Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Explaining intuition

  1. #1
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Explaining intuition

    What is intuition, after all?

    Intuition is a simple thing which is very difficult to explain, specially to sensors, but I'll try to do my best. See the next photo:



    There are two glasses on it, one is inside the big bottle. Why is it harder to spot? Well, as the big bottle is filled with water, the glass inside of it blends with the surroundings more than the glass on the right. We can observe the big bottle just as well as we can see the glass over the table, but the uniformity inside of it makes it more difficult to distinguish what's actually inside.

    The universe is just a big, uniform place and it's impossible to tell where one object ends and the next one starts because, in fact, the whole concept of having separate objects is artificial. In order to understand the universe as a separate set of objects we need to introduce the concept of contrast. We don't really observe objects, we observe the boundaries between them. Through evolution we developed a set of arbitrary contrasting scales to allow us to perceive those abstract objects and that's what we call our senses. Smell, flavor, tone, color... those are nothing but inventions of our mind, an internal and abstract representation of the external world.

    Natural senses are limited to the perception of their specialized field. Vision, for example, requires light and is useless in its absence. Just imagine what happens with those things in the universe that none of our senses can perceive, like radio waves. They exist, despite that we can sense them or not. If we use a radio to turn such signals into sound, we are still not perceiving radio signals, just making such information friendly to our senses. We can only be aware of the existence of such things by our most powerful sense, intuition, which is the natural evolution of all others.

    Why is intuition more powerful than our other senses? Well, it's because intuition creates contrast for us from any source. It can be from external perceptions through our other senses to abstract ideas and concepts. A good example is to realize that, to our natural senses, the world is flat. Only through intuition we can realize how the world really is, because intuition can take an idea and make an internal representation of such concept. It is extremely important to understand that everything in our mind is just a representation of what is outside, so there is no difference between what we perceive and what we imagine.

    Intuition also allows a person to exercise the most important property of humans: the sense of time. Since we can create our internal representations without having to wait for real stimulus from perception, we can simulate situations in the future or re-create those of the past.

    So don't be fooled by socionics. There are no sensors and intuitives, only "low intuitives" and "high intuitives".
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, the sensors are all inferior to the vastly superior Intuitor Army.

  3. #3
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for introducing us to MBTI...

    There are so many logical inconsistencies in your argument that really, I don't know where to begin.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We don't really observe objects, we observe the boundaries between them.
    This is true for me (I detect the blur zone at object borders), but not necessarily for everyone.

    How about you, FDG? Do you infer the existence of objects by border blurs or... is there something more "automatic", as though you just "know" they are there?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When I was little I would look at objects closely, trying to see the black line that surrounds them.
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  6. #6
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  7. #7
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    when my mom was into a weird parascience stage when I was a little kid she taught me how to see auras. I can still see them (although I won't go as far to say that they're real)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    222
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just plain don't notice things.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    994
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eventually I realised that objects don't have outlines, like they do in cartoons... it's just some people find it easier to draw them when they have give them outlines. (That was my conclusion at that age)
    INTP/ILI(Ni) /5w4

    "When my time comes, forget the wrong that I've done.
    Help me leave behind some reasons to be missed."

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSpin
    When I was little I would look at objects closely, trying to see the black line that surrounds them.
    Wow, that's something I've never thought about. I just love the way you wrote that sentence. Something about it just sounds like it's deeper than I can understand.

    This is the stuff that almost gives me chills...the fact that we all feel like there is a black line, and draw a line around object in art class, but there is no line. It's so strange.
    Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)

  11. #11
    Creepy-male

    Default

    I think the idea that was developed here was very insightful, but I am afraid its not very applicable to the study of socionics and pratical profiling.

    I've have thought about what you said alot but failed to be able to put it into words. To me I've always figured the senses where developed by a natural understanding of the patterns of perception around us. Colors for example are our subjective way of understanding the difference in energy of things. Have you ever stopped to think that the color red may look different to you than your friend, however you both understand what it is only by the common word red? Have you ever stopped to think that what you see or experience as red isn't really real, but just a sensation that really has no "color" but just a sensation you experience. I dunno its really confusing and I think the way people developed their senses was being able to pick up on the sensations via intuitive methods, and that while I am not betting on it, its very possible their are several other sensations we don't allow ourselves to experience. However I am in no rush to throw my common senses off.

    Sound is an example of the evolution of sensation -- first people could only discriminate very basic things like loud versus soft, now people can understand speech and music, some people can sense emotion in speech, some people can sense pitch automatically perfect from music, some people can sense textures of sounds, and then whats up with synasthetia?? some people relate colors to sounds -- I think this further supports the idea.

    In Socionics though this is like , and what jung called Introverted Sensation.
    In Jung intuition is solely the mind's eye and not connected anyway to the outside world, its imagination, conception etc.

    Now while my intuition tells me there is a connection between outside and inside, I am very confused on exactly how this works, so for now I just assume them different for practicality.

  12. #12
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,630
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @CS, where did you find that comment by Ganin? It's hard to describe my reaction to it.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On his site socionics.com there is a forum with a thread about Chris Langan started by SG himself.
    You have to register to be able to view the forum, but it is still there.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  14. #14
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    On his site socionics.com there is a forum with a thread about Chris Langan started by SG himself.
    You have to register to be able to view the forum, but it is still there.
    Interesting. What was his conclusion on Langan's type?

  15. #15
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,630
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    On his site socionics.com there is a forum with a thread about Chris Langan started by SG himself.
    You have to register to be able to view the forum, but it is still there.
    Interesting. What was his conclusion on Langan's type?
    Quote Originally Posted by SG
    Epic, you could be right about ISFp, but I personally think ESFp because of my own experience with this type. This guy is full of ESFp crap, the things he says, but he is smart. Also he is life smart. Ok, he might have exaggerated few things about his past to make it more dramatic, but I believe that he's experienced the situations at their worse. And because he does not work at the desk in some multi-million corporation, his philosophy is more of a street philosophy.

    I think he is right, and his intelligence come from the size of his head. I've noticed this correlation too, not among mammals with bigger heads, but among the people. The thing is, he was gifted with a big head regardless of his type. I reckon if he was some T type from a wealthy family, he could have been a famous scientist or something. But since his intelligence has direct relation with his HA/PoLR, this screws things up a bit.

    When I try to understand what it feels like to be another type in a certain situation, I imagine myself in a situation that would affect my type in a similar way (now I'm giving away my secrets ) So, he feels pretty confident about his intellectual abilities, not because he worked hard for it, but because he gets this mental capacity naturally. So the place where he would normally feel unconfident becomes the place of confidence.

    Want to imagine what it feels like, Epic? Imagine, you are the most prettiest guy in the whole world and all the women in the world want to have your babies. And it absolutely doesn't matter what you do, you still look most attractive to them. Would you proclaim yourself the god's gift? Would you be frightened to challenge any man to a beauty contest? Or imagine me, having a virtually indestructible body. I can kinda understand what it feels like.

    The downside of high intelligence is that it could make people miserable and unhappy about themselves and the world (maybe that's why they all want to take it over? ). He hasn't said anything like that, but I bet he probably suffers from some form of depression.

    All in all it is an interesting case. I've met few very intelligent ESFps myself, so it is not all that surprising. I think the reason he works as a bouncer (of course it was bullshit when he said he didn't choose to be a bouncer), his job is intellectually undemanding, so that he could get on with contemplating his own thoughts while at it. Big size brain like that is like a big size muscle that needs constant exercise. (I might even add him to Types and Celebrities)

    Well, what are your thoughts on this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Epic
    I watched those movies some time ago and from what I recall he used alot of facial expressions and eye-squints in order to add dramatic flare to himself(i thought it was silly and obvious). The reason that I initially believed him to be ISFp was because I have seen ISFps do this. He also looks similar to an ISFp that I know. But his behavior is considerably more extraverted and forceful, so I may lean more towards ESFp, now that you mentioned it.

    I have my reservations about this head size issue. There is no doubt that you can measure alot about a person on various physical dimensions, but focusing too specifically on any one dimension may make you lose sight of the whole picture. Lets say you have a very tall, well educated and virile man. His body makes him more practical and results oriented. He can pound his way through anyone and anywhere and women love this. He is confident by default, also, his head is bigger by default. In day-to-day life these men may be seen as more intelligent than most people and I'll bet if you gave many of them IQ tests they would score higher than average. They have their act together, they have no worries and they bring that with them wherever they go. I can imagine this sort of person messing up the results of IQ-head circumference studies.

    But I have read about studies which have noted a correlation between head circumference and intelligence. It is, however, my own experience with people which leads me to believe that this shouldn't be taken so seriously. I highly doubt that head circumference caused the results(unless they had otherwise identical physical dimensions). Also, i doubt it was as linear a relationship as they claim.

    From my current understanding of the brain I myself believe that the brain tends to be sized in proportion to the body and operates as an integrated whole with the body. If the brain is not proportioned to the body excess energy or a lack of energy may cause serious problems for a person. If you study the anatomy of the brain you will find that most of it involves integrating sensations, it isn't just a simple mass of tissue. So basically, the brain does what it has to do. So long as all of the structures, or "functions" are present then the person, with the right experiences and the right balance of physical characteristics, may be capable of genius. I am tempted to imagine the stereotypical image of some tiny Kantian fellow with a gigantic head, too big for his body, writing some groundbreaking philosophical work, but I'd guess in reality his head and those of many great geniuses were just about normal. As much as Einstein is overplayed, it is said his brain was smaller and lighter than average, but had an unusual structure.

    But then again, I only have a normal-sized head. If I had a bigger head I might be arguing from the other side right now.

    I do believe you can tell alot about a person by the shape of their head and their face. The face, to me, is the ultimate gateway into the psyche. For example, I have noticed INTjs tend to have disproportinately wide foreheads and more squarish features, and ENTps tend to have more narrow and stretched facial feartures with somewhat long foreheads. To mention a couple.

    But your thoughts were all very interesting, SG. If I were a beautiful man I very well might feel that way about myself. But I also would if I scored highest in the world on an IQ test or were an unstoppable juggernaut, so am I am not sure if his egotism is necessarily type related.

    To me, Langan is just a statistical abnormality. For some reason he scores high on IQ tests but he is otherwise a very limited person. If he were so brilliant his ideas, I would imagine, would be much more valuable to society. Instead they are just observations and little charts and diagrams. Maybe impressive for an 130 IQ(if this means anything at all) but not the world's highest IQ. I think he is full of it("it" being Bull-shit).

    But I think that your statement "Big size brain like that is like a big size muscle that needs constant exercise" pretty much sums up what we are talking about.

    To add: I don't want to downplay your point about the power that an inherent fulfillment of the hidden agenda can have over a person. It might be interesting to explore that thought more deeply. I may be infected by socionics when I say this, but if I had to choose between being a beautiful man that all of the women love, an unstoppable juggernaut(or whatever you mentioned) or some sort of a high IQ'd know-it-all, I'd probably choose to be a beautiful man(cause all the women would love me).
    http://socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357

  16. #16
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, not much on Langan himself there... Thanks.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .... sergei ganin...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •