[Ne] Should Ne even be considered an "Intuition"?

[Dreamer]

Remove what you know of Jung's definitions and remove what you know of any personality systems that define what Ne is. What I see as Ne isn't necessarily as having intuition (in mainstream terms) but rather, a creative thought process. A creativity that allows it's users to put disparate things together to create, to understand, and to see what isn't there. Unlike Ni or mainstream intuition, which I do see Ni as the direct translation to in a Typological sense, I don't see Ne as this "gift" or anything all that special. Perhaps some people are born with such a way to understand the world, but as I've always told people that ask me how they can become more creative, I tell them to stop placing judgement on all their thoughts, no matter how crazy it may seem, question everything, question the status quo, and further, ask yourself, "why not?". For as long as I can remember, I've always enjoyed creating. Always got the latest and greatest art sets from my relatives as gifts. I never asked for it, they just saw something in me that I didn't see in myself. So what, I'm a creative, but I don't really consider myself as having an "intuition". What my dad and brother posess (they're both NTJs) feel like true intuition to me. Again, here, I am defining intuition in the mainstream, general understanding of it, not intuition as understood in the Myers Briggs or Socionics.

So what do you think? Should Ne be considered as a true source of intuition or were Myers and Briggs, and Jung tapping into a trait or set of traits we commonly associate with highly creative people?

 

[Forever]

lol Ni is definitely not mainstream intuition
I could see how that is mistaken. If anything being mainstream intuition that should be Fi.

Ne is certainly intuition, how many inventors were Ne dom types? They were geniuses in their own respect.

Ni doms are seen as system improvers whereas Ne is the creator.

Did my Ni definition blow you away too much? ;.;

 

[Lord Lavender]

Ne is intuition in a way. As a Ne user I do have what most people would consider a sense of intuition about things. For instance I was able to see a surprise birthday party coming before I was told about it as I could pick something up going on behind the scenes so to speak. Paradoxically sensing functions can be what most people would consider "intuitive". For instance my ISFJ mother could tell that a woman was pregnant before the pregnant woman even knew as she just looked different and picked up on subtle behaviour changes (Si-Fe). I think that any function can be intuitive in its own way.

 

[527468]

I tend to view intuition or "instinct" as more of an extroverted process personally. You're active and aware of things, processing outside information. I don't actually see any MBTI functions as inherently intuitive in the literal sense, Ne and Ni are just good at simplifying information down to its essentials and main purpose ie. the forest for the trees, and do so based on personal experience. With N, you get the general point without having to hear any details, because its nature is to step back and view things as a whole. It wants to reach the essence, or point of something for utilization, and so it is more of a quick gradual operation than a truly immediate instinct or 'knowing.'

But Ne does this with extroverted information while Ni doesn't: Ne is picking up on things happening in the actual moment, reading cues, reacting to the situation, seeing things. Any extroverted process is more likely to be intuitive and instinctive than Ni where you're just inward reflecting on information and concepts. This stems from a misunderstanding about Ne. With introverted processes, there's never an incentive for being intuitive, because they don't get to deal with immediate outside consequences in the first place, they're dealing with inward-verted information that's reflective and deep-down in thought, and thus impractical for Ni to do anything more remarkably instinctive than say for example, day-dream a relevant anecdote and insightfully apply it to their life.

I think OP, maybe people are seeing Ne wrong? due to P stereotypes it doesn't come to revelations? Ni and Ne are both equal in their ability to discern, and as they're both equally P functions, not one is more straightforward and certain. They're the same function applied to opposite realms of information.

 

[indra]

Ne is creative so far as fish swim.

 

[Bush]

Yeah, intuition is usually couched as some sort of instinctual insight or "gut feeling." Pick up a business magazine, and you'll find them working from that one. More generally, though, it is about gathering information that isn't really "there." The former's obviously Ni territory; the latter covers both.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Intuition is a misnomer along with Feeling and (arguably) Thinking.

 

[EcK]

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/A...orrelates-in-psychological-type-ap-ti-tc-2011

 

[Yama]

It's definitely an intuition.

Source: xSFx

 

[527468]

What N really is

Deduction and induction are really the perfect terms to describe the Intuition and Sensation preference in MBTI.

This is because N in MBTI is the process of starting with a generated idea, then being able to spot all the patterns which confirm or refute this idea. It skips the details and makes a leap. The leap isn't the answer, this is the big misunderstanding people always make. The leap is what it's looking for to find the answer, the cues it needs in order to then say, "aha, then this is right!" Thereby N comes to insightful and accurate perspectives if it can find enough patterns fitting it. Some of these perspectives can sometimes be incredibly more novel than S's because they make creative leaps to what the big picture might be, similar to dreaming new combinations, it comes up with new ideas to test, but these perspectives most usually will be hit-and-miss. This appearance of intuition begins with the quality that it can quickly and easily connect to many things, thereby coming to interesting specific conclusions and generalizations.

What you should understand about this N is it doesn't work like Sensing, where conclusions consistently break bits of ground at a time, based on a slow integration or evolution of observing detailed information and facts. S's conclusions take longer to form and aren't as plenty as N's, because they consider and process sensory information. Intuition works immediately from idea generation and assumes a practice of speculative experimentation, while Sensing makes steady progress fact-by-fact.. S works the opposite way by taking in all the details and slowly adding these up to general conclusions that encompass a lot more implication, meaning, and forward advancement. N doesn't break forward consistently, but leaps around trying to make distinct nodes of progress, only on the occasion making a big find. Ns look forward to making a revolutionary find from a spark of ideation it finds interesting, we don't know by what mechanism this idea comes from, but this is the process Ns involve with for generating content nonetheless.

Real instinct on the other hand is more of an Xe thing. Xi doesn't need true instinct, because all Xi functions do are reflect away from external situations.

 

[entropie]

You generally have to decide, whether you believe in the philosophical principle of induction or deduction. Deduction means that you derive new ideas from the combination of existing ideas, while induction means you derive ideas by something like godly intervention. Most serious philosophers and scientists dont believe in induction, cause the whole science and all its inventions were basically a very deductive thing. One build on another. Even if you look at the historical background of great inventors like Einstein, you will see that he basically combined knowledge that was made in the times, to derive or deduct new knowledge.

So the basic concept of intuition, at least thats what the word means in German, says that you "have a strong feeling" about something. That tho has nothing to do with the abstract awareness that mbti means when talking about intuition. In concept extroverted intuition has a more objective awareness, lesser concentrated on the ego of a person but more on its surroundings. A more impersonal intuition. While Ni means a subjective intuition, where new ideas are deduced or synthesized from a very subjective and personal awareness.

So the former one Ne is the better brainstormer, cause its easier for others to grasp what he is talking about; while the latter on the Ni is the artist, who gives creation from a personal deductive reference system.

In induction I dont believe, that's too religious for me.

 

[527468]

Mmm, induction isn't belief in ideas implying divine intervention.

Edit: Entropie, I think you're defining induction not deduction.


Induction - The rational process of hypothesis creation


Established Facts like Theories
|
v
New Observations
|
v
New Hypothesis
|
v
New Theory



Deduction - The rational process of hypothesis testing


Established Facts like Theories
|
v
New Hypothesis via creative generalization. (Similar to how we form new dream combinations, the N function generates new "ideas" from existing ones)
|
v
Observations
|
v
Confirmation / Insight


The overall difference with N (deduction) is hypotheses come before factual observations. With S (induction), factual observations like evidence and existing theories come before any hypotheses.

I believe you're quite correct that we gain new ideas from previous ones. When you say "all inventions were basically a very deductive thing. One build on another." that's not what deduction is. That's simply how reasoning has evolved historically, not a local type of conscious thinking. We disagree when you say "Deduction means that you derive new ideas from the combination of existing ideas." By colloquial induction and deduction, we usually mean from specific-to-general VS general-to-specific, Deduction and Induction, not the historical phenomenon of ideas coming from similar ideas. Ss specifically start from the bottom-up, observing the implications of repeated patterns and established theories, for long enough, to consider what else those add up to and signify. A quote from this article specifically: "Note that induction is how Newton reached to "Law of Gravitation" from "apple and his head” observation"). In conclusion, when we use induction we observe a number of specific instances and from them infer a general principle or law."

Deduction however is merely something we've observed in reality which generates a new idea, from something like subconscious generalization similar to how we dream new combinations. Deduction does not infer one theory from another. Deduction can never assume where this idea you begin with subconsciously comes from, but denotes this is a style of thinking we've observed in reality, where people begin with an assumption of a unique hypothesis for the sake of testing. That is exactly how Ns differ from Ss in finding ideas that are correct: working backwards like solving a maze from the finish, starting with a general possibility to apply to things.

In any case, sorry for having to write this out after you already quoted me ⇩.

 

[entropie]

Mmm no, induction isn't belief in ideas.

Never said that

 

[Lark]

There's also a bunch of different ways of interpreting or defining intuition, I'm reading GE Moore's Principa Ethica at the minute and his definition of intuition is different again from the two or three different ones which he mentions in the course of the book, he even says so in the introduction.

I've also been reading a book on the brain called You Are Not As Smart As You Think which deals with tricks of the mind which the brain plays on itself, like heuristics and logical fallacies, it deals with the extent to which people are governed by the unconscious, which I think is a big thing, what people refer to as intuition is sometimes unconscious processes too of a intellectual or imaginative sort.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Big Data’s Mathematical Mysteries | Quanta Magazine

 

[neuskens]

Deduction and induction are really the perfect terms to describe the Intuition and Sensation preference in MBTI.

This is because N in MBTI is the process of starting with a generated idea, then being able to spot everything which confirms it, to confirm if the idea is true. It skips the details and makes a leap. The leap isn't the answer, this is the big misunderstanding people always make. The leap is what it's looking for to find the answer, the cues it needs in order to then say, "aha, then this is right!" Thereby N comes to insightful and accurate perspectives if it can find enough patterns fitting it. Some of these perspectives can sometimes be incredibly more novel than S's because they make creative leaps to what the big picture might be, similar to dreaming new combinations, it comes up with new ideas to test, but these perspectives most usually will be hit-and-miss. This appearance of intuition begins with the quality that it can quickly and easily connect to many things, thereby coming to interesting specific conclusions and generalizations.

What you should understand about this N is it doesn't work like Sensing, where conclusions consistently break bits of ground at a time, based on a slow integration or evolution of observing detailed information and facts. S's conclusions take longer to form and aren't as plenty as N's, because they consider and process sensory information. Intuition works immediately from idea generation and assumes a practice of speculative experimentation, while Sensing makes steady progress fact-by-fact.. S works the opposite way by taking in all the details and slowly adding these up to general conclusions that encompass a lot more implication, meaning, and forward advancement. N doesn't break forward consistently, but leaps around trying to make distinct nodes of progress, only on the occasion making a big find. Ns look forward to making a revolutionary find from a spark of ideation it finds interesting, we don't know by what mechanism this idea comes from, but this is the process Ns involve with for generating content nonetheless.

Real instinct on the other hand is more of an Xe thing. Xi doesn't need true instinct, because all Xi functions do are reflect away from external situations.

I believe throughout our lifes we unconsciously absorb patterns that, later on, when we see a component of it, we ''take the leap'' and assume it's part of it, testing to see if it really is. I agree with you about Ne being deduction, because we are able trace back the product of something to its origins; then, knowing the origins and having stored (Si /o/) a lot of patterns, we can combine different parts of all those patterns and sort of predict the possible outcome. It's like we are given a single information which is the midway of a complex, ongoing process, and with the relevant information that many would not consider relevant, we can see how what caused that process, how did it start and how it's probably going to continue its course. Maybe seeing the motivations behind things? The very start of the engine that made everything start working together.
Perhaps this is more Ne-Ti than Ne alone. I have noticed that my ENFP brother, given the same situation as me, tends to be more inductive, thinking that a component of a pattern is gonna present itself the same way it does now as it will in other situations, while I tend to consider more variables and identify more precisely the constant of a component. Maybe that's just my brother tho. Maybe. Maybe; maybe...

lol Ni is definitely not mainstream intuition
I could see how that is mistaken. If anything being mainstream intuition that should be Fi.

Why do you say that?

 

[Qlip]

As a Ne-dom, from an experiential point of view, intuition (in the colloquial sense) is a result of Si. My Ne is on all of the time, correlating data, articulating models, making bridges between often disparate seeming ideas, often by way of simple play. When I get that "Aha!" intuitive moment in a particular situation, when I get a sense of mysterious understanding of what will happen, of what I should do, it's a sense remembrance that I've been somewhere like here before and a sense of how everything flows from that point.

 

[Dreamer]

Yeah, intuition is usually couched as some sort of instinctual insight or "gut feeling." Pick up a business magazine, and you'll find them working from that one. More generally, though, it is about gathering information that isn't really "there." The former's obviously Ni territory; the latter covers both.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Intuition is a misnomer along with Feeling and (arguably) Thinking.

I agree. I hadn't thought much of it before, but I could see Fi or Ti acting as an underlying data storage, which an extroverted function say, Ne or Se (naturally exploratory functions) understands and mingles with the outside world. This abstract notion of what is deemed "intuition", again, not speaking in typology speak, is something that I can see very easily, being equivalent to a combination of functions and their use.

 

[Dreamer]

There's also a bunch of different ways of interpreting or defining intuition, I'm reading GE Moore's Principa Ethica at the minute and his definition of intuition is different again from the two or three different ones which he mentions in the course of the book, he even says so in the introduction.

I've also been reading a book on the brain called You Are Not As Smart As You Think which deals with tricks of the mind which the brain plays on itself, like heuristics and logical fallacies, it deals with the extent to which people are governed by the unconscious, which I think is a big thing, what people refer to as intuition is sometimes unconscious processes too of a intellectual or imaginative sort.

Hmm, very interesting. I think the mainstream view of what intuition is, is indeed something rather subconscious and wouldn't surprise me really, as anything at the forefront of your consciousness, to me, would be deemed intellect or knowledge, something you can quickly access for a given situation. I see intuition as something less controlled, something that comes about and supplies one with an answer or gut feeling for something, but isn't clear enough to give that person an immediate "yes" to their questions.

I think that is the main reason why I am having difficulty in seeing Ne as intuition in this sense, since it is something more tangibly felt for me. There are countless ways in which it bleeds through to other uses in my life, and most times they go unnoticed unless I for some reason catch glimpse of Ne in action outside of creative endeavors, but it's probably because it is in such creative endeavors where Ne is most readily felt and accessible, that it loses that intangible, "mysticism" that I personally, associate intuition with.

 

[Dreamer]

As a Ne-dom, from an experiential point of view, intuition (in the colloquial sense) is a result of Si. My Ne is on all of the time, correlating data, articulating models, making bridges between often disparate seeming ideas, often by way of simple play. When I get that "Aha!" intuitive moment in a particular situation, when I get a sense of mysterious understanding of what will happen, of what I should do, it's a sense remembrance that I've been somewhere like here before and a sense of how everything flows from that point.

Oh! hmm...intuition as stemming from Si. *thinking* I get the sense that Ne to you feels like this curious child at play with no real intention in mind, just making connections as they come? That's at least how I would sort of describe how it feels for me. It's this unstoppable curiosity for everything around me and building on top of ideas, on top of ideas, as I play with things. Linking intuition to Si...I think is intriguing. To me, Si is what gives a certain depth, in the Ne/Si axis. As an extroverted function, Ne is naturally more broad, less deep than Ni, but with Si, you get those collaged, subjective understandings of the world around you. It wouldn't surprise me if Si is involved in the mix of what is commonly referred to "intuition".

A question that just popped to mind is, I have no doubt each and every person has an intuition, therefore, each and every type belies a sense of innate knowing of the world around them for reasons that are at times, in explainable. I would be interested in pursuing this topic as how this may relate to the types. Maybe this sense of intuition, is not just one duo or pair of defined functions, but is some formula within each type makeup, utilizing the functions in their stacking, to create this nebulous.

Hmm...thoughts....

 

[TheEndIsNotTheEnd]

Well, it depends on how one defines "intuition". It has different meanings in different contexts.

Edit: I didn't actually read the whole thread though - so my comment might be a little redundant. Sorry.