Strength of Intuition?

[hurl3y4456]

It got me thinking that if there exists "feelers" with stronger logic than "thinkers," then the same can be said regarding intuition and sensing. Everything exists on a spectrum....One could exist on one end of the autism, ADD, psychopathy, or intellect spectrum in regards to traits associated with the defined term. Just because someone prefers thinking over feeling doesn't imply that they DO NOT exhibit a stronger grasp of logic than a primary thinker. The probability, however, that this assertion to hold at the extremes is much less. For instance, a very strong thinker will Likely outmatch a very strong feeler in regards to ability to use coherent logic (all other functions are greatly repressed). Yet when other functions are utilized in synergy with the dominant function, proper development is facilitated. Further, intuition is merely a result of unconscious formulation of patterns over time, which is analogous to fission (Ne) and fusion (Ni)....wherein the patterns are linked via congregation (Ni) or divergence (splitting). Now, the dominance of a particular function corresponds to the degree of preference. A higher degree of preference implies more time will be utilized to develop that particular function. Although time is directly proportional to skill, there exists a threshold that prevents further excellence in that skill. Also, the rate at which a skill is developed need not depend on degree of preference. Therefore, there will be cases in which a sensor will accelerate their ability for intuition to a greater extent than an intuitive. Clearly, there's a lot of misconceptions out there regarding sensor's and intuitive's.

 

[Galena]

<< Lower than it looks, checking in.

Honestly I think I've accelerated the appearance of intuition more than the skill itself, because it wasn't my honest preference, but I was prodded into groups of mostly N's as a school kid. I'm still not totally clear on why, but always felt like something was off, and I had something to hide. At the risk of coming off as more than one kind of ass, one possible explanation is that even those who don't know that N is what they're looking at make the automatic N = gifted misconception.

 

[LucieCat]

It definitely is possible. We all use both an intuitive and a sensing process. I think that a sensor who has spent a lot of time around intuitives very well could seem like an intuitive because they are so adept at intuitive conversations and have a closer link to their intuitive process.

This is would be very rare, but a sensor who grew up in a household of mostly intuitives may very well show up in this light.

 

[hurl3y4456]

It definitely is possible. We all use both an intuitive and a sensing process. I think that a sensor who has spent a lot of time around intuitives very well could seem like an intuitive because they are so adept at intuitive conversations and have a closer link to their intuitive process.

This is would be very rare, but a sensor who grew up in a household of mostly intuitives may very well show up in this light.

Yes, associating with intuitive's definitely helps....I was thinking in terms of a spectrum...For instance, for all INTJ's, there exists an upper and lower bound in terms of ability to use intuition successfully (Un and Ln). Everyone learns at a different rate due to variable processing speed, intellect, exc. (*) If we take the subset of sensor's who use intuition as a tertiary function, then there will also exist and upper and lower bound (Us and Ls). By (*), it should follow that Us > Ln....Of course, the probability of an intuitive to exceed the ability of a sensor to use intuition is clearly higher due to time. Time will certainly help sharpen skills, however, some have a larger repository.

 

[Hiraeth]

This is something I have often thought about, especially from seeing changes in myself as I've grown older and from keeping a regular yoga practice. People who engage in yoga/meditation regularly should learn to develop their intuition and maybe even learn to rely on it at some point. A sensor should be able to do so and perhaps theoretically even get a chance to surpass intuitives who never meditate in some form.

I'm not so sure I was very intuitive as a child (besides taking interest in certain metaphysical activities then), but have learned to develop it over time and even prefer it over the concrete now. I think I remember reading about changes in brain activity from people who meditate regularly. I'm sure there are ways for people to strengthen their intuition, but to what capacity is an interesting thought to ponder.

I suppose theoretically intuitives would develop it at a higher rate than sensors overall, but there is still opportunity for sensors to take interest and develop it to a certain capacity (especially tert-intuitives like myself). I also grew up in a sensor household with mostly sensor friends, so I'm not sure how this even happened, but it's possible.

 

[hurl3y4456]

This is something I have often thought about before, especially from seeing changes in myself as I've grown older and from keeping a regular yoga practice. People who engage in yoga/meditation regularly should learn to develop their intuition and maybe even learn to rely on it at some point. A sensor should be able to do so and perhaps theoretically even get a chance to surpass intuitives who never meditate in some form.

I'm not so sure I was very intuitive as a child (besides taking interest in certain metaphysical activities then), but have learned to develop it over time and even prefer it over the concrete now. I think I remember reading about changes in brain activity from people who meditate regularly. I'm sure there are ways for people to strengthen their intuition, but to what capacity is an interesting thought to ponder.

I suppose theoretically intuitives would develop it at a higher rate than sensors overall, but there is still opportunity for sensors to take interest and develop it to a certain capacity (especially tert-intuitives like myself). I also grew up in a sensor household with mostly sensor friends, so I'm not sure how this even happened, but it's possible.

This ties heavily with the "Butterfly Effect." Everyone has an inborn potential to utilize intuition at time t = 0. Certainly, a dominant intuitive should exhibit a higher capacity for intuition (innate starting point + time-->skill), however, each person will observe events E1,E2,....En that can either enhance or dissipate a particular skill. Suppose person x1 and x2 have dominant and tertiary intuition respectively.

Define functions F1(t) and F2(t), where Fi(T) = ability to use intuition (assuming we can quantify it) and t = time. Let I,max correspond to a person's maximum capacity to use intuition....Theoretically, I,max (X1) > I,max (X2). At time t =0, the capacity is essentially zero since no events have been observed. The brain is remolded based on how much mental stimulation is present til full maturation. If the same events are observed for person x1 and x2, certainly F1(t) > F2(t). But if events are changed such that person x2 is heavily stimulated via environmental circumstances and person x1 is marginally stimulated, then F2(t) may exceed F1(t)..

So, it's basically event dependent meaning that the environment plays a key role here (You being exposed to yoga is a chain of events). It would also make sense that epi-genetics plays a key role in shaping your functions. Every event encountered by our parents surely dictated our innate ability to use a particular function (based on brain plasticity), yet we gravitate towards certain paths based on inner chemistry.

 

[Dashy CVII]

I also think Intuition will be the strongest function for mistyped INxPs or ENxJs, as long as it's for sure their strongest dichotomy out of the two (N-S, T-F).

For instance, people I find who are ENTP irl, their results will often look like this:

I ---------------- | ||||||| ----------- E
N --- ||||||||||| | ------------------- S
T ---------- |||| | ------------------- F
J ---- ||||||||||| | ------------------- P

This is rarely an ENTJ result. That is because Thinking is too weak to be their primary function. Sometimes this is an INTJ result, but usually it is ENTP. Judging/Perceiving doesn't really effect the functions, since Ne primaries are based on being E/N > T/F > S , not E-N-T-P ----- Intuition is strongest, Sensing is weakest, voila.

To tell between ENTP and INTJ above, in reality the E/I dichotomy is almost as inaccurate as the J/P dichotomy for real function typing. The real E/I is based on the functions and is different from MBTI's E/I, that is because being social has nothing to do with Ne.

This is (typically) ENTJ:

I ---------------- | ||||||| ----------- E
N --------- ||||| | ------------------- S
T ----||||||||||| | ------------------- F
J ---------------- | ||||||||||||| ---- P

OR

I ---------------- | ||||||| ----------- E
N --------- ||||| | ------------------- S
T ----||||||||||| | ------------------- F
J ---- ||||||||||| | ------------------- P

In reality, the N-S T-F dichotomies are the most accurate to type with, so if your N stands out the most, you're an N primary... Next, it's time to understand Internals vs Externals in order to understand the real difference between Ni and Ne. What is your true type? The links in my signature have more on that.