[MBTI General] Can intuition be developed?

[Korvinagor]

It sounds extremely counter-intuitive, but it ought to be possible in my opinion. But it certainly appears more difficult than say, the development of the sensing function in N-types. But to my knowledge, MBTI is about preference, not capacity.

What do you think? Is it harder/easier to grow than sensing? And why? If it's possible, in what ways do you think it can be developed?

 

[five sounds]

Yeah it can, but I think you're right about it being more challenging than developing sensing for intuitive types. Sensing functions are more required to get by in daily life while intuition is more difficult to grasp and less essential to surviving Life on Earth.

 

[1487610420]

no

 

[Korvinagor]

no

Could you please elaborate? All humans have the capacity to learn and grow, surely.

 

[uumlau]

Skills can be developed. Skills always involve a combination of intuition and sensing.

Intuition as an MBTI type cannot really be "developed", because one's type is necessarily kind of a snapshot, a map of where one is and which paths are easier/harder. If you're already intuitive, the paths that are easier for intuition will be easier for you. But those paths are not precluded by type. There are many Sensor scientists, in large part because most of science is about experimentation, not theory, and even on the theoretical side, an understanding of detail often supersedes an understanding at a big-picture level.

 

[Korvinagor]

Skills can be developed. Skills always involve a combination of intuition and sensing.

Intuition as an MBTI type cannot really be "developed", because one's type is necessarily kind of a snapshot, a map of where one is and which paths are easier/harder. If you're already intuitive, the paths that are easier for intuition will be easier for you. But those paths are not precluded by type. There are many Sensor scientists, in large part because most of science is about experimentation, not theory, and even on the theoretical side, an understanding of detail often supersedes an understanding at a big-picture level.

So to paraphrase (and correct me if I'm wrong)...while intuition and sensing cannot be developed, it doesn't hinder people from doing whatever they want?

 

[uumlau]

So to paraphrase (and correct me if I'm wrong)...while intuition and sensing cannot be developed, it doesn't hinder people from doing whatever they want?

Yeah, pretty much. Your type is a good way to figure out what kinds of things you might be good at, but it's never a straightforward thing. Not all INTJs or INTPs are good at math, for example, and they tend to be very good at other things where their INTJ-ness and INTP-ness shines through.

 

[Pionart]

Yes, by continually using a given function, you will become more skilled with it.

 

[uumlau]

Yes, by continually using a given function, you will become more skilled with it.

This is purely a nitpick, but you don't "use" Jungian functions. Jung's work is called "Psychological Types", and a "function" is just a type. You don't use them any more than you "use" extroversion or "use" judging. It makes grammatical sense to say that you "use intuition", but a large part of the confusion involved in understanding and applying typology is forgetting that the types are just types, just classifications and labels of patterns.

Let's see if I can make a decent analogy ...

You can drive a car with a V6 engine in it, but you don't "use V6" or "use a V6 engine", per se. The V6 engine is a trait of the car, but the car is what you use. In this analogy, the car is your mind. Your mind has particular traits, but you don't use those traits, you use your mind.

 

[Pionart]

This is purely a nitpick, but you don't "use" Jungian functions. Jung's work is called "Psychological Types", and a "function" is just a type. You don't use them any more than you "use" extroversion or "use" judging. It makes grammatical sense to say that you "use intuition", but a large part of the confusion involved in understanding and applying typology is forgetting that the types are just types, just classifications and labels of patterns.

Let's see if I can make a decent analogy ...

You can drive a car with a V6 engine in it, but you don't "use V6" or "use a V6 engine", per se. The V6 engine is a trait of the car, but the car is what you use. In this analogy, the car is your mind. Your mind has particular traits, but you don't use those traits, you use your mind.

Well, given that it's a nitpick I won't worry too much, but if I am engaging in cognition and behaviour associated with a particular function then I say that I am "using" that function. For example I say that I am better at using Se now than I used to be because I believe my cognition often reflects an Se attitude (not to too huge a degree since it's my inferior function but still more than it used to be blah blah).

So for thread topic, I believe engaging in behaviours and cognition associated with a particular function will increase your ability to use that function, and if that is the wrong way to phrase it, then I think the correct phrasing would say basically the same thing anyway.

 

[Forever]

I do see this question as a meta-question almost about the state of our minds and its role in cognition. Can you tap into a cognitive *function* and develop it?

Seeing as the current theory has it, it really shouldn't be possible because it's an innate preference. Sometimes people see preferences to mean oh I feel this way or feel like doing it because I like it.

No.. I see preference as it is an unconscious preference much like our heartbeat, it keeps beating even when we ask it not to. I know sensors who will question all the time why I believe or jump to certain conclusions and if you don't have verifiable evidence (they don't even give a care how well you know the theory) because their cognition simply isn't wired for that kind of thought? It's also why many sensors dismiss MBTI as a bunch of unknowable unverifiable crap. Possibilities isn't in their head primarily, it's actuality.

Are they stupid? No. It's just how they see the world.

I don't think intuitives necessarily have the upper hand either. Learning to adapt to a sensation-preferred world is overlooked. Intuitives aren't particular with sense-data as sensors are. We take sense data for granted. We're not necessarily better at it just because we are constantly exposed to it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

^On the flip I think sensors are exposed to their own intuition plenty, it's just not their preferred mode so they may not be as open or comfortable relying on it in the presence of "hard data" in the form of sensory evidence. I assume it might confuse or overwhelm them the way an overload of sensory data can overwhelm intuitive types.

I view intuition/sensation (in a healthy individual, although "healthy" can be pretty subjective) as a balance on a scale. So, for example, the sensor has a smaller toolbox of intuitive capability that might consist of one or two blunt instruments weighed approximately the same as a larger toolbox containing a greater selection of smaller, fine tuned instruments. Each holds a similar weight but in most cases the sensor will gravitate toward the toolbox with the greater selection of tools and broader range of potential applications for said tools. However, sometimes the sensor will find that those larger, blunt intuition tools are right for a particular job. They are less comfortable using these, but sometimes a sledgehammer is better than an upholstery hammer.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Ooh, good discussion!

I'd say that probably Se is the easiest, followed by Ne, then maybe Si and Ni (purely speculation) because the steps for developing these functions become progressively complex. To develop Se, it's suggested to live in the moment and focus on what you're doing. To develop Ni, it would be more like "try applying one bit of knowledge to a second bit of a knowledge, and then find a pattern and apply that pattern to the people around you and events, and think about if that pattern is going to emerge in the future and how." So in theory, a Ni dom/aux might have an easier time developing Se than a Se dom/aux might have developing Ni, but speaking for myself, I have a really low Se and can't live in the moment at all so idk.

 

[Poki]

Can we teach people to jump to conclusions? Simple as that

 

[Fun in the Sun]

Its not the size of the function that matters, but how you use it.

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Yeah I never understood how a function's placement in MBTI determined your capabilities besides you having a natural preference and awareness for that function.

I would think you can, since even in a typology that IS about strengths (Socionics), you can still develop your inferior functions through experience.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

It is a subjective discussion because the actual nature of the functions are not proven. There is a theory that says they are innate, but it is a theory and not demonstrated fact as far as I'm aware. I have heard of the use of brain scan technology to determine which parts of the brain are active in an individual and then applying these to the individual functions, but I'm not aware of this being a definitive process.

So then, one could ask exactly what you mean by developing intuition. I teach creativity and so I do teach aspects of intuition because the creative process brings everything together. For Ne related intuition a person can practice making random associations and then derive meaning and pattern from them. You could have a list of random words and then make a story out of it. A person can also practice getting more in touch with their subconscious mind - we all have one, so why can't a person practice creating more neural pathways between the conscious and unconscious minds? Going into meditative, imaginative states is one exercise. A person could listen to music, close their eyes and make some effort to create a story or a picture. You can always ask how does this color, sound, word represent something else? We can all practice the use of metaphor. I think creative arts people teach this stuff all the time, although there are natural process in each person's mind that are unique and some that fit into these categories. As long as a person doesn't dismiss it a hooey, I think they can learn and create new neural pathways that learn to make intuitive connections with patterns.

 

[Fun in the Sun]

Functions seem silly to me. There is no evidence for them. I like traits better and general descriptions better. You can see them.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Also, according to MBTI and Jung, every person does have and use an intuitive function. No one is without this, so it is a matter of strengthening what is already there.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I heard that developing your dominant function also develops all your other functions including your inferior. So you can, it just won't become more trusted than sensing if you're a sensor (unless you change types, but that is a topic for another thread).