Why did Jung's ideas get basically dropped until Myers picked them up?
Because he was some sort of Ni/Ti dom and it was very difficult to understand what he was trying to say...He spoke through his own perspective...and thus wasnt heard very widely as so few people speak that language. I, like casedesco, have a hard time with Eric's posts as they are so Ti heavy. I have a hard time with State's and Kalach's posts as well as they are Ni doms, thus at times almost not understandable. I always understand exactly what the other enfps are saying though. It's like we all need magic decoder rings that allow us to understand the unspoken, taken for granted, or implied meaning inherent in communication. Our minds complete those thoughts for us.
I often think the most useful descriptions of functions would come from the most common MBTI types...Sensors. Because the message would be heard the most clearly to the most people. The Ni dom or Ti dom message would most certainly nor be heard so clearly.
Also in NLP there is meta-programs and how to modify them (hehehe, simply functions) and in linguistics there is talk of meta-communicating where you anticipate the frame the intended audience requires, thus fitting their needs not your own.
I think real meta perspective is almost Se...except it is Se in your head, watching your own thoughts go by.
Or wrt the discussion regarding MBTI terms...well, I dunno....like you really should rely upon that Ni dom for the best explanation...but then convert later to one that as a Ti dom, you would understand more effectively. Never assume motive or complete understanding. Always assume that you have missed something. In the same light I would never trust an Ni dom to really be able to convey what Ne is...and so forth...
And as always, those other groups can complete your own blind spots...using Te I see things Fe users dont notice about themselves and the opposite occurs as well.
The "mysterious" part of Ni I would guess is its tapping into the "collective unconscious," compared to Si's tapping into the "personal unconscious". My guess is that we share the archetypes of the collective unconscious because they're instinctual response systems to certain environmental stimuli (which is why you can't have a high-functioning Ni without good Se information, that is, the "personal conscious" as I see it, I know it's not the same as Jung).
In much the same way, Ne (the "collective conscious") systematizes and universalizes its own experiences (Si), though often this is unnoticed by the person. It's less assured than its Ni counterpart, because it's trying to create a description of universal truth that it is unsure of, rather than instinctively flowing with the universal truth encoded within our DNA.
This is a pretty heavy leap, and YMMV, but it makes sense to me.
Unlike Eric, I find this to be very accurate. For mixed judgers, the perceiving functions on either end serve as balances to allow comparison. Refer to Silly's earlier Si description...it is superb.
I wholeheartedly agree. Simply put, Ni is like a sniper that collapses all the ideas and tries to pinpoint the common threads between ideas while Ne seems to be expansive and branches off of all sorts of ideas. By no means, do I think that Ni is the Godlike function that people keep mocking it for. Tell me if this wrong, Z (please). I don't think Z is trying to insinuate that that Ni is "all knowing" and is superior because of the same reason. To me, Ni attempts to integrate all the angles KNOWN to the user into a "meta perspective". This does not mean that the Ni user KNOWS everything because if the Ni user is only consciously aware of a few perspectives (and typically does not know every single perspective on a given subject), it limits the supposed "meta perspective". On the other hand, the more perspectives that the Ni user is aware of, the more likely the "meta perspective" relates to reality and is correct. Pretty much, the "meta perspective" is as limited as the individual's ignorance.
It's really not that difficult, from my perspective at least, to understand it.
It's taking a look at the various perspectives on a matter (the blindfolded men touching the elephant from uumlau's/Buddhism's analogy), synthesizing those perspectives, and creating a "meta-perspective" -- i.e., a more global, encompassing perspective -- that brings all these seemingly disparate perspectives into one (that they're all actually touching the same elephant).
The bolded part sounds like you are describing Ne.
'Cause you can't handle me...
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens
"That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."
I'm a neophyte when it comes to talking about, let alone attempting to define/describe functions, gosh yer makin' me blush!
But, flattery will get you everywhere, m'dear.
Been trying to explain inferior Si to my friend, however I couldnt really get past in not simply being the past, but being a pattern in itself-something we cross check every future Ne action against. You nailed it very nicely and OMT's very Ti description sorta tackles it form the other side.
However , heheh, the Si doms likely think it is craziness, because they feel something totally different being they lead with Si...and thus the story continues....
But again, we're trying to get everyone else to understand it better as well.
Now, I admit, something probably is getting lost in the translation. I have felt that it might be a bit more than the way I have simplified it, but for now, it seems like a basic way to get a handle on what the process actually is.
Basic = rudimentary
What the process actually is = see above
Originally Posted by Eric B
But if I'm correct now, the whole "unconscious" element involves internalized patterns we may not always remember right away.
I'm glad you at least called out that only some of this is unconscious, which was good, as I am often very aware of the perspectives, patterns, archetypal templates, whatever you want to call them (I prefer them, in order, from former to latter), that go into my synthesizing, processing, recognizing, predicting, etc.
But I'd like to note that a very significant amount of the unconscious element of Ni is simply how the mind actually makes all this stuff fit together correctly, work out, process, function.
It's rather mind-blowing, really.
As uumlau pointed out, sometimes it's crap.
But a user can learn to differentiate the crap from the good, and as one gets better at doing this, it's somewhat amazing how all this stuff ends up not only making sense, but leading to amazingly accurate predictions, observations, and what not. Sometimes it's hard to believe that it all actually works out in the end (sometimes).
Why did Jung's ideas get basically dropped until Myers picked them up? Because he was some sort of Ni/Ti dom and it was very difficult to understand what he was trying to say...He spoke through his own perspective...
"Unfortunately I take little stock of new theories, as my empirical temperament is more eager for new facts than for what one might speculate about them, although this is, I must admit, an enjoyable intellectual pastime."
"It cannot be overemphasized that Jung is above all an empiricist."
The bolded part sounds like you are describing Ne.
Uumlau's point in case.
That is the N-similarity: that of connection-making.
The difference between the two, after recognizing that significant similarity, is the attitudinal direction.
Ne doms would certainly be able to do that N-styled connection-making of figuring out that the men are all touching an elephant as well.
I'm not so sure, however, that they'd be as able to do the same when that analogy is pressed more fully into reality -- like when various people are arguing about their takes on a political or philosophical or artistic or (fill in complex issue) issue.
That's the realm where Ni meta-perspectivizing really seems to thrive, imo.
But about an elephant: yes, Ne could do that just fine.