Why is intuition not prized in academia?

[muir]

I think MOST people don't.

That's the funny thing about learning....the more you learn, the more areas you find out about that you know nothing about

So then having found out those new areas and having set about trying to learn about them you then find more areas you know nothing about...and so it goes on

The more you try to overcome your own ignorance the more it engulfs you

Its all part of the cosmic joke

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
― Isaac Newton

 

[Cornerstone]

I believe that what we like to call an intuition is merely a subconscious interpretation of external information that we receive through all of our senses.

I've heard it described as getting an impression of what is contained within the shadow (unconscious) of a person.

Apparently it doesn't extend to societies.

 

[Solongo]

I think it's because academia is about collaborative work with shared knowledge. That means that the ability to keep everyone on the same page with each other is valued. It's not that intuition in itself is not valued, but without any means to express or use what is gleaned from it effectively then it's just... intuition.

Do you think academics does not know how to follow their intuition when it reveals important information that was derived from their subconscious?

 

[Solongo]

This is what i am talking about with innovators and repeaters

Once a person has innovated something the repeaters come in and repeat it

Repeaters can be VERY GOOD at repeating things

our education system is geared towards creating repeaters who repeat their training without questioning

Centralised command and control economies/systems like ours DO NOT LIKE innovative thought because it is a threat to the status quo

This is why many innovators are not recognised or given the credit they deserve in their lifetimes and many are suppressed or even destroyed by the system

Repeaters can repeat things very well and feel a deep sense of pride in repeating things well and they are often threatened by more mercurial people because they are unpredictable and cannot be measured and monitored so easily...they are an unknown and repeaters like predictability

The problem comes when in their competency at repeating repeaters forget that progress is dependent on visionaries...on those that make the leaps of imagination

Our system has been set up to reward repeaters and to suppress visionaries (unless they serve the system)

This is interesting. The repeaters are usually those who are interested in "success". The idea that following the same steps taken by someone to reach a certain level of "reputation" or level of monetary "success" is what gets defined nowadays. You see it everywhere; in businesses and schools and everyone is on the hunt for the "success" ladder.

Only to find that what makes someone successful cannot be repeated. Even if one thinks they succeeded in repeating someone else's life pattern the meaning will not hold for this person. Hence you have so called gurus and teachers all touting to share their secret knowledge that will enhance a person's level of success. The definition of success nowadays is about following a predetermined path of someone else and it is completely bonkers.

The true visionaries are being led by their inner intuition and soul guidance to serve the world as a whole. This path is highly personal and cannot be copied. Along this journey a person will define their own sense of success and feel content to walk their own path.

The hardest challenge for anyone is to learn to find their own path and define themselves through their own life experience and observation. Not to mention this gives tremendous amount of freedom to the soul.

 

[ThomasJ79]

Proving insights is a tough job and is not cost effective. Much of academia is a reflection of the utilitarian mindset.

 

[muir]

This is interesting. The repeaters are usually those who are interested in "success". The idea that following the same steps taken by someone to reach a certain level of "reputation" or level of monetary "success" is what gets defined nowadays. You see it everywhere; in businesses and schools and everyone is on the hunt for the "success" ladder.

Only to find that what makes someone successful cannot be repeated. Even if one thinks they succeeded in repeating someone else's life pattern the meaning will not hold for this person. Hence you have so called gurus and teachers all touting to share their secret knowledge that will enhance a person's level of success. The definition of success nowadays is about following a predetermined path of someone else and it is completely bonkers.

The true visionaries are being led by their inner intuition and soul guidance to serve the world as a whole. This path is highly personal and cannot be copied. Along this journey a person will define their own sense of success and feel content to walk their own path.

The hardest challenge for anyone is to learn to find their own path and define themselves through their own life experience and observation. Not to mention this gives tremendous amount of freedom to the soul.

Beautifully put! I absolutely agree

But because some people are locked in left brain thinking they cannot understand what you are talking about when you discuss intangibles. So the task is to awaken the right hemisphere

 

[barbad0s]

Do you think academics does not know how to follow their intuition when it reveals important information that was derived from their subconscious?

Who is "academics" in this case? Academia the system no, because it doesn't work like that. Individual academic people perhaps, if they know how to and want to.

 

[xAurora]

I don't know about the why, but sure, it operates only within the paradigm of scientism, going so far as to praise it as the only "correct" paradigm, when its not necessarily, its just another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

It teaches them one way to think, and claims all other ways are inferior. There is no proof that the other ways are inferior, only the claim by scientism that they are inferior.

 

[the]

To build on what I said before, I don't think pure sensing is useful either - or pure any function. I think you need to be pretty well rounded to be able to reach all the people in your specific class and to be able to show why your discovery is valid. In. The second case I don't think it matters how you got there the first time, as long as you can show an accepted process in how you got there and it can be replicated by others.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Intuition is fine in academics. One of my neuroscience mentors once told me that intuition, the melding of patterns, is the spark with which all great discoveries are made. One simply must be able to verify that their intuitions are represented in reality. There's certainly dogmatism in academia, especially within the extremist positions held in various sciences (academic psychology is full of them, sadly), but I believe that's more a function of incomplete data pitted against individual personalities and worldviews than of the academic process itself.

 

[slant]

I've always been miffed by the fact that academics (I am one too) in general don't seem to prize intuition. I am in a Social Science field and I dislike the fact that everytime I make a claim, almost all academics will ask "how do you know"? The worst part is that they will continue asking how do I know when I have gotten the right answer. Obviously I need to have knowledge to answer a question, but when I did in fact get the right answer, why are you trying to make me seem irrational and un-scientific?

To be honest with you it's my opinion that intuition is highly coveted in Academia and it's actually one of the ONLY areas in this SJ world where N's can feel more themselves and can express abstract ideas and theories that make S's truly uncomfortable. What you're experiencing is a different between NT and NF. NF likes to draw conclusions based on "feelings" and things that they "just know" and this can be incredibly frustrating for NT's who, while they are intuitive, they also balance their intuition by coming up with facts and data that support their findings. For an NT it's important to be able to explain why you know something, even if you got a little help along the way. Frequently, actually, SJ's DON'T want an explanation, they are "this is the way it is so just deal with it" types, whereas academia, in most fields besides perhaps mathematics, the "Why" is actually incredibly important.

 

[iHeartCats]

I've always been miffed by the fact that academics (I am one too) in general don't seem to prize intuition. I am in a Social Science field and I dislike the fact that everytime I make a claim, almost all academics will ask "how do you know"? The worst part is that they will continue asking how do I know when I have gotten the right answer. Obviously I need to have knowledge to answer a question, but when I did in fact get the right answer, why are you trying to make me seem irrational and un-scientific?

I believe that you have answered your question yourself.

Intuition is not prized because, as accurate it might be, it is irrational and un-scientific.
No matter how right you might be about something (based on your intuition), people usually won't give you credit for your intuition unless you can explain to them (in a way that they get it) how exactly you reached that correct conclusion.
If they can't understand the process that has led you to the correct conclusion, they usually won't validate the process, and subsequently, they won't validate your conclusion either.

 

[say what]

I think intuition is valued and enacted on a lot in academia- it might not be showcased or praised as much as relying on fact and universal truths, but that's just because intuition can't be measured, replicated, or experienced between individuals.

I think many great discoveries and advances are the result of an individual acting and listening to their intuition.

From a teaching perspective, you have to remember that it's not teachable or learnable...thus it's difficult to encourage and build in students.

 

[muir]

Statue of a pine cone flanked by peacocks in the vatican

The pine cone represents the pineal gland known as the 'seat of the soul' because of its role in allowing access to other realms of consciousness and spiritual faculties such as intuition

The peacocks on either side are a symbol of initiation but here they represent the two hemispheres of the brain

The balancing of the two hemispheres allows a person to reach their full potential and activate higher circuits in the brain; this has always been the goal of the mystery schools

The modern field of academia is about over activating the left brain whislt suppressing the right brain; this keeps people lacking the full inutitive insight to realsie how out of whack their society is or how spiritually berfet it has become

Instead they end up feeling malaise, ennui, uneasyness, anxiety and a host of other manifestations of an imbalanced mind

 

[Quiet]

intuition is prized in academia and in the real world

often intuition, creativity, and critical thinking are interconnected

knowing and understanding how someone has reached a conclusion is valuable, and can effect/affect the validity of the data. Ideally, the acadamic process is based on building on shared dialogue and understanding. Otherwise it would be corruptible and tyrannical. Which it is sometimes/often anyway.

Also, there is a difference between intuition and making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, shoddy thinking, and seeing only what you want to see. it takes some self awareness to know...and even then...its important to value 'truth' rather than being 'right'. Its possible to read data in many ways...many scientific studies make my head spin...i rarely think that a study is conducted and evaluated in a 'clean' way. Bias stains. Interpetations and conclusions are simply interpretations and conclusions. Its especially hard when a subject is particulay important to someone, or there is a lot invested in it.

i dont like to share intuitions until they have been heavily analysed....and i dont expect people to swallow what i say because i 'saw' it. I respect that people questions things and like to think for themselves. We need more of that, not less.

 

[the]

Why would an infj value academia anyways? To stifling.

 

[Majesty]

I know right!!
This was my doctoral thesis:

Study on science etc
There's more life out there![SUP]1

1 [/SUP]I just know. BELIEVE ME, THERE'S "N" IN MY MBTI TYPE OKAY.

Those sensors wouldn't believe though. Bunch of idiots.

But its not true that intuition isnt valued. It's just not prized in the somewhat ridiculous (sorry) way you are proposing in the OP, but in a more indirect way. It's more about having the right intuition about how to prove that you're right than actually having the right intuition (which really means nothing in the end if you can't prove it).