- Type: SiFe
- Development: l-ll
- Attitude: Adaptive
And in the case of Ne, the trade-off from realism to possibility opens the doorway for self/other concepts to form that are less attuned to ‘what is’ and perhaps more hopeful of what may be desired/wished-for, or to a caricature that is more malleable to the whims of personal re-construction.
It has indeed been Deltas, more than Gammas, that display their idiosyncratic beliefs in a way that seems out of tune with reality. ( I summon thee, @zweilous ) And I do see that Gammas are rather quick to orient themselves to something like CT if it can be shown — because it can be shown (CT is rather Se-friendly in that the data is real and available), while Ne+Fi can struggle a bit more to accept the constraints (Ne dislikes constraints!) to reality and what the self can be imagined as being or not being.
I actually relate to these Ne traits 100% (even though I know it’s more Deltas, it seems like the focus here is on the P-functions). It feels like Ne can give sort of a whimsical or aspirational quality to how I experience self-concept or self-image…although I do often feel a tension between this and a more sober view of things. Needless to say, I don’t think this aspirational quality inherently worse (or more pooerly adapted) than Se’s view of things–like a lot of what Ne does, this is oriented toward a certain kind of visioning.
This characteristic of Ne and self-image is part of why I often feel reflexive discomfort with absolute or ‘metabolic’ distinctions (as I mentioned in my post above). I don’t want to be socially defined/constrained any more than necessary, and I don’t want to take away from others the ability to figure out (through trial-and-error, or however) who they really are by prejudging them any more than necessary. (By the way, it seems like part of what Fe does involves recognizing these sort of social definitions/constraints, but how it responds/relates to them depends a lot of from one Fe user to the next).