iNtuition in a state of barbarism?

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Like I said about pushing people out of their comfort zone earlier.. anyone can commit to unlikely activities, if necessary. MBTI was designed to only describe types as Preferences. Myers was appalled when she saw companies firing people for their test results. It wasn't meant to describe people in their totality.

I know that more than anyone, as my whole attitude is to concentrate on my area of weakness.

However, if you were forced to live and work in a world where N- functions were the most valued, yes you'd adapt. BUT you'd be one of the "worst" people, as you'd still be going against your instict every day.

Like speaking in a foreign language. People adapt, but will always be disadvantaged against a natural*.

Likewise, if an N was forced into a situation where S- functions were the most valued, yes they would adapt, but would constantly be one of the idiots of the group. Sure they survive, but as a loser.

So in that case, my quesiton is simple, and no-one wants to answer it.

In barbaric societies such as those I stated, were N's losers/wierdos? Or did people simply not develop as N-doms or N-aux?







*assuming equal intelligence/ability.

 

[Kalach]

I agree.

My point was about N-doms or aux though. These are characterized by a preference for abstract thinking, which would seem a disadvantage in those scenarios I described.

If abstract means irrelevant to the situation or context, then yeah. But it doesn't and can't, especially if it's a stand in word for what N's are supposedly doing.

I think N in our present group of societies is allowed to be a little more bizarre than it need be.

/Tyler Durd-en

 

[Salomé]

Fe does not mean you would be offended, just give importance to group harmony.

Lol. Yes, always. That's my chief priority in life.

Trololololollol.

But in any case, barbarism is the correct word to use.

Pakistan has an absence of culture and civilisation? You are a racist as well as troll then.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Lol. Yes, always. That's my chief priority in life.

Trololololollol.

Pakistan has an absence of culture and civilisation? You are a racist as well as troll then.

Don't be silly.

Would a racist troll have a 5 star thread rating and be one of TypoC's most beloved and enduring posters?

But I will forgive your transgression, and when you feel like replying to the points made, I commit to respond with a cordial and respectful reply, as always.

 

[FDG]

One potential evolutionary solution to your quandary: Ns become as a group more intelligent than S, such that your "ceteris paribus" condition is stochastically almost never respected.

 

[Salomé]

Don't be silly.

Would a racist troll have a 5 star thread rating and be one of TypoC's most beloved and enduring posters?

But I will forgive your transgression, and when you feel like replying to the points made, I commit to respond with a cordial and respectful reply, as always.

Also much deluded, it seems.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

One potential evolutionary solution to your quandary: Ns become as a group more intelligent than S, such that your "ceteris paribus" condition is stochastically almost never respected.

I don't believe this.

N's may be considered more intelligent in modern society precisely because they are more suited to academic fields, were abstract thinking predominated and which are used as a popularly accepted measure of intelligence today.

But this is a tautology.

In a society such as those I described, I see no evidence at all that being an N-dom or aux would be anything but a disadvantage to the great majority of people.

"Insights" by a peasant farmer would be more likely a build-up of concrete knowledge interplaying with tertiary or inferior N function.

 

[Salomé]

What is the point of your argument? Clearly enough prospered that we are here now. Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence. Your hypothesis has already been disproved...by history. Get over it.

 

[FDG]

I don't believe this.

I don't either. It's just one potential solution to the problem you pose. If no solution exists, then the problem is likely posed in the wrong fashion (and I think so).

N's may be considered more intelligent in modern society precisely because they are more suited to academic fields, were abstract thinking predominated and which are used as a popularly accepted measure of intelligence today.

You did not use intelligence/ability in this fashion in your preceeding posts (see the your footnote in post 61), rather you referred to a general capacity to learn quickly. Which is what I am referring to in my answer. Say I am half as naturally coordinated as you, but I can learn new movements in double the speed. Given the same level of practice, we will reach a similar level of skill.

"Insights" by a peasant farmer would be more likely a build-up of concrete knowledge interplaying with tertiary or inferior N function.

Concrete knowledge is the basis for insight in N types, too.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Clearly enough prospered that we are here now. Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence. Your hypothesis has already been disproved...by history.

"We"...pride in group identity...very Fe.

Anyway, how do you arrive at this conclusion? I see no conclusive supporting argument.

Also, if it is true - which it could be - I'd be interested to have some idea of how it worked in those societies.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I don't either. It's just one potential solution to the problem you pose. If no solution exists, then the problem is likely posed in the wrong fashion (and I think so).

You did not use intelligence/ability in this fashion in your preceeding posts (see the your footnote in post 61), rather you referred to a general capacity to learn quickly. Which is what I am referring to in my answer. Say I am half as naturally coordinated as you, but I can learn new movements in double the speed. Given the same level of practice, we will reach a similar level of skill.

OK, noted.

This is a novel and possible solution. I don't believe it, but it would solve the problem. Thank you for the contribution.

Concrete knowledge is the basis for insight in N types, too.

True, but abstract thinking would relate to constructing and relating to a "superstructure" of ideas with the concrete world as a point of reference.

i.e. debating and understanding, general truths and ideas, rather than a very specific novel idea regarding a farm.

True, a specific advance can come from a general idea. But in those societies, was/is there a possibility for abstract thinking, from which the N could then draw their ideas for application to concrete reality?

 

[yenom]

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.

No, they get persecuted and excommunicated for spreading deviant thought.
A war in ignorance will surely get you killed for challenging conventional beliefs.
Like gallieo and charles darwin.
some survived and went to write books in exclusion though.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

No, they get persecuted and excommunicated for spreading deviant thought.
A war in ignorance will surely get you killed for challenging conventional beliefs.
Like gallieo and charles darwin.
some survived and went to write books in exclusion though.

30% of the world population didn't get persecuted or write books. 99% of that 30% would have been illiterate and perhaps never leave their village.

 

[FDG]

True, a specific advance can come from a general idea. But in those societies, was/is there a possibility for abstract thinking, from which the N could then draw their ideas for application to concrete reality?

What do you mean? I'm sure there was plenty of idle time, actually forcibly so...

 

[yenom]

Your arguement is like saying before clocks and calendars were invented there were no Js. It might be possible.

But nevertheless, we all have to find a way to adapt to society.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

What do you mean? I'm sure there was plenty of idle time, actually forcibly so...

Well I am assuming you need some kind of education/access to information to think abstactly.

Can people have thoughts which they don't have the language to express?

And if so, will they ever be able to develop them in a healthy way?

As far as I can see, iNtuitives either did not develop, or were tortured in a world which could not support their preferred means of thinking.

Your arguement is like saying before clocks and calendars were invented there were no Js. It might be possible.

But nevertheless, we all have to find a way to adapt to society.

I don't think so. Those societies would have permitted organization regardless of technology.

What I am not sure they could support, is abstract thinking.

 

[Jaguar]

"We"...pride in group identity...very Fe.

Then you have missed all the so-called INTJs in this forum who have used 'The Royal We' so many times, one would strain themselves counting.
You blew off Salomé's question: What is the point of your argument?

What is it?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Then you have missed all the so-called INTJs in this forum who have used 'The Royal We' so many times, one would strain themselves counting.
You blew off Salomé's question: What is the point of your argument?

What is it?

I did not make an argument, I asked a question. Which is:

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?

...

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.

For clarification: when I say develop I do not mean "exist". I mean "develop" in the typological sense of becoming a "healthy" function.

 

[WALMART]

Burn the witch, kill the infidels, praise the creator, etc


In my opinion, man has struggled PAST abstract thinking. It's the concrete thinkers that likely found their environment fucked.


Edit: but perhaps I'm falling outside the bounds MBTI has drawn up, yet again.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Burn the witch, kill the infidels, praise the creator, etc


In my opinion, man has struggled PAST abstract thinking. It's the concrete thinkers that likely found their environment fucked.


Edit: but perhaps I'm falling outside the bounds MBTI has drawn up, yet again.

Is that abstract thinking or just brainwashing/ignorance?

I don't think you can conclude thought process from the end result. A Sensor can still believe in a non-empirical theory, just like a T can have a worldview based ultimately on feelings (I argue that we all do, but that's another story).

We are all irrational, some are just more skilled 'post factum' rationalizers.