Intuition is a Bad Name for N!

[Blackwater]

After having immersed myself in epistemology for a couple of days it occurred to me, that Intuition is really a bad, very bad, spectacularly bad name for the N-function.

I remember struggling with this when I was first aquinted with MBTI years ago and now its returning to me.

Secondly I think 'Sensation' is a pretty poor name for what Sensation does in the abstract domain and also for what actual Sensates are actually like.

What somehow seemed to have escaped Jung in the name of Sensing/ Intuition is that Intuition is sensory.

Intuition should rather be called Reflection as that is actually what Intuition does. - when Keirsey attempted to characterize Intuition as Introspection he came close to the truth but didn't realize that introspection is a function of reflection.

What sets Reflection apart from Sensation is that reflections are derived from non-immediate knowledge. Non-immediate knowledge means, among other things, interpreting the present situation through axioms not immediatly related to that situation. This accounts for the views of Intuitives as "out there", consiracy nuts, paranoid, and general Intui'tarded-ness.

Calling it 'Reflective/ Reflection' would also aid Sensates in recognizing where the Intuitive types are different from them. Certainly, "making too much of things" and "thinking too much" have been consistant Sensate criticisms of Intuitives, though unwilling or unable to "make too much of things" these Sensates apparently never take the trouble to expound on this to a degree that satisfies Intuitives.

If Keirsey was "one step after the truth" when he called Intuition Introspection, Jung could be said to be one step before it. What I mean by that is that while Sensates have a greater affinity for immediate knowledge (i.e. sensory), sensation itself is actually only a means to the preferred end of the S-function which is to grasp and react to the what is actual, present, current, and real as fully as possible.

The real irony of this is that, the most descriptive name for Sensation is actually...

Intuition!

 

[Fluffywolf]

Intuition is acting upon the subconscious.

Sensing is acting upon the physical emotions.

 

[Paisley]

Europa hey?

As it relates to the 'what' that is being distinguished as dominant, I don't think MBTI is far off in the implication of the wording used to describe the main types, although I do see your point, and it's well taken. Sense types intuit the senses, Intuitive types intuit through cognitive reasoning and introspection, or intuition. Using intuition in that sentence sounds funny, but the point is there, in that intuition already implies, the mind and introspection. What is more attuned to the senses and what is more attuned to the mind in the wording of Sensory and Intuition as opposed to Intuition and Reflection? Intuition and reflection are saying the same thing in the wording. Introspection is maybe a better term for you, as the word intuitive is an adjective. Isn't Intuition synonymous with mental leap, the mind, thought, and quick contemplation though? Even the original derivation of the word intuition [intuit(us)] comes from the latin "to gaze" or "to contemplate". Like I said, you are very right in that sense types use an immediate intuition by the senses. Yet, the same holds for the Intuitive as an immediate intuition by the mind, cognition, introspection, not the senses.

Point well taken, that introspection does work, for both the IN and EN, as the case for what the dominant procedure for thinking would stem from as opposed to the sense type, but I wouldn't use the term intuitive as the dominant function for the S type due to the original derivation of the word and what it implies.

Let me know how full of crap I am, I'd love to hear it!

 

[professor goodstain]

After having immersed myself in epistemology for a couple of days it occurred to me, that Intuition is really a bad, very bad, spectacularly bad name for the N-function.

I remember struggling with this when I was first aquinted with MBTI years ago and now its returning to me.

Secondly I think 'Sensation' is a pretty poor name for what Sensation does in the abstract domain and also for what actual Sensates are actually like.

What somehow seemed to have escaped Jung in the name of Sensing/ Intuition is that Intuition is sensory.

Intuition should rather be called Reflection as that is actually what Intuition does. - when Keirsey attempted to characterize Intuition as Introspection he came close to the truth but didn't realize that introspection is a function of reflection.

What sets Reflection apart from Sensation is that reflections are derived from non-immediate knowledge. Non-immediate knowledge means, among other things, interpreting the present situation through axioms not immediatly related to that situation. This accounts for the views of Intuitives as "out there", consiracy nuts, paranoid, and general Intui'tarded-ness.

Calling it 'Reflective/ Reflection' would also aid Sensates in recognizing where the Intuitive types are different from them. Certainly, "making too much of things" and "thinking too much" have been consistant Sensate criticisms of Intuitives, though unwilling or unable to "make too much of things" these Sensates apparently never take the trouble to expound on this to a degree that satisfies Intuitives.

If Keirsey was "one step after the truth" when he called Intuition Introspection, Jung could be said to be one step before it. What I mean by that is that while Sensates have a greater affinity for immediate knowledge (i.e. sensory), sensation itself is actually only a means to the preferred end of the S-function which is to grasp and react to the what is actual, present, current, and real as fully as possible.

The real irony of this is that, the most descriptive name for Sensation is actually...

Intuition!

http://www.roundhill.myvideostore.com/images/content/people/pics/harrison_ford.jpg

"How dare YOU sir!"

 

[wolfy]

I think what you said is right paisley.

Intuition in the Jungian sense is to move laterally with information. To connect dots. People who have a preference for intuition trust their ability to connect dots more. It is more cerebral

Sensing has it's own physical intuition. It is more about adapting yourself to your immediate environment. Trusting your physical senses. It is more kinaesthetic.

Intuition as immediate pattern recognition. Both types do that in different ways. It's interesting to think how your other function in the top two work together to express your intuition also.

 

[527468]

I hope that everyone realizes that Jung wasn't being serious with the term intuition. He was referring to a pretend intuition. We all have intuitions, but that's not what N means. Read his basic writings book.

 

[Paisley]

Like Carl Jung didn't know what the word intuition implies so as to use it though? It's used because of the implication and facility in distinguishing the type of introspection and cognition we're all talking about. Kinaesthetic might be a little harsh for my liking to describe S types, as senses extend beyond the tenden and muscle depiction the word kinaesthetic implies, although I'm totally with you on the cerebral and mental connecting of the dots description of the intuitive, hahaha, O+, that makes me laugh on a few levels....universal donor!

 

[527468]

N is a trusting of intuitions when they come up. Not that they come up often for most. But little impulses have a tendency to be trusted as a relative of intuition, thus N types mislabel these as intuition. When Ns trust an inner presence, they don't get carried away with the details of the physical field of the subject, which counts an advantage over some or many worldly elements, depending on what you use it for and the reason behind using it.

 

[Paisley]

I'm not sure if I'm with you on this lemons, because the intuition that is being used is simply "thought" first (in the mind), not "sense" first (in the gut) so as to make the distinction between the place of use. Again, it's the "from where or what" that is being "intuited" as it's place that intuition is coming from. This business of N types mislabelling intuition as mental leaps I'm not sure makes sense with how you can use the word intuition as a descriptor for both S and N. You need to explain more what you mean. Are you saying that because we're (N types) in our heads, we can make claims outside of the parameters of the physical sensory world, and so have a leg up on S's in that respect? I agree with that, although the opposite is sometimes true for S types in that they know the physical sensory world better than N's, and N's can become dismissive of the simplicity of it, like myself.

 

[527468]

I wasn't defining intuition but I was stating a common misconception of intuition. I am saying what you just agreed with.

 

[Paisley]

Sorry, I just revised my questioning, and I think I answered what you meant.

 

[527468]

You provided a good example though. So instead I agree with you.

 

[Paisley]

It sometimes a blessing and a curse having an internal dominant IN hey, as you and I are the only two types on the planet that have it. About a month ago I called the ending of the TV series Damages that just wrapped up on Wednesday, and a few people had to concede that it made sense for me to be bored with watching the rest of the show play out because I had connected the dots. The S types were kinda blown away and didn't get how I could do that, and I, as a cocky bastard that I am, got to do a gloat fest of "I told you so's" while everyone was annoyed with the cockiness. I think that's a good example of how, at least our IN, works in comparison to others...a mental leap made ages ago that waits to be confirmed while others just simply don't make the connection because it's made outside of the physical sensory world. It's especially true with S type humor as opposed to N type humor, like a sharp divergence in what we find really funny compared to each other. N's prefer understatment and S's prefer slapstick, which makes sense.

 

[527468]

I see this of INXP types too. Their attitude to want to wait until it actually happens, so that Si will reflect on it. Ss want to be completely sure of the fact. ESXPs so they can act according to how they feel about the situation. ISXJ so they can securely reflect upon something they believe is worth it. I'm an INTJ and I believe it is worth reflecting upon as just a possibility, so you, like me, have learned to train just this Ni ability to see trends in our Je functions after the reflection. Ni reminds me of Si + some imagination to create an outer model. That's how I at least think of it.

 

[Paisley]

Don't tell S types that, they'll just get pissed at you, although that's almost it as I think, N = S plus imagination all at once, where the physical world is taken for granted like a ceterus paribus. I have no Si in my four functions, only a 4th place Se, and almost completely oblivious to the physical reality of the world, as that Si is taken for granted altogether, at least for me.

 

[527468]

Yes, although we're personalities so having both N and a bit of S can make it confusing to differentiate between the two while just examining behavior. I'm sure a lot goes in for aid, and what comes out can be better seen.

 

[Paisley]

Goes in for aid?

to create an outer model apart from the reality of the physical sensory world, is absolutely the case for the Ni distinction that waits to confirm it's model. Well put! Not really clues or hints, but huge ideological patterns not based on the senses at all.

 

[Nocapszy]

Nah, as long as you keep in mind that the dichotomy measures about perception and not every bit of potential input you should be fine.