How to define intuition?

[Metamorph]

Most people definitely do not think the id block is a Freudian id - something that has to do with primal desires?? Nah, even Augusta didn't think that, she just liked the correspondence.

Most *laypeople. Most laypeople seem to think, for example, if you have Se in the id block you have primal desires for Se and you're going to be extra violent, while if you have Te you're going to be greedy or similar (since people usually equate Te to money nowadays and not Se to money,) if you have Si you're going to be a glutton or lazy, and if you have Fi you're going to be extremely petty because those are your primal desires due to being "id block."

There have been multiple iterations of definitions, Si was not originally defined as keeping equilibrium - that's a newer, more general understanding. Augusta described it as avoiding discomfort and creating sensory aesthetics. (see here: https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/socion/)

Well, people see wrapping up those two as being only possible by defining it in terms of equilibrium and expansion.

"perceptions in space is generally Ne" - I have no idea where you got this from.

The idea of external intuition being intuition of space and internal intuition being intuition of time is straight from Kant, which is more or less my entire basis to not take socionics seriously any more. I started reading Kant once upon a time and got bored with it, but you can also just check the Wikipedia version.

[Exodus]

Most *laypeople. Most laypeople seem to think, for example, if you have Se in the id block you have primal desires for Se and you're going to be extra violent, while if you have Te you're going to be greedy or similar (since people usually equate Te to money nowadays and not Se to money,) if you have Si you're going to be a glutton or lazy, and if you have Fi you're going to be extremely petty because those are your primal desires due to being "id block."

Most people who completely misunderstand socionics, maybe.

The idea of external intuition being intuition of space and internal intuition being intuition of time is straight from Kant, which is more or less my entire basis to not take socionics seriously any more. I started reading Kant once upon a time and got bored with it, but you can also just check the Wikipedia version.

Kant has an interpretation of socionics concepts? Ok.

[Metamorph]

Most people who completely misunderstand socionics, maybe.

That would be most people. Not that their opinions really matter all that much, beyond trying to correct them, which is what I've tried to do off and on even though I think it's impossible to teach most people since most people are dumb. I think this forum is just not a good platform for spreading ideas, even though I'm going to hang out here as long as it's the only place many people I met here hang out and as long as people are spreading interesting ideas here. And well, I've gotten back a lot more of my time, I can check out protocols like Matrix and IRC and just mailing lists, certainly I can help move everyone from here to other places even if it's not all the same other places for everyone.

Kant has an interpretation of socionics concepts? Ok.

Kant is the origin of those concepts. The socionists got their idea from Kant, not vice versa. In Kant intuition of space is very explicitly ordinary sense perception, and intuition of time is subjective perception such as memory, imagination, and prognostication. This is why sensing elements are not described primarily as sense perception but as affecting changes in the environment (as you said even Aušra put a lot of weight on Si types making cozy environments.) They need sense perception to do this, but this is different than the kind of detached cognitive awareness Ne is generally described as. This is where the + and - signs in socionics come from. No one only has "awareness of perception," or "awareness of force," people have awareness of information that furthers certain kinds of objectives, primarily, relationships or structures.

[YnysAfallach]

Kant is the origin of those concepts. The socionists got their idea from Kant, not vice versa. In Kant intuition of space is very explicitly ordinary sense perception, and intuition of time is subjective perception such as memory, imagination, and prognostication. This is why sensing elements are not described primarily as sense perception but as affecting changes in the environment (as you said even Aušra put a lot of weight on Si types making cozy environments.) They need sense perception to do this, but this is different than the kind of detached cognitive awareness Ne is generally described as. This is where the + and - signs in socionics come from. No one only has "awareness of perception," or "awareness of force," people have awareness of information that furthers certain kinds of objectives, primarily, relationships or structures.

I think you're double-dipping here a bit within the evolution of ideas, charitably. I'm not a Kant scholar by any means, but I am suspect that Kant's intuition of space tracks with Ne and his intuition of time tracks with Ni. I think you're right to sense they're related in some way, but I don't think the interaction is this straightforward.

My guess is that in the hierarchy of ontology, Se/Si fall in the same relation to Kant's description of spacetime intuition as do Ne/Ni. If Kant was saying we also had a sensation of spacetime, then I may be inclined differently. But in this picture, where there is only the intuition of spacetime which is captured by Ne/Ni, we get an odd result where those with unvalued Ne/Ni seemingly don't psychologically value relating to reality in a grounded or structured way (inescapably relating to reality in a grounded or structured way is Kant's conceptual purpose behind explicating his spacetime intuitions). This odd result arises from the fact that Kant isn't aiming towards fine-grained differences in psychological patterns of function, and rather is aiming towards baseline conditions for cognition that undergird all of the rest of the multi-faceted ways in which a mind/psychology can flourish on top of those baseline conditions (IM elements).

Kantian intuition (what does metaphysics say about conditions for our conscious experience) =/= Socionics intuition (how do our minds extrapolate from the actual to the possible?)

I think a clue to recognize that you've bought into an incorrect juncture somewhere is your statement that "Se and Si refer to people acting on the physical environment, and not actually perceiving it." This shows that your understanding of action/perception doesn't quite capture where Socionics is coming from with those terms. For instance, could there be a way to understand action/perception where Se and Si both generate actions on the physical environment and perceive it? Such that their (Se/Si) function is one bounded by some sense of 'perception' on one side and some sense of 'action' on the other?