# Thread: Dominant/Auxilary N Vs. Tertiary/Inferior N

1. ## Dominant/Auxilary N Vs. Tertiary/Inferior N

Originally Posted by Aleda
There's a lot of Se word play in his posts though. His N function doesn't seem too sophisticated either.
How and why is a type's N function in the dominant or auxilary position different from a type's N function in the tertiary or inferior position?

2. Originally Posted by Poimandres
How and why is a type's N function in the dominant or auxilary position different from a type's N function in the tertiary or inferior position?
Dom N is basically the main filter for all information coming and going. If S is used, then it assumes that role for N, but is much weaker accorindingly. I believe in the pair theory of functions.

So when you speak of an aux function, then it is going to be feeding the dom function somehow. So it will be toned down by the dom function and toned down by its lesser-used status. Ni in an ENTJ is used, just not used as often or usually as well as in an Ni dom.

Tert and inferior functions are just a weaker version altogether. I really don't think it's applicable actually, if you are speaking of inferior function, as in the 'typical inferior' function, it's sort-of the scape-goat relief function. I mean inferior as in really the least used function, as N would usually be in a dom S user. It's going to be used rarely and in either instances of stress relief or necessity. As such, it takes on a surreal usage completely different than someone who uses that function as the dom or aux.

3. There's a difference because one fuction is accepted into the ego consciousness and the other is not and rejected into the unconsciousness. As a whole, it's quite irrelevant whether the function is dominant or auxiliary or tertiary or inferior in that you can essentially split the ego in dominant-auxiliary=consciousness, tertiary-inferior=unconsciousness. The ego complexes will be pretty much the same if intuition is tertiary as it is in the inferior, just not as strongly expressed. It's thus in this context more relevant to look at it whether the function is ego conscious or not rather than looking at a specific function position. If the ego favors intuition the ego favors intuition regardless whether it is dominant or auxiliary. The only real difference between a judging dominant and a perceiver dominant in this case is that the judging dominant can direct their intuition better and control the intuitive flow, kind of like a water faucet you can turn on and off. In a dominant perceiver, the faucet is always on at maximum by default. As a dominant perceiver, intuition always plays a large role in my psyche because without intuitive data to feed my dominant judging I can't make any judgements. I still rely and depend upon perception data, but in contrast to a perceiver, I simply do not focus as much on the perception flow as much as I focus on my judging processes in an ego conscious sense. I pay less attention to it as a whole. In contrast, a dominant perceiver finds the judging process a necessary evil that occasionally needs to be done but rather be avoided all together if possible. Therefore, you can say that a dominant judger simply regulates the flow of perception data better in what they are consciously aware when it comes to intuitive flow. Sometimes I can choose to let the faucet on at full force, other times I just let in droplets of data.

It's always feeding into the system though, which is why I can't quite agree with @AphroditeGoneAwry's comment that I'd use intuition less or not as well as a dominant judger. It's not a matter of using more or less or whether it's used as well or worse (also, just because a function is your dominant it doesn't mean you use it well), but it's rather a way to look at how much intuitive data plays into my dominant perspective. An ENTJ is not less intuitive than an INTJ. What matters is simply where their ego focus lies. As an example, the analogy I made about the water faucet expresses my use of an intuitive perspective. It represents an idea rather than something concrete.

Regarding intuition itself, when intuition is a part of the ego consciousness like in my case, you are oriented towards the intuitive world rather than the sense world, and you reject sense data in favor of intuitive data. Thus I find it much more meaningful to talk about the symbolic meaning behind the Fall From Grace than the many colors Picasso used in his paintings. It's really that simple. Either you see the world intuitively or you see the world in a sensative way.

There are also ego complexes surrounding our unconscious functions and when intuition is preferred in the ego, one tends to find the sense world itself overwhelming and perhaps even irrelevant. When I look at as flower, I don't actually see the flower. I don't really register the flower in my mind. I do not register its colors, its texture, it shapes and so on. At best all I see is just that, a flower. What I am "seeing" however, are all the symbolic meanings and uses of the flower. Flower represents peace, flowers can be used as gifts, flowers represent life, flowers can be planted into pots. This is very contrary to how sensors understand the world being oriented towards sense-data and thus focus on the experience of seeing the flower itself. The flower is white, the flower looks peaceful, the flower has a green stalk, the green stalk looks calming. As a result of being an inuitive type, I also have problems recalling things pertaining to the sense-world and trying to focus on the sense-world is difficult because my mind must consciously orient itself towards something I am not naturally inclined to do. This is different to sensors who are naturally attuned to the sense-world around them.

In sensors, weak intuition often appears more as an inability to plan and think ahead, sometimes also finding hidden meaning in things where there is no meaning which especially in ESxP types can lead to paranoia, and in general making up weird connections that just don't make a lot of sense to intuitives anyway. An inferior Ne type could for example fear travelling with airplanes because of the risk of crashing even though the risk of crashing is logically speaking very small, and an inferior Ni type might think that people who dress out as serial killers for Halloween are potential serial killers themselves.

I once held a conversation with my cousin, an ESTP, and how she admired my ability to think ahead. She told me that she tends to always live in the present moment. It's not like she cannot see the long-term consequences of her actions, she's just not prone to think this way. If she wants to have that tattoo that is going to make her bankrupt she is going to have the tattoo. It's when she realizes she got no money left that she starts considering options of how to deal with the situation rather than realizing that she would be bankrupt before she acted. In contrast, I'm more attuned to what is going to happen in the near or long-term future. If I spend ten dollars today it means I don't have ten dollars tomorrow and I will definitely not have ten dollars five years from now. My cousin being a dominant Se type, only sees the current value of the ten dollars, especially being T valuing. Ten dollars can be used as a currency for various things such as buying food. I'm hungry, let's use the ten dollars for food, then I'm no longer hungry. In this scenario I might rather approach it like this; I'm hungry and I got ten dollars. What are my plans for today? When is the next time I'm able to eat? Do I need to eat now or can I wait? Based on the circumstances I might or might not choose to spend my ten dollars even if I'm hungry.

4. Originally Posted by LeaT
My cousin being a dominant Se type, only sees the current value of the ten dollars, especially being T valuing
How would being F valuing change the scenario you lay out?

5. Originally Posted by Webslinger
How would being F valuing change the scenario you lay out?
Not much, but perhaps considering other people if she is in a group.

6. I want to repost here and explain in retrospect reading my post that the Se example isn't that great. It's more indicative of an Ne point of view (how typical, I get Se better than Si but sensation still isn't a strong point). It still kind of captures the gist of Se-Ni with Se in dominant position whose logic should go like this:

This is money (Se), it has X value (Ni+T), I'm hungry, I can use money to pay for food (Ni), I see coffee shop across the corner (Se), I buy food (T).

Ne flow as I described is more: I'm hungry (Si), money can be used for food (Ne), can I buy food anywhere (Ne)?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO