Advanced Sensation vs Primitive Intuition

[Raver]

I just want to say that before anyone reads this theory, I am not saying intuition is better than sensation or vice versa. I am merely saying that they are different and nothing more or less.

One could make the judgement that sensation has been around a lot longer when we look back to our ancestors than intuition. That intuition emerged later on in our evolution, but was a lot more raw and primitive. By this time, sensation was already highly developed and complex. Intuition is probably an experiment by nature, a mutation if anything and a big gamble.

It is no mystery, that sensors outnumber intuitives and have been able to pass on their genes much easier than them because of their distinct advantages. It all averages out to about the same in the end, our brain can only handle a primitive form of intuition or a highly complex form of sensation. Any comments on this theory?

[Raver]

All of this is wrong.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis.

[woofwoofl]

What the butts? I'm around Intuitives all the time! I'm pretty much buried up to my neck in EIEs as of late... all in all though, I think it's a pretty even split...

Intuition is just the other side of sensing, I think; even something as mystical sounding as can reveal itself in as workaday terms as "I know where this is going...", and I see no reason for this type of perception to be separate from and all that is gathered from it, it's just a matter of which side of the axis gets paid more mind (same with all functional axes - the Te-ILIs Timmy and nanashi here have a totally great way with the )...

[Marie84]

It's entirely possible that we evolve certain traits out of necessity over time, so your theory could work. Sensory strengths could have been our primary prized instinctive tool for primitive survival and intuition developed over time to expand on the means of survival. Or maybe both existed equally but took time to work as one through the development of packs and later tribes, in that sense if both existed as they do now the sensory strong would see the intuitiveness as a tool for contributing expansion, bettering their own chances of survival, thus sensory strong develops an instinctive need to protect them...?
In general I would think all IE's likely developed through being effective tools for our survival or they wouldn't have latched themselves into our genetics/environment for this long, but when or how they developed is a mystery...

[FDG]

But...but...Traveler...

1/ human experience is more similar than not about 99% of what we do - regardless of S/N divide.
2/ evolution doesn't really work like that - it doesn't constantly refine a given quality in order to make it better. As long as a given trait lets the animal live up to reproduction time, it will be carried on no matter how good or bad it may be in a "human" sense. So...as much as our eyes aren't more "advanced" than the eyes of a homo sapiens of 100'000 years ago, sensation or intuition aren't more "advanced" or "primitive" either - we'd need a completely different concept of "man" in order to have a general advancement in a broad sphere of our cognitive functions. BTW there is no proof that sensation came "before" than intuition. Who knows if monkeys don't have their own version of S-N?

[Raver]

What the butts? I'm around Intuitives all the time! I'm pretty much buried up to my neck in EIEs as of late... all in all though, I think it's a pretty even split...

Intuition is just the other side of sensing, I think; even something as mystical sounding as can reveal itself in as workaday terms as "I know where this is going...", and I see no reason for this type of perception to be separate from and all that is gathered from it, it's just a matter of which side of the axis gets paid more mind (same with all functional axes - the Te-ILIs Timmy and nanashi here have a totally great way with the )...

Intuition being the other side of sensing makes sense and is likely possible.

It's entirely possible that we evolve certain traits out of necessity over time, so your theory could work. Sensory strengths could have been our primary prized instinctive tool for primitive survival and intuition developed over time to expand on the means of survival. Or maybe both existed equally but took time to work as one through the development of packs and later tribes, in that sense if both existed as they do now the sensory strong would see the intuitiveness as a tool for contributing expansion, bettering their own chances of survival, thus sensory strong develops an instinctive need to protect them...?
In general I would think all IE's likely developed through being effective tools for our survival or they wouldn't have latched themselves into our genetics/environment for this long, but when or how they developed is a mystery...

Good analysis, I like your idea as intuition being a tool for contributing expansion to increase our chances of survival, while sensation remains as a way to protects those ideas. You're right, that in the end, it is very difficult to determine at what time each developed.

But...but...Traveler...

1/ human experience is more similar than not about 99% of what we do - regardless of S/N divide.
2/ evolution doesn't really work like that - it doesn't constantly refine a given quality in order to make it better. As long as a given trait lets the animal live up to reproduction time, it will be carried on no matter how good or bad it may be in a "human" sense. So...as much as our eyes aren't more "advanced" than the eyes of a homo sapiens of 100'000 years ago, sensation or intuition aren't more "advanced" or "primitive" either - we'd need a completely different concept of "man" in order to have a general advancement in a broad sphere of our cognitive functions. BTW there is no proof that sensation came "before" than intuition. Who knows if monkeys don't have their own version of S-N?

1. 99% of what we do? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? Even though a lot of what we do is driven by aspects of ourselves that are not influenced solely by our personality.

2. I agree, that the traits we have today as humans exist solely because they managed to be carried on via reproduction. I guess you could look at sensation and intuition as different sides of the same coin and you can apply that aspect to I/E, F/T and P/J. It is very difficult to prove if sensation came before intuition in our species. However, I think it can be proven if you look at the history of life itself.

[krieger]

it's the other way around. S is primitive, N is advanced.

[GuavaDrunk]

(...)
2. I agree, that the traits we have today as humans exist solely because they managed to be carried on via reproduction. I guess you could look at sensation and intuition as different sides of the same coin and you can apply that aspect to I/E, F/T and P/J. It is very difficult to prove if sensation came before intuition in our species. However, I think it can be proven if you look at the history of life itself.

Sorry to re-hash but it's a common misconception. Evolution will not change/improve a trait if its current performance does not disadvantage individuals. It requires outside pressure to make up something new. You could assume a mutant version of things spread, but that would be quite the lucky trick.

Dichotomies could have come about from only certain types of neural wiring being viable/efficient enough.

You could assume Intuition came about to deal with more abstract problems, but... Actually, have you heard of persistence hunting? One example is running down antilopes in the Kalahari desert. A description of the practice (in a running book's book) mentions that the combination of moving at high speeds and monitoring the ground to track the animal induced a trance-like state of non-thinking awareness and strong empathy with the animal (better deducing how it would have reacted at points.)

The above could have enhanced strong Sensing. Not sure what to think.

What parts of life's history would you use? Our knowledge of it is pretty incomplete.

[leckysupport]

[rat1]

When you havent defined intuition well enough to judge whether primates have some form of it the whole speculation is useless

[GuavaDrunk]

Gah, I wanna do that.

You know where to emigrate. I hear the Kalahari is nice this time of year.

[MisterNi]

it's the other way around. S is primitive, N is advanced.

Yeah, but with varying levels of development/expediency of use for either. I think that might be what the OP is trying to get at.

[Raver]

(...)
2. I agree, that the traits we have today as humans exist solely because they managed to be carried on via reproduction. I guess you could look at sensation and intuition as different sides of the same coin and you can apply that aspect to I/E, F/T and P/J. It is very difficult to prove if sensation came before intuition in our species. However, I think it can be proven if you look at the history of life itself.

Sorry to re-hash but it's a common misconception. Evolution will not change/improve a trait if its current performance does not disadvantage individuals. It requires outside pressure to make up something new. You could assume a mutant version of things spread, but that would be quite the lucky trick.

Dichotomies could have come about from only certain types of neural wiring being viable/efficient enough.

You could assume Intuition came about to deal with more abstract problems, but... Actually, have you heard of persistence hunting? One example is running down antilopes in the Kalahari desert. A description of the practice (in a running book's book) mentions that the combination of moving at high speeds and monitoring the ground to track the animal induced a trance-like state of non-thinking awareness and strong empathy with the animal (better deducing how it would have reacted at points.)

The above could have enhanced strong Sensing. Not sure what to think.

What parts of life's history would you use? Our knowledge of it is pretty incomplete.

Excellent points Guava. Persistence hunting sounds pretty interesting. You'd probably have to go back to some time in our mammalian history to discover when intuition evolved, I doubt it came earlier than that, but I could be wrong.

[Galen]

One could make the judgement that sensation has been around a lot longer when we look back to our ancestors than intuition. That intuition emerged later on in our evolution, but was a lot more raw and primitive. By this time, sensation was already highly developed and complex. Intuition is probably an experiment by nature, a mutation if anything and a big gamble.

This doesn't really match up to what intuition means in a Socionics/Jungian/MBTI context. If you see S and N IEs as being two parts of the same whole, just having S IEs for the longest time would be a completely unbalanced perception of the world: either content without context or vice versa.

It is no mystery, that sensors outnumber intuitives and have been able to pass on their genes much easier than them because of their distinct advantages.

How and why?

It all averages out to about the same in the end, our brain can only handle a primitive form of intuition or a highly complex form of sensation. Any comments on this theory?

It seems like you're confusing Socionics intuition with the more common definition, the latter of which is probably more related to progresses in evolution (I'm trying to find the story/article I had in mind to support this, but can't find it atm. In the meantime have this: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2011-10210-007).

[FDG]

1. 99% of what we do? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? Even though a lot of what we do is driven by aspects of ourselves that are not influenced solely by our personality.

Breath, eat, walk, use our eyes in exactly the same way (which is how it's so easy for us to share an experience, as opposed to trying to do the same with another animal), use the same tools, etc. etc.

You could assume Intuition came about to deal with more abstract problems, but... Actually, have you heard of Persistence_hunting ? One example is running down antilopes in the Kalahari desert. A description of the practice (in Bernd_Heinrich 's book) mentions that the combination of moving at high speeds and monitoring the ground to track the animal induced a trance-like state of non-thinking awareness and strong empathy with the animal (better deducing how it would have reacted at points.)

Daymn, that's great. It's probably similar to how you can feel when you're trying to reach an opponent during a cycling race (especially uphill or downhill), or during a one-on-one basketball match.

[Raver]

This doesn't really match up to what intuition means in a Socionics/Jungian/MBTI context. If you see S and N IEs as being two parts of the same whole, just having S IEs for the longest time would be a completely unbalanced perception of the world: either content without context or vice versa.

I think the main problem with this theory is that it throws intertype relations and quadras out the window.

How and why?

Well, if you look at it statistically, sensors outnumber intuitives, it's really that simple. Sensors would stereotypically integrate into society better socially and work wise.

It seems like you're confusing Socionics intuition with the more common definition, the latter of which is probably more related to progresses in evolution (I'm trying to find the story/article I had in mind to support this, but can't find it atm. In the meantime have this: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=...2011-10210-007).

Yeah, you can't say Socionics intuition and the standard of intuition are exactly the same, but if anything I'd say Socionics intuition is at least a form of standard intuition at the very least.

[Galen]

I think the main problem with this theory is that it throws intertype relations and quadras out the window.

How's that? I don't see the two as particularly incompatible at all.

When I say S/N IEs, I really mean the corresponding pairs of S/N IEs related by quadra. Basically what I'm trying to say is Se is the other side of the Ni coin, and same for Ne/Si.

Well, if you look at it statistically, sensors outnumber intuitives, it's really that simple. Sensors would stereotypically integrate into society better socially and work wise.

What statistics? I've seen a tremendous book of MBTI statistics, but MBTI != socionics, and from what I've seen MBTI tests seem to have a bias for where N = more intelligent.

Yeah, you can't say Socionics intuition and the standard of intuition are exactly the same, but if anything I'd say Socionics intuition is at least a form of standard intuition at the very least.

By my understanding of the the N functions, neither of them are really associated with intuition as defined by Webster. I'll explain what I mean later, maybe lol.

[Raver]

Breath, eat, walk, use our eyes in exactly the same way (which is how it's so easy for us to share an experience, as opposed to trying to do the same with another animal), use the same tools, etc. etc.

Point taken.

How's that? I don't see the two as particularly incompatible at all.

I should of worded that differently, I was actually agreeing with you. I was saying that if what I say was true and there was only sensors at one point in history and no intuitives, then it would totally destroy inter-type relations and quadras.

When I say S/N IEs, I really mean the corresponding pairs of S/N IEs related by quadra. Basically what I'm trying to say is Se is the other side of the Ni coin, and same for Ne/Si.

This is a distinct possibility.

What statistics? I've seen a tremendous book of MBTI statistics, but MBTI != socionics, and from what I've seen MBTI tests seem to have a bias for where N = more intelligent.

I've done a Socionics survey before and there were more sensors in the survey, but there were more extraverts than introverts as well.

By my understanding of the the N functions, neither of them are really associated with intuition as defined by Webster. I'll explain what I mean later, maybe lol.

I see what you're saying, but I'm talking about Socionics intuition though, not really the standard definition of intuition, which is a different can of worms.

[tcaudilllg]

Traveler is back again. Oh well, so long as he doesn't break anything....

[Raver]

Traveler is back again. Oh well, so long as he doesn't break anything....

Somebody has animosity towards me...