Advanced Sensation vs Primitive Intuition

[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.