# Ne dominant vs Ne inferior



## dragons5ever (Sep 10, 2013)

Anyone have some examples of how it would function differently in someone with dominant Ne vs someone with inferior Ne. I get that the inferior Ne would throw out...well, inferior or exaggerated possibilities, but I guess I'd still like some examples/more information.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

First, Ne in an inferior position works much like it does in a dominant one... but it is simply subjected and deprioritized by other functions, though it may come out strong in times of transition or crisis... or, if the person is well developed - though always under the rulership of Si and the other functions above it.

If Ne is serving Si purposes, it's probably low order. If it is auxiliary to life, it is probably low order... if it is adolescent/fear-based/less-developed, it is probably lower order. 

What role does it take in life? How much power does it have to control your life in a positive and mature way?


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Ne inferior is a basic use of future possibilities.
If the inferior user gets too stressed, they might have overreacting intuitive conclusions. Ne inferior isn't too fond of the unknown.
Ne dominant is a far bigger base of it. Many of those users speak a more figurative than literal language. New possibilities of present situations is their calling.
They can operate with Si but too much makes them anemic.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Jung on the inferior of an Si type:



Jung said:


> His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion.


----------



## StephMC (Jan 25, 2011)

^ this. Where dom Ne may become excited and energized by possibilities, inferior Ne is hesitant to see much good come out of it. It can come off as paranoid and fearful.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Jung on the inferior of an Si type:


While I agree wholeheartedly with this 'Jung' fellow, whoever he is, in my experience not all Si-doms see it this way, nor is it always strictly this way. Rather, this is significant: 



> _So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness._


There are times and situations where an Si-dominant will come to feel comfortable with certain aspects or manifestations that are more associated with Ne and do them well. However, it is always filtered through and subjected to Si. 

For example, I've noticed a lot of Si-dominants have a great love for fantasy novels, and even enjoy writing fantasy (just an example). So long as these indulgences take a back seat to or don't disrupt Si concerns, they are welcomed and indulged. The Si-dom might not see this as peripheral, due to the perception that other Si-doms aren't doing it. They may exaggerate the dichotomy and see this as Ne in a stronger position. However, it is ultimately either fleeting, well under the control of Si, or ultimately very peripheral - like a guilty pleasure.

For example, I have seen the process of an ISTJ writing a very fanciful childrens book for their nieces. It was a very fantastical book. It was certainly Ne, but every aspect of it's creation and use was for the purposes of Si - teaching consequence to the children, or giving them an activity to perform, or helping them learn something to quell bad behavior or whatever. It is Ne in the service of Si. 

However, if Ne cannot be held in the thrall of Si, if it ever attempts to take the reins, and in any aspect where the credulous attitude is outside of the approving gaze of Si, it will be precisely as Jung describes. Consider this just a grain of salt addendum to that.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I used to think my grandma was ESFJ but looking at Jung describing inferior Ne and using the Beebe model, she was ISFJ. So we were MBTI duals. She saw negative in situations like that. Like she got so scared to drive one day when I wanted to go like to the library and she even missed a red light stop because she was so caught up in the immediate negative possibility. She hit a car but the damage was nil.
When I suggested wanting a different apartment from where I currently live and wanting to work new places when I wanted, she threw a wet blanket on both things.
With the former, she compared living with a roommate as having court potential because she was retired and watched those shows all the time in the daytime.

Interests like crosswords and Wheel of Fortune pointed to her Ti, which doesn't seem higher up but she's nowhere as gloomy about that function.


----------



## bri5989 (Sep 2, 2013)

Ooh I think i've seen this in someone. I know an isfj for example who: 

-frequently sees crimes, accidents on tv & thinks its going to happen to her or thinks it must be someone she knows
-reads into why people do things but comes up with really specific (and in my opinion unlikely) reasons
-she also interprets people as sneaky and having ulterior motives way more often than is likely, its kinda funny to witness 

I always find myself thinking, 'what are the odds? why would she jump to that random assumption?' kinda seems like inferior Ne to me.


----------



## dragons5ever (Sep 10, 2013)

Okay, interesting. (I know this is in the function section, but I did sort of post it for clearer understanding so I could avoid mistyping myself). And....upon reading this and reflecting, I don't think I'm creative enough for Ne dom, or struggle with it enough to be Ne last. 

Or at least, I don't seem to have that sort of day to day wariness described in posts above, and I really like imaginative things in fantasy -- (but at the same time I personally don't see fantasy as interfering with real world concerns). So, yes I may not generate/leap toward applying new ideas into actual life, but I don't think I have the Si dom issues either....I must be some third thing. But then again learning about World Systems Theory and Globalization in school did make me sort of panic about the actual effectiveness of democracy for a while...so maybe I'm wrong. But even then the theories that didn't point to things actually being terrible (like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) were energizing so????? yes. But even then I guess I'm not generating possibilities/ideas as much as absorbing those generated by others. Or yeah, I like ideas that clarify reality or show it from a strange new angle...but I don't really generate them as much a seek them out and maybe link them together, or something. 

And once again sorry about this! I know this isn't a type me thread.


----------



## King Nothing (Sep 8, 2013)

Ne dominants inspire people. 
Ne inferiors inspire people to kill themselves.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Ne dominants or auxillaries (INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP) use Ne-specific imagination for seeing the objetive potential in different choices, situations or possibilities.

Ne inferiors (ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ) use Ne-specific imagination for predicting disaster and seeing all the possible ways how something can turn into catastrophe.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

It's more of an inferior thing to have a gloomy attitude toward intuition which is why in archetype the tertiary is called the child.
ESxJs might clearly prefer Je and Si, but it's a relaxed thing for them.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

KraChZiMan said:


> Ne dominants or auxillaries (INFP, ENFP, INTP, ENTP) use Ne-specific imagination for seeing the objetive potential in different choices, situations or possibilities.
> 
> Ne inferiors (ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ) use Ne-specific imagination for predicting disaster and seeing all the possible ways how something can turn into catastrophe.


Hmmm. What if you're like me and you do both?


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Hmmm. What if you're like me and you do both?


Could be true, but the bottom line is still that I've never seen any Si auxillary or dominant use Ne for anything positive.

For ISTJ's, ESTJ's, ISFJ's and ESFJ's, the Ne is mostly the source of their sarcasm and bitterness.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Inferior Ne issues, different than simply Ne - bottom of the function stack.

*Someone with inferior Ne issues *(reason for me to break up with long term Ex): 
NOTHING has any credibility unless you can give this person an exact example of it being done before! It has to be familiar and comfortable to their own exprience, or sanctioned by someone or some organization that has some historical proof, or mass social acceptance, and or maybe MAYBE, occasionally someone they think has impressive credentials, - or else it is meaningless.

And Jung says this person imagines possibilities of bad stuff, or bodily functions meaning bad stuff, with no evidence.


----------

