How Good Is Sim's Ni Definition?

[Glycerine]

Depth and breadth... I say suck it up extroverts, you conform. To find out how to do things, you look at other people and see what they do. To know what to think, you look outside yourself. Us introverts do have you beat in terms of independence. But don't fret, you have us beat in terms of relevance. As per freaking usual however, it won't hurt to see which of the same terms we are all using differently.

Depth in these cases does and can only mean content arrived at independent of the context. Breadth does and can only mean, um,.... I dunno, context dependent accuracy?

There's a difficulty though. It really sounds like people view functions as single-use items. Like enter a situation or think a thought, and that's it. But functions persist. They're not just for Christmas. So what does an educated function look like? What does an increasingly consciously controlled function with a usage history do? It seems a bit silly to say that history or background or continuity comes only from other functions--like driving a car is Se and tasting apple pie is Si and tax returns are Ne/Fe because they're such a party. There's some other story to add to this depth and breadth thing, and it's about what happens as a function matures.

I agree. The depth I gather from the world is from my Ni and Ti perspectives not just Fe. Fe by itself is rather broad and shallow based in my biased perspective.

 

[sculpting]

I feel bad sometimes for inferior Ne. The whole "related" part is not quite so good...but of course thats the inferior...we should add an extra word to seperate the good Ne from the Bad Ne Lets not keep them together and just say that Ne "sees" relations, but it doesnt mean its actually related. It basically "sees" 2 things at once and makes a connection. But thats to simple, we need complex so we can take a single element that stands on its own and seperate it. Oh wait...that seperated part actually fits over here as well...its related. Part one is related to part 2 and part 2 is related to part 3, that means part 3 is related to part 1 In other words Ohhhh a brown cow and a black cow. Cows are related which means that black and brown are related.

Push-poke-prod- Just feel like poking at Ne in the same manner that Se gets poked at

hehehe, but see then we'd cross check the Si library for all data we had on cow color. Then we'd go think on cow color genetics, cross check against petunia color genetics, get distracted by miRNA levels in corn, pet a bunny,
ponder bunny genetics, get a bunny furminator, ponder why cow tongues are so prickly, kiss the sweet cow nose, ponder the origin of noses in embyonic cells, try and find a link that links nose size the expression of color genes in mammals, cross check libraries of cow breeding histories to determine if sire/dam color coats are heriditary in these bloodlines and try an determine if I corss the two cows if I could get a black cow, brown cow or brindle cow, does cow coat color track with disease states?

My Si says that yes coat color is related via melonin and red pigment production, but I would need to understand the exact relation of bloodlines and breed to determine any possible relationship, but genetic testing for SNP varients would be the fastest route to determining blood relationships without a pedigree.

But I like bunnies. hehehehehe......

 

[Eric B]

"Meta-perspective" actually describes Ni rather well, when you can actually define what a "Meta-perspective" is. The one most directly related to our purposes:

That site seems to beat around the bush in the descriptions. And this from someone known to muddy the concepts and then go around disputing people's type with skewed function descriptions that the new type seeker can't readily discern. (I personally experienced that first hand!)

In those examples, different altitudes of a hypothetical flight are used as these "meta-perspectives". I think they could just as well be called templates, and explained more easily as such. The person creates templates of what should be done at each altitude.

The so-called "aha moment" is when the data is seen to fit a template (which you might suddenly remember). "A-Ha! This fits the model; the [predetermined] pattern".
On one hand, she's saying there's nothing "mystical" about it, but then she's talking about "a trance-like 'meditative mode'". I guess that's to focus attention and drown out distraction, but that choice of words is what makes it sound mystical.

Ebenezer Scrooge's ghosts are said to be such "shifts", but those are basically templates as well. (The entire Scrooge story itself is a very common archetype, hence the name even being taken to mean someone mean and stingy at Christmastime).

 

[Zarathustra]

That site seems to beat around the bush in the descriptions. And this from someone known to muddy the concepts and then go around disputing people's type with skewed function descriptions that the new type seeker can't readily discern. (I personally experienced that first hand!)

In those examples, different altitudes of a hypothetical flight are used as these "meta-perspectives". I think they could just as well be called templates, and explained more easily as such. The person creates templates of what should be done at each altitude.

The so-called "aha moment" is when the data is seen to fit a template (which you might suddenly remember). "A-Ha! This fits the model; the [predetermined] pattern".

Eric, once again, you're trying to translate something that, in Ni doms' minds, seems to be very good, accurate, and apt.

Just cuz you're having a hard time understanding it in those terms, doesn't mean they're not the most accurate and apt ones.

With your terms, the description loses what it is that Ni is.

That's just being honest. It's as simple as that.

On one hand, she's saying there's nothing "mystical" about it, but then she's talking about "a trance-like 'meditative mode'". I guess that's to focus attention and rown out distraction, but that choice of words is what makes it sound mystical.

In my opinion, it's mystical in the sense that it even ends up working at all.

The shit that I've pulled out of my fucking subconscious that has ended up coming true throughout my life is f'ing ridiculous.

Some people don't care to call that mystical, some do. Doesn't bother me what they choose.

 

[Eric B]

I can see why this would trip you up; it's very understandable.

Perhaps you should try to figure out how Ti and Ni differ in this regard.

I understand it now, that I have been able to get a better sense of what the Ni "frameworks" (another term used for both, but more often for Ti) are, and can see the common theme of the introverted functions (which are templates or frameworks of some sorts).

Ti references internal frameworks of judgment, where decisions are made based on logic.
Ni references internal frameowks of perception, where information is gathered based on a concept (abstraction).
(and Si is concrete frameworks we access throug memory, and Fi is ethical frameworks we call "values")

If you are incapable of understanding "meta-perspectivizing" and/or are incapable of understanding how it could be a function, then you are incapable of understanding Ni.

And a square can be fitted into a round whole.

Why don't you try to understand it for what it is, instead of trying to shift it into your definitions?

I agree (to an extent).

We also need accurate ones.

Part of the reason is that "meta-perspective" is not even a common term, ouside of Ni descriptions. Doing a search, I was able to find, several lines down:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaperspective(psychology)

"The perspective that one believes another person to attribute to him or her."

Here, a little bit better: Communication

"when you assign meaning to what you imagine the other person is thinking and feeling"

That makes a bit more sense. That meaning is based on what I'm calling a template or archetype.
You have a model of events, and you see a person (likely unawares) falling into that, so you perceive a meaning to it.

So I simply thought that other terms might be more understandable to everyone than "meta-perspective". How are they not accurate?

 

[Zarathustra]

How are they not accurate?

A lot of the meaning is lost in translation.

Meta-perspective is an excellent descriptor.

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).

Simple, no?

 

[Eric B]

The below only applies to N doms/auxes

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.

I don't think it matches up with those Jungian concepts quite like that.

Archetypes lie in the collective unconscious. When we have personal experiences that fit them, they then enter the personal unconscious and become complexes. This is one of the first things that Lenore taught me in response to questions about Beebe's theory.
So when I have experiences that make me react in a grumpy way, it falls into an archetype called the "Senex". This then for me takes on a perspective of Ni, and the Senex becomes a complex through a negative Ni perspective for me.

Now, Ni is often linked to the "unconscious", and inasmuch as it is said to deal with "the archetypal" (one of the cognitive process test questions even asks this) there might be some truth to that.
But I don't think the extraverted functions then deal with "the conscious", while Sensation necessarily deals with "the personal".

An Si perspective is in the "unconscious" for NJ's, SP, and perhaps young NP's, but not for an SJ or mature INP. Some memories might fall into the personal unconscious (and that's what that is; memories, images, etc. that you have experienced, but forgotten, yet it is still "in there" somewhere). But the functional perspective itself is not unconscious, simply because it's internal. And external perspectives are not necessarily conscious.

Eric, once again, you're trying to translate something that, in Ni doms' minds, seems to be very good, accurate, and apt.

Just cuz you're having a hard time understanding it in those terms, doesn't mean they're not the most accurate and apt ones.

With your terms, the description loses what it is that Ni is.

That's just being honest. It's as simple as that.

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.

I imagine that the "unconscious" element you mention is probably one of the things. That was confusing as well, when we think of "unconscious" in terms of the shadows, for functions not ego-compatible for a given type. So for me, Ni definitely fits that. But if I'm correct now, the whole "unconscious" element involves internalized patterns we may not always remember right away. So like I just described for Si, information is taken in, and forgotten, yet still "in there somewhere". When it is brought up and conceptualized from, that would be the unconscious Ni element that people might use meditation to try to bring up. (But that can be attempted with concrete direct memories as well).

 

[uumlau]

And meta-perspective would be a perspective about a perspective.

Rather than thinking of it as a "perspective about a perspective" think of it as "What do all of these (different) perspectives mean/imply?"

An early problem with the discovery of quantum mechanics was that it seemed to imply "impossible" things were happening. That light was a particle sometimes and a wave sometimes, and it depended on how you looked at it. That an electron was a particle sometimes and a wave sometimes, and it depended on how you looked at it.

The individual observations, the different perspectives, weren't "wrong" per se, but each perspective individually means something essentially incorrect: e.g., that it IS a particle and NOT a wave, or that it IS a wave and NOT a particle.

The "meta" perspective in this case is not that these quantum entities are "wavicles" or "both particles and waves" or "here are the equations that describe the wave and particle behavior." This perspective might be a conclusion, a new perspective, but it is still just a perspective: it is the finished result that an Ni user might give to fellow scientists. Rather, the "meta" perspective is that "Yes, it is a particle (in these cases) and it is a wave (in these cases) and it can be expressed more precisely thus and so (in a more general description)." Ni switches through all of these perspectives in a "meta" way.

Sometimes, the "particle" description makes the most sense to apply and describe things. Sometimes the "wave" description is more apropos. Sometimes the "general equation" approach is what is needed. Ni tries to keep track of what the entity "is" in the most general abstract way possible. When the task becomes one of communicating ideas about the entity, one brings in Te/Fe/Se and "collapses" the overarching idea into something much more simple.

Ti can seem similar, but it isn't: it will typically insist upon the "general equation" perspective as being "the most correct," since it applies to most (if not all!) cases, and regard the particle and wave perspectives as occasionally useful if flawed approximations. Ni (with Te, to keep the analogies clear) will work with the "most useful" perspective, not the "most accurate" perspective. When working on a problem, it will flip through all of the perspectives to find a solution: for an Ni dom, this "flipping" is very fast, and occasionally an answer just "pops out." Sometimes, the answer doesn't appear in any one perspective, but from using a couple of simple perspectives simultaneously, and possibly the two "oversimplified inaccurate" perspectives point out a flaw in the "general equation" perspective that no one noticed before.

It's this process of "using multiple perspectives to think" that distinguishes Ni, and this is why saying "meta perspectives" tends to resonate with Ni doms, Fe and Te alike.

 

[Glycerine]

A lot of the meaning is lost in translation.

Meta-perspective is an excellent descriptor.

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).

Simple, no?

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.

 

[SillySapienne]

Nobody is making any evaluation of whether the person is deep or shallow. We are discussing which aspects of perspective focus on depth and which ones focus on breadth.

Nobody is saying that you can't be a deep person because you're an extrovert. Calm down.

I'm chillin' so don't you worry bout me.

Yes it is; however, if extroverts did not have auxiliary introverted perspectives balancing us out, that is how we would be.

Hmm, my mother is all Fe with a marginal amount of Si.

Her mind is never still, she is constantly worried or thinking about something she needs to do, someone she needs to take care of, something she needs to take care of.

:sad:

My mother's genetic makeup and the way she was raised, well, she has no self, no identity, she can't be alone. She's never been alone, she can't even be "alone" with someone in the house, she needs to have company all the time, it's so sad. :sad:

But, if depth entails or encompasses having a focus, my uber-extroverted mom certainly has one, and it's called her family, I cannot tell you how many times she has told me that her daughters are her life, that that is all she cares about, us, and our well-being, and she ain't lyin', nope.

I suspect that they simply did not share many of their thoughts with you and thus you have no idea what they actually think or don't think

On the contrary, I don't think you know, a.) my deeply ingrained predilection for introverts, both male and female, I'm patient as fuck when it comes to someone I care about, even in the moment, (no, the irony does not escape me), and I have always had a knack to open even the most introverted people up, hell, some took me years, but they opened up, others, well, yes, they were introverted, but no, they at least for me, had absolutely nothing to bring to the table, and listen, I did not and would not come at them with this notion, I would be like, hmm, that person seems cool, wait it out, get in a convo, and, wow, major disappointment.

The quiet, mysterious, shy, introverted guy is sometimes only that.

Sim are you trying to imply that all introverts have depth?

Listen, I've got a pretty good intuition regarding introverts, as in, I seek the attention of those who usually end up being smart and lovely, but I have erred in the past, or not even erred, there have been many times in uni when an introvert felt comfortable enough to open up to me of their own volition and I was, well, unimpressed.

You need to also realize that I am truly an Idealist, and that I want to see the good in people, but some people are not worth, what I've come to relatively recently realize, waste your precious time.

You need to have at least one of the following qualities in order for me to willingly choose to expend energy on you.

1.) Be genuinely kind and sweet

2.) Be funny

3.) Be highly intelligent

If you don't meet any of the above criteria, sorry, but I got better things to do, like hang out on the interwebs with the likes of you people.

Regardless, Sim, I know you don't know me personally, but I have always preferred the company of introverts, and I can't ever recall one not opening up to me, irl, and I am telling the fucking truth.

We see a young guy or girl wearing glasses and we automatically assume that he or she is a nerd/bookworm/smart. :rolli:

I think the same thing happens with introverts, oh, he's quiet, he must be pensive and deep, not always the case m'dear.

Nobody is saying extroverts are shallow people. We are saying that the extroverted perspective favors breadth over depth and quantity over quality.

Only in THEORY do I understand and accept what you are saying, but for the most part, IRL, especially with Ns, our dom and aux functions are so integrally entwined that I just don't see how an extroverted NP, (ENJs don't hate me. ) could possibly be lacking in depth.

But, I am not a dumbtard, you are saying Ne left to its own devices would consume a vast breadth of knowledge/information. That is very true.

In practice, extroverted people also have introverted perspectives, which allow them to value depth sometimes as well.

Hahahaha, I wrote my previous point without reading this, and what I was going to add was this, all of my bookmarks, well, some are just odd, (I likey theoretical mathematics), have a flavor, a focus, an umbrella you can put them under, I just started bookmarking on this computer but I would say that 20 % are wiki articles about cool theoretical mathematics/abstract geometry and that the rest are about human beings,

I can't post an image of all of them so I will hyperlink a few on the list.

Complex number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cetacean intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Riemann sphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(psychology)

SENG: Articles & Resources - Counseling Gifted Adults - A Case Study

Psychological mindedness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ When I came across this article I was astounded that such a thing was labeled/categorized, let's just say my therapists in the past have often told me how great a therapist I would be.

It sounds like you think people are attacking your depth as a person and are thus responding with a lot of hostility because you missed the point that we are talking about isolated perspectives, not complete people.

Oy vey, what is it with Ti and analysis, i.e. dissection, I'm all about synthesis, I tend to see things in large nebulous chunks, and regarding typology, and granted this is my Fi talking, why wouldn't we be discussing things regarding complete people, I think we analyze aspects of behavior and pieces of ourselves with the intent to understand the whole, amiwrong?

Again you probably don't know what they're thinking because they probably don't feel like sharing it with you. Introverts have a tendency to do that.

Sweetheart, do you realize you are projecting your own experiences with introverts onto me.

Do you?

IRL I have had nothing but success with introverts, my best friend in high school, an INTJ, A HARDCORE INTROVERT, though she would spend her free time with me, and listen to me, and chime in once in a while, it wasn't until senior year and we were on MDMA that she expressed how she felt about me.

Honestly, thinking back on that moment is gonna make me cry, she, to this day was the hardest introvert to "crack", I was constantly insecure that she thought I was some idiot, but she liked me, no, loved me and admired me, who knew, I didn't. :blushing:

No, this is pretty clearly wrong. Fe and Te choose objective standards that can be applied universally to as many different external contexts as possible. They eschew the depth of their introverted counterparts because they value external applicability/ability to accomplish external goals over absolute correctness from a Feeling or Thinking perspective.

I agree with you on the Te, mayhaps, but with your description of Fe, this horse emphatically says NAY?!!?!?

Fe chooses objective standards that can be applied universally to as many different external contexts as possible.

The bolded part is where I REALLY disagree with you.

Fe dom users do whatever they can at the moment, i.e. modify their behavior, make some sacrifice for the sake of harmony, to make you happy for the moment, period. When an Fe user is in the company of people, s/he will do whatever it takes to bring harmony to the people. The end.

Example: Fi wants to know exactly what feels right to the user. Fe wants to build a collective standard of morality that can be applied universally to everybody, which necessitates that we give up the depth of individuality that Fi values so highly.

Fi wants the depth of personal individuality; Fe wants a one-size-fits-all moral standard because it has broader external applicability.
Your first statement is true, your second statement is partially true.

Many dom/aux Fe users ime have been religious, so you are right in that they will adopt a code that their community seems to adopt to too, but how is this showing breadth?

Also, um, pffft, once you get an Fe user alone, or in a small group, all religious bets are off, they will do what feels good/right right now instead of having to deal with temporary negative emotions, they want harmony first and foremost, period. (Once again how does this display breadth?)

This is a good point, as it illustrates why real people need a balance between introverted and extroverted perspectives.

As I said before, all breadth and no depth and we never stick with any one idea long enough to grasp its significance.

All depth and no breadth and we never learn to apply our ideas to anything real outside the self and thus are never really able to experience life.

Like yin and yang, the two perspectives are equally important. The key is that extroverts will tend to understand the breadth perspective more naturally, while introverts will tend to understand the depth perspective more naturally.

Errrrrr you had me till the last sentence.

Though you did use the qualifier "tend" I dunno, if by expertise on one subject qualifies as depth, then maybe, maybe I get what you are saying but no.

I am an extrovert, both by MBTI standards and real life standards, but my extroversion is like I dunno, just a facet of my personality, my extroversion IN NO WAY IS A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF WHO I AM.

Like, I'd put it on the same level as...

This took me a while, I'm extroverted, I also am pretty easy going.

There.

My being extroverted and easy-going do reveal something about me but in no way do these two traits even scratch the surface of describing who I am.

I have probably, off the top of my head, four to seven main interests in life and my acquiring knowledge in these interests helps me gain a deeper understanding of what I care about, the human condition, Life.



MAJOR EDIT:

This does not mean that extroverts can't be deep people. Those with well-developed auxiliary functions ARE deep people because they have strong command of their introverted faculties.

^LULZ, I totally didn't see this part of your post, and, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[SillySapienne]

Sim, that post took me almost two hours to compose, holy shit!!!!!!

Ti overload, I need an advil, stat.

 

[sculpting]

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.

So we are all wrong.

 

[sculpting]

The below only applies to N doms/auxes

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

This was pretty much spot on.

 

[SillySapienne]

A lot of the meaning is lost in translation.

Meta-perspective is an excellent descriptor.

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).

Simple, no?

The bolded part sounds like you are describing Ne.

 

[SillySapienne]

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.

:blushing:

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.

 

[sculpting]

:blushing:

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....

 

[Zarathustra]

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

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).

 

[Jaguar]

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."

-Carl Jung

"It cannot be overemphasized that Jung is above all an empiricist."

-Jalonde Jacobi

 

[Zarathustra]

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.