# Is Intuition being naturally selected?



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

As we know, the human mind is configurated to aid human survival in an environment similar to that of the African savanna where our ancestors predominantly relied on their senses. Could it be that with our survival becoming less dependent on senses and more and more dependent on intution, the genes with intution are being naturally selected?

Could it also be that Scandinavian and Icelandic populations have a greater number of introverts and intuitives because their temperament is better suited for human survival in such climates. 
@Vahyavishdapaya @Kirjuri @odinthor @FePa @NIHM @Gotterdammerung @Snowflake Minuet


----------



## Kirjuri (Jun 9, 2014)

(If you want to include Finland and Iceland to the Scandinavian countries, you may want to use the term Nordic :happy: It's short and includes all five. [To go deeper down the hole, _Fennoscandia_ would be Scandinavia minus Denmark plus Finland. Wish there were a term for Nordics minus Iceland.])

I'm not sure whether we have more introverts and/or intuitives here or if they just thrive better in our society, therefore ending up more visible and preferred. Intuition is generally rebelling towards sustained ideas and tradition, and the reason mankind has become as big a deal as it is because we preserve and maintain methods and values that are considered working. Si is dominant for a reason. I would think Se and Si to be preferred in pretty much any region biologically. A few intuitives here and there tend to become inventors and philosophers, but someone has to do the massive bulk of hard handiwork too. (As much as I'd like to call us intuitives regular people among everyone else, we evidently do less of the boring work than others on average.)


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Dissenter said:


> As we know, the human mind is configurated to aid human survival in an environment similar to that of *the African savanna where our ancestors predominantly relied on their senses.* Could it be that with our survival becoming less dependent on senses and more and more dependent on intution, the genes with intution are being naturally selected?
> 
> Could it also be that *Scandinavian and Icelandic population*s have a greater number of introverts and intuitives because their temperament is *better suited for human survival in such climates.*


Could you elaborate on this? 
What are the traits in the Nordic ecosystem which make you think that it's more conducive to a higher frequency of introverts and intuitives?
What are the traits of of the African savanna biome that make you think it fosters a greater frequency of sensors or extroverts?

EDIT: Just to be clear, @Dissenter ; it's an interesting idea, no doubt. However, I'm interested in asking for specifics to see your internal reasoning ex; how you got to your conclusion.
If you're thinking cold-adapted vs. heat-adapted, I can think of a few counter examples off the top of my head.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Depends on where you are. I'm surrounded by Sensors who constantly condescend and treat me like i'm a fucking idiot because they can't see the connections that I can. It's quite frustrating.

As far as Introverts; probably. It is shown that colder climates tend to lead to more stoic, closed ooff, or introverted behavior. That is also the case here.

Say " hi" or even nod to a stranger and they get really scared and confused.


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Khadroma said:


> Could you elaborate on this?
> What are the traits in the Nordic ecosystem which make you think that it's more conducive to a higher frequency of introverts and intuitives?
> What are the traits of of the African savanna biome that make you think it fosters a greater frequency of sensors or extroverts?
> 
> ...


Well, as for African savanna, the explanation is quite a simple one; one that has been frequently used by evolutionary biologists to negate the _common sense _ line of reasoning; that the human mind has evolved to aid human survival in environments similar to the African savanna where human habitat was shared by other predetors (now apex predators); the survival against whom would require keen senses/common sense, and thus solving problems pertaining to physics is not its primary function. 

My reasoning for Nordic ecosystem being conducive to Introverts and Intuitive is quite tenuous, I admit. I am trying to come up with a possible explanation. Perhaps because one was able to store one's kill due to low decomposition rate; thus buying more time for intellectual/philosophical stimulation? 

And please, do share your counter-arguments. That is exactly why I came here. Need to pick a few NT brains to corroborate my Ni connections with sharper Ti/Te. I am glad you don't find the idea to be ludicrous.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

The 'disparity' is not among S/N dichtonomies; but rather among Te/Ti & T/F - dichtonomies.

If you are referring to 'common' intuition, which is what I presume you are "touching on," via utilization as a 'survival mechanism', - it appears your analysis is flawed; in so far as generalized "intuition," does not exceed our practices involving atavistic traps, parochialism and other low-functioning heuristics. 

'Common' intuition is maladaptive-cognitive baises (reflexive-parochialism) demonstrably inferior to counterintuitive (Thinking) - (&) certainly not a 'driving-force,' in developed societies. 

As a matter of typology; and not randomized "intuition," (T/F) is where you wish to look not (S/N).


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Catwalk said:


> The 'disparity' is not among S/N dichtonomies; but rather among Te/Ti & T/F - dichtonomies.
> 
> If you are referring to 'common' intuition, which is what I presume you are "touching on," via utilization as a 'survival mechanism', - it appears your analysis is flawed; in so far as generalized "intuition," does not exceed our practices involving atavistic traps, parochialism and other low-functioning heuristics.
> 
> ...


No, I am not referring to the common/literal intuition; I am talking about Jung's intuition.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Dissenter said:


> As we know, the human mind is configurated to aid human survival in an environment similar to that of the African savanna where our ancestors predominantly relied on their senses. Could it be that with our survival becoming less dependent on senses and more and more dependent on intution, the genes with intution are being naturally selected?
> 
> Could it also be that Scandinavian and Icelandic populations have a greater number of introverts and intuitives because their temperament is better suited for human survival in such climates.
> 
> @Vahyavishdapaya @Kirjuri @odinthor @FePa @NIHM @Gotterdammerung @Snowflake Minuet


FePa, moi

well... I am neiher an introvert nor a scandinavian!
I just happened to live here
♥

:kitteh::crazy:


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

Interesting, but most of my ancestry come from Scotland, Ireland, England, and Spain! Only a hair of Scandinavian in me!


I however do live in Canada, I moved alot but I mostly grew up in Alberta. It is very cold and dry about 60% of the year, roughly speaking. So this is an interesting theory, and I do indeed wonder if nature and for me, nurture, plays into things.


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

FePa said:


> FePa, moi
> 
> well... I am neiher an introvert nor a scandinavian!
> I just happened to live here
> ...


:shocked:


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

What did you pick me for, I'm Mumbai-born and my ancestors all come from Tamil Nadu... which is steaming hot 365 days a year: the annual average temperature is 34.2°C (93.6°F). That's what the average temperature is, every day, all year. During summer that rises to 38.9°C (100.6°F). Southern summers will straight wreck anyone coming from somewhere like Scandinavia :laughing: if they don't die of heatstroke, they will at least turn red as lobsters

The climatic profile for Tamil Nadu is tropical savanna. It is more or less the same type of weather as the African plains, except it is probably even harder for a Scandinavian to adjust to because it is also very humid, unlike Africa which is drier.

I'm definitely a hot weather person. You know us Tamils aren't used to all this cold air. We're the tropical people, you understand? Let them Europeans deal with this madness!

Besides, Indian culture is by far the most abstract and intuitive in the world... You're talking about the place which discovered zero and whose entire religion revolves around the numbers zero and infinity - which the materialistic, sensory dominant west cannot comprehend. The west is unimaginative and reductive and materialistic and ultimately, sensory, in everything; from its Christianity to its scientism to its capitalistic, consumer culture. It is the tropics of Africa and south Asia which are the most highly intuitive cultures, those cultures which are most deeply concerned with unobservables, most deeply value the immaterial, and best understand the nature of the mind and of existence itself.

Only someone who has not experienced brutal summers would think heat is conducive to going outside. You know, we have a time of day, specified in the Tamil language, where it is said neither ants nor crows move... all living things seek shelter, indoors or in the shade during the time the sun is at its hottest.


----------



## Snowflake Minuet (Feb 20, 2016)

Interesting thought! My own background is mostly Italian, then Scottish, German, and Canadian. 

There does seem to be a correlation between warmer climates and more extravert heavy culture and colder climates and more introvert heavy culture from places I've visited. 

Italy itself is a great example of this: the Northerners, such as my family, are on a whole culturally much more reserved than the Southerners. Italians often get the stereotype of being "colorful" or very "expressive" in personality, but really this is truest for the southerners. The Northerners are much more controlled/less "loud" in comparison. And Southern Italy does indeed get a lot warmer in general! 

So it does seem to be a trend. I suppose in climates that tend to be colder and less livable outside, humans would be forced to move indoors more and more and adopt ways of working and supporting themselves that can be done indoors. That sort of environment, where individuals and families would be more isolated in the longer periods of colder weather in general, would be correlated with more alone time and more introverted activities. In contrast, a place that stays nice outside more of the year would support more outdoor, active, community living in comparison. Some of it is perhaps also just what appeals more to introverts or extraverts. But I could see how a culture could shape it's personality preferences, that is which types is more generally favored/has an easier time (not necessarily more common), influenced by climate and the favored cultural activities and ways of life that come about from that.

I don't really think intuitives would be more naturally selected or necessarily thrive better nowadays, which would be the cause of course. We do need abstract thinking, but I doubt it will ever be such a greater need to fill as more practical thinking on a larger scale. 

I could see more Thinking oriented personalities potentially fitting this more, as a lot of our systems and culture really reward that for instance. Still don't know that it would become more common, but anyway.


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

I do indeed have great difficulty adapting to the wintery climate here. Mostly for mental health reasons.


I am very fair-skinned so I would need loads of sunblock! :laughing:


I am wanting to move somewhere where there is very little change in climate. Maybe certain parts of Canada, or, somewhere like Florida or in that general area.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

You've got to me kidding me. Perhaps it's the cold weather that has numbed brains.

All primitives had challenging environments.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Vahyavishdapaya said:


> What did you pick me for, I'm Mumbai-born and my ancestors all come from Tamil Nadu... which is steaming hot 365 days a year: the annual average temperature is 34.2°C (93.6°F). That's what the average temperature is, every day, all year. During summer that rises to 38.9°C (100.6°F). Southern summers will straight wreck anyone coming from somewhere like Scandinavia :laughing: if they don't die of heatstroke, they will at least turn red as lobsters
> 
> The climatic profile for Tamil Nadu is tropical savanna. It is more or less the same type of weather as the African plains, except it is probably even harder for a Scandinavian to adjust to because it is also very humid, unlike Africa which is drier.
> 
> ...




^ Actually, this is EXACTLY one of the counter-examples I had in mind. More on this in a bit.
@Dissenter
Thank you for explaining more of your reasoning, I'll work on a more comprehensive post in a few minutes.




Duo said:


> You've got to me kidding me. Perhaps it's the cold weather that has numbed brains.
> 
> All primitives had challenging environments.



This was my thought as well, and I actually have text citations to support my reasoning as well as an internal logic.


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Ugh, I wasn't basing my argument on climate; rather it was based on this:



Dissenter said:


> Well, as for African savanna, the explanation is quite a simple one; one that has been frequently used by evolutionary biologists to negate the _common sense _ line of reasoning; that the human mind has evolved to aid human survival in environments similar to the African savanna where human habitat was shared by other predetors (now apex predators); the survival against whom would require keen senses/common sense, and thus solving problems pertaining to physics is not its primary function.


Now, what I am proposing is that since as of late, the human problem-solving approach makes less use of the senses for human survival, and more use of complex reasoning involving intuition (Jung's); could it be that a preference for intuition is being naturally selected at a genetic level? For that to be true, we would have to ascertain that the survival rate of the offsprings (think Baldwin Effect) of the Intuition types has been higher lately than that of the Sensation-types; the reason for this could be a higher recruitment rate of Sensation-types in wars and a preference for Intuition-types in less precarious fields, or perhaps that the offsprings of the Intuition types are financially better established than those of the Sensation-types, thus leading to the Intuition-type's higher survival rate.

@Khadroma @Catwalk @Acataleptic @Duo @Vahyavishdapaya


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Dissenter said:


> Ugh, I wasn't basing my argument on climate; rather it was based on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For this matter, intuitives should procreate more, which seems actually the inverse, since we delay finding a suitable partner and if we do find them, we choose careful how many kids we'll have...

The survival of the fittest includes lots of offsprings


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

FePa said:


> For this matter, intuitives should procreate more, which seems actually the inverse, since we delay finding a suitable partner and if we do find them, we choose careful how many kids we'll have...
> 
> The survival of the fittest includes lots of offsprings


Are you proposing that the Sensation types are sexually more active than Intuition types?


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Dissenter said:


> Are you proposing that the Sensation types are sexually more active than Intuition types?


More prone to find suitable mates
We're annoyingly picky


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

And sex doesn't equal to procreation


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

FePa said:


> And sex doesn't equal to procreation


LOL, yes. :tongue:


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

@FePa

Do you think NTs are also as picky as NFs about their partners?


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Dissenter said:


> Ugh, I wasn't basing my argument on climate; rather it was based on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm in biology + chemistry. I realize you weren't making your argument on climate; I'll elaborate more when I get to my counter-examples.
(Sorry, a few things came up and I didn't get to my more comprehensive post---will do that now). I understand your reasoning. However, the relationship between climate and adaptation is one of the most important ones we study. Like evolution, interactions are also one of the 5 major unifying themes of biology (the other three being organization, energy + transformation, and information (esp at the cellular level)).
Thus, to justify the idea that populations living in Scandinavia have a higher frequency of intuitives (especially when compared to populations in the African savanna), we would have to narrow down what the possible causes are so as to ensure a sound explanation.
Now, you were getting there, as often the first steps of inquiry is inductive reasoning: 



> My reasoning for Nordic ecosystem being conducive to Introverts and Intuitive is quite tenuous, I admit. I am trying to come up with a possible explanation. Perhaps because one was able to store one's kill due to low decomposition rate; thus buying more time for intellectual/philosophical stimulation?


You made observations, and perhaps you noticed or felt like a higher frequency of intuitives are present in Scandinavia than in Africa. This gives us a tentative hypotheses; however, the deductive reasoning you got to for the next step is flawed---or actually, incomplete may be a better word. This previous explanation was actually getting there a bit more, but I still have a few things that must be addressed. 



One of my primary counter-examples actually was going to address this: 


Gotterdammerung said:


> I however do live in Canada, I moved alot but I mostly grew up in Alberta. It is very cold and dry about 60% of the year, roughly speaking. So this is an interesting theory, and I do indeed wonder if nature and for me, nurture, plays into things.



Canada is one of the poorer examples to support this hypotheses, due to the fact that it is a settler-colonist state. The current population is vastly different as a result of this; and the societies that were once endemic to the land were VASTLY different than the current society/culture/population of Canada. This makes it unlikely to be nurture, as demonstrated by @Gotterdammerung . Same environments, immensely different societies and cultures. So, perhaps nature is a more likely cause; but we'll get to that in a second.



This was briefly touched on here: 


Duo said:


> You've got to me kidding me. Perhaps it's the cold weather that has numbed brains.
> 
> All primitives had challenging environments.


But let me explain further.





Now, @Vahyavishdapaya has already addressed SEVERAL of the points I wanted to make already with his huge counterexample. And I would like to point out that it is not just a heat, but rather a heat-adaption, that is important to consider (this is why I wanted you to elaborate further as clearly defined terms are crucial for a hypothesis to be testable or falsifiable). 



> Well, as for African savanna, the explanation is quite a simple one; one that has been frequently used by evolutionary biologists to negate the common sense line of reasoning; that *the human mind has evolved to aid human survival in environments similar to the African savanna where human habitat was shared by other predetors (now apex predators)*; the survival against whom would require keen senses/common sense, and thus solving problems pertaining to physics is not its primary function.


Regarding "apex predation", this is actually a more sound explanation. However, there are plenty of apex predators that still are abundant in countries like India; tigers and such. The environment is very similar by virtue of being a tropical savanna, and yet the societies frequent in either Tamil Nadu are quite different to that of the Maasai. HOWEVER, using Elman Service's typology, the Maasai society are probably more similar to the indigenous of Canada such as the Inuit in Nunavut. 

Now, I'll interject by saying that the Inuit are an important counterexample due to being a band-society according to Elman Service. We can use Inuit societies due to similarity in independent variables (climate---cold) with that of Scandinavia; this helps us compare the dependent variable. There's also been interactions with Inuit subgroups and Scandinavian peoples---I'm primarily thinking of the Greenlandic and the Danish.
However, there are a few important differences which are also important to note (due to the factor of needing to control for confounding variables)----there ARE quite large apex predators in the Arctic circumpolar region. This is especially true when you compare it to Scandinavia or Europe in general. 
However, Europe at a point also had quite an array of predators at a point. They're making a comeback, too: 
https://howtoconserve.org/2016/06/10/carnivore-recovery-europe/

But European societies systematically removed their carnivores: 


> The resurgence of apex predators is surprising in part because of Europe’s tumultuous history of conflict with carnivores. In the Middle Ages, many countries and kingdoms sought to exterminate wolves and other predators by offering hunters land, bounties, and other incentives . Even as many predator populations declined, a persistent public fear of wolves and bears spurned further hunting. *Wolves were exterminated from Scotland and Ireland in the 18th century, and began disappearing from other European countries shortly thereafter.*


^ This behaviour is actually more frequently seen in agricultural (as opposed to hunter-gatherer, pastoral, or horticultural) societies. (India and other parts of SE Asia are exceptions to this due to religious traditions of conservation/nonviolence).

A similar practice was common among the settler-colonists in Canada and the United States; this was done in tandem with the removal of the indigenous populations. 


More thoughts coming, but I have a few questions to further clarify and deduce @Dissenter 
Do you think that ancestry plays a role in frequency of intuition and sensing?

You mention this: 


> would have to ascertain that the survival rate of the offsprings (think Baldwin Effect) of the Intuition types has been higher lately than that of the Sensation-types


And I would like to know if as a result of this, would you think that people with ancestry tied to the tropical grasslands of Africa have a higher frequency of sensors than those in Scandinavia?
And do you think the Kalaallit have a higher % of sensors than the Danes who incorporated their lands into their kingdom?
Why or why not?






Also, do you think that intuition and sensation is primarily a function of how a society is organized (a la Elman Service's classification system), or rather adaption to heat or cold?


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Khadroma said:


> I'm in biology + chemistry. I realize you weren't making your argument on climate; I'll elaborate more when I get to my counter-examples.
> (Sorry, a few things came up and I didn't get to my more comprehensive post---will do that now). I understand your reasoning. However, the relationship between climate and adaptation is one of the most important ones we study. Like evolution, interactions are also one of the 5 major unifying themes of biology (the other three being organization, energy + transformation, and information (esp at the cellular level)).
> Thus, to justify the idea that populations living in Scandinavia have a higher frequency of intuitives (especially when compared to populations in the African savanna), we would have to narrow down what the possible causes are so as to ensure a sound explanation.
> Now, you were getting there, as often the first steps of inquiry is inductive reasoning:
> ...


I will try to reply tomorrow; it is quite late here and I am a bit drained. However, your question regarding the correlation between Jung's perceiving functions and Elman Service's classification system is something that I find very interesting. 

You should know that I am not at all a student of science; just someone who is very interested in Jungian Typology and Evolution; although, my knowledge of both subjects is elementary at best.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Dissenter said:


> @FePa
> 
> Do you think NTs are also as picky as NFs about their partners?


Even more so, I'd say


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

@Khadroma has done a marvelous job of parsing the issue!

Take a look at this link, pertaining to MBTI per continent or country. Africa kicks scandinavian ass for numbers of iNtuitives so your hypothesis fails with a resounding crash and burn.

https://www.16personalities.com/country-profiles


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Duo said:


> @Khadroma has done a marvelous job of parsing the issue!
> 
> Take a look at this link, pertaining to MBTI per continent or country. Africa kicks scandinavian ass for numbers of iNtuitives so your hypothesis fails with a resounding crash and burn.
> 
> https://www.16personalities.com/country-profiles


Wow, aren't you mature; what's with the insults? 

There never was a comparision between contemporary Africans and Scandinavians. :1892:


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Dissenter said:


> Wow, aren't you mature; what's with the insults? There never was a comparison between contemporary Africans and Scandinavians.


Provide evidence that prehistoric man in the sub-Saharan had lower populations of iNtuitives and even if you're able to provide such, as you can see, the current percentage of iNtuitives in Africa defies your theory like nothing else since there's, apparently, been a population explosion of iNtuition in modern Africa. 

Also, provide evidence that Scandinavia has an increased population of iNtuitives by citing evidence of past populations of iNtuitives in Scandinavia.

Frankly, I smell a lot of confirmation bias, relative to superiority.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Curious question: estimation of MBTI% on populations are based on what?
Sampling or theories?

I guess what's been discussed here is that, anthropological it's been said that tougher climates stimulated a tendency to grow more adapted humans that needed to use intellectual approach to survive rather than adapting to the environment.
But that's from a pre historical point of view when we needed to invent stuff!


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

FePa said:


> Curious question: estimation of MBTI% on populations are based on what?
> Sampling or theories?
> 
> I guess what's been discussed here is that, anthropological it's been said that tougher climates stimulated a tendency to grow more adapted humans that needed to use intellectual approach to survive rather than adapting to the environment.
> But that's from a pre historical point of view when we needed to invent stuff!


Northern Europeans did absolutely nothing until the last two, three hundred years. In antiquity, every invention, discovery and intellectual feat of any significance came from hot places: Africa, Asia, Greece and Rome. China was probably the only place which had a proper, snowy winter, that actually did anything worthwhile in the pre-modern world.

Scandinavians and such were howling barbarians throughout antiquity. What, if anything, was intellectual about the Vikings? They plundered and pillaged and raped wherever they went - destroying civilization, destroying the products of more intellectual cultures. Hard times don't make you smarter, they make you aggressive and bestial. Only the safety of civilization is conducive to intellectual advancement; life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Vahyavishdapaya said:


> Northern Europeans did absolutely nothing until the last two, three hundred years. In antiquity, every invention, discovery and intellectual feat of any significance came from hot places: Africa, Asia, Greece and Rome. China was probably the only place which had a proper, snowy winter, that actually did anything worthwhile in the pre-modern world.
> 
> Scandinavians and such were howling barbarians throughout antiquity. What, if anything, was intellectual about the Vikings? They plundered and pillaged and raped wherever they went - destroying civilization, destroying the products of more intellectual cultures. Hard times don't make you smarter, they make you aggressive and bestial. Only the safety of civilization is conducive to intellectual advancement; life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish, and short.



The Babylonians (Iraq) and Egyptians created numbers, arithmetic, algebra and geometry.
The wheel was invented in Mesopotamia (Iraq, Kuwait and parts of Syria, Turkey and Iran).
Astronomy was a fragmented effort from Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia, India, China, Egypt, and Central America.
A list of inventions by China.

I see no Scandinavian influence in any of these key inventions/discoveries.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

FePa said:


> Curious question: estimation of MBTI% on populations are based on what?
> Sampling or theories?


I haven't checked @Duo 's source yet, but usually MBTI is based from sampling. However, we need to find solid studies with good methodology. Since MBTI/JFC isn't really that falsifiable, the best we have for sampling is using the inventory tests for data collection.



> I guess what's been discussed here is that, anthropological it's been said that *tougher climates* stimulated a tendency to grow *more adapted humans* that needed to use intellectual approach to survive rather than adapting to the environment.
> But that's from a pre historical point of view when *we needed to invent stuff*!


The above sentence is difficult to understand due to grammatical and rhetorical problems and inconsistencies. 
However, I'll give it a go. 

When you say "tougher climates", "more adapted humans"; what variables are you comparing? Are you comparing the climatic changes of the earth over time (independent variable), and how this has affected primate evolution (dependent variables)? This is more valid as this is more falsifiable; primate evolution has been affected by our biosphere and its own changes.

Or is your independent variable rather specific ecosystems of certain place (such as Scandinavia) compared to hotter places (like Africa); with your dependent variable being the cultures these ecosystems foster? Because that is not valid as demonstrated in my above post. That train of thought is easily disproved by counterexample, as I and @Vahyavishdapaya have done. 

Also, anthropologically, that is very simplistic and it does not work like that. Civilizations have often arisen from more fertile and abundant environments, due to these climates being more conducive to agriculture which in turn is more conducive to supporting dense populations needed for state societies (see: my Elman Service post). 
Mesopotamia: Tigris and Euphrates river systems :: China : Yellow and Yangtze river systems.

The Phoenicians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Persians, etc are all great counterexamples.
Also, neolithic agriculture and Çatalhöyük. 

The Near East and the very fertile East and South Asia were considerably advanced. 



To be fair, the Vikings were not merely brutes as @Vahyavishdapaya suggests. They had influential poetry and music and laws.
However, as far as influence goes in the marketplace of ideas, the more fertile regions were absolutely more favorable to "inventing stuff" (unclear meaning). 




Also, I'm going to go ahead and acknowledge the big pink elephant in the room, but inuition=/= intelligence =/= "inventing". There are more factors than that; hence, the confounding variables. 
Also, sensing=/= lack of intelligence =/= common sense.

And please note that "common sense" and intelligence/creativity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We use all of the functions. It's simply a different style.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Duo said:


> The Babylonians (Iraq) and Egyptians created numbers, arithmetic, algebra and geometry.
> The wheel was invented in Mesopotamia (Iraq, Kuwait and parts of Syria, Turkey and Iran).
> Astronomy was a fragmented effort from Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia, India, China, Egypt, and Central America.
> A list of inventions by China.
> ...


Thank you for the argument by counterexample.
These misconceptions have been floating around everywhere and it really, really doesn't work like that. If anything, as I demonstrated in my previous posts it works exactly the opposite. 

People are misunderstanding the biopshererimate evolution relationship and conflating it with the ecosystem:human culture relationship.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

FePa said:


> I guess what's been discussed here is that, anthropological it's been said that tougher climates stimulated* a tendency to grow more adapted humans* that needed to use intellectual approach to survive rather than adapting to the environment.
> But that's from a pre historical point of view when we needed to invent stuff!



Ah, now I notice a major problem.

"Grow more adapted humans"
Yeah, this is ambiguous but it really doesn't work like that.
Everyone who survives is "adapted". Adaptations are not really quantitative data, you cannot say that someone is "more adapted' or "more evolved' than someone else. Specific adaptations with specific/controlled independent variables and one dependent variable at a time? Yeah, sure. For example, you can have your pareto chart of beak sizes during a drought. That's fine. (See link below in a bit) 
However, please do not ignore the qualitative nature of adaptations. 

PSA: Gah. Everyone PLEASE watch this video and take the interactive quiz. This helps a lot of the undergraduate freshman students I've assisted understand evolution better. @Duo @Vahyavishdapaya @Dissenter You guys might like this.

HHMI's BioInteractive - Interactive Video - The Beak of the Finch


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

As a classicist and a lover of ancient history, I can add that introverted and intuitive activities such as philosophy, or merely the act of writing itself - about anything - is once again something dominated by people from hot places. Where is the Scandinavian Plato writing metaphysics? Where is the Russian Thiruvalluvar writing ethics? And we need not even go into inventions and buildings and physical signs of advanced cultures and societies (not, as @Khadroma observed, that such things have anything at all to do with intuitiveness), it's quite obvious that hot places are utterly dominant there too, as @Duo kindly summarised. But I'll do just about one more, which hopefully finishes off the discussion in this thread, because the combined efforts of the three of us ought to be enough to convince any rational person that ancient Scandinavians and northern Europeans were in no way more "intuitive" or more intellectually advanced than "sensory" Africans.

While the Picts and Celts of cold Britain were painting their faces blue and cannibalising each other, the Nubians of Ethiopian and Sudanese hot African savannas were busy constructing these perfectly aligned, marvels of engineering:


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Dissenter said:


> I will try to reply tomorrow; it is quite late here and I am a bit drained. However, your question regarding the correlation between Jung's perceiving functions and Elman Service's classification system is something that I find very interesting.
> 
> You should know that I am not at all a student of science; just someone who is very interested in Jungian Typology and Evolution; although, my knowledge of both subjects is elementary at best.


RE: This
Yes, of course, take your time.


It's great that you have interest in evolution despite not being a student of science; if you feel that your knowledge of the latter subject is elementary, please shoot me a PM, I have plenty of resources that you might be interested in. After all, can't do good bio without having a good foundation in bio101 (especially the first few units they like to teach).


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Vahyavishdapaya said:


> As a classicist and a lover of ancient history, I can add that introverted and intuitive activities such as philosophy, or merely the act of writing itself - about anything - is once again something dominated by people from hot places. Where is the Scandinavian Plato writing metaphysics? Where is the Russian Thiruvalluvar writing ethics? And we need not even go into inventions and buildings and physical signs of advanced cultures and societies (not, as @Khadroma observed, that such things have anything at all to do with intuitiveness), it's quite obvious that hot places are utterly dominant there too, as @Duo kindly summarised. But I'll do just about one more, which hopefully finishes off the discussion in this thread, because the combined efforts of the three of us ought to be enough to convince any rational person that ancient Scandinavians and northern Europeans were in no way more "intuitive" or more intellectually advanced than "sensory" Africans.
> 
> While the Picts and Celts of cold Britain were painting their faces blue and cannibalising each other, the Nubians of Ethiopian and Sudanese hot African savannas were busy constructing these perfectly aligned, marvels of engineering:


I really enjoy the discussion that has flourished from OP's initial post. 
Regarding the classics and ancient history, honestly I am quite glad that my higher education demanded so many humanities courses from me during my first two years of uni. Came in handy, haha.


----------



## Khadroma (Feb 4, 2017)

Kirjuri said:


> (If you want to include Finland and Iceland to the Scandinavian countries, you may want to use the term Nordic :happy: It's short and includes all five. [To go deeper down the hole, _Fennoscandia_ would be Scandinavia minus Denmark plus Finland. Wish there were a term for Nordics minus Iceland.])
> 
> I'm not sure whether we have more introverts and/or intuitives here or if they just thrive better in our society, therefore ending up more visible and preferred. Intuition is generally rebelling towards sustained ideas and tradition, and the reason mankind has become as big a deal as it is because we preserve and maintain methods and values that are considered working. Si is dominant for a reason. I would think Se and Si to be preferred in pretty much any region biologically. A few intuitives here and there tend to become inventors and philosophers, but someone has to do the massive bulk of hard handiwork too. (As much as I'd like to call us intuitives regular people among everyone else, we evidently do less of the boring work than others on average.)


Interesting post.  
FWIW the data on MBTI I've seen so far corroborates your inductive reasoning; SJ is present in higher frequencies cross-culturally.
I wouldn't expect Scandinavia to be any different, especially the more rural areas. 
I had this friend from Sweden who suggested the Law of Jante is very SJish. Thoughts?


----------



## Goetterdaemmerung (Dec 25, 2015)

Indeed, an interesting conversation, I am learning quite a bit.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

> "Among the Celts of Britain, human sacrifice still prevailed in 77 CE. Cassius Dio describes the refinements of cruelty practised on female victims (prisoners of war) in honour of the goddess Andrasta--their breasts cut off and placed over their mouths, and a stake driven through their bodies, which were then hung in the sacred grove.*Tacitus speaks of the altars in Mona (Anglesey) laved with human blood.*
> 
> The sacramental aspect of the rite is perhaps to be found in Pliny's words regarding "the slaying of a human being as a most religious act and eating the flesh as a wholesome remedy" among the Britons.*This may merely refer to "medicinal cannibalism," such as still survives in Italy, but the passage rather suggests sacramental cannibalism, the eating of part of a divine victim, such as existed in Mexico and elsewhere. Other acts of cannibalism are referred to by classical writers. Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain (sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the slain and drinking it.


References:

Cassius Dio, _Roman History_ *LXII*

Pliny the Elder, _Natural History_ *XXX*

Livy, _From the Foundation of the City_ *XXIII*

Diodorus of Sicily, _Bibliotheca Historica_ *VI*

Pausanias, _Description of Greece_ *X*

Ammianus Marcellinus, _Rerum Gestarum_ *XXVII*

Gaius Julius Solinus, _De mirabilibus mundi_ *XXII*

So, as I have presented, you can see that the ancients did not care much at all for Celts, Gauls, Picts, Goths, and the other various barbarian tribes who inhabited northern Europe. From the descriptions detailed in my sources listed above, it is evident that ancient Graeco-Roman writers were appalled by the primitiveness of Europe's barbarian societies, especially objecting to the custom of ritual cannibalism practiced in those cultures.

The premise of this thread, as I understand it, is that due to the cold climate, northern Europeans of antiquity were more introverted, intuitive, intellectual, and cerebral than their southern contemporaries, who due to the hotter climes they called home, were fundamentally less intelligent because they had to prioritise survival in a dangerous environment over intellectual pursuits such as the study of mathematics and philosophy, the art of literature, the disciplines of civil and mechanical engineering, of architecture, sculpture, painting, music, theatre, etc. All the hallmarks of a civilization, in short.

I will let the historical evidence do the talking as to validity of the above premise, from this point onwards. We have comprehensive physical evidence of how developed the northern part of the world was in comparison with the south, in the form of architecture, civil engineering relics, and surviving artwork. A simple Google image search would suffice for that. Now I have shared for our benefit some literary, historical evidence, in the nature of monographic, scholarly accounts as to the quality and characteristics of the concerned civilizations.

I kindly request all readers of the thread to please consider the physical & historical evidence, and come to an informed conclusion about the issues raised in the OP after weighing up all the available evidence. My interpretation is that the south far outstripped the north in antiquity, and it has not been until the onset of modernity that the north was finally able to catch and surpass the south. I sincerely hope everyone arrives at the same conclusion, because I cannot imagine how one could think any different once they have become informed about the subject through the consideration of the available evidence.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

I don't think so


----------



## HeadofHudet (Jun 7, 2015)

The "introvertedness" in the Nordics is believed to be mostly due to the less densely populated areas they've had throughout history. It's not directly linked to the cold, but being a cold country is one of the main reasons why the population was scarce in the first place as it's harder to cultivate land and is (was) generally just less agreeable to live in.

When your closest neighbor is a mile away, and the most people you've ever seen gathered in one place is around 50, and it has been like that for the majority of the population for countless generations, it does shape newer generations in some way, as one can clearly see when looking at f.ex. Scandinavian stereotypes.
Being a Norwegian myself, I can confirm that strangers *don't ever make eye contact* and it's just common sense to avoid it unless you want something.

As for intuition, I'd rather say it's the opposite in our society as it promotes being an SJ. Intuition plays its part in sustaining and moving us forward, too, but we're outnumbered and outranked on the big scale.


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Vahyavishdapaya said:


> The premise of this thread, as I understand it, is that due to the cold climate, northern Europeans of antiquity were more introverted, intuitive, intellectual, and cerebral than their southern contemporaries, who due to the hotter climes they called home, were fundamentally less intelligent because they had to prioritise survival in a dangerous environment over intellectual pursuits such as the study of mathematics and philosophy, the art of literature, the disciplines of civil and mechanical engineering, of architecture, sculpture, painting, music, theatre, etc. All the hallmarks of a civilization, in short.


You presume wrong, my friend. That is not at all the premise of this thread. And why would you even presume such a thing in the first place when you are well aware that I am as a much a heir of the Indus Valley Civilisation as you are. Am I not a South Asian, born and bred? Read this:



Dissenter said:


> Ugh, I wasn't basing my argument on climate; rather it was based on this:
> 
> Well, as for African savanna, the explanation is quite a simple one; one that has been frequently used by evolutionary biologists to negate the common sense line of reasoning; that the human mind has evolved to aid human survival in environments similar to the African savanna where human habitat was shared by other predetors (now apex predators); the survival against whom would require keen senses/common sense, and thus solving problems pertaining to physics is not its primary function.
> 
> Now, what I am proposing is that since as of late, the human problem-solving approach makes less use of the senses for human survival, and more use of complex reasoning involving intuition (Jung's); could it be that a preference for intuition is being naturally selected at a genetic level? For that to be true, we would have to ascertain that the survival rate of the offsprings (think Baldwin Effect) of the Intuition types has been higher lately than that of the Sensation-types; the reason for this could be a higher recruitment rate of Sensation-types in wars and a preference for Intuition-types in less precarious fields, or perhaps that the offsprings of the Intuition types are financially better established than those of the Sensation-types, thus leading to the Intuition-type's higher survival rate.


 @Duo 

I am not Caucasian, which is what you seem to unsagaciously presume. I am South Asian; a Punjabi to be specific. I did not at all discredit the ancient civilisations of Asia and Africa of their legacy. There is no reason for the populations of Africa and Asia to not have large iNtutive populations; the African and Asian civilisations evolved into complex horticulture economies a very very long time ago, thus relinquishing the hunter-gatherer culture, and with it their overwhelming dependency on their senses. 

Instead of presuming that the other person is bigoted and hurling abuses, why don't you read the post from the begining while making a concious effort to comprehend what is being said. 

In order to understand what is being said, you need to have a sufficient understanding of _Evolution by Natural Selection _ and the _Baldwin Effect_.

@Vahyavishdapaya


----------



## Kaioken (Mar 4, 2017)

It comes down to how you are raised. Not especially the climate.
I live in a region where people really "overrate" themselves, a ot of people who do reality shows live in the nearby regions, people are really focused on appearances, popularity, actually people from elsewhere come here to party because we are perceived as "chill" by the rest of the country.


I'm still a fucking nerd.


----------



## Aquiline (Oct 19, 2016)

1. Jungian psychology is fuzzy and not falsifiable.
2. MBTI statistics likely aren't terribly accurate, outside the US in particular.
3. No one knows how genetic or inheritable personality is.


----------



## Dissenter (Jul 31, 2017)

Acataleptic said:


> 1. Jungian psychology is fuzzy and not falsifiable.
> 2. MBTI statistics likely aren't terribly accurate, outside the US in particular.
> 3. No one knows how genetic or inheritable personality is.


Very true; I'm aware of these impediments. And I assume you meant unfalsifiable?


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Dissenter said:


> As we know, the human mind is configurated to aid human survival in an environment similar to that of the African savanna where our ancestors predominantly relied on their senses. Could it be that with our survival becoming less dependent on senses and more and more dependent on intution, the genes with intution are being naturally selected?
> 
> Could it also be that Scandinavian and Icelandic populations have a greater number of introverts and intuitives because their temperament is better suited for human survival in such climates.
> 
> @Vahyavishdapaya @Kirjuri @odinthor @FePa @NIHM @Gotterdammerung @Snowflake Minuet


An interesting hypothesis.

My background is from Ireland, England, and Switzerland. I also have 25% Native American in me and like 1% Eastern Europe. If I go with my DNA test from ancestry site.

With that said, I grew up isolated in the countryside on the outskirts of Austin. Before my mother remarried and adopted another sibling for me, I was a lonely child till I was eight. The reason I bring up isolation is to correspond with the reasoning that Nordic culture might have caused isolation. 

Though I feel in my circumstance was more of a product of nurture over nature. Meaning being isolated from having any children near me or siblings I had to learn how to be creative for the lack of peers. I actually learned earlier on that I don't like being segregated and alone. I also discovered that the bonds I made with people created with love and trust lasted forever. I also recognized I was very selective who I let in. Not as selective as my husband (INTJ).

On the other hand, my mother said I had always been a bubbly curious child even when I was 9 months old so I'm not sure what creates a personality to bloom. Still, I don't think it has to do with genetics. Let's take both my family and my husbands for example. 

Mine. I will use only the ones biological related to me. My father was a very intelligent ESFP Hydrologist Engineer. My mother was an ISTJ. They had a very curious and bubbly ENFP.

My Husband. His father and mother were an INFP and ISFJ. She remarried to his ESTP stepfather. The three brothers born starting with my husband were INTJ, INFJ, and INTP. The boys grew up in isolation but had siblings that loved them and a very loving mother. My husband though is 1/8 Dane, 1/8 English, 1/8 Romanian, some Turkish, but mostly Swiss.

Right now so far I do not see a correlation with location or genetics to represent a significant influence on being sociable or shy. 

I can also argue that Nordic cultures would have lived in communities to survive just like any hunter-gathering society in Africa. I would say it's humanities nature to be sociable, even the shy ones. I would, however, guess if someone isolated themselves from a community thousands of years ago it would not have been well for them.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Acataleptic said:


> 1. Jungian psychology is fuzzy and not falsifiable.
> 2. MBTI statistics likely aren't terribly accurate, outside the US in particular.
> 3. No one knows how genetic or inheritable personality is.


This I can 100% agree on. The MBTI is really a great measure of how you prefer to interact in situations. The only problem with the test is self-error. A lot of people simply do not understand how they prefer or they make an error in understanding a question. I've seen it happen on the test. We did a study back in college, where we tested 100 incoming freshmen to agree to take the test. The first time it would be by themselves with no peers or guidance to ask what the questions meant. Then we had them retake the test with peers and could ask guidance if they didn't understand a question. Meaning their peers or loved ones would have to agree or disagree and give them feedback on each answer. 50% of them retaking the test would come up with a different personality. INTPs notoriously would end up all over the place but when taking it with peers would come up with INTP. It would even be different if the test included multiple sliding bars the strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree vs the True or False. We found people were able to narrow their MBTI with more accuracy with a gray multiple question test. True and False (white and black) did not give the best feedback.

In the end, I think the test is very accurate if you understand who you are. Again it's huge flaw is that it can create user error.

As I stated in my previous post. There is no real scientific measure to understand what a personality grows from. I know there is a genetic predisposition for violence but even having that gene does not guarantee the individual will be violent. I do however love the work on primates by Robert Sapolsky and stress. Something drastic happened to a colony of Baboons leading to the death of a lot of their more aggressive males. The colony took a different path after that. Only time will tell if their offspring will be different.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Also, thank you for mentioning me in this academic thought process. It's been truly fun and I feel honored to be mentioned in the NT's section.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Dissenter said:


> I am not Caucasian, which is what you seem to unsagaciously presume. I am South Asian; a Punjabi to be specific. I did not at all discredit the ancient civilisations of Asia and Africa of their legacy. There is no reason for the populations of Africa and Asia to not have large iNtutive populations; the African and Asian civilisations evolved into complex horticulture economies a very very long time ago, thus relinquishing the hunter-gatherer culture, and with it their overwhelming dependency on their senses.


If you already purport to know this, then what's the purpose of this thread?

Your above has just negated your initial premise. Not only that, you've tried to dodge the questions in my prior post.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Nopes. Gain wisdoms and you'll have intuition. It's learned


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

I would believe that it has more to do with what is appropriate in their culture and what is being allowed to be shown. In other words, even an extrovert in those Nordic countries would be more subdued and possible appear like an introvert if put into comparison with some of the more rambunctious cultures. Unless they are doing full MBTI tests of those people in those countries, what someone might describe themselves or what is observed can appear skewed. 

Anyway, here in the US, SJs types and extroverts are more revered. I believe that there is not more or less SJs than before in the US (I also believe that the MBTI incidents remain the same in the Nordic countries) but people like me as an NTP end up conforming to the culture in my behavior, but the way my brain operates internally remains the same. It is quiet obvious based on the stereotype of an American that extroverted (i.e. loud) and aggressive that our culture tends to reward extroverts or the person that stands out the most (which tends to be the extroverts). Most introverted Americans who are out in the workforce will notice this.

It's interesting, I noticed when American's who are into MBTI try to type British celebrities, they tend only to call those boisterous types as extroverts (like Russell Brand or Ricky Gervais) while someone who is respectful and proper gets put as an introvert. There are many that to me in interviews and how much they seem to get off on being out with the fans or how they are described on set are obviously extroverts. They just follow their culture which looks up to people being softer spoken and respectful. Americans view being private as being introverted too because we tend to be a culture that is way too TMI. I'm an ENTP and I am not at all forthcoming about myself and prefer to keep my privacy. However, I am obviously extroverted in needing people to process life. In the same respect, American introverts tend to learn to "fake" extroversion in order to move ahead in their careers.

Anyway, what I am getting at, is that it is perception more than actual change in personalities. I still think SJ-types are going to remain high in the world because they are the doers and you need more doers in the world than intuitive thinking/feeling.


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

atamagasuita said:


> Nopes. Gain wisdoms and you'll have intuition. It's learned


Tell that to my ISTJ husband or my ESFJ mom. My husband is a person with a master degree and works as an architect and is very well learned. My mom is exceptionally well read, into complicated social issues, and mentally active. Both struggle to use intuition (they can but poorly, just like we can use sensing). For them, finding physical order and structure in everything is how their minds are wired. 

Wisdom does not equal intuition. That is a stereotype of intuitives. That is also why I find Sensors will mistype themselves iNtuitive because they think being intuitive means you are smart or "deep". All it means is that we are able to look beyond what is in front of us although sometimes it is at the expense of not noticing the obvious in front of us. A Sensor tends to gain wisdom of how to function in society, life, and interact with people which intuitives can often never figure out.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Geonerd said:


> Tell that to my ISTJ husband or my ESFJ mom. My husband is a person with a master degree and works as an architect and is very well learned. My mom is exceptionally well read, into complicated social issues, and mentally active. Both struggle to use intuition (they can but poorly, just like we can use sensing). For them, finding physical order and structure in everything is how their minds are wired.
> 
> Wisdom does not equal intuition. That is a stereotype of intuitives. That is also why I find Sensors will mistype themselves iNtuitive because they think being intuitive means you are smart or "deep". All it means is that we are able to look beyond what is in front of us although sometimes it is at the expense of not noticing the obvious in front of us. A Sensor tends to gain wisdom of how to function in society, life, and interact with people which intuitives can often never figure out.


I agree but I couldn't come up with something less snarky than what you presented. Well done. I made slight jokes to myself wondering about nerdom attribute points to place in the Wisdom tab or Intelligence tab. In the end having a high IQ may not be extremely intelligent in all aspects of life and vice verse. I think all individuals have the ability to trade places with the right amount of resources and privilege placed near them. 










I think people also forget that the founding guidance behind the MBTI is preference. That our brains prefer it to do it "this way." This is how I put it to someone. More often than not I prefer to see far away and the bigger picture. I solve items accordingly to what is more beneficial in the longer aspect. I still, however, can see up close if a stressing event forces me into that scenario. It's not a comfortable setting but I can do it. Still, because my brain prefers to see the bigger picture I can miss the small details at the start of a project. A sensor sees everything presently. That this deserves attention now. I think both types lead to a well-oiled society and have their own style of intelligence. Though I do agree with your above post, it's a shame that the US currently puts more favoritism on SJ types.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Geonerd said:


> Tell that to my ISTJ husband or my ESFJ mom. My husband is a person with a master degree and works as an architect and is very well learned. My mom is exceptionally well read, into complicated social issues, and mentally active. Both struggle to use intuition (they can but poorly, just like we can use sensing). For them, finding physical order and structure in everything is how their minds are wired.
> 
> Wisdom does not equal intuition. That is a stereotype of intuitives. That is also why I find Sensors will mistype themselves iNtuitive because they think being intuitive means you are smart or "deep". All it means is that we are able to look beyond what is in front of us although sometimes it is at the expense of not noticing the obvious in front of us. A Sensor tends to gain wisdom of how to function in society, life, and interact with people which intuitives can often never figure out.


So what's your definition of intuitive?


----------



## Geonerd (Oct 26, 2014)

atamagasuita said:


> So what's your definition of intuitive?


A simplistic MBTI definition of it:
"Intuition refers to how people process data. Intuitive people focus on the future and the possibilities. They process information through patterns and impressions. They read between the lines, they are abstract thinkers." 

No matter how much the SJs in my life (way more than just my husband and mom) gain wisdom, they are not going to become abstract thinkers, at least not as a regular occurrence and without some effort. My ESFJ mom is better than my ISTJ husband at abstract thinking but that is because her Ne is in third place (while my husband's is in 4th) and she was raised by an ENxP while my husband is from a family of Sensors so he never really had to develop it until he married me. However, for both of them, it takes effort and concentration. 

What is your definition of wisdom? I am positive any type can gain wisdom. However, I do not believe that wisdom will make you intuitive. A Si/Se user will take the wisdom they learn and put it into a known structure to see the pattern. Although it make look like abstract thinking, it usually is their brain regurgitating things they now understand. That isn't intuitive. A Ni/Ne user will take the wisdom they learn and try to connect it to make new, unknown, patterns. Si/Se sees A, B, C, D, E (and with knowledge know that) F, G, H... will come next. Ni/Ne will see A, B, C, which branch off to make D1, D2, which branch off to E1, E2, E3, E4. We see more possibilities than just "F" next. When a Sensor see's an F, they will try to put it where it belongs in the 6th position of the alphabet. We see F and see many places it could go.

Granted, using that analogy, a first position Ne-user will see A, B,C, %, $ * R, ), ...F and have to go backward to figure out how the hell they got to F because it happened so quick and automatic in their mind.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Geonerd said:


> A simplistic MBTI definition of it:
> "Intuition refers to how people process data. Intuitive people focus on the future and the possibilities. They process information through patterns and impressions. They read between the lines, they are abstract thinkers."
> 
> No matter how much the SJs in my life (way more than just my husband and mom) gain wisdom, they are not going to become abstract thinkers, at least not as a regular occurrence and without some effort. My ESFJ mom is better than my ISTJ husband at abstract thinking but that is because her Ne is in third place (while my husband's is in 4th) and she was raised by an ENxP while my husband is from a family of Sensors so he never really had to develop it until he married me. However, for both of them, it takes effort and concentration.
> ...


Yeah i can relate


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Geonerd said:


> Tell that to my ISTJ husband or my ESFJ mom. My husband is a person with a master degree and works as an architect and is very well learned. My mom is exceptionally well read, into complicated social issues, and mentally active. Both struggle to use intuition (they can but poorly, just like we can use sensing). For them, finding physical order and structure in everything is how their minds are wired.
> 
> Wisdom does not equal intuition. That is a stereotype of intuitives. That is also why I find Sensors will mistype themselves iNtuitive because they think being intuitive means you are smart or "deep". All it means is that we are able to look beyond what is in front of us although sometimes it is at the expense of not noticing the obvious in front of us. A Sensor tends to gain wisdom of how to function in society, life, and interact with people which intuitives can often never figure out.


Some of the most intelligent people I know are sensing types, including my ISTJ best friend, an ISTJ acquaintance who I share hobbies with, and an ISFJ coworker. They have gifts that differ significantly from mine, and I rely on them a lot for insights that I would not develop on my own.

On the other hand, I've known a few intuitives who were shockingly stupid. I have fallen into the same rut of associating intuitive with intelligent, and some of the instances I saw have surprised me. These have also tended to fall into certain types like the sensors above, though I won't describe which since I don't want anyone to misunderstand me as implying that people of these types are less intelligent. 

I will posit that intuitives project intelligence better because our interests tend to align more with traditionally intellectual topics, such as philosophy and science. To proceed from that to "intuitives are more intelligent" or "intuition is intelligence" is an unjustified leap, but a very common one (along with thinking v. feeling = logic v. emotion).


----------

