About Intuition

[Thalassa]

There is most definitely a difference between Ne and Se, though they share some similar properties.

 

[A Schnitzel]

I'm beginning to think this whole separation between Ne and Se is a bunch shim-sham flim-flammery.

So a distinction between two terms that others made up is a term that you just made up? How is one even supposed to respond to that?

 

[brainheart]

That's so NeFi it's ridiculous.

That doesn't make it any less true.

 

[onemoretime]

By the way, I've only tested ISFP on one on line test out of let's say, fifty. But I think the description fits me better than that of INFP, aside from the "ISFPs are more likely to not graduate college" bit.

That's even more FiNe. Not following a type because you don't like the aspersions of elitism attached to it - yup, you're an xNFP. It's a good thing.

Just remember, in the eyes of society, most intuitives end up as "failures". Most of the perceived elitism is either NTs being our usual socially retarded selves or NFs defense mechanisms against being the "weird" kids growing up.

And finally - don't worry. None of this is real anyway, it's just an attempt to categorize a very complicated topic.

 

[brainheart]

So a distinction between two terms that others made up is a term that you just made up? How is one even supposed to respond to that?

I just think it gets silly, that's all. And I know intuitives get high and mighty about it. It's like this 'F-you, jock. So you made fun of me in high school but now I own you' mentality.

And it seems to me that ISFPs, ISTPs, INFPs and INTPs really aren't all that different from each other, so I will extrapolate that the same goes for other groups as well. I've had intellectual, philosophical, enlightening conversations with the lot of them. So to talk about 'magical Ne' as if it does something that Sensing doesn't seems like serious hokum to me. I just think the distinctions aren't as cut and dried as people like to think.

 

[Thalassa]

I just think it gets silly, that's all. And I know intuitives get high and mighty about it. It's like this 'F-you, jock. So you made fun of me in high school but now I own you' mentality.

What the hell are you talking about? No, really. What you're saying here is just a load of crap.

And it seems to me that ISFPs, ISTPs, INFPs and INTPs really aren't all that different from each other,

In my personal observations, I am strongly inclined to disagree.

so I will extrapolate that the same goes for other groups as well. I've had intellectual, philosophical, enlightening conversations with the lot of them. So to talk about 'magical Ne' as if it does something that Sensing doesn't seems like serious hokum to me. I just think the distinctions aren't as cut and dried as people like to think.

You don't think it's cut and dried...because you're an N.

 

[A Schnitzel]

I just think it gets silly, that's all. And I know intuitives get high and mighty about it. It's like this 'F-you, jock. So you made fun of me in high school but now I own you' mentality.

And it seems to me that ISFPs, ISTPs, INFPs and INTPs really aren't all that different from each other, so I will extrapolate that the same goes for other groups as well. I've had intellectual, philosophical, enlightening conversations with the lot of them. So to talk about 'magical Ne' as if it does something that Sensing doesn't seems like serious hokum to me. I just think the distinctions aren't as cut and dried as people like to think.

They are different ways of processing things. That's all. Not abilities.

Introverted perceivers will have different dispositions so that's the similarity you see. Calling Jung's work and the subsequent versions of it a method for nerds to get at back at jocks from high school is pretty short sighted.

 

[Charmed Justice]

I just think it gets silly, that's all. And I know intuitives get high and mighty about it. It's like this 'F-you, jock. So you made fun of me in high school but now I own you' mentality.

And it seems to me that ISFPs, ISTPs, INFPs and INTPs really aren't all that different from each other, so I will extrapolate that the same goes for other groups as well. I've had intellectual, philosophical, enlightening conversations with the lot of them. So to talk about 'magical Ne' as if it does something that Sensing doesn't seems like serious hokum to me. I just think the distinctions aren't as cut and dried as people like to think.

In the Socinoics camp, some would agree with you:

There is a slight bias towards intuition in socionics, with many dichotomy descriptions exhibiting an oversimplified view of sensing and an exaggerated view of intuition. This is due to the theoretical nature of socionics (created by Augusta, who was an ILE) and the dominant role of intuiters in the field. It is not uncommon to read that extraverted intuition (extraverted intuition) is "penetration into the essence of things," while its dual function — introverted sensing (introverted sensing) — is "the ability to create comfort." In a society that values intellectual production and mental powers over aesthetic and physical harmony, most people would see extraverted intuition as a more desirable quality than introverted sensing (if described in the way shown above). This skews self-testing results, especially in the case of sensers who think of themselves as intellectuals.

This made sense to me though:

Intuiters are "mental" in the sense of identifying readily with things that they cannot see or experience physically, but "see in their minds." Sensers are also able to envision things in their minds, but they identify with them less and eventually lose interest in things that cannot be turned into reality.

Sensers are "physical" in the sense of identifying more with physical reality and less with things that they see in their minds but cannot materialize. Sensers also make generalizations, have philosophical insights, and are interested in overarching "invisible" principles. However, they are willing to take seriously only those abstract principles that are closely tied to reality. Intuiters are often prone to make "abstractions on abstractions" and accept them for reality itself.

Socionics :: Intuition / Sensing

 

[compulsiverambler]

Aren't Se and Ne supposed to be conscious and Si and Ni supposed to be unconscious? Not that I understand what that's supposed to mean, because I feel like I'm conscious of all four, but that's the conventional wisdom.

Something I'm noticing: It seems that it's typically the people who categorize themselves as 'N's who see things as more black and white; by this I mean, "I use intuition and don't sense; those who sense don't use intuition."

Unless I'm misinterpreting her points (a distinct possibility) surely the only person doing that here is Ruthie? She seems to be insisting 'that can't be N, because everybody does it'.

Sorry if I've misunderstood.

 

[Xander]

Ooo I've been struggling with intuition recently. To me it's important that I understand my own mind and yet when I pluck the right answer out of the air I don't always understand how... and that's irritating. I mean how to I approach the bunch of ESTJs at work and explain that this is the right answer "cause it is" with no rationale?

Anyhow to go with the cloud analogy, personally I feel my intuition works differently to sensing in that sensors pick out the objects (hazy or not though they may be) and can see the cloud only when they make the effort to link it all together where as I store the cloud in total and can only pick out the objects with effort.

As to my internal filing of information... well that's more like a database but instead of strict relationships defined it's more like fuzzy logic. Some things are linked because that's how I found them and others get linked because their pattern or structure seem similar. For example I have paper stored next to Russ Abbot purely because of the character Basildon Bond which is also a paper manufacturer. Now I recall them as posh paper and Bond (as in 007) being posh.

Then again, filing was never a strong suit of mine...

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Post #88 had a good quote about S vs. N.

The word "intuition" means something a little different in MBTI than in its traditional use. This can cause confusion. Sensing and iNtuition are perceiving functions, which I believe means it defines the nature of the material one takes in to process. A Sensor takes in information about the concrete world, and the iNtuitive focuses more on theory and abstractions. Both can have intuitive insights and ability to connect that data. A firefighter who excels at taking in all the concrete information about a fire and can respond with "gut instinct" to know how to respond quickly to solve a problem she doesn't have time to analyze in a linear manner is using intuition to solve a concrete problem. In contrast, an iNtuitive person will tend to absorb abstract information and can have an "aha" moment when the concepts suddenly align sometimes without linear analysis. Both instances require intuition in the traditional sense of the word.

Another comparison I like is to look at what is the starting point for analysis. The Sensor starts with the concrete world, what is known, felt, seen, and measured, and amasses these details and facts. Theory is constructed from this. It can take longer, and reality takes precedence over theory. The iNtuitive only understands the concrete world by its relationship to an abstracted theory of that world. The starting point is theory that strives for internal consistency. This is then compared with reality to see how it maps. When it fails to map consistently, it is then examined once again for its internal flaws that allowed for this inconsistency with reality. The theory is the point of reference, the anchor, that makes it possible to make sense of the concrete world.

I think the whole concept is easily confused because iNtuition is assumed to be a judging function more than a perceiving function.

 

[brainheart]

Okay, so maybe I was a little testy last night- I'm sick and I was tired so I don't think I expressed things as eloquently as I could have. Sorry.

Calling Jung's work and the subsequent versions of it a method for nerds to get at back at jocks from high school is pretty short sighted.

Of course I don't think that was Jung's intent; that would be straight-up silly. I just think that to an extent MBTI has gone the way of organized religion: begins with laudable principles, gets reinterpreted into something which engenders bias and feelings of superiority. And I see that in spades around here.

Intuiters are "mental" in the sense of identifying readily with things that they cannot see or experience physically, but "see in their minds." Sensers are also able to envision things in their minds, but they identify with them less and eventually lose interest in things that cannot be turned into reality.

Sensers are "physical" in the sense of identifying more with physical reality and less with things that they see in their minds but cannot materialize. Sensers also make generalizations, have philosophical insights, and are interested in overarching "invisible" principles. However, they are willing to take seriously only those abstract principles that are closely tied to reality. Intuiters are often prone to make "abstractions on abstractions" and accept them for reality itself.

Yes, ENFPfer, thank you! That is exactly how I feel; I appreciate seeing my sentiments formulated so succinctly.

Lest we all forget, there is a primary, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior function. If I am indeed an ISFP, this would mean that my tertiary function is Ni. Jung scholar Lenore Thomson believes we often rely on our first and third function, which would be for me Fi+Ni. The way that I grow and actually live up to my talents, however, is by using Se to support my Fi. I have found throughout my life this to be most definitely true. When I use Fi+Ni and remove the Se reality check, I definitely reside in this insular fantasy world, resplendent with magical thinking and hidden meanings which do not exist. Se grounds me and encourages me to engage my feelings/thoughts/ideas with the outside world- how things really are. This doesn't mean I stop using my Ni; it means my Ni reaches better conclusions when my Se perceptions are taken into account.


Sorry to ramble and somewhat deviate from the primary discussion, but I'm trying to express how intuition comes into play for a sensor.

 

[Jaguar]

I just think that to an extent MBTI has gone the way of organized religion:

I prefer to call it organized stupidity. Worse yet, is how people apply it.

 

[brainheart]

Socionics :: Intuition / Sensing

It might be tempting to generalize and say that intuiters are "mental people," while sensers are "physical people." While this may be true in a certain narrow sense, you will meet many people who can throw you off — heavy, endomorphic intuiters; thin, ectomorphic sensers; muscular intuitive athletes; sensing academicians and bookworms — and so on.

When sensers are drawn to intellectual fields such as science, research, art criticism, etc. they tend to take a hands-on approach and prefer to research and discuss phenomena that they have personally observed or that others have observed using methods that they trust. Intuiters in the same intellectual fields tend to talk about ideas and speculative theories. Sometimes their speculative thought leads to actual breakthroughs, when new approaches and hitherto unseen possibilities are made. At other times it is a senser who makes the important discovery through his more hands-on approach.

I like this link. Thanks again, EnFpFer. I recommend it, especially the chart.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I'm beginning to suspect that intuition is some kind of 'parallel processor', that is able to model other things or people as needed. When you compare the model against other models, inconsistencies or unusual connections can be found.

but for the record, I think everyone has this ability, as were are all also sensors. The dichotomy of S-N is a big shortcoming of the theory.

 

[Prototype]

Intuition, or paranoia?...

Who here thinks there is a small correlation between the two?

The higher the intuition, the higher display of paranoia!

I've always thought that intuition was considered to be like foresight, or wisdom,... Understanding the connections being made without having a direct relation to them, but yet still relating, only because of common experiences...

It's hard for me to explain...

 

[Two Point Two]

Intuition, or paranoia?...

Who here thinks there is a small correlation between the two?

The higher the intuition, the higher display of paranoia!

I'm not sure how general this is, but I can relate to it.

That said, I think having intuition in the inferior position can also be associated with this, so maybe not?

 

[Ruthie]

Well, I just read his book Naked Pictures of Famous People and it was sure like Woody Allen's writing, who is supposedly an ISTP. Just making an observation... although I wouldn't rule out ENTP for him. Se+Ti can be pretty remarkable at humor coupled with pointing out inconsistencies as well.

Oh and Ruthie, I've wondered about the conundrum of how N-types are supposedly the rarest of specimens yet they seem to be the majority on every list of esteemable celebrities, relegating the SJs and SPs to fuddy-duddys and airheads, minus a few 'token' exceptions.

Yeah, and even when Ss do get someone worthwhile, it's never someone brilliant... always someone with some other admirable talent.

I have no doubt that Ne-doms can be (and often are) very funny. I just don't think that means everyone who is very funny must use Ne.

 

[Ruthie]

Ok - this is how I think my Ne works for me in terms of writing....I will sit down to write a paper and I will realize that I knew all along what I needed, in terms of source material, and I didn't even plan it out that way. I pick up bits and pieces of information and formulate ideas without even necessarily realizing that I'm doing it until I'm forced to sit down and write on Topic A, B, or C. It's absolutely amazing, and I guess when I'm "procrastinating" I'm actually collecting information and forming new ideas, because when it comes down to it somehow everything I need is just there for me to pull together. That "pulling together" quality also helps me tremendously if I have to sit down and write an essay for a quiz or test. I am often surprised by my own ability to just make patterns and connections and flesh them out seemingly from thin air.

I'm pretty sure this is my Ne.

I'm seriously not trying to be difficult, and I'm sure there's just something I'm missing here, but that doesn't sound any different than the way I used to write papers and study for tests (when I was in school). But, I don't have any kind of magical thinking - just the normal ability to draw connections between concepts and to spot patterns.

I apologize in advance for this long post, but I'm really trying to understand this, and wanted to explain where I'm coming from, and what my stumbling block is.

I'll try to describe how I think Si is often confused with Ne or Ni. Si is often pejoratively described as being judgmental, and even inclined to bigotry. While I definitely take exception to the bigoted label, I do think it's true that Si develops stereotypes, and stereotypes - when used by a small-minded person - can form false rationales for bigotry.

Stereotyping isn't all bad though - it's used in very smart ways by advertisers, politicians, lawyers, sociologists, etc... It's being able to instantly know (or have a pretty good idea) of which people are likely to buy a certain product, vote for a certain candidate, or which juror will vote to acquit. That requires quick associations that anyone can make: country singers probably shouldn't advertise in Vegan restaurants, or (for common political wisdom,) Subarus are for Democrats. These things are done by all people, all the time, but are probably especially common to people who use Si, because as a function it seeks to categorize the environment.

But in other contexts, that same functional ability is mistaken for Ne (because it usually accurately predicts a pattern based on unrelated information, and it picks up on coming trends very easily) or even Ni (because when someone is really good at it, it can seem like mindreading).

I've heard a lot of people suggest that in Si-doms, those associations are based on building-block connections, as though there's a conscious chain of data that leads from one fact to another. If those connections exist, they certainly aren't conscious. I've also heard people suggest that it's based on personal experience. Maybe, but it constructs a grid that goes far beyond those experiences.

I've been able to draw the distinction between the use of Si and Ne by drawing the line at reality and imagination. The Si function is extremely good at predicting, but less good at creating. To put it another way, I'd probably be pretty good at playing the stock market (if I, you know, had both the desire and the money), but I'd be pretty bad at designing a new product from scratch. Second, the connections made by Si-doms are all between real-world factors: comparing one historical era in one nation to a different era in a different nation; describing a geopolitical alliance using a high school as a metaphor, etc... My sense is that the associations made by a Ne-dom would be impossible to explain - like comparing a farm animal to a musical note. That's a rare gift and would account for Ns making up only a few percent of the population.

Back to the Stewart example. Yes, he makes connections quickly and uses those connections to toy with his guests. But those connections are reality based and functionally no different than the way I interpret and use information. Compare that to Colbert who plays around in the realm of the fantastical (changing facts on wikipedia, creating his own comic book character...) To me, that's a pretty good distinction between a highly intelligent and talented Sensor and a highly intelligent and talented Intuit.

This is why I get confused when Ne is described as proficiency in comprehending concepts/theories or making associations between disciplines (both of which seem perfectly natural for Si).

I don't have as detailed an analysis for Se-doms, but it seems like brainheart summarized it pretty well with the tennis analogy. Se makes extremely quick associations, but when those associations are used in a non-physical, more intellectual context the exact same function is usually lumped in with Ne.

I absolutely believe that Ne is a valuable function and that many abilities come easily to Ne-doms that are more challenging for Ss (and obviously the reverse). I just honestly think it's often defined in a way that makes it indistinguishable from the other functions.

 

[Ruthie]

I'm fairly sure it is. Not everyone can do that.

Maybe not, but more than a few percent can.