Intuition and the Ego

[Skepsis]

What makes people identify as intuitives? How does intuition compare and contrast with general intelligence? Can one be abstract, imaginative, and capable of understanding theory, and not be intuitive? Is calling oneself "intuitive" just an egocentric, or narcissistic, conception of the self? What is it?

[niffer]

Your self image or what you want to be doesn't make your sociotype. So egocentrism/narcissism isn't supposed to have any correlation with intuition. See: Donald Trump, etc.

"Can one be abstract, imaginative, and capable of understanding theory, and not be intuitive?" Yes. Although, there's probably some correlation between the two.

"How does intuition compare and contrast with general intelligence?" There are a lot of conflicting studies out there on the topic. You can go on google scholar and look up intuition and intelligence.

[Skepsis]

Your self image or what you want to be doesn't make your sociotype. So egocentrism/narcissism isn't supposed to have any correlation with intuition. See: Donald Trump, etc.

"Can one be abstract, imaginative, and capable of understanding theory, and not be intuitive?" Yes. Although, there's probably some correlation between the two.

"How does intuition compare and contrast with general intelligence?" There are a lot of conflicting studies out there on the topic. You can go on google scholar and look up intuition and intelligence.

I know there is some correlation between intuition as defined by MBTI and Openness to Experience Factor by the Big Five. Both seem correlated to intelligence. However, I wonder if being capable of producing ideas and concepts is the same as having intuition, or if intuition is the same in this regards but is understood within particular philosophical belief,tradition, or perspective. As a choice of self descriptors, one could say, "I am good at coming up with ideas and concepts. I am abstract. I don't know where it comes from" as opposed to "I make incredibly insightful connections and can predict much based on them. My intuition is very strong". Would both be considered intuitive within MBTI and/or Socionics? Would one be more egocentric than the other?

[Chae]

I typed as intuitive simply because I prefer concept over immediacy. Nothing inherently bad about either of these.

Example: I can look at a sword in a museum and improvise a general talk about humans and violence, and how it plays out in history. A sensing type would describe the intricacies and visible power of the sword itself right before your eyes. Both views are valid and appropriate - what you are saying is that there is an advantage that favors the intuitive! Obviously, such prejudice requires perspective: Function interplay is important. No intuition without sensing, they are intertwined working basically like a scale. Intelligence is beyond that, i.e. describing how people solve problems rather than how cleverly abstract they are.

Concerning the third question: You can always use logics to compensate for this. You don't have to imagine yourself, but can recite it (Te) or extract a link to something else (Ti). Theory is logical either way, intuition does not apply - the latter just sums things up in events and opportunities.

Intuitive as described by common sense differs from socionics intuition - that bias shouldn't transfer.

[Skepsis]

Your self image or what you want to be doesn't make your sociotype.

Is the Ego in socionics,which includes the base and creative functions, not concerned with self image? Here is an excerpt from Model A Ego Block http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...l_A#Ego_Block:

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others.
The Ego block comprises a point of accurate self-assessment and demands social recognition that is adequate to its abilities. The activities of the functions of this block are socially direced - people easily share their experience and lend help to others from their Ego block. The functions in this block rarely "get tired", thus a person can fill in most of their free time by activities pertaining to the functions of this block. Often people pick their primary sphere of activity and occupation basing on the functions of the Ego block.

The Ego block is a significant part of sociotype.

[niffer]

I know there is some correlation between intuition as defined by MBTI and Openness to Experience Factor by the Big Five. Both seem correlated to intelligence.

Where did you get this from?

However, I wonder if being capable of producing ideas and concepts is the same as having intuition, or if intuition is the same in this regards but is understood within particular philosophical belief,tradition, or perspective. As a choice of self descriptors, one could say, "I am good at coming up with ideas and concepts. I am abstract. I don't know where it comes from" as opposed to "I make incredibly insightful connections and can predict much based on them. My intuition is very strong". Would both be considered intuitive within MBTI and/or Socionics? Would one be more egocentric than the other?

They would both be considered intuitive in both MBTI and Socionics. Neither of them have to be egocentric; they could simply be accurate assessments somebody is making of themselves. It also depends on what you value (in a non socionics sense).

FTR I still almost always test as an intuitive type whenever I take MBTI or Socionics tests. Out of the countless many dozens of different typology tests I've taken throughout my life I can count the times I've scored as a sensing type with one hand. It may have something to do with my Ni seeking, which I just choose to engage a lot for whatever reason, so I often choose the "yes I like theory/concepts/daydreaming" responses on them.

[niffer]

Is the Ego in socionics,which includes the base and creative functions, not concerned with self image? Here is an excerpt from Model A Ego Block http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...l_A#Ego_Block:

The Ego block is a socially demonstrative, creative block that forms the core of the TIM and is usually associated with an individual's ego - their inner "I". This is an area of conscious competence and individualism, as well as conscious and active observation and influence on the world. A person is usually the most confident, informed, and energetically active on their Ego block functions. On this block, we rarely experience feelings of remorse, doubt, and shame; neither does this block shift responsibilities or blame onto others.
The Ego block comprises a point of accurate self-assessment and demands social recognition that is adequate to its abilities. The activities of the functions of this block are socially direced - people easily share their experience and lend help to others from their Ego block. The functions in this block rarely "get tired", thus a person can fill in most of their free time by activities pertaining to the functions of this block. Often people pick their primary sphere of activity and occupation basing on the functions of the Ego block.

The Ego block is a significant part of sociotype.

I was talking about self-image and ego in the common conception of these terms, not the Socionics ones obviously. Even if I were, your self-image wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with your ego block functions. Your self-image/self-conception could be inaccurate or poorly matched to your actual personality or sociotype.

[Skepsis]

I typed as intuitive simply because I prefer concept over immediacy. Nothing inherently bad about either of these.

Example: I can look at a sword in a museum and improvise a general talk about humans and violence, and how it plays out in history. A sensing type would describe the intricacies and visible power of the sword itself right before your eyes. Both views are valid and appropriate - what you are saying is that there is an advantage that favors the intuitive! Obviously, such prejudice requires perspective: Function interplay is important. No intuition without sensing, they are intertwined working basically like a scale. Intelligence is beyond that, i.e. describing how people solve problems rather than how cleverly abstract they are.

Do people really experience the observance of a sword in statistically different ways in the manner socionics suggests? A little of both seems more reasonable. Maybe the degree of connections, or indifference, varies depending on attentiveness, level of interest, knowledge, and intelligence?

[Chae]

Do people really experience the observance of a sword in statistically different ways in the manner socionics suggests? A little of both seems more reasonable. Maybe the degree of connections, or indifference, varies depending on attentiveness, level of interest, knowledge, and intelligence?

Ok. Meaning that...?

[Skepsis]

Where did you get this from?

https://jfdeschamps.files.wordpress....am-2003-6p.pdf

[niffer]

Do people really experience the observance of a sword in statistically different ways in the manner socionics suggests? A little of both seems more reasonable. Maybe the degree of connections, or indifference, varies depending on attentiveness, level of interest, knowledge, and intelligence?

First sentence: yes, essentially. Second sentence: everyone does have a little of both intuition and sensing, as was already mentioned. The last sentence you said there would be regarded as "non-type-related", or "NTR" factors.

[niffer]

https://jfdeschamps.files.wordpress....am-2003-6p.pdf

I see where it says there's a link between Big 5 openness and MBTI intuition here. Where did you find information that connected these to intelligence though as you had mentioned?

Also do you have a link to the scholarly journal that this was published on? Often there are studies available that contain contrasting or contradicting information. The more that a study has been referenced in other publications and the more that the study has been able to be successfully repeated, the more valid it is.

[squark]

I know there is some correlation between intuition as defined by MBTI and Openness to Experience Factor by the Big Five. Both seem correlated to intelligence. However, I wonder if being capable of producing ideas and concepts is the same as having intuition, or if intuition is the same in this regards but is understood within particular philosophical belief,tradition, or perspective. As a choice of self descriptors, one could say, "I am good at coming up with ideas and concepts. I am abstract. I don't know where it comes from" as opposed to "I make incredibly insightful connections and can predict much based on them. My intuition is very strong". Would both be considered intuitive within MBTI and/or Socionics? Would one be more egocentric than the other?

There's more than one way to skin a cat. You don't need intuition to come up with ideas, concepts and solutions as those can be derived any numbers of ways.

I've been reading lots of interesting articles on spatial ability and how important that is to success in math and science. Could you be intuitive and have high spatial ability - I believe so. But, it's a kind of intelligence that favors a sort of thinking that requires no intuition at all - just the ability to visualize spatial/schematic relationships. If anything, if you want to put a label on it, it sounds like the ability to visualize Si (explicit dynamics of fields) with some Ti/Te also. From one paper I was reading

In contrast, spatial visualizers tend to encode and process images analytically, part by part, using spatial relations to arrange and analyze the components. Because they allow the part structure of objects to be made explicit, spatial images may be more flexible and transformable, which might explain why spatial visualizers excel in dynamic image transformations.

As an aside, this was a fascinating article in whole, and splits those who visualize to solve problems (rather than verbal/logical problem solvers) into two clear groups: object visualizers (those who visualize the Se properties) and spatial visualizers (mentioned above). If anyone is interested it's here: http://nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mkozhevnl...versus2005.pdf

I think that if there is any relationship between intelligence and intuition it is more along the lines that people who are more intelligent are more likely to consider themselves intuitive. For instance, if you see that throughout your life you've been able to come up with the solutions to problems where other people failed, you might think this is due to intuition the way it is sometimes explained, but it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

[niffer]

This is just Wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

(from under 'Personality')

Research has indicated that correlations between measures of intelligence and personality are small, and it has thus been argued that g is a purely cognitive variable that is independent of personality traits.

__

I think that if there is any relationship between intelligence and intuition it is more along the lines that people who are more intelligent are more likely to consider themselves intuitive. For instance, if you see that throughout your life you've been able to come up with the solutions to problems where other people failed, you might think this is due to intuition the way it is sometimes explained, but it doesn't necessarily mean that at all.

Agreed.

There's also the effect that self-fulfilling prophecy will create, in that since society tends to lump intuition together with intelligence, those who are more intuitive types and are self-aware enough to realize it may embrace this information and go through life with a more positive, effective, self-affirming approach towards their own learning and intelligence, effectively becoming more intelligent because of this approach and positive reinforcement rather than something related to their original relative abilities. Alternatively, because of this lumping together of these traits in society's eyes, those who are intelligent may just assume that they are more likely to be an intuitive than a dumb sens0r who cannot imagine anything beyond their own nose, as was explained above.

[Skepsis]

I see where it says there's a link between Big 5 openness and MBTI intuition here. Where did you find information that connected these to intelligence though as you had mentioned?

Also do you have a link to the scholarly journal that this was published on? Often there are studies available that contain contrasting or contradicting information. The more that a study has been referenced in other publications and the more that the study has been able to be successfully repeated, the more valid it is.

Separate article discussing relationship between personality and intelligence. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoung/Pubs...ty_Chapter.pdf

[niffer]

Separate article discussing relationship between personality and intelligence. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoung/Pubs...ty_Chapter.pdf

The issue with this is that it contradicts the previous article you linked, which states that there should be a logical connection between the traits associated with Openness and Intuition. This article however seems to define Openness by Sensation and Perception overall.

Of particular relevance for intelligence, the two factors in the Openness/Intellect domain clearly differentiated Intelligence and Personality 6 between Openness to Experience and Intellect, with Openness reflecting aesthetically oriented traits related to engagement in sensation and perception (e.g., “Believe in the importance of art”; “See beauty in things that others might not notice”) and Intellect reflecting intellectual interest or engagement (e.g., “Avoid philosophical discussions”–reversed) and perceived intelligence (e.g., “Am quick to understand things”).

[Skepsis]

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cdeyoung/Pubs...ty_Chapter.pdf

At the end of this article, there is an interesting figure:

imagination.png

In this figure, the Openness/Intellect Factor is also referred to as Imagination. Intuition is only one facet. Comparing intuition with a dictionary definition:

noun1.direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

2.a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.

3.a keen and quick insight.

4.the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.

5.Philosophy.

• an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object.
• any object or truth so discerned.
• pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.

6.Linguistics. the ability of the native speaker to make linguistic judgments, as of the grammaticality, ambiguity, equivalence, or nonequivalence of sentences, deriving from the speaker's native-language competence.


Some other definitions of intuition from wikipedia, come of which is not too separate from Jung's ambiguous writing about intuition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition

As intuition is generally correlated with intelligence and openness, yet is only a subfacet of Openness/Intellect, how can S/N models of personality even be justified as major divisions of personality? Openness and Intellect seem much more of deciding factor.

I am over generalizing a bit to save time. I am hoping to iron some of this out more.

[niffer]

As intuition is generally correlated with intelligence and openness, yet is only a subfacet of Openness/Intellect, how can S/N models of personality even be justified as major divisions of personality? Openness and Intellect seem much more of deciding factor.

What the heck? Do you realize what you are saying here?

You're trying to say that S/N is *supposed to* allude to differences in intelligence, and the fact that they don't means that they are invalid divisions of personality? What??

[Bertrand]

I feel like personality is a manifestation of the relationship of usage ("valuedness") of cognitive functions one to another that gives shape to the overall pattern we call personality, but intelligence basically ramps the whole thing up. So while an intuitive may prefer, say, Ni, if they're sufficiently intelligent they may demonstrate more sophisticated use (within the bounds of dimensionality) i.e. "intelligent" usage of even unvalued functions. Its the same way, to use an awkward analogy, adults can be better than kids at things. Intelligence seems to be the overall horsepower under the hood, that in sufficient quantities, could take even a lesser used function beyond what another person who values it, because that other person is moving a lot slower. This is a concept open to a lot of abuse though; a lot of people could be tempted (and we see this a lot in "arrogance") that intelligence means they're literally better than everyone at everything else, which is something socionics tends to show is silly by teaching us to appreciate other's abilities. But in principle it is possible. I think the concept of multiple intelligences is an outgrowth of this, but is a little off base. I feel like there's one intelligence factor (the rate at which you're capable of doing whatever it is you're doing) but multiple manifestations of that based on how you're applying it. I.E.: intrapersonal might be Fi with kinesthetic being Se etc. Technically speaking I don't think there's "multiple" intelligence, rather theres one intelligence powering multiple functions, some of which are valued more than others, which gives rise to varying aptitudes and abilities, which we in turn call intelligences, etc

in other words, and getting back to the main point, I think "genius" is a quantifier of intelligence and when intelligence is sufficiently high multiple functions are pushed to such heights that when used together give rise to revelatory insights beyond the capacity of the average person, which then produce knowledge or ability regarded as extraordinary-- "genius"

I feel like introverted and extroverted functions are on the same continuum at opposite poles and that we each start from one end or the other and put more time into progressing along that path, but with sufficient intelligence we can essentially "bridge" the poles and that major features of human knowledge/accomplishment are things that do that; i.e.: theoretical insights and systems that hold up completely under both Ti and Te scrutiny. Ethics that transcend Fi/Fe criticism (this is a lot harder to come by), etc. Se behavior that has Si benefits and vice versa

[FDG]

if you are absent minded and go out with holes in your clothes you are intuitive

if you are dressed impeccably but panick about the future you are sensing

[niffer]

Please tell me the 'genuis' there was ironic lol @Bertrand

Edit: Oh nevermind, I learned something new today.

"The noun is related to the Latin verb genui, genitus, "to bring into being, create, produce", as well as to the Greek word for birth."

Intelligence = genitals. I knew it.

[Adam Strange]

Intelligence = genitals. I knew it.

That's what I use.

[Stellafera]

if you are dressed impeccably but panick about the future you are sensing

oh shit I'm an SEI

[Chae]

if you are absent minded and go out with holes in your clothes you are intuitive

if you are dressed impeccably but panick about the future you are sensing

What if I'm wearing that new sleek ass fashion with INTENTIONAL holes in it Can't mess with that one aha, I am sensing + intuitive = sintuitive now. That means I'm a socionics hybrid and love to be a nasty sinner as well. Cheers.

[Skepsis]

What the heck? Do you realize what you are saying here?

You're trying to say that S/N is *supposed to* allude to differences in intelligence, and the fact that they don't means that they are invalid divisions of personality? What??

Essentially, yes. The intention of this type of model is to sort people in such a way. One of my own criticisms is that such a model encourages misuse, abuse in the real world. The reality is that many people are an even mixture of sensing and intuition, so why force people into a dichotomous scale? Well one possible reason is that those with a mixture are defaulted as sensing types and only those with the highest ratio of intuition/sensing is consider a true "intuitive". Same with those that are a mixture of T and F. If there is any clear indications of F, then T is ruled out, leaving only those that would test most highly as T. This can happen in the reverse as well. What you end up with is a personality theory that only accurately describes those that test highest on the dichotomies, and everyone in the middle is left without a clear type. This is where the money is to be made because then you can spend money paying someone to look at your facial expressions, and talk to you for an hour, and tell you what your true type is. This is where my skepticism lies. Everything is geared toward sustaining the model and keeping the few employed at the expense of more realistic, alternative explanations. It encourages a discouraging level of stereotyping as well.

[niffer]

Essentially, yes. The intention of this type of model is to sort people in such a way. One of my own criticisms is that such a model encourages misuse, abuse in the real world. The reality is that many people are an even mixture of sensing and intuition, so why force people into a dichotomous scale? Well one possible reason is that those with a mixture are defaulted as sensing types and only those with the highest ratio of intuition/sensing is consider a true "intuitive". Same with those that are a mixture of T and F. If there is any clear indications of F, then T is ruled out, leaving only those that would test most highly as T. This can happen in the reverse as well. What you end up with is a personality theory that only accurately describes those that test highest on the dichotomies, and everyone in the middle is left without a clear type. This is where the money is to be made because then you can spend money paying someone to look at your facial expressions, and talk to you for an hour, and tell you what your true type is. This is where my skepticism lies. Everything is geared toward sustaining the model and keeping the few employed at the expense of more realistic, alternative explanations. It encourages a discouraging level of stereotyping as well.

You should go work for Gulenko. You guys would love each other.

[Bertrand]

Essentially, yes. The intention of this type of model is to sort people in such a way. One of my own criticisms is that such a model encourages misuse, abuse in the real world. The reality is that many people are an even mixture of sensing and intuition, so why force people into a dichotomous scale? Well one possible reason is that those with a mixture are defaulted as sensing types and only those with the highest ratio of intuition/sensing is consider a true "intuitive". Same with those that are a mixture of T and F. If there is any clear indications of F, then T is ruled out, leaving only those that would test most highly as T. This can happen in the reverse as well. What you end up with is a personality theory that only accurately describes those that test highest on the dichotomies, and everyone in the middle is left without a clear type. This is where the money is to be made because then you can spend money paying someone to look at your facial expressions, and talk to you for an hour, and tell you what your true type is. This is where my skepticism lies. Everything is geared toward sustaining the model and keeping the few employed at the expense of more realistic, alternative explanations. It encourages a discouraging level of stereotyping as well.

jokes on them I want to be a sensorfeeler

I feel like you do it well enough theyll pay you to look at your pictures

[maniac]

Essentially, yes. The intention of this type of model is to sort people in such a way. One of my own criticisms is that such a model encourages misuse, abuse in the real world. The reality is that many people are an even mixture of sensing and intuition, so why force people into a dichotomous scale? Well one possible reason is that those with a mixture are defaulted as sensing types and only those with the highest ratio of intuition/sensing is consider a true "intuitive". Same with those that are a mixture of T and F. If there is any clear indications of F, then T is ruled out, leaving only those that would test most highly as T. This can happen in the reverse as well. What you end up with is a personality theory that only accurately describes those that test highest on the dichotomies, and everyone in the middle is left without a clear type. This is where the money is to be made because then you can spend money paying someone to look at your facial expressions, and talk to you for an hour, and tell you what your true type is. This is where my skepticism lies. Everything is geared toward sustaining the model and keeping the few employed at the expense of more realistic, alternative explanations. It encourages a discouraging level of stereotyping as well.

I agree with you. Im in the middle of feeling/thinking generally, and I know people who LOVE abstract concept, abstract everything, but they are also extreme sensualists. They dont fit in anywhere.

I think the misconception comes from Jung naming his types incorrectly to what they actually are. And even him said that people are a mix of the functions and no one is going to be pure extroverted sensation, for example. Socionics missed this.

[The Reality Denialist]

Type distribution? Is it even? How one develops personality? Environments favor sensing over intuition? Evolutionary? How long it takes to reach optimum distribution? Let's add societal factors. How much it skews things?

I think I'd pay a lot to get better sensing abilities. Something (lot) an be achieved through practice though but it's hard.

Anyways I think my mind scares people sometimes when I spew out logic from outer space. There's that downside to it. I don't do particularly well on visual tests (but something not conscious must work there). Verbal wrench is...

I actually think that it's not that bad at all to be on the other side of that division. Regarding imagination: Well, there are people who can imagine those things with ease. One ESE I know has near photographic memory capabilities. It's funny though how she is so out of touch with philosophy but could recite stuff on tests with high accuracy and is highly inquisitive.

[Slade]

What makes people identify as intuitives? How does intuition compare and contrast with general intelligence? Can one be abstract, imaginative, and capable of understanding theory, and not be intuitive? Is calling oneself "intuitive" just an egocentric, or narcissistic, conception of the self? What is it?

It's better if you look at it as being a trade-off between space and time. The ability to maneuver well in one of these areas will usually, clearly, trump the other.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm not very aware of the sensory world around me and when I try to be I get a headache and shut down. So I use the power of guessing and algorithm or some kind of mathematical logic to maneuver what can happen and bypass what is real and in front of me or tangible. I learned to do this and with coming up with and understanding possibilities from understanding of events through reading about different ways things in life develop I began building an arsenal so it was natural and I could avoid the sensory world more and more. As time goes on and with meticulous practice in painting and drawing I've become better at observing the real shape or color of things and better at articulating reality however it's still impressionistic at best

I'll give an example of Ne vrs Se

One of our doctors is LSI and the other is IEE

The test results for something comes in and the IEE says "it's intestinal colitis"

The LSI wants to look at every segment of the test to determine every component while the IEE is sure the test level either indicates infection or colitis and since the white cell is high but mild whatever it is colitis of whatever

The LSI asks IEE to pull up studies that show the combination of tests indicating that because he doesn't trust intuition or intuitive guesses without looking at evidence so the IEE pulls up the study and sure enough it's what the IEE said it was not because they guessed it because they remember from studying it and don't need to look at it to be sure again.