The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual

[nightning]

It seems to me that Ne is more proactive. It asks, "What if?" and then takes the material it finds, actively making connections between the pieces, forming new webs of connections. Ni seems more passive. Ni seems to perceive an already existing interconnectedness of everything and quietly attempts to "see" clearly the shape of those connections.

In a dot-to-dot metaphor my understanding of Ne is that it sees the page of dots and, ignoring any directive numbering, starts connecting the dots in all sorts of exploratory ways to see what kinds of pictures can be made. To my mind, Ni instead takes in the directive numbering, but recognizes it as a potentially flawed construct created by limited perspective and instead engages with the dots from many different angles trying to piece together enough perspectives to discern it's true form.

Tovlo, now your post is making the Ni/Ne divide more fuzzy again for me. Ne is certainly more "out there" and undoubtedably Ni likes to visualize the interconnectiveness of everything. So you can think of it as Ne asking "What if the conditions changed?" whereas Ni asks "Can this work? Is that correct?" But what happens when you switch the questions asked? I somehow feel Ni can be used to answer "Ne questions". Hmmmm how to phrase this? [Ni thought experiment] I can go by the initial assumption that I have no Ne. In that case any connect the dots I make will arise from Ni. I can still just as easily do what you say Ne does by making random connections of things I see. Only in this case you need to invoke mental representation of various objects you see as you go along. Therefore Ni can mimic Ne... just not very efficiently. Would the reverse also work?

 

[Veneti]

For Ne, I have a mental image that I developed which I think embodies the qualities of Ne. I see Ne as a large open field, with basic factual tenets erected as pillars, or totem poles or whatever. These are interconnected by strings, or maybe "cobwebs" would be a better way to visualize it. These interconnections embody the link between ideas, with the Ne process causing one to "walk" from one idea to another, all while keeping a short ball of yarn unravelling so you can jump back to the original idea. When one zooms in and focuses on an idea, Ne would show you a full manifest of branches to different related ideas; the shape and form of these branches, cobwebs, strings, whatever all tell you something about the relationship between those ideas.

This may be a source of amusement for some because the ideas which interconnect to another idea may be surprising at times.

I keep wondering about something though--the ideas themselves, the totem poles in this vast field, are those Si impulses? If so, it would represent a symbiotic relationship between Ne and Si where Si impulses are steadfast ideas, and Ne represents a vast, complex fabric of connections between those Si impulses. It would imply that Ne impulses always have a measure of Si involved within them (as Si impulses are the source and target objects for every Ne connection), and Si always exist in an interconnected fabric of Ne.

Just an idea. (I'd love any criticism, associations or elaboration on this)

It’s pretty hard for me to provide an analogy of how I think in a creative context.

Perhaps its more like pieces of "intellectual & observational matter" floating in a spherical 3D space, as they churn around 1) patterns appear and 2) clusters form. It should be noted that these pieces of matter can be any type of sense, concept, word, vision and so forth e.g. a piece of music that I have stored could connect with a colour and form as a pattern. If that pattern is useful then it becomes a cluster. Clusters can form (cluster patterns), and patterns can become more complex with additional connective matter.

Matter, Patterns, Cluster Patterns also all have permutational connections between them all.

Rather than a succession of experiences following the sequence +1->+2->+3->+4 = 4 view points its more like 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 perspectives.

As a simple example here's my Intuition in play..

Watching TV science programme, They state scientists cannot explain why these certain trees in a desert environment develop green leaves etc after a forest fire.

Me -> As a child I remember dampness (water moisture) being drawn to the ground surface while lying on the ground inside a tent on the floor. I remember that there's a term called capillary action which means rain water can seep upwards where theres sufficent proximity of two or more surfaces .

Click click click... solution -> The fire by some process (capillary etc) draws moister deep within the ground (below the tree roots) and brings it upwards. (Might be as simple as drying the earth out and the moisture creeps upwards creating a type of convection or whatever). (Obviously there could be other reasons but this concept could be tested by sticking a moisture probe into the ground in front of a fire and then testing at durations afterwards).

One thing is that my iNtuition is sequential and permutational in its steps, but done very quickly and more subconcious. If there wasn't any steps to iNuitive then it would be straight out guessing or randomness to the solution.

To me iNtuition (As an evolving ability) is a function of how much I think (T) and the period for which I can do it (hence the pref for I). I.e. N = T x I

 

[substitute]

I can still just as easily do what you say Ne does by making random connections of things I see.

That wouldn't be Ne. It's not random. It just seems it to other people. There is always a logical train behind how I arrived from point A to point H without going through the points in between, if I think about it later I can always backtrack how I got there, I'm just not consciously aware of how I'm doing it at the time.

What the ENxP believes they are doing is not making random connections between things that are not naturally connected. It's the fundamental belief that everything is connected, and that the divisions that normal perception places between them are arbitrary and false, man-made. All we're doing is trying to 'rediscover' the links that others have severed.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ne is not random. It just seems it to other people. There is always a logical train behind how I arrived from point A to point H without going through the points in between, if I think about it later I can always backtrack how I got there, I'm just not consciously aware of how I'm doing it at the time.

No, it's not random. There is ALWAYS a connection that exists, it's just that people normally are not thinking in terms of that connection. They are only seeing the connections their paradigm allows them to see.

That is why Ne is so good for humor -- it takes something and spins it around and leaps to it, and those who are watching, if you are verbalizing the leaps, can track it all as you go.

(Wordplay is one example, where you're constantly shifting meanings to get to the next word, as fast as a blink. Many jokes hinge on twisting the meanings of words or using valid meanings in new unexpected contexts.)

What the ENxP believes they are doing is not making random connections between things that are not naturally connected. It's the fundamental belief that everything is connected, and that the divisions that normal perception places between them are arbitrary and false, man-made. All we're doing is trying to 'rediscover' the links that others have severed.

That's a neat way to say it. The links ARE already there, you are simply seeing them. This goes for pattern recognition too: Ne sees patterns in things, the patterns already exist.

(Btw, you're not really a motormouth -- you're just motorfingers around here. )

 

[Veneti]

No, it's not random. There is ALWAYS a connection that exists, it's just that people normally are not thinking in terms of that connection. They are only seeing the connections their paradigm allows them to see.

That is why Ne is so good for humor -- it takes something and spins it around and leaps to it, and those who are watching, if you are verbalizing the leaps, can track it all as you go.

(Wordplay is one example, where you're constantly shifting meanings to get to the next word, as fast as a blink. Many jokes hinge on twisting the meanings of words or using valid meanings in new unexpected contexts.)



That's a neat way to say it. The links ARE already there, you are simply seeing them. This goes for pattern recognition too: Ne sees patterns in things, the patterns already exist.

(Btw, you're not really a motormouth -- you're just motorfingers around here. )

Slightly disagree with the analogy, as shifting words or making jokes is more the T I'd say. The Ne (to me) is to know the answer which is based on a reflection or bounce on some other concept or experience. (Ne could also be seen by others as such but could also just be due to the person having walked through the senario's in their mind at an earlier point). Making jokes generally is a type of S activity? (Via observations) whereas sarcasm is not a premeditated joke and is a pure twist on a situation... but I still think that is more T. (But then again, I'm probably wrong...).

 

[substitute]

Slightly disagree with the analogy, as shifting words or making jokes is more the T I'd say. The Ne (to me) is to know the answer which is based on a reflection or bounce on some other concept or experience. (Ne could also be seen by others as such but could also just be due to the person having walked through the senario's in their mind at an earlier point). Making jokes generally is a type of S activity? (Via observations) whereas sarcasm is not a premeditated joke and is a pure twist on a situation... but I still think that is more T. (But then again, I'm probably wrong...).

Making jokes is a human activity, we all do it, all types. It's the KINDS of jokes that people tell, and the sorts of things they laugh at, that can be more type specific. Most S's that I know have a more down to earth sense of humour - they like slapstick (doesn't everyone?) and are more likely to make crude jokes, sexist/racist ones etc, based on concrete observations. N humour tends to be more complex, based on observations of the essences of things, the meanings and patterns of things, which is why Sensors often don't get or appreciate N humour.

I don't think I've ever known an N who didn't like the Simpsons, but I've known plenty of S's who don't. It seems that there are more N's who appreciate both kinds of humour than there are S's who appreciate N-style.

I also disagree that the kind of humour Jen was talking about is all about T and not N. Perhaps it might be T that drives humour to be sometimes quite cutting or 'mean', perhaps at someone else's expense, thinking "they'll get over it", but I'm quite certain that the kind of zany, off-the-wall, surreal or even dark humour Jen is talking about is definately the arena of the N.

(Btw, you're not really a motormouth -- you're just motorfingers around here. )

No, I am a motormouth. I'm just the same in person... lol I can subdue myself though, if I must, for those of a timid nature

 

[nightning]

That wouldn't be Ne. It's not random. It just seems it to other people. There is always a logical train behind how I arrived from point A to point H without going through the points in between, if I think about it later I can always backtrack how I got there, I'm just not consciously aware of how I'm doing it at the time.

Not random random... seemingly random to other people. It's like spotting there's something wrong within an argument, but you can't pinpoint what it is. You try to tell an INTP that it's flawed, but they wouldn't accept it because your explanation doesn't make any sense to them (illogical). I had to go and reexamine my thought process with Ti in order to work out what exactly made the red light go off. That I believe is Ni working... but it sounds distressingly like Ne.

Now when you seem to be able to read somebody else's mind... When they're thinking/explaining out loud. And you suddenly get what they're trying to get at before they finish explaining it all. That's traditionally called Ne? But it can equally be just be Ni building an internal model on the fly... then it makes unconscious connections to arrive at the conclusion. On a familiar topic, it's very doable.

There are so many ways Ni and Ne are similar that there comes to a point where I don't know which is which. Or perhaps I'm simply confusing myself between the two, where I unconsciously use one but decided to call it the other.

That is why Ne is so good for humor -- it takes something and spins it around and leaps to it, and those who are watching, if you are verbalizing the leaps, can track it all as you go.

(Wordplay is one example, where you're constantly shifting meanings to get to the next word, as fast as a blink. Many jokes hinge on twisting the meanings of words or using valid meanings in new unexpected contexts.)

Interesting... I've always thought wordplay is simply an iNtuitive thing rather than Ne specific.

There's many different types of jokes out there... I find sensor typically jokes about unexpected/silly things happening, while intuitors plays more with the hidden meaning behind what's said.

 

[substitute]

There are so many ways Ni and Ne are similar that there comes to a point where I don't know which is which. Or perhaps I'm simply confusing myself between the two, where I unconsciously use one but decided to call it the other.

But isn't that the J tendency, wanting to have them separated and distinct? My P tells me things don't always have to be either/or - they can be both/and quite happily. Besides, it's kind of against the point of Ne to even suggest that there is in reality a division, as I was saying earlier. I don't know about Ni... but it's not that "distressing" is it, to think that they might overlap sometimes? It doesn't mean you're turning into an ENxP, it's ok, you can relax

Actually that's quite interesting - to what extent do you think the J tendency might create tension between it and the N, if N prefers to see patterns and connections more than divisions, while J wants and needs divisions?

 

[nightning]

But isn't that the J tendency, wanting to have them separated and distinct? My P tells me things don't always have to be either/or - they can be both/and quite happily. Besides, it's kind of against the point of Ne to even suggest that there is in reality a division, as I was saying earlier. I don't know about Ni... but it's not that "distressing" is it, to think that they might overlap sometimes? It doesn't mean you're turning into an ENxP, it's ok, you can relax

No, it doesn't need to be separate and distinct. But the J wants to define everything... be it discrete or fuzzy. I've learnt of functions as being separate identities. i.e. Ni is Ni and Ne is Ne. But in my mind I see more similarities than differences... but other people are still referring to them as different things. The J wants to be correct, thus I went in a roundabout fashion to ask that. But if you say it's okay to call it a blob of Ni + Ne, I can live with that. Not a stiff stuffy SJ lol! BTW, I wouldn't mind being an ENxP. Living in your head too much isn't good.

Actually that's quite interesting - to what extent do you think the J tendency might create tension between it and the N, if N prefers to see patterns and connections more than divisions, while J wants and needs divisions?

You might be asking the wrong person. I know I'm a J, but only slightly so. Tests typically put me as a P more times than not. Go figure. =/ My J doesn't exactly need divisions. It just wants things correctly labeled. I can, and indeed do, have piles of stuff all over the place. Somebody that walks into my room will swear I'm an absolute P when in reality there is a "system" going on in there. It's just that the organization is nonlinear. I know I can find what I need if I look in pile x, y, z. And stuff will be piled in approximate chronological order because I always throw stuff on top of the pile. Going back on topic. J is okay with not having boxes for everything. Just make sure you put a tag on the item that describes it. Objects can have as many tags as necessary. For Ni/Ne... I now give it an additional fuzzy tag. And since the tags now fit with what I personally know about the subject, there's no unease anymore.

Any other INxJs care to respond to this?

 

[substitute]

I know I'm a J, but only slightly so. Tests typically put me as a P more times than not. .... For Ni/Ne... I now give it an additional fuzzy tag. And since the tags now fit with what I personally know about the subject, there's no unease anymore.

If your J/P preferences are borderline, then that might be why it's more fuzzy for you? I mean it might be why you skip between Ne and Ni more readily, or use them both at once, whilst remaining introverted? Might be interesting to find out whether, when you use Ne, it makes your F turn to Fi, and likewise using Ni, does it make Fe stronger? What do the different uses of your intuition do to your Feeling?

I know that with me, when I become too suspicious of what's coming in from outside (dealing with untrustworthy or incompetent people for example), I tend to find my intuition going inward, looking within myself for answers instead of outside (I can't trust a word he says, I have to stick with what I know and not let him pull the wool over my eyes and make me start questioning myself), and that in turn tends to make me more bossy and sorta directive (you can't give them room to move, they'll just abuse it, they'll only cock things up if you trust them with discretionary powers, they MUST do EXACTLY as they're told), which seems to be Ti turning to Te, effectively creating a pretty good impression, temporarily, of an ENTJ.

 

[nightning]

If your J/P preferences are borderline, then that might be why it's more fuzzy for you? I mean it might be why you skip between Ne and Ni more readily, or use them both at once, whilst remaining introverted? Might be interesting to find out whether, when you use Ne, it makes your F turn to Fi, and likewise using Ni, does it make Fe stronger? What do the different uses of your intuition do to your Feeling?

Could be... could be... fuzzy I mean. It certainly can explain why I flip between Ni & Ne. Well I see Ni and Fe being two completely separate functions. They can interact, but I can split them apart. Lately I have been trying to develop my Ti. Sometimes I turn off Fe while I'm analyzing things. So I get Ni Ti working together... something that isn't normally described by function theories. I am uncertain if the use of Ne will make Fi stronger. I have difficulty sensing when I'm using Ne as oppose to Ni. Plus I rarely use Fi.

I know that with me, when I become too suspicious of what's coming in from outside (dealing with untrustworthy or incompetent people for example), I tend to find my intuition going inward, looking within myself for answers instead of outside, and that in turn tends to make me more bossy and sorta directive ... creating a pretty good impression, temporarily, of an ENTJ.

I'm trying to recall if something related has happened to me, and I couldn't seem to come up with anything. That doesn't sound like a very pleasant experience though. I suppose if you force me like that, I'll slip into "INTJ" mode. The only time I become P like is when I play... crazy "sugar-like hyperness" that could be like ENFP. Although I've never thought of it that way before.

 

[substitute]

Could be... could be... fuzzy I mean. It certainly can explain why I flip between Ni & Ne. Well I see Ni and Fe being two completely separate functions. They can interact, but I can split them apart. Lately I have been trying to develop my Ti. Sometimes I turn off Fe while I'm analyzing things. So I get Ni Ti working together... something that isn't normally described by function theories. I am uncertain if the use of Ne will make Fi stronger. I have difficulty sensing when I'm using Ne as oppose to Ni.

I've been trying to develop my Fi actually, and found it's difficult to use it when I'm in ENTJ mode. Even harder than it is usually, and it's usually just nowhere even in my universe! I don't find it an unpleasant experience to be ENTJ for a while, but I don't tend to think of things in terms of pleasantness or unpleasantness - I find it quite stimulating and fascinating actually, and I quite enjoy playing the "new game" with the new tactics, sorta like I'm driving a different vehicle down a familiar road, if you get what I mean?

But you're right about getting the functions working together that don't tend to come paired in the literature! While I find that using Ni tends to push Ti into Te, I don't find it the other way around - I can use Ne and Te together, which is how I've run businesses for years, as well as Ne and Fe. It's when I introvert my perceiving functions that the judging one is always forced outwards, but not necessarily the other way round.

 

[nightning]

But you're right about getting the functions working together that don't tend to come paired in the literature! While I find that using Ni tends to push Ti into Te, I don't find it the other way around - I can use Ne and Te together, which is how I've run businesses for years, as well as Ne and Fe. It's when I introvert my perceiving functions that the judging one is always forced outwards, but not necessarily the other way round.

The car analogy worked for me. It's fun to try driving something else, but I find it unnatural and thus tiring if I'm stick with it for too long. Curious how you find you can use Ne Te together but not Ni Ti. I suspect dominant function is so familiar to us that we can pair it with practically anything and get the two to work. It's turning it off that's the hard part. Question to you... how to do invert Ne into Ni?

 

[substitute]

Curious how you find you can use Ne Te together but not Ni Ti. I suspect dominant function is so familiar to us that we can pair it with practically anything and get the two to work.

Could be, though it could also be that being a strong E means my natural orientation is towards extraversion, so I find it easier to pair extraverted functions, or one E one I function, than to use two introverted ones at once. And vice versa with you.

Question to you... how to do invert Ne into Ni?

Basically do what I said before - stop trusting what 'providence' is showing me and look to what I know inside, already, as an anchor and a 'place' from which to venture out, so to speak. Like in the example of the guy talking to me who I can't trust, I switch off the extraverted perceiving so that my perception isn't being misled by false/insincere cues, and look within myself for the info I need to make my decision.

By the way... is this thread derailed, anyone? I mean obviously I have trouble telling when things are considered irrelevant by other people since everything's potentially relevant to everything else when your dominant function is Ne!

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

You're making fine sense to me!

 

[nightning]

Could be, though it could also be that being a strong E means my natural orientation is towards extraversion, so I find it easier to pair extraverted functions, or one E one I function, than to use two introverted ones at once.

That makes sense too. It's worth investigating in another thread. Need more data lol.

Basically do what I said before - stop trusting what 'providence' is showing me and look to what I know inside, already, as an anchor and a 'place' from which to venture out, so to speak.

Okie dokie. So the reverse method for me would be to assume I know nothing and ask people random question. Barring them thinking I've gone nuts, perhaps even including those responses, I should get something out of them. Sounds good.

By the way... is this thread derailed, anyone?

I believe the thread has been officially derailed say 5+ exchanges back. But hey nobody complained yet. That's good enough for me.

 

[spirilis]

I believe the thread has been officially derailed say 5+ exchanges back. But hey nobody complained yet. That's good enough for me.

I, for one, am pleased with the amount of derailment. Ne would prefer we go off and ride the tracks not yet constructed, no?

 

[tovlo]

Tovlo, now your post is making the Ni/Ne divide more fuzzy again for me. Ne is certainly more "out there" and undoubtedably Ni likes to visualize the interconnectiveness of everything. So you can think of it as Ne asking "What if the conditions changed?" whereas Ni asks "Can this work? Is that correct?" But what happens when you switch the questions asked? I somehow feel Ni can be used to answer "Ne questions". Hmmmm how to phrase this? [Ni thought experiment] I can go by the initial assumption that I have no Ne. In that case any connect the dots I make will arise from Ni. I can still just as easily do what you say Ne does by making random connections of things I see. Only in this case you need to invoke mental representation of various objects you see as you go along. Therefore Ni can mimic Ne... just not very efficiently. Would the reverse also work?

Hmmm...a few thoughts after having read the remainder of this conversation:

1. In function use I rank Ne, Ni, Fi, Fe, so a little Ne derailment is lovely to me as well. I was feeling a bit bad for talking Ni in an Ne thread, but if I've got a bunch of other rebels to make trouble with, then I'll keep going until reprimanded as well.

2. Nightning, I also tend to test INFP more often than INFJ, but still believe myself INFJ. As my function use test results indicate I use with some ease the dominant and auxiliary functions of both INFP and INFJ. I do suspect this situation affects the clarity with which both Ne and Ni are experienced in someone who exhibits comfort with both introverted and extroverted N and F functions.

3. I don't think that anyone has only Ni or Ne. My understanding is that people use all eight functions. It is rather a case of, at least in part, what they use most naturally, with the least energy taxation, and most consciously.

4. I read with interest the explanation that Ne as well as Ni is finding patterns already existing, which does contradict a bit my exploratory differentiation of Ne and Ni posted earlier. Despite apparently employing and feeling some level of comfort with Ne, I admit freely that it is not my most natural engagement with intuition, so I defer to that correction.

I wonder then if the distinction is more in the method of travel rather than the destination. I noted the different imagery that started this thread on Ne, with totem poles and string or hopping across ponds on lily pads. It was not imagery that had natural resonance with me, however elsewhere on this forum toonia recently discussed her imagery of intuition as a mountain you can only see from limited vantage points and some level of drive to explore many vantage points to gain the fullest possible experience of the mountain. That had immediate resonance with imagery I had developed within myself over the years to try to explain my perceptive sense.

So perhaps Ni and Ne both have the travel destination of uncovering the patterns and connections already existing (sounds right to me). Ne perhaps sees the space to be journeyed as a wide field or ocean to be hopped across and explored through short little trips, one destination leading to the next without a specific plan, but having confidence that in the end all the little trips will fill out enough information to get a sense of the charted map of existing connections. Ni perhaps rather sees some central space to be traveled around (not necessarily sequentially), but always with the whole to be charted in mind, the goal to gather as much information from each limited vantage point as possible to eventually fill in as completely as possible the picture of how the land is laid out.

The end result is ultimately similar, there is an understanding of the land already existing, but Ne hops from one connection to another charting as serendipity takes them, trusting that eventually the picture will emerge. Ni also allows serendipity to take it where it leads (what choice do we have?), but takes a more deliberate attitude, keeping always a focused eye on the whole they are trying to build a picture of?

I don't know, just playing a bit with thoughts. I recognize that my perspective is naturally geared to my own expression of Ni (which I do think is expressed somewhat differently than other INFJ's perhaps because of the strength of Ne use in me) and that slant in perspective keeps me from being able to see either Ni or Ne without prejudice of my experience. So taking into consideration that slant, I'm just trying to throw out my experience and assimilation of what people here have said to try to help make some sense of it with you. Hope what I offered aids rather than making things more fuzzy, nightning. I will be curiously watching to see how this conversation develops.

 

[tovlo]

FYI, toonia's description of the Ni experience that I felt so much resonance with. I don't want to misrepresent her expression or quote it without the context intact.

As is described with Ni, my mind processes information by reconciling paradox. My first step when presented with information is to extract its core qualities and to devise these into the most meaningful, elegant polar opposites i can formulate. Seeing relationships between opposites and reconciling how they are related is the foundation of my thought. Once these continuum are formed, it allows for a sliding scale with which information can be processed in real time. Conclusions are never drawn absolutely, but information is placed along the many continuum as a sliding scale as more facts come in. Ideas are viewed from every possible angle, because the polarities can create various axes of thought into which the details form a multidimensional whole. (Before i get tangled up in my own head here, let me use a metaphor - Ni moment ) You can see a mountain from one view, but any single view of the mountain is a fragment, an incomplete truth. It would take nearly an eternity to have a complete comprehension of every angle and vantage point of the mountain and how it was formed. Looking comprehensively enough, the mountain has no single starting or ending point and so it is by its nature a slice of eternity. Still, the more context is comprehended, the more the given fragment can obtain its meaning.

 

[Veneti]

Making jokes is a human activity, we all do it, all types. It's the KINDS of jokes that people tell, and the sorts of things they laugh at, that can be more type specific. Most S's that I know have a more down to earth sense of humour - they like slapstick (doesn't everyone?) and are more likely to make crude jokes, sexist/racist ones etc, based on concrete observations. N humour tends to be more complex, based on observations of the essences of things, the meanings and patterns of things, which is why Sensors often don't get or appreciate N humour.

I don't think I've ever known an N who didn't like the Simpsons, but I've known plenty of S's who don't. It seems that there are more N's who appreciate both kinds of humour than there are S's who appreciate N-style.

I also disagree that the kind of humour Jen was talking about is all about T and not N. Perhaps it might be T that drives humour to be sometimes quite cutting or 'mean', perhaps at someone else's expense, thinking "they'll get over it", but I'm quite certain that the kind of zany, off-the-wall, surreal or even dark humour Jen is talking about is definately the arena of the N.



No, I am a motormouth. I'm just the same in person... lol I can subdue myself though, if I must, for those of a timid nature

Sorry, don't agree that jokes meet the definition within intuition.

The act of developing the jokes can use iNtuitive processes, but I don't think you need to be iNtuitive to understand and laugh at them. Generally making someone laugh is about wrong footing them from their procedural thought process of what should logically be the next step or showing a perceptive angle.

Anyway, "whatever" really as it is all semantics.

If iNutuition is needed for jokes then Germany must be a very uNintuitive place...