Personality Cafe banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now why would I make such a cliche, ironic and probably posted before topic?

Because I was wondering about the nature of intuitive functions and the way in which they build for themselves an idea or perception based upon one factor.

Of course this becomes more complex when it is split into Ne and Ni.

But at face value sensing functions seem to be the least likely to generalise because both Si and Se build a picture based upon many details at once.

Se tends to take it as it comes, whatever is in the external environment arrests the attention and becomes the immediate sensation.

Si tends to relate through a complex set of previously experienced sense impressions, although this can be extremely individual from Si user to Si user. So they might not remember a certain fact from a history lesson because it did not leave an impression, but another one might be remembered because it did, thus when the impression is remembered so is the fact.

Of course all 4 perpectionary functions are based around and subject to context, perhaps more so than the judging ones.

In any case im not trying to say something stupid like Intuitive types are generalisers and Sensing types are not.

More so that generalisations in general could be more a product of Intuition than Sensing.

I will also mention that this might be a product of weaker Intuition than stronger, but since that implies Sensing types will generalise more I cant put that forth completely since it would clash with my own understanding of individuals and also make this a very ironic topic, besides I can't believe that unless I saw evidence for it.

More than anything else it might just be Intuition in combination with a negative usage of a judging function.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
I think that's a very interesting point. And I think there's some truth to it. I don't have much to add, other than I wonder if I see myself doing this. I have grown up in a family (all except my brother) full of Sensors, and I really think that has helped me when it comes to my weaknesses. I think the one thing I noticed about myself is that I will broaden something I am thinking about to the point of insanity, and I then must realize that I have done something completely stupid because I have disregarded something simple. Like the simple reality of the situation. I don't know if this has connection with what you've said here, though.
 

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I think that's a very interesting point. And I think there's some truth to it. I don't have much to add, other than I wonder if I see myself doing this. I have grown up in a family (all except my brother) full of Sensors, and I really think that has helped me when it comes to my weaknesses. I think the one thing I noticed about myself is that I will broaden something I am thinking about to the point of insanity, and I then must realize that I have done something completely stupid because I have disregarded something simple. Like the simple reality of the situation. I don't know if this has connection with what you've said here, though.
I think this is a great way to think though, it's hard to recognise a fault in yourself and curtail it before it gets out of hand, it's a trait that tends to make me warm to anyone I meet possessing it. It's also something im trying to bring about in myself, although ive been working on it for years and I still sometimes forget.

As for whether it has a connection or not, I think that really is down to whether people may or may not see what I see. It's one of those silly opinion and personal perception thingies. :tongue: Any emperical evidence will be a bit hard to bring about.

Thanks for the reply!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Owfin

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
... a lack of knowledge or thought?

one may be able and willing to generalize at first glance due to a unbalanced use of their functions (if you want to look at it that way). but, even if that does occur, knowledge on the subject and them just thinking about what they're about to say should alter their view.
 

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
@celticstained

Generalisations dont come from a lack of thought though, they are just simplifications of a thought. What you identified is the solution to such thinking, but not everyone can recognise that within themselves.

However you are right in that they come from a lack of knowledge, or rather an assumption that the knowledge one possesses is enough; hence the term willful ignorance. Remember im not attacking or blaming anyone here, I was just speculating on the nature of poor uses of Intuition as a cause behind generalising.

Everyone is both a Sensor and an Intuitive, we all possess some form of an S & N perceptionary function in our functional lineup, a Sensor and an Intuitive dominant or auxiliary both use intuition somewhere along the line.

You said it yourself
(if you want to look at it that way).
I did mention this was one of those personal perception conundrums.

This could easily be more to do with a judging function. Since those are the ones more likely to evaluate what a perceptionary one is giving them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donovan

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
i see what'cha mean man.

although, to me at least, i can see how some of it could come down to a lack of thought. i mean, if a thought pops into your head when you're watching another person and you say, "they must be X, because that is an X trait", well that may seem right if your thought stops there, but if you follow with, "but i'm not X and i do that which means that i may catching them in a moment that is far less significant for typing just as if they were to catch me in mine". but then it comes back to a certain mindset that lends itself to wanting to easily and quickly apply a label to something and cease thinking about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Interesting idea. I can see where you're coming from with it, and it probably holds some truth. Generalizing appears to be an inherent quality of intuition to some extent, and for me it's especially prevalent when I'm forced to work with a lot of details which are boring to me. Once there is too much information and I'm mentally switched off, I'll go into generalizing mode to try and reduce work. (I'm often called lazy because of it!)

Also, after reading the original post, a thought came to mind. Would it be those with high judging preferences coupled with introverted intuition who would be most likely to generalize, or would it be a type with extroverted intuition since that function uses external data in the first place? I'm leaning towards Ne types being more likely to generalize since I'm almost certain that it's my Ne that is responsible for me generalizing too much data =p. But at the same time, I suppose Ni could be just as notorious since there's a lot of internal activity which may lead to generalizing.

Good post by the way. =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Generalisations dont come from a lack of thought though, they are just simplifications of a thought. What you identified is the solution to such thinking, but not everyone can recognise that within themselves.
In NLP (give me a break, I think it is brilliant) what the brain does is:
* Generalizing
* Distorting
* Deleting
information from the perceptions. And that is a good thing. If you did not generalize, you could not "know" anything (as knowing is to create a context for the information. See Alfred Korzybski "Science and Sanity"). Every experience would be unique as some detail is different. To much generalizations causes important information to be left out of the consideration. Talented use of generalization is to move up/down in the level of generalization to a level that is useful (called "chunking").
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,382 Posts
I think Ni is most prone to generalizations in it's conclusion process, since it's tendency is to converge into underlying implications, usually down to a "grand one," which is hard to guarantee on one's first shot in the dark, although I think Ne is most prone to generalizations in trying to generate possibilities, especially in conjuction with Si, which creates sensory impressions of data, so Ne might easily run with these if the person isn't strong enough with Si discernment and just start generalizing too much in order to understand something. It seems like Ne types, mainly dominant Ne types, tend to have an overgeneralized understanding of something, which can result in stereotyping, if they don't take Si seriously enough, while Ni types, mainly in the dominant form, tend to suffer from confirmation bias, due to getting stuck on perceptual conclusions that result from digging "too deep," although this gives them more of an advantage over Ne types in the understanding processes, since their approach to intuitive understanding is more pointed and particular. On the other hand, Ne types tend to have an advantage over Ni types in the conclusion process, due to focusing more on cutting down the generalizations in their understanding to draw conclusions, since broadening their intuitions is essentially the way that they can pick the best out. On a whole, I would argue that Ne is the most likely to generalize, due to it's broader nature, which is external, and more easily influenced by the dynamics of the outside world. Like all extroverted functions, it takes a more shallow approach to dealing with its specialty, being intuition, and if the auxiliary function of Ne doms isn't well-developed enough, it can be a bit lacking in discernment and suffer from the "everything is possible" reasoning in instances that require judgement, such as in understanding something. I haven't noticed this to be a problem in Ne aux. types though, due to their highly domiant judging natures. Ni's issue really isn't so much overgeneralizing, but moreso tunnel vision if confirmation bias comes into play, which would also result from Ni-tert. looping (e.g. INTJforum.com, which seems to have a ton of "looping," where people pretend they're being cold and rational, but instead, a lot of the most so-called "cold" people there seem to use aux Te extremely defensively, which is symptomatic of an Ni-Fi loop if an INTJ). I've thought about this a lot, based on IRL observations.
 

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
i see what'cha mean man.

although, to me at least, i can see how some of it could come down to a lack of thought. i mean, if a thought pops into your head when you're watching another person and you say, "they must be X, because that is an X trait", well that may seem right if your thought stops there, but if you follow with, "but i'm not X and i do that which means that i may catching them in a moment that is far less significant for typing just as if they were to catch me in mine". but then it comes back to a certain mindset that lends itself to wanting to easily and quickly apply a label to something and cease thinking about it.
Well that's pretty much how it comes about, yes.

I suppose we could see the term 'thought' differently though. To me a person who does generalise and stick to it rigidly can be considered an idiot, perhaps even a stubborn or small minded idiot, but that doesn't mean they didn't cogitate the generalisation in the first place. But then again this is me quibbling over a minor point.

I just wondered if anyone saw any correlation in my original premise, or not, actually you've provided a not which is great. Thanks for replying it's been a fun and interesting exchange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donovan

·
Registered
Me
Joined
·
1,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
In NLP (give me a break, I think it is brilliant) what the brain does is:
* Generalizing
* Distorting
* Deleting
information from the perceptions. And that is a good thing. If you did not generalize, you could not "know" anything (as knowing is to create a context for the information. See Alfred Korzybski "Science and Sanity"). Every experience would be unique as some detail is different. To much generalizations causes important information to be left out of the consideration. Talented use of generalization is to move up/down in the level of generalization to a level that is useful (called "chunking").
Oh definitely, it's similar to something ive mentioned in another post on here: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/91424-anything-but-sensor-34.html#post2288500

In terms of generalisations I understand the concept that people probably would be ok if they saw them as just a generalisation, but not that person's complete view. However generalisations come about as a result of the human brain's need to catagorise things around it for easy reference, if we were aware of every blade of grass as an individual shape and being then we would be driven insane and be unable to function at all.

Generalisations are useful when what is being generalised is of no consequence, ie: We need air to live. This is obviously a vast simplification of the human respiratory and blood system, but usually it's only important that those in a medical field must understand it's specific complexities. Anyone else is doing it out of curiosity but they dont need to know for the purpose of healing and saving lives. Although there is nothing wrong with people outside of medicine knowing.
If we noticed and discriminated between every single thing perceived we would be unable to function, (sorry for the repetition from the quote).


If anything I suppose I meant this in more of a humanistic sense. I should have clarified that, I tend to have an issue with either over-explaining or under-explaining, I find it hard to find the right balance of accurate communication without dilution of the idea itself.
Although chunking sounds interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
Well that's pretty much how it comes about, yes.

I suppose we could see the term 'thought' differently though. To me a person who does generalise and stick to it rigidly can be considered an idiot, perhaps even a stubborn or small minded idiot, but that doesn't mean they didn't cogitate the generalisation in the first place. But then again this is me quibbling over a minor point.

I just wondered if anyone saw any correlation in my original premise, or not, actually you've provided a not which is great. Thanks for replying it's been a fun and interesting exchange.
oh, just because there may be another reason for the subject doesn't mean it's the only reason. it is interesting to think that an imbalance in perception could cause it, and it does make sense (although, a lot of things make sense within a specific context). the idea that it may be a weak intuition or sensing could account for a good bit of it.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top