# What is the origin of Intuition



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Si mixes subjective meaning into sensation and from Si, geometry could be derived (spatial).
> But N constantly takes things in already in abstracted principals. It looks like big magical leaps because the abstraction wheels (in your head) turn and make connections without having to go to the verbal part of your brain. But really what you are doing is connecting abstractions.


Well, I can see that you intuitively get this, but anything mathematical is purely thinking (probably the purest conceptualization out there). It can be approached intuitively, but it can also be approached from the sensation perspective perfectly easily (if not more easily and accurately, of course).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Meadow said:


> When I used to engage in spiritual practices I'd have occasional "visions," and I was wondering if this is the way Ni is experienced. Here's an example of a vision I had out of the blue, and it was like watching a movie that I couldn't control. I saw myself holding hands with a guy I knew, we went through an archway such as what would be found in a garden, then we separated in a "V" direction, never to see each other again. None of the vision made sense, yet it all came true. Is this what it's like for Ni, something symbolic jumps into the mind such as what I experienced?


Hard to say. Sounds like a mix of imagination and maybe some kind of hunch you had about something based on little evidence. It's intuition in general. Ni wouldn't really be any different in the "visions" department other than it works with visions derived from ideas first-and-foremost rather than concrete conditions that give rise to them first-and-foremost.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> When we evolved our creative thinking. That is after all what intuition basically is.


No, not really. Intuition isn't creativity necessarily (that really says nothing about it, because define what you mean by "creativity"). It can be a mundane hunch, or a creative one. Probably comes down to the individual. A lot of intelligence, creativity, etc. is related to the unconscious mind according to Jung (intuition is not the unconscious mind - it brings forth content from the unconscious mind). Intuition is a tricky subject in general because of it's uncertain nature. I honestly would not be surprised if there are a lot of sensation types who think they are very intuitive and mistyped here (lack of self-awareness). For the person with abstracted intuition, they probably don't even have to try to apply it creatively - they probably don't even think about it most of the time - it's just their automatic go-to mental signal without any kind of emotional reaction in the process for the most part (I mean, it probably makes them feel relieved and captivated in a positive way, but it's probably super quick - not something done with much deliberate consideration). I personally think there might be a correlation between creativity with intuition for those who are generally right-brained people or those who are very in-touch with their unconscious mind in general, but that's hard to prove scientifically (I mean, type researcher Dr. Dario Nardi pretty much noted some "INTJs" who were extremely linear and left-brained, while others were super creative right-brainers full of spontaneity). Hard to say why that may be, other than through scientific brain research, theories, etc.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

intuition is evaluating sense perceptions without taking the tangible into consideration--at least not consciously. i mean, what else could it be if each is doing the exact same thing? 

how i see intuition is this: let's say there are these objects--such as bars, something concrete, etc--that exist in a tangible fashion. in this make-believe scenario the bars are just kind of floating around, connecting and forming, then breaking away and making something new--continuously. but the substance that allows the bars to connect and to form anything that is recognizable in an objective setting (you see it, i see it, everyone sees it) is actually invisible, and you'd have to alter your perception to even be aware of it as opposed to what's immediately noticeable--but the point of altering this scene (maybe turning out the lights and having it's negative glow in the dark, where the bars are now invisible but the connecting substance is stark) is the point at which you deprive yourself of viewing one or the other. are you mainly focusing on what is known or what is a fact (the bars), or do you tend to zone those parts out and put more of an emphasis on what is allowing the bars to come together, on what allows for something such as a fact to surface in the way that we all recognize it as being?

it's for this reason that i don't really see intuition as being mystical or coming from some sort of "higher power"--it's just a different angle, like solving a math problem from a subjective standpoint--we all arrive at the same answers but the path we took ran counter to our neighbors'. 

in a very short interview with Jung, he mentioned his take on intuition in regards to evolution. now, he might have just been setting up an analogy of sorts to get his point across, but the nature of his explanation kind of resonated with his take on introversion/extroversion. in shorter, paraphrased words: a system needs balance. it needs some sort of foundation to run off of, something that is taken for granted as reality and is unquestioned. it needs practicality, input -> output--sensation. too much direct opposition or too much going against the grain is disruptive, but in small doses it can move a people over a small hill that is encountered--a hill that isn't going to be traversed by the old familiar tools; a problem that calls for a new solution/tool that is really based off the learned experience that came before it, that even brought the people to the hill to begin with. (edit: or at least that's what i got from it)

now, this doesn't mean that every great little jump of mankind was the work of an intuitive (or that it was even an intuitive jump, it could have been thinking, feeling, sensation)--it could have occurred in a person who's intuitive perspective is something they largely repress--but what i'm getting at, and to answer your question: intuition is apart of humanity, that's where it comes from. its just this odd little happening where everything that makes up what we call existence is thrown around and jumbled up in an attempt to find out if the connecting pieces can come together in another fashion, and still be something that we can, again, recognize as reality.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> No, not really. Intuition isn't creativity necessarily (that really says nothing about it, because define what you mean by "creativity"). It can be a mundane hunch, or a creative one. Probably comes down to the individual. A lot of intelligence, creativity, etc. is related to the unconscious mind according to Jung (intuition is not the unconscious mind - it brings forth content from the unconscious mind). Intuition is a tricky subject in general because of it's uncertain nature.


I meant creative thinking as people in the stone-age realizing what you can do with a stone.
I didn't mean it as creativity as much as the ability to connect 2 things to make something better or looking at something and realize that it could have another use.

If I locked you in a cage and gave you the key, you would use the key to get out.
For that to have happened you must have realized that there's a connection between the lock and the key.
It might seem obvious, but that's only because your intuition tells you that there's a connection between the lock and the key. It is unconscious because you just know that the key and lock are connected.

Do the same to another animal and they might end up eating the key. Not realizing what it is for.
Same goes for a very young child. Show the child how it works then lock their favorite toy in a box and hand them the key. The child would rather eat the key or bang it at the box than use it.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I agree that it can be sort of finding the answer on the surface without having a tangible datapoint for it. Definitely has some kind of connection to the collective and one's ability to relate their own considerations to the mode of the collective to an extent (not sure that's all intuition though - so much of that just comes from experience and cultural programming as well).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> I meant creative thinking as people in the stone-age realizing what you can do with a stone.
> I didn't mean it as creativity as much as the ability to connect 2 things to make something better or looking at something and realize that it could have another use.
> 
> If I locked you in a cage and gave you the key, you would use the key to get out.
> ...


I think a lot of that comes from thinking. I mean, Jung pretty much implies that a person operating solely on intuition would be unconscious (really not possible anyway). Thinking is what makes logical connections. You might sense the connection as well (I mean, there's no intuition without sensation anyway). It's hard to know what might influence someone's ability to connect your example together. I mean, it could be intuition, not arguing against that, but it doesn't have to be.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Referring to the word _abstract_:

Even the purest form of conscious sense perception comes after a long process of filtering and abstracting the original stimuli. So the whole content of our consciousness actually consists of abstract patterns. What we actually call abstract is only relative to the "average degree of abstraction" :wink:

When you identify a tree outside, would you call this an abstract perception? Probably not. But it is: Probably you have never seen _this special tree from this special angle in front of this special backround_. But you don't call it "this special ...in this special..." you just call it tree and therefore you isolate it from the original package of information.This is already an abstraction.

That makes it difficult to attribute abstraction to one particular function. 

One could argue that intuition on condition that it is always indirectly composed of actual sense perceptions, always has more processes of abstraction in its origin story than sense perceptions themselves. But it is also important to know that the intuitive perception is not only abstraction but usually also re-combination. That actually makes it _more concrete_ than its components were after being abstracted.



uncertain said:


> The problem is this-- Where do these "patterns, connection, possibilities" come from? Really, where? (Think as BIG as you can is what I'm hoping for). How do we human being do that? They don't exist, they really don't.


I suspect questions of this kind go beyond the differences between sensors and intuitives. Maybe you can read a bit about this very old and still unsolved problem: Problem of universals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I think a lot of that comes from thinking. I mean, Jung pretty much implies that a person operating solely on intuition would be unconscious (really not possible anyway). Thinking is what makes logical connections. You might sense the connection as well (I mean, there's no intuition without sensation anyway). It's hard to know what might influence someone's ability to connect your example together. I mean, it could be intuition, not arguing against that, but it doesn't have to be.


I'd say you are over-thinking it.
Thinking according to Jung is making reasoning without consciously trying to think.
Intuition according to Jung is connected to the unconscious.
(Noting that Jung likely was a sensor then a large portion of his problem with describing intuition could be contributed to that.)

But if we go by the basics of what intuition does. Then my examples would make more sense.

The definition for intuition is: 


> The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.


I'm not saying that it doesn't have more layers to it, but that's likely based on its influence in your personality.
But if we were to look at intuition without it being affected by the complex dynamic in the mind of a person then what it really does is connecting things.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Do the same to another animal and they might end up eating the key. Not realizing what it is for.
> Same goes for a very young child. Show the child how it works then lock their favorite toy in a box and hand them the key. The child would rather eat the key or bang it at the box than use it.


I guess this kind of creativity is not only intuitive perception, but also *intuitive action *or random action. Often people do creative things with their hands and the only thing they consciosly percept is the result. In these cases actual intuitive perception is not necessary. But generally, it seems natural that creativity is a basical purpose of the intuitive function.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@_Acerbusvenator_

Well, first off, you can't mistake intuition with abstraction, as people are doing here (there's a strong tendency that some of the experts here tend to recognize for people to mistake archetypal modes of consciousness for intuition, when in fact, that's all only an indicator of introversion). Gestalt psychology is an area dealing with this ability that is rooted in the cognitive faculties of the brain: Gestalt psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And thinking is 100% not what you said it is. It is deliberate and conscious (you can't call pure reason unconscious, because there would be no basis from which to do so - it would cease to be reason) - using logic is a way to exact data in accord with mental constructs (you merge yourself with the logical processes - at best, a person who dominates with thinking lives in accord with this mentality as an ego defense). What you said makes no sense at all. And no, Jung understood all of the functions fine, that's a ridiculous statement (it's not like not having a function as your dominant makes you less accurately aware of the others - it's only a matter of what gets abstracted toward ego defense that counts for a dominant via habituation, which isn't a constant, just a habit - to Jung, an over-identification with the dominant was not always a good sign of a stable ego (quite the contrary), which was his primary concern - lack of self-awareness was a huge concern to Jung with regards to this as well).


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> @_Acerbusvenator_
> 
> Well, first off, you can't mistake intuition with abstraction, as people are doing here (there's a strong tendency that some of the experts here tend to recognize for people to mistake archetypal modes of consciousness for intuition, when in fact, that's all only an indicator of introversion). Gestalt psychology is an area dealing with this ability that is rooted in the cognitive faculties of the brain: Gestalt psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What makes you believe I don't know what I am talking about?
Plus, we are discussing the origin of intuition, not what Jung thought.



> And *thinking is 100% not what you said it is*. It is deliberate and conscious (you can't call pure reason unconscious, because there would be no basis from which to do so - it would cease to be reason) - using logic is a way to exact data in accord with mental constructs (you merge yourself with the logical processes - at best, a person who dominates with thinking lives in accord with this mentality as an ego defense). *What you said makes no sense at all*. And no, Jung understood all of the functions fine, *that's a ridiculous statement* (it's not like not having a function as your dominant makes you less accurately aware of the others - it's only a matter of what gets abstracted toward ego defense that counts for a dominant via habituation, which isn't a constant, just a habit - to Jung, an over-identification with the dominant was not always a good sign of a stable ego (quite the contrary), which was his primary concern - lack of self-awareness was a huge concern to Jung with regards to this as well).


Stop acting like a jerk.

I was referring to something I believed I read in "Psychological types", it was not my personal opinion so don't act like a jerk about it. I checked it out and realize that my memory had scrambled what I read.
However, are you aware every time you use Te? Because I doubt it.
What I meant was that you don't concentrate on the act of thinking. Most of the times you just think, it doesn't require a conscious input.

We are also discussing intuition and not thinking.

Plus, it is completely possible to explain why someone is wrong without:


> *thinking is 100% not what you said it is*.





> *What you said makes no sense at all*.





> *that's a ridiculous statement*


You would find that avoiding such hostility would lead to a more open and friendly reply.


----------



## yet another intj (Feb 10, 2013)

uncertain said:


> *how and where did human beings get the ability?*


Enjoy! Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution


----------



## currentlybusy (Dec 15, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Intuition requires a concrete foundation from which extrapolation can occur. How this occurs is largely in the mind, but perhaps the how correlates strongly with patterns outside of the mind. That's the only reasonable possibility I can come up with.


Legit.

I was thinking that an extraverted N does (unconsiously) puts everything in its context. For example, when I'm seeing text I'm directly focussing all my attention to its context. In contrary to a sensor who will mainly focus on the text. That's why Ne's have such a hard time with details. Of course most of the context I'm looking for is already in my unconscious and then it just seems like it popped into my head. What do you think, I did zero research so I might be completely wrong.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> What makes you believe I don't know what I am talking about?
> Plus, we are discussing the origin of intuition, not what Jung thought.
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I'm sorry to say, but here we go again with the "subjective opinions" passing for fact confusion around here. I don't mean to be a jerk (that wasn't my intent - I was defending Jung's ideas from some silly ones of yours that this guy didn't know what he was talking about because of his type, which really is a ridiculous argument - I suppose then no one around here should talk about the functions they don't lead with by that logic), but I might as well pull some Jung passages (or even consult someone like Bertrand Russel) just to show you were your arguments are not adding up. I don't like arguing on this, but you can't just say something and expect it to fly (I mean, Jung defines thinking as this:


> When _supremacy _among the psychological functions is given to thinking,_ i.e._ when the life of an individual is mainly ruled by *reflective* thinking so that every important action proceeds from *intellectually considered* motives, or when there is at least a tendency to conform to such motives, we may fairly call this a _thinking type. _Such a type can be either introverted or extraverted. We will first discuss the _extraverted thinking type. _


 - Ch. 10, The Extraverted Thinking Type.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, I'm sorry to say, but here we go again with the "subjective opinions" passing for fact confusion around here.


Not to be blunt or rude, but that is just a stupid comment.
We are discussing psychology, psychology isn't based on facts.



> I was defending Jung's ideas from some silly ones of yours that this guy didn't know what he was talking about because of his type, which really is a ridiculous argument


I said that the fact that he was a sensor should be considered when considering what he said. Intuition was after all one of his weaker functions and that means he likely had problems with it. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Maybe add this from the definitions in _Psychological Types_:



> _*
> 53. Thinking*_: This I regard as one of the four basic psychological functions (_v_. Function). Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an apperceptive activity and, as such, must be differentiated into _active_ and _passive_ thought-activity. Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may even contradict my aim -- they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness. Active thinking would correspond, therefore, with my idea of directed thinking. [70] *Passive thinking was inadequately characterized in my previous work as "phantasying" [71]. To-day I would term it intuitive thinking*.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

One day, three men were trekking through a jungle when they came across a violent, raging river. They had no idea how to cross. So the first man decided to pray:

'Please, God, give me the strength to cross this river.' Immediately he grew enormous muscles in his arms and legs, and he managed to swim across the river in a couple of hours, nearly drowning twice.

The second man saw this and he prayed 'Please, God, give me the strength AND the tools to cross this river.' A boat appeared from nowhere, and he battled across the river in an hour, nearly capsizing twice.

The third man saw this and prayed 'Please, God, give me the strength, the tools AND the intelligence to cross this river.'

Immediately he turned into a woman. She looked at the map, walked upstream a hundred yards, and crossed over the bridge to the other side.

All kidding aside, maybe just because it is more effective to try and plan a course in advance than to use brute force?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Not to be blunt or rude, but that is just a stupid comment.
> We are discussing psychology, psychology isn't based on facts.
> 
> 
> I said that the fact that he was a sensor should be considered when considering what he said. Intuition was after all one of his weaker functions and that means he likely had problems with it. Don't put words in my mouth.


Well, if you don't believe there's any validity to psychology, then you cannot have a conversation about type. It's that simple. Psychology isn't made up...how would that make any sense? Secondly, your argument was truly annoyingly bad (like cringeworthy and ridiculous - I mean, tell that to a graduate school level professor and await the response) - I mean, of course, since you don't believe that psychological principles hold any validity in reality, whether or not they are exact, that gives you the license to just make up stuff like "intuition is a _weaker _function in an auxiliary sensation type, which in the Jungian community, is actually completely up for debate - might not be true at all, since Jung never considered functions in terms of "strengths" anyway the way MBTI does. Have a nice day, this discussion is over (I just can't argue from that perspective, it's not accurate - you're practically calling intuition thinking, exactly what I thought would happen, let alone, assuming that a tertiary function cannot exist in a normal state, which is not what Jung was ever getting at, even though this is the common made-up MBTI consensus around the internet that the functions are concrete units that exist in an objectively superior or inferior way based on the subjective classification of "rank"). If I have offended, I apologize, but this is truly a big deal when it comes to misunderstandings of the _general_ theory.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

*Oh sorry, what comes after is much more interesting:




> To my mind, a simple stringing together of representations,such as is described by certain psychologists a s_associative thinking_ [72] is not thinking at all, but mere _presentation_. The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept, where, in other words, an act of judgment prevails, whether such act be the product of one's intention or not.The faculty of directed thinking, I term _intellect_: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term _intellectual_ intuition.




_-_Psychological Types, Definitions


----------

