Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've done some training in intuitive development, and was surprised at the results. During training, I knew things I could not have known through logic. I am convinced that intuition trumps logic (ie. that logic is a tool, and quite laborious, whereas well-trained intuition can be much more efficient on less information).

In the future, this is a skill that I will cultivate further. The catch is that thinking is counter-productive to the development of intuition, however my observation is that those controlled by their thinking and only their thinking, can tend to be stuck in loops when viewed from a big picture view. This makes it a particular challenge for thinkers to develop, which makes it particularly interesting to me.

For me, anything which is compulsive and untrained (as both thinking and curiosity can be for an INTP) there exists an imbalance and a fundamental lack of freedom (even if on the surface these things may look like freedom).

"The Clairs*" have become to me an ordinary part of life to me. I think that everyone has the capacity to be more intuitive. Psychic has become a dirty word. People (INTPs included) often meet any sort of discussion about this topic with silence, or "I don't know what to believe."

This thread is to understand if there are any other INTPs out there who are comfortable discussing these phenomena. Please contribute if you have something to say other than "I don't believe" or "I don't know what to believe" or mentions of psychic tv / street corner psychics.

Obviously this is quite a step apart from the glorified "thinking" aspect of an INTP, though I'm hoping the Ne that's normally discussed as "being taken out for a walk" has the capacity to run / fly / basejump too, and that there are others out there who have given some consideration to this too.

* "The Clairs:"

Clairsentience (Feeling / Touching)
Clairaudience (Hearing / Listening)
Clairalience (Smelling)
Claircognizance (Knowing)
Clairgustance (Tasting)
Clairvoyance (Seeing)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
I've done some training in intuitive development, and was surprised at the results. During training, I knew things I could not have known through logic. I am convinced that intuition trumps logic (ie. that logic is a tool, and quite laborious, whereas well-trained intuition can be much more efficient on less information).

In the future, this is a skill that I will cultivate further. The catch is that thinking is counter-productive to the development of intuition, however my observation is that those controlled by their thinking and only their thinking, can tend to be stuck in loops when viewed from a big picture view. This makes it a particular challenge for thinkers to develop, which makes it particularly interesting to me.

For me, anything which is compulsive and untrained (as both thinking and curiosity can be for an INTP) there exists an imbalance and a fundamental lack of freedom (even if on the surface these things may look like freedom).

"The Clairs*" have become to me an ordinary part of life to me. I think that everyone has the capacity to be more intuitive. Psychic has become a dirty word. People (INTPs included) often meet any sort of discussion about this topic with silence, or "I don't know what to believe."

This thread is to understand if there are any other INTPs out there who are comfortable discussing these phenomena. Please contribute if you have something to say other than "I don't believe" or "I don't know what to believe" or mentions of psychic tv / street corner psychics.

Obviously this is quite a step apart from the glorified "thinking" aspect of an INTP, though I'm hoping the Ne that's normally discussed as "being taken out for a walk" has the capacity to run / fly / basejump too, and that there are others out there who have given some consideration to this too.

* "The Clairs:"

Clairsentience (Feeling / Touching)
Clairaudience (Hearing / Listening)
Clairalience (Smelling)
Claircognizance (Knowing)
Clairgustance (Tasting)
Nice post. I agree with a lot of this; will come back and comment when I have time! :happy:
 

·
黐線 ~Chiseen~
Joined
·
5,241 Posts
aw.... no love for "clairvoyance"?


*Omnipotence at its finest! BAZINGA!*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Oops - left out Clairvoyance. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: qingdom

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
So how exactly are you training your intuition? In all honesty, mine is a choked puppy that is heard but never listened to and only after the fact do I realize I knew the answer all along.
:) There are online courses, and those held in person too. I've not seen them without a spiritual component though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
:) There are online courses, and those held in person too. I've not seen them without a spiritual component though.
I can ignore/accept it. I would prefer free online courses if available. And what am I looking for that is actually beneficial and does not ask me to pull out a magic crystal ball?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I can ignore/accept it. I would prefer free online courses if available. And what am I looking for that is actually beneficial and does not ask me to pull out a magic crystal ball?
Are you asking me to question whether you are looking for that?

Spiritual does not equal crystal balls.

Books aren't free, but they're an inexpensive option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
I completely support this thread! I'm an Introverted Thinker all day and night but my intuition is borderline spooky. I try not define or over-analyze my intuition or where the hell its getting it's information but I do listen to what it tells me. My intuition most definitely trumps my logic and I put a great deal of store in my logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,191 Posts
Hopefully, I'm not being pedantic, but I think a better way of saying "intuition trumps logic" is that Inductive reasoning trumps Deductive reasoning, which I agree with.

As to the idea of psychic phenomena as such, I don;t have much of a problem with. There have been a couple times where I was doing something that was hard, but it wasn't working. Took a little time to cool off, and then voila, the solution just came to (or an image, or whatever else I happened to need). I generally attribute it to my brain doing work 'under the radar', but I guess the term psychic could be stretched to cover it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Hopefully, I'm not being pedantic, but I think a better way of saying "intuition trumps logic" is that Inductive reasoning trumps Deductive reasoning, which I agree with.

As to the idea of psychic phenomena as such, I don;t have much of a problem with. There have been a couple times where I was doing something that was hard, but it wasn't working. Took a little time to cool off, and then voila, the solution just came to (or an image, or whatever else I happened to need). I generally attribute it to my brain doing work 'under the radar', but I guess the term psychic could be stretched to cover it.
Regarding inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning; that all depends on what you think intuition is, whether it is at all related to reason / logic. Personally I think logic and intuition are quite separate. It also depends on whether you think intuition is something that is internal, and not connected to an external sense of things - or whether there is some unknown fabric that it is a part of. "Where does the information come from," is perhaps not as much of a concern to answer as, "Is the information right? Is there a deeper sense that it fits?"

Though I think there are definitely examples of the brain working under the radar too, which can perhaps be just another form of (back burner) processing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thu

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Intuition (or Brain Radar): Look, okay, you've definitely done a typo. Check it through before you hit send.

Logic: Don't be stupid intuition. I was slow and careful. My figures add up.

Intuition: Seriously. You know I've been right about these kinds of things before.

Logic: You're not really intuition, you're just fear, you're being paranoid.

Intuition: And you're being cocky and lazy, would you just listen to me?

Logic: No. Don't be stupid. Make sense. Brain over-ride. Click "send."

Intuition: *Sighs*

Logic: *Reviews sent message. Sees a glaringly obvious incorrect figure.*

Logic: How did you know that??

Intuition: *Rolls eyes, displays momentary hurt, smiles*

Logic: Right, okay. You were right, I was wrong, are you, what's that thing called, happy?

This conversation was practically just had inside my brain. Slowly I'm learning to trust my intuition more. This time I did not. Damn damn damn, that one typo. I just know when something isn't right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
OK, back. Here's my thesis. :tongue:

I've done some training in intuitive development, and was surprised at the results. During training, I knew things I could not have known through logic. I am convinced that intuition trumps logic (ie. that logic is a tool, and quite laborious, whereas well-trained intuition can be much more efficient on less information).
I think that's very clearly true. Logic only works with what its given. It deducts. As Einstein said: "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere". Logic limited by definition. It's inherently conservative, wanting proof and clear demonstration. It takes what it's given and gives us an answer that is less than the totality of what it's been offered. The upside is its relative certainty, but what good is that if the only things you can be certain about are the trivial and obvious? It seems, well, illogical to rely too heavily on logic!

There is nothing wrong with logic, especially when its used to strengthen and give clarity to the insights of intuition, which could never be found by reason alone. NT's have this wonderful advantage...the ability to think rationally while perceiving tings that reason never could discern through their intuition. But when logic is used to limit what intuition does, you're not gaining anything (beyond greater certainty, though even that's questionable because you might be cut off from intuitive insights that could be relevant to your deductions). You're cutting off the wellspring of most of humankind's greatest discoveries.

Logic is just causal organization/mapping out of things. If logic can't organize something, the solution is not to call said thing "invalid" but to go "OK, maybe a logical approach isn't working here".

That doesn't mean analysis as a method is always wrong, just that it won't always get you that far. A thing can still exist without being broken into little pieces (something that even N dominant NT's sometimes have trouble accepting). Sometimes we can only understand a thing meaningfully as a whole, as opposed to in parts. The whole becomes more than the parts, in a way. That concept can't be understood logically, though, so it will probably be disputed. :wink:

In the future, this is a skill that I will cultivate further. The catch is that thinking is counter-productive to the development of intuition, however my observation is that those controlled by their thinking and only their thinking, can tend to be stuck in loops when viewed from a big picture view. This makes it a particular challenge for thinkers to develop, which makes it particularly interesting to me.
I agree. There's a tendency for people who are very logic heavy, or who value using logic a lot, to view everything from the logical perceptive. Feelings-heavy people do this too, viewing everything in terms of human motivation. Clearly, though, to cut out either would be greatly limiting your capability to understand why things are happening. The challenge you need to face when using intuition is even greater (though actually easier for NT's because we have a stronger N than F): to eliminate your need to understand everything analytically in the first place! Doing too much of that can crush your intuition.

It's very sad to see people unable to accept something because it doesn't appear to make sense. But the key word is "appear". Intuition makes a kind of sense, it's just not a kind of sense that can be analyzed, broken down into little concrete bits, or even consciously scrutinized all that much. To assume everything in the universe needs to make logical sense will actually limit your logical understanding. The insights of one's intuitions, if they are sound, often make a great deal of sense once they are analyzed after the fact. It's not always good to cut off or slow down the process by injecting all this skepticism into the situation beforehand.

The good news is, I don't know that it needs to be the massive challenge you claim it is for all T's (assuming they are NT's), though for some it may be more difficult, and it's harder for us than it is for ENTP's and INTJ's. That is assuming that intuition bears something of a resemblance to MBTI intuition, which going by descriptions it does seem to.

I've always been a very intuition-strong INTP. I don't see myself as psychic, though I'd like to move closer to that skillset, and have long idealized that kind of intelligence. I've seen that, really, as the archetype of true intelligence, as opposed to rationality. I don't think it's airy fairy or weird (it's all the power of patterns, associations, and subconscious processing when you get down to it) just farther-reaching than logic is. But alas, the modest amount of "psychic" insights, as opposed to the much larger number of run-of the-mill intuitions I've had has decreased over the years. I was much more intuitive as a teenager. The world beats it out of you, or tries. I don't know if a strengthening Si had anything to do with it. I'm still a very N-strong INTP, at least, and would love to redevelop some of those psychic abilities, hopefully even pushing them to new levels.

For me, anything which is compulsive and untrained (as both thinking and curiosity can be for an INTP) there exists an imbalance and a fundamental lack of freedom (even if on the surface these things may look like freedom).
I don't know that I'd put it that way, but yeah, you are more limited when you don't understand/haven't unlocked your full potential.

"The Clairs*" have become to me an ordinary part of life to me. I think that everyone has the capacity to be more intuitive. Psychic has become a dirty word. People (INTPs included) often meet any sort of discussion about this topic with silence, or "I don't know what to believe."
I think the thing is, people want proof for things. Intuition by its nature doesn't prove itself. It takes the shortcut, which means it goes farther faster, and goes to places logic never could alone. But it can't be spelled out. And there is something about empirical proof which is comforting to people (as well as disturbing to them, if they don't like it). It can't be challenged. It has to be accepted (though the interpretation of the data may be wrong). In a world of hucksters, that puts a certain premium on logic that's of enormous use when you oppose something, support something, etc. It's the ultimate trump card. Even "intuitive snobs" who look down on logic come running to it when they really want to hammer home their points.

Just because intuition has to be grasped and not explained (just like feelings must be felt and not reasoned) doesn't mean intuition is bunk, or mystical and spooky, or illogical (though it is alogical). The fact intuition can't be demonstrated is its strength...it frees it...but it's also its weakness. It means anyone can contest it whenever they want, especially by invoking the dogma that everything has to be verified by logic for it to be acceptable.

This thread is to understand if there are any other INTPs out there who are comfortable discussing these phenomena. Please contribute if you have something to say other than "I don't believe" or "I don't know what to believe" or mentions of psychic tv / street corner psychics.
I think I've answered that. :wink:

Obviously this is quite a step apart from the glorified "thinking" aspect of an INTP, though I'm hoping the Ne that's normally discussed as "being taken out for a walk" has the capacity to run / fly / basejump too, and that there are others out there who have given some consideration to this too.
As I mentioned, I hope so too. I don't think I've noticed most INTP's talking about intuition in that way, but that has been the implication of some profiles I've read. "Intuition unchained..." (implying Thinking normally chains it) and "if Thinking can desist" being mentioned in one. This is disturbing. Not unexpected given the world we live in, but disturbing.

I wouldn't say I "take my intuition out for a walk" personally, and honestly, any INTP who claims their intuition is like this is either using too much Si (not uncommon - nothing to be ashamed of, but something in need of fixing) or doesn't understand the interplay of the cognitive functions. One cannot judge without having something to judge, ie. a perception. My Ti can't function without my Ne. If I were an ISTP, I would say it couldn't function without my Se. What is Ti analyzing? Intuitions! The two were meant to go together in a perfect dance (in NT's), with both offering their unique gifts. It's only logical :wink: They just need to respect each other. That means T needs to respect certain aspects of N and allow them to run their course without stopping them because they are "not rational". I don't honestly think I have this problem...if anything I let my Ne "run with things" more than an INTP is "supposed to". I don't really have the psychological need for everything to make logical sense, though it's possible that my T is pressing down on my N in ways I don't consciously understand. So it's something a Thinker can definitely conquer, if they ever struggle with it at all.

This is is really one of my only disagreements with you - intuition and logic are not the same thing, but I don't think they are as diametrically opposed to each other as you seem to think. My logic has never really tried to shoot my intuition down (in the sense of stopping it from it happening - it often disagrees with it), it just admits it doesn't understand it, and it will work off speculations, possibilities and hypotheticals quite happily. I think NTPs are more concerned with things making hypotheitcal sense than anything else anyway, which means Ti will put up with a lot of Ne stuff that the Te users might not tolerate as much coming from Ni, at least ENTJ's, though I could be very wrong here (they do have the advantage of a more profound intuitive function to begin with). I think that acceptance of hypothetical is natural, at least for an NT's logic. Which doesn't press down on intuition nearly as much as Sensing, which is directly opposed to it.

Maybe I'm just frustrated because of popular cultures linking thinking with sensing and intuition with feeling, which is just not the case for all people. A cliched "left-brain" / "right-brain" view of the world seems to be in place right now, but it isn't doing anyone any favours. It led to me misunderstanding my true nature for many years, seeing myself as anything but logical because I was abstract, imaginative, and speculative.

* "The Clairs:"

Clairsentience (Feeling / Touching)
Clairaudience (Hearing / Listening)
Clairalience (Smelling)
Claircognizance (Knowing)
Clairgustance (Tasting)
Clairvoyance (Seeing)
Hehe, nice terms. :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
@nevermore : Your rank of "Respected" is well deserved. Thanks for such an in depth response, something I'll ponder over when there is time here. :)

(..And coming back for seconds: thank you. I couldn't resist reading your post in full. ;) So good to know there are people out there thinking about these things. Interesting thoughts, a definite cross-section there I'd like to explore further.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: nevermore

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
As a sensor with inferior intuition, my reaction reminds me of this passage from Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World":

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
As a sensor with inferior intuition, my reaction reminds me of this passage from Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World":
Ooohh, look what we have here, dragon. An ISTJ. *Rubs hands together.*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
@Owfin, I think that's just what happens when you rely on intuition alone (and happen to be wrong). And of course, there's a difference between hallucination (what the dragon story, if it really happened, probably was), superstition, making stuff up, just being mistaken, and real intuition. No mental process was meant to run by itself. If an overwhelming body of clear evidence shoots down a hypothesis derived from intuition, it has to be respected. But that doesn't mean intuition can never work. In tandem with other mental processes, it can lead to great scientific discoveries.

Or are you talking about the actual existence of "clair" abilities? I think that's more of a code word for actual psychic processes that run heavily off patterns and speculations, that aren't really mystical in the sense of being supernatural, but a highly developed use of intuition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
Ooohh, look what we have here dragon. An ISTJ. *Rubs hands together.*
Um, is that supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

@Owfin, I think that's just what happens when you rely on intuition alone (and happen to be wrong). And of course, there's a difference between hallucination (what the dragon story, if it really happened, probably was), superstition, making stuff up, just being mistaken, and real intuition. No mental process was meant to run by itself. If an overwhelming body of clear evidence shoots down a hypothesis derived from intuition, it has to be respected. But that doesn't mean intuition can never work. In tandem with other mental processes, it can lead to great scientific discoveries.
I guess I just feel like it isn't very scientific. I feel like science is supposed to be derived from evidence; like, "This is what we can observe. Now the question is; why is it that way? *hypothesis*". Intuition seems to use hypothesis as its evidence.

Sensing: "So where's your proof of this idea?"
Intuition: "Stop limiting yourself to physical evidence."
Sensing: "What you are saying isn't evidence, dammit!"
Intuition: "Only because you don't open yourself to other ways of knowing."

I am almost undoubtedly getting intuition all wrong. It probably does have a base that I haven't noticed. It probably is more reliable than I think. I'm after all clearly not somebody who has cultivated her intuition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,651 Posts
How do I look up these tests?
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
Top