# intuition explained



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

intuition is a perception by intermediate links and you only get the results of that whole chain of associations to your conscious mind in forms of instincts, metaphors or symbols, thus it is an perception via unconscious.

Ni sets the links between things according to how something fits his own subjective view of things(subjective impressions of collective symbols, impressions of relations between extraverted sensations, personal judgments or personal impressions of judgments of others). Ne sets the links according to objective factor, how things have been before and what seems plausible according to the things that have been before(comparing links of Si data points to understand the big picture of external world).


----------



## jeffbobs (Jan 27, 2012)

Naama said:


> intuition is a perception by intermediate links and you only get the results of that whole chain of associations to your conscious mind in forms of instincts, metaphors or symbols, thus it is an perception via unconscious.
> 
> Ni sets the links between things according to how something fits his own subjective view of things(subjective impressions of collective symbols, impressions of relations between extraverted sensations, personal judgments or personal impressions of judgments of others). Ne sets the links according to objective factor, how things have been before and what seems plausible according to the things that have been before(comparing links of Si data points to understand the big picture of external world).


I think you have that spot on


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Ni impression is an awareness of how the object impacts you or the subject beyond the immediate sensory awareness. Imagine if *you *were a pond and the rocks, frogs, lilies, fishes, whales within it were parts of your psyche. An *object *is thrown at the surface of the water and the ripples extend outwards perturbing all those around it, even the stuff below. Extending the example further, the objects on and below the pond surface move around a lot. The awareness of how and what things in your mental pond are perturbed would be introverted perception. The Ni pond has a lot of stuff constantly moving about and underneath while the Si pond are more rocks and indolent things that are fixed (hence producing varied v.s. consistent perturbations). 

Ne impression is an awareness of how you impact the object beyond sensory awareness. Twisting the example above now, imagine the same object being thrown at the pond but rather than being concerned with how the objects on the surface are perturbed, you're interested in how the ripples themselves have changed shaped as they interact with stuff on the pond surface. 

So some clarifications for this mechanistic description: The N/S divide is a measure of how much movement occurs between stuff in your pond. The i/e divide is the awareness how stuff in the pond is perturbed v.s. how the ripples themselves are altered. e.g. a thrown "dog" object may *awaken* static memories of a neighbor's favorite pet (Si), *push* master-slave dynamics as an analogy to your docility in social relationships (Ni), *distinguish *the intensity of its ferocious bark as penetrating through the ambient traffic noise (Se), or *create *links between dog-chain-food-fat-heart-age-vet (Ne).


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Thank you for stating Ne links Si data points...this is so very true!


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Ni impression is an awareness of how the object impacts you or the subject beyond the immediate sensory awareness. Imagine if *you *were a pond and the rocks, frogs, lilies, fishes, whales within it were parts of your psyche. An *object *is thrown at the surface of the water and the ripples extend outwards perturbing all those around it, even the stuff below. Extending the example further, the objects on and below the pond surface move around a lot. The awareness of how and what things in your mental pond are perturbed would be introverted perception. The Ni pond has a lot of stuff constantly moving about and underneath while the Si pond are more rocks and indolent things that are fixed (hence producing varied v.s. consistent perturbations).
> 
> Ne impression is an awareness of how you impact the object beyond sensory awareness. Twisting the example above now, imagine the same object being thrown at the pond but rather than being concerned with how the objects on the surface are perturbed, you're interested in how the ripples themselves have changed shaped as they interact with stuff on the pond surface.
> 
> So some clarifications for this mechanistic description: The N/S divide is a measure of how much movement occurs between stuff in your pond. The i/e divide is the awareness how stuff in the pond is perturbed v.s. how the ripples themselves are altered. e.g. a thrown "dog" object may *awaken* static memories of a neighbor's favorite pet (Si), *push* master-slave dynamics as an analogy to your docility in social relationships (Ni), *distinguish *the intensity of its ferocious bark as penetrating through the ambient traffic noise (Se), or *create *links between dog-chain-food-fat-heart-age-vet (Ne).


Are you disagreeing? Agreeing? supplementing?
Just out of curiosity.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*MrShatter*

Aw, you don't have to put it in that light. I suppose I'm supplementing with what my own model+intuitions produced after reading this. But if I have to nitpick, OP is speaking in the form of Ne-Si as aux-tert or double aux where the two won't clash as much compared to say Ne dom, Si inferior where Si inf would be near unconscious. Or rather, Ne-Si aux axis would be subservient to a dominant function whereas if Ne was the dom, a conscious Si awareness would be quite difficult.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Ni impression is an awareness of how the object impacts you or the subject beyond the immediate sensory awareness. Imagine if *you *were a pond and the rocks, frogs, lilies, fishes, whales within it were parts of your psyche. An *object *is thrown at the surface of the water and the ripples extend outwards perturbing all those around it, even the stuff below. Extending the example further, the objects on and below the pond surface move around a lot. The awareness of how and what things in your mental pond are perturbed would be introverted perception. The Ni pond has a lot of stuff constantly moving about and underneath while the Si pond are more rocks and indolent things that are fixed (hence producing varied v.s. consistent perturbations).
> 
> Ne impression is an awareness of how you impact the object beyond sensory awareness. Twisting the example above now, imagine the same object being thrown at the pond but rather than being concerned with how the objects on the surface are perturbed, you're interested in how the ripples themselves have changed shaped as they interact with stuff on the pond surface.
> 
> So some clarifications for this mechanistic description: The N/S divide is a measure of how much movement occurs between stuff in your pond. The i/e divide is the awareness how stuff in the pond is perturbed v.s. how the ripples themselves are altered. e.g. a thrown "dog" object may *awaken* static memories of a neighbor's favorite pet (Si), *push* master-slave dynamics as an analogy to your docility in social relationships (Ni), *distinguish *the intensity of its ferocious bark as penetrating through the ambient traffic noise (Se), or *create *links between dog-chain-food-fat-heart-age-vet (Ne).


you are close for much of this, but some fundamentals are wrong, which kinda ruin the whole thing.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> @*MrShatter*Aw, you don't have to put it in that light. I suppose I'm supplementing with what my own model+intuitions produced after reading this. But if I have to nitpick, OP is speaking in the form of Ne-Si as aux-tert or double aux where the two won't clash as much compared to say Ne dom, Si inferior where Si inf would be near unconscious. Or rather, Ne-Si aux axis would be subservient to a dominant function whereas if Ne was the dom, a conscious Si awareness would be quite difficult.


This probably depends on development. At 30, I most definitely have no trouble at all considering Si data with my Ne. It's actually quite automatic for me anymore.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Aw, you don't have to put it in that light. I suppose I'm supplementing with what my own model+intuitions produced after reading this.


i think the supplements you gave are not related to definition of intuition.




nonnaci said:


> But if I have to nitpick, OP is speaking in the form of Ne-Si as aux-tert or double aux where the two won't clash as much compared to say Ne dom, Si inferior where Si inf would be near unconscious. Or rather, Ne-Si aux axis would be subservient to a dominant function whereas if Ne was the dom, a conscious Si awareness would be quite difficult.


no im not. im giving a definition to what intuition is, not explaining how it interacts in different types. also this inferior being unconscious is one of those fundamental flaws that people often have. its not that inferior is near unconscious, its just that its directed more by your complexes(feeling toned associations around common theme, the contents of your personal unconscious, which at times have been influenced by archetypes), than your ego.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

*@**Naama *

What implicit assumptions have I egregiously erred in?


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Naama
> 
> What implicit assumptions have I egregiously erred in?


are you asking me what exactly are these fundamentals which you got wrong?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Why would Ne induce


Naama said:


> comparing links of Si data points to understand the big picture of external world.


Unless we assume that Ne-Si is legitimized and so their definitions can complement each but thats MBTI speak. The perceiving functions induce an awareness of some part of the psyche directed towards itself or towards the object. If that part of the psyche is to be classified as a Si data point, then it assumes that Ne can't operate without Si (adds too much padding to the definition).

Also, the comparison of "links" between different perceptions is more like a judging function.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> Why would Ne induce
> 
> Unless we assume that Ne-Si is legitimized and so their definitions can complement each but thats MBTI speak. The perceiving functions induce an awareness of some part of the psyche directed towards itself or towards the object. If that part of the psyche is to be classified as a Si data point, then it assumes that Ne can't operate without Si (adds too much padding to the definition).
> 
> Also, the comparison of "links" between different perceptions is more like a judging function.


Its simple, intuition is the connecting force, not connections themselves. In order to connect things, you need things what you connect together. No its not an judging function, or actually tye same thing can happen using thinking, but if you read the definition on op, you see that im talking about making the connections unconsciously, then perceiving the whole chain of associations.

Got a similat response elsewhere, so ill just add it here too.



> animenagai said:
> 
> 
> > You're gonna have to explain this a bit more because if you don't, it's just not something I buy. Ne users are Si users, but that does not mean that they're always used together. Just because we use Si also does not mean that it's based on something objective. There are certainly many instances of unrestrained Ne which have next to no bases in reality. Flights of fancy that are created through almost random cross-contextual thinking.
> ...


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*Naama *

From your model, another interpretation would have N splintering the path of a binding problem or branching it off to hit neighboring associations whereas S is only concerned with the main line. i.e. a graphical constellation of associations v.s. a single path shooting away from the object in question. Hence, the graph that N induces subsumes that of S but when it comes to awareness, the perceiving functions can only be aware of the end points.

Furthermore, a tertiary interpretation is triggered by Dario Nardi's work describing Ne as a sort of cross-contextual thinking. I liken "cross-contexual" to taking the object and its bindings and placing it in various contexts to change the end points. e.g. Cat (house), Cat (in the hat), Cat (person), Cat (evolution), Cat (rocket) all induce different meanings. However, it is the contexts surrounding "Cat" that has changed rather than the bindings of Cat itself. i.e. If S endpoints where that of the graph induced by the bindings alone, then what N does is link the bindings to whatever context they they thrown in and so would in essence move the end points (and subsequently our conscious awareness) more towards the associations induced by the context.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> From your model, another interpretation would have N splintering the path of a binding problem or branching it off to hit neighboring associations whereas S is only concerned with the main line. i.e. a graphical constellation of associations v.s. a single path shooting away from the object in question. Hence, the graph that N induces subsumes that of S but when it comes to awareness, the perceiving functions can only be aware of the end points.
> 
> Furthermore, a tertiary interpretation is triggered by Dario Nardi's work describing Ne as a sort of cross-contextual thinking. I liken "cross-contexual" to taking the object and its bindings and placing it in various contexts to change the end points. e.g. Cat (house), Cat (in the hat), Cat (person), Cat (evolution), Cat (rocket) all induce different meanings. However, it is the contexts surrounding "Cat" that has changed rather than the bindings of Cat itself. i.e. If S endpoints where that of the graph induced by the bindings alone, then what N does is link the bindings to whatever context they they thrown in and so would in essence move the end points (and subsequently our conscious awareness) more towards the associations induced by the context.


im having quite hard time understanding you, or why you even say the things you say. i only have really vague understanding about what you are saying in the first paragraph.

but N doesent just hit the neighboring association areas. like i mentioned in the last post; "the thing you need to realize about how unconscious works, everything kinda gets mashed into one big pile there, its all undifferentiated".

i should also note that you only see consciously as far as your differentiation goes with that particular thing(if you didnt already know that).

now when something(a car for example) is not so well differentiated, its not some exact car(like this mercedes...), but its a car in general. when you have a general picture of a car, it can mean basically any car, thus allowing you to make associations that apply to many cars, not just on this one exact car. you see intuition connects these unconscious associations you have around a car to the car, to make up how you see the car. you know that there is motor inside that turns the wheels, you know that most cars have a radio inside, you know that the seats are soft etc etc, but you dont consciously think these things all the time when you see a car. you just think it as a car and the associations remain unconscious most the time.

now when it comes to this cross-contextual thinking(which you defined in very weird way, that i cant agree to), like "car is like a airplane, but it moves on the ground"(dario used very similar example on one of his lectures when explaining cross-contextual thinking), you are taking some of those associations that make up the car complex and assigning them to something else(taking properties of something out of their context and assigning them to something else to explain that other thing), but eliminating some associations that doesent fit:
-car and airplane are vehicles that are used to transport people
-car and airplane have wheels and run on fuel powered motor
-car and airplane move very fast compared to people
etc etc
BUT car moves on ground and airplane moves on air.

this thing that dario said about Ne being sort of cross-contextual thinking is not some third view on Ne, its just simplified explanation of it, since dario tries to explain these things as simple as possible, so that layman can follow what he is talking about. i dont understand how you dont see what i said on op allowing cross-contextual thinking(or if you see it allowing it, i dont understand why you say its some third view to this, since its included..).

also its flawed to say that Ne is cross contextual thinking, since Ni users are able to do this too, even tho they trust the subjective factor of intuition and objective factor of sensation, which excludes trust in the subjective factor of sensation and objective factor of intuition(thus have no Ne or Si). its just something that Ne users often do and are more fluid doing.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

I was thinking about how someone said that Si users look at an object, and it takes on a deeper, almost symbolic meaning to them. And it explains why some types(such as ISFJs) are more likely to be nostalgic about objects.


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

MilkyWay132 said:


> I was thinking about how someone said that Si users look at an object, and it takes on a deeper, almost symbolic meaning to them. And it explains why some types(such as ISFJs) are more likely to be nostalgic about objects.


Si is not about symbolic meaning. sensing tells you that something is, sensing in introverted attitude means that you trust subjective facts and dont have blind trust about objective facts or see them as irrelevant. and objective perception is aimed at what lurks behind what is seen and towards possibilities that the thing might offer(in other words extraverted perception is intuition, not sensing).

Si types tend to be more nostalgic about stuff because, introverted sensing perceives 'what is' by the subjective factor, in order to see something as relevant or to trust it completely, you need to have internal counterpart to it. and this external thing evoking the internal counterpart is what nostalgia is fundamentally about. so Si types(including NPs) are naturally wired towards nostalgia, it comes out easy for them, since it follows the same rules as their normal perception of facts does.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

Enfpleasantly said:


> Thank you for stating Ne links Si data points...this is so very true!


I agree, it is extremely well summed up and makes a great deal of sense. In fact this has actually sparked a sudden realisation of what people have been trying to show me for a while now.

Ne cannot be without Si because no type with Ne is ever without Si and vice versa. The same thing goes for Ni which can never be without Se. But both also need each other to fully function, I was looking at each function on it's own, when what I should have been doing was cross-referencing it with it's opposite.

Which explains how in a Ni dom, Se will pick up the surface of something perceived in passing, the idea or the object, and then Ni will muscle it's way in all "Ok my turn now" and the immediate reality of what something just *is* fades into the implications of what it could be or has been or stands for right now etc...


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*Naama *

However, does there exist some set of properties or essence that one must be aware of to make the leap from one association to the next? i.e. some sort of necessary condition that an associative leap entails?

e.g. if I mention the property "stealthy", a common association is "ninja". But stealthy does not constitute the entire essence of ninja, but rather one of its property. Bumping stealthy up a level, I can mention "virus" but now the ninja association doesn't automatically pop up anymore. Does Ne give you awareness of virus->stealthy->ninja or just virus->ninja?


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> However, does there exist some set of properties or essence that one must be aware of to make the leap from one association to the next? i.e. some sort of necessary condition that an associative leap entails?


i dont think conscious perception is required for intuition to work, quite often intuitions come from somewhere not recognized(types with intuition not as a first function end to trust these random intuitions less without there being some rational explanation, unlike types with dominant intuition).




> e.g. if I mention the property "stealthy", a common association is "ninja". But stealthy does not constitute the entire essence of ninja, but rather one of its property. Bumping stealthy up a level, I can mention "virus" but now the ninja association doesn't automatically pop up anymore. Does Ne give you awareness of virus->stealthy->ninja or just virus->ninja?


You are right that stealthy doesent constitute the entire essence of ninja, its just one association to ninja, like i mentioned at op, intuition gives a chain of associations. like if i see a ninja, i might not even consciously think that he is stealthy, nevertheless that stealthy quality is assigned to ninja, along with other things that make up the concept of ninja.

virus and ninja are not related to each other(except maybe in some situations if for example comparing virus to ninja), so no, intuition wouldnt usually bring virus to conscious mind from a trigger of seeing a ninja(or hearing the word or what ever). also, its not that you often consciously perceive these different nuances to something with intuition(sometimes it might be just one conscious association, but there is still those underlaying aspects of a thing that makes the connection, which are not consciously perceived). when talking about Ne i think its equally important to mention Si. Si is the sensory perception that you get from for example seeing a ninja, which is governed by the subjective factor(what the perception brings up in you), while Ne is the trigger to these subjective factors. you see in order to perceive 
by the subjective factor of sensation, you need to make connections to these subjective factors, this is basically what Ne does to Si.

for example at one point when reading the word ninja sec ago, this came to my mind: 



 and instantly after the image of that weird looking chicken guy on the video. So sometimes it might go virus -> stealthy -> ninja, but the ninja and virus arent(usually) associated to each other, but both are associated to stealthy. like with the video, i didnt associate the cgicken guy to the word ninja, but i associated both ninja and the chicken guy to the video.


----------

