Advertisement
Okay so while responding to the IQ thread this lingering question in my head popped up. (Bear in mind that this is purely theory and I'm unsure of my belief in evolution itself) Are humans evolving and changing physically and mentally? Is intuition the next evolutionary leap? It's sort of an intuitive guess, but I noticed some things that back up my hypothesis. MBTI plays a big role in this though, it has been reported that sensors and intuitives are not just mentally different, but actually physiologically different in certain ways, I forgot but I think they tested putting lemon under the tongue and sensors and intuitives reacted differently to salivation. Another thing that seemingly supports my hypothesis is that intuition is on the rise, in the younger generations they are supposedly noticing an elevation of the intuitive population. I think a rise in the intuitive population is necessary to balance society, who else will prepare mankind for the future to come, different types percieve time differently, but who is better than the future oriented intuitive to lead humanity to tommorow? The way I see it society is kind of in a struggle right now, I think there are too many of certain types that are fearful of a future different from their pasts, causing an imbalance that is unhealthy to the advancement of society.
So what do you guys think?
So what do you guys think?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, June 28, 2009 - 8:58 PMThat's an interesting concept. It is quite possible, as scientists seem to think that creativity is one of the main non visual qualities that people seek in a mate. So I think that as intuitive people are prone to be more open minded (for lack of a better term), they are also apt to be more creative which in turn makes them probably more appealing to others.
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 12:07 PMYes, I believe we are evolving as a species, as we have been for centruries. However, I do not think intuition in and of itself is any evolutionary leap. Everyone exhibits intuituion, and sensing. Otherwise we would all be trainwrecks happening (not merely waiting to happen). After all, who would pay the intuitor's bills, or go kill and skin the deer to eat, or clean out the gutters and the woodwork every year so that the house doesn't rot away and devalue? On the other hand, who would help the sensor head off any emergancies because of the constant crises that ALWAYS consumes the majority their time (which in the grand scheme of things, usually seems pretty insignificant to me), or make smart decisions like saving for retirement, or setting aside part of the wealth of a kingdom to invest in R&D for better weapons and defenses against the Mongolians so the kingdom and way of life is not eventually wiped out because they don't understand how to plan for leaps in technology or conceive of the consequences if they don't do these things (same argument for green energy)?
It is true that we exhibit preferences for one over the other, but it is also true that to get along in daily life, and to live any length of life successfully, a person must have both capabilities. And both the capabilities and preferences are hardwired in our DNA. I don't think we will be seeing sensors phased out of the gene pool in favor of intuitors in the next billion years or so. But yes, I do think that since we are not tribes havng to kill and rob our enemies while defending our villiages against them, and noteably since we have grown up in a country (and a big chunck of the world) full of abundance and opportunity, it has fostered a more safe environment for us explore and develop our intuitive sides more so than we would have had the chance to do 400 years ago, even.
But the opportunity to develop a side of our preferences and brain that we would not otherwise have is not the same as evolution. Over a long period of time, it could possibly contribute to it, but I think it would take much long than 400 years.
In short, I think the survival (and thriving) of our species depends on BOTH, people who prefer sensings as well as those who prefer intuiton. -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 12:28 PMI think I can sum up what I mean better here:
Eventhough as individuals we may SOMETIMES have to play a zero-sum game on what which function we get to spend our time exhibiting, our species must ALWAYS have BOTH sensors AND intuitors, AND those individuals must have the capabilities to function both ways.
If we don't take care of NOW, there will be NO TOMORROW, but if we don't PLAN for TOMORROW, eventually there will be no NOW. -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Fri, July 3, 2009 - 12:44 PMI submit to you that there is No Such Thing as a "sensor" or an "intuitor." Moreover, both labels are insulting, just as it is insulting to call someone by all those other negative labels: jerry, chink, nigger, jap, etc.
We all use all 8 of the processes -- we ALL have the full range of human experience. While you may have a *preference* for iNtuiting, your life doesn't work effectively when you neglect sensing for very long. And vice-versa that someone with a *preference* for Sensing will discover their life doesn't work effectively when they neglect iNtuiting for very long.
AND (take note!) as we develop and mature, we are drawn more and more to use our less-preferred functions. INtuiting gives way to Sensing coming much more into the fore; and Sensing gives way to iNuiting coming much more into the fore.
Using those labels as if we are static beings who don't shift, change, and develop -- and INCREASE our CONSCIOUSNESS -- misses the whole point of type entirely.
Stop thinking of them as labels -- start thinking of them as muscles that you exercise or don't -- and that will get you closer to the intended meaning of type.
-Vicky Jo
PS: I am in love with your final paragraph, Wyatt -- which demonstrates exactly what I am speaking of. We cannot experience the "now" without using Sensing. If you did not "use" Sensing, you could not take such a stand for it. :-) -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sat, July 4, 2009 - 11:21 AMAnd I am in love with you, in general, VJ!
Overall, I agree with most of what you've said, minus the first paragraph. It is there I must digress...
I submit back to you two things:
1. There IS a such thing as both a sensor and an intuitor because we have indirectly defined them out of a need to talk about them here. We define a sensor as a person with a preference for sensing, and an intuitor as a person with a preference for intuition.
2. In general, neither "label" is anymore insulting than being insulted by being "labelled" an INTJ, INFJ, ENFP, or any of the other 13 remaining "labels". Furthermore, NONE of these labels are ANYTHING like being called any of these other words you have mentioned. Your disdain for the "labels" you have identified is either confined to you, or possibly to a subset of academic circles revolving around "Type", and NOT an entire ethnicity of people who identifiy with being demeaned by the words (indeed, most people do not know what the connotation of these words are).
Outside of that, i completely agree with everything else you have said, especially your third and fourth paragraphs. In fact, much of what is left over from what I have not already experienced for myself, came from conversations with you, and/or books that you have recomended, weighted against conflicting points of view, of course, and other such avenues, some of which were academic papers. I think your passion for the theory serves us all well. -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 12:50 AMAnd I adore you as well, Wyatt! :-)
As a technicality, I believe the proper language is to say, "I have *preferences* for INTJ" -- rather than saying, "I'm an INTJ."
To wit, I submit this:
www.typeinsights.com/blog/ty...alizing/
There's a vast difference between verbs and nouns. Most people seem happier when type preferences are used as verbs rather than nouns -- just as is true with other fields that deal with interpersonal issues. How many parents are cautioned that their child is not bad, only their actions sometimes are?
With the cognitive process model (which is the model most people are referencing when they talk about type), the functions likewise are verbs not nouns, and people in general chafe at being "pigeonholed" by nouns -- even when they're considered good nouns -- since nouns imply limitation.
Gotta run, more later I'm sure.
-Vicky Jo :-)
PS: I concede that this language may be unusual in the type community -- nevertheless, it is the sort of language some of us in a subset of the community are promoting -- and hope eventually to prevail with. Certainly I've used this sort of language to convert people who dislike type because of the stereotyping (and there are many of them!) to appreciating type, because of its being held in a more inclusive way. -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 8:25 AMUnusual language or not, I do see what you are saying, and I do (and have) conciously perceived it that way for some time. Semi-conciously, I do pay attention to how I work the words, and the rest of the time I let it go in favor of persuing the broader point.
Which on this particular thread is, "Is intuition the next evolutionary leap?".
To which my reply, and seems yours as well, is simply, "No."
And furthermore, our reasons for our answers seem to come from the same place, which is that, catagorically speaking, humans can survive neither individually nor collaboratively at the extremes. There must be a balance between our intuitive functions and sensing functions, individually and culturally for us to continue ANY evolutionary process. Otherwise Darwin would have already selected us out of existence.
What I do ADDITIONALLY submit is that BECAUSE of our societies' prosperities and relative stabilities over the last 400 years, we have had MUCH more of an opportunity to excersise those intuitve muscles that you are talking about, rather than always having to focus on "today" to get by. And I say this is NOT evolution, or a changing of our DNA that is already there, rather than an opportunity to excersise those preferences that are already there since our societies are not in the same conservative "fight or flight" mode at the same level they have been forced to operate at for the million years preceding. -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 8:55 AMOh, and I really can't stand this. I'm going to have to get much more complicated on you guys because I just see it so much differently than static models. I see the concept as being remincient of the fox and the rabbit scenerio, which is a classic nonlinear equation problem based on birthrates, deathrates, initial populations, and stability points at which the ideal populations of each rabbits and foxes converge to it's stable level. Until something in the environment changes again.
So the Rabbits multiply quickly, which make a larger food supply for the Foxes, so they grow larger, consuming more of the rabbits, who in turn have a lower birth rate the next cycle, so more foxes die off from lack of food, until the stability point is reached. Then something in the environment changes, promoting the stabilty points for the population level of each to change. But the path to those stability points may be through several high's and lows (feasts and famines) til that point is reached.
Now, it is complicated even more. As humans, sensors (yes, I said sensors, because it is shorter- and hence more convenient- than saying, "people who prefer sensing") and intuitors (woops) do NOT eat one another (at least not literally, maybe figuratively it is so), but we DO compete for HOW and WHERE our resources are spent, and to to that we must compete for popularity in our government or control of the crowds, or as a dictator able to crush opposition. And the opportunities that abound in our external world will either provide a better favor for who is in charge or not (and notice i did not say a guaranteed place). External factors would make a difference in say, wheather intuitors (whoops) have a 30% chance of gaining a popular position versus a 35% percent chance of gaining a favorable position (just throwing numbers out, I don't know the real values). And the external conditions that abound now, I claim, has cultured more intuitors that have gotten to excersice and develop that side of themselves than in the past centruries (so more rabbits get born). It will eventually cycle back around, and it isn't independant of the external conditons that we cannot see... i.e., if nature tips the favor of one over the other.
Either way, this is not evolution, although it can set the stage for initial populations (through DNA abnormalities) toward a particular track of evolution, which eventually may or may not be wiped out. Depends where those stability points are, what our intial population counts are, and the external factors favoring us or against us at the time (they are always changing, too). -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 9:04 AMThis is a good interactive picture of the concept I am talking about. vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au/simu...demo/
Although it is actually much more complicated than that.
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 9:06 AMand I didn't mean the foxes and rabbits birthRATES change each cycle, I meant their absolute numbers change each cycle until stability is reached. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 9:43 AMHere is the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model for the fox and the rabbits,
dx/dt = x(a − b*y)
dy/dt = y(−c + d*x)
where x describes the population size of the rabbits, and the y the population size of the foxes.
Actually, here is a lab that explains it very well: www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~rauch...ab5.pdf -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 11:09 AMROFLOLOL!
This topic has obviously Lit You Up!
I think I may agree with you that there are more opptys to develop our iNtuiting skills in today's culture than perhaps in past decades/centuries (no doubt contributing to why more people get "N" results on the psychological instruments, and so many people *experience* themselves as "intuitive").
I'm still unwilling to go along with calling people "sensors" and "intuitives" no matter HOW convenient it is (I just *hate* that word "sensor").
Speaking from the other side of 50, I notice how much more I am using Sensing every day -- and I *aspire* to use it brilliantly. There's a lot of beauty to be found in extraverted Sensing: appreciating and living in the present moment, having beautiful things, finishing up writing a book, creating audio CDs, coaching what's there (instead of something I've iNtuited, heh), booking speaking engagements and being present to the crowd, throwing a really fabulous Fourth of July party and loving the food, the company, the humor -- without checking out and hiding in a closet because I'd rather be with my imagination than reality. It's all about my relationship to reality.
Sure, I will always privilege iNtuiting.... AND how wonderful to embrace wholeness and begin to honor the *rest* of me. It's a wonderful, remarkable "waking up."
Calling me an iNtuitive treats me like half a person -- when in truth the entire thrust of my development, my innate entelechy, is about discovering missing parts of myself and taking ownership of them to become whole. The Self is *always* striving for wholeness.
Naturally I resent it when poor language threatens to deprive me of that birthright -- just as I resent anyone implying I am incompetent simply because I am a *woman*. Let us not dwell on limitations -- let us celebrate potential, and latent gifts yet to unfold! A "woman" is a marvelous creature indeed, not a second-class citizen. And let us consider the "Negro."
I wish I had a nickel for all the times a "sensor" was iNtuiting better than an "intuitive," and people didn't notice it because they were so sure that the "sensor" had nothing useful to contribute. As the psychologists often remind us, we see what we *expect* to see, and then miss out on what is actually *there*. There is a long history of deplorable labels in human history that stand as testimony to how often this plays out.
-Vicky Jo :-) -
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 11:35 AM>> ROFLOLOL!
>> This topic has obviously Lit You Up!
It has, and I have not analyzied why.
>> I think I may agree with you that there are more opptys to develop our iNtuiting skills in today's culture than perhaps in past decades/centuries (no doubt contributing to why more people get "N" results on the psychological instruments, and so many people *experience* themselves as "intuitive").
Thanks, well said.
>> I'm still unwilling to go along with calling people "sensors" and "intuitives" no matter HOW convenient it is (I just *hate* that word "sensor").
heh...
>> Speaking from the other side of 50, I notice how much more I am using Sensing every day -- and I *aspire* to use it brilliantly. There's a lot of beauty to be found in extraverted Sensing: appreciating and living in the present moment, having beautiful things, finishing up writing a book, creating audio CDs, coaching what's there (instead of something I've iNtuited, heh), booking speaking engagements and being present to the crowd, throwing a really fabulous Fourth of July party and loving the food, the company, the humor -- without checking out and hiding in a closet because I'd rather be with my imagination than reality. It's all about my relationship to reality.
I understand what you are experiencing. I am too. Probably not to the extent you are yet, though, but still very noticeable to me, and I do appreciate it. I appreciate my life much more now than I used to.
>> Sure, I will always privilege iNtuiting.... AND how wonderful to embrace wholeness and begin to honor the *rest* of me. It's a wonderful, remarkable "waking up."
"Waking up" is a good way to describe the feeling.
>> Calling me an iNtuitive treats me like half a person -- when in truth the entire thrust of my development, my innate entelechy, is about discovering missing parts of myself and taking ownership of them to become whole. The Self is *always* striving for wholeness.
You will ALWAYS be a full 75% of a person in my book, VJ! (and I promise to never short you of that!) ;oP
>> Naturally I resent it when poor language threatens to deprive me of that birthright -- just as I resent anyone implying I am incompetent simply because I am a *woman*. Let us not dwell on limitations -- let us celebrate potential, and latent gifts yet to unfold! A "woman" is a marvelous creature indeed, not a second-class citizen. And let us consider the "Negro."
*Blink*. I am very sure you have expereienced some things in your lifetime that I have not. I can however, tell you that I do not look at people as above or below me, and I never have. They are simply people- some with what I perceive as good thoughts, others with what I perceive as petty flaws and inaccurate biases. Most are a mix of both of these.
>> I wish I had a nickel for all the times a "sensor" was iNtuiting better than an "intuitive," and people didn't notice it because they were so sure that the "sensor" had nothing useful to contribute. As the psychologists often remind us, we see what we *expect* to see, and then miss out on what is actually *there*. There is a long history of deplorable labels in human history that stand as testimony to how often this plays out.
Hmm.. Sooo... what you're REALLY saying is we should DEFINITELY burn the villages and make the women our wives. I think I get it now... ;oP
-Vicky Jo :-)
- Wyatt :o*
-
-
-
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 11:15 AMAnd a great example of this cycle playing out in history are when the more idealistic and more (far) Forward thinking Greeks were overcome (and absorbed, not wiped out) by their more Now thinking counterparts, the Romans. Hmm... was it that they (the Greeks) simply did not, as a culture, place the proper amount of urgency on their tested battle strategies and defenses, busy instead off theorizing and philosphizing for centries? And it doesn't mean the Romans were WITHOUT intuitive thinking people... you have to do that to have effective battle stategies. But there was something more one way than the other in each culture.
-
-
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Sun, July 5, 2009 - 9:13 AMOh, and you are right by the way, and I agree 100%. I can see how your preferred language makes one feel less boxed in or typecast.
We'll just keep our language here on post, and everyone will just ahve to know what we mean. ;oP
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 10:37 AM
>I believe the proper language is to say, "I have *preferences* for INTJ" -- rather than saying, "I'm an INTJ" <
Makes good sense to me, just like saying "my name is Steven" rather than "I am Steven" (since I am not a name) and "my career includes working as a scientist and as a teacher" rather than "I am a scientist and a teacher" (since, likewise, how one pays the bills and spends one's time in work and hobbies is frequently not all-defining). Seems significant to me; in particular, I pay attention to how people introduce themselves. IMHO there is a big difference in those who do not distinguish between their being, their doing (as in profession), and their having (as in owning a certain type of car, boat, or house).
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Intuitives and the future
Wed, August 5, 2009 - 11:50 AMI think the current generation is simply more open to alternate ways of thinking, so perhaps it's the next leap. After all we cant leap until we actually think there's a platform to leap onto
