Personality Cafe banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When I talk about MBTI with people who know very little about it, I've noticed that the intuition part makes them frown. It seems understandable since intuition in general has a slightly negative connotation. As far as I know, intuition and analytical thinking are often considered as opposite way of thinking in psychology. Intuition is also something people use for explaining supernatural phenomenons such as telepathy or the sixth sense. It's the main thinking system for animals. Sometimes it's said that people who have low self-awareness use a lot of intuition instead of thinking analytically which is certainly untrue for NTs.

I wonder if sensors use intuition any less than intuitives. But what is the real difference? What do you think intuition is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Everyone uses intuition, the difference is the amount of weight thrown on it when making a decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Everyone uses intuition, the difference is the amount of weight thrown on it when making a decision.
I know that's the usual way of looking at it, but I'm not entirely convinced sensing and intuition are opposites to one another the way they are made to be in MBTI. I mean, intuitives see "the big picture" while sensors look more at the details, but does it mean intuitives use more intuition for that kind of thinking? I'm not sure I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,279 Posts
I know that's the usual way of looking at it, but I'm not entirely convinced sensing and intuition are opposites to one another the way they are made to be in MBTI. I mean, intuitives see "the big picture" while sensors look more at the details, but does it mean intuitives use more intuition for that kind of thinking? I'm not sure I do.
From what I read of Jung, Sensing is focused on WHAT IS (comes from senses) and intuition is WHAT CAN BE (comes from imagination).
My S friend views me as dreamy naive idealist (in cases where thinking is not really useful) and for me it is impossible to explain hem some subtleties of the soul. If he experienced something his way, it is that way, end of story. What intuitive is experiencing is some kind of daydreaming from his viewpoint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
You always ask really good questions. One very explicit way I've come to understand intuition is the way it is described in mathematics apart from formalism. People like to argue, since it runs into logical difficulties as sets can't prove all of their own features, that the main motive of math is not to be purely analytical because apparently that is impossible. So it's really about how you combine everything into generating new patterns/math. Personally I don't see math as intuitive as people try to make it out to be. within its own criteria it certainly is, but from the frame of reference of the person using it, it does not correlate easily to a human beings natural experiences. i.e. it's so abstract it isn't psychologically intuitive. So there is a lot of rewiring on how coming across one thing will influence your thought on another.

So taking intuition to mean substitution and equivocation, clearly sensors do all of these things. Where Jung was trying to differentiate them from each other was by concrete vs. concept. I imagine intuition as being more in the state of the process of substitution and equivocation while sensing subordinates all of this into the object, or the "thing sensed". As an example of what a sensor will do, when they come across talking about something with someone they will draw on many appropriate responses and sentences to suffice in the process of communicating without having to dwell on the conceptual content of what is actually being said. i.e. like a more expanded and far reaching use of small talk. As an intuitive this is the way I would see it, when really for them it's more like consolidation for the sake of clarity; miscommunication is less likely because the concrete apparently is suppose to be more objective. I have trouble communicating with N's at times, particularly NF's where they can be very particular about how something is phrased so that it describes in detail what they mean conceptually, so then I would try to repeat it back to them, knowing I understand what they conceptually meant but it wasn't sufficient for them to interpret what was said into what I meant. i.e. they can easy recombine and convolute meaning in the process of communicating. Perhaps more so NFP.

If we're talking about telepathy and the sixth sense, I think intuition will have the notion floating as there is clearly some interesting connection or correlation, whereas the sensor will turn that correlation into something more literal and proclaim telepathy and the sixth sense is real. So from a sensors frame of mind such a thing is absurd because that is so not real, but it's interesting and hilarious even in its absurdity, and from an N's frame of mind whether it is real or not is not the point at all, it's interesting and that is all that really matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,261 Posts
Intuitions to Kant are all the presupposed aspects in the mind allow understanding. Space and time are intuitions rather than concepts or ideas because they are infinite. A car is one thing but can have infinite "types" of cars under it. Space and time are infinite, there is no one time or one space, they are not concepts. Blah blah, I explained that completely incorrectly because I haven't watched the video in several days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
I know that's the usual way of looking at it, but I'm not entirely convinced sensing and intuition are opposites to one another the way they are made to be in MBTI. I mean, intuitives see "the big picture" while sensors look more at the details, but does it mean intuitives use more intuition for that kind of thinking? I'm not sure I do.
Well the way it's opposite from sensing is that it is unconscious. When you see that big picture, how did it become the big picture? It's only through the use of sensing later that you recognize the information was generated indirectly from consciousness. The only reason why it appears to not dwell on the details is that you can't be aware of the details it dwells on when it dwells on them. And to emphasize on the intuition i.e. this unconscious connection means to not stay fixed on a particular attribute and keep generating this connection, that in some cases causes a big picture perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
To my understanding, intuitive functions are just perceiving functions with a higher chaos factor.

[ Ni vs. Si ]

Si : recalling ABCD,
and thinks; "I saw, heard, and experienced ABCD, so it should always be ABCD."
(Conservative, accurate, concrete, solid storage & recall)

Ni : re-envisioning ABCD,
and thinks; "ABCD? BACD? CDAB?.. Hmm, I see that in this particular case, BACD fits."
(Liberal, abstract, chaotic, liquid storage & recall)

.

[ Ne vs. Se ]

Ne : looks at ABCD,
and says; "What if it's BDCA? How about ABCD-E, or ACE?"
(Liberal, abstract, chaotic, liquid perception)

Se : sees ABCD,
and says; "That is ABCD."
(Conservative, accurate, concrete, solid perception)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Well the way it's opposite from sensing is that it is unconscious. When you see that big picture, how did it become the big picture? It's only through the use of sensing later that you recognize the information was generated indirectly from consciousness. The only reason why it appears to not dwell on the details is that you can't be aware of the details it dwells on when it dwells on them. And to emphasize on the intuition i.e. this unconscious connection means to not stay fixed on a particular attribute and keep generating this connection, that in some cases causes a big picture perspective.
I first titled this thread as: "Do you think the word intuition describes Ne and Ni well?" Then I changed the title and forgot to ask that question in text part. By opposite I meant that sensing and intuition don't appear opposites the same way thinking and feeling do. A bit like @SilverFalcon said, I see (maybe) imagination as a more suitable opposite to sensing. When I see the big picture it always results from a lot of active thinking. The last "binding touch" and some smaller details may be done intuitively, but everything is based on things I have previously understood. Is it any different from a sensor who just knows how to fix some machine or how to do some sport he's never done before? I've taken a few personality tests with people who I think are clearly sensors. They often type themselves as intuitives based on questions that ask things like "do you often come up with information or solutions out of thin air" etc.

I don't think I explained my point very well. I'm in a bit of a hurry, so maybe I'll try again later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
They often type themselves as intuitives based on questions that ask things like "do you often come up with information or solutions out of thin air" etc.
Yeah that question is just a horrible one. I've heard that described with a lot of people who consider themselves "intuitive". When people read thin air they sometimes think it means "they don't know how". Perhaps this can be the case with Ni on a certain level. Actually I've found I can quite easily just use "Ti logic" to find a solution that has no basis in explanation besides some assessment of relative juxtaposition. But the way I take "out of thin air" to mean is no prior experience at all. intuition and sensation do use each other, that's why I mentioned sensation subordinates the intuition to the sensation. Does this subordination involve more intuition? Maybe, but it's limited. Limiting intuition so as to not limit sensation. And limiting sensation so as to not limit intuition would be the opposite. So what is unlimited intuition, just lots of it or further reaching disparate topics? I'd say based on my own experience it's to link something that normally goes unnoticed for the sake of interest, so probably more so the latter.

A bit like @SilverFalcon said, I see (maybe) imagination as a more suitable opposite to sensing. When I see the big picture it always results from a lot of active thinking. The last "binding touch" and some smaller details may be done intuitively, but everything is based on things I have previously understood.
It is a good indication of using intuition, and sensors may be less inclined to give imagination credit... although I can't say this for certain. In fact this may be very wrong. I had a dominant "Si" ex who had extremely imaginitive dreams. I know just by the statement of the cognitive function "Si" that it is definitely imaginitive. I've heard the word "generative" for intuition, and I quite like that one. But the state of literally imagining is a form of sensation, because it is a conscious activity. Although obviously imagination is less conscious than experiencing reality directly. So I would say you were experiencing something that was in a lot of ways no different that a sensor knowing how to fix a machine or play a sport they've never done - the part you experienced that is. The difficulty with understanding how intuition works is that it can only indirectly be observed by the self.

I actually trust the dichotomy between N and S more than T and F and here is why: they are literal features of the state of mind that is established scientifically. It is well understood that both a conscious and subconscious perceive reality at the same time and communicate with each other. The literal activity of experiencing sensation is something I can't understand as intuitive at all. Of course things I sense will remind me of things that are related, but the state of knowing this reminder is not sensation. I think of it like when I was really really young and I had no real prior experience, but I had a very unbiased sense of what I was experiencing. The information was just hitting me, if that makes any sense. So yes I do think intuition as defined is a proper opposite for an experience of the self.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Yeah that question is just a horrible one. I've heard that described with a lot of people who consider themselves "intuitive". When people read thin air they sometimes think it means "they don't know how". Perhaps this can be the case with Ni on a certain level. Actually I've found I can quite easily just use "Ti logic" to find a solution that has no basis in explanation besides some assessment of relative juxtaposition. But the way I take "out of thin air" to mean is no prior experience at all. intuition and sensation do use each other, that's why I mentioned sensation subordinates the intuition to the sensation. Does this subordination involve more intuition? Maybe, but it's limited. Limiting intuition so as to not limit sensation. And limiting sensation so as to not limit intuition would be the opposite. So what is unlimited intuition, just lots of it or further reaching disparate topics? I'd say based on my own experience it's to link something that normally goes unnoticed for the sake of interest, so probably more so the latter.
I very rarely "just know" something. I think I mostly use intuition when I'm making art because things such as composition and, well the whole art thing, is very much about having a vision that can't be explained. But it's also subjective, so I can't really say if my intuition gets it right.

I think my biggest problem with the concept of intuition (in MBTI) is that it's so tied with the idea of thinking more abstractly. If someone uses more intuition why would it lead to more abstract thinking? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that sensing focuses on concrete information while intuition (or whatever it could be called) is more interested in concepts etc.? That is usually the real difference people see between sensors and intuitives. I don't quite see how the intuition part fits in.

Also, I don't know if this makes any sense, but I could see that Si is history, Se present and Ni future orientated. What does that leave for Ne? Maybe Ne is all over the place (and time)?

No one seems to know what intuition is. People often get it mixed with instinct too - what is the difference? This is from Wikipedia:

A lot of time instinct is misinterpreted as intuition and its reliability considered to be dependent on past knowledge and occurrences in a specific area. For example, someone who has had more experiences with children will tend to have a better instinct about what they should do in certain situations with them. This is not to say that one with a great amount of experience is always going to have an accurate intuition.
Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University in the 1970s. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred.[35] In employing a similar design, they noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of non intuitive subjects.
The latter quote is clearly about different kind of intuition than that of the MBTI, or at least it's little to do with personality type.

It is a good indication of using intuition, and sensors may be less inclined to give imagination credit... although I can't say this for certain. In fact this may be very wrong. I had a dominant "Si" ex who had extremely imaginitive dreams. I know just by the statement of the cognitive function "Si" that it is definitely imaginitive. I've heard the word "generative" for intuition, and I quite like that one. But the state of literally imagining is a form of sensation, because it is a conscious activity. Although obviously imagination is less conscious than experiencing reality directly. So I would say you were experiencing something that was in a lot of ways no different that a sensor knowing how to fix a machine or play a sport they've never done - the part you experienced that is. The difficulty with understanding how intuition works is that it can only indirectly be observed by the self.
I don't think vivid dreams are necessarily a sign of imagination. Si remembers many details, so it could only mean that they have a lot of "material" with which to work. It's just rearranging what the person already knows or remembers, maybe. I was thinking imagination more in the sense of tossing things around in mind without outer stimuli, but yeah, imagination per se isn't probably a good indicator of what MBTI describes as intuition.

Sorry, this text is highly unorganized. The topic is too difficult for my English skills :frustrating:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
When I talk about MBTI with people who know very little about it, I've noticed that the intuition part makes them frown. It seems understandable since intuition in general has a slightly negative connotation. As far as I know, intuition and analytical thinking are often considered as opposite way of thinking in psychology.
I've heard this view before, and really I think its misrepresented. I think it would be more accurate to say intuition and analytical thinking are different modalities for deriving conclusions. If you say opposing each other, it implies that you can only have one or the other, and because people want to think that the thing they have is positive, then the other must be negative. Really a person needs both. If one wants to judge positive or negative for intuition or analytical thinking, you realize it is context and goal dependent.
Intuition is also something people use for explaining supernatural phenomenons such as telepathy or the sixth sense. It's the main thinking system for animals. Sometimes it's said that people who have low self-awareness use a lot of intuition instead of thinking analytically which is certainly untrue for NTs.
This is another attribution error people use. Intuition is used to justify such phenomenon because analytical thinking cannot justify such things (assuming a person who has not had such an experience). Deductive logic certainly does not a priori establish supernatural phenomenon. Inductive logic suggests that it is conceivable for supernatural phenomenon, and allows us to play with the idea logically, but absolute proofs are difficult with inductive reasoning. Further, intuition is usually the base for inductive reasoning, so those two are closely tied as well. Until a proof is given, the idea is still just a possible, not a truth statement.
Basically, intuition is the only mode of thinking that can effectively tackle paranormal phenomenon. That doesn't make it unreliable, only expansive. Notice the context dependence here.
Further, notice the kind of process that intuition and analytical thinking entail. Intuition is an unconscious process while analytical thinking is necessarily a conscious process. Because we consider animals to be unconscious (the kind of conscious here is self-awareness, being able to say I think x therefore Y requires a self-awareness), then we see them as using an unconscious process. I don't know if there is a distinction between intuition and instinct, perhaps its a functional difference. Unconscious value judgment subjected to conscious analysis.
Again, this does not say that intuition is unreliable, only that it is different. One might be tempted to call it simpler than analytical thinking, but such a person would be making an equivocation fallacy (simple-hard, and simple-complex...different simples). The simpler they are thinking means easier for x creature to undertake. However, objective simplicity references complexity of information analysis. Because intuition undergoes significant data analysis, it seems obvious that intuition is not simpler than analytical thinking. [/QUOTE]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,260 Posts
Don't worry about the organization, I don't always pay much attention to it myself.

I very rarely "just know" something. I think I mostly use intuition when I'm making art because things such as composition and, well the whole art thing, is very much about having a vision that can't be explained. But it's also subjective, so I can't really say if my intuition gets it right.
Yeah that sounds like intuition to me, largely from the fact that the Si's I've come across would hate the idea of being told to do something where the objective isn't clear. Although Se would just feel like it's an opportunity to pay attention to whatever they want.

I think my biggest problem with the concept of intuition (in MBTI) is that it's so tied with the idea of thinking more abstractly. If someone uses more intuition why would it lead to more abstract thinking? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that sensing focuses on concrete information while intuition (or whatever it could be called) is more interested in concepts etc.? That is usually the real difference people see between sensors and intuitives. I don't quite see how the intuition part fits in.

Also, I don't know if this makes any sense, but I could see that Si is history, Se present and Ni future orientated. What does that leave for Ne? Maybe Ne is all over the place (and time)?
Well there was that one long discussion where someone was insisting Si was concept and Ne was comprehension. You can check out the discussion here

http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/494074-intps-your-take-programming-ti-3.html

Although the terminology really really bugged me (I'm sure by no fault of his own with English as a second language) reybridge made some insightful statements at times. I think the key word you used is "focuses" on either concepts or concrete information. I liken it to an analogy in music, where the off-beat, jazz style or reggae-ish style would be an example of perceiving differently from the main melodic line or sensation; the phase of perceived information that isn't tethered so much to the "main"...

If Si, Ni and Se means all of these things, perhaps Ne means forward? idk. For sure Se is present. The only reason Ni is future, or even Si is history is because Te demands it, Te/Fe is the present function. I'd say Se is literal, Si is impressioned, Ni is impressioned - fluxed, and Ne is literal - fluxed. I think it's important to note that for Si to be impressioned, it has to be influenced by other functions. I think the way this video describes how synesthesia happens accurately describes what I have come to believe is intuition:


Although I think the ability to percieve a sensation differently is still a state of Si. But the point is S and N are very mixed, yet I think it's an appropriate dichotomy because it tells people apart on fundamental levels I have always somehow noticed, despite the issue with everyone attempting to define it. Like the video was demonstrating at the end, I interpreted sensation to be geared towards more differentiation of the environment (instead of said massive incomprehensible mess), and intuition will be geared towards linking these differentiations with more associations. Fe/Fi will objectify the associations, while Te/Ti will objectify the differentiation.
This may even explain why a cognitive function kicks in later in life, that is it has reached a limit so as to defer to more differentiation/association in order to progress further.

I think my biggest problem with the concept of intuition (in MBTI) is that it's so tied with the idea of thinking more abstractly. If someone uses more intuition why would it lead to more abstract thinking? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that sensing focuses on concrete information while intuition (or whatever it could be called) is more interested in concepts etc.? That is usually the real difference people see between sensors and intuitives. I don't quite see how the intuition part fits in.
well, given the information I provided, how is abstract different/the same as the process of irrational association and differentiation? If something is differentiated far enough, it will be very abstract. Kind of like being able to see so far down into a detail (although I prefer the word differentiation) that you'll effectively atomize it. And obviously atoms are very abstract. If something associates enough information together the law for such an all inclusive association will be very abstract. So yes, both processes can be abstract. And of course Te Ti Fe and Fi can be abstract processes themselves. Even creativity involves both processes of differentiation and association.

As for the distinction between Se and Si after the video given, I do think memory plays a role, and here is an interesting video on memory:


I think Si users will be more adept at consolidating information into memory from memory as part of the differentiation process. Which leaves the association process to be more present oriented Hence N with e. And the opposite will be the case with Se, where Ni will be consolidating information into memory from memory as part of the association process, which leaves the differentiation process to be more present oriented hence S with e. Therefore, if memory plays more of a role in one's temperament, they are likely more an introverted type.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightbox and Rift

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
If Si, Ni and Se means all of these things, perhaps Ne means forward? idk. For sure Se is present. The only reason Ni is future, or even Si is history is because Te demands it, Te/Fe is the present function. I'd say Se is literal, Si is impressioned, Ni is impressioned - fluxed, and Ne is literal - fluxed. I think it's important to note that for Si to be impressioned, it has to be influenced by other functions. I think the way this video describes how synesthesia happens accurately describes what I have come to believe is intuition:


Although I think the ability to percieve a sensation differently is still a state of Si. But the point is S and N are very mixed, yet I think it's an appropriate dichotomy because it tells people apart on fundamental levels I have always somehow noticed, despite the issue with everyone attempting to define it.
I agree that S and N dichotomy is justified, at least to some extend, and I too have noted there is some fundamental difference on that level. (I noted it long before I knew much, if anything about MBTI. At that time I would have said some people are more concrete and some less knowing it doesn't quite catch the idea.) But I'm still not sure it's the amount of intuition that creates the difference. I just can't see sensing and intuition at the opposing ends of the same axis the same way I see thinking and feeling functions. Or I can see it, but the word intuition confuses me.

I wonder if there's any way to accurately measure the amount of intuition. To me it seems pure speculation to say intuitives use more intuition than sensors. Based on that video intuition is used all the time for the most mundane things, which I believe is true. I'm thinking that maybe sensors and intuitives use about as much intuition, but because they have different focuses their intuition is sort of aimed at different things. It appears as if intuitives use more intuition since they already base a lot of their ideas on inner deduction, thoughts and theorizing; it seems that they do come up with things "out of thin air", but in reality they have processed it thoroughly. The intuitives' thought process doesn't require as much outer facts as that of a sensor, but it doesn't necessarily indicate more extensive usage of intuition.

Yeah, clearly my mind doesn't have that many facts. Every time I think I understand the cognitive functions I learn something new and have to rearrange my thoughts. For example, I'm still not familiar with why some functions are judging and some perceiving.

Like the video was demonstrating at the end, I interpreted sensation to be geared towards more differentiation of the environment (instead of said massive incomprehensible mess), and intuition will be geared towards linking these differentiations with more associations. Fe/Fi will objectify the associations, while Te/Ti will objectify the differentiation.
This may even explain why a cognitive function kicks in later in life, that is it has reached a limit so as to defer to more differentiation/association in order to progress further.
That makes sense, I think.

well, given the information I provided, how is abstract different/the same as the process of irrational association and differentiation? If something is differentiated far enough, it will be very abstract. Kind of like being able to see so far down into a detail (although I prefer the word differentiation) that you'll effectively atomize it. And obviously atoms are very abstract. If something associates enough information together the law for such an all inclusive association will be very abstract. So yes, both processes can be abstract. And of course Te Ti Fe and Fi can be abstract processes themselves. Even creativity involves both processes of differentiation and association.
Now you lost me.

I started reading this article and it seems interesting. I didn't have time to read all of it, but the beginning says:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, insight is “… the capacity to gain an accurate and deep intuitive understanding of something...”20 Gestalt psychologist and theoretical linguist, Karl Bühler, originally coined the term insight and here it is conceived of as an individual differences variable that people may possess in varying quantities.21 In contrast to intuition, insight involves a period of incubation of the problem before the recognition of a solution.22 There is usually the emergence of a specific temporal pattern associated with the solution to the problem as the solution becomes more and more conscious23 culminating in the ‘aha or eureka moment’.24 Intuition, in contrast, has been described by Knoblich as “…the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning...” There are key differences between intuition and insight. Intuition occurs instantly and is emotionally laden; it does not have the accompanying verbal, conscious declarative awareness of the final stage of insight.25 Interestingly, from the point of view of the cognitive and neural systems supporting the two higher-order processes, is the finding that intuition often precedes an actual conscious insight.26 This stage-like aspect of intuition and insight as conceived of in this theoretical review will be elaborated on in subsequent sections. Bechara and Damasio similarly described intuition as a holistic hunch, “a gut feeling” or a sense of absolute certainty or awareness that a perception is on the edge of awareness.27 Insight and intuition are variables that should have a normal distribution within the general population.

Finally, a social cognitive neuroscience perspective of intuition has been found incompatible with the self-report of intuitive “cognitive style” exemplified by the Myers–Briggs type indicator (MBTI).28 In their review of empirical studies focused on the concept of intuition, Hodgkinson and colleagues29 noted that none of the sensing-intuition scale items of the MTBI assessed affective or behavioral aspects of the concept, as recently defined by social cognitive neuroscientists.30 Moreover, Hodgkinson and Clarke found that the constructs on which the MTBI are based are theoretically incompatible with Carl Jung’s theory and suggest behavioral predictions which are contrary to central tenets of the theory.31 This raises questions about its suitability for the assessment of intuition psychometrically and in particularly the construct validity of the MTBI as a whole. Nonetheless in this review Jung’s early writings19 on the structure of the self per se do play a considerable role in our agentic construct of intuition and insight. Similarly, a major difference then between insight and intuition is the degree to which the two related constructs are declarative/ explicit or nondeclarative/implicit. Intuition is by definition nondeclarative and implicit, whereas insight can be declarative and explicit in memory.

Lieberman’s review on intuition makes important distinctions between the two terms.30 Thus, intuition differs from the ‘eureka moments’ characteristic of insight:

“ ….sudden insight also seems to rely on nonconscious processes, but when awareness is derived in insight, it is not a judgment, as is usually the case in intuition. Rather, insight is a process where one suddenly becomes aware of the logical relations between a problem and the answer. In the case of intuition, usually there is no insight into the logical relations, but simply an impetus, judgement, hunch, or behavioural response. That said, intuition is the subjective experience of a mostly nonconscious process that is fast, a-logical, and inaccessible to consciousness that, dependent on exposure to the domain or problem space, is capable of accurately extracting probabilistic contingencies...( p. 110–111).”
Maybe we should discuss insight instead of intuition?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
.
I have trouble communicating with N's at times, particularly NF's where they can be very particular about how something is phrased so that it describes in detail what they mean conceptually, so then I would try to repeat it back to them, knowing I understand what they conceptually meant but it wasn't sufficient for them to interpret what was said into what I meant. i.e. they can easy recombine and convolute meaning in the process of communicating. Perhaps more so NFP.
100% agree!!!

This is the only breakdown in friendship I have with INFP. Especially as a rational, my replies are usually just restating what the other person said by extracting the concept or important point.
Nearly everytime I do this with an INFP, even repeating what he said, but just using a synonym. he says "No, you don't get what I'm saying." Even though I know exactly what he's saying. It's like I understand him but he doesn't understand me, even if we're on the same page. It is very frustrating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
If he experienced something his way, it is that way, end of story. What intuitive is experiencing is some kind of daydreaming from his viewpoint.
Reminds me of every argument I've ever had with my ESTJ father. Even when I'm clearly more experienced on the subject he will still hold his personal experiences as more valid than my hard facts.

Although trying to get an ESTJ to admit they're wrong is like trying to convince a brick wall that it should move.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top