take pride in tough independence while girls see themselves as part of a connected web. Thus in conversation men tend to talk about “things” while women seek emotional connections. . . .”

“A study of 250 executives found that most felt their work demanded their heads but not their ‘hearts’. Many said that feeling empathy for co-workers would conflict with their organisational goals. They believed emotional aloofness was needed to make the hard decisions that business requires. . . .”

Those conversant with Myers-Briggs concepts might well see the above statements as juxtaposing “Feeling” vs “Thinking” — the dichotomy of Judgment.

The parallel with Jung-Myers Feeling is further strengthened by the underlying values of Emotional Intelligence; the skills and behaviors espoused by EI advocates mirror the value constellation of Feeling Preference people. Witness how one writer, education professor Leslie Owen Wilson, describes Goleman’s measure of emotional intelligence (EQ . . . for Emotional Quotient):

“EQ is not destiny — emotional intelligence is a different way of being smart. It includes knowing your feelings and using them to make good decisions; managing your feelings well; motivating yourself with zeal and persistence; maintaining hope in the face of frustration; exhibiting empathy and compassion; interacting smoothly; and managing your relationships effectively. Those emotional skills matter immensely — in marriage and families, in career and the workplace, for health and contentment.”

EI and Emotional Intelligence fails to measure preference for Feeling

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. In noting some of the unexplainable EI relationship to Type, Murphy offered the following advice: “. . . if someone is working with you and they offer suggestions or strategies for practicing any of the EQ skills that do not have a good fit for your style, check with someone who shares your type to see if they have any insight into an effective system that will work for you. The outcome of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management is available to all types. How you attain that level of success is unique to your type.”

In the third article in the recent Bulletin on Psychological Type, Roger Pearman reported on his studies of Emotional Intelligence and Personality Type (pp. 20-24). Pearman has used a measure of EI developed by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso called the MESCEIT. Both the model and the instrument depart from Goleman in that the authors seek to measure cognitive abilities rather than skills or behaviors. Pearman has found a strong theoretical correlation between the 8 components of Mayer’s model and the 8 components one gets when Jung’s four mental functions are differentiated by extraversion and introversion (extraverted sensing, introverted sensing, extraverted feeling, introverted feeling, etc.). So Pearman believes the healthy use of emotion is related to effective use of all the mental functions rather than being uniquely associated with Feeling.

(Note: Pearman and his associates currently use a measure of EI called the BarOn EQ, which has «twenty five years of research behind it.»)

From my review of the literature, it seems clear EI is not Feeling. Although Goleman frequently contrasts EI with rational thinking, his measures of this competence, the EQ inventory score and sub scores, suggest that EI is not antagonistic to Thinking judgment. I think it fair to conclude that without constructive use of our Thinking mental function, with its detachment from emotion, broad-based EI competence would be difficult to attain.

Next Page: Thinking, Feeling, and Personality Type and How they relate to Emotions

While we have noted that the measures of EI show scant correlation to the Feeling function, both EI and Feeling share some connection with “emotion.” . . . read more

Book Review: «The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense»The Civil War between Feeling and Thinking?

Other Popular or New Articles on Personality Type

® MBTI, Myers-Briggs, Meyers Briggs, and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries (aka meyers briggs or myers briggs).

Big Five Openness, Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Intuition, & IQ Correlations

big five openness myers-briggs

The Five-Factor Model, commonly known as “The Big Five,” is the leading academic model of personality. As I have noted elsewhere, the correlations between the Big Five and Myers-Briggs personality dimensions are surprisingly strong. This is particularly remarkable when considering that Jung developed his framework on a completely informal basis, without the aid of the massive data collection and complex statistics that birthed the Big Five.

In this post, we will explore what I feel are some interesting correlations between one of the Big Five’s factors—Openness (sometimes called Openness to Experience)—and the Myers-Briggs preferences. While numerous studies have demonstrated strong correlations between the Myers-Briggs and the Big Five, the material for this post is derived primarily from a large study (over 900 participants) done by Adrian Furnham and colleagues. 1 This study compared subjects’ MBTI results with those of the Big Five’s Revised NEO-Personality Indicator (NEO PI-R).

The Big Five exhibits many similarities with the Myers-Briggs, with four of its five factors showing strong correlations with certain MBTI preferences:

Myers-Briggs / Big Five Correlations

As we will see, Big Five Openness correlates strongly with Myers-Briggs Intuition, moderately with Perceiving and Extraversion, and mildly with Feeling. Based on this, we might suspect ENFPs to be the most open (in the Big Five sense) of the types, with ENTPs earning a close second.

The Openness domain is comprised of six facets—openness to actions, values, feelings, fantasy, aesthetics, and ideas. Before proceeding further, let’s consider the numbers. The following data set uses the typical Myers-Briggs nomenclature of Intuition (N), Perceiving (P), Feeling (F), and Extraversion (E). I’ve also bolded the stronger correlations for emphasis.

Big Five & Myers-Briggs / MBTI Correlations

General Openness (E, N, P): E=.28, N=.64, F=.13, P=.26

  • Actions (E, N, P): E=.33, N=.42, F=-.06, P=.25
  • Values (N, P): E=.13, N=.64, F=.03, P=.26
  • Feelings (E, N, F): E=.33, N=.29, F=.20, P=.08
  • Fantasy (E, N, F, P): E=.18, N=.52, F=.17, P=.30
  • Aesthetics (N, F): E=.15, N=.44, F=.17, P=.08
  • Ideas (N): E=.07, N=.56, F=.03, P=.14

We will now discuss three of the above subdomains in greater depth: Openness to Actions, Values, and Ideas. We will also consider the relationship between Intuition, Openness to Ideas, and IQ.

Openness to Actions: Extraversion (E), Intuition (N), & Perceiving (P)

According to this study, E, N, and P types are more open to novel actions than I, S, and J types. This squares nicely with what we know about these types, as well as the Extraverted Intuition (Ne) function. As I’ve expressed elsewhere, EPs are novelty-seeking types. They are easily bored and are constantly seeking new and exciting experiences. For some, it may be surprising to learn that ENPs are more open to actions than ESPs are. But this is a testament to the open-minded, “try anything” attitude of Ne. NPs, especially ENPs, are willing to try just about anything once. They are idiosyncratic, unconventional, and willing to take risks for the sake of excitement or inspiration. Such types are well-described by the Enneagram Seven (7).

Openness to Values: Intuition & Perceiving

Openness to values speaks to one’s openness to diverse values as well as openness to change. This facet has been associated with working memory and intelligence, as well as, to some extent, political liberalism. 2

Openness to Values also shows a strong correlation with Myers-Briggs Intuition (.64), while correlating more moderately with Perceiving (.26). Here again, we can see a potential connection with Ne, which is willing to entertain a variety of perspectives. Viewed positively, Ne types are highly adaptive and receptive to alternate values and lifestyles. If viewed more negatively, they may be perceived as fickle, restless, and indecisive.

Openness to Ideas: Intuition & IQ

Openness to ideas is associated with regular intellectual engagement and perceived intelligence. It is strongly correlated with the scales of Typical Intellectual Engagement (.77) and Need for Cognition (.78), both of which are positively associated with IQ. With regard to the Myers-Briggs, Openness to Ideas is most strongly correlated with Intuition (.56). This should not surprise us, since a preference for Intuition is associated with abstract ideation and positively correlates with IQ, SAT scores, and educational achievement.

One of the more interesting features of Openness to Ideas is its association with both verbal / crystallized and nonverbal / fluid intelligence. With the exception of Values, all the other Openness facets correlate mainly with verbal intelligence. Hence, some individuals with mathematical, spatial, or other forms of nonverbal intelligence (often T types) may score relatively high on Openness to Ideas, while scoring lower on measures of Aesthetics, Feelings, and Fantasy. These differences may also surface in their Holland career interests, with NTs scoring higher in Investigative interests and NFs in Artistic interests.

Learn more about personality theory and Intuition in our latest book:

My True Type Book

Related Posts:


1. Furnham A, Mouttafi J, Crump J. The Relationship between the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Social Behavior and Personality. 2003, 31(6), 577-584.

2. DeYoung, C. “Personality and Intelligence.” In Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B., Eds. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711–737). New York: Cambridge University Press.



About A.J. Drenth

A.J. is a four-time author and recognized authority on personality typology. He founded Personality Junkie® in 2009 which has since grown to see over 3 million annual visitors. His work has been referenced in numerous publications and he currently boasts the two best-selling INTP books worldwide. Read A.J.’s bio here.

Our Free
Personality Test

What MBTI has the highest IQ?

Open-Source Psychometrics Project

Most high IQ or low IQ characters

As part of the Statistical «Which Character» Personality Quiz, this website has had volunteers rate 2,000 characters on a 100 point scale from «high IQ» to «low IQ». This page lists the 25 characters whose average ratings were the farthest to either side. Because the scale is bipolar, it is reversable. For example, a rating of 1/100 for «high IQ» is the same as 100/100 for «low IQ». See the documentation for more information about how these ratings were collected.

Most high IQ characters

RankAverage ratingNumber of ratersName
199.822Data (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
299.523L (Death Note)
399.110Tuvok (Star Trek: Voyager)
498.991Dr. Spencer Reid (Criminal Minds)
598.724Yoda (Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith)
698.074Dr. Gregory House (House, M.D.)
797.81156Sherlock Holmes (Sherlock)
897.6342Hermione Granger (Harry Potter)
997.6520Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
1097.5368Sheldon Cooper (The Big Bang Theory)
1197.455Temperance Brennan (Bones)
1297.3170Vision (WandaVision)
1397.267Dr. Shaun Murphy (The Good Doctor)
1497.225Raymond ‘Red’ Reddington (The Blacklist)
1597.265Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hannibal)
1697.0362Amy Farrah Fowler (The Big Bang Theory)
1797.038Alex Dunphy (Modern Family)
1896.969Doc Brown (Back to the Future)
1996.922Ender Wiggin (Ender’s Game)
2096.830El Profesor (Money Heist)
2196.832Michael Scofield (Prison Break)
2296.645Will Hunting (Good Will Hunting)
2396.651Professor X (X-Men)
2496.6492Cristina Yang (Grey’s Anatomy)
2596.6313Robert Ford (Westworld)

Most low IQ characters

RankAverage ratingNumber of ratersName
194.630Patrick Star (SpongeBob SquarePants)
290.4526Michael Kelso (That 70’s Show)
390.1686Karen Smith (Mean Girls)
489.3367Homer Simpson (The Simpsons)
589.240Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)
688.880Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)
788.5146Jason Mendoza (The Good Place)
887.437Charlie Kelly (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia)
987.023Philip J. Fry (Futurama)
1086.1554Kevin Malone (The Office)
1185.4346Nelson Muntz (The Simpsons)
1284.446Josh Chan (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend)
1384.250The Deep (The Boys)
1484.022Johnny ‘Drama’ Chase (Entourage)
1584.0473Midge Pinciotti (That 70’s Show)
1683.530Arturo Roman (Money Heist)
1783.326Finn Hudson (Glee)
1883.330Captain Hammer (Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog)
1983.0345Barney Gumble (The Simpsons)
2083.012Jeff Portnoy (Tropic Thunder)
2182.61106Joey Tribbiani (Friends)
2282.572Tommy (Shameless)
2382.4496Bob Pinciotti (That 70’s Show)
2480.999Ziggy Sobotka (The Wire)
2580.6221Joey Donner (10 Things I Hate About You)

Similar traits

The survey has 400 different descriptive scales that the characters can be rated on. This list is the 10 other scales that that have the highest correlation with high IQ low IQ when aggregated at the character level.

  1. genius (not dunce) (r=0.94)
  2. knowledgeable (not ignorant) (r=0.87)
  3. perceptive (not unobservant) (r=0.84)
  4. competent (not incompetent) (r=0.84)
  5. wise (not foolish) (r=0.79)
  6. alert (not oblivious) (r=0.75)
  7. tactful (not indiscreet) (r=0.72)
  8. precise (not vague) (r=0.72)
  9. resourceful (not helpless) (r=0.72)
  10. introspective (not not introspective) (r=0.71)


  • The survey data used to construct this ranking can be downloaded from the open data page.

Updated: 02 December 2022

Ссылка на основную публикацию