Intuition - Origin and Definition

Hi @TomasM - I've not listened to the videos you've posted yet because of their length but they sound interesting and I'm hoping to play them on our TV soon, rather than watch them on phone or computer.

On a more general note, at the level of depth you are working I think it's worth relating your relationship with the concept of Intuition to Jung's wider psychology of the whole psyche rather then just in the context of MBTI. That's because there is an apparent ambiguity in some of the contexts that needs some analysis and clarification, if only in terms of definitions and relationships to which model. Otherwise there is room for endless confusion about what is meant by intuition.

There is a lot of accreted stuff built on top of Jung's original model and I think it's worth going back to the roots. He created his theory of types in part in order to get to grips with problems he was having in his therapeutic practice. He was of course dealing with psychological illnesses that had their roots in the unconscious minds of his patients - but he found that one-size-fits-all methods did not work. This led to the development of his typology, initially as a means of finding the best route to patients' subconscious minds. It's fruit was the identification of their inferior functions which he saw as essentially unconscious, and as the bridge between the conscious and the unconscious. The personality differences expressed in typology led to very different approaches in how he dealt with a dominant introverted sensor compared with a dominant extraverted feeler, for example.

This is where it can get murky because for INFJs Ni is the dominant and Se is the inferior. So the path to the unconscious for us is extraverted sensing, and our most consciously controlled function is introverted intuition. Yet there is a view that suggests that Ni works in an unconscious sort of way. I think that this situation needs to be fleshed out in any analysis of Ni - and related to Jung's overall model of the human psyche if the analysis focuses on an MBTI concept of Ni. Personally I think that the problem arises because the terms are used too broadly. I find that I'm perfectly conscious of using Ni and the experience is analogous to using sight. Now sight appears to be a very concrete function with little in the way of being buried in the unconscious, but it's a matter of layers. There is a huge and complex process of turning the photons that hit my retina into my visual experience of the world out there, and this process is normally completely unconscious to me, though the experience is not. I think Ni works in the same way - there is an intricate subterranean process that delivers a nicely packaged insight to my conscious mind and I'm not aware of how it works, but like with sight I'm very conscious of the result. I don't think this is the same at all as saying than Ni is unconscious in the way that MBTI and Jungian psychology as a whole intends the meaning. It's a matter of layers and the unconscious layers of sight and dominant Ni are much lower down in out minds that the sort of embedding in our shadows that are implied by Jungian psychology.

Of course there are other possible definitions of what is meant by intuition, but I think it needs a precision in definition if those are analysed in order to avoid discussions that are confused by coming from different conceptual models.
 
@John K i love how you broke this down into “layers.” Having the mind of an engineer I often like to compartmentalize within my mind so that I can build (model, construct, process, etc) and communicate. However, when I’m engaging my intuition I have many functions that lead to it. This essentially turns intuition into a many dimensional unconscious construct. People struggle to work with more than 2 or 3 dimensions and I think that’s why trying to understand or make sense of intuition often seems mystical. This is part of the reason I have avoided placing a definition on it within this discussion.

I have recently been working with some tools designed to process many dimensions as it pertains to A.I. One lab I just worked on had 11 dimensions where it creates a surface area and then attempts to evaluate it with respect to variance as a method for determine anomalies. This is not something that can be done through thinking or trying to understand because it’s too complex. This is a bit how I see intuition and I accept that my mind can and is doing this in real time.

When I was younger I could intuitively catch a football without seeing it because I intuitively knew where it was going to be. I can say the same thing for diagnosing computer issues in complex systems or predicting what a person is about to do in a room full of people. This is where things get weird because my intuition turns things from the compartmentalized into the fluid - a place where layers no longer exist. I’m a J but and I live my life this way because the world demands it but I’m very close to the center between the J-P dichotomy. If / when I need to know something, I allow things to become fluid and this is usually composed of a thought-feeling. It’s like I’m teetering between my intelligence and emotions (T-F). It’s as-if I have a magic 8 ball and the entire thing is being shaken and stirred until the answer just pops into place. The hardest part is being comfortable with this and then being able to act on it - that requires a bit of faith.

I know that is not easy to understand for most people so I don’t generally even try to explain it but of everyone I know, you seem like the one person that would understand more than anyone.

I do have a model that attempts to make sense of intuition when bringing together the broad nature of this thread and topics. I’ve just noticed that it’s generally a waste of time to present and explain because most people usually just want to talk about what interests them. In this context the thread becomes a fuel - what I write becomes more solidified and what other people say helps to better define the potential surface area. Intuition then does the rest.

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and understanding of Jung. I know you are well read in this capacity and I always enjoy reading your perspectives on the topic. Thank you for sharing.
 
While reading this, a few things came to mind that are relevant to the topic. There was a brief mention of epigenetics, which is the modification of our genes by the environment. This is a relatively new field of research and shows how flexible living beings are.
And not only that. I think that humans are the only known living beings that are able to “reach into their own heads/brains/thoughts with their own hands.” We are able to condition ourselves. We can learn a lot through practice. We can influence our thinking through meditation/autogenic training/hypnosis. No one knows how far this is actually possible. However, I am convinced that it is possible to practice and learn intuition or sensory perception. Of course, a person who only starts practicing something at the age of 30 that another person has already learned naturally as a child will probably not be able to surpass these abilities. But I am convinced that our character is not set in stone.
 
There have been large studies that show that there are two ways to change one's personality/character
The first is through decades long transformation (slow)
The second is through trauma (fast)

We are malleable but it's not an easy process
 
You're right. And then the question remains, would you even want that? I, for one, am actually happy being an INFJ.

Perhaps it's a kind of low entropy. So at some point, the character settles into a certain position because that's where it needs the least energy?
 
Sorn said:
We are able to condition ourselves. We can learn a lot through practice. We can influence our thinking through meditation/autogenic training/hypnosis. No one knows how far this is actually possible.
Click to expand...
Some know, because they pushed until they found their limit.

But yes, in general, we do not know for a given individual, or a cohort, or the collective.

We are programmable, and metaprogrammable, to ends both fair and foul. To self and others.

Just remember that the phoenix ideal, i.e. you have to burn it down to be remade and reborn comes with attendant risks.

Our spirit is without boundary. Our earthly form is very necessarily finite. To this end, be loving and gentle with your meatbag during deconstruction and rebuild, and make sure you have the necessary permits before breaking ground.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Wyote said:
We are malleable but it's not an easy process
Click to expand...
That’s why children are hunted and captured. Before age 5, their clay has not yet felt the hot kiss of the kiln.

For better and worse, of course.

Cheers,
Ian
 
The brain remains flexible even in old age. It is difficult to make a direct comparison with small children, as they do not yet have to consider so many different aspects. When learning a foreign language, adults may be thinking about what they need to buy for dinner and whether they have enough money to do so. Of course, many of the connections between neurons are not yet established in small children.

So it is interesting to ask how something as intangible as intuition can develop in the brain. Is it advantageous if the environment does not make clear statements and the child always has to try to read between the lines?
Did particularly intuitive people have this kind of environment in their childhood?
 
My age comment spoke to neuroplasticity and neuronal pruning. Yes, those in maturity can learn new things, but there’s a reason for the aphorism “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”

My sense is, as with all things of this kind, it is neurobiological potential (nature) with the stimulus/insult of sensory input (nature). All else is produced this way, so why not intuitive presentation?

Cheers,
Ian
 
it’s easy to get the idea that our functions are fixed, but it seems to me that is misleading. Everybody has all the functions - otherwise they couldn’t ‘function’ as people. But something seems to happen that orients us into developing only a small number of them into fluent conscious control, at least at first. The way the choice of these is made for each of us seems a bit like the symmetry breaking that is said to have determined the way the laws of physics unfolded at the dawn of time. The way they end up is one of many possible and maybe it’s just chance that governs what happens with the choice of functions in gestation and infancy.

But certainly the dynamics of MBTI don’t stop there. Jung himself was very clear that people who don’t start to develop beyond their primary and secondary functions by mid-life are going to suffer significant psychological problems. He didn’t see this as developing other functions from nothing - they are in an undifferentiated or partially differentiated darkness in our unconscious to start off with, but they are all there. The path to psychic wholeness involves bringing them out into greater and greater consciousness - and with them other aspects of our shadows.

He saw this as a lifetime of growth and development, and that we become stunted if we don’t do this, at least to some extent.

I think that we cannot replace our primary functions easily though, no matter how well we develop any of the others. I’ve spent a lifetime using Ti extensively but I’m not as good at it as the native born - in the sense that it often passes outside my conscious control, and it drains me in a way that Ni certainly doesn’t.

What can definitely happen is that some folks are forced away from their native dominant function. An INFJ can become INTP/J-like in a research organisation for example. An INFJ child will not develop Ni very well in a predominantly xSTx family. I think some apparent changes in type in older folks comes from people who were forced away from their primary functions in childhood then claim them as adults, and this can look like a type change.
 
Last edited:
John K said:
Everybody has all the functions
Click to expand...
John K said:
The path to psychic wholeness involves bringing them out into greater and greater consciousness - and with them other aspects of our shadows.
Click to expand...

I wish more people understood this
I think more than anything we are born with a default Primary and Secondary function, they are linked
Sometimes they get oppressed or damaged or pushed out for survival temporarily perhaps
The only way they are genuinely changing is either through a lifetime or significant trauma
And in both those circumstances you are maybe just losing your natural self

The point is to bring the unconscious to the conscious
This doesn't mean getting "better" at one over another
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top