# Why do people associate intuition with open-mindedness?



## cerenach (Mar 26, 2015)

I often see the sentiment that a progressive outlook necessitates one be an intuitive. How did this idea come about? What (if any) basis exists for it? What about Si and Se give the impression of being resistant to change?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

cerenach said:


> I often see the sentiment that a progressive outlook necessitates one be an intuitive. How did this idea come about? What (if any) basis exists for it? What about Si and Se give the impression of being resistant to change?


Well, Si tends to prefer the tried and true-- And if the individual's 'tried and true' just happens to be trying new things and being open to new experiences, then that's their bread an' butter, so to speak.

Sometimes negative experiences can cause Si to become timid towards new experiences.

Se, on the other hand-- Loves to experience everything with their senses, as far as I can see. There's no reason for Se _not _to be 'open minded', but, as far as I'm concerned, _any _type can and _is _open minded. Or close minded. These are universal traits.

It just depends on how their experiences, environment, and the people around them, shaped them during development. roud:


----------



## occasus_z (Jan 30, 2015)

Si and Se encompass a cognitive predisposition to observe the external world in a "take-things as they are" viewpoint whereas N functions encompass cognitive predispositions towards conceptualisation and contextualisation of the same objects in the external world. 

N functions perceive nothing as "set in stone," so to speak, whereas S functions can come to ultimatums based on observations henceforth the distinction between perceptions of open and closed mindedness.


----------



## Revolver Ocelot (Feb 25, 2015)

I feel like S sees what your eyes see and N can see beneath the surface and read between the lines.


----------



## cerenach (Mar 26, 2015)

occasus_z said:


> Si and Se encompass a cognitive predisposition to observe the external world in a "take-things as they are" viewpoint whereas N functions encompass cognitive predispositions towards conceptualisation and contextualisation of the same objects in the external world.
> 
> N functions perceive nothing as "set in stone," so to speak, whereas S functions can come to ultimatums based on observations henceforth the distinction between perceptions of open and closed mindedness.


While I recognize N functions tend towards mutability and S toward concrete perceptions, I don't understand why Si and Se are disproportionately associated with rigid cognition when, for example, Ni can be just as dogmatic in how much value it places on it's "leaps"...to the point that Ni-doms are known to overlook objective reality for the sake of their subjective interpretations. Ne rigidity is more difficult to conceptualize. Perhaps willful indecisiveness? I'll have to think about it more. @Word Dispenser brings up an interesting point that there's no particular reason for Si and Se to be seen as close-minded since they're both more apt to recognize where they lack actual experience and then actively seek it (depending on the individual). 

As an aside, I'm surprised the introverted judging functions don't carry heavier connotations of close-mindedness since they are quite literally based on subjective rationalization. 



Revolver Ocelot said:


> I feel like S sees what your eyes see and N can see beneath the surface and read between the lines.


Just because N may read between the lines doesn't necessarily mean that it's range of perception is broader than S. While it may be more likely to pick up on hidden or contextual meanings it's also more likely to completely miss the obvious (and potentially more relevant) details making it more prone to lock onto ideas without sufficient evidence.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Revolver Ocelot said:


> I feel like S sees what your eyes see and N can see beneath the surface and read between the lines.


By that logic, all people with sight are S types.


----------



## Revolver Ocelot (Feb 25, 2015)

Pilot said:


> By that logic, all people with sight are S types.


I can see how from an S viewpoint you interpreted it that way.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Revolver Ocelot said:


> I can see how from an S viewpoint you interpreted it that way.


Or you haven't quite grasped your own claim.


----------



## Revolver Ocelot (Feb 25, 2015)

Pilot said:


> Or you haven't quite grasped your own claim.


You have to expand your mind a little.


----------



## Kingdom Crusader (Jan 4, 2012)

Yeah, seems a bit arbitrary to say that Ns are more open-minded by default. It would seem to me that Pe (Ne & Se) functions would serve to make someone more open-minded than say someone with Pi (Ni & Si) functions. If Pe functions are supposed to be more expansive in nature and Pi functions are supposed to work in a convergent way...


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

I would say Ni is the more narrow minded, seeking their own personal truth that's not tampered with external means. Driving your head crazy with this singular objective truth, focused on driven on the internal depths of the universe. Ni doesn't change it's vision often, because it ruminates this vision, deeply seeking for the essence behind the objective, of that deeply woven, intricate skin, and when it finds it's truth, it hangs onto it's truth. Si is similar, but on a sensory level. Internal subjective perception. Different, not the same, but with a similar subjective narrow focus.

Ne is more susceptible to change. After all, Ne is chasing after that grand possibility, but when ever scope of said possibility is explored or fulfilled, Ne is no longer stimulated, abandoning the possibility for a new wild goose chase. Ne finds it's essence and then sidetracks once it has. Ne is all over the place, whereas Ni is streamlined. 

I would say the introverted functions are typically more close minded, in the sense that their perceptions and judgments are formed internally, and therefore not tampered or altered with as easily as an extroverted function, which is why they're paired with one. Don't take this as objective truth; this is merely theoretical observation, not based in anything solid, founded or proven. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'd like to see where such ideas could be taken.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

cerenach said:


> I often see the sentiment that a progressive outlook necessitates one be an intuitive. How did this idea come about? What (if any) basis exists for it? What about Si and Se give the impression of being resistant to change?


From observation, it comes about from bad type descriptions and an understanding of MBTI sans cog functions.

When there is only S or N, it's much easier to perpetuate a false dichotomy like the "N types are progressive, S types arent." When cog functions are introduced, and suddenly everybody has an S AND N function, there's usually less of a push on the N = X and S = Y black/white thinking.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

hoopla said:


> I would say Ni is the more narrow minded, seeking their own personal truth that's not tampered with external means. Driving your head crazy with this singular objective truth, focused on driven on the internal depths of the universe. Ni doesn't change it's vision often, because it ruminates this vision, deeply seeking for the essence behind the objective, of that deeply woven, intricate skin, and when it finds it's truth, it hangs onto it's truth. Si is similar, but on a sensory level. Internal subjective perception. Different, not the same, but with a similar subjective narrow focus.
> 
> Ne is more susceptible to change. After all, Ne is chasing after that grand possibility, but when ever scope of said possibility is explored or fulfilled, Ne is no longer stimulated, abandoning the possibility for a new wild goose chase. Ne finds it's essence and then sidetracks once it has. Ne is all over the place, whereas Ni is streamlined.
> 
> I would say the introverted functions are typically more close minded, in the sense that their perceptions and judgments are formed internally, and therefore not tampered or altered with as easily as an extroverted function, which is why they're paired with one. Don't take this as objective truth; this is merely theoretical observation, not based in anything solid, founded or proven. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'd like to see where such ideas could be taken.


I can definitely see how introverted functions can come across as close-minded. The highly subjective approach of introverted functions can come across as dismissive, if not downright arrogant, when perceived with extroverted functions by others.


----------



## Telepathis Goosus (Mar 28, 2015)

hoopla said:


> I would say Ni is the more narrow minded, seeking their own personal truth that's not tampered with external means. Driving your head crazy with this singular objective truth, focused on driven on the internal depths of the universe. Ni doesn't change it's vision often, because it ruminates this vision, deeply seeking for the essence behind the objective, of that deeply woven, intricate skin, and when it finds it's truth, it hangs onto it's truth. Si is similar, but on a sensory level. Internal subjective perception. Different, not the same, but with a similar subjective narrow focus.
> 
> Ne is more susceptible to change. After all, Ne is chasing after that grand possibility, but when ever scope of said possibility is explored or fulfilled, Ne is no longer stimulated, abandoning the possibility for a new wild goose chase. Ne finds it's essence and then sidetracks once it has. Ne is all over the place, whereas Ni is streamlined.
> 
> I would say the introverted functions are typically more close minded, in the sense that their perceptions and judgments are formed internally, and therefore not tampered or altered with as easily as an extroverted function, which is why they're paired with one. Don't take this as objective truth; this is merely theoretical observation, not based in anything solid, founded or proven. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'd like to see where such ideas could be taken.


No, you're correct.

I believe that in general, Pe functions are "open-minded" because they are focused externally, and thus are always looking outward at new things. On the other hand, Pi functions are concerned with solely (or mostly) the self, and thus are more inclined to believe that the "self" is always right.

Partially why SJ's are _perceived _as being close-minded is because Si is purely subjective, and related to personal experience. Si in itself is relying solely on the self's past sensory/memory experiences. However, I wouldn't say this is so much being close-minded, but rather just self-trusting. NJ's are just as close-minded at times, because Ni is very trusting that their "idea or feeling" is correct, and honestly, it is mostly. Anyway, Si's personal experience and ideas of the past is extremely useful, and the fact that SJ's also possesses Ne makes it so that they are, of course, able to see and understand new ideas and patterns. 

Honestly, the fact that every type has every function renders it so that every type can be both open and close minded. It's more the outward perception of other people that believes that. However, I would say some types are more susceptible to being open-minded, due to their ego functions.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

cerenach said:


> Ne rigidity is more difficult to conceptualize. Perhaps willful indecisiveness?


:raises hand: I resemble that :tongue:

But maybe it's due to aux Ne being paired with Fi dom. (I.e. maybe this is not a fair description of Ne dom.) When I was younger (Fi with undifferentiated N), I was overly decisive. I bought into the whole "EITHER this OR that" mentality. But when I was introduced to the idea that sometimes it's more appropriate to think in terms of "BOTH this AND that," I think that's when I started to develop my Ne, and realize that sometimes you can hold apparently conflicting ideas loosely until you figure out which one is correct/better or how they work together. So now, whenever I feel pressured to make a decision prematurely, my Fi is capable of declaring, "Nope! Nothing is ruled out until it's ruled out! Until then I am holding onto ALL THE THINGS!!!"

I may be overdoing it just a tad.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

There is a difference between what a function does and what an individual can do. As functions, Sensation sees what is, while beyond is a blind spot; and Intuition looks beyond, but "what is" is a blind spot. An individual can do both.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

I presume it's the lack of concreteness - the ability to work with ideas an concepts as oppose to tangible examples.


----------



## Jordan J (Apr 1, 2015)

I can't help but wonder why nobody has attempted to define open-mindedness. It obviously is referring to the mind and how we think. What does it mean for a mind to be open? My attempt at a definition:
An open mind is one that _gladly_ considers _ideas_ it _currently doesn't believe_.
1) Note that we're dealing with ideas, not experiences.
2) Note that it's gladly, not begrudgingly.
3) Note that it's ideas the mind doesn't yet believe.

Based on this, I would say that y'all have been on track my targeting Ne as the most open-minded function. It's an N function, so it likes _ideas_. It's an extroverted function, so it likes ideas that it hasn't yet considered yet. Based on my conversations with XNXPs, they love brainstorming and considering new perspectives like nobody else. So I say Ne is the most open-minded function.


----------



## cerenach (Mar 26, 2015)

Jordan J said:


> I can't help but wonder why nobody has attempted to define open-mindedness. It obviously is referring to the mind and how we think. What does it mean for a mind to be open? My attempt at a definition:
> An open mind is one that _gladly_ considers _ideas_ it _currently doesn't believe_.
> 1) Note that we're dealing with ideas, not experiences.
> 2) Note that it's gladly, not begrudgingly.
> ...


Defining was a great idea. I'm kinda embarrassed that I forgot to do that. >.>

The definition I was working with was "a willingness to seek and examine point-of-views that run counter to one's own". I don't necessarily agree that it's exclusive of experiences or that gladfulness (or the lack thereof) is of much relevance to the actual process of examination. I am "open" to hearing why they are important distinctions though. 

For that reason, I'm inclined to see Se and Ne as having equal potential for being "open-minded" with Ni and Si lagging behind. That's the reason I want to know why (and this is obviously my subjective perception) the general consensus is that the divide occurs between Sx and Nx instead of Pe and Pi.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Intuition apprehends things by their negation, which is say that it moves from image to image, possibilities to more possibilities in order to map out the space that contextualizes the thing. It appears open-minded in one sense that as a perceiving function, it is irrational and doesn't make claims on either truth or value. It appears open-minded in the secondary sense that intuition justfies itself according to how many contextualizations are made which increases as new percepts are encountered.


----------

