nanook
a scream in a vortex
I say Intuition is comprehension of process. What need is there for evolution to bring about a form of intelligence that understands process?
I say social life.
The process of nature is not as manipulable and therefore of much less relevance to our kind. Tertiary and Inferior understanding or process should be sufficient, so why create intuitive types? Not intuition, intuition can not even be avoided, because process is an inherent trait of intelligence itself, and intelligence is inherently designed to become self-aware or self-concerned, but why create types who are entirely optimized for intuition?
I think intuitives are optimized and therefore called to be social, or rather meta-social, manipulative of social process. And so are thinking intuitives.
They are politicians or philosophers, in the broadest sense. Intuitive feeling types are similar but i would say they are motivator and psychologists, to provide an analogy to these two simplifying buzzwords. (Of course i should come up with 8 distinct buzzwords, to do justice to how intuitive types are social)
But my point is, that intuitive thinkers are socially creative or manipulative, in their own way.
I don't mean the word manipulative to sound evil, but i have to use some word to make the distinction between people who are socially creative or manipulative and those who are simply social, adopting creations or manipulations implemented by others or even being down right conservative, adopting a way once and sticking to it, if possible.
Those are sensors. And they are creative and manipulative about concrete methods. Which are applied to concrete reality, for the most part. And hence not to social life.
I have to combine the words creative and manipulative, because no one can be inventing exclusively.
So i want to challenge the concept that NTs are born techies. IT wizards and the like.
Sure, understanding of process becomes very important in modern technologies. And understanding the general principles of such technology may come more easily to intuitives. But not cooking up the concrete details of technology.
For modern technology, Intuitives and Sensors have to work together. Old school technology can be entirely dominated by sensors.
I believe sensors may still be the major inspiration for the archetype of the code wizards, hackers and engineers. I do not believe that sensors are limited to dealing with hardware, for instance. Whether objects are solid or imaginary, as in object oriented programming, they are sensory objects as long as they are comprehension of static aspects of reality, like boundaries or values. And they are intuitive if they are comprehension of process, such as operators.
I always challenge the believe that sensors are stupid less evolved versions of intuitives, for two reasons, one: i do see capable sensors, people with good brains and bodies, two: typology is in principle not a stage model, so if S and N would be two stages, typology would be all wrong.
But there really appears to be a difference in political attitudes of sensors and intuitives.
I believe sensors are associated with 'backwards-views' for a reason, not just because of the common mistyping bias of mbti (wherein intelligence is considered to be a sign of intuition).
And there is solid evidence that political attitudes represent different stages of development of some particular line of intelligence.
Conservative politics aim to create a primitive less evolved society with crude rules. Some liberal and most leftist politics create more evolved, more complex and integrated societies with more refined self-regulating principles.
And i believe the reason for that difference is the social intelligence of intuitives, not emotional intelligence, but broad intelligence about social process.
One could say intuitives have a strong line of political intelligence and sensors have a weak line, since their intuition is only tertiary or inferior, albeit absolutely present.
I say social life.
The process of nature is not as manipulable and therefore of much less relevance to our kind. Tertiary and Inferior understanding or process should be sufficient, so why create intuitive types? Not intuition, intuition can not even be avoided, because process is an inherent trait of intelligence itself, and intelligence is inherently designed to become self-aware or self-concerned, but why create types who are entirely optimized for intuition?
I think intuitives are optimized and therefore called to be social, or rather meta-social, manipulative of social process. And so are thinking intuitives.
They are politicians or philosophers, in the broadest sense. Intuitive feeling types are similar but i would say they are motivator and psychologists, to provide an analogy to these two simplifying buzzwords. (Of course i should come up with 8 distinct buzzwords, to do justice to how intuitive types are social)
But my point is, that intuitive thinkers are socially creative or manipulative, in their own way.
I don't mean the word manipulative to sound evil, but i have to use some word to make the distinction between people who are socially creative or manipulative and those who are simply social, adopting creations or manipulations implemented by others or even being down right conservative, adopting a way once and sticking to it, if possible.
Those are sensors. And they are creative and manipulative about concrete methods. Which are applied to concrete reality, for the most part. And hence not to social life.
I have to combine the words creative and manipulative, because no one can be inventing exclusively.
So i want to challenge the concept that NTs are born techies. IT wizards and the like.
Sure, understanding of process becomes very important in modern technologies. And understanding the general principles of such technology may come more easily to intuitives. But not cooking up the concrete details of technology.
For modern technology, Intuitives and Sensors have to work together. Old school technology can be entirely dominated by sensors.
I believe sensors may still be the major inspiration for the archetype of the code wizards, hackers and engineers. I do not believe that sensors are limited to dealing with hardware, for instance. Whether objects are solid or imaginary, as in object oriented programming, they are sensory objects as long as they are comprehension of static aspects of reality, like boundaries or values. And they are intuitive if they are comprehension of process, such as operators.
I always challenge the believe that sensors are stupid less evolved versions of intuitives, for two reasons, one: i do see capable sensors, people with good brains and bodies, two: typology is in principle not a stage model, so if S and N would be two stages, typology would be all wrong.
But there really appears to be a difference in political attitudes of sensors and intuitives.
I believe sensors are associated with 'backwards-views' for a reason, not just because of the common mistyping bias of mbti (wherein intelligence is considered to be a sign of intuition).
And there is solid evidence that political attitudes represent different stages of development of some particular line of intelligence.
Conservative politics aim to create a primitive less evolved society with crude rules. Some liberal and most leftist politics create more evolved, more complex and integrated societies with more refined self-regulating principles.
And i believe the reason for that difference is the social intelligence of intuitives, not emotional intelligence, but broad intelligence about social process.
One could say intuitives have a strong line of political intelligence and sensors have a weak line, since their intuition is only tertiary or inferior, albeit absolutely present.
