Why iNtuitive Functions Are Superior

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

i didn't write this, but it expresses very well my own strong preference for iNtuition (particularly Ni?) over any of the other functions; honestly, i see the others as overly cautious with a tendency to get bogged down in details. but anyway, i'll let you read it first; here it is:

An IN-J explains his preference for intuition

It is remarkable how despotically premonition circumvents empiricism [i.e. N circumvents T / S]. [This is] how philosophy [N] has always done when it sets off to leap over the hedges of [concrete] experience to reach its magical, alluring endpoint. Philosophy skips fleet-footedly ahead with magical boots on: Hope and presentiment lend wings to its feet. Calculating reason [S / T] clumsily follows in its tracks while looking for better footholds [a surer start], so it too may arrive at the alluring endpoint which its divine counterpart [N] has long since reached.

It’s like watching two wilderness wanderers standing by a wild, roaring river whose current is so strong that the stream drags all rocks with it: One [i.e. N] jumps effortlessly across, using the fickle rocks as [momentary] footholds, before they immediately disappear beneath him and sink into the depths. The other [i.e. S / T] stands helplessly by the stream and watches: He must first build a foundation that is sturdy enough to support his lumbering, deliberate steps. Such a construction will not always be possible, and when it is not, there exists no force in the universe that can aid him across.

What then, is it that brings philosophical thinking [N] so speedily to its goal? Is it only because it traverses all space and flies over large distances at a higher speed than the thinking that calculates and measures [S / T]? No, it is because philosophical thinking [N] is lifted by an alien [subconscious], illogical power of creative imagination. Thus uplifted, he jumps from possibility to possibility; resting places that are only momentarily safe. Occasionally this intuition will grasp such a fleeting resting place even in mid-flight. For a brilliant foresight points out the footholds to him, even across vast distances, so that he can guess from afar, that here lies a sustainable foothold.

The power of the imagination [N] is particularly evident when, like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, it illuminates and seizes upon analogies: Subsequently comes the reflecting intellect [S / T] with its measuring devices and trusted templates to try and replace analogies with equations and the [the intuitive’s] synchronicity with causality. But even when it turns out that this [replacement] is not possible … non-provable intuition still has its merit. For even if all the footholds [that the intuitive intellect pointed out] have crumbled by the time logic and rigid empiricism reach their location there is still, after all hopes of constructing something scientific [out of it] have been demolished, something that remains.

And in this residue lies an impelling force that gives us hope for future fertility.

i find Ni to be incredibly potent for its dual long-range and superlative big-picture proclivities. in Socionics, it stands out for its kinship with time; Ni is all about tinkering with time, present and future, cause-and-effect, day after day, year after year; how disparate, seemingly unrelated forces and pressures gradually come together leading inevitably to some explosive collision so long in the making...

Ne is pretty sweet, too. but i find that, until it is well trained in the ways of its counterpart, it is significantly less big-picture and endows the user with far less foresight. right-brain functions are originally for improvisational intelligence tasks, after all.

'nother thing i like about Ni is its piercing gaze: the ability to see past surface-level appearances and perceive deeper, underlying, more fundamental dynamics. i find this form of perception to be extremely valuable in all pursuits of truth.

thoughts?

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

f***!

wrong subforum. please move to "MBTI & Typology" (i think that's what it's called) ASAP.

tanks

 

[onesteptwostep]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEjK-7Za6A

It's good to have some Ni along with Ne, sure, but it's not optimal because this cognitive model, this type, doesn't exist. If it does, it usually points to a personality disorder.

To take an example of INTP, their functions goes in the order of:

Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

Then we add in the supposed shadow functions which are:

Te
Ni
Se
Fi

An INTP using Fi completely and utterly drains the person often causes the person to do horrendous things, which is why they call the 8th function (if you add in the shadow functions [it's controversial in itself >.>]), the demon function. If you allow Fi to dominate your thoughts you get a compete reversal in cognitive mode (at that instance), which, technically in theory, turns you into a ISFP (for that instance).

Spoiler

Fi
Se
Ni
Te

It's just not healthy to train a particular function counterpart.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

@onesteptwostep

at this point, after several years in this subculture, i have my quibbles, and i have my more serious disagreements, with the Myers-Briggs system.

i've developed what would i guess be considered personal, strange, even downright wrong, interpretations of the concepts over the years. my own ideas diverge quite a bit from the accepted format.

i don't really want to get into my views in-depth.

but your point is well taken, and i watched your video.

 

[Reluctantly]

Imo, intuition by itself is often wrong. It has to be honed, otherwise people see things that aren't there. When honed, there's a great potential to see how the present moves into the future or how to change the present into the future, but it can still be wrong because of the assumptions that it relies on, of course. I'd say logic and empiricism try to remove those assumptions, but at the risk of not adequately dealing with the present. So intuition when honed is definitely going to be better imo. I assume this is what you meant, more or less.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Intuition overlaps a lot with what separates us from most other animals. It will always be nobler and higher. Essentially categorizing people into either god foetuses or mere beasts makes for a very sensitive topic. Hence, many people try to get around this dark core of typology with bullshit sugarcoating.

N describes higher-order cognition, genius, psychic ability, originality, wisdom and elegance. N is trivially superior. The problem is the typing.

 

[Hadoblado]

Strongly disagree.

Intuition is base heuristics. It trades quality for quantity.

This is a really good thing to be able to do, but it's over-glorified. Without a decent judgement function backing it, your thoughts turn to goop over time.

I'll build on that stepping stone analogy. Intuition lets you jump quickly across the river, but then you're stranded on the other side. The path you used to get to your destination is lost to you. Your friends that you left on the other side? All you can do is yell back to them that "it's better over here", but you can't show them the way. Furthermore, you're not even certain that this is the right way to go. It feels pretty good to be the first one over the river, and you can think of all kinds of reasons why it was the right choice, but it's difficult to know whether you're convincing yourself of it because you want to feel smart, or because it's genuinely better on this side. You've got a vested interest in this side of the river being better, since you don't want to look a fool. It'd be nice to be able to go back and compare once more, but that option's no longer available to you.

Comparatively, thinkers build a bridge. It takes a long time, and they require some smaller 'leaps' to get there, but when they finish the bridge they get to look at both sides whenever they like. They get to show it to other people and have them make up their own minds. They can write up a full list of verifiable pros and cons to either side of the river.

And yes, there are areas that intuition can get to that logic cannot. But if logic cannot get there, is it even a place you can know to be better with any degree of certainty? I mean, there are theories that people come up with that they can't prove, that are proven many years after their deaths. That's great. But how many of these theories get supported compared to how many get proven bullshit? Aristotle was a great philosopher, who thought that the migration of birds was actually transmutation: birds turned into other species seasonally. Even a great mind like his, going off intuition alone, is inevitably misled. As you make more claims, the chances you are utterly wrong about something approaches one. If your intuitions go in that unhealthy direction where they build on one another, all it takes is one incorrect assumption and it all comes crashing down. We need bridges, but we also need explorers, and both roles are best served when the bridge builder and the explorer are one and the same. A bridge is built more easily when it's constructed from both sides of the river and meets in the middle.

 

[Turnevies]

As (I think) Hadoblado says, Intuition brings the first men to the other side of the river, but afterwards they should contribute in building a bridge starting from their side as well so they can be reached by the others.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Imo, intuition by itself is often wrong. It has to be honed, otherwise people see things that aren't there.

so true. hence why i was saying to @Bronto that all Ns are at least a little bonkers. ENJs are the least bonkers of the Ns, because they're able to silence the unconscious, which is the driving force behind iNtuition, the most effectively.

but for people like me, who are most invested in possibility/exploration/innovation, and far far less in what has already been established or what is currently being established (snoozefest!), i really could care less whether my thoughts prove "right" or "wrong" in the end.

i am in it purely for the thrill of the chase; and if i prove to be right, well... clap on the back for me. woo-hoo.

but honestly, the apparent insanity comes into play when one looks so far ahead as to baffle minds not inclined to such... and honestly there are plenty of Ns who don't look too far ahead, or outside of the status-quo box too much, so even they are prone to calling "crazy."

When honed, there's a great potential to see how the present moves into the future or how to change the present into the future, but it can still be wrong because of the assumptions that it relies on, of course. I'd say logic and empiricism try to remove those assumptions, but at the risk of not adequately dealing with the present. So intuition when honed is definitely going to be better imo. I assume this is what you meant, more or less.

lol, the way i worded it was half-unintentionally trollish (don't beat around the bush, do i?)

for me, personally, honed or unhoned, i like it better anyway.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Intuition overlaps a lot with what separates us from most other animals. It will always be nobler and higher. Essentially categorizing people into either god foetuses or mere beasts makes for a very sensitive topic. Hence, many people try to get around this dark core of typology with bullshit sugarcoating.

N describes higher-order cognition, genius, psychic ability, originality, wisdom and elegance. N is trivially superior. The problem is the typing.

well, OK... see, sometimes i observe the same thing and sometimes i do not.

to some extent, it is true that your dominant functions are going to predispose you to appreciation of certain kinds of intelligence over others. for instance, just look at @Hado's post: he is presumably INTP, yet he disagrees with the superiority of N for some very good reasons.

but then why do we see all these n00bz self-identifying as INJ (these two types are the most popular)? many of them turn out to be Sensors, who theoretically should not value that kind of intelligence. and then there are even people who have known about this stuff for years and yet they still continue to self-identify erroneously as, again, INJ (e.g. most INFJs on INFJf, last i checked). there is evidently some considerable degree of objective superiority in the iNtuitive functions, particularly Ni.

probably part of it is the way it is all presented. an ISTJ i knew observed that MB is "created by INFJs, for INFJs." Vicky Jo is a dumb twat. or, for instance, when people around the world watch Hollywood movies, it makes them wish they were Americans, 'cause it's like the best nationality ever.

my egalitarian proclivities impel me to reject ideas that assert that some people are inherently more, to borrow the phrase -- which is very apt, "god-like" than others, and what-have-you... but there it is in my face, all the damn time. *sigh*

but really, it all depends on the person. there are certainly a lot of Sensors who choose to walk with Yeshua, and this makes them godlike in spite of their cognitive propensities. there must be more to godliness than unconscious-intellectual prowess. plenty of Ns are horrible people... N-doms should probably be wary of overvaluing this gift; it's a real danger i think and can lead to some very ugly thinking and action...

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

@Hado

that was a pretty awesome post. totally made a case for the "superiority" (lolz) of Thinking functions.

wish i had more to say, but i do not...

====================================================

@Turnevies

sorry bro, i implore you to step your game up :P

you can't just repeat @Hado's point!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

but then why do we see all these n00bz self-identifying as INJ (these two types are the most popular)? many of them turn out to be Sensors, who theoretically should not value that kind of intelligence. and then there are even people who have known about this stuff for years and yet they still continue to self-identify erroneously as, again, INJ (e.g. most INFJs on INFJf, last i checked). there is evidently some considerable degree of objective superiority in the iNtuitive functions, particularly Ni.

Might that have to do with the presentation of mbti itself?

To me most mbti descriptions of INTJ seem very extraverted, socially certain, and focused on practical careers. The profiles rarely pay heed to his dominant intuition and when they do it's typically an ability to be a "long range planner with a vision" in a business context -- his main personality is the Te.

If you didn't know any better I think it would be easy to see INTJ as a sensor type, or as a sensor to misidentify as INTJ. And it probably makes NiTes feel less successful or developed than they are for not meeting the stereotypes.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

all right, f*** it, i'll address your points as best i can without whipping out the ~CRAZY~ (which i reserve for myself because i am greedy that way)

VIDEO

A. last i checked, by his own admission, DaveSuperPowers has not read a single book on typology.

B. as you can see in the chart(s) there is considerable overlap between iNtuitive functions of both attitudes, e.g. Ne and Ni.

the overlap is there to "guide" the dominant function so that it doesn't become too estranged from either the user or the external object.

according to some sources, and this is how i have always conceived it too, to "go too far one way or too far the other" with any given function will engender a neurotic, unhealthy, evil manifestation of said function.

i will use an example from a Lenore Thomson text. Fe is nice and fluffy and warm and everything on the surface, but where its focus becomes too primed on the external object -- and not enough on the sort of genuine, raw, personal feeling which Fi embodies -- it becomes very ceremonious, empty, and even unfeeling.

the example is that of an ESFJ mother who -- in wanting to adhere to collective values, traditions, and most of all not wanting to lose face in the public's eye -- disconnects from what marriage/partnership should be all about in the first place, not to mention her obligation to have empathy for her children's emotions, and compels her daughter into an arranged marriage.

you might also look at the book/movie "The Giver," which is all about Fi-Fe dynamics.

It's good to have some Ni along with Ne, sure, but it's not optimal because this cognitive model, this type, doesn't exist. If it does, it usually points to a personality disorder.

i disagree.

i don't actually believe in shadow functions. i believe you can train yourself to use any one you want.

have you ever taken that one Functions test? ever notice how people get some really weird results? and yet this is the best test to take because it focuses on the functions, which is what really defines a type, over really broad, generic lifestyle questions that predictably produce shitty results.

IMO, personality types do not precede the functions.

i.e. the process isn't like

this is my type ---> these are my functions exactly

it actually goes

these are my functions ---> this is my type approximately

the types are merely there in an attempt to neatly put into boxes (understandably, as all systems do) people who in reality have diverse, chaotic, and unpredictable combinations of function development.

An INTP using Fi completely and utterly drains the person often causes the person to do horrendous things, which is why they call the 8th function (if you add in the shadow functions [it's controversial in itself >.>]), the demon function. If you allow Fi to dominate your thoughts you get a compete reversal in cognitive mode (at that instance), which, technically in theory, turns you into a ISFP (for that instance).

i know we're not talking about Socionics, but i am indelibly influenced by it anyway, so i might as well as explain...

Socionics says that your Hero and Demon are actually your two most developed functions.

this has helped me explain to myself anomalies in my cognition which are otherwise inexplicable under Myers-Briggs.

/my two pennies

NOTE: to the extent that Myers-Briggs/Socionics are philosophy, rather than science, i have taken liberties with my interpretations thereof.

i understand there are many components to it which can be said to be scientific. these, being science, i will not argue against in a non-scientific fashion.

thing is, i'm not entirely sure which bits are science and which are philosophy nowadays.

im pretty sure it's still mostly philosophy/soft-psychology. so toodle-loo...

 

[Hadoblado]

@Hado's post: he is presumably INTP, yet he disagrees with the superiority of N for some very good reasons.

ENTP

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Might that have to do with the presentation of mbti itself?

To me most mbti descriptions of INTJ seem very extraverted, socially certain, and focused on practical careers. The profiles rarely pay heed to his dominant intuition and when they do it's typically an ability to be a "long range planner with a vision" in a business context -- his main personality is the Te.

If you didn't know any better I think it would be easy to see INTJ as a sensor type, or as a sensor to misidentify as INTJ. And it probably makes NiTes feel less successful or developed than they are for not meeting the stereotypes.

that was exactly my next point, yes, but obviously you didn't read my entire post :P

i don't pay quite as much attention to the NT typology as the NF, since im not NT... so yeah, thanks for that.

there is another thing... there is this sort of preconceived "measuring-stick" type deal where, for instance, some INTJs are considered "more INTJ" than others.

But, say we put two guys side-by-side, where one is an ISTJ and another is an INTJ. one is an engineer and the other is an English teacher. which would you be most likely to want to type as INTJ given that information? clearly the engineer. and yet there are plenty of ISTJ engineers, no? and there are plenty of INTJ English teachers, right?

so people like DaveSuperPowers are going around telling people they should pursue this career path and not that one because of their supposedly inherent abilities/type, and i think that's just lame on many levels...

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

ENTP

fascinating! so would you, by any chance, go so far as to call yourself a Ti-ENTP? the Ti subtype of the ENTP? something i lifted from Socionics...

'cause for a long time i was trying to make sense of my own preference for iNtuition as an INFP, because supposedly i should value Feeling more... but i don't. so it made me think i was a mistype.

but then i just used Socionics to explain my preference to myself.

 

[Brontosaurie]

ENTP

Since when? Congratulations.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't know anything about socionics. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm a Ti-ENTP, but I strongly identify with a Ti/Ne dynamic. Compared to people I consider INTP, I'm more invested in things in an extroverted way. I don't have that cool about me, I want to poke and prod. If INTP and ENTP were on a sliding scale, I might be somewhere close to the middle?

 

[onesteptwostep]

all right, f*** it, i'll address your points as best i can without whipping out the ~CRAZY~ (which i reserve for myself because i am greedy that way)


A. last i checked, by his own admission, DaveSuperPowers has not read a single book on typology.

B. as you can see in the chart(s) there is considerable overlap between iNtuitive functions of both attitudes, e.g. Ne and Ni.

the overlap is there to "guide" the dominant function so that it doesn't become too estranged from either the user or the external object.

according to some sources, and this is how i have always conceived it too, to "go too far one way or too far the other" with any given function will engender a neurotic, unhealthy, evil manifestation of said function.

i will use an example from a Lenore Thomson text. Fe is nice and fluffy and warm and everything on the surface, but where its focus becomes too primed on the external object -- and not enough on the sort of genuine, raw, personal feeling which Fi embodies -- it becomes very ceremonious, empty, and even unfeeling.

the example is that of an ESFJ mother who -- in wanting to adhere to collective values, traditions, and most of all not wanting to lose face in the public's eye -- disconnects from what marriage/partnership should be all about in the first place, not to mention her obligation to have empathy for her children's emotions, and compels her daughter into an arranged marriage.

you might also look at the book/movie "The Giver," which is all about Fi-Fe dynamics.


i disagree.

i don't actually believe in shadow functions. i believe you can train yourself to use any one you want.

have you ever taken that one Functions test? ever notice how people get some really weird results? and yet this is the best test to take because it focuses on the functions, which is what really defines a type, over really broad, generic lifestyle questions that predictably produce shitty results.

IMO, personality types do not precede the functions.

i.e. the process isn't like

this is my type ---> these are my functions exactly

it actually goes

these are my functions ---> this is my type approximately

the types are merely there in an attempt to neatly put into boxes (understandably, as all systems do) people who in reality have diverse, chaotic, and unpredictable combinations of function development.


i know we're not talking about Socionics, but i am indelibly influenced by it anyway, so i might as well as explain...

Socionics says that your Hero and Demon are actually your two most developed functions.

this has helped me explain to myself anomalies in my cognition which are otherwise inexplicable under Myers-Briggs.

/my two pennies

NOTE: to the extent that Myers-Briggs/Socionics are philosophy, rather than science, i have taken liberties with my interpretations thereof.

i understand there are many components to it which can be said to be scientific. these, being science, i will not argue against in a non-scientific fashion.

thing is, i'm not entirely sure which bits are science and which are philosophy nowadays.

im pretty sure it's still mostly philosophy/soft-psychology. so toodle-loo...

No, you're definitely right, a person only having 4 functions doesn't seem to match up with reality, with that I agree.

I think I'll try to explain this within the realm of my own theory of personality, and of the MBTI.

I think personalities are dependent on the people you interact with, meaning, personalities are malleable in that it will adjust to the people you surround yourself at the moment. It takes 2 or more to make a personality.

With this being said, I think that if you are in a certain social group you would predominately exhibit a certain type more than another. For example I would act very much differently in front of my parents than with a group of my friends. I would also act a lot more different in front of an older peer group, and different in younger peer group. But when you are in that certain group or occasion, you would only have room to exhibit 4 functions, or else it would break your persona. So now you might have already guessed that the other functions you may identify with appear in different situations, in front of different people or places. I think what the MBTI does is take the entire calculus of your differing personalities which are outputs of interaction and churns out the model which best describes that average mean.

DaveSuperPowers does seem to make it as if these certain people do not exhibit certain traits whatsoever, but that's because we haven't seen the entire person in all his or her aspect of life, only of their best and most pronounced traits.

And that's that. (also to add, I've personally not have read much of socionics literature, so your mental landscape of the theory might have been taken into perfect consideration here).

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

@onesteptwostep

that is pretty much how i would explain the irregularities, for the most part. i know having been around mostly Sensors in my early years kept me from developing confidence in my iNtuitive abilities until later in life, around college... before that, all i really had was school, books, and Wikipedia.

in college i hung out with mostly NTPs, and one or two INFJs, so while i couldn't keep up with the NT discussions i did absorb a ton of information, frameworks for interpreting it, & the art of discourse. the INFJs taught me a lot about Ni; actually, my drug use did that too. as a result, i have higher than expected development of, as well as a deep appreciation for, Ti and Ni -- which are not technically in my stack.

Fi i would say im an expert at, at this point, and hence why i probably resemble an INTP or an INFJ to people who don't know much about me, i.e. im bored with Fi. Fi can't be extricated from Ne in INFPs (your dominant 2 create this sort of feedback loop with each other where they influence each other a lot); as such, im quite skilled at reading nonverbals, reading into tone/pace of speech, what i call "Super-empathy" (this is essentially melding of egos), telling when people like or don't like me/each other, telling when someone is lying, and so on...

Ne i use to express my ideas... to me, i miss a lot of the magic if i stop and think too hard about something. it feels like im getting a sort of live stream from my subconscious if i just write out my ideas very quickly without thinking about them too much. "it's the only way to fly," LOL. associative thinking at its finest; logic gets left out except for rudiments...

i do wish i were better at engaging with stuff logically. i really like Ti, hence the Sherlock quotes, but it just escapes me as of yet... the amazing iNtuitive insights i get from observing people, or thinking about something to do with people, are completely not there when im looking at something that is not people-related. it's frustrating...

im actually slowly getting better at it though. it's really an amazing development. i can tell when a certain datum contains much import. the tiniest detail can have a tremendous significance. i look forward to developing this skill... i would say im focused on Ti at this juncture in life (Ti is actually the third function for EII/INFj in Socionics)

TL;DR

i would probably concede that your dominant function (and possibly your auxiliary too) is your Nature; the rest seems to me to be your Nurture.

===============================================

I don't know anything about socionics. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm a Ti-ENTP, but I strongly identify with a Ti/Ne dynamic. Compared to people I consider INTP, I'm more invested in things in an extroverted way. I don't have that cool about me, I want to poke and prod. If INTP and ENTP were on a sliding scale, I might be somewhere close to the middle?

seems you were previously INTP? so what made you convert?

 

[scorpiomover]

After a long time of being into MBTI and JCF, I had an intuition:

If, according to the theory of evolution, the species that has the bigger advantage ends up increasing in number, then:

Surely it stands to reason that according to the theory of evolution, the MBTI/JCf with the biggest advantages would be the one that is most numerous in the population.

In other words, according to evolution, the rarer the MBTI type, the weaker it is. The rarest MBTI type, and the rarest JCF are the weakest of them all.

 

[Hadoblado]

@ASD
Data basically.

@Scorpiomover
Only if there's selective pressure. And only if personality is genetic (if we're talking permanent representation).

 

[scorpiomover]

well, OK... see, sometimes i observe the same thing and sometimes i do not.

to some extent, it is true that your dominant functions are going to predispose you to appreciation of certain kinds of intelligence over others. for instance, just look at @Hado's post: he is presumably INTP, yet he disagrees with the superiority of N for some very good reasons.

INTPs are N-aux. Their predisposition for valuing intuition is not as strong as their predisposition for Ti. Intution thus seems somewhat suspect to Ti-doms. INTPs use intuition, but don't trust it all that much, and prefer to find external validation of their intuitions before trusting them.

but then why do we see all these n00bz self-identifying as INJ (these two types are the most popular)?

According to the stats, only 1-2% are INTJs, and only 0.5% are INFJs. So they should be the least common self-identified types.

many of them turn out to be Sensors, who theoretically should not value that kind of intelligence. and then there are even people who have known about this stuff for years and yet they still continue to self-identify erroneously as, again, INJ (e.g. most INFJs on INFJf, last i checked).

Reading the profiles of INJs, makes them sound like they are superior to all other types. People come online to chat and socialise on forums, who have already tried to socialise in real life, but for one reason or another find it too difficult. Most people on forums are young, and so have plenty of time and opportunities to find friends at school and in college. They usually report that they don't get on with most people. They know they have severe weaknesses in the social arena. Naturally, they do not want to believe that their weaknesses in social life are due to a severe weakness in themselves. So many choose to believe that it is because they are too superior in intelligence and capability for most humans to tolerate them.

Thus, they have an extremely strong subconscious motivation to choose the descriptions that make them sound both superior to others, and unlikely to get on well with others, but not for any fault of their own which fits the descriptions of introverts and INJs.

there is evidently some considerable degree of objective superiority in the iNtuitive functions, particularly Ni.

probably part of it is the way it is all presented. an ISTJ i knew observed that MB is "created by INFJs, for INFJs."

There's an easy way to test this.

Go out to your college. Find the people who are most successful in their social life, their studies, sports and all other areas of life. Then read out the following and ask them which they think applies to them the most:

1) The positive traits of INJs.

2) The negative traits of INJs.

3) The idiosyncrasies of INJs, that people would not consider either positively beneficial or negatively harmful.

If INJs are the superior types of people, and the descriptions and the answers of people are honest, then these people would agree with most of all 3.

If INJs are NOT the superior types of people, and the descriptions and answers of people are usually biased, then these people would be likely to agree with the positive traits, disagree with the negative traits, and mostly disagree with the neutral idiosyncrasies.

Or, if you prefer to simply get an objective test that is free of bias, then simply ask people about how many of the neutral idiosyncratic traits of INTJs and INFJs, that are NOT traits of any other types, that they agree with. They are neither beneficial nor harmful. So no-one has any reason to lie about them. They are not traits of any other types. So other types will not have a reason to agree with them. They are traits of INJs. So INTJs and INFJs are likely to agree with them.

As long as you deliberately omit to mention that these traits are anything to do with MBTI, INTJs or INFJs, and these people are not familiar with MBTI, so they don't cotton on to what you are up to, you should get a straight answer.

 

[scorpiomover]

Only if there's selective pressure. And only if personality is genetic (if we're talking permanent representation).

Both good points.

That qualifies that the genetic components of MBTI and JCF (nature) would result in the most successful types becoming the majority.

Now for the environmental components (nurture):

Richard Dawkins pointed out that the principles of evolution can apply to ideas, or as he called them "memes".

The 2 principles of evolution are: (1) random changes (mutation), (2) changes do not produce identical results (pressures are selective).

Those 2 can easily apply to almost anything.

If people develop a preference for using some types of reasoning and not others, such as in JCF, then the same 2 principles of evolution would apply. Thus, preferences for JCF functions would be subject to evolution, and thus nurture of JCF would result in the most successful types becoming the majority.

If people develop a preference for certain clusters of personality traits and not others, such as in MBTI dichotomies and Big Five, then the same 2 principles of evolution would apply. Thus, preferences for MBTI dichotomies and Big Five dimensions would be subject to evolution, and thus nurture of MBTI and Big Five would result in the most successful MBTI dichotomies and Big Five dimensions becoming the majority.

So, whether by nature or nurture, whether by JCF, MBTI or Big Five, the principles of evolution would still apply. So in all cases, the most successful functions, types, dichotomies and dimensions of personality theory would become the majority.

Anything I'm missing here?

 

[scorpiomover]

you might also look at the book/movie "The Giver," which is all about Fi-Fe dynamics.

You raise excellent points.

From studying Fe-doms, I've noticed that Fe-doms seem to thrive on other people talking about and expressing their feelings. It's like pure oxygen to them. They seem to get a high off it, even when those emotions are extremely negative.

Conversely, when everyone in the room is talking purely unemotionally, Fe-doms seem to act like they can't breathe. They start screaming, getting extremely agitated, almost clutching at their throats. However, the minute that people start expressing how they feel about the situation, they almost immediately calm down and become extremely rational and accommodating. It's like they NEED others to express emotions to breathe.

I've seen this many times, and tested it myself repeatedly. So it seems to be scientifically consistent.

As a result, a town like in "The Giver", where no-one expresses real feelings, would be hell on Earth for ESFJs. They'd go insane.

But I can understand how it would be extremely attractive to INFPs. Fi-doms feel emotions INTENSELY. Emotions can really hurt them bad. They often suffer with depression and anxiety as a result. It would be very nice if they could get a break from all that pain.

Plus, emotions are impractical. TJs, who use Te heavily, are the types to dislike and reject the emotions of others the most by far. INTJs and ISTJs are particularly noted for ignoring feelings. One can see the tendency to run roughshod over the feelings of others in ENTJs as well.

INFPs have Te as their inferior function. So naturally, they can see the practical benefits of a town without any real emotion.

There are many such stories around today, as today, a lot of people say that emotions get in the way, and should be ignored, and so there is much demand for such a world.

However, to Fe-doms, this would be hell on Earth. They couldn't function without people talking about their feelings. So most likely, it's Fe-users who would write stories about such a world where it is in truth a horrible place that no-one wants, and where the hero destroys the society completely, as to an Fe-user, even the total collapse of society would be infinitely preferable to a place where no-one expresses their feelings.

So I would agree with you that it's about Fe-Fi dynamics. Te-dom/aux (TJs) would desire to live in such a town, and so would be the ones who want the town to stay exactly as it is. Fi-dom/aux (FPs) would find such a town very appealing and very tempting, and so would be excellent choices as the main character. Ti-dom/aux (TPs) would see the efficiency of such a place, but would become unhappy after a short time, and so would be the people who live there happily, but are awakened to rebellion by the FP. Fe-dom/aux (FJs) would hate such a place, are the martyrs whose deaths inspire the FP to reconsider if such a place is so great, and are probably also the authors of such stories.

i will use an example from a Lenore Thomson text. Fe is nice and fluffy and warm and everything on the surface, but where its focus becomes too primed on the external object -- and not enough on the sort of genuine, raw, personal feeling which Fi embodies -- it becomes very ceremonious, empty, and even unfeeling.

the example is that of an ESFJ mother who -- in wanting to adhere to collective values, traditions, and most of all not wanting to lose face in the public's eye -- disconnects from what marriage/partnership should be all about in the first place, not to mention her obligation to have empathy for her children's emotions, and compels her daughter into an arranged marriage.

An odd example of Fe, isn't it? Fe being too "primed on the external object"? Doesn't sound like most typists language. It sounds very much like Jung's terminology in Chapter X of Psychological types.

Here's what Jung had to say on Fe-doms that matches Lenore Thomson's claim:

Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured.

Certainly, this sounds very much like an arranged marriage that would make a daughter most unhappy.

However, Jung's language is wrong for the concept: A "suitable" mate is a practical choice, not an emotional one. Moreover, age, capacity, height, and family respectability are all extremely objective practical qualities. They would appeal to TJs. But not to INTPs, ISTPs or ENTPs. So it is unlikely that Fe would be the driver for this choice.

In addition, Jung says this

Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured.

He feels the need to tell us that he is "fully convinced", which is superfluous, and is out of character for Jung's writing in the rest of the chapter, as almost all of his arguments are based on reason. He thus sees reason to think that Fe could NOT be the source of these choices, and thus feels the need to tell us that despite what is rational and reasonable, he is fully convinced that this happens.

Jung refers elsewhere to proving traits by observation. I thus suspect that he has seen these behaviours in Fe-doms, but doesn't have a good explanation why.

Fe-doms use emotional feelings to tell what is a good choice. When they want to make a choice, they turn to their friends, and listen to their experiences. They rely upon the emotions that others express when talking about those experiences, to gauge whether the experience was good, bad or indifferent and by how much. This then tells them what they can expect, and thus what choices to make.

So an Fe-dom thing to do, is to introduce a new date to her friends and family. If her friends and family had a good time with the date, then that means that they'll like them too. If they express negative feelings about the date, then the Fe-dom expects that the Fe-dom will have a bad time as well.

However, when they are in environments where people do NOT talk about their feelings, then they have nothing to go on. They use the emotional expressions of others to tell what those experiences mean, and what they can learn from them. Without any expression of emotions, it all sounds like meaningless rubbish to the Fe-dom.

At that point, they have to use their secondary function to make a judgement. If their secondary function is Ni, then they look for predictive patterns: When they date a blonde, and they get hurt, they deduce that it's not a good idea to date blondes. When they date brunettes, and have a good time, they conclude that it's a good idea to date brunettes. Stupid, I know. But it's what they do.

If their secondary function is Si, they would look for conventional stereotypes that most people match on, such as a similar age, that the man is very capable, that the man is taller, and that the person comes from a good family. Empirically, these traits produce stable and happy LTRs more often than not. So that is what they would default to, IF THEY WERE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES AND EXPRESSING THEIR EMOTIONS ABOUT THEM.

I'm adding in the second point, because it's a problem for EFJs. Because they seek others out to be with, and are happy to listen to others express their emotions, which most people love to do, to vent their feelings, they're almost always in possession of a lot of data on any topic, where the average of those views is almost bound to be highly reliable.

So they are having to make a judgement, with only functions that are designed for perceptions, and without any ability to discern things any other way, except for their inferior Ti, which isn't developed well, because they hardly ever needed it before.

There's a similar reaction when INFPs start partying and taking major drugs that block or completely corrupt their true feelings. They make incredibly bad choices, and do all sorts of things that they regret so utterly and so bitterly, that they retreat from real life and spend the next 25 years living in fear of the outside world and any sort of unconventional experience.

according to some sources, and this is how i have always conceived it too, to "go too far one way or too far the other" with any given function will engender a neurotic, unhealthy, evil manifestation of said function.

Jung would agree with you there. Too little Fe for an Fe-dom would drive them to unwittingly force their daughter into an arranged marriage that she definitely doesn't want, as an Fe-dom without Fe, is like an INFP that cannot feel their Fi at all. Flying blind.

 

[Hadoblado]

Both good points.

That qualifies that the genetic components of MBTI and JCF (nature) would result in the most successful types becoming the majority.

Now for the environmental components (nurture):

Richard Dawkins pointed out that the principles of evolution can apply to ideas, or as he called them "memes".

The 2 principles of evolution are: (1) random changes (mutation), (2) changes do not produce identical results (pressures are selective).

Those 2 can easily apply to almost anything.

If people develop a preference for using some types of reasoning and not others, such as in JCF, then the same 2 principles of evolution would apply. Thus, preferences for JCF functions would be subject to evolution, and thus nurture of JCF would result in the most successful types becoming the majority.

If people develop a preference for certain clusters of personality traits and not others, such as in MBTI dichotomies and Big Five, then the same 2 principles of evolution would apply. Thus, preferences for MBTI dichotomies and Big Five dimensions would be subject to evolution, and thus nurture of MBTI and Big Five would result in the most successful MBTI dichotomies and Big Five dimensions becoming the majority.

So, whether by nature or nurture, whether by JCF, MBTI or Big Five, the principles of evolution would still apply. So in all cases, the most successful functions, types, dichotomies and dimensions of personality theory would become the majority.

Anything I'm missing here?

To be clear, I'm not telling you you're wrong. I agree sort of.

Group selection:
We're a social species. We specialise in adaptation as a group. I'm no expert, and wikipedias telling me that group selection might not be that big of a deal. Seems relevant to me though.

Selective pressure on personality might be weak:
Personality is also super complex. And the more complex something is, the more diluted any selective pressure will be on it. Compare the appearance of two eyes, arms, legs, ears to personality. These other traits come as standard, but with personality, it's all up in the air.

Nature Vs. Nurture:
Personality and potential is always a composite of potential and experience. There are a vast network of feedback loops between the two. Consider just how much of an advantage having high testosterone can be. Aggression can be super adaptive. Now consider what that level of aggression does to your parenting skills, and its impact on the fitness of your high testosterone child.

Timeline:
Fitness requires context to be defined, as it's an adaptation to an environment. Our environment has changed rapidly in the last few millennia, which is a very short time for evolution to properly select in. I hate to plant the seeds of this notion because I hate the elitism it can facilitate (and I don't believe it), but it's a clear example: if sensing has been adaptive for all of our evolutionary history, and sensors are over-represented in the population, it could very well be the case that sensing is only now being selected against now that our environment has changed. It would not follow from this that having a common personality trait implies fitness.

Another example that springs to mind is male tournament fitness. If the top 10% are having 90% of the sex, they're highly fit. But that 10% is still 10%. And males don't seem to be converging on any particular formula.

So yeah, I agree with where your mind goes kind of. I think it's a good thing to think about. I hesitate to draw the conclusions you do though.

 

[PmjPmj]

Yes, Ni dominants are rather romanticised. I have noted this trend time and time again. More on this later.

I don’t like chest-puffing, but I’ve been fortunate enough to spend time moving around the professional type communities here in the UK. I know some amazing practitioners and I have been allowed access to some cutting edge knowledge. Behind closed doors, there’s a bit of a war going on at the moment.

OPP, those who were entrusted with the MBTI, are rather stuck in the past. They are clinging to outdated models and although they do refine and implement small changes over time, it really isn’t enough. Unless they very quickly change and adapt their approach, the future of type lies with the pioneers out there. It is with these pioneers that I side. A couple I call ‘friend’, and a few others I call ‘acquaintance’. To give you some idea of the people I’m interacting with, I’ve previously been in dialogue with Linda Berens and Dario Nardi. But that’s just a couple. Both are very cool people, by the way.

Whilst I will be the first to admit that I don’t really know the arse of type from its elbow (Dunning-Kruger Effect; I’ve already taken the plunge and I’m on the climb again, very much at the “It’s complicated…” point), I can share titbits of what I ‘know’.

For a start, ‘dominant is king’. I’ve said this elsewhere, but really - your dominant function (and yes — we do have a very clear preference in this regard) is what primarily defines you as a person. The way this manifests (internally and externally) can and will be modified somewhat by the usual suspects (race; age; gender; etc.) but overall, your dominant function is your MO.

A case can certainly be made for auxiliary. Not just in terms of common-sense (it’s a much needed counter-balance for healthy functioning - obviously) but also in the countless observations and case-studies which have been going on for rather a long time now.

After that, though, things are a lot more fluid than one would expect.

It isn’t my intention to drop bombs of knowledge and enlightenment here; I’m pretty sure I’m only really confirming what most of you already knew. I’m merely saying “Yes, you are correct in your assumptions”.

Briefly on evolution: recent studies have shown that certain traits are indeed heritable (obviously, but now we have the proof) and perhaps unsurprisingly, extraversion has a slightly higher heritability than introversion. I can’t remember the exact figures (or even the scale used!) but it equated to something like a 5% lead. I have notes on this somewhere, taken at a seminar revolving largely around Step III. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to dig said notes out (or chase down the researcher who found all of this out).

Oh, and briefly: type is the ‘how’, not the ‘why’. It’s how we interpret the world around us and then react to it, or interact with it. If that makes sense. I can probably explain that better, but I’m running short on time.

On to Ni dominance.

Yes, it is heavily romanticised. Such intellect! Such focus! Such wisdom and insight!

Meanwhile, in the real world…

I’m NiTe. Of this there is no question. I have been prodded, poked and entered countless debates with people far more experienced than myself (aforementioned practitioners) with regards to my type. In the end, my stubbornness won out and they had to throw all of their professionalism aside and yell “YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. I.N.T.J.” (quite literally - it was highly amusing to me; I was simultaneously smacked across my legs with the MBTI manual xD). But I just couldn’t get it. I mean, you guys have seen me posting. Compare me to the stereotypical INTJ; comparatively, I am a complete shambles. I had this notion that I couldn’t possibly be an INTJ, because I’m not a prolific intellectual, bringing knowledge and insight to the masses. I’m not even that much of a strategic thinker. I’m not a balls to the wall go-getter, ad infinitum. The top and bottom of it is that I thought myself far too inept to be an NT. Some days, I still do. I thought I was an F (because all feelers are stupid, amirite? *rolls eyes*).

It was at this point I really began to learn about the ‘real’ type, and how the material you find on the internet is largely devoid of any real merit. Fun fact: this here forum is one of the very few places I can come to, read various ideas / theories being thrown around on type, and actually applaud. This is in stark contrast to most other places (perhaps most notably, PerC) which are rife with misinformation and - let’s be plainly honest - people who really need to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I’m not going to get in to why I’m not the stereotypical mastermind. You all get it: education; lack of it (seriously - I guarantee I’m one of the most undereducated people here; I’m not proud of that, but it is what it is), lifestyle choices… yada yada.

Type does give you a predilection for certain things, and a ‘leg-up’ in some areas. For example, I am a pretty smart guy all things considered. My upbringing and education should mean that I’m completely devoid of intellect; I should be a complete knuckle-dragger like most of the others I went to school with, yet I am (comparatively) not. Where they plateaued early on in life, I continued to grow and push past my boundaries. In spite of everything, I’m a lot smarter than you’d expect me to be, and I’m extremely grateful for this.

… but where does this apparent aptitude for intellectual growth come from?

Ni, I’d wager. I have an inquisitive mind. Not necessarily for the more mundane ‘how does this work?’ questions, but the constant probing of what reality really is. If anyone is interested, I will happily bang on at length about how Ni shapes my worldview. It is a wonderful way of being - but it’s also so very often incompatible with the world. I have become a bit of an outsider, truth be told. I’m cool with that, as I have my wife (ENTJ) and kids, but before that? I was lonely, and rather depressed.

Fortunately, psychedelics

I can’t remember where I was going with this. I’ve had 4 hours sleep, and the amphetamine I had to aid me with counteracting the exhaustion I was feeling has since worn off. Fnar.

So yeah. If you want the real deal on Ni dominance from some lanky cunt in the UK, fire away. If not, balls to you.

 

[PmjPmj]

Oh, predilections.

I've yet to meet an Ni dominant who isn't (or has at some point been) obsessed with all things metaphysical. We're the weirdos who dare to peek behind the veil of reality to check out WTF is wrong with it all.

That penetrative gaze we tend to have? It's very appropriate.

 

[scorpiomover]

I don’t like chest-puffing, but I’ve been fortunate enough to spend time moving around the professional type communities here in the UK. I know some amazing practitioners and I have been allowed access to some cutting edge knowledge. Behind closed doors, there’s a bit of a war going on at the moment.

OPP, those who were entrusted with the MBTI, are rather stuck in the past. They are clinging to outdated models and although they do refine and implement small changes over time, it really isn’t enough. Unless they very quickly change and adapt their approach, the future of type lies with the pioneers out there. It is with these pioneers that I side. A couple I call ‘friend’, and a few others I call ‘acquaintance’. To give you some idea of the people I’m interacting with, I’ve previously been in dialogue with Linda Berens and Dario Nardi. But that’s just a couple. Both are very cool people, by the way.

Whilst I will be the first to admit that I don’t really know the arse of type from its elbow (Dunning-Kruger Effect; I’ve already taken the plunge and I’m on the climb again, very much at the “It’s complicated…” point), I can share titbits of what I ‘know’.

For a start, ‘dominant is king’. I’ve said this elsewhere, but really - your dominant function (and yes — we do have a very clear preference in this regard) is what primarily defines you as a person. The way this manifests (internally and externally) can and will be modified somewhat by the usual suspects (race; age; gender; etc.) but overall, your dominant function is your MO.

This is a major deal.

There's an ongoing battle between dichotomists and function theorists. Dichotomists don't really believe in the concept of the dom and that dom > aux.

Even function theorists generally don't take dom > aux much into account. INTJs in particular want to claim their intuition is superior to INTPs, but don't like the idea that they can't be as good at rationality as INTPs. It's a big source of conflict, as the dom > aux theory means INTJs can't have their cake and eat it.

It isn’t my intention to drop bombs of knowledge and enlightenment here; I’m pretty sure I’m only really confirming what most of you already knew. I’m merely saying “Yes, you are correct in your assumptions”.

Oh, drop some big bomb-shells, please. Enquiring minds want to know.

Briefly on evolution: recent studies have shown that certain traits are indeed heritable (obviously, but now we have the proof) and perhaps unsurprisingly, extraversion has a slightly higher heritability than introversion. I can’t remember the exact figures (or even the scale used!) but it equated to something like a 5% lead. I have notes on this somewhere, taken at a seminar revolving largely around Step III. If anyone is interested, I will attempt to dig said notes out (or chase down the researcher who found all of this out).

This is a major bombshell.

There's loads of INTJs, INTPs, INFJs, etc, who keep saying how their parents are ESxx types, and how much smarter they are than their parents, because of their type, and that they are so much smarter than their parents because of their type. Hereditability really blows those people's types out of the water.

Oh, and briefly: type is the ‘how’, not the ‘why’. It’s how we interpret the world around us and then react to it, or interact with it. If that makes sense. I can probably explain that better, but I’m running short on time.

This is also a bombshell. Lots of certain types, particularly the INxx crowd, think that they are smarter than the rest, the "why". Saying it is just a "how" means their type is not any better or worse than any other type.

But I just couldn’t get it. I mean, you guys have seen me posting. Compare me to the stereotypical INTJ; comparatively, I am a complete shambles. I had this notion that I couldn’t possibly be an INTJ, because I’m not a prolific intellectual, bringing knowledge and insight to the masses. I’m not even that much of a strategic thinker. I’m not a balls to the wall go-getter, ad infinitum. The top and bottom of it is that I thought myself far too inept to be an NT. Some days, I still do. I thought I was an F (because all feelers are stupid, amirite? *rolls eyes*).

"How" not "why". Style, not substance.

It's also because you're from the UK. I've noticed that INTJs from the UK, aren't up themselves nearly as much as ones from elsewhere in the world.

It was at this point I really began to learn about the ‘real’ type, and how the material you find on the internet is largely devoid of any real merit. Fun fact: this here forum is one of the very few places I can come to, read various ideas / theories being thrown around on type, and actually applaud. This is in stark contrast to most other places (perhaps most notably, PerC) which are rife with misinformation and - let’s be plainly honest - people who really need to read up on the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I cited this on a thread claiming that NTs should be in charge of the world. Boy, did it get up someone's nose.

… but where does this apparent aptitude for intellectual growth come from?

Ni, I’d wager. I have an inquisitive mind. Not necessarily for the more mundane ‘how does this work?’ questions, but the constant probing of what reality really is. If anyone is interested, I will happily bang on at length about how Ni shapes my worldview.

Go ahead.

I'll probably try and reframe it so it fits with the main points that you've raised, "how not why" and "dom is king". So it may not sound as cool when I do that.

It is a wonderful way of being - but it’s also so very often incompatible with the world. I have become a bit of an outsider, truth be told. I’m cool with that, as I have my wife (ENTJ) and kids, but before that? I was lonely, and rather depressed.

I have a general impression that the INTJs who are lot more grounded and not up themselves so much, seem to be the ones who have been happily married for a long time.

 

[scorpiomover]

Oh, predilections.

I've yet to meet an Ni dominant who isn't (or has at some point been) obsessed with all things metaphysical. We're the weirdos who dare to peek behind the veil of reality to check out WTF is wrong with it all.

Interesting, because far more INTPs say they are into philosophy than INTJs, even though metaphysics is part of philosophy.

I wonder what that means, that INTJs are far more into the metaphysical, but INTPs are far more into philosophy.

 

[scorpiomover]

To be clear, I'm not telling you you're wrong. I agree sort of.

Group selection:
We're a social species. We specialise in adaptation as a group. I'm no expert, and wikipedias telling me that group selection might not be that big of a deal. Seems relevant to me though.

Selective pressure on personality might be weak:
Personality is also super complex. And the more complex something is, the more diluted any selective pressure will be on it. Compare the appearance of two eyes, arms, legs, ears to personality. These other traits come as standard, but with personality, it's all up in the air.

Nature Vs. Nurture:
Personality and potential is always a composite of potential and experience. There are a vast network of feedback loops between the two. Consider just how much of an advantage having high testosterone can be. Aggression can be super adaptive. Now consider what that level of aggression does to your parenting skills, and its impact on the fitness of your high testosterone child.

Timeline:
Fitness requires context to be defined, as it's an adaptation to an environment.

Our environment has changed rapidly in the last few millennia, which is a very short time for evolution to properly select in. I hate to plant the seeds of this notion because I hate the elitism it can facilitate (and I don't believe it), but it's a clear example: if sensing has been adaptive for all of our evolutionary history, and sensors are over-represented in the population, it could very well be the case that sensing is only now being selected against now that our environment has changed.

I have considered this.

1) There seems to be a general prevalent view that the younger generation are far more likely to be unconventional intuitives than the former generations who were highly traditional, who were the norm only about 50-60 years ago.

So it seems that if things have changed, the things that people think have changed, are not in the last few millennia, but much, much sooner than that, and much more rapidly.

2) Part of why I dispute that Ns are an evolutionary beneficial mutation, is because when it became clear that obesity rose rapidly in the same time period, the CDC declared that this was such a short time period for evolution that it showed that obesity's effects could not be mostly due to genetics, and thus had to be because of environmental changes, such as changes in eating habits, exercise habits, and other lifestyle habits.

It doesn't make sense to me that having lots more fat cells can't be genetic, but personality can be genetic, for the same reasons. Personality is far more likely to be because of life choices than how many fat cells you have.

3) Another reason why, is because I started seeing the numbers of people with degrees who weren't able to get a job. Even 10 years ago, 1 in 4 graduates were having to take trade jobs like plumbing, because they couldn't find the work. Those in the trades already seemed to have steady work. Some people with degrees made it big. Others ended up working dead-end jobs, or suffering from mental health issues. Even those who did do well, would often find their careers came to an abrupt end.

Additionally, your typical extroverted sensors seemed to mostly date, get married and have kids, while introverted intuitives seemed to really struggle with dating, rarely wanted marriage, and often didn't want kids.

I would say that on an individual basis on any one day, an intuitive might have landed a much better paying job in a profession. I think that the average over the lifetime for a large number of people, only some of whom make it big, would cancel those benefits out.

It strikes me that on the whole, sensors have a much more straightforward life: much less stress in their work (they stick to what they know), much more regular income and much more reliable work, and much better prospects in dating, in relationships and in having children.

On the whole, I can see why all of that would be a much bigger advantage to the group's overall average result over the course of a lifetime.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't spend that much time around people but when I do it seems that we either get along or we don't. When we do I can express my true emotions and opinions. When we don't it is best to keep my thoughts to myself. I don't know why but it seems that being careful and organized is naive and nitpicky. I need to slow down when people interrupt me because they don't understand my explanations. They immediately forget what they just said so when I respond to that very point they brought up they don't know I was responding to it at all. So I slow down allot because I don't know what they expect me to say. They completely change the subject without even realizing it! So that makes them think I am dumb. And that makes things super hard on me if I am having life problems I can't solve by myself. Its nice when I meet people who think straight.

http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html

me - ISTJ - Avoidant Personality Disorder
mom - INFP - Avoidant Personality Disorder
aunt - ESFJ - Narcissistic Personality Disorder
brother - ENTJ - Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder
sister - ENFP - Borderline Personality Disorder

 

[ENTP lurker]

No. Just no.

OK, I admit it.
Knowing everything internal states through your your body and making something with help of it. Yeah, what a useless thing.
Taking control over your environment. Yes, that is something we don't need to survive.

Instead it is better:
Where this is going to lead us. Just staying still. Yes! Superiority!
Hmm... very interesting presentation of something. Let's do just research and speculate. I mean this is the ultimate way to be – becoming über good procrastinator.

 

[TheManBeyond]

Strongly disagree.

Intuition is base heuristics. It trades quality for quantity.

This is a really good thing to be able to do, but it's over-glorified. Without a decent judgement function backing it, your thoughts turn to goop over time.

I'll build on that stepping stone analogy. Intuition lets you jump quickly across the river, but then you're stranded on the other side. The path you used to get to your destination is lost to you. Your friends that you left on the other side? All you can do is yell back to them that "it's better over here", but you can't show them the way. Furthermore, you're not even certain that this is the right way to go. It feels pretty good to be the first one over the river, and you can think of all kinds of reasons why it was the right choice, but it's difficult to know whether you're convincing yourself of it because you want to feel smart, or because it's genuinely better on this side. You've got a vested interest in this side of the river being better, since you don't want to look a fool. It'd be nice to be able to go back and compare once more, but that option's no longer available to you.

Comparatively, thinkers build a bridge. It takes a long time, and they require some smaller 'leaps' to get there, but when they finish the bridge they get to look at both sides whenever they like. They get to show it to other people and have them make up their own minds. They can write up a full list of verifiable pros and cons to either side of the river.

And yes, there are areas that intuition can get to that logic cannot. But if logic cannot get there, is it even a place you can know to be better with any degree of certainty? I mean, there are theories that people come up with that they can't prove, that are proven many years after their deaths. That's great. But how many of these theories get supported compared to how many get proven bullshit? Aristotle was a great philosopher, who thought that the migration of birds was actually transmutation: birds turned into other species seasonally. Even a great mind like his, going off intuition alone, is inevitably misled. As you make more claims, the chances you are utterly wrong about something approaches one. If your intuitions go in that unhealthy direction where they build on one another, all it takes is one incorrect assumption and it all comes crashing down. We need bridges, but we also need explorers, and both roles are best served when the bridge builder and the explorer are one and the same. A bridge is built more easily when it's constructed from both sides of the river and meets in the middle.

cool post man <3