# The Age of INTUITION



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Our world is changing. We are progressing into the age of intuition and we can see the patterns. Access to information and the creation of new information is exponentially increasing each day. What does this mean? This means we will need a better filtering system to determine which information is relevant and useful and above all, true. What does that mean? It means reason and logic alone will no longer suffice. It even means ethics alone will not suffice. What will be key to survival is INTUITION. More and more people will inhabit this planet and it is important for us to have a good filtering system that allows us to identify who we can and can't trust. There is only one way to do this and that is incorporating intuition. 

To truly know what is going on in this world you have to be open and INTUITIVE. This will separate the strong from the weak. There is simply too much information and too much going on in this world to require proof and evidence for every statement and claim. It is impractical and most of all a weak form of arriving at a conclusion. The decisions you make in the age of intuition will have to primarily come from your intuition. We all have one. The problem is that not everyone harnesses and embraces it. Most shun it and rely on reason, emotion, ethics, law and power to make their life decisions. No more. When the age of intuition hits us, all these things will have little effect. Intuition will be supreme and you either have it or you don't. You either get what I'm saying or you don't. It will be a CHOICE whether you choose to embrace and harness intuition or not. Yes, it will be by your own choosing.

Humans and civilizations will always continue to evolve. Those who can't keep up are weeded out. Intuition will your key to survival for when the next evolutionary stage comes. You are hearing it first from me, so don't say nobody warned you.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

make way for the **** superior. la la la. **** sapiens have outgrown their use.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> Those who can't keep up are weeded out.




I think you underestimate the power of the bleeding heart to protect and keep dying things alive.

I do agree that intuition is an natural evolution over sensing. 

Si had an important place in survival ensuring today is much like yesterday... preserving the day to day life of humanity... but changed happen anyway... and Si wasnt smart enough to filter out the changes for the worse. Trying to hang onto a "safe" past and way of life at this point in the process is like trying to keep water from dropping out of sieve.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

andrea said:


> make way for the **** superior. la la la. **** sapiens have outgrown their use.


And really I think it's the fault of the NTs to a large degree. Those ESTJs had a point when they said things like.,... we didn't need plastic, fastfood, and atomic energy yesterday... let's keep hunting animals and growing our own vegetables...


----------



## Verdant Hollow (Aug 25, 2009)

Assuming Si is hereditary, unless Si fails to reproduce, there will continue to be Si. While Si might not be as useful as something like Ti or Ne (and I'm not even sure this is true), that doesn't necessarily limit Si's propagation.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> Our world is changing. We are progressing into the age of intuition and we can see the patterns. Access to information and the creation of new information is exponentially increasing each day. What does this mean? This means we will need a better filtering system to determine which information is relevant and useful and above all, true. What does that mean? It means reason and logic alone will no longer suffice. It even means ethics alone will not suffice. What will be key to survival is INTUITION. More and more people will inhabit this planet and it is important for us to have a good filtering system that allows us to identify who we can and can't trust. There is only one way to do this and that is incorporating intuition.
> 
> To truly know what is going on in this world you have to be open and INTUITIVE. This will separate the strong from the weak. There is simply too much information and too much going on in this world to require proof and evidence for every statement and claim. It is impractical and most of all a weak form of arriving at a conclusion. The decisions you make in the age of intuition will have to primarily come from your intuition. We all have one. The problem is that not everyone harnesses and embraces it. Most shun it and rely on reason, emotion, ethics, law and power to make their life decisions. No more. When the age of intuition hits us, all these things will have little effect. Intuition will be supreme and you either have it or you don't. You either get what I'm saying or you don't. It will be a CHOICE whether you choose to embrace and harness intuition or not. Yes, it will be by your own choosing.
> 
> Humans and civilizations will always continue to evolve. Those who can't keep up are weeded out. Intuition will your key to survival for when the next evolutionary stage comes. You are hearing it first from me, so don't say nobody warned you.


As you "superior" intuitives meet and discuss this for the next 400 years the rest of us will be getting on just fine. The more of you that lock yourself up in rooms the better. So what's your first order of business? Most likely manipulating and controlling a massive amount of people and committing genocide. 

Thanks but I will continue to embrace my Se, it sees things that are going on just fine.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Grim said:


> I think you underestimate the power of the bleeding heart to protect and keep dying things alive.
> 
> I do agree that intuition is an natural evolution over sensing.
> 
> Si had an important place in survival ensuring today is much like yesterday... preserving the day to day life of humanity... but changed happen anyway... and Si wasnt smart enough to filter out the changes for the worse. Trying to hang onto a "safe" past and way of life at this point in the process is like trying to keep water from dropping out of sieve.


Sorry, but I don't think you understood or read what I said correctly. I never said that ethics, reason and all these things we have acquired through evolution will die off. Never did I say that. They have not died off because we will are living through all that now. 

Please understand before you make a statement. Or, if you don't understand please ask a question. This the correct approach in discussion to avoid arguing over misunderstandings or misinterpretations, which occupy a large part of discussions.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Grim said:


> And really I think it's the fault of the NTs to a large degree. Those ESTJs had a point when they said things like.,... we didn't need plastic, fastfood, and atomic energy yesterday... let's keep hunting animals and growing our own vegetables...


This statement is quite prejudice and assuming, and thus will be ignored.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> Sorry, but I don't think you understood or read what I said correctly. I never said that ethics, reason and all these things we have acquired through evolution will die off. Never did I say that. They have not died off because we will are living through all that now.
> 
> Please understand before you make a statement. Or, if you don't understand please ask a question. This the correct approach in discussion to avoid arguing over misunderstandings or misinterpretations, which occupy a large part of discussions.




Show me where I said anything was dying off. 


If you do not agree with a point I make... feel free to ignore it.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> This statement is quite prejudice and assuming, and thus will be ignored.


Ok then... show me your proof for any statement you made in your opening post. 

You might not like my opinion on something... but you cannot just invalidate it. You can only disprove it. Nor will you dictate how I choose to respond.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

Treebob this is the second time i've noticed you get personal

edit: i don't really mind it, but just to let you know. we meant no insult


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Grim said:


> Show me where I said anything was dying off.
> 
> 
> If you do not agree with a point I make... feel free to ignore it.



This article is not about Si. Never once did I mention Si. Your comment alone will make people skip my article and assume that this article is about Si being less dominant than Intuition, which was not what I was trying to say. NOT ONCE DID I MENTION SI. YOU ARE ASSUMING. I SINCERELY DOUBT YOU READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT. 

I started off with the topic. You're supposed to read what was said and form your own thoughts about it.
You can't just not read it and twist what was said and have everyone take this thread in through your assumptions.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

andrea said:


> Treebob this is the second time i've noticed you get personal
> 
> edit: i don't really mind it, but just to let you know. we meant no insult to you


What only the second? I suppose I am slipping. I didn't really enter into this thread to debate much. I find his and your attitude ludicrous. Possibly you were making a joke in which case I will say no more. Pairadice has a superiority complex and seems to like showing off his perceived intellect. I don't agree nor will I ever that intuitives are more superior than sensors. 

Oh and I stand by what I said originally andrea and I don't think it is harsh. My statement is not directed at all intuitives just the ones who agree with him and think they are superior.

Nice PS, you said WE. Are you his wife?


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Grim said:


> Ok then... show me your proof for any statement you made in your opening post.
> 
> You might not like my opinion on something... but you cannot just invalidate it. You can only disprove it. Nor will you dictate how I choose to respond.


What you said was prejudice. You can't just say all [insert this type of person here] are X, but [this type] is Y. THAT IS PREJUDICE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I'm invalidating it because 1) its not related to the topic and 2) it's prejudice. It adds no value and only detracts from what the article is about and gets people arguing over who is better than who. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> This article is not about Si. Never once did I mention Si. Your comment alone will make people skip my article and assume that this article is about Si being less dominant than Intuition, which was not what I was trying to say. NOT ONCE DID I MENTION SI. YOU ARE ASSUMING. I SINCERELY DOUBT YOU READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT.
> 
> I started off with the topic. You're supposed to read what was said and form your own thoughts about it.
> You can't just not read it and twist what was said and have everyone take this thread in through your assumptions.


I didnt assume you mentioned Si, I mentioned it because I felt like doing so. I didnt need permission.... and I did read the whole thing... I found it to be very opinionated... and I gave mine. 

You seem really threatened by it. You should not post threads on a public forum if you cannot handle something as minor as a different perspective....


For what it is worth, I agreed with your opening post... I think the world is changing too despite the drive of the SJs (Si...) to keep it from doing so.

The SPs are in there here and now. The SJs are stuck in the past. That leaves NTs and NFs to be responsible for much of the world's changing. And of those NTs seem the likely choice. I don't dislike NTs... I am one.


----------



## Andrea (Apr 20, 2009)

i didn't enter this thread to debate either. i just made a comment. it's a song, but you don't have to know that to realize i didn't necessarily agree with whoever started this thread.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> Our world is changing.


This is obvious.


> We are progressing into the age of intuition and we can see the patterns.


What evidence do you have for this assertion? What patterns do you mean?


> Access to information and the creation of new information is exponentially increasing each day.


It definitely seems that way, but what evidence do you have?


> What does this mean?


That was a rhetorical question.


> This means we will need a better filtering system to determine which information is relevant and useful and above all, true.


I can agree with that statement.


> What does that mean?


That is another rhetorical question.


> It means reason and logic alone will no longer suffice. It even means ethics alone will not suffice. What will be key to survival is INTUITION.


This is where you are blatantly wrong. Many scientific facts are, in reality, very counter-intuitive.


> More and more people will inhabit this planet and it is important for us to have a good filtering system that allows us to identify who we can and can't trust. There is only one way to do this and that is incorporating intuition.


If we learn the correct mathematics, heuristics, and psychology, we can also formulate this intuition into a rational system.


> To truly know what is going on in this world you have to be open and INTUITIVE. This will separate the strong from the weak.


This is a bare assertion fallacy.


> There is simply too much information and too much going on in this world to require proof and evidence for every statement and claim.


If you manage your time correctly, it may be possible.


> It is impractical and most of all a weak form of arriving at a conclusion.


You will need to prove this assertion.


> The decisions you make in the age of intuition will have to primarily come from your intuition.


Mankind has been doing this for millenia. It is nothing new.


> We all have one. The problem is that not everyone harnesses and embraces it.


Why should they? 


> Most shun it and rely on reason, emotion, ethics, law and power to make their life decisions.


This is another assertion fallacy. Stop it. 


> No more. When the age of intuition hits us, all these things will have little effect. Intuition will be supreme and you either have it or you don't. You either get what I'm saying or you don't. It will be a CHOICE whether you choose to embrace and harness intuition or not. Yes, it will be by your own choosing.


Nonsense.
That is an example of the false choice fallacy and yet ANOTHER assertion fallacy.


> Humans and civilizations will always continue to evolve.


So?


> Those who can't keep up are weeded out. Intuition will your key to survival for when the next evolutionary stage comes. You are hearing it first from me, so don't say nobody warned you.


This smacks of bigotted rhetoric.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> What you said was prejudice. You can't just say all [insert this type of person here] are X, but [this type] is Y. THAT IS PREJUDICE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
> 
> I'm invalidating it because 1) its not related to the topic and 2) it's prejudice. It adds no value and only detracts from what the article is about and gets people arguing over who is better than who. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


I understand you need to calm down. Like I said... if you dont understand or like my point of view you're free to ignore it.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> This article is not about Si. Never once did I mention Si. Your comment alone will make people skip my article and assume that this article is about Si being less dominant than Intuition, which was not what I was trying to say. NOT ONCE DID I MENTION SI. YOU ARE ASSUMING. I SINCERELY DOUBT YOU READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR COMMENT.
> 
> I started off with the topic. You're supposed to read what was said and form your own thoughts about it.
> You can't just not read it and twist what was said and have everyone take this thread in through your assumptions.


I, for one, DID read the entirety of your apocalyptic rhetoric. I have demonstrated that it was bullshit.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

TreeBob said:


> What only the second? I suppose I am slipping. I didn't really enter into this thread to debate much. I find his and your attitude ludicrous. Possibly you were making a joke in which case I will say no more. Pairadice has a superiority complex and seems to like showing off his perceived intellect. I don't agree nor will I ever that intuitives are more superior than sensors.
> 
> Oh and I stand by what I said originally andrea and I don't think it is harsh. My statement is not directed at all intuitives just the ones who agree with him and think they are superior.
> 
> Nice PS, you said WE. Are you his wife?



Never did I once say intuitives are better than sensors. That is not what this thread is about. You come in here and twist what I say and now every new person that reads this is going ot think that this article is about that. Did you even read the article? It doesn't seem like you did. 

Then you attack me personally and say I have a superiority complex? How do you know what my attitude is like? Can you see me and hear me? How am I showing off my intellect? I am just speaking of an idea, in which i expected an intellectual discussion, but I guess will turn into something else now. Don't attack me and say I have a superiority complex when you don't know me. Attacking an idea is one thing, but you are attacking me personally and I don't appreciate it. I expect that you will handle this different next time.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> What you said was prejudice. You can't just say all [insert this type of person here] are X, but [this type] is Y. THAT IS PREJUDICE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


...said the Nazi to the Klansman.

Your entire post consisted of nothing more than intuitive superiority nonsense.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

shanoxilt said:


> I, for one, DID read the entirety of your apocalyptic rhetoric. I have demonstrated that it was bullshit.



First, I don't have to prove anything. You either understand it or you don't, and clearly you don't. What I say comes from my intuition. If you are not operating at that level you won't get it.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> Never did I once say intuitives are better than sensors.


You certainly implied it.


> You come in here and twist what I say and now every new person that reads this is going ot think that this article is about that. Did you even read the article? It doesn't seem like you did.


Spare us your false outrage. 


> Then you attack me personally and say I have a superiority complex?


You do.


> How do you know what my attitude is like? Can you see me and hear me? How am I showing off my intellect? I am just speaking of an idea, in which i expected an intellectual discussion, but I guess will turn into something else now. Don't attack me and say I have a superiority complex when you don't know me. Attacking an idea is one thing, but you are attacking me personally and I don't appreciate it. I expect that you will handle this different next time.


WOW. That is full of red herrings and other such nonsense.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> First, I don't have to prove anything. You either understand it or you don't, and clearly you don't. What I say comes from my intuition. If you are not operating at that level you won't get it.


You have your thread back... this "agree with me or else you're an idiot" stance you're taking is ridiculous.

If you're going to be an intellectual snob... you might want to make sure you're intellectually superior first.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> First, I don't have to prove anything.


Ah, so you are avoiding the consequences of your assertions. 


> You either understand it or you don't, and clearly you don't.


I do understand it. I have demonstrated that it is nonsense.


> What I say comes from my intuition. If you are not operating at that level you won't get it.


This is nonsensical balderdash and bare assertion. If you know what you mean, you could describe it.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

Grim said:


> You have your thread back... this "agree with me or else you're an idiot" stance you're taking is ridiculous.
> 
> If you're going to be an intellectual snob... you might want to make sure you're intellectually superior first.



So you did intentially try to hijack the thread, as I thought. No you dont have to agree with me. I love people who disagree and actually make a great point related to what was actually said. These type of people usually demonstrate that they understood what was said and then make their point. Disagree with me all you want. I welcome that. But when you show no understanding of what was said and then make a false assumption and prejudice remark, that's when things are going off track.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Grim said:


> You have your thread back... this "agree with me or else you're an idiot" stance you're taking is ridiculous.
> 
> If you're going to be an intellectual snob... you might want to make sure you're intellectually superior first.


Exactly. How can someone pretend to have knowledge without demonstrating the evidence? It is madness!


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

Oh, hai IN*F*J.


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> So you did intentially try to hijack the thread, as I thought.


Nope.


> No you dont have to agree with me.


Obviously.


> I love people who disagree and actually make a great point related to what was actually said.


That is a blatant lie.


> These type of people usually demonstrate that they understood what was said and then make their point.


The points *have* been made. Your argument consists of pure assertion based on flimsy premises.


> Disagree with me all you want.


I will.


> I welcome that.


Based on your puerile responses, I can discern that you only pretend to welcome dissent.


> But when you show no understanding of what was said and then make a false assumption and prejudice remark, that's when things are going off track.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

shanoxilt said:


> Exactly. How can someone pretend to have knowledge without demonstrating the evidence? It is madness!



You are a sheep. And that much is clear. Quoting every sentence I make and making a snarky comment does nto prove you understood anything. In fact, it proves you are replying back for the sake of satisfying your own superiority complex, instead of discussing anything of actual value. 

All knowledge comes from evidence? FOOL! DON'T EVER AND I MEAN EVER... REPLY TO MY POSTS AGAIN! IT IS 100% CLEAR YOU ARE SHEEP.


----------



## Pairadice (Aug 14, 2009)

shanoxilt said:


> Exactly. How can someone pretend to have knowledge without demonstrating the evidence? It is madness!


All knowledge is gained through EXPERIENCES derived from our INSTINCTS.

Here is some evidence for your feeble mind. After you read this, don't ever reply to my threads again. My threads aren't suited for sheep! 

Hume: "when we analyze our thoughts or ideas, however compounded or sublime, we always find that they resolve themselves into such simple ideas as were copied from a precedent feeling or sentiment. Even those ideas, which at first view, seem the most wide of this origin, are found, upon a nearer scrutiny, to be derived from it. The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom."


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> All knowledge is gained through EXPERIENCES derived from our INSTINCTS.


Prove it.


> Here is some evidence for your feeble mind. After you read this, don't ever reply to my threads again. My threads aren't suited for sheep!


So, you must exclude yourself from your own topics! :laughing:


----------



## shanoxilt (Dec 5, 2008)

Pairadice said:


> You are a sheep. And that much is clear.


Nope.
And you are a counterfactual statement machine. You seem to produce only lies and irrational thought.



> Quoting every sentence I make and making a snarky comment does nto prove you understood anything.


It proves that your entire post is full of fallacies.



> In fact, it proves you are replying back for the sake of satisfying your own superiority complex, instead of discussing anything of actual value.


You have nothing of actual value to which anyone can respond.



> All knowledge comes from evidence?


Yes.



> FOOL! DON'T EVER AND I MEAN EVER... REPLY TO MY POSTS AGAIN! IT IS 100% CLEAR YOU ARE SHEEP.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Whatever.

I'd be bored as shit without the sensors.

I do wish people would be more intuitive, though. It can't hurt a thing.

I try to pay attention to sensory shit. Only room to grow!


----------



## Lyonessian (Jun 16, 2009)

Making assumptions with nothing to base yourself on, especially dealing with a concept such as intuition, as I see it, leads you to either disregard completely what others argue "because they aren't on my level", or be faced with your erroneous conclusions.

Either way you're wrong. Try making one assumption at a time with some substance under it and you might reap better results.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

TreeBob said:


> As you "superior" intuitives meet and discuss this for the next 400 years the rest of us will be getting on just fine. The more of you that lock yourself up in rooms the better. So what's your first order of business? Most likely manipulating and controlling a massive amount of people and committing genocide.


We have our first death camp overseer!
N is a natural evolution from S. No other animals have N, but we do. Therefor, it is more advanced.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

mortabunt said:


> We have our first death camp overseer!
> N is a natural evolution from S. No other animals have N, but we do. Therefor, it is more advanced.


I didn't realize were typing animals now. I can imagine all the NTP scientists are the ones doing it. "Yep looks like we got another ESTJ again, silly primitives..."


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

Pairadice said:


> AGE OF INTUITION.


Could be the LSD changing brain chemistry in brain.. users have reported a different way of thinking, a more open minded way.. Intuition is based on open mindedness.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

treebob said:


> i didn't realize were typing animals now. I can imagine all the ntp scientists are the ones doing it. "yep looks like we got another estj again, silly primitives..."


 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Vasoline (Jul 3, 2009)

Humans are social creatures, and every type has it's place in the world. Every type has a function in society. Without my sensor brethren, there would be next to no action in society, and that would be boring. I don't agree that S's will be going extinct (at least, without their N brethren going down with them). Though both types will have a lot of adapting to do in the future. It's like with any life form. They'll adapt or they'll die out. You don't know what kind of role S's may play in the next stage or humanity, so don't go saying foolish things.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Sensors and Intuitives are valuable for different reasons. Neither group is superior, and the two groups serve complementary functions rather than being inherently antagonistic. If one group is eliminated over time, it seems likely that the other group will also be weakened by its absence, as Vasoline suggested. As a side note, I see no reason for anyone here to attack anyone else or put anyone down. This warning against personal attacks applies to those who are becoming hostile on both sides of the debate. Sorry I showed up late.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Thank god you aren't handing out infractions.


----------



## HenRickunit (Aug 26, 2009)

Grim said:


> I think you underestimate the power of the bleeding heart to protect and keep dying things alive.
> 
> I do agree that intuition is an natural evolution over sensing.
> 
> Si had an important place in survival ensuring today is much like yesterday... preserving the day to day life of humanity... but changed happen anyway... and Si wasnt smart enough to filter out the changes for the worse. Trying to hang onto a "safe" past and way of life at this point in the process is like trying to keep water from dropping out of sieve.


I do know that to much of the wrong IN lead me to think all paths lead to now were.

What is Introverted sensing? I don't know if I have the right idea of it. I'm very baised against it (I have an ISXJ father and ESTJ mother).
There some thing that bugs me about strong Si people.....


----------



## Mikbert (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## HenRickunit (Aug 26, 2009)

Mikbert said:


>


 Hey!!! your not talking about me are you?


----------



## Mikbert (Jul 19, 2009)

HenRickunit said:


> Hey!!! your not talking about me are you?



No, the op of course.


----------

