new thread, born of "Intuiting"

[chocky]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?

[GOD]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?

You don't in my mind need scientific "proof" to have some validity in your assertion so long it connects into the base of inherent knowledge that exists. (Imagine my knowledge base as a huge 3 dimensional jig saw with all sorts of open connections to bolt things on).

If you say "I just know" then I'll 1) see if it clicks into my knowledge and doesn't contradict any fundamental structure and then also 2) assess whether I rate your intellect and depth of thought.

Then (If its a worthwhile idea/assertion) I'll start attacking your assertion from multiple angles to see how solid it is. Once I find some weakness I'll really test that bit out. (It works both ways though, as I'll throw in supporting material as it’s also building my knowledge structure).

So in summary, intuition is fine.... but you better be able to step backwards through your thought processes to explain the path of thought.

[ShaiGar]

As an INTP I just throw it into my knowledge base as "something x said" and it tests against my knowledge base the same way. However whether it tests out or not I'll throw my 20 cents in every spare thought I get. If it's just obviously wrong I'll have fun with it but only add it into my fiction mentalpedia, if it tests out it gets into factual mentalpedia "further testing and citation needed".

[chocky]

As an INTP I just throw it into my knowledge base as "something x said" and it tests against my knowledge base the same way. However whether it tests out or not I'll throw my 20 cents in every spare thought I get. If it's just obviously wrong I'll have fun with it but only add it into my fiction mentalpedia, if it tests out it gets into factual mentalpedia "further testing and citation needed".


Aah - I now have a new handle on my mental partioning! The naming of something really does give one the power over it!

OK, return from tangent.

More data sets required.

[thegnat]

If someone asks me something about an element on the periodic table. A chemical symbol or what not. I'll just know it. Information like that I can "just know".

Otherwise I need proof. I like proof.

If I hear someone state a claim that I've never heard before I want to know a) where they got it and b) what proof they have to back it up. Otherwise I'll just count it as a baseless claim and won't put much if any weight on it.

[Rei]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?
That is something I've been having trouble with. *The older I get, the more academic science training I get, the less trusting I am of my intuition. *I still understand many things quickly and without formal instruction, and I am still usually right when I see things like people's intentions. But I can't bring myself to act on intuited conclusions, which is in turn making me very borderline intuitive when I take MBTI tests (as they judge by which you use to make decisions rather than your initial ability).

[GOD]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?
That is something I've been having trouble with. *The older I get, the more academic science training I get, the less trusting I am of my intuition. *I still understand many things quickly and without formal instruction, and I am still usually right when I see things like people's intentions. *But I can't bring myself to act on intuited conclusions, which is in turn making me very borderline intuitive when I take MBTI tests (as they judge by which you use to make decisions rather than your initial ability).

Yeah, but you can shift your intuition into innovation with additional information.

Its like you start to fill in all the holes that intuition used to fill... so then you start using this process to build structures outwards e.g. innovation.

Just perhaps intuition is just the latent innovation that doesn't kick in until that critical mass of perceptions/observations of the world occurs.

[Rei]

Yeah, but you can shift your intuition into innovation with additional information.

Its like you start to fill in all the holes that intuition used to fill... so then you start using this process to build structures outwards e.g. innovation.

Just perhaps intuition is just the latent innovation that doesn't kick in until that critical mass of perceptions/observations of the world occurs.
Well it really a matter of what stage you're in.
I'm at a stage where I'm suddenly all too aware how little I know. I know too much to be trusting, but little to be innovative.

[rwyatt365]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?
I guess you could call it "intuition", I call it my internal "BS Meter". If the assertion resonates with my world-view and doesn’t contradict my understanding of fundamental processes then I will file it away for further study (as ShaiGar does). If, however, the assertion does not get past that initial gate then it is history.

[StJimmy]

"bs meter" is a good way to put it.

[chocky]

What evidence, if any, does an intj require in order to accept the validity of another's intuited conclusions? Is it enough for someone to assert "I just know..." or do you need objectifiable facts?
That is something I've been having trouble with. *The older I get, the more academic science training I get, the less trusting I am of my intuition. *I still understand many things quickly and without formal instruction, and I am still usually right when I see things like people's intentions. *But I can't bring myself to act on intuited conclusions, which is in turn making me very borderline intuitive when I take MBTI tests (as they judge by which you use to make decisions rather than your initial ability).

I think my training has had a similar effect. I was trained in science not because it was my strongest suit (that was literature), but because I was a female who was as good at science and math as the best of the boys, and policy decreed such creatures be turned into scientists in the name of equal opportunity.

I wonder at the influence of schooling on type. Had I been trained to exercise, trust and utilise my intuition, I would be a very different person.

So, most everyone likes to correlate new information against their internal scaffolding of 'facts'. Of course they do . Silly question.

Guess what I really want to ask is, how does one present one's intuitions to an INTJ when those intuitions may be interpreted by others as irrational? foundless?

Given certain idiosycratic limitations in everyone's "pattern-matching" capacity, someone elses intuition is bound to seem irrational to each of us, and ours irrational to another, somewhere along the line.

[rwyatt365]

Guess what I really want to ask is, how does one present one's intuitions to an INTJ when those intuitions may be interpreted by others as irrational? foundless?

Given certain idiosycratic limitations in everyone's "pattern-matching" capacity, someone elses intuition is bound to seem irrational to each of us, and ours irrational to another, somewhere along the line.
Speaking for myself, when faced with a new hypothesis – someone else's "intuition" – I ask for a factual basis for that intuitive supposition. If the response is, "Well, I just feel it", then my BS-meter pegs and I pretty much dismiss it. If the factual basis conflicts with my framework then I begin to ask questions that will either lead me to accept, or reject that hypothesis. If the factual basis corresponds with my framework, then all is right with the world.

[maai]

Don't INTj's, by nature, tend to look at the broader scheme of things? We draw upon facts (usually that we have read somewhere) and use that multi-discipline knowledge to form conclusions that others can't see, don't want to see or don't have time to see.
The sleeping and dreaming process helps me with the ah-ha process. Then later I can check out my thoughts with facts.
I often said that Homeland Security should have many INTj's on staff. Because they can stand back and look at the "whole of things", and think and see where security should be rated higher or lower. It's too bad that they are locked in the "government employee" mindset.