- Type: FeNi
- Development: llll
- Attitude: Directive
Yes, a lot of this make sense, though some of the details and subtleties need to be ironed out, as well as dispelling some confusions/confounding variables.
I would say that for me, Ni is felt as working for Ti and vice-versa, but the idea of Ni working in sync with an actionable agenda is rather foreign to me, almost smacking of “impurity”. Ni is fundamentally linked to a truth-seeking and coalescing of information into grander schemas and maps of ever-expanding complexity. I attributed a lot of this to having been a doubly-introverted personality for most of my life, so long that the hierarchy “jumped over” Pe or Je, whichever was the case.
Again this is because an Ni-lead is always a conductor type, so the kind of autonomy an FiSe’s conscious Ni would have is not the same as the kind of autonomy that an NiFe’s lead function naturally has.
I might quibble with this, as following your idea, an NiFe’s Ni wouldn’t also have pure autonomy, in the sense that it would be irrevocably tied to conductor aims. In the end, a function is a tool, and the idea of hierarchy would tell us how that tool is used and what bias it has. I don’t see how the usage of Ni in a Ji-lead hierarchy is more impure, necessarily, especially if the function is conscious – yes it has a role in the hierarchy of the psyche, but so does it in an Ni-lead.
Just to clarify, you say that an Ni-lead will carry a senex energy, and we should be careful to distinguish that it would be a pure senex energy, as someone with Pi conscious would also have senex energy, as we have come to see, but they wouldn’t be a pure senex, as this energy would be additive to their dominant function’s energy.
Also, on the topic of conductor vs revisor, I think we need to refine some definitions and conceptions around this. I know I have conductor energy, so I might not be a good example, also being disagreeable and directive, but sometimes I get the feeling that conductor energy is confused with directiveness/pushiness/forwardness/disagreeableness, qualities that revisers can certainly have. Sometimes revisers sound overly soft/non-imposing/unassuming, which are qualities I wouldn’t put in the reviser box. It should be more about how they relate to information and its judgment, and I think there are plenty of conductors who are pushovers and unassertive.