What’s your opinion about Van Der Hoop’s descriptions of the functions? Especially when he calls Ni1s stubborn and opinionated with its truths and perceptions? Which May mean you don’t need to be J in order to be defensive and principled.
1. Most Descriptions of “Ni” Are Not Ni
J. H. van der Hoop's descriptions seem to re-describe Chapter X and add things that he observed then tried to categorize. The IFJ/Fi1 and ISP/Si1 descriptions don’t look too wrong (excluding, say, the over-emphasis of “emotion” for ISP). The perspective of disposition unfolding over time is also interesting. This may be the only one, but the INP/Ni1 description looks misled, sadly.
The Ni1 description doesn’t get the real difference between the implied dichotomies (like J/P), or what Ni is. Like C. A. Meier’s interpretation of INPs/Ni1, it mistakes what Jung called INP’s “vision” for some kind of definite purpose or determination that, at best, designates some {E}NJs.
Jung used “vision” to refer to perception that can be explored or expected. That’s what it seems to be in context with its use elsewhere:
“[ENP/Ne1] actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision”
"[Introverted Feeling is] as it were, continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but of which it has had a sort of previous vision”,
“[Describing Si1] When... several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest... chiefly because of a different vision”
This false premise affects the rest of the details. As examples, INPs aren’t the type to be famous “great spiritual leaders” or “founders of religions” as in publicly establishing things, and neither Rembrandt nor Beethoven were INPs. (A person of any type can produce amazing work, but the mind/nature behind that work will be what’s different.)
Most descriptions about Ni rely too much on re-characterizing it through the other traits. The implications of what Ni is (and what it isn’t) is too heavy for most interpreters, or they just don’t see what is meant by Jung. The perspective is clearly not the “standard” one, or one that was concerned with the external presentation as much as strictness of the material, in the unspoken intent and approach, given the difficulty of the subject, etc.
2. Different Types Can Be “Stubborn” With Different Things
Reread the last post about this and think about it. Again, it depends on what is being defended and the why.
- Ps can be "stubborn" when it comes to things that directly follow experience, exposure, or finding. For INP/Ni1, that includes truth, as different from just facts (Te) and more about meaning, reason, a metaphysical/transcendental “absence”, etc.
- Js can be "stubborn" when it comes to matters of principles, decisions, and intent. In any case, "stubbornness" is referring to conscious confidence. For IFJ/Fi1, that includes responsibility, desire, the intended wanting {to do} something, a sort of internal concordance, and probably ideas of the empath (because the “heart” is universal>localized).
I know, it can all seem like just "finding", but when it’s decided, it's a judgment. The word “stubborn” better applies to some Js: they decide something and want things to be a definite way, thinking that’s how those should be. They don't like to compromise values/limits and are more attached to the way/method of doing things.
For Ps, principles have to follow autonomous perception, and they won’t “compromise” forms/relations in a conceptually similar but effectively different way. For IPs, this is internal (known/unknown), but for EPs, this includes the external world (objects/possibilities).
3. More Examples of Dominant/Auxiliary (X1-X2)
For example, some ENPs/Ne1s are “defensive” over “principles” of change, progress, and advancement, as ends in themselves not filtered by any other kind of principles. (This why some are often arguing over seemingly disparate methods to that.)
That could be a good description of X1: it is the end to itself and builds on itself. What it does in essence, it already does skillfully and can’t be not-done. It doesn’t take away from without giving something further to itself.
Ne2 for ENJs is not like that: Ne2 is always subject to some direction or principles, so they can actually be more forceful, but that change is limited by goal/purpose or standard/expectation. (For ENFJs, that includes commonality, agreement, etc. before that.) They don’t match the “random/dispersed” descriptions as ENPs, and it’s unlikely to see them liking “change for change’s sake” in the same way unless it doesn’t contradict or somehow helps their Te1/Fe1.
So, a “stubborn” ENP looks like someone that wants to do/motivate/allow, in every way, possibilities and change as its own discovery, promoting those as a sort of “necessary advance”, and not changing this. (It’s the psychological equal to “the only absolute is change” idea.). A “stubborn” E{N}FJ (in comparison) could look like someone that refuses to compromise on certain social expectations, ideas, or loyalties that most influence them, and a comparative E{N}TJ is unyielding in putting definite purposes or concepts into action/application.
X4 has an equal “weight” or importance, which is something that types won’t compromise and, if they don’t neglect it, want to go all right. Those ENPs, for example, won’t compromise what they find as utility (including “energies” and experience), even if the changes they bring produce things removed from that (not useful or not considering long-term care). Then those E{N}FJs do something similar with identified concepts (including identity), those E{N}TJs with intangible desire/guilt (including self-judgment). This is excluding the projection of these.
That happens with the INFs and Te4 vs. Se4, the ISTs with Fe4 vs. Ne4, and every other example.
tangentwithtanner
prguitarman
izzy806
dededos
origamiaround
snowghoul
