# Process vs. Result



## KingKong (Jul 26, 2009)

I recently took this personality test: Personality test based on Jung - Myers-Briggs typology.

One of the yes/no questions was: The process of searching for solution is more
important to you than the solution itself. I answered no. This improved my J preference. But why? 

Why are J's are said to be more interested in the result? Because they're more decisive? Think of INTP procrastination. Why do we as INTP's procrastinate? Because we're more interested in a result. Putting the pieces together can be fun to start but drudgery when we've gotten to a certain point. That's why we can have hundreds of unfinished projects. Think of INTJ implimentation. How they follow through all the time? Because they're more interested in the process. I keep reading up on articles that state otherwise. I guess my question to you is, am I right or am I missing something? It's a pretty integral part of the test.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't think MBTI is a good indicator as to why people do what they do. I'd look to the enneagram for that.

Some types when doing something want an artful solution... or a very precise one. Maybe others carefully research the rules or other forms of guidance before doing something. 

Last week two coworkers of mine spent half a day trying to get a tire unstuck from a rim, and pronounced it impossible. 

I tied a couple of chains around it... one around the rim, the other around the tire, and attached the chains to a pair of forklifts. Hopped in one and drove it in reverse in an attempt to just rip the thing apart.

The forklift ended up breaking, The area that snapped in half was already mostly rusted through... otherwise I would have accomplished in 10 minutes what 2 people failed to do with half a day.

Everyone wanted the same result... but different ways of thinking and solving problems aim for those results in different ways. MBTI is more "what" and sometimes even "how" (in terms of cognitive function theory)... but not "why".


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

For INTPs especially, do you enjoy taking phographs (process) or do you just wish you could blink and get a visual memory print out that can be enlarged or reduced through different lenses (result)? 

Eagles are not Luddites unless they have an agenda.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

*Sign on the Board said*



Bear said:


> I don't think MBTI is a good indicator as to why people do what they do. I'd look to the enneagram for that.
> 
> Some types when doing something want an artful solution... or a very precise one. Maybe others carefully research the rules or other forms of guidance before doing something.
> 
> ...




The Sign on the Board said "if you can't force it, throw the damn thing away".

What has happened with this throwaway society?

The Squirrel.


----------



## matilda (May 21, 2009)

Results are boring. Final, concluding, terminating.

Maybe the test was referring to the Creative Process? 

Personally, when I finally master/get the gist of something, I move on to the next interesting thing. What's there to learn? There's more, of course, elsewhere.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Oh... for my part in this I did not really care to salvage the tire or the rim. For some reason I find the idea of "impossible" offensive and choose to file such things into a category of stuff I've simply not attempted yet.

There was also the question of a $20 wager.

Breaking a forklift put a halt to my plans... I paid up.

Hustled by some rust. Those are the breaks. No pun intended.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Quite simply, you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the drive to accomplish something versus the desire to just think about it. All Js want resolution and completion. We get our satisfaction and self worth from producing something. The fun of doing anything is acheiving something; to have an end result. The method we use isn't as important as the fact that it is done and completed. Ps are the opposite. For them, the fun is in the doing. They like to try different approaches for fun. They like the activity. Both NJs and NPs enjoy finding new ways of doing things, but an NJ will do it the old way if s/he believes it will be faster or easier.


----------



## Deagalman (Jul 3, 2009)

There is nothing better than a sense of completion after something is accomplished. I have noticed that J types do a lot of monitoring. Isn't the extraverted thinker better at using charts, check lists, etc. to monitor and implement? The question of monitioring the progress of something is something I figured a J would be more attentive to. Freaking out about the deadline while the P would just be relaxing? It doesn't make any sense. J and P doesn't make sense to me. Depending on motivation and necessity, I find myself in and out of both of them.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Antagonist said:


> Quite simply, you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the drive to accomplish something versus the desire to just think about it. All Js want resolution and completion. We get our satisfaction and self worth from producing something. The fun of doing anything is acheiving something; to have an end result. The method we use isn't as important as the fact that it is done and completed. Ps are the opposite. For them, the fun is in the doing. They like to try different approaches for fun. They like the activity. Both NJs and NPs enjoy finding new ways of doing things, but an NJ will do it the old way if s/he believes it will be faster or easier.


No, not really. For one... my self worth does not ride on the accomplishment of a thing. Though there are enneagram types who might relate to that....

This is also a lot like saying P's enjoy eating the meal, and J's just want a full belly. I know of an ENTP who wanted a nutrition pill... so they didnt have to eat. I'm a J and I'll sit and close my eyes and savor every bite of something exceptional. I'll also spend extra money getting food that taste better to me. Though buy your argument the ENTP should savor the meal and I should just wolf down any bowl of gruel to satisfy my hunger.

J types use thoughts or feelings to make decisions about things based on how think or feel something should be.

P types go with whatever their senses or intuition tells them.

Neither of these approaches addresses the use of chosen method. Self worth might be the trigger for some, but the "why" of a person's chosen method can be too varied and complex to place in a single box and given a single label... like "P", or "J", or "self worth".


EDIT: Also... accomplishing something (for those who get excited over it) feels just as good to a P type as it does to a J type. The joy of solving a problem is universal.


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

I was thinking....

I do not think IxxP should indicate that a person is a P. Their dominant function is actually a judging function. In my opinion...the REAL P's are IxxJ's and ExxP's. 

MBTI is merely telling us which one has an extroverted attitude.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Bear said:


> No, not really. For one... my self worth does not ride on the accomplishment of a thing. Though there are enneagram types who might relate to that....
> 
> This is also a lot like saying P's enjoy eating the meal, and J's just want a full belly. I know of an ENTP who wanted a nutrition pill... so they didnt have to eat. I'm a J and I'll sit and close my eyes and savor every bite of something exceptional. I'll also spend extra money getting food that taste better to me. Though buy your argument the ENTP should savor the meal and I should just wolf down any bowl of gruel to satisfy my hunger.
> 
> ...


That's a false analogy. And I was merely explaining (factually and accurately) why each answer correlated with J or P. You know, answering his question. What I described is the official Jung/MBTI/Socionics view on J and P traits. If you disagree, take it up with them. 



thehigher said:


> I was thinking....
> 
> I do not think IxxP should indicate that a person is a P. Their dominant function is actually a judging function. In my opinion...the REAL P's are IxxJ's and ExxP's.
> 
> MBTI is merely telling us which one has an extroverted attitude.


You've just described the philosophy behind Socionics.


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Antagonist said:


> You've just described the philosophy behind Socionics.


woops.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## matilda (May 21, 2009)

_Nobody broke your heart; you broke your own because you can't finish what you start.
_
IXXP, EXXP. Ne + Ti/Fi, Ti/Fi + Ne.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Deagalman said:


> There is nothing better than a sense of completion after something is accomplished. I have noticed that J types do a lot of monitoring. Isn't the extraverted thinker better at using charts, check lists, etc. to monitor and implement? The question of monitioring the progress of something is something I figured a J would be more attentive to. Freaking out about the deadline while the P would just be relaxing? It doesn't make any sense. J and P doesn't make sense to me. Depending on motivation and necessity, I find myself in and out of both of them.


Your first sentence indicates you are likely to be a J. The rest of that doesn't influence J or P. If a J only cared about the end result and paid no mind to the process, then how would he get anything done? The process is important, and J's are generally meticulous about it, but the question is whether you feel the solution or the process is more important. Think about what the question is asking. J's feel that the process is a tool to achieve a solution while P's feel that the solution is an excuse to do the process. This jives perfectly well with our other understandings of J and P. J's are known to like resolution and finalizing decisions early. Thus, the solution is more important to them. P's are known to like to keep things open and feel that finalizing early puts an unnecessary constraint on them. Of course they're going to feel that the process is more important than the solution. A J may monitor the process, but that's only to ensure they achieve the result. A P may be more relaxed about the deadline, but that's only because they don't feel the end result matters as much.



thehigher said:


> woops.


Why woops? If you agree that the dominant functon being T/F or S/N is more correlative to J/P than whichever is the extraverted function, then you should look into Socionics. I can't say which one is more accurate, though from the limited information I have it seems like MBTI is. MBTI has more supporters, but Socionics isn't without its share. Whenever you see the Socionics INFp, just remember that it's talking about Ni/Fe (like the MBTI INFJ) and not Fi/Ne (like the MBTI INFP), and so on. Socionics tends to (I think rightfully) de-emphasize the J/P traits. No matter which you subscribe to, the functions are far more important than the four-letter code. In fact, Socionics's official names look like "Intuitive Ethical Introvert," or IEI, and leave out any reference to J/P. Instead, the order of the words demonstrates the function order. In this case, this type has a dominant introverted intuition and secondary extraverted feeling (ethics), because the word "intuitive" is first and it is an introverted type.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

*Bumping in*

_I really like this thread. I also think it's an important issue. Sticky?  _


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Antagonist said:


> That's a false analogy. And I was merely explaining (factually and accurately) why each answer correlated with J or P. You know, answering his question. What I described is the official Jung/MBTI/Socionics view on J and P traits. If you disagree, take it up with them.


My false analogy holds true when used in many different circumstances. 

Driving: destination vs journey.
Sex: Act vs orgasm.
For those who enjoy their work... the work vs the paycheck.

There is no correlation between P and J for which types enjoy the process vs the result. Provide me with "true" analogies. 

The reality is all different types enjoy either the process or the result, or both the process and the result... you will not be able to provide me with examples or analogies that show clear behavior along the lines of J and P.

As far as taking this up with the official people... if they were here sprouting this nonsense... I would. But they're not here, so we're discussing it. And really if you're not comfortable defending their material when challenged... don't post it.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Bear said:


> My false analogy holds true when used in many different circumstances.
> 
> Driving: destination vs journey.
> Sex: Act vs orgasm.
> ...


If I recall correctly, _we_ weren't discussing anything. I answered the OP's question accurately and based on the MBTI's mechanics, which is exactly what he was asking for. I'm going out on a limb to say you're not very good with analogies, because none of those are accurate. I'm not even entirely sure what your problem with the MBTI is, but I know for fact it's not with me, so you can quit your snippiness with me. Most of this behavioral analysis is based on work habits and not recreation or biological processes. I may have paraphrased it, but this isn't _my_ nonsense. It's Jung's and Briggs'.

The OP falsely attributed an INTP's tendency to have hundreds of unfinished projects to being solution-oriented. This makes sense in no way you can look at it. The very fact of being unbothered by having hundreds of unfinished projects _means_ they are not solution-oriented. Merely engaging in those projects is the purpose and goal of the INTP in question. He makes the exact opposite mistake with the proposed INTJ. He said that the fact that an INTJ actually follows through to the end is because they are process-oriented. This one makes a little more sense from a certain angle. However, from the MBTI angle, the reason the proposed INTJ follows through is to reach the solution. It would bug the bejesus out of the INTJ if he started and didn't finish, because he needs closure or a solution, unless he is giving up entirely for one reason or another. The INTP is okay not finishing before moving on to a hundred other projects.

So my question to you specifically is how exactly would you answer his question. Why would you say that the test itself deemed Js to be solution-oriented and Ps to be process-oriented. Are you saying the reason the test assumed that is because it's purposely trying to give you false results? It's okay to assume the MBTI psychology is flawed in some aspects, and I believe that as well, but don't get mad when I open the user manual to explain something to someone who is asking the question, "What does the user manual say about this?" I guess next time someone asks, "What does the user manual say about this?" I will instead answer, "The user manual is wrong. Go ask Bear."


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Antagonist said:


> I guess next time someone asks, "What does the user manual say about this?" I will instead answer, "The user manual is wrong. Go ask Bear."


Works for me. Send them my way, I'll set them straight.




I'm not mad by the way, I think you should relax a bit. Seem a little tense. I get that you're "quoting the user's manual" but you're doing so on a public forum. I'm allowed to disagree with you, and choose to exercise my right to do so. Again I say, if you can't handled being challenged, and cant defend the material you're posting... don't post it. Also... jung and mbti and sociconics are all different theories... you didn't accurately quote all three of them.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Bear said:


> Works for me. Send them my way, I'll set them straight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Works for me as well. I don't care if anyone else is fed bullshit, and that way I won't have to worry about being hounded by some asshole on an MBTI forum for, well, explaining the MBTI to someone else.

I'm the one getting tense? You're the asshole who attacks others for explaining the MBTI exactly how the MBTI is stated to work. Everything I've said is the very basics of the J-P dichotomy. It's not a matter of opinion that that is how the MBTI is set up to work. It is a matter of opinion whether the way it is set up is correct, but that's no cause to attack me. The three theories are based on the same basic psychology. Socionics and MBTI both use Jungian psychology, and guess what their tests are almost identical. The only difference being that Socionics states that introverts have reversed J and P. I don't have to defend shit. I only answered a goddamned question. Accurately and factually. You have yet to provide an answer. You probably only confused the OP further.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Antagonist said:


> Works for me as well. I don't care if anyone else is fed bullshit, and that way I won't have to worry about being hounded by some asshole on an MBTI forum for, well, explaining the MBTI to someone else.


Dude... relax. You didnt explain MBTI to anyone. Your material is wrong, and I corrected you... just like you thought you did to the OP. Go back and reread jung and MBTI and show me where it says anything about self worth.


----------



## Antagonist (Mar 27, 2009)

Bear said:


> Dude... relax. You didnt explain MBTI to anyone. Your material is wrong, and I corrected you... just like you thought you did to the OP. Go back and reread jung and MBTI and show me where it says anything about self worth.


I just took a chill pill. Oh and I put you on ignore. It was nice knowing your for these couple of hours I've known you existed. I've already explained everything as fully as one can, and yet you still want to pester me. You don't get that I don't have to defend anything. If someone says, "What do muslims believe about the creation of the universe?" and I research and find the answer and explain it to them, that in no way makes me obligated to defend the concept of god or creationism. I merely answered a question. Peace out.


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

*Please easy on the personal insults, you guys both have some valid points.*



Deagalman said:


> There is nothing better than a sense of completion after something is accomplished. I have noticed that J types do a lot of monitoring. Isn't the extraverted thinker better at using charts, check lists, etc. to monitor and implement? The question of monitioring the progress of something is something I figured a J would be more attentive to. Freaking out about the deadline while the P would just be relaxing? It doesn't make any sense. J and P doesn't make sense to me. Depending on motivation and necessity, I find myself in and out of both of them.


I share these qualms.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

alizée said:


> *Please easy on the personal insults, you guys both have valid points.*


I appreciate that...

Actually, him putting me on ignore made me smile. 

As far as the insults you will not be getting a complaint from me. I think making himself look so bad and having to bow out like he did is punishment enough.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Bear said:


> My false analogy holds true when used in many different circumstances.
> 
> Driving: destination vs journey.
> Sex: Act vs orgasm.
> ...


 Someone should do a poll about the journey/destination, sexual act/orgasm, meaningful labor/paycheck thing. I was under the impression that other P types would select the same process-oriented answers that seem so obviously preferable in most situations. I can't speak for other types, but in a poll of INFPs, I would fully expect almost all of us to say that, when going on a walk through the woods, enjoying nature means more than getting to town, and when having sex with someone we love, the prolonged closeness is more enjoyable than the orgasm that ends it. I'm not sure I need even mention how little the paycheck means to most INFPs unless the work itself is fulfilling.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

snail said:


> Someone should do a poll about the journey/destination, sexual act/orgasm, meaningful labor/paycheck thing. I was under the impression that other P types would select the same process-oriented answers that seem so obviously preferable in most situations. I can't speak for other types, but in a poll of INFPs, I would fully expect almost all of us to say that, when going on a walk through the woods, enjoying nature means more than getting to town, and when having sex with someone we love, the prolonged closeness is more enjoyable than the orgasm that ends it. I'm not sure I need even mention how little the paycheck means to most INFPs unless the work itself is fulfilling.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I would not doubt it snail. I think that many J perferce type people would also say the same thing.
Mu point here is that while Js may spend less time wondering over possibilities than Ps I dont think that Js are any less capable of enjoying a process. 

I imagine many J types might be more focused on a result such as being willing to do a job they dont like in order to get a paycheck... but I do not think it would preclude them from enjoying a meaningful job for the work it offered. 

I dont think any of this *must* have something to do with self worth. I do not feel like a better person for having enjoyed an ice cream... or for having a full belly. J and P are also poor indicators for these kinds of things.

I'm not saying there is no correlation... I'm saying I don't see it holding true often enough across different types of processes and results to make it viable.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

How do you define the differences between J and P, then? When asked, I always say "Oh, the J types are goal-oriented, and we P types are process-oriented," as my explanation, and use examples like the ones you gave. If this isn't the case, what should I say instead? 

I understand that a J type is capable of enjoying work, food, and sex, but I thought your kind generally enjoyed them more when they were means to other ends, whereas P types tend to think of the process as an end in itself, regardless of whether the process leads to the fulfilment of a secondary goal. 

For instance, I would be delighted if I were capable of satisfying my partner enough to cause him to orgasm, and would feel good about it, but even if it didn't happen, I would consider the sexual act successful as long as we both enjoyed it, regardless of the absence of a climax. It seems like a J type, while capable of enjoying the act, would actually care about whether there was an orgasm at the end. 

Likewise, I only got thirty dollars a week at my last job, (if my employer remembered to pay me), but I considered it much more satisfying than the job I had before, where I made over twice as much money, because this job was more personally validating and the process was meaningful. When I have told J types about my experiences, they tend to think I was "being used" and should have demanded more money, but I was so satisfied with the feeling of being appreciated by someone who needed me that I would have done it for free. 

I much prefer random wandering to directed travel. I like going for walks with no plan, not knowing where I will end up. 

When I do art, I consider the finished drawing unimportant, and do not plan what it will look like. The joy is in discovering what will happen as it changes on the page. J types tend to consider my methods unfamiliar and some even say that they would not be able to create art without having a specific goal in mind, even if they admit that their goals sometimes change along the way. 

If this isn't what defines our difference, I am confused about what does, and would like a better description.


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

Ps usualy enjoy the process (brainstorming ideas, getting things started, not so much finishing the tasks when all the possibilities are solved)

Js tend to enjoy things only when they're finished, which is good because things get done more often


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Here before this goes any father off field I'll break down exactly what my initial disagreement was to. 



Antagonist said:


> We [Js] get our satisfaction and self worth from producing something.


This is wrong. I don't feel worthless if I was unable to accomplish something, nor do I feel like I'm a better person cause I got the spreadsheet created on deadline. I've seen P types who had fun trying to accomplish something hang their head in shame when it was a failure. They didn't walk away saying "Well at least it was a ton of fun."

When it comes to producing something [or failing to], it is universal that people may or may not feel better or worse about themselves. It is universal that people will derive some sense of satisfaction at both the process, and the end result. The above quoted text is a very poor line of distinction for J vs P.




Antagonist said:


> The fun of doing anything is acheiving something; to have an end result. The method we use isn't as important as the fact that it is done and completed. Ps are the opposite. For them, the fun is in the doing. They like to try different approaches for fun. They like the activity. Both NJs and NPs enjoy finding new ways of doing things, but an NJ will do it the old way if s/he believes it will be faster or easier.




Again false and some of it contradicts itself on it's face. Method can be very important, at work where I am my most J, I'd rather something be done safely or not accomplished at all. Additionally Neither the NFJ or NTJ gestalts are simply satisfied with doing something the same old way. *IF* the fastest most efficient, safest etc, way of doing it has been found... possibly.... but these frames of mind (NTJ) specifically will always keep searching for ways to fine tune a process, make it faster and better. "do it the same old way" sounds really SJ to me... and SJs as a temperament are stuck on how things worked in the past.

All the "proof" I need is in the 4 temperaments themselves. Sensors function differently if a P or J.
(SP and SJ temperaments)

Intuitive temperaments function as they are greatly without regard to P or J:
(NF and NT temperaments)
Notice there are no NJ or NP temperaments within MBTI/Jungian theory.

Disregarding why this is for a moment... the simple fact that it is so is proof that there can be no definitive test for P vs J.

P = Process/J = Result does very well hold *some* truth across *most* cases (because the world is mostly full of sensors SP/SJ) but is not true all the time. And it is not an accurate quote of jung or MBTI. The OP is an NT, no wonder he's seeing something wrong with the way the test handles P vs J....

I'm an NT, telling me I don't enjoy a process or concern myself with method is folly.

snail... I do not have a better description for you. But this is something I've been thinking a bit about, and maybe I'll get back to you with one. What I do see as fairly apparent is that P = process J = result has a giant NF/NT sized hole in it.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

That's interesting. I think we NFs get our sense of self worth from trying to be as good as possible, and secondarily, from being self-aware and authentic, regardless of the P/J. The P/J just determines how we go about it, and what it means to us. For example, an INFJ might think being good means actually accomplishing something that affects people, while an INFP might think being good has more to do with remaining true to ideals regardless of whether there is any practical result. The INFJ would have a more active, yang approach to _doing_ good things, and the INFP would have a more yin approach that focuses on _not doing_ bad things. What do you think?


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

snail said:


> That's interesting. I think we NFs get our sense of self worth from trying to be as good as possible, and secondarily, from being self-aware and authentic, regardless of the P/J. The P/J just determines how we go about it, and what it means to us. For example, an INFJ might think being good means actually accomplishing something that affects people, while an INFP might think being good has more to do with remaining true to ideals regardless of whether there is any practical result. The INFJ would have a more active, yang approach to _doing_ good things, and the INFP would have a more yin approach that focuses on _not doing_ bad things. What do you think?


As I mentioned before, the "why" is more of an enneagram thing. "Wanting to be good" style compliance does not find a direct root in MBTI/Jung. In the example you gave above the two different styles seem to relate to type 2 and type 1. 2 needing to help others, and 1 needing to remain pure/uncorrupted. Both P and J can be type 1 or type 2. Both of each example of a type 2/1 as a P or J would help others... and try to remain pure. So as examples of J vs P it falls short.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

Actually, another example come to mind. This guy Antagonist, and Kevinaswell vibe very similar to me in terms of how they argue. (They are both E-type 5s, probably same wing)

I'm not sure if you'll recall this exchange... there is a bit before the link but the meat of it starts here.
http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...forum/2182-type-5-discussion-3.html#post74426

Kevinaswell begins his argument with simple "proof" It's my brain, this is my artsy desktop. Etc. When Marcello continues to disagree with him... the insults and the highly reactive/agitated confrontational style erupted. Notice with Kevinaswell though that he didn't put Marcello on ignore.

Kevin is INTP, Antagonist is INTJ. Both used the same style (process) of argument to achieve the same result. (Win the argument.) Both had about the same response... at the end though I do not think either "won". "I am chill".

The J put me on ignore and brought a close to the possibility of further communications with me.
The P left it alone and moved... opted not to judge Marcello as being someone undesirable to talk to. Left open the possibility of seeing what might be said in the future.

I think Ps are more willing to keep things open, and see what might be later on.
Js are more likely to make a choice and move on.

I think Ps are less comfortable with permanence than Js. 
I think Js are less comfortable dealing with maybes. 

I think Js tend to prefer the permanent solution and Ps want to be able to go back and change things if needed.

I think because Js are OK with permanence, a J would tend to be less comfortable calling something completed using unknown variables, and also less comfortable calling something done with unresolved issues still on the table.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

If I weren't such a P, I would have committed suicide long ago, but I can't stand the thought of eliminating all future possibilities and opportunities. I'm glad I'm not an INFJ, because things actually did change for the better and one of the possibilities I hadn't forseen turned out to be pretty nice. 

At the same time, If I had been a J, I might have left my ex sooner. It was my dislike for closure that prevented it. I wanted to try all options before eliminating them, and even when I did decide to leave, I felt uncomfortable about the finality of it for months afterward, despite the overall decrease in my anxiety level.


----------



## 480 (Jan 22, 2009)

For what it is worth... I'm glad you didnt off yourself. I enjoy chatting with you, and you're a very unique and rare sort of person. The world should have more such people.

Also... you made me smile in this thread. Pressing on with the "argument" logically and reasonably with sound examples... where the headtype thinking male hurled insults and fled the scene.

I was just thinking about results in terms of how I dont like having to do the same work twice towards a specific task. Like, if someone says we need to put these boxes over here on the left. Then later comes back and says "Opps, they were supposed to go on the right." I'm extra annoyed if I had suggested putting them on the right to start with and they assured me left was correct. In the end it is no big deal... just moving boxes, but in a way having to do the same work twice for a single result irritated me and tainted the fun of moving the boxes.

How would such a situation play out for you?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't mind having to move the boxes again unless the person who asked me to do it ended up getting cranky about the inconvenience or blamed me for his bad planning. Activity and accidents are not stressful. Dealing with someone else's negativity is painful. You couldn't pay me enough.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## starri (Jan 23, 2009)

Bear said:


> I think Ps are more willing to keep things open, and see what might be later on.
> Js are more likely to make a choice and move on.
> 
> I think Ps are less comfortable with permanence than Js.
> ...


I like this explanation.


----------



## Nathalie K (Apr 4, 2009)

I HAVEN'T STARTED ON MY HOMEWORK AH 

*chews on fingernails*
OM NOM NOM NOM


----------



## KingKong (Jul 26, 2009)

Munchies said:


> Ps usualy enjoy the process (brainstorming ideas, getting things started, not so much finishing the tasks when all the possibilities are solved)
> 
> Js tend to enjoy things only when they're finished, which is good because things get done more often


Thanks for the four pages of responses everybody.

I guess you can look at it different ways. I have J friends that could care less about finished projects. If he writes and records a song he usually won't listen to it once it's finished because all that mattered to him was the process of writing it. At the same time you could call him product-orientated because he needed to finish it. The more enjoyable experience for him was, however, the process. As a P I like listening to the finished product because the idea that caused me to write the song was most important. Putting it together wasn't as stimulating. Yes, P's are more prone to leave options open, and to go back and change things, but that's because they're concerned about the end result. J's want closure and a definite answer, so they're concerned about the process of creating one.


----------

