Doubting N

[nolla]

Intuition. It seems like it is not equal to the other functions. Thinking, feeling and sensing are all very "real". I can concretely feel when I'm using one of them, but with intuition that is not the case. I understand that it is "the world of meanings" compared to "the world of objects" but I can't make it real for me.

Any advice on how to do this? Better definitions? Good quotations?

 

[Totenkindly]

Intuition. It seems like it is not equal to the other functions. Thinking, feeling and sensing are all very "real". I can concretely feel when I'm using one of them, but with intuition that is not the case. I understand that it is "the world of meanings" compared to "the world of objects" but I can't make it real for me. Any advice on how to do this? Better definitions? Good quotations?

Can you clarify a little more what you're asking for, exactly?

What do you mean by "make it real?"

 

[Nocapszy]

I used to doubt my N a lot too. Knowing that intuition doesn't happen consciously helped. Its rather rare for an intuitor's consciousness become fully aware of all their perceptions. A lot of them go out the window when T or F take over.

 

[nolla]

What do you mean by "make it real?"

I know when I am thinking, I know when I am feeling, and I know that the input coming in is sensing, but I don't exactly know when I use intuition. I mean, the three functions are self-evident. Intuition is not.

Its rather rare for an intuitor's consciousness become fully aware of all their perceptions.

This is interesting. More, tell me more!

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I think of intuition as picking up on themes and patterns. When your thoughts wander and you start looking for patterns in your life or in people's behavior, or some relationship between/among different things, you're using intuition. It's not some magical feeling or experience, if that's what you're looking for.

 

[nolla]

I think of intuition as picking up on themes and patterns. It's not some magical feeling or experience, if that's what you're looking for.

No no, I'm not expecting it to be any more magical than feeling or sensing.

I see patterns to be a conclusion, a result of thinking. Convince me that it isn't thinking. How can I know when a pattern is coming from "out there" as intuition, and not as a result of the thinking process? Intuition should be opposite of sensing, but similar in a way it gives me information of the world, right? So, how does this information come to me? I have eyes, so I see. Is intuition a different way to use that visual information? I don't clearly see how intuition could work in the role of sensing. Or in a similar way...

 

[Night]

N is pattern recognition

Realizing and interpreting interrelationships between otherwise unrelated elements

Accuracy is incidental. Configuring accuracy is a facet of intelligence. This is typically the disconnect most associate between positive intelligence and iNtuition. In truth, they are only causally linked.

iNtuition is fundamentally opaque. Mechanical tuning sharpens clarity.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Er... I'm not an MBTI expert, nor do I think you have to be one to answer this question, but here's my take on it...

I see patterns to be a conclusion, a result of thinking. Convince me that it isn't thinking.

Why? Of course it's thinking. It's all thinking. Some of it might be implicit/subconscious, but it's still thinking. Social Cognitive Neuroscience Matt Lieberman (UCLA) has done research on intuition and connects it to implicit processing. Here's an article for you to read. Keep in mind, this is the work of a researcher, not an MBTI theorist, though I would argue that the experience they are trying to measure and describe is the same.

How can I know when a pattern is coming from "out there" as intuition, and not as a result of the thinking process?

No. It IS thinking. How would you get information from "out there?" How would that work, even on the a theoretical level? Reality isn't organized into concepts and themes; your mind is.

Intuition should be opposite of sensing, but similar in a way it gives me information of the world, right? So, how does this information come to me? I have eyes, so I see. Is intuition a different way to use that visual information? I don't clearly see how intuition could work in the role of sensing. Or in a similar way...

I think of the relationship as this: intuition is the result of your mind taking in raw data (sensory experience, or sensing function) and organizing it in some way. The organization and insights that come from it is what people call intuition.

 

[Night]

"My Mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun."

Anyone can say this.

To give it definition and inspire discourse, one must explain why. Add marrow to the bone. Give it complexity beyond the immediate.

1-D is a point. 2-D is a line. 3-D is a box. How can we interpolate as to determine n-Dimensionality?

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, I wasn't sure what you meant because Intuition always seemed obvious to me.

I can look at a situation with my Thinking and say, "Here is what I can say about this... and this is ALL I can say about it." Everything is sifted and categorized and labeled in terms of probability -- the weighted chances of each statement being true.

So the presence of Intuition has been so obvious for me. It says, "Yes, I know that that's all you can fairly say about it... but you know what your gut is telling you the truth is."

That's more Ni to me -- the deep-seated hunch that leaps the gap that my Thinking rightfully points out as shaky ground and refuses to put its weight on. That's how I recognized it: Because I would fight internally over acting on the knowledge. Thinking screams, "No, you can't trust it THAT much," and Intuition yells back, "Stop being a scaredy cat -- you KNOW what the truth is."

Ne is more the "leapfrog" function, where I ping off one idea to the next like a pinball, taking new twists and turns with each step. Thinking demands a more linear line; Ne seeks to "ping" off each new concept, sensation, experience, or whatever, in any sort of direction as long as there is SOME sort of connection there.

 

[nolla]

No. It IS thinking. How would you get information from "out there?" How would that work, even on the a theoretical level? Reality isn't organized into concepts and themes; your mind is.

Sensing is getting it from out there and making a replica inside the mind. How does intuition compare to that? Why is it so important to call it intuition, if it is only a different way of using thinking?

N is pattern recognition

Realizing and interpreting interrelationships between otherwise unrelated elements

This seems to be relatively small area when compared to the other functions. How can it be that it has the same value as sensing? Think about life without sensing. You couldn't really communicate with the world at all, you couldn't make any sense of anything. Now, tell me how it could be that bad without intuition?

 

[Night]

Precisely.

Now factor preference and you have cognitive interaction.

 

[nolla]

That's more Ni to me -- the deep-seated hunch that leaps the gap that my Thinking rightfully points out as shaky ground and refuses to put its weight on. That's how I recognized it: Because I would fight internally over acting on the knowledge. Thinking screams, "No, you can't trust it THAT much," and Intuition yells back, "Stop being a scaredy cat -- you KNOW what the truth is."

Ok, that is something that I can understand being intuition. Still, that hasn't got anything to do with perceiving, does it? Because it comes from inside and to perceive is to get it from outside... So, why not turn the typology into a form that groups T, F and N into the same category and get rid of S, because all data comes in with S? (I know it is a far fetch, but I don't see how it makes sense to group N and S under the same function)

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Sensing is getting it from out there and making a replica inside the mind. How does intuition compare to that?

Intuition is the organization of the sensory data.

Why is it so important to call it intuition, if it is only a different way of using thinking?

Meh. I don't think it's important at all. It's just one way to look at and describe personality. The test was popularized by human resource specialists where this difference in attention and thinking style could be beneficial.

One more thing...the "Thinking" in MBTI is not thinking as used by cognitive psychologists, or philosophers, or Buddhists. It's something completely different which has to do with making decisions the the criteria for making those decisions.

 

[nolla]

Intuition is the organization of the sensory data.

Then it must be inferior to sensing by default and not actually perceiving, but distortion.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Ok, that is something that I can understand being intuition. Still, that hasn't got anything to do with perceiving, does it? Because it comes from inside and to perceive is to get it from outside... So, why not turn the typology into a form that groups T, F and N into the same category and get rid of S, because all data comes in with S? (I know it is a far fetch, but I don't see how it makes sense to group N and S under the same function)

That wouldn't make sense under this theory because the purpose of the functions (N/S vs. T/F) are different and describe a different experience. Intuition and sensing has to do with information gathering, so presumably, at that stage, you are just collecting information. Kind of like a crime scene investigator looking for clues. The T/F is a judgment-making function, so it's concerned with the criteria for making a decision based on that information you've already collected. So, is the person guilty or innocent? A hard hard F might ask how they feel about the criminal, while a hard hard T would just look to the evidence and burden of proof. So combining the functions doesn't really serve any purpose and would just be more confusing.

Then it must be inferior to sensing by default and not actually perceiving, but distortion.

Well, now you've made a judgment about what's good and what's bad and I don't think this is the realm of MBTI, but more ethics or philosophy. A judgment like that doesn't make sense to me unless you define what ends you're trying to achieve. If you want pure perception, then maybe someone who neglects all sensory input are is immersed with his ideas would be "inferior." If you're trying to achieve understanding of relationships or context, then sensing would be "inferior."

 

[nolla]

Intuition and sensing has to do with information gathering, so presumably, at that stage, you are just collecting information. Kind of like a crime scene investigator looking for clues.

So the N is an automatic system that chooses unconsciously which clues to pick up? Doesn't that mean that it is actually the thing that makes world understandable? That I could not differentiate any objects from one another without it? Sensing would only be to see colors and shapes and taste bitter and sweet without understanding the meaning or difference.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Intuition in it's most basic form can stated in one word: "Why?" The desire to know "why" is your mind trying to use intuition. It's looking for the explanation behind something. Sensing, in contrast, has to do with simply seeing something as it appears. This is why intuition is sometimes described as pattern recognition or viewing something from multiple perspectives. It is trying to find an extra meaning other than the most obvious one that we see.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ok, that is something that I can understand being intuition. Still, that hasn't got anything to do with perceiving, does it? Because it comes from inside and to perceive is to get it from outside...

That's a peculiar definition.

iNtution *is* perceiving something.
Patterns and insinuations from the outside.
But patterns and insinuations on the inside too.

Think of it more that way.
Se is the perception of raw data.
Ne is the perception of the insinuations made by the raw data.
Si is the awareness of internal states/memories of raw data.
Ni is the awareness of the insinuations made by internal states/memories of raw data.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

So the N is an automatic system that chooses unconsciously which clues to pick up?

N doesn't have to be automatic, but it often is. It depends on the situation. The link I provided for you deals with social intuition, which the author (smart guy, btw) claims is the result of implicit (subconscious) processing. Other uses of intuition are probably more conscious, like debating.

Doesn't that mean that it is actually the thing that makes world understandable? That I could not differentiate any objects from one another without it? Sensing would only be to see colors and shapes and taste bitter and sweet without understanding the meaning or difference.

When people use the word intuition in an MBTI context, they're talking about recognition of higher level patterns than merely "this shape is different than that." If you want to call it a low level intuitive process, I don't think anyone's going to object.

By the way, this is intuition.