Sensing vs Intuition Carl Jung | PersonalityHacker com
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2014
- www.PersonalityHacker.com/Intu... | In this video Carl Jung explains the difference between sensing vs intuition.
Ready to start your Intuitive Awakening?
www.PersonalityHacker.com/Intu...
Read About Intuition In Our Book: amzn.to/2NscRrG
![Gunna - one of wun [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w_JtBYqMgk8/mqdefault.jpg)
Read About Intuition In Our Book: amzn.to/2NscRrG
I had no idea Jung was ever recorded on film. Thanks!
ruclips.net/video/bs3HK3pxVAY/видео.html
Here you go, a video of the whole interview and some more
Somewhere in area 51, there is film footage of dinosaurs and aliens
Must have been taken by like an iPhone 1 or something
-Can you describe intuition?
-Hunches.
-How do you know it exists if you can't describe exactly how it works?
-I have a hunch.
But the result of the hunch is inductively there. It has an origin, we just don't know.
Because we need to understand what life is about both rational and intuitive
@@andyroobrick-a-brack9355the half of your brain that doesn’t speak in words… tells you through symbols something it has puzzled out
OMG IM SO GLAD I CAME ACROSS THIS VIDEO. I was searching forever on what exactly intuition is in terms on perception on the internet! Couldn’t find an answer till this video! Thank you Carl Jung!
a very important video
even mr Jung was puzzled he didn't have a perfect explanation............;or may be the video was too short?
Would someone please write down all of the things he's saying here? I could only catch the last minute. Thanks in advance
Put on close captioning.
no
Perhaps play this into a text to speech program. Maybe it could understand Jungs swiss accent
There are many types of Super Geniuses such as the healer, the inventor, the creator/artist, the questioner, the judger, the computer, the trend setter
Ni = big deduction system
My thoughts on why NTPs have originated most of Typology's theories.
Both Carl Jung (as proven by CS Joseph) and Enneagram co-founder Claudio Naranjo were INTPs. And John Beebe (who developed the 8 cognitive functional model in mbti) and the founder of Socionics Aušra Augustinavičiūtė (who also emphasized an 8 function model) were ENTPs. And the second biggest contributer to Socionics, Victor Gulenko, was an INTP, and Katherine Fauvre (in my opinion the third most influential figure in the Enneagram behind founders Naranjo and Ichazo) an ENTP. I don't think this is a coincidence. As an INTP myself I follow logic over emotions, but I've always been fascinated with observing and discerning emotions.
Furthermore, it is well known in Darionardi's brain scans that Ti-Ne correlates to categorization. And typology is all about categorizing people. Just as ENTP Socrates did in his theory of the forms. Which I find alot of other types see as stereotyping or just do not think to do.
PS Isabel Myers created tests and refined Jung's theories. But she did not come up with them. ENFP Beatrice Chestnut who, in my opinion, wrote the best book on the Enneagram likewise did a great job disseminating Naranjo's instinctive types. But again she did not originate them. Because she is a Te user. And Te users tend to latch on to and organize Ti original thinking. Which any body of knowledge needs, and benefits from. Just as we need INTJ Darionardi's scientific visual Se observations to prove whether the invisible Ne theories are correct.
So all types contribute to typology. But its theory tends to originate from Ti-Ne that slices ideas for Ne-Ti observations to expand even further.
Why did you write "Darionardi" instead of "Dario Nardi" (both times)?
ruclips.net/video/SOWt2fBI1VI/видео.html
CS Joseph is one of the most inaccurate typers, so be careful because he confidently misguides people ..
The problem I have with this is that Jung never mentioned ANY kind of alternating EIEI/IEIE function stacks. Ever. At best, he mentioned in his Introverted Thinking description that Introverts, and by proxy extroverts, have all of their functions assigned to the opposing roles if undeveloped (looking a lot like IEEE/EIII.) This is how Briggs transcribed it, but the problem is that Jung implied this was in a UNDEVELOPED state, and that in order to rationalize the introverted realm, you need another function of a similar orientation to transcribe it, not an extroverted function to an introverted function/vice-versa, and even then, she only really touches on the functions right before abandoning them for the dichotomies. It makes, after all, zero sense that an extroverted function could read into an introverted function, as the entire point of the I/E dichotomy is that they are polar opposites. While you can have all the shades of grey you want, you can never be in the "white" middle ground. It's either pure E/I, or anything that isn't 50/50.
Really, the best way to handle this issue, in my opinion, is to completely ditch the whole "IxxJs are perceiving dominants" and "IxxPs are J dominants." Jung never once described Si and Ni dominants as primarily logical, ordered people who shy away from new perspectives, they simply take in information internally and can even be quite naïve/childlike, which is the opposite of how IxxJs are described. Likewise, Ti and Fi are described as the pedantic, logical and even responsible ones with a piercing vision and set of values. They have a personal, highly ordered view of the world and can be overbearing/temperamental when their worldviews are discarded. IxxPs are, at best, portrayed as stubborn when confronted, but are characterized as childlike, independent and kind of uninformed of the world at large because of their illusory, detached, isolated perspective. While they lack conviction and a solid grasp on reality, they can teach through the lives they lead, and are often staunch proponents of independence, and in this sense, make their lives symbolic of a greater introverted coagulate (as described in Jung's Ni description.) IxxJs are portrayed as abiders to a deeply-valued set of rules, to the point of completely warping their sense of reality around rules and personal regulation, around responsibility to a cause. ISxJs are LITERALLY bashed by the ENxP dominated internet for their strict adherence to rules and timeless systems, and INxJs are defined by their vision for a perfect world/system. These are not perceptions like Si and Ni, this is active devotion, therefore it is judgement. In short, Si and Ni are perceiving functions, and should belong to P types. INxPs are the kings of the "most useless of men" stereotype Jung mentioned, and ISxPs are literally motivated by their psychically-framed perception of reality.
The auxiliary function is never exclusively stated to be extroverted, and it's more likely to be introverted if we're REALLY gonna dive into semantics. However, I'd personally frame the auxiliary functions as things without an E/I label. Jung emphasized the inferior/dominant relationship, each of them having auxiliary functions to assist/guide the dominant. I'd probably say "Ti-N/S-Fe" instead of "TiNeSiFe," for example. The unconscious aspects of the functions are nowhere near as emphasized as they should be IMO, and it was the entire crux of the cognitive function theory, it makes no sense to abandon it.
Carl Jung obviously has Ti in his cognitive function stack, but he's not INTP. it's obvious that he was Ni Fe. but with active Ti.
How do we distinguish a hunch or intuition from an idea based on our preconceptions?
That's the thing. Intuitives tend to forget the sensory events and images that the invisible links of intuition connect to, hence why Ne and Ni doms seem to have terrible memories and poor visual/memory-based learners. If in the case of the pure intuitive, they will basically live in an empty void until their physical condition yells at them to "wake up," if that makes sense.
Been wondering the same thing for a while now
From my experience, when it is not connected to fear or desire, as a perception appearing in a flash in your mind
Perception by means of unconscious
True
the great subconscious
Hello Personality Hackers. Please there is a link for the full interview?
ruclips.net/video/bs3HK3pxVAY/видео.html
Watching this video feels like hitting the jackpot.
Baruch Spinoza, Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche had their coffee on the very same table. Coffee is strong and sweet. Bitter-sweet.
I am just an observer, tasting the same coffee. I find it the same strong, but so sweet. Bitter-sweet. ❤ I hate it and love it, with same sharp intensity of addiction that will last through Eternity!
Thumbs up: But, IMHO, Jung was wrong to pit "intuition" against sensation. Intuition sounds very watery and introspective ... not the 'fire' extroverted type that Jung derived "intuition" from, iirc.
Better, methinks, to have pitted fire (passion) against water (sensitive-intuition) ... and air (thinking) against earth (sensation).
Or better still: ... Fire (King) vs Water (Human) ... and Air (seer) vs. Earth (workman) ... JMO.