Intuition - Origin and Definition

TomasM

Regular Poster
MBTI
INFJ
I would like to gain a better understanding of intuition so I'm creating this discussion as a method to compile the information such that it can be analyzed and narrowed down to something more specific. I believe this site is the best place to compile and observe collectively because those here appear to have the greatest awareness and experience dealing with this mysterious capacity.

Many years ago when I started working with MBTI I came across a book titled, Please Understand Me II by Keirsey. His work evaluated all of the data from MBTI and then attempted to identify commonalities across the types. In doing so four types emerged (SF, SP, NT, NF). From this I was able to determine that the core of every MBTI type originates from the S-N dichotomy. Most everyone seems to understand the five senses but there is a gap in the understanding of intuition. Finally, I had to ask myself some questions about these two states:

1) What exactly is intuition and how accurate is it?
2) Is intuition derived from both genetic and environmental factors and to what extent does each contribute?
3) Since it is a dichotomy does intuition extend itself from a deficiency in sensory function or is it an extra-sensory state of its own?
4) Can intuition be developed?
5) What value is there in having and/or developing intuition?
6) Is there a downside in having and/or developing intuition?
7) Are there other functions or abilities that branch off of a developed intuitive?

I'm sure there are many more questions but I'm going to stop at seven so we can keep the discussion somewhat manageable. I would like this dialogue to be uninhibited and free flowing such that every input is valued in it's own regard. I believe it is ok to ask for clarification through questions but I would like everyone to refrain from negative comments. I say this because I suspect that those with high level intuition have a tendency to internalize it out of fear. It's just that I believe the understanding of intuition is far more valuable than the fear of persecution. So, if we work together and self govern then we should be able to gain something profound.

Definition of intution: 1. immediate apprehension or cognition without reasoning or inferring. 2. : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. 3. : the power or faculty of gaining direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.
 
  1. First consult and read Jung.
  2. All human beings are a product of both nature and nurture, owing to the combination of genetics and our arrival in the world in such an (neurologically) undeveloped state.
  3. The theory can be argued both ways, and although we cannot witness cognitive function directly in real life, experience over time suggests a pattern and workings.
  4. Per theory, not willfully, but it can happen over the lifespan as lesser-used functions develop to function alongside one’s native temperament.
  5. That’s hard to answer inasmuch as I have never known anything else—my top two cognitive functions, as tested, are Ne and Ni. I say that within the idea that value arises between and among perceivers of the thing deemed valuable. Intuition, like everything else in the world, has no inherent value.
  6. See #5 above.
  7. In theory, no. In colloquial use of the word, perhaps. Fiction writers and screenwriters love to portray a ham-handed vision of this.
Cheers,
Ian
 
  1. First consult and read Jung.
I have but I'm hoping to hear perspectives on what it is and how it specifically applies to a persons experience. The accuracy of it is also important and though I expect this to change as a person ages (and becomes more educated), I also suspect there are some young people that use it to a higher level than some that are nearing end of life. I've heard claims that some INFJ's are highly accurate with their intuition and from my perspective this appears correct but I've never seen it quantified with any type. If a range can be identified then an average can also be deduced.
  1. All human beings are a product of both nature and nurture, owing to the combination of genetics and our arrival in the world in such an (neurologically) undeveloped state.
I expected both to be involved but to what extent. There must be a reason for this development, so what is the catalyst since most people lean more towards the sensory side of the dichotomy?
  1. The theory can be argued both ways, and although we cannot witness cognitive function directly in real life, experience over time suggests a pattern and workings.
"Both ways," suggests that intuition could be developed prior to sensory function and if it is genetic then there would be specific markers in the DNA that would make people more predisposed to development. Is this what you are saying or are you saying that sensory function could develop more due to a lack of intuitive ability? I'm inclined to believe that intuition requires sensory function since there is no way to be abstract and forward thinking if nothing can be obtained from the senses. That said, if intuition is completely separate and develops along a path that is separate from all the other senses then that would be valuable information.
  1. Per theory, not willfully, but it can happen over the lifespan as lesser-used functions develop to function alongside one’s native temperament.
When you say lesser-used functions do you mean this in respect to the primary functions or the shadow functions? What would make a function lesser-used?
  1. That’s hard to answer inasmuch as I have never known anything else—my top two cognitive functions, as tested, are Ne and Ni. I say that within the idea that value arises between and among perceivers of the thing deemed valuable. Intuition, like everything else in the world, has no inherent value.
Usually the functions are either introverted or extroverted but not both. What do you mean when you say you have both Ni and Ne as your two top functions?

I certainly agree that there would be no value if there was no mental, physical, emotional, or spiritual capacity as these are the foundation of consciousness and awareness, but if intuition is a dichotomy with the sensory functions wouldn't it have to have value (at least in part) if people choose it over their sensory functions to process information? Those that are more sensory based will use the details whereas intuitives tend to think more abstractly and they will focus on future possibilities and patterns as opposed to what is currently present in the situation. Could or would the use of abstract and future thinking have a quantifiable value as a whole?
  1. See #5 above.
  2. In theory, no. In colloquial use of the word, perhaps. Fiction writers and screenwriters love to portray a ham-handed vision of this.
Fiction is fun but I'm looking to identify things that are more substantial and real. It would be fine if there are none but I wanted to throw it on the table just to give people an opportunity to express what they believe may be possible. This could be derived from their own experience or from discussions with other people. It could be as subtle as a slight correlation between intuition and other capacities.
Cheers,
Ian
This is excellent input Ian. It's a great start to breaking down the questions into usable information. Thank you.
 
I'm doing some research to identify how some people have used intuition and the science behind how it works. In this post I am providing an excerpt about two famous French mathematicians Henri Poincaré and Jacques Hadamard. I believe this will help identify the best definition of intuition and become a good starting point for the discussion.

Title: Nobel Prize-winning physicist explains the power of intuition in scientific discovery
Subtitle: Scientists can make substantial progress without fully understanding exactly what they’re doing.

"The birth of ideas is a subject that many scientists have confronted in their writings. Let’s begin with the famous French mathematicians Henri Poincaré and Jacques Hadamard. The two men, who lived in the 19th and 20th centuries, repeatedly described the ways in which their mathematical ideas were born and had a common point of view on the subject: There are distinct phases to the formulation of a theorem.

  • There is a first, preparatory stage in which the problem is studied, the existing literature read, and the first unsuccessful attempts at a solution are made. It is a period that can last between a week and a month, and ends because no progress occurs.
  • Then there is a period of incubation in which the problem is abandoned, at least consciously.
  • This incubation ends suddenly with a moment of illumination, which often occurs in a situation unrelated to the problem you’re trying to solve. It might happen, for instance, when conversing with a friend about topics with no apparent connection to the problem.
  • In the end, after the illumination provides the general way to tackle the problem, the solution must actually be formulated. This can be a very protracted period. You must verify that your idea is correct, and whether or not the road you have set out on can work — followed by all the mathematical steps required to demonstrate the solution.
Citation: https://bigthink.com/thinking/power-intuition-science/
 
When I was in high school I was an athlete. I remember going on the road to play an American football game against at team where I felt we should win. Early in the game we encountered a moment when we were behind on the scoreboard and I remember being incredibly angry and focused. My coach put me in a position of returning a kick and while I was back there waiting, I told myself that I'm going to score NOW! I stopped thinking about football and rules and leaned into my intuition.

During a return in american football game, the kicking team has 11 players that are running full speed towards the person who is
catching the ball and attempting to return it to the other persons goal line. Usually they are coming so fast that there is no time to think, you just DO, and this was no exception. The only difference in this particular situation was the state of my vision in which I ran head first into this traffic of animals that was attempting to obliterate me. As I began running everything seemed to slow down in a way similar to how people describe being in a car accident. It was like everything was in slow motion and there where giant gaps to run through with the ease of a stroll in the park. I scored on that play and we eventually won the game but that's not the strange part.

The next day we watch the film of our performance and in seeing this particular play, it really wasn't nearly as close as I remember. In fact, it was incredibly tight and there were many times that I likely would have been tackled if there wasn't a millisecond adjustment on several occasions. The strange part is that the adjustments I made were away from opponents I couldn't see or hear. It was like I was being guided in the perfect direction to achieve the outcome.

I can't claim this as intuition because I can't fully define it but I can say that it meets the criteria for intuition. How was I able to navigate things that I couldn't see or possibly know. There was no pattern to draw upon, only gut and survival instinct. Returning kicks for a score does happen but in this particular situation I knew the outcome before I even received the ball.
 
It would be helpful to clarify: when you say intuition, are you speaking of the cognitive process(es), or the wider, colloquial use of the word?

To illustrate what I mean—extroverted and introverted have a specific meaning and usage in regards to cognitive processes, but the near-universal understanding of those terms in wider culture is a different thing entirely, which describes social engagement styles and energy dynamics. Of course, in MBTI, per Kiersey, they mean yet something else again.

Cheers,
Ian
 
It would be helpful to clarify: when you say intuition, are you speaking of the cognitive process(es), or the wider, colloquial use of the word?

To illustrate what I mean—extroverted and introverted have a specific meaning and usage in regards to cognitive processes, but the near-universal understanding of those terms in wider culture is a different thing entirely, which describes social engagement styles and energy dynamics. Of course, in MBTI, per Kiersey, they mean yet something else again.

Cheers,
Ian
I believe that both apply to some degree. I'm looking at this through the eyes of an engineer. Collectively we can evaluate instances when intuition simply works as an output from a person in an environment. With enough information this output can lead us towards the source. If we know the source and what induces the outcome then we can make intuition reproducible and / or fine tune it to specific scenarios.

I don't want to trivialize intuition so the cognitive processes are important in day to day life even if we don't think about them when we float through our lives. From an MBTI stance, it became clear to me intuitively that the core of our cognitive functioning lies within the N-S dichotomy per Kiersey so understanding how this relates to choice would be paramount. Also, if we have Ne or Ni and each operates in a different manner then it would be valuable to know how they are different, aside from one being concealed more than the other.

In this regard, we must have people who have developed intuition and from everything I've read, the INFJ has a high rate of success in this capacity. I'm not suggesting that intuition is confined to this particular type, only that it has the appearance of a greater success from what I've read.
 
Collectively we can evaluate instances when intuition simply works as an output from a person in an environment. With enough information this output can lead us towards the source.
I question this because of the unreliability of studying behavior to discern or predict cognitive function.
If we know the source and what induces the outcome then we can make intuition reproducible and / or fine tune it to specific scenarios.
Yet, cognitive function seems pre-conscious, or the taproot of cognition itself. Which is to say, outside of conscious control, or will.
From an MBTI stance, it became clear to me intuitively that the core of our cognitive functioning lies within the N-S dichotomy per Kiersey so understanding how this relates to choice would be paramount.
I don’t agree with this, and I think this focus is one of the most valid criticisms of Kiersey’s work. Biases came into play as he adapted Isabel Myers’ and Katharine Briggs’ work.

Time spent with either F-doms or T-doms (of either type) seems to me evidence enough to suggest no cognitive couplet or pairing has superiority over any other, nor are they more foundational than any other.
Also, if we have Ne or Ni and each operates in a different manner then it would be valuable to know how they are different, aside from one being concealed more than the other.
Both are 100% concealed inasmuch as they are cognitive processes. One is extroverted, and objective, the other introverted, and subjective, but both are interior and hidden.
In this regard, we must have people who have developed intuition and from everything I've read, the INFJ has a high rate of success in this capacity. I'm not suggesting that intuition is confined to this particular type, only that it has the appearance of a greater success from what I've read.
INFJs, INTJs, ENFPs, and ENTPs are all N-doms.

And of course, type is a model. Human development and presentation is often outside and beyond that in the sense a given individual may present in a manner not in accordance with what the model would predict.

My answers concern cognitive function, but not colloquial use.

Cheers,
Ian
 
There's a sense of the term intuition, which seems related to ease of processing complex information. A while back, I took a supervised, timed IQ test and noticed that some complex things are probably intuitive to some, and difficult to others.

The psychologist supervising the test commented that she'd never seen anyone complete the sections dealing with pattern recognition and spacial reasoning as quickly as had I. That contrasted with how very slowly I completed the math section.

I can only describe the discrepancy of ease in terms of how intuitively and easily I reached some answers, and how deliberately and difficultly I reached others. When complex things seem self evident, obvious, and effortless, dealing with them can be described as intuitive. Conversely, when they seem obscure, and difficult to deal with, they can be described as unintuitive.

The preceding comments don't map onto the connotations of intuition found in the mbti paradigm. But at least it would seem fair to say that mbti sensing preferences probably relate to an ease and mental efficiency in taking in more data, retaining the information, and accounting for it, but a discomfort with synthesising the big picture. IF this is the case, intuition is probably more related to judgement, and sensing to perception.

Finally, there above deals with a posteriori reasoning (moving from observation to comprehension). A priori reasoning, which moves from theory to implementation inverses the sense of ease.
 
Hi Tomas - interesting thread.

1) What exactly is intuition and how accurate is it?
There are two ways of exploring this, one intellectual and the other experiential - the first analytical, the second what it's like to actually use it. I use sight as an analogue for how I experience intuition - so from an intellectual viewpoint a red sunset can be explained in terms of the underlying physics, but the experience is expressed for many in terms of things such as emotion, romance, spiritual depth. So with intuition.

From an analytical viewpoint, personally I think it is misleading to set different descriptions of intuition in competition with each other. To a considerable extent, it's a matter of definition, with each alternative having validity within the context of its concept space. My personal preference is for Jung's definition in his book Psychologic al Types Chr 11 Section 35 and following. This places it firmly as an irrational cognitive function - in other words we experience the world through it rather than analysing and deciding on things through it. I don't reject the various other ways that people define it though unless they are self-contradictory or counter-intuitive in confusing ways. Most of these developments that have arisen from Jung's original ideas seem to lose touch with his overall psychology, which is rooted in understanding the unconscious.

But for me, far more important is what it's like to use and experience intuition. I use it subjectively, which means I'm dominant introverted intuitive and it is really very like sight even though it's completely different too. I've described this before in the forum, but sadly the Blog section is no longer with us since we moved platforms last year. I can only give you an analogy of what the experience is like, but this analogy is itself a manifestation of Ni. When I explore a concept, it's as though I'm standing on top of a hill with a broad landscape before me. It's full of valleys and other hills, villages, rivers and streams, fields and wild country; the sky is partly cloudy and the landscape is in shade in some places and in bright sunshine in others. There is a cool breeze and everything feels fresh and new. I 'see' all this in one go, and not as I've laid it out here - what's sad is that I can't describe it like that though. I have to use Ti to linearize it and put it into words, and this can be both interesting and very frustrating. Communicating what I 'see' is like standing on a real hill describing a real landscape a bit at a time to someone on the telephone who's blind.

Intuition is not a magic function, but it can feel that way because it links our deep unconscious symbols, and our remembered and forgotten knowledge and experience, with new things brought in from the outside world and forms ever developing and fascinating patterns with them.
2) Is intuition derived from both genetic and environmental factors and to what extent does each contribute?
Intuition is a feature of all human psyches and we are born with it. All humans use all the functions, though what we prefer is another matter and that can be environmental. Dominant introverted intuition is not well appreciated by the ST and SF types who are pretty common and I think many a dominant Ni person buries it and lives publicly in one of the other functions. Ti is an easy one for intellectual INFJs to adopt and others live in their Fe - of course INTJ tend to focus on a combination of Te and Fi in these circumstances.
3) Since it is a dichotomy does intuition extend itself from a deficiency in sensory function or is it an extra-sensory state of its own?
Intuition is not simply an absence of S - that's a bit like asking if left-handed folks are like that because of an absence of right-handedness. N and S are symbiotic and it's not possible to live a healthy life without both of them.
4) Can intuition be developed
Yes. It's the same as developing a physical skill - someone can be born with a physique suitable for long distance running, but they'll not win competitions unless they work hard at it, both in terms of stamina and technique. A preference for a function is not the same as proficiency. But the functions are not static - Jung's clinic was full of people who failed to develop rounded personalities in the second half of life and this is characterised by them not developing their tertiary and inferior functions better.
5) What value is there in having and/or developing intuition?
Insight, patterning, spotting danger and opportunity, seeing the path for fulfilling your own life and the lives of others, etc, etc,
6) Is there a downside in having and/or developing intuition?
Yes - as TS Eliot says, 'Mankind cannot bear very much reality'.

We can see attitudes and problems in others that they are not really aware of themselves. If we react to them from that perspective we can get tangled up with their shadow and that isn't good for us or for them.
7) Are there other functions or abilities that branch off of a developed intuitive?
I'll maybe pick up on this another time, but I've run out of it now. Hope all this is of some value to you.

Just to say though that, if you are competent with your secondary, intuition works really well with your tertiary - but only if your secondary is well developed, or you risk looping and cutting yourself off from your non-preferred orientation.
 
Here are some of Jung's thoughts on Intuition:


Sensing and Intuition
Precursor:
"It is a perception by intermediate links and you only get the result of that whole chain from that associations."
Definition: "My definition is, intuition is a perception by way or means of the unconscious. That is as near as I can get."

Introverted Intuition
"The intuitive extrovert you find them [all over]... renters, bankers, gamblers. That is quite understandable, but the introvert... introverted variety is more difficult because he has intuitions as to the subjective factor, namely the inner world. And of course that is now very difficult to understand because what he sees are most uncommon things and... he doesn't like to talk of them... if he's not a fool... because he would spoil his own game by telling what he sees... because people won't understand it."

This is the fear I spoke of in my initial post. Obviously the introverted intuitive recognizes that others won't understand because experience has proven this but I should now amend my initial statement to include that there is a selfish element that prevents, "spoiling his own game." This fear and selfishness must be overcome if we are to gain a better understanding of intuition. We can achieve a better understanding because we know that we are among others who are aware of this fear and selfishness. I don't say this to be derogatory towards the introverted intuitive but instead to bring these feelings to the surface such that the underlying denominator can be explored.
 
It's not selfishness, it's that others literally cannot/will not understand and trying to get them to understand merely breeds conflict 99% of the time.
I have lived the life of the fearless fool in one of my past lives. The only thing it accomplishes is personal psychological damage.
Many people have come to this site wanting to run their own self serving experiments regarding intuition, which is actual selfishness lmao.
 
From an analytical viewpoint, personally I think it is misleading to set different descriptions of intuition in competition with each other. To a considerable extent, it's a matter of definition, with each alternative having validity within the context of its concept space.
My intent is to gain a fuller understanding of intuition through the aggregate. I do not wish to attempt to create a competitive environment where right and wrong drives egos towards a single definition. Jung was an amazing genius and has given us a gift with his insight into the conscious and unconscious mind. In my opinion we would not be honoring him if we didn't make a concerted effort to grow the understanding in a similar manner that Einstein further developed his theory of gravity in the shadow of Newton. This is not to suggest that we are as capable as Einstein but that doesn't mean we can't collectively grow the understanding through a group of high intuitives with access to a world of information (the internet).
My personal preference is for Jung's definition in his book Psychologic al Types Chr 11 Section 35 and following. This places it firmly as an irrational cognitive function - in other words we experience the world through it rather than analysing and deciding on things through it. I don't reject the various other ways that people define it though unless they are self-contradictory or counter-intuitive in confusing ways. Most of these developments that have arisen from Jung's original ideas seem to lose touch with his overall psychology, which is rooted in understanding the unconscious.
I found this statement very enlightening since I just shared some information from Jung. It appears as though we will be diving deeper into the unconscious mind. I hope that everyone can be as comfortable with Freud as they are with Jung.
But for me, far more important is what it's like to use and experience intuition. I use it subjectively, which means I'm dominant introverted intuitive and it is really very like sight even though it's completely different too. I've described this before in the forum, but sadly the Blog section is no longer with us since we moved platforms last year. I can only give you an analogy of what the experience is like, but this analogy is itself a manifestation of Ni. When I explore a concept, it's as though I'm standing on top of a hill with a broad landscape before me. It's full of valleys and other hills, villages, rivers and streams, fields and wild country; the sky is partly cloudy and the landscape is in shade in some places and in bright sunshine in others. There is a cool breeze and everything feels fresh and new. I 'see' all this in one go, and not as I've laid it out here - what's sad is that I can't describe it like that though. I have to use Ti to linearize it and put it into words, and this can be both interesting and very frustrating. Communicating what I 'see' is like standing on a real hill describing a real landscape a bit at a time to someone on the telephone who's blind.
I share this trait and experience. We are truly a minority of internal depth surrounded by a majority driven by their shallow sensory functions. Yet I have found great joy in appreciating the sensory genius for the experience and awareness they foster around us.
Intuition is not a magic function, but it can feel that way because it links our deep unconscious symbols, and our remembered and forgotten knowledge and experience, with new things brought in from the outside world and forms ever developing and fascinating patterns with them.

Intuition is a feature of all human psyches and we are born with it. All humans use all the functions, though what we prefer is another matter and that can be environmental. Dominant introverted intuition is not well appreciated by the ST and SF types who are pretty common and I think many a dominant Ni person buries it and lives publicly in one of the other functions. Ti is an easy one for intellectual INFJs to adopt and others live in their Fe - of course INTJ tend to focus on a combination of Te and Fi in these circumstances.
If we are born with it then there should be a genetic and / or epigenetic component. It saddens me that it is suppressed by fear of judgement and a lack of depth when the collective value can be so incredibly high if accepted by the masses. Alas, I am stumbling into my fantasy.
Intuition is not simply an absence of S - that's a bit like asking if left-handed folks are like that because of an absence of right-handedness. N and S are symbiotic and it's not possible to live a healthy life without both of them.
It was not my intent to suggest that a person is only sensory or only intuitive as that would be counter to the underlying foundation of dichotomies. Instead I look at why someone chooses to lean more towards the intuitive over the sensory. When I wrote this question I was specifically thinking about discussions I've had with highly intuitive people who have expressed an awareness of physical sensory deprivation.

This led me to empathize with those that are highly sensory and my conclusion was that: why would a person with highly developed senses that produced an amazing experience of reality (perhaps teetering on the euphoric at the highest level) ever choose to prefer intuition. Similarly, why would someone with an extremely high level of intuition prefer it unless that feeling of "euphoria" was somewhat diminished.

I'm not suggesting that the sensory is diminished only that the question should be explored and that there is value in understanding why more people prefer one over the other.

I really like how you challenged this assertion and I can be okay with either outcome if the information leads us in that direction.
Yes. It's the same as developing a physical skill - someone can be born with a physique suitable for long distance running, but they'll not win competitions unless they work hard at it, both in terms of stamina and technique. A preference for a function is not the same as proficiency. But the functions are not static - Jung's clinic was full of people who failed to develop rounded personalities in the second half of life and this is characterised by them not developing their tertiary and inferior functions better.
I agree that everyone has both the intuitive and sensory capacity. I also believe that there are people who have a high proficiency on both sides of a given dichotomy yet choose to prefer the opposite for various reasons. For example, a person could have the intuitive capacity of a god (metaphor) and still prefer the sensory for its experience.

That said, if a person who preferred the sensory over their intuition attempted to use their intuition daily in their functions, wouldn't it be deficient? For example, if their cognitive functions were fine tuned to the sensory wouldn't they lack the ability to call their intuition quickly in a moments notice from the unconscious mind? If the mind and brain are fine tuned over a long period of time doesn't it start to lose at least some of its potential in that capacity? Also, if the brain can't quickly make an unconscious choice through intuition doesn't that defeat the purpose of having it?

The development of intuition can be incredibly valuable if it can be a plug and play scenario but is the mind truly capable of achieving this when it is conditioned for the opposite side of a dichotomy. If a person prefers the far side of the sensory spectrum could they ever achieve Ni and how close does someone need to be to Ni in order to find value using it in the real world? I don't know the answers to this but I do find value in understanding both sides of that coin.

I love your word pictures even though I'm an INFJ.
Insight, patterning, spotting danger and opportunity, seeing the path for fulfilling your own life and the lives of others, etc, etc,

Yes - as TS Eliot says, 'Mankind cannot bear very much reality'.

We can see attitudes and problems in others that they are not really aware of themselves. If we react to them from that perspective we can get tangled up with their shadow and that isn't good for us or for them.
YEP, Sometimes I feel a responsibility to help those that are unaware of their behaviors but there are some easily triggered people where their shadow is simply not worth the effort. These are moments where I find myself asking them to let me know how it turns out.
I'll maybe pick up on this another time, but I've run out of it now. Hope all this is of some value to you.

Just to say though that, if you are competent with your secondary, intuition works really well with your tertiary - but only if your secondary is well developed, or you risk looping and cutting yourself off from your non-preferred orientation.
YES, it was valuable and thank you for taking the time to respond. I like it when you challenge both sides of my preconceived ideas and keep me centered on understanding the complete picture. I certainly have my own biases and having a group to keep that it check will always be preferred.
 
It's not selfishness, it's that others literally cannot/will not understand and trying to get them to understand merely breeds conflict 99% of the time.
I have lived the life of the fearless fool in one of my past lives. The only thing it accomplishes is personal psychological damage.
Many people have come to this site wanting to run their own self serving experiments regarding intuition, which is actual selfishness lmao.
I had to think about how I worded this prior to saying it and I have to admit that using the word selfish was not an easy choice. I agree with you that it breeds conflict and sharing is the hard thing to do MOST of the time, but then I reflect on my coursework in ethics and utilitarianism. If sharing the information is for the greater good and promotes a net gain in happiness then sharing should technically be the correct choice.

When I reflect on Jung saying that it would, "spoil his own game" that implied (to me) that the information is being withheld for his (the Ni) own gain at the expense of others. This is selfish by definition.

This should not be confused with a lack of disclosure to people that continually seek out conflict because that would not be utilitarian. Being an Ni is very difficult because we have to make judgements about people based on our intuition. Everyone in the world makes judgements when it comes to choice it's just that the Ni tends to have a more complete view and that comes with a greater responsibility.

Is this fair?
 
Many people have come to this site wanting to run their own self serving experiments regarding intuition, which is actual selfishness lmao.
I hope you're not suggesting that I'm being selfish in pursuing a deeper interest in understanding intuition. If you believe this then let me put your mind at ease when I say that anyone can use the information gained in this dialogue in any way they deem fit. I have no agenda to publish or seek any gain other than my own personal exploration.

I do however appreciate you looking out for everyone and playing the role of watchdog over the forum. You wear that collar well but please don't let it deter contribution to the forum or inhibit the collaborative goals of the site.
 
This should not be confused with a lack of disclosure to people that continually seek out conflict because that would not be utilitarian. Being an Ni is very difficult because we have to make judgements about people based on our intuition. Everyone in the world makes judgements when it comes to choice it's just that the Ni tends to have a more complete view and that comes with a greater responsibility.

Is this fair?

I don't know if I agree with the "complete view" but yes of course, very fair.
It would be nice if such a world existed where humans were capable of not using information for their own personal gain.
Alas, that is simply an idealistic dream.

I hope you're not suggesting that I'm being selfish in pursuing a deeper interest in understanding intuition. If you believe this then let me put your mind at ease when I say that anyone can use the information gained in this dialogue in any way they deem fit. I have no agenda to publish or seek any gain other than my own personal exploration.

I was being a bit comical, because your endeavors are self serving, as much as anyone's are.
You can label it "exploration" which is a fair term and what a lot of humans label their own pursuits.
The fact remains, you came here with an agenda of your own. You've been transparent about it, I'll give you that.

I do however appreciate you looking out for everyone and playing the role of watchdog over the forum. You wear that collar well but please don't let it deter contribution to the forum or inhibit the collaborative goals of the site.

Right so, I'm to allow you to pursue your agenda so that you can merely collaborate and explore.
What of my own need to collaborate and explore? What of my own agenda?
How do we make room for INFJs to explore themselves while you endeavor to view intuition/INFJs under a microscope?
Seems a difficult thing to marry, but I'm game.
I am more than a mere watch dog, thanks.
 
Last edited:
As I also said, I'm not barring you from any discussion and I haven't prevented it in any way other than interjecting with my own opinion (which is how forums work).
This is my opinion and my agenda. To allow INFJs a space to be themselves freely as much as possible within reason.
Society does not generally offer such spaces, and creating and maintaining even a small one is not easy.
 
What of my own need to collaborate and explore? What of my own agenda?
How do we make room for INFJs to explore themselves while you endeavor to view intuition/INFJs under a microscope?
I've been an administrator of thousands of servers with an uncountable number of users that access and utilize information. With that in mind please allow me to extend a small amount of advice from experience.

You can be the watchdog and you can be have your own experience but when you put on your watchdog hat you have to censor yourself as a contributor if you are to foster the merit of the site. I know this does not seem fair but it is in fact the cost of power. If you contribute by saying derogatory things about a person (which you have repeatedly in this case) then it deters contributions of others out of fear of reprisal. That you have stated that I'm not being barred places an idea in the minds of other that they could be barred if they don't think or believe in the same manner as you (regardless of your intent). This deters contribution and collaboration and actually is detrimental to the sites longevity. This is not my opinion it is fact that I have observed and studied over a long career in information technology.
 
Back
Top