iNtuition in a state of barbarism?

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I often wondered how does this work?

i.e. you were born a serf in medieval Europe.

Or in a village in Somalia/Afghanistan/Pakistan etc. today.

If you were an iNtuitive, would you simply be less effective at surviving, i.e. essentially a slightly slower less "on the ball" version of the people around you?

Or would iNtuition simply not develop in people in those situations at all?

Btw I am using iNtution in the Jungian sense, i.e. ABSTRACT THINKING. I am not using it in the sense of "intuition" as used day-to-day, which means something different, i.e. ability to read people/read a situation instinctively, which Sensors are often better at the iNtuitives anyway, and which would be very useful in the aforementioned situations.

So my point is, 1.) does iNtution in the sense of ABSTRACT THINKING only emerge in relatively wealthy comfortable surrounding? And 2.) Does this mean that N's just don't exist in barbaric times/countries, or that they do exist, but are just seen as dopey/slow.

 

[KDude]

Well, I'm sure monasteries and colleges had a fair share of them (probably a lot of manager types too though). Hildegard of Bingen was definitely a medieval intuitive. That's more the contemplative type. Maybe the Ne doms were hopeless dreamers, tragic figures like Don Quixote (I know he's fictional, and technically, not even medieval, but still). And if we go back to actual barbaric times, I'm sure some shaman types might have been. Especially the types who experimented with remedies or better agricultural methods. A lot of that must have been very forward thinking, and not just accidental advancements.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Shaman, story tellers, leaders, craftsmen, mothers, hunters, etc. Surfs still intuited, they just did it whilst at work.

Sure, Se wouldn't be as developed, but we end up doing alright.


Is this what you mean?

 

[UniqueMixture]

i think of the oracle at delphi and things like that as well, perhaps cassandra the oracle who was fated to tell the future but never be believed, etc I think there were people who such legends were based off of and had a mythos built around themselves

 

[KDude]

i think of the oracle at delphi and things like that as well, perhaps cassandra the oracle who was fated to tell the future but never be believed, etc I think there were people who such legends were based off of and had a mythos built around themselves

I think they were just high on the volcanic fissures in the area.

 

[FDG]

INxx would generally be much more prudent than ESxx types when interacting with the world (they still are in today's society), so what they may lose in terms of quick real world effectiveness, they gain from avoiding danger.

ENxx are generally not really that bad at dealing with "dangerous" or challenging real life situations, they usually just suck at dealing with details, which may even be less important in that kind of environment (not always ofc).

 

[Standuble]

I imagine that they laboured in the fields but their minds still worked. The repetition of doing a menial task over and over would become more muscle memory so the intuitives could allow their minds to wander and the more it wandered the more their N grew. If they were not allowed to talk they would think and then discuss later, if they could talk they probably discussed folk tales and sought to understand what was, what wasn't and why.

History is full of elaborate mythologies, ideas, schools of thought, fascination with the stars, Moon and Sun and the utilisation of symbolism to represent their conceptions of the various forms of the divine. It was where all the great religions were born. Plus there are all the great construction projects of history which I don't think S types can take all the credit for. All this came from a population which was kept at near stagnant growth rate for millennia due to high death rates (both infant mortality and smaller life expectancy.)

I won't say N's were rarer in the past (if they were then it was due to a low quality of life due to less physical aptitude) but I am willing to consider that any iNtuition was more honed in the past for those who possessed it. Much of reality was not known so there was more room in letting your thoughts wander because there was a large number of topics ripe for pure speculation.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Shaman, story tellers, leaders, craftsmen, mothers, hunters, etc. Surfs still intuited, they just did it whilst at work.

Sure, Se wouldn't be as developed, but we end up doing alright.


Is this what you mean?

It's a disadvantage though.

Despite my aristocratic air, in my life I've done a lot of menial jobs, before I studied.

And however hard I tried, I sucked at them compared to Sensing types, because I just couldn't see details as well as they can. Literally. They just paid my way to then study, nothing more.

If that was my destiny for life - as it would be for a Medieval peasant or a person in a 3rd world village today - yeah I might adapt to survive, like I have done, but I'd still be at a disadvantage compared to a natural.

Another example, I play football (soccer), and while I am good, my inability to focus fully on it means I will never be as consistent as others or be able to go to the "next level" in such a field. Because I can be very good at the basics but I have not got the focus to learn truly great new skills that would make me stand out.

Again, if my life destiny depended on such "int he moment" skills, either I would have to develop my sensing functions fully - i.e. NOT DEVELOP AS AN N TYPE - or be at a disadvantage. Just an average chump. Which would suck.

There's some exmaple of monks and architects etc. but this is just a tiny, tiny proportion of those societies, for 99% of commoners they would/will never get that chance.

So either, IMO, they don't develope as N's, or they live lives scraping by as average chumps, while a Sensor of equivalent intelligence will rise above them*.




*In include "equivalent" intelligence, because obviously, while a more intelligent S can rise above a less intelligent N in a field of abstract thinking, so a more intelligent N can rise above a less intelligent S in a field of concrete thinking - but let's assume a like for like comparison.

 

[Cellmold]

People adapt.

Some typologists maintain that modern cultures in many countries are in fact even more sensory than in the past, i'm not sure I agree altogether but it's an interesting idea.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

People adapt.

Of course. My question is regarding precisely that, the nature of this adaption.

Some typologists maintain that modern cultures in many countries are in fact even more sensory than in the past, i'm not sure I agree altogether but it's an interesting idea.

What typologists, what countries, what period of 'the past'?

 

[lunalum]

Intuition in the truly Jungian sense is precisely not abstract thinking.

But to still try to give this thread some meaningful feedback........ no matter what human society we are talking about, there will be no intuition without sensation and no sensation without intuition. They exist because of themselves. A medieval surf is still going to either lean towards believing what his senses bring or inclined to "see without seeing" relative to other people.

It's important to keep this in mind to analyze even more ancient societies like that of the hunter-gatherers, and not draw bizarre conclusions like they must've all been sensors because they needed acute literal sensing to survive. If they were at such a primitive state of mind that they would never have the option to either play up or dismiss that which can be detected by the senses, the sensing preference would not exist then either.

This issue does get more complicated from there, but I thought I'd get that clarified from the start.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Intuition in the truly Jungian sense is precisely not abstract thinking.

How can you exercise Ne or Ni without abstract thinking?

But to still try to give this thread some meaningful feedback........ no matter what human society we are talking about, there will be no intuition without sensation and no sensation without intuition. They exist because of themselves.

Ok. My question was whether people could develop as iNtuitives in such scenarios as I said, and if so, how this would work out for them. I didn't say anything about iNtution not existing, as obviously, for the whole framework to be meaningful, it would have to.

though of course it's also possible that the framework is not meaningful, which is a logical question arising from this chain of reaosning.

A medieval surf is still going to either lean towards believing what his senses bring or inclined to "see without seeing" relative to other people.

I don't like that definition of iNtuition.

Thinking "for some reaosn I don't trust that guy" is not iNtution, or else most of the sensors I know, would be iNtutives. Everyone does that.

For it to be meaningful to me, iNtution means abstract thinking, i.e the serf is wondering about whether there God created Lords and Serfs, or whether man created them against Gods will, and if so, hwo does this fit with an omnipotent God etc.

On the other hand thinkign "this potato looks like it would taste crap, IDK know why but I know it", would not be iNtuition.

And yes I know that serfs did sometimes think about those things - hence they had revolts - but what could they really think liek that day to day, when they didn't have any kind of educational framework for it, or even the language to express those concepts, no outlet for it. and plus being distracted like that would just make you quite slow and idiotic in a world depending on such detail.

So my question being, if we accept that such an iNtuitive "function" exists inherently, could it be suppressed in a persons development in such an environment meaning that nobody would develop as N and instead they would have it as a tert or inferior function?

Or if not, and if N's did exist, were they just "idiots"?

I know I restated myself, but apparently, it was necessarry.

It's important to keep this in mind to analyze even more ancient societies like that of the hunter-gatherers, and not draw bizarre conclusions like they must've all been sensors because they needed acute literal sensing to survive. If they were at such a primitive state of mind that they would never have the option to either play up or dismiss that which can be detected by the senses, the sensing preference would not exist then either.

The bizzare conclusion is not mine.

Firstly, typology is not accepted as science and therefore it is reasonable to think that the exterior symptoms which typology attempts to explain, may be the cause of other factors eg environment. Or if that is too extreme, it is at least a reaosnable question to think that CF development may be affected by environment.

Next, it is bizzarre to think that being a Sensor means you " do not have the option to either play up or dismiss that which can be detected by the senses", to use your own words.

For two reasons, firstly because even if they were all sensors, they would still have iNtuition as a tertiary or inferior function. So I think you strawmanned me there.

Second, because Se and Si is not simply seeing/hearing/touching, but rather taking information in a concrete manner.

Like I said, every person I know, can have intuition in the daily sense of the word, i.e. "I don't like the look of that guy", it's not the same Jungian iNtuition, at least not in my understanding (and if so, then the term becomes pretty meaningless). To be honest I thnk that is more to do with judging functions. F's in general are more likely to think in such a way, hence the reason why in popular language, "intuition" and "feeling" are often synonymous.

 

[lunalum]

How can you exercise Ne or Ni without abstract thinking?

By seeing without seeing.

Ok. My question was whether people could develop as iNtuitives in such scenarios as I said, and if so, how this would work out for them. I didn't say anything about iNtution not existing, as obviously, for the whole framework to be meaningful, it would have to.

Understood. Yeah, I don't really have an answer to that question.... I don't quite have a grasp on what it would mean to "develop as intuitive."

I don't like that definition of iNtuition.

Thinking "for some reaosn I don't trust that guy" is not iNtution, or else most of the sensors I know, would be iNtutives. Everyone does that.

Yes, "everyone does that" because everyone has intuition. It's a person's relationship to their intuition that defines type. Having those sort of raw and often negative insights is common for the intuition of sensing types.

For it to be meaningful to me, iNtution means abstract thinking, i.e the serf is wondering about whether there God created Lords and Serfs, or whether man created them against Gods will, and if so, hwo does this fit with an omnipotent God etc.

This almost sounds more like it's coming from Ti........ anyway, this is a specific, complex sort of thinking that some intuitives don't have and some sensors do.

On the other hand thinkign "this potato looks like it would taste crap, IDK know why but I know it", would not be iNtuition.

Yeah, that almost sounds like more of a Si sort of statement, because it is very likely bringing in past impressions, knowingly or not.

And yes I know that serfs did sometimes think about those things - hence they had revolts - but what could they really think liek that day to day, when they didn't have any kind of educational framework for it, or even the language to express those concepts, no outlet for it. and plus being distracted like that would just make you quite slow and idiotic in a world depending on such detail.

So my question being, if we accept that such an iNtuitive "function" exists inherently, could it be suppressed in a persons development in such an environment meaning that nobody would develop as N and instead they would have it as a tert or inferior function?

Or if not, and if N's did exist, were they just "idiots"?

Yeah lack of ways to develop would just create idiotic Ns (and idiotic Ss). The preference remains even when there is no outlet.

The bizzare conclusion is not mine.

I know it isn't, I've just seen enough of these conversations to know that this is probably going to come up.

Firstly, typology is not accepted as science and therefore it is reasonable to think that the exterior symptoms which typology attempts to explain, may be the cause of other factors eg environment. Or if that is too extreme, it is at least a reaosnable question to think that CF development may be affected by environment.

That's a big ole can o' worms there.

Next, it is bizzarre to think that being a Sensor means you " do not have the option to either play up or dismiss that which can be detected by the senses", to use your own words.

For two reasons, firstly because even if they were all sensors, they would still have iNtuition as a tertiary or inferior function. So I think you strawmanned me there.

Second, because Se and Si is not simply seeing/hearing/touching, but rather taking information in a concrete manner.

You wouldn't be able to determine the type of someone without that option, you could only determine if they were a sensor if they showed a preference towards the senses when also presented intuition.....

Like I said, every person I know, can have intuition in the daily sense of the word, i.e. "I don't like the look of that guy", it's not the same Jungian iNtuition, at least not in my understanding (and if so, then the term becomes pretty meaningless). To be honest I thnk that is more to do with judging functions. F's in general are more likely to think in such a way, hence the reason why in popular language, "intuition" and "feeling" are often synonymous.

It doesn't make the term meaningless because an intuitive type has a much more complex consciousness of intuition than any other type.

 

[FDG]

If that was my destiny for life - as it would be for a Medieval peasant or a person in a 3rd world village today - yeah I might adapt to survive, like I have done, but I'd still be at a disadvantage compared to a natural.

It depends, if you're a peasant with a tendency towards wondering about the deeper causes of why your harvest changes, or who becomes good at observing weather patterns etc., you might very well develop an advantage through other means (different, peculiar agricultural methods, foresight, etc.).

Another example, I play football (soccer), and while I am good, my inability to focus fully on it means I will never be as consistent as others or be able to go to the "next level" in such a field. Because I can be very good at the basics but I have not got the focus to learn truly great new skills that would make me stand out.

Most people have this problem with football or any sport for the matter, you're mistaken if you try to associate that with MBTI functions.

 

[WALMART]

By seeing without seeing.

*thinks abstractly about it*

 

[Standuble]

*thinks abstractly about it*

Try thinking of it as invisible/stealth camo wires joining together two items due to some shared trait e.g. the table and the pet Cat because they both have four legs. That's Ne but Ni also makes abstractions and connecions between incoming data.

 

[Standuble]

*thinks abstractly about it*

Try thinking of it as invisible/stealth camo wires joining together two items due to some shared trait e.g. the table and the pet Cat because they both have four legs. That's Ne but Ni also makes abstractions and connecions between incoming data.

 

[KDude]

Try thinking of it as invisible/stealth camo wires joining together two items due to some shared trait e.g. the table and the pet Cat because they both have four legs.

Sounds a bit like Ne and Si together.

 

[Kalach]

In my humble estimation, intuition in a Jungian sense can't exist without sensing, and nor can sensing without intuition. So in a state of barbarism, you'd do just as the sensors do only with less immediate facility and interest. But they, likewise, would do just as you do, but in their own way. Gifts, as they say, would differ.

The root of the word "intuition", or so I am informed by the Internet, is tueri, to protect. It seems like guessing ahead of time what's going to happen next or what something may mean would be at least a little bit useful.

 

[FDG]

The root of the word "intuition", or so I am informed by the Internet, is tueri, to protect. It seems like guessing ahead of time what's going to happen next or what something may mean would be at least a little bit useful.

No it comes from latin through "intuire" which means "looking inside" (into - looking).