# Who came first? Intuitives or Sensors?



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

I'm not saying intuitives are better then sensors. All I'm asking is whether of not you guys think it's possible that intuitives came after sensors in an evolutionary sense. Think about it, in the beginning of our species sensors were the most necessary for our survival. All animals are basically sensors, although you can't do an mbti test on animals, lol. In more recent years ( 1-4 thousand years ago) came the emergence of intuitives, in my opinion. Intuitives are better suited for a world of technology and doing things which involve intuitive thinking etc. Granted, sensors are needed to work all of the machines ( in a sense). So we're both needed. But does it not make sense that intuitives came after sensors?


----------



## SinneDeelie (Mar 23, 2011)

AtheistJesus said:


> I'm not saying intuitives are better then sensors. All I'm asking is whether of not you guys think it's possible that intuitives came after sensors in an evolutionary sense. Think about it, in the beginning of our species sensors were the most necessary for our survival. All animals are basically sensors, although you can't do an mbti test on animals, lol. In more recent years ( 1-4 thousand years ago) came the emergence of intuitives, in my opinion. Intuitives are better suited for a world of technology and doing things which involve intuitive thinking etc. Granted, sensors are needed to work all of the machines ( in a sense). So we're both needed. But does it not make sense that intuitives came after sensors?


I dont think that really makes sense. Just because things were primitive (according to our standards) when life first began doesn't mean that its because intuitive types hadn't evolved into existence yet. I mean, back in the day, the discovery/invention of fire and the wheel were probably seen as extremely innovative. Who would've thought that rubbing two sticks together or carving a piece of stone into a circular shape would forever change the world? Those cavemen could have easily been INTJs (lol). 

But seriously, I don't think we can just assume that all animals and cavemen were sensors.... lmao.


----------



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

SinneDeelie said:


> I dont think that really makes sense. Just because things were primitive (according to our standards) when life first began doesn't mean that its because intuitive types hadn't evolved into existence yet. I mean, back in the day, the discovery/invention of fire and the wheel were probably seen as extremely innovative. Who would've thought that rubbing two sticks together or carving a piece of stone into a circular shape would forever change the world? Those cavemen could have easily been INTJs (lol).
> 
> 
> But seriously, I don't think we can just assume that all animals and cavemen were sensors.... lmao.


Good point, however, were sensors not more suitable for the conditions back then? Also, a sensor is completely capable of inventing anything. When did I ever say that a sensor couldn't produce/invent something? I'm just suggesting that the conditions in the past 4-6 thousand years definitely promoted the emergence of intuitive s.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

No, your own argument already negates it. If you believe (which I don't, but we're going with your idea here) that intuitives are the types best suited for 'a world of technology' then they must have always been around because every single weapon that has been used, every knife that was first used to cut something, every discovery that food can be cooked etc etc all depended on 'a world of technology.' Just because they aren't the technologies we use today doesn't make them any less technological. I think then, as now, humanity always needed all types to function as cohesive societies - and they did function very well as societies.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Every person is a sensor and intuitive combined, so the question which came first just doesn't make any sense. In MBTI N and S functions cannot be separated from each other as they represent opposite ends of same dichotomy. One cannot come before the other. Sensing and intuition must have evolved side-by-side.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

I have considered this too. I think sensing is more primitive than intuition, and feeling is more primitive than thinking. It is important to note that I studied biology, and in that field the words "primitive" and "advanced" do not imply any value judgment. I think intuition would have developed a lot longer ago than a few thousand years though. Of course in order for this to be true in the evolutionary sense, it would require that sensing and intuition actually exist as biological constructs, and I am not sure of that. Thinking and feeling are a bit more apparent in their biology I think, because the limbic brain is more associated with feeling and the neocortex more associated with thinking.


----------



## SinneDeelie (Mar 23, 2011)

AtheistJesus said:


> Good point, however, were sensors not more suitable for the conditions back then? Also, a sensor is completely capable of inventing anything. When did I ever say that a sensor couldn't produce/invent something? I'm just suggesting that the conditions in the past 4-6 thousand years definitely promoted the emergence of intuitive s.


I know a sensor is capable fo inventing things. I'm a sensor so I'm definately not knocking them/us. The cavemen who invented fired, the wheel, etc. could've been an intuitive or a sensor. What I'm saying it that years from now people will probably look back at our time and consider us to be primitive, but intuitives still exist today. So we can't look back and assume that intuitives couldn't have been around yet since it was such a primitive time to us.


----------



## Darner (Apr 20, 2010)

What about if both types were there from the beginning but in some version of natural selection (the strongest survives), sensors were better at surviving?


----------



## very bored (Jul 6, 2009)

Darner said:


> What about if both types were there from the beginning but in some version of natural selection (the strongest survives), sensors were better at surviving?


 Then there wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be any intuitives left.

But using natural selection might be hard for this kind of discussion, because it says that the best-suited survive. And the best-suited isn't always the strongest.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I always assumed that Sensing was more directly related to survival, and therefore more natural to primitive humans. Intuiting is something that very few animals possess since it is not necessary to survival in the wild. I would go so far as to say that introversion is also a later-developed function, since humans are a naturally social species and depend on each other for survival. We already know that Thinking is something we as humans have developed unlike any other species, so I don't think it's remotely Typist to assume that intuiting is a similarly unusual trait.

I think we'd all love to imagine prehistoric INTPs making complex water filters out of rocks, but realistically, this type probably did not develop until at least the Bronze age. It's a combination of traits that were once completely useless to our survival, but are now entirely necessary to our progression as a species. Don't forget that we have evolved from **** erectus into **** sapien sapiens, man who uses tools.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

This is a chicken/egg question. There would be no development of sensing without intuition. It seems more likely that sensing and intuition evolved alongside each other from something simpler.


----------



## Introspiritual (Mar 12, 2010)

hziegel said:


> I always assumed that Sensing was more directly related to survival


I agree completely. iNtuition-dominants grew out of society as Sensors got good enough at Holding Their Own(tm) to let us pop out and actually survive. Let's face it, the average iNtuitive would get eaten alive on guard duty a few thousand years back due to "being lost in their thoughts."


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Van said:


> This is a chicken/egg question. There would be no development of sensing without intuition. It seems more likely that sensing and intuition evolved alongside each other from something simpler.


But consider that animals- most of them- have a lot sharper senses than we have. I assume then that they're also using sensing, both Si and Se or their animal equivalents, a lot more heavily than humans do. Their sensing faculties are more evolved than ours; we get intuition instead.


----------



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

I enjoyed reading this thread. I have a question though, what about the stories about animals acting strangely before a natural disaster? Is that intuition/sensing or something else?


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

I can't buy this idea that animals must be sensors. Animals rely on heavily on instinct and often seem to have knowledge that they can't possibly have sensed. That's not to say that having instincts makes you an intuitive any more than I think having senses makes you a sensor. Being cognitive functions, Se/Ni and Ne/Si are all in your head. Certain functions might make you more or less likely to pay attention to your physical senses, but I doubt that Se and Si are more related to having good physical senses than Ne and Ni.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

penpaperaser said:


> I enjoyed reading this thread. I have a question though, what about the stories about animals acting strangely before a natural disaster? Is that intuition/sensing or something else?





Van said:


> I can't buy this idea that animals must be sensors. Animals rely on heavily on instinct and often seem to have knowledge that they can't possibly have sensed. That's not to say that having instincts makes you an intuitive any more than I think having senses makes you a sensor. Being cognitive functions, Se/Ni and Ne/Si are all in your head. Certain functions might make you more or less likely to pay attention to your physical senses, but I doubt that Se and Si are more related to having good physical senses than Ne and Ni.


Different animals have senses that we lack. Dogs can sniff cancer and detect an oncoming seizure in a human. Animals can feel electricity in the atmosphere or vibrations in the earth- that is why they act strangely before a disaster. Bats and dolphins navigate by sound, and birds are thought to navigate by magnetic fields. Other animals find their prey by smell or taste, electricity, heat, vibrations, or with sight superior to ours. Sensing is easy to observe in animals, but how would you observe animal intuition? What are they thinking about when some vibration is making them nervous? When a crow or chimp fashions a tool to get food, is it Ti?

I offer a hypothesis on an origin of intuitive cognitive function in humans. When we "sense" electromagnetic fields or low frequency sound, it is subliminal and makes us vaguely uncomfortable. We anthropomorphize it and attribute it to spooks and spirits. We anthropomorphize everything. Our minds are so attuned to faces that you can take three rocks and position them a certain way to make a face. We are less inclined to imagine three rocks becoming a mountain peak, a fruit or an arrow. If you see an ambiguous figure, it is safer to assume that it is alive than to assume it isn't. I used to have a dog that growled at the shadows cast on the floor when the wind blew in the trees. It was hilarious. My mom had a yard ornament that was just a sheet of metal in the shape of a cat, and the real cat took offense. Also hilarious. Might this tendency to anthropomorphize be a primitive expression of intuition?


----------



## SinneDeelie (Mar 23, 2011)

Van said:


> I can't buy this idea that animals must be sensors. Animals rely on heavily on instinct and often seem to have knowledge that they can't possibly have sensed. That's not to say that having instincts makes you an intuitive any more than I think having senses makes you a sensor. Being cognitive functions, Se/Ni and Ne/Si are all in your head. Certain functions might make you more or less likely to pay attention to your physical senses, but I doubt that Se and Si are more related to having good physical senses than Ne and Ni.


I'm so glad somebody brought this up. ^ 
How can we just assume that animals are sensors?


----------



## Dino (Mar 25, 2011)

Lol what a stupid question.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

We don't assume that animals are sensors. We simply assume that since intuiting is not necessary to survival and requires a higher brain function (nonlinear thinking) that an animal incapable of complex thought would also be incapable of intuiting. Predicting odd weather patterns is not sensing or intuiting; that's just naturally heightened senses. Animals are more in tune with the weather and with slight disruptions in the earth because they depend on this knowledge to survive. Humans live in houses and build shelters that will protect them from these things, and we have evolved out of the ability to use our senses so acutely in favor of technology. However, if you look at the African bushmen, they still have these heightened senses that most animals possess, and can predict the weather nearly as accurately. It doesn't indicate sensing or intuiting abilities, just a different way of life.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

Apologies, I shouldn't have said anything about instincts. I'm not arguing that animals are more like intuitors than sensors.
My actual point is that typological sensing is not physical sensing. I'm not disagreeing that animals have higher physical senses, I'm disagreeing that it makes them anything like typological sensors. If they can't use Ne and Ni, then they can't use Se or Si either because they are _all cognitive functions_. Se and Si are not physical functions and they are not 'lower' or less developed than Ne and Ni.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Van said:


> Apologies, I shouldn't have said anything about instincts. I'm not arguing that animals are more like intuitors than sensors.
> My actual point is that typological sensing is not physical sensing. I'm not disagreeing that animals have higher physical senses, I'm disagreeing that it makes them anything like typological sensors. If they can't use Ne and Ni, then they can't use Se or Si either because they are _all cognitive functions_. Se and Si are not physical functions and they are not 'lower' or less developed than Ne and Ni.


That is a good point. I guess you could say that most animals don't use cognitive functions at all, and the ones that do could certainly have a (less developed) version of intuiting. You're right; there is a difference between abilities and cognitive functions.


----------



## Stand Alone (Apr 25, 2009)

That's pretty ridiculous. According to that theory, primitive cultures living in complete genetic isolation without modern technology should be extremely sensor dominant. This would include modern day cultures such as the Yanomamo or natives of Papua New Guinea, as well as most Native Americans up to about the 17th century. You'd have to either think intuitives "evolved" in Native American cultures over a period of centuries, or rates of intuitives in modern Native American cultures are significantly lower than in European cultures. Or perhaps smallpox only targets sensors. :dry: This theory's just absurd on so many levels.


----------



## Zomboy (Jun 12, 2010)

Dinosaurs came first. True fact.


----------



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

Zomboy said:


> Dinosaurs came first. True fact.


damn... of course, of course


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

hziegel said:


> We don't assume that animals are sensors. *We simply assume that since intuiting is not necessary to survival and requires a higher brain function (nonlinear thinking) that an animal incapable of complex thought would also be incapable of intuiting*. Predicting odd weather patterns is not sensing or intuiting; that's just naturally heightened senses. Animals are more in tune with the weather and with slight disruptions in the earth because they depend on this knowledge to survive. Humans live in houses and build shelters that will protect them from these things, and we have evolved out of the ability to use our senses so acutely in favor of technology. However, if you look at the African bushmen, they still have these heightened senses that most animals possess, and can predict the weather nearly as accurately. It doesn't indicate sensing or intuiting abilities, just a different way of life.


I see why entp`s make great lawyers. I had to read this again with my glasses on. 
here is an articles of chimpanzees demonstrating intuitiveness 
http://port.academia.edu/KimBard/Pa..._parenting_Maternal_competence_in_chimpanzees


you dont suppose intuitiveness evolved out of relationships or understanding one another? Maybe animals with complex social structure are more intuitive.


----------



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

Feral sheep said:


> you are looking but are you REALLY looking or just getting lost in the details of crafting a better argument?


 Are you talking to me? or someone else? or just generalizing?


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

AtheistJesus said:


> Are you talking to me? or someone else? or just generalizing?


 sorry atheist, I misread the post and also forgot to quote


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

hmm, I think that first one must establish that mbti functions are hereditary before arguing evolution. Off to the lab!


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

sensors are some historical remains in human genes that just wont go away :tongue:


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

What type was god? ESTJ? Then there is your answer. 

If you didn't take this seriously, and take it to heart, I think sensors came first, because we can be viewed in a primitive way. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, although we are still evolving, I think Sensors helped the human race with their capabilities to be aware, to hunt, the reflexes (not to say all S's are like this) which helped us to survive for so long. 

I don't know, maybe I am just talking bullshit.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

very bored said:


> Then there wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be any intuitives left.
> 
> But using natural selection might be hard for this kind of discussion, because it says that the best-suited survive. And the best-suited isn't always the strongest.


Well iNtuitives are supposed to be quite rare, so you might be on to something there. 

*said with tongue firmly in cheek*


----------



## Stand Alone (Apr 25, 2009)

firedell said:


> What type was god? ESTJ? Then there is your answer.
> 
> If you didn't take this seriously, and take it to heart, I think sensors came first, because we can be viewed in a primitive way. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, although we are still evolving, I think Sensors helped the human race with their capabilities to be aware, to hunt, the reflexes (not to say all S's are like this) which helped us to survive for so long.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I am just talking bullshit.


So would there be no intuitives in the modern Stone age cultures that I mentioned?


----------



## Feral sheep (May 13, 2011)

this is a very interesting thread


----------



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

firedell said:


> What type was god? ESTJ? Then there is your answer.
> 
> If you didn't take this seriously, and take it to heart, I think sensors came first, because we can be viewed in a primitive way. Evolution is all about survival of the fittest, although we are still evolving, I think Sensors helped the human race with their capabilities to be aware, to hunt, the reflexes (not to say all S's are like this) which helped us to survive for so long.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I am just talking bullshit.


Wow, the first Sensor to give an unbiased answer. The First one who was willing to say, logically the sensing functions would have served humans better back in the B.C era. You give me hope, thank you.


----------



## freyaliesel (Mar 3, 2011)

I would imagine that cognitive functions emerged with certain higher brain functions, making both have come forward at the same time.


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

I can just as easily imagine intuition being a "primitive" function since it quite often deals with symbols and hidden meanings, a lot of which we see in religion, alchemy, mysticism, and the like. These belief systems were all prevalent up until 500 years ago, when the scientific revolution occurred; and science, being based on what is observable, is arguably the sensor's belief system, and one which holds a significant amount of weight when it comes to survival.

Of course I do not strongly believe in the above argument. Being an intuitive studying engineering/physics I see the need for intuition in science. The likes of Einstein, and Planck swore by it. I am merely pointing out that there are a lot of gaps in these arguments due to a lack of defining terms (what does it mean to be a sensor versus being an intuitive and what are the phenotypical implications?) and a lack of arguing the other side of the coin to check if the argument is just as strong (what if intuition is the "primitive" function? historically it seems that it could be so).


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Stand Alone said:


> So would there be no intuitives in the modern Stone age cultures that I mentioned?


I didn't say there would be none at all. Just sensors would have helped with the survival of the human race.  But who knows? You cannot take this to heart, because nobody knows anyway.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

AtheistJesus said:


> Wow, the first Sensor to give an unbiased answer. The First one who was willing to say, logically the sensing functions would have served humans better back in the B.C era. You give me hope, thank you.


There is no need to be offended by it. I know i'm not as unintelligent as humans in the B.C. era, but more than likely, Se was probably a good function to have back then. I think we all use Se, when we need to survive. When we are in danger we use our basic "skills", I guess you could say to make sure that we are still... I want to say surviving? But I have used it too much. 

Just look at when Osama was killed, and we all dance and cheered. We celebrated like a bunch of primitive creatures. I wouldn't of been surprised if someone ran around hitting their chest and started setting things on fire.


----------



## AtheistJesus (Apr 4, 2011)

unsung truth said:


> I can just as easily imagine intuition being a "primitive" function since it quite often deals with symbols and hidden meanings, a lot of which we see in religion, alchemy, mysticism, and the like. These belief systems were all prevalent up until 500 years ago, when the scientific revolution occurred; and science, being based on what is observable, is arguably the sensor's belief system, and one which holds a significant amount of weight when it comes to survival.
> 
> Of course I do not strongly believe in the above argument. Being an intuitive studying engineering/physics I see the need for intuition in science. The likes of Einstein, and Planck swore by it. I am merely pointing out that there are a lot of gaps in these arguments due to a lack of defining terms (what does it mean to be a sensor versus being an intuitive and what are the phenotypical implications?) and a lack of arguing the other side of the coin to check if the argument is just as strong (what if intuition is the "primitive" function? historically it seems that it could be so).


Here's a thought guys, MAYBE we as human beings are slowly, sensors and intuitives alike, evolving little by little to do more then merely survive. I would like to point out what Friedrich Neitzche called " Der Ubermanch", the overman. Instead of looking at it as "what's most nessesary for survival, maybe we as human beings aren't really as advanced intellectually as we thinlk we are. I mean sure, we can paint a painting, write a sonnet, build tall buildings, but are we really moving forward? Humans are the only animals, to my knowledge, that are capable of doing things that aren't nessesary for survival. Love one another, for one. So I see the intuitive function ( notice I didn't say intuitives in general) are, what I think, a moving forward of the evolution of us.:shocked:


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

hziegel said:


> We don't assume that animals are sensors. We simply assume that since intuiting is not necessary to survival and requires a higher brain function (nonlinear thinking) that an animal incapable of complex thought would also be incapable of intuiting. Predicting odd weather patterns is not sensing or intuiting; that's just naturally heightened senses. Animals are more in tune with the weather and with slight disruptions in the earth because they depend on this knowledge to survive. Humans live in houses and build shelters that will protect them from these things, and we have evolved out of the ability to use our senses so acutely in favor of technology. However, if you look at the African bushmen, they still have these heightened senses that most animals possess, and can predict the weather nearly as accurately. It doesn't indicate sensing or intuiting abilities, just a different way of life.





Van said:


> Apologies, I shouldn't have said anything about instincts. I'm not arguing that animals are more like intuitors than sensors.
> My actual point is that typological sensing is not physical sensing. I'm not disagreeing that animals have higher physical senses, I'm disagreeing that it makes them anything like typological sensors. If they can't use Ne and Ni, then they can't use Se or Si either because they are _all cognitive functions_. Se and Si are not physical functions and they are not 'lower' or less developed than Ne and Ni.





hziegel said:


> That is a good point. I guess you could say that most animals don't use cognitive functions at all, and the ones that do could certainly have a (less developed) version of intuiting. You're right; there is a difference between abilities and cognitive functions.


Correct. Animals don't "use" Sensing as we know it. Our functions are cognitive *interpretations* of data, from the frontal cortex. Animals don't have that capacity, being purely limbic (driven by instinct and emotion).

What we call "Sensing" as an "S" preference simply means that when you take in the data, you just interpret it for what it is. An N interprets it with inferred meanings drawn. Animals don't do either, but simply react to it limbically.

So I would think, regarding the methods of interpreting data, they differentiated at the same time.


----------



## Five (Mar 27, 2011)

I think its a bit inaccurate and could possibly come of as a bit presumptuous, to refer to people with a sensing preference, as evolutionary precedents to those that have and intuitive preference.

The way I view it is that we as a species are constantly evolving continually higher order functions.

Lets just look at "emotions" for example. Forget the thinking cognitives, you can already see complexity and higher order forms. This is just a rough stab as an *example*

Level 1: Touch, smell, physical pain etc (individual)
Level 2: love, affection, etc (1 on 1)
Level 3: betrayal, justice etc (social group emotion)

That grew on top of each other, but I think S/N grew in parallel: Analogous to left/right brain. It wasn't like we suddenly said "whoops" ok now we going to grow another side of our brains 

What happened as as society grew, so specialization occurred. Meaning some people could develop their intuitive side more and others there sensing functions etc. Thus to say intuitives are more evolved (I'm not saying you necessarily said that) would be silly. We just became more specialized and more able/intelligent at our specialized functions, because by doing so we created a stronger society. Those homogenous societies would have died out. Diversity creates strength.

Every "Sensor" has intuition as well, it's just not the preferred use by default. 

Si and Se are intelligences too, and many N's are flawed as a result of lacking adequate sensing, especially when trying to operate in this world. 

As an INTP I'm sure you've been called "out of touch" on many an occasion.


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

Here's a thought: perhaps having a _*diversity*_ of cognitive function is _*beneficial*_ to society.
(Like how sex is beneficial because it creates diversity)


----------



## ToRoom101 (Mar 2, 2012)

Being an atheist, scientist, and type-watcher, I have often pondered this AthiestJesus.

It seems to me that in the very beginning of cognitive thought (i.e. post limbic) that natural selection in most climates would favor sensors. Their protective rules and/or attention to the objective here-and-now would give them a survival advantage up up until the division of labor came into being. Soon as formal "societies" came around I suspect the intuitive survival rate began to increase. However, I don't think one of the other came first, but rather at different times and in different climates, cultures, and political systems, one or the other enjoyed a comparative advantage. 

Much has been written about "SJ" types in rigid rules-based professions like accounting and the military, and what I think will be fascinating is the impact here of the relatively new system of human organization -- capitalism.


----------



## bluenlgy (Apr 27, 2011)

A more likely scenario is all four functions were in an undifferentiated state in the beginning, working as one "consciousness" function in human brain to serve survival needs. Only after human species progressed to a certain level did functions become differentiated to help better serve higher and more differentiated demands. 

It made more sense this way since without sensing humans (or even animals) could not "receive" and "remember" information, and without intuiting we could not "discover" patterns so as to "invent" methods to deal with the natural world. The fact that all people can do all four in real life means it's more likely a matter of differentiated functions with focused strengths rather than a necessarily higher function developed after some lower ones.

This hypothesis could be wrong, of course, since in their manifestation in reality intuition does look a lot more amazing than sensing, which makes you wonder whether intuition is a more complex function favored by evolution (or given by God even) that involves more neurons in the working. In which case, I am happy.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

ToRoom101 said:


> Being an atheist, scientist, and type-watcher, I have often pondered this AthiestJesus.
> 
> It seems to me that in the very beginning of cognitive thought (i.e. post limbic) that natural selection in most climates would favor sensors. Their protective rules and/or attention to the objective here-and-now would give them a survival advantage up up until the division of labor came into being. Soon as formal "societies" came around I suspect the intuitive survival rate began to increase. However, I don't think one of the other came first, but rather at different times and in different climates, cultures, and political systems, one or the other enjoyed a comparative advantage.


I was actually going to post something similar. Granted, I'm not an atheist, but I am well-acquainted with the sciences and I too think that sensors would definitely have a natural advantage in the early development of humans. I feel like a lot of (especially strong) intuitives would have been too caught up in their own heads or too lacking in street-smarts/common sense to survive at times haha 

I think they developed simultaneously, but a lot of times, I think the intuitives would have needed a little "help" to survive especially in harsher conditions. Even now, intuitives likely have a more difficult time fitting into a relatively sensor-dominated society, but now it is less of a life-and-death type of situation, so there are more of us. mwahaha


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Where do we draw the line? Do we debate over whether **** habilis was enough like the modern day human to be classified as either?


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

I know this one the chicken! XD

I think sensors came first to be honest. And intuitives evolved from them. If we came from monkeys, as evolution suggests, I think monkeys are sensors. Hmm, I wonder if there are any intuitve monkeys. *Ponders*


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> I think sensors came first to be honest. And intuitives evolved from them.* If we came from monkeys, as evolution suggests*, I think monkeys are sensors. Hmm, I wonder if there are any intuitve monkeys. *Ponders*


WE CAME FROM A _*COMMON ANCESTOR*_, DAMMIT, WE CAME FROM A COMMOONNNN ANCESTOOOOORRRRRRR!

Ahem. Humans did not "evolve from monkeys". We and monkeys split off of a shared species.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Alright alright alright, damn it. XD Hopefully the common ancestor was **** erectus, cause I like that name.


----------



## MCRTS (Jul 4, 2011)

donkeybals said:


> Hmm, I wonder if there are any intuitve monkeys. *Ponders*


Good question, why don't you ask the monkeys? Heh.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

I can't cause I don't know monkey sign language yet.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

whichever one has premature ejaculation issues


----------



## Manofadventure (Dec 20, 2010)

In us ****-sapiens its worthwile noting that our brains have virtually remaind the same since we were running around on the plains of africa


----------



## ToRoom101 (Mar 2, 2012)

Manofadventure said:


> In us ****-sapiens its worthwile noting that our brains have virtually remaind the same since we were running around on the plains of africa


Yeah, true. Such is the nature of MTBI questioning. On a rainy introspective day, my wife and I find utility in typing our cats


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

My deferential opinion is that the human brain does not work as a full-time video camera or a hard drive but as neurons interconnected with each other.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

At one point l was interested in this and also evolutionary history of certain disorders, etc. Which N doms are usually infinitely more likely to have.

Around 10-20,000 years ago all people had what was called a "bicameral" mind. These people were more similar to Ns but not really able to function. Their minds were sort of split between the real world and their "inner world" (sound familiar?)

Anyway since they weren't necessarily the kind of Ns you see today but like an early prototype l would have to say that sensors followed and in many ways are actually more "evolved" than us but l hate starting that discussion because of my own vague understanding of evolution.

In general l don't think of intuition as something that develops because you've surpassed your "sensor self'', TBH l think of it as the way the brain has compensated for lacking sensing and practical skill in some areas.

Animals are actually more intuitive and mostly still operating in what's called the "primitive right brain". The right brain was said to develop first in all creatures but that's another source of debate with more being discovere about right/left brain theory.


----------



## Raichu (Aug 24, 2012)

Guys... doesn't evolution have a lot to do with mating?
I think we all know that if type was based on evolution, it would favor Se. Let's just be honest here.


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

I think sensing. It is more focused on the present and what is practical. Back when humans were nomads, hunting and gathering for food, it would be more useful to be a sensor. The goal was to obtain food, shelter, and clothing; basically, just to survive since we did not have the technology yet.

Decisions needed to be made quickly, effectively, and practical. There was not time to sit around and daydream about all the possibilities. It was survival of the fittest and it was about just living until tomorrow. I imagine it would much more likely for humans to use direct experience on what is most effective than experimenting with a new method. It was too risky when you lived in the wilderness.

I guess you can also make the argument for intuitive being first. Intuitive are more likely to trust their gut insight and subconscious. They are often not as logical and detail-oriented as sensors. They are more likely to just react. It is a lot like you would imagine an animal doing, relying just on instinct and gut feeling.


----------



## Dashing (Sep 19, 2011)

Is it just me who got the MBTI principle wrong? Aren't you supposed to have like all the functions, just in varying degree?

The behavioral pattern of humans is pretty alike to animals if you think away all the bullshit.


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

WildWolf711 said:


> I think sensing. It is more focused on the present and what is practical. Back when humans were nomads, hunting and gathering for food, it would be more useful to be a sensor. The goal was to obtain food, shelter, and clothing; basically, just to survive since we did not have the technology yet.
> 
> Decisions needed to be made quickly, effectively, and practical. There was not time to sit around and daydream about all the possibilities. It was survival of the fittest and it was about just living until tomorrow. I imagine it would much more likely for humans to use direct experience on what is most effective than experimenting with a new method. It was too risky when you lived in the wilderness.
> 
> I guess you can also make the argument for intuitive being first. Intuitive are more likely to trust their gut insight and subconscious. They are often not as logical and detail-oriented as sensors. They are more likely to just react. It is a lot like you would imagine an animal doing, relying just on instinct and gut feeling.


Not really, no. Wild life isn't like that for humans. As humans, you're measly, you can't fly, and you can't run, so you're the perfect prey. That's when we invent tools, throw some arrows at your hunters, and hunt and eat them instead. 
Left naked in a wild jungle, who would survive, an Ne-dom who could easily see the possibility of tools in raw material, or an Se-dom who'd try to fight the hunter or simply run?

Forgetting the controversial and frankly Lamarckian field of evolutionary psychology to focus on anatomy, our brains are made of a myriad of neurons constantly interacting with each other, not of a book- or hard drive-like entity. We're made to notice and learn by patterns.


----------

