# Differences between dominant Ne and auxiliary Ne



## pretyhowtown (May 1, 2010)

Can anyone give me a little insight in to the differences between the use of dominant Ne and secondary Ne?

Little background... I'm supposedly an INFP, but am in doubt. I have been taking and re-taking various tests, analyzing my own processes, etc. The result continues to be INGP, but as I said, I find the results to be dubious. I think perhaps I need a good look at the differences (if such differences exist) between secondary Ne, as in my supposed type, and the flavor of Ne found in ENFP's and ENTP's.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well the difference is sort of like the difference between your dominant hand and your other hand. You will prefer the dominant function, the dominant function, whether Ti or Fi in this case is what really is driving the individual (just like say your right hand is the hand you use most commonly) and the auxiliary works in a supportive role. Just like say, your left hand, may not be as dexterous as your right, so too auxiliary Ne may not be as robust as if it were the dominant. But this is hard to really measure because you can't really quantify it like that. At worst your conscious control or awareness of the function may be slightly diminished (just like the left hand may be a little harder for you to work with) but how this manifests in an individual will be unique to that person. You can't just blanketly say dom Ne will be x and aux-Ne will be y. Because Ne is Ne. The difference here is that the Ti or Fi-dominant, operates in Ti or Fi primarily not in Ne. But I don't know how in real life you'd be able to separate the two. 

Typically for example if we're trying to figure out someone's type we wouldn't look too closely at the auxes anyway but rather focus on the dominant and inferior functions which is the spine of the self. In both Beebe and Lenore's theory, the auxes deal more with how we deal with other people (parent/child) so are less crucial to figure out. But if we see someone who seems to have a lot of Ti (or Inferior Fe) or a lot of Fi (or inferior Te) then we can assume this person is a Fi-dom or Ti-dom and then from that begin to infer which way the S/N preference goes (whether the person prefers Intuition to Sensation or whether its Ne/Si or Se/Ni).


----------



## pretyhowtown (May 1, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Well the difference is sort of like the difference between your dominant hand and your other hand. You will prefer the dominant function, the dominant function, whether Ti or Fi in this case is what really is driving the individual (just like say your right hand is the hand you use most commonly) and the auxiliary works in a supportive role. Just like say, your left hand, may not be as dexterous as your right, so too auxiliary Ne may not be as robust as if it were the dominant. But this is hard to really measure because you can't really quantify it like that. At worst your conscious control or awareness of the function may be slightly diminished (just like the left hand may be a little harder for you to work with) but how this manifests in an individual will be unique to that person. You can't just blanketly say dom Ne will be x and aux-Ne will be y. Because Ne is Ne. The difference here is that the Ti or Fi-dominant, operates in Ti or Fi primarily not in Ne. But I don't know how in real life you'd be able to separate the two.
> 
> Typically for example if we're trying to figure out someone's type we wouldn't look too closely at the auxes anyway but rather focus on the dominant and inferior functions which is the spine of the self. In both Beebe and Lenore's theory, the auxes deal more with how we deal with other people (parent/child) so are less crucial to figure out. But if we see someone who seems to have a lot of Ti (or Inferior Fe) or a lot of Fi (or inferior Te) then we can assume this person is a Fi-dom or Ti-dom and then from that begin to infer which way the S/N preference goes (whether the person prefers Intuition to Sensation or whether its Ne/Si or Se/Ni).


This is basically the answer I thought I'd get. It's pretty difficult to quantify these cogitive functions. I don't really see how I use extraverted sensing or intuition. I tend not to act on impulse. By the same token, I am so reserved, I couldn't really tell you if I use extraverted intuition to interact with people. I may just be looking at Ne through too narrow a lens (hah) and thinking that all those who prefer Ne as one of their first two functions are creative geniuses, but I suppose that isn't necessarily so.


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

I've found those with dominant Ne are more out there with their opinions, using their Fi/Ti to _back them up_.
I've found those with auxilary Ne are more out there with their ideas, using their Ti/Fi to _reign them in_.


----------



## chessio (Jul 18, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Typically for example if we're trying to figure out someone's type we wouldn't look too closely at the auxes anyway but rather focus on the dominant and inferior functions which is the spine of the self. In both Beebe and Lenore's theory, the auxes deal more with how we deal with other people (parent/child) so are less crucial to figure out. But if we see someone who seems to have a lot of Ti (or Inferior Fe) or a lot of Fi (or inferior Te) then we can assume this person is a Fi-dom or Ti-dom and then from that begin to infer which way the S/N preference goes (whether the person prefers Intuition to Sensation or whether its Ne/Si or Se/Ni).


How would you proceed to figure out your teritary and auxilary functions after you have found your dominant and inferior? Is it the same process of looking for which you use the most?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

In my (limited) experience enxp's express their ideas more than inxp's and often judge them afterwards. So they can _appear_ to be 'all talk' if others don't recognise that they're expressing ideas and not actual intentions. The enxp's I've met seem to have that kind of reputation in the eyes of people that don't know them well


----------



## phantom_cat (Jan 1, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> In my (limited) experience enxp's express their ideas more than inxp's and often judge them afterwards. So they can _appear_ to be 'all talk' if others don't recognise that they're expressing ideas and not actual intentions. The enxp's I've met seem to have that kind of reputation in the eyes of people that don't know them well


would this be like someone saying that they have an idea, but they haven't thought it through yet, and when you tell them what you think about it (assuming it won't work or is flawed), and you tell them that, they say they'll prove you wrong.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

phantom_cat said:


> would this be like someone saying that they have an idea, but they haven't thought it through yet, and when you tell them what you think about it (assuming it won't work or is flawed), and you tell them that, they say they'll prove you wrong.


That's not what I meant exactly, although could be at times. Since, its like they sometimes need to see others reactions to an idea to get a sense in their own mind of how valid their idea is. But they don't base their decision on the opinion of those people.


----------



## Magic Mirror (May 20, 2011)

I've had plenty of opportunities to observe and analyze dominant Ne vs. auxiliary Ne because I'm an INTP married to an ENTP. It seems to boil down to this:



goodgracesbadinfluence said:


> I've found those with dominant Ne are more out there with their opinions, using their Fi/Ti to _back them up_.
> I've found those with auxilary Ne are more out there with their ideas, using their Ti/Fi to _reign them in_.


Yes.

For example, in a debate, my ENTP seems much more confident about his opinions and is more prone to expressing them as "truths" even if there's not very much data to back them up. I, on the other hand, am more prone to treating my (and others') opinions as "ideas" or "possible interpretations" that are open to scrutiny.

I need a lot of time to mull things over in my head to consider them "truths" instead of "ideas", and once I'm convinced, I'm not very interested in debating them anymore! These "truths" become a part of a complex logical matrix - someone might say a part of me - and as such, they become "obvious" or a "given" and therefore not worthy of debating anymore. However, when this happens to my ENTP - when something feels "obvious" or "true" - he becomes annoyed with people who can't see the obvious, so he often becomes even more motivated to argue his point and to enlighten the idiots.

So, for me, debate is a way of exchanging ideas and getting new points of view to consider (aux Ne feeding my dom Ti with something to chew on), while for my ENTP debate seems more like a way of convincing others about his point of view (his aux Ti logically backing up what his dom Ne has observed to be true).


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

Magic Mirror said:


> Yes.
> 
> For example, in a debate, my ENTP seems much more confident about his opinions and is more prone to expressing them as "truths" even if there's not very much data to back them up. I, on the other hand, am more prone to treating my (and others') opinions as "ideas" or "possible interpretations" that are open to scrutiny.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I'm an INTP with an INFP, and his best friend is an ENTP. Sometimes we all debate/discuss things and watching the Ne-fest is a lot of fun. 

It was really interesting when an ENFP got into this mix once, and the ENTP and the ENFP were each trying to convince each other they were right, but neither was trying to convince me of anything because I was stating "truths" as opposed to "beliefs."


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

chessio said:


> How would you proceed to figure out your teritary and auxilary functions after you have found your dominant and inferior? Is it the same process of looking for which you use the most?


I wouldn't phrase it as 'which do you use the most' but rather which feels more 'you' or more 'right.' The functions don't really diminish in 'strength' in the way people think (perhaps in adaptability) but diminish in consciousness, so the further away from consciousness something is, the more you don't recognize it in yourself. That's why the tertiary becomes the 'childish' function. Or the troublemaking function. Its closer to your shadow so, much more of a sidekick to the inferior function than the dominant.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

With aux./tert., unless you aren't a very self-aware person, I frankly can't say they're going to give you much insight into yourself on a profoundly psychological level, other than seeing the processes in action and how they influence your persona and relationships to the outside world and outside obligations, which is important (as defined by certain MBTI theorists, they're pretty much the ones concerned with the outside world). That's pretty much how you can tell they're not dom. - they don't really tell your life's story on a deep level.


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

Your dominant is your consistent world-view, your personality is tied to that, and you can't break out of it (or it is very hard to). 

Your axillary is your creative function. You use it to teach others, and to teach yourself. If it's extroverted, it is the face you use to make yourself understood to others and so that others can relate to you. If it is introverted, it's the function you use to create a subjective platform on which others can interact with you. You don't use your auxiliary as strictly and as correctly as you use your dominant, it's more to play with the world and to be creative.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Do you want to know the differences between a Dom function in comparison to an Aux function, or do you specifically want to know specifically how Ne processes as a Dom function in comparison to how it acts as an aux function?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

luemb said:


> Your dominant is your consistent world-view, your personality is tied to that, and you can't break out of it (or it is very hard to).
> 
> Your axillary is your creative function. You use it to teach others, and to teach yourself. If it's extroverted, it is the face you use to make yourself understood to others and so that others can relate to you. If it is introverted, it's the function you use to create a subjective platform on which others can interact with you. You don't use your auxiliary as strictly and as correctly as you use your dominant, it's more to play with the world and to be creative.


That's a great explanation, but I just personally question how universal this is about the aux. function over even the tert. function. The aux./tert. functions are a pretty tricky area to make definite claims about, largely since Jung didn't explore them much at all in his works (or, it's very likely that he didn't consider them to be very important at all to anything he was getting at about people). The extent to which MBTI documented ideas about these leaves a lot of room for questioning. I frankly think people can be creative and self-instuctive with both on a general level, but if you're an introvert, your extraverted aux. will be more obvious (as the tert. would obviously be behind you keeping control of your own introversion), while if you're an extravert, your introverted aux. will be more obvious (same deal). This also gets into tricky territory, since terms like "creative" are pretty subjective labels to begin with, so frankly, where do you draw any line of establishment to make such judgments? You can, but I just think it lacks much significance in the long run, especially since the aux./tert. are naturally connected to each other anyway, so you'd have to pay pretty close attention to what's getting played up in any given moment, which is pretty much an unnecessary headache if you're just trying to find your type through this (I think this gets more into expert territory). It might be much more helpful for figuring out whether or not you're I or E, but beyond that, I don't think you'll get anywhere otherwise (it'll probably say nothing about preference, since after all, it's in the non-preferred orientation).


----------



## luemb (Dec 21, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> That's a great explanation, but I just personally question how universal this is about the aux. function over even the tert. function. The aux./tert. functions are a pretty tricky area to make definite claims about, largely since Jung didn't explore them much at all in his works (or, it's very likely that he didn't consider them to be very important at all to anything he was getting at about people). The extent to which MBTI documented ideas about these leaves a lot of room for questioning. I frankly think people can be creative and self-instuctive with both on a general level, but if you're an introvert, your extraverted aux. will be more obvious (as the tert. would obviously be behind you keeping control of your own introversion), while if you're an extravert, your introverted aux. will be more obvious (same deal). This also gets into tricky territory, since terms like "creative" are pretty subjective labels to begin with, so frankly, where do you draw any line of establishment to make such judgments? You can, but I just think it lacks much significance in the long run, especially since the aux./tert. are naturally connected to each other anyway, so you'd have to pay pretty close attention to what's getting played up in any given moment, which is pretty much an unnecessary headache if you're just trying to find your type through this (I think this gets more into expert territory). It might be much more helpful for figuring out whether or not you're I or E, but beyond that, I don't think you'll get anywhere otherwise (it'll probably say nothing about preference, since after all, it's in the non-preferred orientation).


You're right, Jung didn't get into describing aux or tert functions in his work. In fact, he only described the dominant functions when they became over-dominating and exaggerated them beyond what one would normally see in a person. I think he qualified at one point that in real life any cognition is a combination of several cognitive functions, and often Je is mixed with Pi or Ji with Pe, or we have Pi and Pe at the same time, and so on. 

So I'm basing my ideas off of other people's work. This article is a recent one that I've found, and, although different yet again from the other cog function descriptions, it is very interesting to study and compare. Although it has a lot of descriptions of actions and examples, underneath there is an interesting pattern. 

I agree that if you know very little about the subject it might be easier to figure out I or E rather than which cognitive function is in which position. After you study it for a while the differences are easier to pick out. Tertiary is more of a one-sided view, whereas Aux is more "I can be creative in implementing this, break the rules."


----------

