# Why abstract thinking is Thinking or Feeling, Not Intuition



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Here is another reason why intuitive is not the same as abstract:

If the four functions describe the most basic cognitive functions, N+S should ideally cover the whole phenomenon of perception. That means every kind of perception that is not sensing is intuition and vice-versa. (Maybe memory is an exception or border case)

And in fact there are also ideas, imagines, scenarios etc. appearing in people's minds that don't come from sense perception and are concrete and lively (even 'sensory'), not only symbolical and abstract. If this is not intuition, then what?

Also, sensing itself can be distinguished based on being more or less abstract: a rather 'technical' sense perception that ignores distracting details and only watches out for important pieces of information is more abstract than enjoying whole, lively impressions in rich detail.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Still missing the point, you're too stuck in your narrow concepts that you're unable to see beyond them. You're mixing two unrelated arguments as an attempot of supporting your flawed idea, so this shows that you still can't see that it doesn't matter if fiction shows imaginary worlds, still there is a cognitive lens behind those texts, because they were written by real people.


Again, Ni is narrow. I understand that Se doms don't like that view (especially since Ni is the lower function,) but that's how I perceive things. 

You don't seem to understand that the "cognitive lens" is so small by the time the fiction is published that it isn't relevant any longer. The only thing there is how the author has decided to portray a character in an imaginary scenario. 



> Missing the point again. There are many ways of test theories and those depend of which are you're analyzing, so clearly you can't use empirical methods for everything. Besides if you think that fiction is useless, then areas like literature are completely moot, because it's completely based on the study of fictional texts.


If someone wants their theory about people to actually prove something then they need to show it by using non-imaginary examples. As a supposed Te user you sure are fighting against Te. 



> It doesn't matter if you claim to narrow something via Ni when you're unable to get the point of the OP in the first place.


The point of the thread was never made. There were words that were mostly quotes from other people and it never reached a conclusion. It basically just stopped without getting into the reasons for making the claim. 



> I think that's more embarrasing that you were unable to see that it wasn't a factious thing, but a logical deduction.


That was, hands down, the worst logical attempt I have ever seen. It screams low Ti. 



> I know the meaning of the word, thank you. I don't need to be taught in something that I already grasp. Anyway it's hilarious that you think that fiction is devoid of logic, when it just doesn't follow 'real world' logic, but still you need to use some basic logic for creating a coherent setting. I don't know if you have done any world building, but that's one part of fiction that requires to apply logic, as you set rules and define concepts for creating a new world.


Real world logic is Te. Again, you are arguing against a function you claim to use. I said it isn't logical because it doesn't have a truthful premise. You are moving the goal post. The fiction in the OP isn't about world building.



> Eh, I think that's damn easy to find evidence for that. Just read any text for noticing that intuition doesn't stand alone in a bubble, but still can be seen if it's dominant or not. Besides you're just nitpicking a lot.


So here, even you are proving the OP fallacious.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Octavian said:


> This is not meant to be derogatory or insulting, but reading over your many posts in this sub-forum, including this one, Si dominance is very apparent within you.


No offense taken. I realize that it's rare to see Ni/Te in action on this site so people are confused about it. It does look similar to Si since they are both introverted perception functions.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Again, Ni is narrow. I understand that Se doms don't like that view (especially since Ni is the lower function,) but that's how I perceive things.
> 
> You don't seem to understand that the "cognitive lens" is so small by the time the fiction is published that it isn't relevant any longer. The only thing there is how the author has decided to portray a character in an imaginary scenario.
> 
> ...












Thanks a lot for claiming that I'm a mistype and implying shit that I never said, seriously you had no better arguments than resorting to saying that I'm an ESTP, even if that was in an indirect way. I'm done with this shit.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Thanks a lot for claiming that I'm a mistype and implying shit that I never said, seriously you had no better arguments than resorting to saying that I'm an ESTP, even if that was in an indirect way. I'm done with this shit.


Why does Kathy think you are an ESTP?


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Why does Kathy think you are an ESTP?


She indirectly implied that I saw her ideas as narrow because I'm Se dom, and also implied that I'm not a Te user.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> She indirectly implied that I saw her ideas as narrow because I'm Se dom, and also implied that I'm not a Te user.


Ok… @Kathy Kane, please reserve that tor PMs. It's not nice to call others out as possibly mistyped in public.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Thanks a lot for claiming that I'm a mistype and implying shit that I never said, seriously you had no better arguments than resorting to saying that I'm an ESTP, even if that was in an indirect way. I'm done with this shit.


You opened yourself up when you said I "don't Ni for shit." I thought that meant you wanted someone else's opinion about your functions as well. So I supplied the truth.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

EthereaEthos said:


> Ok… @Kathy Kane, please reserve that tor PMs. It's not nice to call others out as possibly mistyped in public.


Excuse me? I never accuse anyone of being mistyped. Let's keep it honest here. 

If you actually read the responses I got from the duo on this thread, you would see that the mistype accusations started with them. If you're gonna judge at least spread it out to all involved.

I didn't see your comment to this: This is not meant to be derogatory or insulting, but reading over your many posts in this sub-forum, including this one, Si dominance is very apparent within you.[/QUOTE]"]


Octavian said:


> This is not meant to be derogatory or insulting, but reading over your many posts in this sub-forum, including this one, Si dominance is very apparent within you.


 I must have missed it.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> You opened yourself up when you said I "don't Ni for shit." I thought that meant you wanted someone else's opinion about your functions as well. So I supplied the truth.


Just mentioned that because I found odd that you couldn't grasp the OP nor my comments. Anyway thanks for showing that 'truth', as it proves that we understand functions in a different way.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> Just mentioned that because I found odd that you couldn't grasp the OP nor my comments. Anyway thanks for showing that 'truth', as it proves that we understand functions in a different way.


I'm happy to have done it.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Excuse me? I never accuse anyone of being mistyped. Let's keep it honest here.
> 
> If you actually read the responses I got from the duo on this thread, you would see that the mistype accusations started with them. If you're gonna judge at least spread it out to all involved.
> 
> I didn't see your comment to this:  I must have missed it.


Didn't see that, my apologies. @Blue Flare, the same goes for you.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

The OP is brilliant and I agree quite completely.

I also found cause to nitpick the examples, but I don't care... any subjective perspective I have on them is swallowed up quite entirely by the essence of thing as a whole. It is as clear as it could be. 

Intuition is perception, the transmission of mere images, irrational and amoral things that come from we know not where, but that connect reality to unreal things that are nevertheless also real. 

Our rational mind knows they aren't real, or might know this.. so it is irrelevant if we call these things real or if we call them something else. Nevertheless it is that we see something or imagine something and it is somehow no longer what it is... or we see something in the mind that is meant to be something ...... else. A hand crashing into a mirror, screaming, eyes... a body turning around, a glittering lake... or nothing so explicit, it doesn't matter. The lady that is a world of blue tangled bands, or a man that sits on a spinning cogwheel in an expanse of the same.... but not just images, perhaps archetypes, as they are trying to convey something, we can see they are more than images form or unformed but 'we' and our incredibly power to understand or feel, are not them... and it makes me think of something that cannot say, but can only show. We must discern it outside of it. It isn't random because it feels like a transmission. It _is_ a transmission. It isn't abstract, at least not in our current idiomatic sense. The instant that logic enters it, it is impure... it is come into the banality of the mind and is another thing. Like a... etching of itself or a half-forgotten dream.... you can try to make sense of it, or call it right or wrong but that isn't what it is. You could understand it in the most perfect of terms, or judge it beautiful or sick, but those things have nothing to do with it. It is not intelligent, and can actually be quite wrong in objective reality... as Jung, courtesy of @PaladinX, so well put (in the video, not the text, now that I think of it). The decisions or applications of the thing might be foolish to the utmost degree.... devastating, deadly, wrong, or evil. But none of this is the thing itself.

The song Strawberry Fields Forever, has always struck me as what I imagine it must be for a very strong dominant Intuitive struggling and failing to pull his Intuition into conscious Rationality. The 'images' resist, and create a sort of dumbfoundedness. It shows, I think, how much it isn't Rational, or even abstract... though we might call it abstract... a deeply abstract thinker would nevertheless have nothing at all to work with or within as an Intuitive stumbles to express that frequency that John so aptly cannot tell whether it 'high or low'. That is, Genius or Madness. Such a question is a Rational one.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Fiction is imaginary. It is in the definition. So people writing about imaginary things doesn't prove reality. That's like trying to justify reading romance novels to gain real knowledge about love. Fiction doesn't actually depict reality. Yes, real people write the fiction, but using those words as justification for cognitive functions is ridiculous.


Writing styles are real. And what the OP was talking about. Therefore your argument is actually invalid.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

arkigos said:


> The OP is brilliant and I agree quite completely.
> 
> I also found cause to nitpick the examples, but I don't care... any subjective perspective I have on them is swallowed up quite entirely by the essence of thing as a whole. It is as clear as it could be.


How much did it take you to resist that urge? I'm open to better examples though a mod would have to insert that edit then. 



> The song Strawberry Fields Forever, has always struck me as what I imagine it must be for a very strong dominant Intuitive struggling and failing to pull his Intuition into conscious Rationality. The 'images' resist, and create a sort of dumbfoundedness. It shows, I think, how much it isn't Rational, or even abstract... though we might call it abstract... a deeply abstract thinker would nevertheless have nothing at all to work with or within as an Intuitive stumbles to express that frequency that John so aptly cannot tell whether it 'high or low'. That is, Genius or Madness. Such a question is a Rational one.


Quirky lyrics. It seems to be something of what a sensor would think of intuition, this complete removal of reality as it is known to us. It made me think of my own poetry and it's quite funny, but a theme that permeates is a sense that the world or even I as a subject, is somewhat unreal. Girlfriend says that she finds it ethereal, this particular quality my writing has. Anyway, a particular piece that comes to mind though it's inspired by quantum physics and the idea of the holographic principle and one of my favorite bands:

*Beyond quantum mechanics*
We can't see it
We can't feel it
It's there where our senses do not reach
Can you believe it?
Can't believe it
That it's there
Where my senses do not reach
Faith?
No.
There is no god
Only us
So believe
That which we cannot see
It surrounds us
Unseen and untouched
That which we yearn for
Fate? 
No.
Dark matter dimensions
In our holographic universe
...our existences fade away.

As for how judgement shapes perception, I feel it does exactly that and it indeed taints it in a way, in that it's akin to having this piece of clay and instead of just being a piece of clay you shape it into various forms and burn the clay to forever be stuck in these forms. Perception is bent to fit an ideal rather than simply operate on its own.

I suppose a simple analogy would be something akin to observing that an apple is falling from the tree but instead of simply noting that one has to come up with a theoretical model why like gravity. Then it's no longer just about the apple falling, but the apple is falling because of gravity. It boxes the idea into a framework.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Writing styles are real. And what the OP was talking about. Therefore your argument is actually invalid.


Who said writing styles were not real?


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Who said writing styles were not real?


No one. You, however, seemed to think that we were discussing fiction, _rather than_ the writing styles _used to make_ that fiction. That was an incorrect assumption.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> No one. You, however, seemed to think that we were discussing fiction, _rather than_ the writing styles _used to make_ that fiction. That was an incorrect assumption.


So you tried to invalidate my argument based on a premise that was never said. Got it.

Writing styles can and do change. Especially when an author changes their genre. Still, fiction writing doesn't give real world examples since it has been heavily edited and passed through several hands. There is very little true original cognition that was written in the first draft that then makes it to published book. Again, this is not a good argument because it doesn't matter. Fiction is imaginary and what was quoted pointed to the actual words of the writing and not the cognition of the writing styles. 

Regardless, my argument is that there was nothing in the OP to actually prove the case. I wanted to see the argument, but I got fiction quotes, a judging example, and Jung quotes. It lacked an actual argument.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Nitpicking the examples aside, I wasn't too thrilled with the examples either, it was a good OP. Shame it turned into mud slinging.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Wow this thread totally exploded from when I looked at it earlier. I thought the OP made a lot of sense, don't really understand the criticism. 

Sensing: Sentence literally describing what's being seen.
Intuition: Stating possible interpretations of sensory information as if it's implied by the sensory impression itself. The possible interpretation of penis warts is implied by it's existence in the case of Ni, for Ne one attribute implies an another attribute, sensory data is similar to sensory data associated with a politician, therefore object is a politician, politicians kiss babies, therefore the object kisses babies, etc.
Thinking: Stated indisputable facts, this is what happened, this means this because of this.
Feeling: Value statements, she looks like a slut, he looks like a slut, two sluts in a monogamous relationship are no longer sluts, etc.


----------

