Scientifically Explaining Intuition

[TimeAsylums]

I know you Ti-Ne's and Ne-Ti's will be interested

And as usual, Sweden/Europe is ahead of da' game:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701135820.htm

check it


I do love sciencedaily.


also wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology)

An...interseting take on it: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/arti...entific-explanation-of-the-akashic-experience

doesn't seem too NF haha.

 

[Brontosaurie]

that's not MBTI intuition at all.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm not only speaking of extraverted intuition and introverted intuition, merely the factor of what intuition is.

you should read more

 

[Luzian]

that's not MBTI intuition at all.

Ya cuz liek Wayne Gretsky does sports. What a fuckin sensor.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Ya cuz liek Wayne Gretsky does sports. What a fuckin sensor.

LOL

 

[Cognisant]

that's not MBTI intuition at all.

No, really? OMG who knew?



MBTI is simply a system of classification, Myer Briggs didn't figure out the exact nature of consciousness he just created a system to codify observed trends in the way it manifests.

Incidentally I concur with the release, anyone who knows anything about how analog processing would which means we've known this since the 80's, but the "life experience is vital for success" all the same it makes a nice article.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm going to guess (intuition) that intuition is a top-down operation based on stored information in the brain. One is presented with an experienced issue. The brain looks into it and quickly judges how well the judgment will work. The memory consists not only of the nature of the issue but is combined with a memory of confidence in it.

The idea can be checked out by going down from the top-down "gestalt" or picture of the whole. Impulsive people can use intuition also but they don't care as much if their top-down point doesn't work so well when they take one of the "down" paths. People can wield intuition like a weapon by deliberately discounting certain down paths from the top. For example strict logic, or emotional sensitivity or literal meanings.

See Hierarchy: Understanding Made Simple.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm going to guess (intuition) that intuition is a top-down operation based on stored information in the brain. One is presented with an experienced issue. The brain looks into it and quickly judges how well the judgment will work. The memory consists not only of the nature of the issue but is combined with a memory of confidence in it.

The idea can be checked out by going down from the top-down "gestalt" or picture of the whole. Impulsive people can use intuition also but they don't care as much if their top-down point doesn't work so well when they take one of the "down" paths. People can wield intuition like a weapon by deliberately discounting certain down paths from the top. For example strict logic, or emotional sensitivity or literal meanings.

See Hierarchy: Understanding Made Simple.

yeah, I've constantly used gestalt to describe much of the process myself. It's just so damn funny it's unconscious...er, not simply in the realm of consciousness or being noticeable. I imagine the Ni/Ne types are very...er curious (ENTP here, so Ne>Ti), and then you INTPs and your Ti>Ne, so many possibilities.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I'm not only speaking of extraverted intuition and introverted intuition, merely the factor of what intuition is.

you should read more

you were making reference to MBTI, implying that this article somehow hints at the existence of intuition in the MBTI sense as a verifiable and quantifiable phenomenon.

tacit motoric and perceptive skills are not considered intuition in MBTI. this article distinguishes intuitive knowledge by unconscious as opposed to conscious nature, while MBTI doesn't. in MBTI it's more about abstraction level; riding a bike or ice skating wouldn't be considered an intuitive operation no matter how little we are in conscious control of it.


you're pissing me off, cretin. maybe you should fuck off more.

 

[TimeAsylums]

/yawn Bronto; seriously, read more.

Anyway, certainly there's a 'logical inconsistency/paradox' with N being irrational (by Jung's descriptions, not the modern connotation of irrational'), and T being calculating and logical...it's just really cool. (specifically for any of the combinations of Ne/Ni/Te/Ti.

 

[Brontosaurie]

No, really? OMG who knew?

TimeAsylums seemed to identify the two separate concepts of intuition in his OP. there's no need for you to be offended.

 

[Brontosaurie]

/yawn Bronto; seriously, read more.

you're the one who should read more (or develop your critical thinking in general) if that's an argument to you.

 

[Brontosaurie]

/yawn Bronto; seriously, read more.

Anyway, certainly there's a 'logical inconsistency/paradox' with N being irrational (by Jung's descriptions, not the modern connotation of irrational'), and T being calculating and logical...it's just really cool. (specifically for any of the combinations of Ne/Ni/Te/Ti.

in jung, irrational doesn't mean illogical: just non-evaluative. the none-evaluative/irrational/perceiving functions complement the evaluative/rational/judging functions. you clearly haven't read his books. idiot.

 

[TimeAsylums]

in jung, irrational doesn't mean illogical

no shit. where did i say that?

Thanks for inputting absolutely nothing into the OP and thread except being subjective and feely:

idiot

^this is an amazing way to get your point across, I bet it works irl all the time as in the forums.

 

[Brontosaurie]

no shit. where did i say that?

in claiming there's a paradox because N is irrational and T is logical.

 

[Brontosaurie]

^this is an amazing way to get your point across, I bet it works irl all the time as in the forums.

yeah let's ignore the fact that i've got arguments and you're just telling me to read more.

you're being an idiot. plain and simple.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Ya cuz liek Wayne Gretsky does sports. What a fuckin sensor.

Ya cuz liek an intuitive person doesn't use the sensing function or any motoric faculty at all.

also you might wanna explain how i implied that you need to be a sensor to perform sports.

 

[Puffy]

Bronto - next to the quote button there's a little box with a " in it, that allows you to multi-quote a single post; just so you don't need to multi-post, etc.

/yawn Bronto; seriously, read more.

Unnecessarily condescending.

you're pissing me off, cretin. maybe you should fuck off more.

Unnecessarily abrasive.

You're under no obligation to respond to each other, keep calm and carry on; there's always the arena.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Bronto - next to the quote button there's a little box with a " in it, that allows you to multi-quote a single post; just so you don't need to multi-post, etc.

thank you, that will be useful. i apologize for the triple post.

 

[BigApplePi]

Theory Explaining Intuition

@TimeAsylums. I will be more I definite. Theory:

Intuition in all of its forms is a view from the top-down and can be either conscious or not. As an example, suppose I'm talking to someone and intuit they will be semi-responsive. I don't bother to define "semi-responsive." My fuzzy definition is good enough for me to work with. My memory tells me this person will be semi-responsive. I'm quite conscious of it. I use this intuition to act. As I talk to this person, I revise this intuition and proceed accordingly.

I suppose a person who generally leads with intuition as an ENTP, ENFP, INTJ, or INFJ will handle intuition consciously. I gather some others who do not excel at intuition ("inferior" function) as ISFJ's, ISTJ's, ESFP's, or ESTP's* will use their intuition far more unconsciously if they use it at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if this couldn't be checked out with brain scans. A sensual dominant would show sensual areas while an intuition dominant would show distribution. Don't know.

*These sensation types operate from the "bottom up."

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Theory Explaining Intuition

@TimeAsylums.

I wouldn't be surprised if this couldn't be checked out with brain scans. A sensual dominant would show sensual areas while an intuition dominant would show distribution. Don't know.

Agreed - I would not be surprised.

*These sensation types operate from the "bottom up."

I assume you mean outside-in vs. inside out?

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Theory Explaining Intuition

I assume you mean outside-in vs. inside out?

I suppose less ambiguous terms could be used. Sensation deals with particular experiences; intuition with general. So we could say intuitive people have to go from general to specific, the latter if they want to. Sensation people start with particulars. Organizationally I think of particulars at the bottom and generalities at the top. One could argue that terminology is arbitrary.

Since generalities are built on particulars, both are necessary. As another example, biology is built on organic chemistry which is built on physics. When we talk biology, we don't necessarily speak organic chemistry yet it's there. Biology is intuitive about necessary chemistry. Chemistry is intuitive about nuclear physics. Chemistry can't exist without the physics. We could use this terminology.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Re: Theory Explaining Intuition

can't exist without the physics.

heheh physics <3 and physicists

 

[Brontosaurie]

defeated.

 

[Cherry Cola]

This would so have been a mess of mixed terminologies if brontosaurus had not intervened. Just sayin.

 

[Architect]

MBTI sensation is what is sounds, the attention to physical sensation or the external world. People with a strong Se can be observed to live a big life, they often have a combination of muscles with fat layered over which gives a compact and powerful physique. This is because they, invariably it seems, like sports and food. Se is tied to the present physical world, Si is tied to the past physical world ( memories and experience). In this way Si is more similiar to intuition than Se, which is firmly now and present.

Intuitives aren't attuned to the world or sensation as much. Intuition is attuned to the internal world. Thoughts, ideas and past thoughts and ideas. Again Ne looks to present ideas/thoughts and the future, where Ni focuses more on past ideas.

There has been no work on this but I think we'll find a physiological basis for this. Just as there appears to be one for introversion/extraversion, which is a persons response to stimulus (Susan Cain). For sensation/intuition I think it relates to the sensation pathways. If there is a strong connection to the physical system (nerves to the five senses) then a person is a sensor. If that connection is weak then we have an intuitive.

If this is the case than an INXX is someone who has both a weak connection to their senses and a lower tolerance for stimulation. On the other side an ESXX is someone with a strong connection to their senses and a high tolerance for stimulation.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Intuitives aren't attuned to the world or sensation as much.

naturally.

Again Ne looks to present ideas/thoughts and the future, where Ni focuses more on past ideas.

agreed
side note: in two books on Jung, he and others claim Ne is object oriented and Ni is visually oriented that is, do you think in words or pictures, which they call objects vs pictures, as far as my statistics go, the majority of people I know seem to roll this way.


I don't suppose you've read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell?

 

[BigApplePi]

Again Ne looks to present ideas/thoughts and the future, where Ni focuses more on past ideas.

Every time I see time referred to with this, I stop and think, "How did they get that and what do they mean?" Some have associated Ni with the future. Take a look at this, an Adymus quote. Look under Ni.

Ne vs Ni vs Se vs Si He refers to the future several times.

My take is all these take place in the present. Ni may draw from the past but if it is selective, it is so for a reason and that is to direct to the future. Ne draws from the past but says, "Hey. Look at these possibilities. Feel free to pick." To me, intuition is about generalities. It wants to apply them to future specifics but doesn't necessarily say so.

 

[Architect]

Every time I see time referred to with this, I stop and think, "How did they get that and what do they mean?" Some have associated Ni with the future. Take a look at this, an Adymus quote. Look under Ni.

Ne vs Ni vs Se vs Si He refers to the future several times.

My take is all these take place in the present. Ni may draw from the past but if it is selective, it is so for a reason and that is to direct to the future. Ne draws from the past but says, "Hey. Look at these possibilities. Feel free to pick." To me, intuition is about generalities. It wants to apply them to future specifics but doesn't necessarily say so.

This could all be, I agree the time supposition is the weakest aspect of this. It's purely based on my observations, and it can easily be faulty. I'll look into it more.

 

[TimeAsylums]

On the types perception of time:

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16542

http://personalitycafe.com/nts-tempe...ime-aging.html <--- just the first post

http://psyphics.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/infj-vs-intp/
Quote:
Perception of Time

INTPs and other xNPx types have a detached perception of time and tend to see the past-present-future as a continuum. They have a historical perspective and set their goals to accumulate memories and achievements that can be viewed from an autobiographical context.
INFJs and xNJx types have a future directed perception of time where the past and present are seen as contributing factors to a vision. They view time as a finite resource and strive to accomplish their goals to directly experience the success in the limited time they have.
Jungian Types and Perception of Time

So Ne dom vs Ni dom, more accurately represented (imo)

excuse the huge freaking picture, idk how to resize (lol)

but yeah that's at my Oh my Jung thread post #6

 

[Fukyo]

The process described in the article in the OP sounds more like implicit memory. I read a really cool article about it, but I can't find it.

 

[Mr Write]

For sensation/intuition I think it relates to the sensation pathways. If there is a strong connection to the physical system (nerves to the five senses) then a person is a sensor. If that connection is weak then we have an intuitive.

Where does something like inferior Se fit in this model?

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is my take on time, thought-wise. For me I live in the present. This matters most because this is me. The past is important because it guides me how to live the present; the future is important because it will contain what my new set of "presents" will be. Feelings are different. I could be emotionally occupied with any of those three, but those are topic dependent aren't predictable unless I know my topic interest.

I read that first link of three ... the thread and it's a good one. From the thread:
SJ's ( Si) dominant perception function): focused on 'yesterday/past'
NF's: on 'tomorrow/future'
SP's (Se) dominant perception function: 'now/present'
NT's: a little more interesting, you could essentially say the 'present' as well, but it's not like that, most of the types have a very 'linear' perception of time, a concrete past and present and future, although I have seen videos over at the NFgeeks saying the NFs aren't as linear, but still have a little concreteness in the theory of time.

This is purely speculation, but suppose I start with time attitudes as opposed to starting with temperaments ... which I'm not ready to trust.

I described myself: NT.
Most people have some sort of goals in living their lives: short-term, medium-term, long-term. If one doesn't push long term, they are "P's." If one pushes consciously for a goal, they are "J's."

Suppose a person is concerned about change. They like the way things are and have been. Then they have particular things in mind. That is past-present. SJ.

Suppose one occupies themselves with certain values. They want to continue these values. That is present-future. Fx. But they could be pre-occupied with the past. They want to return there: IxF.

There are those who live totally (sensually) in the present for the present. SP if only the present. SJ if they want to keep it that way: present-future.

Those are just some thoughts. They are imperfect descriptions. What is missing? What is wrong?