# Top 5 ways to recognize P vs. J



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Completely agree with @_Teybo_... 

But to summarise my views quickly P is about adaptiveness/openness to NEW thoughts/surroundings and controlling/sorting NEW thoughts/surroundings.

The NEW factor is really important, because how Ps and Js store old information is not clear cut. Or is it? I dunno to be honest, I haven't really thought about it much... ><


----------



## b90 (Aug 15, 2011)

P here, I like plans. I also like organising and optimising some things, while other things I don't really care for at all.. A lot of the time I'll deviate from my plans as well, and I think it's fun, having to work things out as I go, but I've figured out that if I actually take a little time and spend it planning, I can often make sure things go smoothly right away, which is less of a risk, and if the plan doesn't work, then I'll just be back at square one, where I'd usually be, and then things will most probably be alright either way.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm fairly certain I'm an INFJ. Yet if I typed myself according to J/P descriptions, I would be clearly a P. I'm indecisive, make decisions tentatively, procrastinate, and rarely form strong judgments or opinions. In fact, compared to most people, I rarely make judgments at all. Judging is not an automatic process for me, it's something I have to make a conscious effort to do. And when I do form judgments or opinions, they're tentative and always subject to change.


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

Perceivers (Ji = Ti/Fi dom or aux) reason and judge subjectively. They blame the world surrounding them.
Judgers (Je = Te/Fe dom or aux) reason and judge objectively. They blame themselves.

For example, if a perceiver fails an exam, he might think that the exam was too difficult.
A judger on the other hand trusts the system and probably thinks that he just didn't prepare well enough for the exam.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@Octavarium

I hear you that you feel like your understanding of the cognitive functions clashes with your identification with some J-traits. I'm a skeptical of the conclusion you reached though, for a few reasons. One, I'm generally skeptical of "functional analysis" because it seems like no one agrees on what the functions and function-attitudes even are. How can I trust a conclusion if I can't be sure of the premise? This is related to another "function" problem: No one has found a consistent, reliable way to test people's preferences regarding the functions that actually separates out the function attitudes. Nardi's inventory, for example, consistently returns results that show, for example, a high preference for both attitudes of a function. PerC and other online personality communities are riddled with posts from people confused because of this.

Secondly, the above issues aside, people who test as P's identify more with introverted Judgment than people who test as J's, who generally identify with introverted Perception, or at least that's been my experience here on PerC and in real life. For people who sit near the mid point of that dimension, I can see how it might be agonizing because everyone makes such a big deal about J/P and the relationship to functions, but honestly, I think that's putting the cart before the horse. If your preference is for a little bit of Judging and a little bit of Perceiving, then that's your preference. Why try to twist it one way or the other just because some internet dweebs tell you it can't be in between, because you being in between would mess up _their_ system?

There are so many terrible interpretations of the function-attitudes online. If I am forced to choose between trusting those or trusting the MBTI, I'm going to go with the one that has some (soft) science behind it. If you feel like there's a clash between your self perception and your interpretation of the cognitive functions, that's worth exploring, but I don't feel like it's really a motivating reason to distrust the MBTI.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

blastoise said:


> Perceivers (Ji = Ti/Fi dom or aux) reason and judge subjectively. They blame the world surrounding them.
> Judgers (Je = Te/Fe dom or aux) reason and judge objectively. They blame themselves.
> 
> For example, if a perceiver fails an exam, he might think that the exam was too difficult.
> A judger on the other hand trusts the system and probably thinks that he just didn't prepare well enough for the exam.



I think this is actually backwards. INTJs for instance get very defensive when cornered and start looking for external "flaws" to support themselves -- like nitpicking an argument. 

An INTP is more likely to blame themselves for not being smart enough to figure out an exam question. 

This has been my experience teaching science and engineering students mathematics.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Teybo said:


> I think there is a fundamental viewpoint that all J's share, on a gut level, and a fundamental viewpoint that all P's share, on a gut level, that is consistent, independent of the I/E dimension. That's a testable hypothesis, and the scant data available, including analogous Big 5 data, bears it out that there is something "qualifiable" about the Judging vs. Perceiving preference across I's and E's, but it's only clear if it's put in proper terms.


Can you expand on this? What do you suppose are these commonalities? I understand the MBTI axes (N/S, I/E, etc) are not orthogonal like the Big 5 and therefore represent some combination of BIg 5 functions. Do you propose that the J/P distinction is somehow more fundamental than functional distinction?

On a similar note, do you feel that there is a bigger distinction between say Ne/Ti and Ni/Te, than there is between Ne/Ti and Ti/Ne.

That is to say, function orientation has a larger effect on personality than function order. 

I personally feel more commonality with INTP vs INTJ for instance, but that may be my own personal inclination.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Can you expand on this? What do you suppose are these commonalities? I understand the MBTI axes (N/S, I/E, etc) are not orthogonal like the Big 5 and therefore represent some combination of BIg 5 functions.


The MBTI axes are actually fairly orthogonal, with some mild correlations between some subsets of S items and J items and some mild correlation between some N items and T items. In any case, the MBTI is pretty clearly tapping into 4 of the 5 Big 5 dimensions. There's some underlying traits that the two paradigms are getting at.



> Do you propose that the J/P distinction is somehow more fundamental than functional distinction?
> 
> On a similar note, do you feel that there is a bigger distinction between say Ne/Ti and Ni/Te, than there is between Ne/Ti and Ti/Ne.
> 
> ...


I feel much more commonality with INFP's than I do with INTJ's but more in common with INTJ's than ENFP's. I think that the attitude of a function is much less important than the function preference itself. Feelers have more in common with each other than they do with Thinkers, and that's what all the research on this shows us: the J/P (or Conscientiousness) dimension is independent from the other 3 dimensions.

As far as whether ENTP's and INTP's have more in common than ENTP's and INTJ's, I'd say that, all else being equal, the NTP's have more in common with each other than the ENTP and INTJ do. That's my opinion, but it's also a logical consequence of the NTP's having the same preferences on 3 dimensions as opposed to just 2.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Teybo said:


> The MBTI axes are actually fairly orthogonal, with some mild correlations between some subsets of S items and J items and some mild correlation between some N items and T items. In any case, the MBTI is pretty clearly tapping into 4 of the 5 Big 5 dimensions. There's some underlying traits that the two paradigms are getting at.


I view it as a projection of the Big 5 into 4-dim space….it's a shadow of the Big 5…but nevertheless contains a lot of value.

(I need to look into mathematical descriptions of the MBTI if they exist.)



> I feel much more commonality with INFP's than I do with INTJ's but more in common with INTJ's than ENFP's. I think that the attitude of a function is much less important than the function preference itself. Feelers have more in common with each other than they do with Thinkers, and that's what all the research on this shows us: the J/P (or Conscientiousness) dimension is independent from the other 3 dimensions.


That's interesting. You rank your commonality like this: INFJ>INFP>INTJ>ENFP

That would imply that (IN) is a more comfortable group than NF's. 

I get along great with ENTJs, but I unfortunately don't know any ENFPs or ENFJs to compare them to NTs. 

So we communicate well within our primal NT, NF, etc groupings, but our E/I J/P are ambassadorial in the sense that we can cross-talk to other groups if we align well there, with perhaps E/I being more important. 

I wish I knew an ESFP to test that. Do you find you communicate well with ISTJs?


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

azdahak said:


> I view it as a projection of the Big 5 into 4-dim space….it's a shadow of the Big 5…but nevertheless contains a lot of value.
> 
> (I need to look into mathematical descriptions of the MBTI if they exist.)
> 
> ...


Haha well keep in mind that I'm very heavily introverted and that I'm near the middle on the F/T dimension. Other NF's, including other INFJ's, probably some will disagree with me.



> I get along great with ENTJs, but I unfortunately don't know any ENFPs or ENFJs to compare them to NTs.
> 
> So we communicate well within our primal NT, NF, etc groupings, but our E/I J/P are ambassadorial in the sense that we can cross-talk to other groups if we align well there, with perhaps E/I being more important.
> 
> I wish I knew an ESFP to test that. Do you find you communicate well with ISTJs?


Honestly, I'm not sure I've interacted with an ISTJ, who I know is an ISTJ, for long enough since I got into psychological type and personality. There is one guy perhaps, but while he was clearly IST, the J/P wasn't obvious, and now that I'm thinking about it, I might be leaning more P than J for him. We had a very short friendship with lots of mis-communications.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Hmm. I can answer this in terms of dominant cognitive functions, which in my framework here places me as a P (Pi-dom to be specific) as an INFJ.
> 
> My perspective in this answer comes from a contrast between myself as Pi-dom and my INFP mate who is Ji-dom. So this is based on Pi versus Ji as a dominant function. Not sure how broadly it applies to Pe/Je doms.
> 
> ...


This is fascinating to me. Thank you. Probably my favorite topic, or at least one of them, is the differences between FP's and FJ's, and specifically INFP's and INFJ's. So I love reading this stuff.

I actually really disagree with your interpretation, though. Which is a bit interesting, since I think I would have been inclined to agree if you'd asked me 6 months ago. Here's why:

If any one has "filters" on that block out new information, it's the INFJ, not the INFP. Why do I say this? Because the INFJ takes external markers of value at face value, while the INFP needs to "decide for themselves" about it. It's as if INFJ's take for granted that judgments of value are things that _other people do_ and thus I can look out at the world, see judgments being made, but also that my judgments are things that other people can readily observe, while INFP's want to take all of their experiences and examine them, one by one, and determine value on their own, and this value judgment is hidden from the world unless they express it or somehow translate the internal to the external, and they also think that other people should work that way too. In fact, many INFP's get hurt rather easily when they feel like other people are making judgments about them, because, hey, that's something that they decide for themselves, thank you very much. INFJ's, however,expect this, they expect that judgment is a thing that is conveyed in the observable world, so they come across as more thick skinned. INFP's just want the world to give them enough space that they can be their own arbiter, and that everyone can be their own arbiter.

So when we talk about who is going to be more open to information, more likely to be slower at making decisions, and more likely to change their decision, it's very clearly the INFP or "Ji dom" here. They live in a world of observable possibilities (extraverted Intuition) that they sort through, while INFJ's live in a world of observable judgments (extraverted Feeling) that they interpret intuitively. Observing a judgment is a much faster process than coming to a conclusion in the nebulous realm of the mind.


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Haha! I soo wanted to take a side by side pic of my girlfriend's (ENFJ) suitcase, from a recent trip to Cuba, to demonstrate this in such a thread.
> 
> Her suitcase, on the day before leaving, was neatly packed and her clothes all rolled up. Mine was filled with haphazardly folded clothes thrown into it.



According to that I would be a P. :tongue:


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Weither you identify with carl jung's description of extraverted perception or judgement. /thread.


----------



## Aidan (Dec 21, 2012)

P's hate making decisions.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aidan said:


> P's hate making decisions.


I don't think that's quite right. It's more like I detest being limited because I can see benefits to several choices.


How does a J go about making a decision between equal choices? Without trying to sound snarky, do you like -not- having options?


For example, at an ice cream parlor, I have to check out -every- case, before I make a decision. I can't just walk in and get "mint chocolate chip"....who know what I might miss? Like this:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

1. Are they dom Ti?
2. Are they dom Fi?
3. Are they dom Se?
4. Are they dom Ne?
5. Are they auxiliary Se or Ne?


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

> I think this is actually backwards. INTJs for instance get very defensive when cornered and start looking for external "flaws" to support themselves -- like nitpicking an argument.
> 
> An INTP is more likely to blame themselves for not being smart enough to figure out an exam question.
> 
> This has been my experience teaching science and engineering students mathematics.


 @azdahak Are you sure that those INTJs of yours have Te and INTPs have Ti? Or is your view of the objective/subjective nature of the functions somehow different?

If a person is able to evaluate the situation, for example, objectively, he gathers his factual basis or values from the world, doesn't he. Thus an objective thinker would rely on facts and compare everything, including himself, to these objective facts. And since he wouldn't primarily find the flaw from the objective world (because for him this is the TRUTH), he would find it from himself. Of course if an objective thinker was forced to use his Fi instead (under stress or so), he would abandon the factual world and begin trusting more to his core values, but to him that's more like a plan B.

EDIT: BUT it really seems like in typology anyone can be anything they want anyway because you can cherry-pick the definitions of the functions and attitudes as much as you want, and if you don't like a definition, just find another source that pleases you...


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

blastoise said:


> EDIT: BUT it really seems like in typology anyone can be anything they want anyway because you can cherry-pick the definitions of the functions and attitudes as much as you want, and if you don't like a definition, just find another source that pleases you...


Cherry picking only happen when you diverge from Jung.


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

@hornet Yes. And when you use jungian definitions, you are allowed to interpret his writings in anyway you want.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

blastoise said:


> @_hornet_ Yes. And when you use jungian definitions, you are allowed to interpret his writings in anyway you want.


It is true that each type would interpret the writings differently.
But his definitions aren't so wide as to allow you pretend to be a type you are not,
without it being obvious to anyone who understand the definitions that we are dealing with a mistype.
To say that you are one type one day and thinking you can change it like a dress you put on,
only proves without a shadow of a doubt that one don't understand ones fundamental cognitive stance.

As a Fi dom I weigh everything that happens on a scale of importance up against what I belive to be valuable.
What has value I have conciously decided on and chosen with an emphasis on lessening the external influence.
It pains me to admit that external influences can still account for a great part of my values.
I've always been in that realm, as long as I can remember I've pined over day to day "etichs".
Only influences I'm comfortable with from outside are from Se and Te.
I resent Ne shapeshifting and Fe collective decisionmaking.

But if you want to believe that this isn't real on any substantial level, then go ahead be my guest.


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> It is true that each type would interpret the writings differently.
> But his definitions aren't so wide as to allow you pretend to be a type you are not,
> without it being obvious to anyone who understand the definitions that we are dealing with a mistype.
> To say that you are one type one day and thinking you can change it like a dress you put on,
> only proves without a shadow of a doubt that one don't understand ones fundamental cognitive stance.


I agree with that people do not change their personalities. But they don't have to in order to mistype themselves. Even if the descriptions of Jung were firmly enough declared (which I highly disagree, they are all very fuzzy and "abstract"), people would still see *and especially interpret and apply* them through their subjective lens.

People are way too subjective to type themselves objectively because, after all, the functions are supposed to be the essential core of the human cognition; why would a person who subjectively considers himself to be intelligent, artistic or otherwise a unique snowflake ever type himself as a sensor after reading the descriptions? Personally, I really think this is exactly why the number of intuitives seems to be so high, even though the sensors are considered to be the majority. People type themselves mostly as intuitives and others as sensors (this is my observation). No offense meant, but still. SO the issue is not the lack of knowledge when people are trying to find their types BUT the subjectivity.

*On the other hand*, no one knows who you are better than you which is why no one else would be competent enough to type you either.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

blastoise said:


> I agree with that people do not change their personalities. But they don't have to in order to mistype themselves. Even if the descriptions of Jung were firmly enough declared (which I highly disagree, they are all very fuzzy and "abstract"), people would still see *and especially interpret and apply* them through their subjective lens.
> 
> People are way too subjective to type themselves objectively because, after all, the functions are supposed to be the essential core of the human cognition; why would a person who subjectively considers himself to be intelligent, artistic or otherwise a unique snowflake ever type himself as a sensor after reading the descriptions? Personally, I really think this is exactly why the number of intuitives seems to be so high, even though the sensors are considered to be the majority. People type themselves mostly as intuitives and others as sensors (this is my observation). No offense meant, but still. SO the issue is not the lack of knowledge when people are trying to find their types BUT the subjectivity.
> 
> *On the other hand*, no one knows who you are better than you which is why no one else would be competent enough to type you either.


Jung never speaks of "sensors" nor how they constitute the majority.
That is just mixing in MBTI stereotypes and statistics.
Jung wasn't very fond of statistics.

I disagree on the no one else can see the paradigm pattern you manifest.
Discuss long enough with anybody and their slant will become obvoius,
unless they are deliberately misleding you.


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

hornet said:


> I disagree on the no one else can see the paradigm pattern you manifest.
> Discuss long enough with anybody and their slant will become obvoius,
> unless they are deliberately misleding you.


Of course you get a certain image of the person but _it is completely subjective_. And the factual basis consisting of the definitions of the functions that you have absorbed is formed and applied through a _completely subjective _lens. Every typing you have made is _your point of view - _someone else could have ended up with a different type based on different details or entities that were observed and interpreted. AND this is why people are unable to find a consensus when typing celebrities (people that EVERYONE know and have an image of); they all have their own points of view.

Because of this, there is absolutely no repeatability in typological methods and thus typological theories shouldn't be considered valid at all (IMO ""). Maybe this is why these theories are not used in any serious/official applications.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

blastoise said:


> Of course you get a certain image of the person but _it is completely subjective_. And the factual basis consisting of the definitions of the functions that you have absorbed is formed and applied through a _completely subjective _lens. Every typing you have made is _your point of view - _someone else could have ended up with a different type based on different details or entities that were observed and interpreted. AND this is why people are unable to find a consensus when typing celebrities (people that EVERYONE know and have an image of); they all have their own points of view.


True that you will have incomplete information about others and many times will mistype them.
MBTI is truely genious in this way since it doesn't matter if you have it totally correct.
All you need is to type the persona and you have a rough guide how to deal with the person.
Even if it isn't cognitively sound you will be way better off than many other ways of looking at it.
When you learn Jung though, you quickly learn how to improve the accuracy dramatically.
As for oneself, only cognitive functions give one the accuracy to understand what is going on.
MBTI is highly inadequate to deal with ones inner world.
Celebrities only project a persona and that is it so that is what people attack.
If you where to interact one on one with the celebrity in private, it would quickly become obvious what paradigm was dominant.

I'll give you my take on Jung in a nutshell from another discussion I just had.



hornet said:


> Well I can try to give you my in a nutshell view on it.
> 
> Jung draws upon the realms of philosophy, art and several others to illustrate that there are several
> conflicting paradigms in human experience.
> ...



Feel free to read the entire book as I doubt from your point of view that you have done that.

Psychological Types, by C.G. Jung


----------



## blastoise (Oct 15, 2012)

@hornet Thank you for the sources of the jungian descriptions. But I have already read most of it ( I will read all of it now  ) and, if you didn't already get it, I don't consider the knowledge behind any particular theory to be faulty.

I think the problem lies in the subjective nature of the process of *typing* yourself or others.

But I guess we have come slightly too far from the intended topic


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

blastoise said:


> @_hornet_ Thank you for the sources of the jungian descriptions. But I have already read most of it ( I will read all of it now  ) and, if you didn't already get it, I don't consider the knowledge behind any particular theory to be faulty.
> 
> I think the problem lies in the subjective nature of the process of *typing* yourself or others.
> 
> But I guess we have come slightly too far from the intended topic


Yeah I get that!
The subjective factor can be a bit tricky.
I don't have any bullet proof answers.
Off topic indeed... XD


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

blastoise said:


> @_azdahak_ Are you sure that those INTJs of yours have Te and INTPs have Ti? Or is your view of the objective/subjective nature of the functions somehow different?
> 
> If a person is able to evaluate the situation, for example, objectively, he gathers his factual basis or values from the world, doesn't he. Thus an objective thinker would rely on facts and compare everything, including himself, to these objective facts. And since he wouldn't primarily find the flaw from the objective world (because for him this is the TRUTH), he would find it from himself. Of course if an objective thinker was forced to use his Fi instead (under stress or so), he would abandon the factual world and begin trusting more to his core values, but to him that's more like a plan B.
> 
> EDIT: BUT it really seems like in typology anyone can be anything they want anyway because you can cherry-pick the definitions of the functions and attitudes as much as you want, and if you don't like a definition, just find another source that pleases you...



We were talking about the subjectivity/objectivity of Ps versus Js, not about technical definitions of functions. 

My understanding is that Js pre-judge data from the external world and construct models that fit their filtered subset of observations. This is what makes INTJs effective scientists for instance because they're able to work well within a given framework which they have internalized. They are good justifiers of their assumptions. And they are personally attached to their ideas. If new data challenges the preconceived notions of a J, they dismiss the data as wrong or irrelevant. (This test question is stupid)

Ps on the other hand are more gourmand than gourmet, taking in data indiscriminantly and then sorting and sifting, analyzing it for some grain of truth. All data initially has equal weighting. Finally some model is realized from the mess. If new data comes in that is contradictory, a P weights the new data against the old and attempts to reconcile. A P considers the possibility that his model is wrong. This is what makes INTPs good theorists for example, because they're more capable of synthesizing a model which disagrees with the dominant paradigm. 

In any case, what I outlined is of course stereotype. We all have preconceived notions and were all capible of thinking outside the box. I view MBTI as a useful rubric for understanding personality, not a vetted scientific theory. I'm more than willing to accommodate new non-Jungian ideas into this framework and to interpret things differently than Jung, if it means I can construct a clearer picture of personality. I personally don't care what Jung thought exactly, or if I dare to deviate from his definitions, because I'm not interested in understanding Jung's model. I'm interested in studying personality, and Jung's ideas are a stepping stone in that quest.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

blastoise said:


> Of course you get a certain image of the person but _it is completely subjective_. And the factual basis consisting of the definitions of the functions that you have absorbed is formed and applied through a _completely subjective _lens. Every typing you have made is _your point of view - _someone else could have ended up with a different type based on different details or entities that were observed and interpreted. AND this is why people are unable to find a consensus when typing celebrities (people that EVERYONE know and have an image of); they all have their own points of view.
> 
> Because of this, there is absolutely no repeatability in typological methods and thus typological theories shouldn't be considered valid at all (IMO ""). Maybe this is why these theories are not used in any serious/official applications.



You're confusing bias with subjectivity. We all have personal biases regarding who we judge to be beautiful, but we all can agree on the perception who has blond hair vs black hair or brown eyes vs blue eyes, even though those are completely subjective observations as well. 

When people disagree as to which celebrity is what type, it is usually between closely related types. I haven't see anyone arguing Einstein was an ESFJ. So there is some precision in just guessing type. Typing people (especially actors and performers) based on one or two YouTube clips is naturally going to be imprecise, because people can exhibit any of the functions at any moment in time. Typing needs a integrated global rather than local approach to have any hope of accuracy. That's why tests have 50 questions/observations instead of 5. 

Repeatability of typing has nothing to do at all with the underlying accuracy of the MBTI model, but rather the accuracy of the tests and metrics which you are using to measure type. A poorly designed MBTI quiz can easily mistype someone by asking leading questions -- which many of them do, especially regarding E vs I. And of course asking someone to guess a type is not a very accurate metric. 

I'm kinda curious ... If you don't consider typological theories to be valid, why are you interested in discussing them? What's the point?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@azdahak
You make interesting points here. 
I struggle to pull things apart like that, damn inf Te.


----------



## zallla (Oct 11, 2011)

Top 5 ways to recognize Ps:
1. making final decisions is laughed at, it is no goal
2. quite the contrary, not limiting yourself but maintaining freedom to react to new external information _is _a subconscious goal
3. if a decision is to be made, the best one is the easiest to change if needed
4. decision making is always a personal thing, external guidelines never matter that much
5. there's no 'yes' and 'no' but 'maybe'. for everything. it always depends.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)




----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

zallla said:


> Top 5 ways to recognize Ps:
> 1. making final decisions is laughed at, it is no goal
> 2. quite the contrary, not limiting yourself but maintaining freedom to react to new external information _is _a subconscious goal
> 3. if a decision is to be made, the best one is the easiest to change if needed
> ...



Haha! So true!


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Teybo, yes we disagree and quite strongly. I'm a researcher by my nature and in other ways, and your explanation/perspective simply doesn't resonate with the data from my own experience, my observations and also self-description from the INFP I know best. Three data sources triangulating is no small thing for me.

If I had to guess at where I would see the core flaw in your framework, it would be that it seems extremely focused on F judging functions for both types, and conversely, not much focused on perceiving in any real/substantive way (only fleeting mentions). But that's just a guess. 

I do know that what you're describing is inaccurate to the vast majority of the data I have thus far. 



Teybo said:


> This is fascinating to me. Thank you. Probably my favorite topic, or at least one of them, is the differences between FP's and FJ's, and specifically INFP's and INFJ's. So I love reading this stuff.
> 
> I actually really disagree with your interpretation, though. Which is a bit interesting, since I think I would have been inclined to agree if you'd asked me 6 months ago. Here's why:
> 
> ...


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Teybo, yes we disagree and quite strongly. I'm a researcher by my nature and in other ways, and your explanation/perspective simply doesn't resonate with the data from my own experience, my observations and also self-description from the INFP I know best. Three data sources triangulating is no small thing for me.
> 
> If I had to guess at where I would see the core flaw in your framework, it would be that it seems extremely focused on F judging functions for both types, and conversely, not much focused on perceiving in any real/substantive way (only fleeting mentions). But that's just a guess.
> 
> I do know that what you're describing is inaccurate to the vast majority of the data I have thus far.



Can you provide some specifics or examples? It's difficult to learn or comment when you just state that you disagree.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Can you provide some specifics or examples? It's difficult to learn or comment when you just state that you disagree.


Will try. My attention is mostly elsewhere and I need to be careful how focused I get on this INFP-INFJ thing because it can pull me away from other foci. But i'll try to offer something, at least.

My INFP mate has flat-out told me that she has existing filters through which incoming new information must pass (or not) and that she can "fill in the blanks" (her exact words) when she lacks all the information. 

My observation is that she comes to conclusions about new situations much more quickly than I do, and she doesn't take in the contextual data as a matter of course. Instead, she relies on her existing filters (judging - Fi) and past experiences to fill in her interpretation of what is actually going on. She names this as the most *efficient* way to understand what's going on in any given situation. By my standards, this approach to data is risky in terms of accuracy and rigor. But it is for sure quick and I can see how that would speak to efficiency. 

In contrast, I take each situation as contextually-specific and spend most of my initial time perceiving it first and foremost. This enables me to respond to what is right in front of me more accurately to its actual reality, as I don't run it through judging filters and past experiences first - but this takes a lot more time and energy than my INFP thinks is worth it. In saying it doesn't' seem worth it to her, she's responding to my lack of dominant-function judging filters as someone who relies pretty heavily a J-dominant approach to the world. 

From her perspective, why take in so SO much when I could be more efficient and sort/filter the data before it even hits my conscious perception? She would never do it that way. On the other side, from my perspective, she often lacks contextual accuracy when she comes to conclusions about new situations. That said, this world and many of the people in it are patterned and so she can be accurate in what I consider an indirect way. In contrast, I need to take in the data very openly at first, and I would feel a conclusion based on existing filters and past experiences as extremely EXTREMELY shaky ground if I were to do it. Even if in the end I would come to the same conclusion as she does with her "shortcut" it's not worth the risk to me because there is always the possibility that I would be inaccurate if I did the initial filtering first.

Another way to describe it may be: she values conclusions over accuracy, and I value accuracy over conclusions. Her Ji-dom processing apparatus allows her to do her thing, and my Pi-dom processing apparatus allows me to do my thing. When it comes to perception, data and understanding, Fe-aux and Ne-aux aren't anywhere near as relevant to either of us as are Ni-dom and Fi-dom. 

An d I don't know that this is concrete enough. It's not a concrete _example_, but the problem for me is that if I were to try to offer something more concrete on this point, I would have to essentially write detailed fieldnotes about it in order to provide all the data for you to look at for yourself. And that takes time and energy and like I said, my attention at that level is mostly elsewhere right now (and correctly so, for me). I almost didn't respond to @Teybo's comment at all because I had the feeling that I wouldn't be able to do do justice to the data I do possess.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@_Aquarian_

You know, your observations actually jive pretty well with my understanding of INFP's and INFJ's, but the problem is an interpretative one in some respects, like the fact that calling the process of evaluation that INFP's are doing a "filter" that "blocks out information" misses the point that they had to take that information in to actually weigh it first. 

Really though, the problem comes back round to the fact that if you take the MBTI, and you have a clear preference for J or P, then you share certain self perceptions and approaches to life that all other J's and P's have, *regardless of their preferences on the other dimension* (setting aside the slight correlation between some "S" items and some "J" items).

The stuff posted here, for example, aren't things that Px-doms and Jx-doms have in common. They are things that P's have in common and things that J's have in common.

So I go back to our discussion about filters and blocking out new information. That's extremely counter to the P way of life, but pretty consistent with the J way of life. P's keep wanting to delay decisions and wait for more information, sometimes to their detriment (Maybe they wouldn't be waiting in line with all the other P's if they had just made up their minds, like the J's did six months ago!), while J's want to reach a conclusion quicker and move on, sometimes to their detriment (Oops, you thought that buying tickets six months in advance was a good idea, but you missed out on the big sale that happened two months before the event!).

In my earlier post, I was attempting to connect this fact about the J/P dimension with the "standard" conception of function dominance. I feel like any cross-interpretation needs to honor both systems, but what your positing basically leaves IJ's as "secret" perceivers who somehow still test as J's, while IP's are "secret" judgers who somehow still test as P's. I find that unsatisfying, even though I previously held that viewpoint, and if you look around PerC you could probably find some posts of mine that are quite similar to what you posted.

As a side note, I think that NJ's might have a struggle unique to their group with making the N desire for "possibilities" and J desire for "conclusions" play nicely. At least, I do. I imagine that others do, too, given the slight correlation between S and J (and thus N and P).


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

@Teybo, I need to drop this. I know there's something off (inaccurate) in your framework as related to the data I have. I can feel the mismatch in my inductive researcher self. But I don't have the time or energy to delve into it further.



Teybo said:


> @_Aquarian_
> 
> You know, your observations actually jive pretty well with my understanding of INFP's and INFJ's, but the problem is an interpretative one in some respects, like the fact that calling the process of evaluation that INFP's are doing a "filter" that "blocks out information" misses the point that they had to take that information in to actually weigh it first.
> 
> ...


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Simple, J's are the people who are too simple to thrive on chaos.


----------



## Manofadventure (Dec 20, 2010)

Ok so its hard to say this is J and this is P with using stereotypes

one way of understanding this is to ask them to organize something like a party

Judgers will be all like
Well its going to be a dinner party so we have to find a restaurant and send out invitations set a date and a time etc etc

Where as Percivers tend to be like
Ted, your place ok? sweet, lets get some alcohol and put something up on facebook


----------



## Jetsune Lobos (Apr 23, 2012)

default settings said:


> 1. Functions and function order.
> 2. Behavioral suspicions requiring verification using step 1.
> 3. Communication suspicions requiring verification using step 1.
> 4. Attitude suspicions requiring verification using step 1.
> 5. Fashion suspicions requiring verification using step 1.


Party pooper.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

DiamondDays said:


> Simple, J's are the people who are too simple to thrive on chaos.


Pure chaos entails difficulty for complex beings to retain cohesion.

Less than pure chaos involves an element of control or stability, which can be more than enough.

One cannot thrive upon pure chaos for target values change and prediction of weaknesses are impossible.

Thus the chaos is pretense, a placeholder or substitute for unclear comprehension.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Teybo said:


> So I go back to our discussion about filters and blocking out new information. That's extremely counter to the P way of life, but pretty consistent with the J way of life. P's keep wanting to delay decisions and wait for more information, sometimes to their detriment (Maybe they wouldn't be waiting in line with all the other P's if they had just made up their minds, like the J's did six months ago!), while J's want to reach a conclusion quicker and move on, sometimes to their detriment (Oops, you thought that buying tickets six months in advance was a good idea, but you missed out on the big sale that happened two months before the event!).



This is how I feel. I wonder if @Aquarian and you (and I) are just using the word 'filter' in different ways.



> In contrast, I take each situation as contextually-specific and spend most of my initial time perceiving it first and foremost. This enables me to respond to what is right in front of me more accurately to its actual reality, as I don't run it through judging filters and past experiences first



Aquarian writes here that she takes in each situation as contextually-specific. 

This is exactly what I am calling a 'filter' -- a contextual one. I don't see things 'in context'. If anything, I see them usually in multiple contexts.

So, what is providing the context? I always though this was how Ni worked --- providing an internal reference frame upon which to base your observations -- a focal point, as it were. And this is why INTJs can so readily and accurately gauge a situation -- as long as they understand the context.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

azdahak said:


> This is how I feel. I wonder if @_Aquarian_ and you (and I) are just using the word 'filter' in different ways.
> 
> Aquarian writes here that she takes in each situation as contextually-specific.
> 
> ...


No that is a seriously incorrect interpretation of what I myself meant by _context_.

I've said I don't have the energy to continue this discussion. I understand that you two do, but could you please not try to further interpret what I said ... I really just don't want to feel internally obligated to correct anything attributed to me that is not accurate to what I said. Is that do-able? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

J's love lists (namely Top 5 ones :wink whereas we P's see list-making as a potential brain-storming session.

J's always seem to know the date!! Always! P's like me always have to ask

J's get frustrated by new or odd behavior and are more likely to think something is "weird" and gently correct it, while P's are more likely to behave inappropriately for a situation or be disrespectful, etc.

P's rarely complain about things being run inefficiently or rooms being messy. J's will not only voice their disapproval -- but will actually take action to* fix it* (when they are at healthy levels, of course)


I could be off on this one but .... J's tend to have a "uniform" in they way they dress. They've figured out exactly what they like, how they want to present themselves, and what styles suit them. Then, they work it.
P's seem to wear diverse outfits of inconsistent quality. Some days a dress, another a leather jacket, today a hippie outfit, tomorrow a pencil skirt & fancy blouse combo.

.....Just my personal observations......


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> No that is a seriously incorrect interpretation of what I myself meant by _context_.
> 
> I've said I don't have the energy to continue this discussion. I understand that you two do, but could you please not try to further interpret what I said ... I really just don't want to feel internally obligated to correct anything attributed to me that is not accurate to what I said. Is that do-able? Thanks in advance.


Sure, feel free not to respond. Ill feel free to interpret what you wrote as I see fit.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Sure, feel free not to respond. Ill feel free to interpret what you wrote as I see fit.


 @_azdahak_, You *don't *have my permission to interpret what I wrote as you see fit. You can of course do it anyway, but I want to be clear that you don't have my consent to use my words like that. I don't know why that's so hard to respect, but apparently it is.

@Teybo, I'm tagging you just so you know what I'm saying here.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@_Aquarian_

I'm sad that other things are pulling you away from this discussion, since I feel like you are very insightful and you've provided a rich, detailed (and, in my opinion, very accurate but a bit misinterpreted) account of the differences you (and your mate) see in J's and P's. Hopefully you'll be able to rejoin when you've got the time and energy. In the meantime, I wish you well. I'm going to be referring to what you wrote, though, but it's on me if you feel like I misinterpret what you wrote.

(Side note: feeling responsible for other people's opinions or for conveying a "correct" understanding of your own viewpoint is generally a very typical INFJ trait. I find it hard to get away from!)

@_azdahak_

I think you and Aquarian (though she disagrees) have hit the nail on the head regarding context and the J/P dimension. By suppressing their Extraverted Perceiving function, IJ's filter out all the "Extra" trans-contextual stuff, giving them greater "accuracy" in whatever their realm of interest is. All the IJ's are often described in terms of, well, for lack of a better word, "precision": For ISTJ's and INTJ's, it's impersonal precision, while for ISFJ's and INFJ's it's precision in more personal terms. Even their descriptive titles tend toward notions of accuracy or improvement: "The Inspector", "The Scientist", "The Nurturer", "The Counselor". 

Describing this process as being a Perceiving one is correct, in my opinion. But the issue is that it's a selectively perceptive one, a "filtered" one, and what is being filtered is the extra-contextual information so that the IJ can get to the very core of what it is they are looking at. EP's, because they also have a suppressed Perceiving function, have a "filtered" point of view as well, but you typically hear it described not as a filter but as a lack of focus.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_Aquarian_
> 
> I'm sad that other things are pulling you away from this discussion, since I feel like you are very insightful and you've provided a rich, detailed (and, in my opinion, very accurate but a bit misinterpreted) account of the differences you (and your mate) see in J's and P's. Hopefully you'll be able to rejoin when you've got the time and energy. In the meantime, I wish you well. I'm going to be referring to what you wrote, though, but it's on me if you feel like I misinterpret what you wrote.
> 
> (Side note: feeling responsible for other people's opinions or for conveying a "correct" understanding of your own viewpoint is generally a very typical INFJ trait. I find it hard to get away from!)


I consider it a matter of basic respect, whether on my part or someone else's. If someone asks that their words not be used in a particular way, and if they aren't an opponent in some battle, I would respect that and I don't get why that can't be respected by you given how clear I'm being here.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

@_azdahak_, guess you're not a mature INFJ.
@Teybo, I've enjoyed reading your posts, very informative and I always agree. Good stuff.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Teybo said:


> @_Aquarian_
> 
> I'm sad that other things are pulling you away from this discussion, *since I feel like you are very insightful* ... *Hopefully you'll be able to rejoin when you've got the time and energy.* In the meantime, I wish you well. I'm going to be referring to what you wrote, though, but it's on me if you feel like I misinterpret what you wrote.


And to add to the comment I just wrote above, I'm going to be far less inclined from now on to engage in discussions in which either of you is involved given what I experience as your lack of respect in relation to my explicit statement of non-consent for your use of my words/ideas here.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> @_azdahak_, You *don't *have my permission to interpret what I wrote as you see fit. You can of course do it anyway, but I want to be clear that you don't have my consent to use my words like that. I don't know why that's so hard to respect, but apparently it is.
> 
> @_Teybo_, I'm tagging you just so you know what I'm saying here.



I don't need your permission to interpret in whatever way I choose anything that you post on this forum. I would find it offensive that someone was telling me how I should think, if I were capable of getting offended over silly things.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> And to add to the comment I just wrote above, I'm going to be far less inclined from now on to engage in discussions in which either of you is involved given what I experience as your lack of respect in relation to my explicit statement of non-consent for your use of my words/ideas here.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think it's a bit weird that you feel personally disrespected, since I didn't quote anything you wrote, because in the time it took for me to write that post, your message to @azdahak showed up. I'm sorry for whatever misunderstanding there is and I hope we can resolve it.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> And to add to the comment I just wrote above, I'm going to be far less inclined from now on to engage in discussions in which either of you is involved given what I experience as your lack of respect in relation to my explicit statement of non-consent for your use of my words/ideas here.



I hereby grant and convey to Aqaurian the right and benefit , free from all limitations and restraints, or conditions whatsoever, notwithstanding any prior contrary comments, to forthwith refrain from commenting, engaging, or replying to posts made made my me, the undersigned, or any designated associates, either in full or in part, derived works, or referenced quotes at any level of any thread whatsoever throughout the entire domain of perconalitycafe.com and its legally recognized subsidiaries.

Azdahak


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Teybo said:


> As a side note, I think that NJ's might have a struggle unique to their group with making the *N desire for "possibilities" and J desire for "conclusions" play nicely*. At least, I do. I imagine that others do, too, given the slight correlation between S and J (and thus N and P).


Yes. All the time. It's so annoying. Delaying decisions, although I realise how much better that would be for me, leaves me in a state of irritation. Certainly not as much as before...

The way I've worked around this is that I tell myself if I delay this decision, it's because I want to be sure it's what I really want. Sometimes I just make a decision because I want to get it out of the way, but my compromise seems to be working so far.

Also, what I've noticed in IJs is that when working with data we do limit as much data as possible, it's like we create our own version of reality in which the variables are limited to the ones we are studying. So for me, when I want to work out how my interpersonal relationships are going, I will isolate every other variable from the picture and create one that only includes me and the other person.

Then I will try and work out what could have changed between us to make the relationship the way it is now.

Before, I would always come up with something really stupid that would miss out any other external possibilities such as "oh maybe he's upset because his dad had a go at him earlier". Instead I would come up with something like "he didn't like the text I sent him".

In time, and through trial and error, I expanded these possibilities to include more external ones such as any personal things the other person might be going through.

I guess this the wanting to create simplified versions of reality is the reason I can't stand delaying decisions in order to allow for more possibilities.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Bit of a thread derail here, but why are NT and NF grouped…but not ST and SF. Instead we have SJ and SP.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Bit of a thread derail here, but why are NT and NF grouped…but not ST and SF. Instead we have SJ and SP.


ISTPs are NOTHING like ESTJs. But good question.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

JungleDisco said:


> Yes. All the time. It's so annoying. Delaying decisions, although I realise how much better that would be for me, leaves me in a state of irritation. Certainly not as much as before...
> 
> The way I've worked around this is that I tell myself if I delay this decision, it's because I want to be sure it's what I really want. Sometimes I just make a decision because I want to get it out of the way, but my compromise seems to be working so far.



This of course is the opposite side of the coin from NP. NP delay decisions long past when we should…even thought we know it's better to perhaps make up our mind. While delaying things like that isn't quite an irritation, it can be a source of anxiety when all those delayed chickens come home to roost all at the same time.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Teybo said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think it's a bit weird that you feel personally disrespected, since I didn't quote anything you wrote, because in the time it took for me to write that post, your message to @_azdahak_ showed up. I'm sorry for whatever misunderstanding there is and I hope we can resolve it.


Okay. I wasn't tracking time and thought you posted what you did _after_ reading what I wrote about non-consent. I was surprised that you would read the additionally explicit non-consent and yet immediately refer to me anyway as you did - it seemed unnecessary to say the least. I had thought that you'd be able to understand my request in a way that the other participant would not be able to do, so it was surprising to say the least.

I really wish I hadn't gotten involved in this discussion beyond my initial post and I will take more care in the future.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

azdahak said:


> Bit of a thread derail here, but why are NT and NF grouped…but not ST and SF. Instead we have SJ and SP.


Myers's preferred grouping was actually ST, SF, NT, and NF. Keirsey saw connections between SJ and SP and other "classical" temperaments.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Okay. I wasn't tracking time and thought you posted what you did _after_ reading what I wrote about non-consent. I was surprised that you would read the additionally explicit non-consent and yet immediately refer to me anyway as you did - it seemed unnecessary to say the least. I had thought that you'd be able to understand my request in a way that the other participant would not be able to do, so it was surprising to say the least.
> 
> I really wish I hadn't gotten involved in this discussion beyond my initial post and I will take more care in the future.



Lol, NFs guilt tripping each other out. 

For someone who's very busy, you sure like wasting time. Are you sure you're not a P? Perhaps this is what all your confusion is stemming from. Perhaps you enjoy the alluring reputation of the INFJ you're trying to fit your personality into the type description by redefining basic principles. Just an observation.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Okay. I wasn't tracking time and thought you posted what you did _after_ reading what I wrote about non-consent. I was surprised that you would read the additionally explicit non-consent and yet immediately refer to me anyway as you did - it seemed unnecessary to say the least. I had thought that you'd be able to understand my request in a way that the other participant would not be able to do, so it was surprising to say the least.
> 
> I really wish I hadn't gotten involved in this discussion beyond my initial post and I will take more care in the future.


Sorry to hear that. I hope, when you're no longer feeling pulled upon by other demands and issues, that we can have further discussions about INF's.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Teybo said:


> Sorry to hear that. I hope, when you're no longer feeling pulled upon by other demands and issues, that we can have further discussions about INF's.


Total thread derail but I am interested in what your views about the attractions between INFP's and INFJ's are. I feel that INFJ's who are more interested in developing their Ni and directing their Fe would be attracted to an INFP. It seems to me that together these two types would be compatible in their terms of how deeply they care for each other and how much they like to indulge in abstract thought grounded in interactions with people and interpersonal relationships.

I guess the INFP offers for the INFJ a world of possibilities in which the INFJ can experience the many interests and pursuits of the INFP because INFP's tend to be interested in pursuing personal interests...

And I guess the INFJ offers the INFP comfort, safety and a sense of belonging.

Am I way off on the mark? Is there something I have missed? I wonder what you think on it.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

@JungleDisco

INFP's and INFJ's have so much in common. They are the two introverted NF's, so they both know what it's like to be engrossed with the realm of the personal while at the same time being introverts who prefer their own space. Being INF's, both INFP's and INFJ's are concerned with the truly internal side of idealism, humanitarianism, and all the other gushy NF values.

Where they differ, they can learn from each other. As just a very very limited example, INFJ's can learn that their intense drive and ambition to affect the people around them may, at times, need to be tempered with the openness and acceptance that comes with being a P. INFP's can learn that their intense desire to stay open to the world might lead them to accept too many things directly into their hearts that hurt them, and that sometimes having a shield to protect yourself can prevent heartache.

From personal experience, INFP's and INFJ's both have their own ways of making the each other smile, reminding each other of some forgotten or unseen truth or possibility, in their own way.

I don't know if that answered your question, but that's how I see it.


----------



## Jaydor (Mar 21, 2011)

I found a simple way to tell judgers from perceivers.

Look at the muscles around the mouth area.
If they are tense then the person is a judger.
If they are relaxed then they are a perceiver.

Judgers tend to move in a more stuctured fashion.
Perceivers move more loosely.
some NPs move in a weird way.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Teybo said:


> 1. Judgers tend to feel bound by obligations/expectations. That doesn't mean they enjoy or want obligations, just that they feel like obligations and duty are important things. Judgers to tend to feel a gut level compulsion to "meet the expectation" and may feel more personally upset than a Perceiver might if they don't meet their obligations.


this is superego vs id, not J vs P


> 2. Judgers tend to have a "work first, play later" attitude. Perceivers tend to want "work" and "play" to mix, and might be frustrated by situations in which they feel they must "work first" without any "play" component. This is not to say that Judgers enjoy working more than Perceivers do, to be clear.


yes



> 3. Perceivers are more likely to view their choices as tentative. Judgers are more likely to view their choices as final. On average, Judgers might not have an "easier time" making up their mind, but they will at least be quicker about it. This is especially true of EJ's, less so for IJ's.


to some extent, yes


> 4. Judgers are more likely to be task oriented and see life as getting from point A to B to C and so on. You have a direction, you follow your direction, and thus you arrive at another point. To a Judger, this all feels comfortable and how it should work. "If I do X, I will get this done". Note that this is about consistency in the relationship between expectation and outcome, which is a theme for J's.


pretty much



> 5. Perceivers are more likely to see a new opportunities or options than Judgers, or at the very least, treat those opportunities as viable, legitimate choices. Judgers tend to be dismissive of alternatives.


eh, not as strong a correlation here (unless we're talking about SJ vs NP specifically) 

one thing I'll add is, Perceivers are more comfortable doing absolutely nothing whereas Js (especially EJs) tend to feel like they're wasting time if they're not doing something "productive" (I use quotes because how they fill this time when they're bored seldom is)


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> one thing I'll add is, Perceivers are more comfortable doing absolutely nothing whereas Js (especially EJs) tend to feel like they're wasting time if they're not doing something "productive" (I use quotes because how they fill this time when they're bored seldom is)



What do you mean by nothing? Sit in a chair and stare at the wall?

I personally can't do that. If I'm alone, I have do be doing something to occupy my mind, like reading, or minimally, watching television. 


Do you mean that EJs need to feel like they're accomplishing something, even if this means, say, beating a level in a video game? 
Whereas an EP could be satisfied say just randomly browsing the web with no apparent direction or accomplishment.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

azdahak said:


> What do you mean by nothing? Sit in a chair and stare at the wall?
> I personally can't do that. If I'm alone, I have do be doing something to occupy my mind, like reading, or minimally, watching television.
> Do you mean that EJs need to feel like they're accomplishing something, even if this means, say, beating a level in a video game?
> Whereas an EP could be satisfied say just randomly browsing the web with no apparent direction or accomplishment.


yes =)


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> this is superego vs id, not J vs P
> 
> yes
> 
> ...


The deluge of INFJs here disagree.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

HalfwayThere said:


> *1)*Perceivers hardly ever plan. They just let things progress in my opinion. *2)*Seems to me they're a bit indecisive... *3)*Judgers don't like(speaking from experience) when things don't go according to plan. *4)*Judgers tend to judge people right away, form opinions about them and move on. Perceivers like to feel them out *5)* I don't know if this is me though, but I rate the success of my day by what I didn't get to accomplish, and perceivers rate theirs by what they did. Glass is half empty/half full thing I guess


I can't present some of my own methods... but I'd like to argue that dominant P's may plan and plan a lot. Perhaps the way they intake information only makes it that they tend to make so many plans but cannot decide on one. Well... that's just what happens to me anyway. My being an Ni dominant works in that manner. Planning and planning but not really carrying it out immediately (sometimes not carrying it out at all). I must consider alternative plans. Judging functions and their own forms of reasoning come only secondary to my Ni, so I have to consider many things prior to making a decision. I prefer to keep an open mind until the opportunity arises. I just keep missing some opportunities.


----------



## Cross (Sep 9, 2012)

I sometimes notice dominant J's (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) like sticking to their specific form of reasoning and it might disturb them if the reasoning they thought as flawless is challenged. This is especially true for Feelers. Dominant thinkers tend to easily uptake new information, but it must be reasoned out. The way they think helps them make decisions and choices more readily and adapt easily, however there are certain pieces of information that may escape the grasp of their forms of reasoning. Thus it becomes stickier for them. I like how they can close off their minds to additional information and go with how they judged and reasoned things out their own way - especially when the time calls for it. Sometimes certain situations call for perceivers to make multiple considerations and brainstorm too.


----------

