# Proper explanation of what P and J in xxxP and xxxJ mean?



## Dreamer777

PaladinX said:


> In what way is "it" contradictory? What is "it?"
> 
> 
> 
> What is 100% meaningful? How is it not meaningful for introverted types? Did you not see yourself in 100% of the P type characteristics? Where is the contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> What is not accurate for Introverts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to think of it as a spectrum. P ----------- J Every person will fall somewhere differently along that spectrum. Some closer to P, some closer to J, some near the middle.



i see some ways i have in the J's too, not only the P's, that's one answer.

and another answer is that there is claims that introverts with Ni or Si dom yet xxxJ are Pi - Perceivers, and introverts with Fi or Ti dom yet xxxP are Ji - Judgers: for example INFJ's are Perceiving types because they don't make final judgments/conclusions, they are open-ended. However they display J traits as well.

and another answer is that Extraverts seem to fit accurately on either side of the "spectrum" like they don't fall in between, if they are Pe they fit the Perceiving side, if they are Je they fit the Judging side.

but same doesn't hold true for introverts, the conflict of the debate is about why introverts don't fit on one side of the spectrum, that they tend to have some ways of Pi and some ways of Ji? and at that point the MBTI labeling of xxxJ and xxxP for introverts is inaccurate?


----------



## bearotter

@_Dreamer777_ by opposite attitude he meant introverted/extraverted. Meaning, that the auxiliary is extraverted in an introvert, etc (like Ne for Fi).




As to P vs J the real issue here is P/J is its own thing _but_ was decidedly in _Gifts Differing_ indicated as being indicative (how creative I am with words) of the dominant being rational or irrational based on a separate formula for introverts/extroverts.

For introverts, the formula Myers adopts is essentially that they are separating their exploration of the inner and outer worlds, and thus employ separate modes of interaction for these. 


Now as @_Scelerat_ notes, socionics uses j/p to indicate instead the rationality/irrationality of the dominant function (or, errr, "lead IE" really). For a proper analysis of how to view J/P in relation to a system like socionics, I'd actually say it more resembles the Reinin dichotomies, many of which are somewhat indirect attempts to indicate cognitive preferences. The idea is that a cognitive preference might be framed in terms of several dichotomous preferences, all coherently mingling to create a type. 
Now the MBTI is very direct here -- the 4 dichotomies it uses to indicate cognitive type are essentially pointing out the dominant function and the auxiliary, together with their attitudes very directly, with the exception of J/P which seems to be more of an indirect inference.


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> See this post.


this is taken from your post on that link at the bottom:


reckful said:


> I'm not a big fan of socionics, but one thing I think they correctly recognize is that, if you want to match the J/P dimension to Jung, matching J to Jung's "rational types" (J-doms) and P to Jung's "irrational types" (P-doms) is substantially more consistent with Jung's descriptions than what Myers did.


So you believe that i as an INFP Ji dom is rational, and you as an INTJ Pi dom is irrational?


----------



## Dreamer777

bearotter said:


> For introverts, the formula Myers adopts is essentially that they are separating their exploration of the inner and outer worlds, and thus employ separate modes of interaction for these.


So why does Myers label introverts with either only a xxxP or only a xxxJ, when according to what you say here is that Myers adopts a formula for introverts that they have separate inner and outer worlds?


----------



## bearotter

@_Dreamer777_ because, the P/J just indicates which of the two preferences corresponds to their dealings with the outer world. E.g. P indicates a perceiving preference towards the outer world.


----------



## Dreamer777

bearotter said:


> @_Dreamer777_ because, the P/J just indicates which of the two preferences corresponds to their dealings with the outer world. E.g. P indicates a perceiving preference towards the outer world.


is that documented in Myers research somewhere that i can actually read that Myers says that clearly that is what they are referring to with the xxxP and xxxJ that it pertains only to the outer world?

and if so, then why is it that Extroverts have the same outer and inner world and Introverts don't but rather have a different outer world from a different inner world?

And wouldn't it still be better if there was a slight different coding so it would be clear, such as for introverts:
xxxJ(o)P(i)
xxxP(o)J(i)
to make it very clear what this last letter in MBTI really means, because for extroverts it means completely J or completely P not different in inner or outer.

that's the point of my thread is to see what we can come up with to *change* this xxxJ and xxxP code to be clear and not confusing?

(haha  INFP what can i say, catalyst for change LOL  and loves clarity! i can't help it, i'm a true INFP!)


----------



## PaladinX

Dreamer777 said:


> i see some ways i have in the J's too, not only the P's, that's one answer.
> 
> and another answer is that there is claims that introverts with Ni or Si dom yet xxxJ are Pi - Perceivers, and introverts with Fi or Ti dom yet xxxP are Ji - Judgers: for example INFJ's are Perceiving types because they don't make final judgments/conclusions, they are open-ended. However they display J traits as well.
> 
> and another answer is that Extraverts seem to fit accurately on either side of the "spectrum" like they don't fall in between, if they are Pe they fit the Perceiving side, if they are Je they fit the Judging side.
> 
> but same doesn't hold true for introverts, the conflict of the debate is about why introverts don't fit on one side of the spectrum, that they tend to have some ways of Pi and some ways of Ji? and at that point the MBTI labeling of xxxJ and xxxP for introverts is inaccurate?


Let's try looking at it a different way. Unless you are a "pure" type, you will not strictly exhibit those traits indicative of that type. Furthermore, because you prefer traits of one type, does not mean that you prefer all the traits of that type or that you don't prefer the traits of the opposite type.

For arguments sake, let's say:


*"P" types**"J" types*

Open-ended


Closure-seeking


Messy


Organized


Go with the flow


Structured


Lazy


Eager beaver


Adaptable


Decisive


Let's say you are open-ended, organized, go with the flow, lazy, eager beaver, and adaptable. The fact that you favour more items on the "P" side than the "J" side, means that you are a "P" type, in general.

Some IJs might argue that they are more "P"-ish than "J"-ish because they are messy and lazy. But they might still be closure-seeking, structured, and decisive. The "J" type is more likely because the IJ exhibits more "J" traits.

These types are based on generalizing. You cannot use particulars to counter the generalization.


What I think is the real problem that underlies all of this is that people are disagreeing with what the P or J otherwise denotes, which is what your functions are. An INFP, might consider himself to be more "J"-ish, but will not go with the INFJ designation because they believe their functions to be Fi+Ne rather than Ni+Fe. However, if you remove that piece of logic from type dynamics altogether, P/J stands quite firmly on its own. Maybe think of it as (C)losure-seeking or (O)pen-ended. An Fi+Ne user can be an INFO or INFC (formerly INFP and INFJ respectively). What would be the point in that? How would you know what functions you are using? Well that goes beyond MBTI type theory anyway. MBTI type theory is more concerned with the generalized whole, the combination of the four letters, rather than the individual parts it is comprised of. For functional analysis, that is when one needs to delve into Jung, Socionics, or other theories and interpretations.


----------



## Dreamer777

PaladinX said:


> Let's try looking at it a different way. Unless you are a "pure" type, you will not strictly exhibit those traits indicative of that type. Furthermore, because you prefer traits of one type, does not mean that you prefer all the traits of that type or that you don't prefer the traits of the opposite type.
> 
> For arguments sake, let's say:
> 
> 
> *"P" types**"J" types*
> 
> Open-ended
> 
> 
> Closure-seeking
> 
> 
> Messy
> 
> 
> Organized
> 
> 
> Go with the flow
> 
> 
> Structured
> 
> 
> Lazy
> 
> 
> Eager beaver
> 
> 
> Adaptable
> 
> 
> Decisive
> 
> 
> Let's say you are open-ended, organized, go with the flow, lazy, eager beaver, and adaptable. The fact that you favour more items on the "P" side than the "J" side, means that you are a "P" type, in general.
> 
> Some IJs might argue that they are more "P"-ish than "J"-ish because they are messy and lazy. But they might still be closure-seeking, structured, and decisive. The "J" type is more likely because the IJ exhibits more "J" traits.
> 
> These types are based on generalizing. You cannot use particulars to counter the generalization.
> 
> 
> What I think is the real problem that underlies all of this is that people are disagreeing with what the P or J otherwise denotes, which is what your functions are. An INFP, might consider himself to be more "J"-ish, but will not go with the INFJ designation because they believe their functions to be Fi+Ne rather than Ni+Fe. However, if you remove that piece of logic from type dynamics altogether, P/J stands quite firmly on its own. Maybe think of it as (C)losure-seeking or (O)pen-ended. An Fi+Ne user can be an INFO or INFC (formerly INFP and INFJ respectively). What would be the point in that? How would you know what functions you are using? Well that goes beyond MBTI type theory anyway. MBTI type theory is more concerned with the generalized whole, the combination of the four letters, rather than the individual parts it is comprised of. For functional analysis, that is when one needs to delve into Jung, Socionics, or other theories and interpretations.


i'll respond to you after i get a response back from bearotter on this, i need to clarify this first:


> is that documented in Myers research somewhere that i can actually read that Myers says that clearly that is what they are referring to with the xxxP and xxxJ that it pertains only to the outer world?


----------



## bearotter

@Dreamer777 everything I'm saying about Myers' ideas should be in Gifts Differing.


----------



## PaladinX

Dreamer777 said:


> i'll respond to you after i get a response back from bearotter on this, i need to clarify this first:


You can find this information in the link I posted in my first post above.



First Paragraph said:


> This fourth preference pair describes how you like to live your outer life--what are the behaviors others tend to see? Do you prefer a more structured and decided lifestyle (Judging) or a more flexible and adaptable lifestyle (Perceiving)? This preference may also be thought of as your orientation to the outer world.


----------



## Dreamer777

@bearotter 

what about answering the rest of what i asked here, not just the first question since it is so that Myers has that documented about the P and J meaning outer world... 



Dreamer777 said:


> is that documented in Myers research somewhere that i can actually read that Myers says that clearly that is what they are referring to with the xxxP and xxxJ that it pertains only to the outer world?
> 
> and if so, then why is it that Extroverts have the same outer and inner world and Introverts don't but rather have a different outer world from a different inner world?
> 
> And wouldn't it still be better if there was a slight different coding so it would be clear, such as for introverts:
> xxxJ(o)P(i)
> xxxP(o)J(i)
> to make it very clear what this last letter in MBTI really means, because for extroverts it means completely J or completely P not different in inner or outer.
> 
> that's the point of my thread is to see what we can come up with to *change* this xxxJ and xxxP code to be clear and not confusing?
> 
> (haha  INFP what can i say, catalyst for change LOL  and loves clarity! i can't help it, i'm a true INFP!)


----------



## bearotter

@Dreamer777, the idea of P/J indicating perceiving/judging preference for the outer world is true for both introverts/extroverts.

What differs is that the introvert's dominant function concerns itself with the inner world, which is of course because they're introverts.


----------



## Dreamer777

PaladinX said:


> You can find this information in the link I posted in my first post above.





> This fourth preference pair describes how you like to live your outer life--what are the behaviors others tend to see? Do you prefer a more structured and decided lifestyle (Judging) or a more flexible and adaptable lifestyle (Perceiving)? This preference may also be thought of as your orientation to the outer world.


ok, well thanks for editing and being nicer, lol  giggles... :wink: i just love ISTP's! lol 

yeah, due to so much info coming in on the thread i have missed a few things here and there, we INFP's take time to process alot of info, so glad you brought it up again when it was better timing for me to absorb it! good timing!

ok, so now for me to respond to that quote:

sometimes i am open-ended, flexible, adaptable, sometimes i prefer a more structured and decided lifestyle. i prefer a life of security in the sense that i have my stable place of abode and a stable life of routine in some ways. However, i have moved alot in my life, but wherever i am living at the moment must be stable and secure, but i'm not afraid to move either if i want to, not if someone else wants me to. if someone else wants me to move i might not comply, it has to be of my own desire knowing the choice i'm making is a secure choice. so i do love security in a way like you could say an SJ, but i must also have spontaneity to break plans sometimes too like a P. i'm not as flexible as ExxP's in my outer world, i don't have that social energy to be flexible like them, like don't come knocking on my door and say get ready we're going to the beach, or movies or somewhere, i need a premade plan for outings like that. now if you knock at my door and say there is some accident just happened, or let's go look at the sea it just got rough, for that i can jump up and go without hesitation because it's not going to be a long outing and it's something that appeals to me that is not bothering my current plans because it is either an accident crisis, or a weather outburst - those 2 things no human can control, but for humanly controlled events like going to the beach for a couple hours, or to the movies for a couple hours, for that you have to make plans with me, i'm not just gonna jump up and go just because you came knocking on my door to go. so i can be more rigid like an SJ with plans.

How would you interpret that?


----------



## Robopop

Dreamer777 said:


> and another answer is that Extraverts seem to fit accurately on either side of the "spectrum" like they don't fall in between, if they are Pe they fit the Perceiving side, if they are Je they fit the Judging side.
> 
> but same doesn't hold true for introverts, the conflict of the debate is about why introverts don't fit on one side of the spectrum, that they tend to have some ways of Pi and some ways of Ji? and at that point the MBTI labeling of xxxJ and xxxP for introverts is inaccurate?


ExxP types who have developed Je can often look and feel like xxxJs, in fact they will often display more J like traits than IxxPs, this is the problem, for instance an ENFP who is more NeTe will be much more controlling over their environment, aggressive, bossy, and more temperamental than a NeFi ENFP(my sister is an example of this). Js are more selective about their experiences and this is especially true of IxxJs, they are only information gathering in a very narrow, focused sense, they will tend to specialize in a particular area until they have fully internalized an deep experiential base to draw from. 

IxxJs are still not open ended about new information and experience, this is the nature of introverted perception, they are more flexible in terms of radically restructuring their personal worldviews, this is very different from the flexibility ExxPs and IxxPs display. Extroverted Judgment in fact depends on a person being internally flexible, if you're a xxTJ type you will be more likely to place trust in things that are externally applicable and trust external authorities(Te), if those external authorities change what is correct/true they are more likely to change their internal beliefs(Pi) to fit with the external authorities they trust(Je). 

It will usually be harder to convince a IxxJ to reconsider their plans, goals, ect because they have already spent a lot of time considering many different contingencies(Pi) and it would be inefficient to waste time reconsidering(Je), they have a harder shell to crack but if you can get them to listen they will much more open to restructuring will their previous assumptions and axioms they started with(Pi), this is the flexibility they have but they are still weakest in Pe and they will be the least externally exploratory.

You are still thinking only Pe results in xxxP when Ji contributes to and reinforces Pe, in fact Ji often entails external flexibility in the same way Je entails internal flexibility.


----------



## Dreamer777

bearotter said:


> @Dreamer777, the idea of P/J indicating perceiving/judging preference for the outer world is true for both introverts/extroverts.
> 
> What differs is that the introvert's dominant function concerns itself with the inner world, which is of course because they're introverts.


to me you are looking at it in a Perceiving light. you leave it open ended and care not for closure. i am trying to get closure. my inner world wants closure on this matter (hence my inner world is J), but your inner world cares not for closure (hence your inner world is P). so your answer is still not a conclusive answer, it's totally inconclusive and open ended.


----------



## bearotter

@Dreamer777 -- what is not yet closed to you, what questions remain?


----------



## reckful

Dreamer777 said:


> So you believe that i as an INFP Ji dom is rational, and you as an INTJ Pi dom is irrational?


No. As I said, I'm not really a functions guy at all. I was just saying that matching MBTI J characteristics to J-doms and P characteristics to P-doms is an approach that's _more consistent with Jung's descriptions_ than what Myers did.

Again, though, it didn't really matter much from Myers' perspective because, despite the lip service and as explained at some length in that long linked INTJforum post, she pretty much abandoned the functions in favor of the dichotomies.


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> No. As I said, I'm not really a functions guy at all. I was just saying that matching MBTI J characteristics to J-doms and P characteristics to P-doms is an approach that's _more consistent with Jung's descriptions_ than what Myers did.
> 
> Again, though, it didn't really matter much from Myers' perspective because, despite the lip service and as explained at some length in that long linked INTJforum post, she pretty much abandoned the functions in favor of the dichotomies.


i was only quoting what you said, now you changed your mind and don't mean what you said, you have INTJ as your identity type on your avatar on here, but don't really agree with MBTI or functions, and again like bearotter you also have no conclusion on the matter, and are very open-ended bouncing all around with no conclusive answer, which indicates you are a inner Perceiver which rings true for INTJ, doesn't it?


----------



## Dreamer777

bearotter said:


> @Dreamer777 -- what is not yet closed to you, what questions remain?


well why don't ya read the whole thread over to see what questions i have that remain unanswered? you're inner is Perceiving so you can't find closure, it doesn't exist in your inner psyche, so that is why you are oblivious to my questions of the whole reason and purpose i posted this thread in the first place? you are not able to place boundaries/closure, you are an inner Perceiver, that's why. so we would be writing hundreds more posts on it and i would still want you to give me closure, and you would still not be able to have any closure?


----------



## bearotter

Dreamer777 said:


> well why don't ya read the whole thread over to see what questions i have that remain unanswered? you're inner is Perceiving so you can't find closure, it doesn't exist in your inner psyche, so that is why you are oblivious to my questions of the whole reason and purpose i posted this thread in the first place? you are not able to place boundaries/closure, you are an inner Perceiver, that's why. so we would be writing hundreds more posts on it and i would still want you to give me closure, and you would still not be able to have any closure?




Actually I have closure as to what _I_ want to understand, so what I was asking is what you still have questions on in relation to the part we were discussing, as opposed to the whole thread. 

I have thought about P/J and am pretty confident I know where I stand with respect to this topic.


----------



## Dreamer777

jishellemu said:


> This is me in a nutshell!


ok, now consider this, that is your outer/external world, but inside in your internal/inner world, you are the opposite, you are a Perceiver.

We are the opposite to what we are in the external. MBTI code shows P or J for external only, they believe the opposite for the inner, but they just don't show it in the code. 

So inside, you are a Perceiver.

What says you?


----------



## jishellemu

Dreamer777 said:


> ok, now consider this, that is your outer/external world, but inside in your internal/inner world, you are the opposite, you are a Perceiver.
> 
> We are the opposite to what we are in the external. MBTI code shows P or J for external only, they believe the opposite for the inner, but they just don't show it in the code.
> 
> So inside, you are a Perceiver.
> 
> What says you?


Hmm... I have never thought about that before. I guess that some things that I think about in my inner/perceiver mode I never express externally. But this doesn't change my need to be punctual for everything! >_< haha


----------



## Dreamer777

jishellemu said:


> Hmm... I have never thought about that before. I guess that some things that I think about in my inner/perceiver mode I never express externally. But this doesn't change my need to be punctual for everything! >_< haha


well, it wouldn't because being punctual is in the external world in which you are a Judger.


----------



## reckful

Dreamer777 said:


> well, it wouldn't because being punctual is in the external world in which you are a Judger.


Can you describe several aspects of your personality that you see as you being "internally J-ish" (structured, decided or whatever) and where it's your view that a typical INFJ would be more P-ish (unstructured, open-ended or whatever) than you?


----------



## Robopop

Dreamer777 said:


> i just turned 50 yes, and your point is...?


I was just saying that people around middle age or older might have a harder time identifying with being P or J, I or E, F or T, N or S because a lot of people fill out those functions the more they mature, there are some people who are still unbalanced even into old age(which is very unfortunate). A lot of what Jung talked about was getting the dominant function to harmonize with the inferior instead of the two opposing each other.


----------



## Dreamer777

Robopop said:


> I was just saying that people around middle age or older might have a harder time identifying with being P or J, I or E, F or T, N or S because a lot of people fill out those functions the more they mature, there are some people who are still unbalanced even into old age(which is very unfortunate). A lot of what Jung talked about was getting the dominant function to harmonize with the inferior instead of the two opposing each other.


well, i've had EMDR therapy for past traumatic unhealed issues in my psyche that negatively affected my emotions throughout the years from the trauma. it worked great. EMDR takes the trauma out of the emotional part of the brain and puts it in the thinking/logical part of the brain. But it didn't change me from being a Fi dom on a day to day basis. I'm still a Fi dom, and have inferior eruptions of inferior Te. 

So, as far as trying to balance dom thinking with inferior feeling, or dom feeling with inferior thinking, it can't really balance. it's like trying to mix oil with water and it just can't really incorporate. but i do see the value of having experienced emotional healing through EMDR to be able to view past things objectively rather than emotionally. However, i think the word past is the key word to note here. cause a Fi dom in the moment on instinct is going to feel not think. But what i can see maturing is the ability to catch ourself from acting out in an eruption of inferior Te (irrationally) , to have a quick flashback of a previous upset that we learned from to see it objectively rather than irrationalemotional, that that quick flash back could stop us dead in our tracks to shut up, hold it in, instead of unleashing our rant of a value violated. But to say that you could balance the dom Feeling function with the inferior Thinking function, like i say, it's like oil and water that can't incorporate.

btw, can't you see i highly recommend EMDR therapy! i know it's helped me sooooooo much!


----------



## bearotter

reckful said:


> Can you describe several aspects of your personality that you see as you being "internally J-ish" (structured, decided or whatever) and where it's your view that a typical INFJ would be more P-ish (unstructured, open-ended or whatever) than you?




Lol, it's a good question actually, and could be used as a trick question 

Because as per Myers, you're not going to see this P-ish side of the INFJ (much) anyway without really getting into their inner workings, so making such claims that they're more P-ish might be illusion in some form.


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> Can you describe several aspects of your personality that you see as you being "internally J-ish" (structured, decided or whatever) and where it's your view that a typical INFJ would be more P-ish (unstructured, open-ended or whatever) than you?


well, i don't know if i can answer you in full, but i'll do my best to at least give you some insight

inside, i have boundaries, i know what i like, i know what i want, i know what i don't like, i know what i don't want. i have my values, they are unmovable, that is unmovable boundaries with what i believe is right and wrong. i'm not open-ended that way. i believe what i believe and i'm strong about what i believe. like fiercely strong with inner strength. i'm not confused about my values, they are very clear, crystal clear to me. i don't sway to the left nor to the right, i'm rigid with my values. i judge people but i just don't tell them what i judge about them unless it's something positive. but if i judge them with something negative i will try to hide my judgment from them, unless it's a close family member then i dont' hide it. i will judge them internally, but treat them more open externally, they would probably trip out if they knew some of how i feel about them? cause i can show more patience with them on the outer (most times) but inner i'm just about cussing them out but they can't hear it because i don't verbalize it. i do that alot. do i like to do that? no, i would rather be more open in my inner, but it's just my automatic inner ways. that's why on the outer i show more patience because that is kept strictly inside, what materializes outside is different. 

now as far as to the external world and how i operate in the external world, i'm always late, i don't like too much schedules, i like to work on my own ways and times, i accomplish much more that way, i'm more open-ended that way. if i go like say somewhere planned, i'm open to switching it up out there and move on to somewhere else unplanned, once i'm already out. but if i'm home and do not have it planned, chances are i'm not jumping up to go. once i'm out there, i can move around flexible, but once i'm home, i'm not that flexible to leave home unless planned, sometimes yes, but few times, most times i leave home planned but like i say, i switch up plans once i'm out, i like to feel free to switch it up with whatever comes up, it's more fun that way. Except for when i'm working of course, i mean we can't just piss off and walk out of our jobs whenever we want, that's different, that's survival and earning money to live on and survive on, so that is done with much more rigidness and control. hard to ever get to my job ontime and scheduled though, i'm usually always late and always surprised that i'm late and can't figure out where it all went wrong again for the millionth time of why i ended up being late again?! 

hopefully that helps some.

as for INFJ's, i'm not one, so it's best to check with one. but i have interracted with them a bit, and they are very open-ended in the inner. they are more rigid with their outer plans, schedules, etc. but they are very very very open minded in their inner. heck most INFJ's don't even believe there is a reality, like do they even exist? does reality even exist? does anything really exist? is anything really real? Geez, how much more open-minded can one be?


----------



## reckful

Dreamer777 said:


> inside, i have boundaries, i know what i like, i know what i want, i know what i don't like, i know what i don't want. i have my values, they are unmovable, that is unmovable boundaries with what i believe is right and wrong. i'm not open-ended that way. i believe what i believe and i'm strong about what i believe. like fiercely strong with inner strength. i'm not confused about my values, they are very clear, crystal clear to me. i don't sway to the left nor to the right, i'm rigid with my values. i judge people but i just don't tell them what i judge about them unless it's something positive. but if i judge them with something negative i will try to hide my judgment from them, unless it's a close family member then i dont' hide it. i will judge them internally, but treat them more open externally, they would probably trip out if they knew some of how i feel about them? cause i can show more patience with them on the outer (most times) but inner i'm just about cussing them out but they can't hear it because i don't verbalize it. i do that alot. do i like to do that? no, i would rather be more open in my inner, but it's just my automatic inner ways. that's why on the outer i show more patience because that is kept strictly inside, what materializes outside is different.


I'd say that sounds just as much, if not more, like a typical INFJ than a typical INFP.



Dreamer777 said:


> as for INFJ's, i'm not one, so it's best to check with one. but i have interracted with them a bit, and they are very open-ended in the inner. they are more rigid with their outer plans, schedules, etc. but *they are very very very open minded in their inner. heck most INFJ's don't even believe there is a reality, like do they even exist? does reality even exist? does anything really exist? is anything really real? Geez, how much more open-minded can one be?*


And that bolded stuff sounds significantly more NFP-ish than NFJ-ish.

Just in case you have any interest, I've put roundups of INFJ and INFP profiles in the spoiler.


* *




_INFJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> I'd say that sounds just as much, if not more, like a typical INFJ than a typical INFP.
> 
> 
> 
> And that bolded stuff sounds significantly more NFP-ish than NFJ-ish.
> 
> Just in case you have any interest, I've put roundups of INFJ and INFP profiles in the spoiler.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _INFJ Profiles_
> MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
> MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
> Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
> Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
> Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
> Berens & Nardi
> personalitypage: Portrait
> personalitypage: Personal Growth
> personalitypage: Relationships
> personalitypage: Careers
> 
> _INFP Profiles_
> MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
> MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
> Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
> Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
> Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
> Berens & Nardi
> personalitypage: Portrait
> personalitypage: Personal Growth
> personalitypage: Relationships
> personalitypage: Careers


no, i'm INFP. i don't know of any INFP's that think reality doesnt' exist, etc, never ever heard any INFP speak that way, but i've heard it from many INFJ's.

i'll see if i can get an INFJ to come help us out here, i think it's best to hear straight from the horses mouth. I'm not an INFJ. i'm Fi Ne Si Te.. they are Ni Fe Ti Se i don't use those functions hardly, and Ti? i can't even comprehend what on earth Ti is? it's my demonic devilish function as an INFP, i'm a Fi dom, it totally irradicates the other internal judging function, they can't work together, one nulls and voids the other. And INFJ's don't do Si! again Si and Ni can't work together when one is dom, one irradicates the other.

an INFJ has social grace, i can display some social grace, but don't test me for long, otherwise the ugly truth may come out in a cold harsh way. when i speak of self control with people that are pissing me off internally, i get away from them quickly as possible, otherwise if they stick around long enough they may just hear some of my feelings in a temper outburst. every judgment is made according to my values, if i judge someone negatively it's because they are violating a or some of my values. INFP's are all about their inner values. I'm very INFP. 

INFJ's come across as much more logical self controlled people than INFP's who can be irrational with that inferior Te eruption.

EDIT: ps forgot to add when speaking of Ni and Si, that i use Si.


----------



## reckful

Dreamer777 said:


> no, i'm INFP. i don't know of any INFP's that think reality doesnt' exist, etc, never ever heard any INFP speak that way, but i've heard it from many INFJ's.
> 
> i'll see if i can get an INFJ to come help us out here, i think it's best to hear straight from the horses mouth. I'm not an INFJ. i'm Fi Ne Si Te.. they are Ni Fe Ti Se i don't use those functions hardly, and Ti? i can't even comprehend what on earth Ti is? it's my demonic devilish function as an INFP, i'm a Fi dom, it totally irradicates the other internal judging function, they can't work together, one nulls and voids the other. And INFJ's don't do Si! again Si and Ni can't work together when one is dom, one irradicates the other.
> 
> an INFJ has social grace, i can display some social grace, but don't test me for long, otherwise the ugly truth may come out in a cold harsh way. when i speak of self control with people that are pissing me off internally, i get away from them quickly as possible, otherwise if they stick around long enough they may just hear some of my feelings in a temper outburst. every judgment is made according to my values, if i judge someone negatively it's because they are violating a or some of my values. INFP's are all about their inner values. I'm very INFP.
> 
> INFJ's come across as much more logical self controlled people than INFP's who can be irrational with that inferior Te eruption.
> 
> EDIT: ps forgot to add when speaking of Ni and Si, that i use Si.


I wasn't suggesting that I thought you were an INFJ.

But I haven't heard you describe any aspect of yourself that's "internally J-ish" and where a typical INFJ would be more P-ish.


----------



## LibertyPrime

*_* hehe I'm so P...its ridiculous...


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> I wasn't suggesting that I thought you were an INFJ.
> 
> But I haven't heard you describe any aspect of yourself that's "internally J-ish" and where a typical INFJ would be more P-ish.


here, i started a thread for you to observe in the INFJ forum on reality:

http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/171164-does-reality-exist-what-reality.html


----------



## Chesire Tower

J=judging as in either thinking or feeling. P=perception as in either sensing or intuition


Ignore the whole Myers-Briggs definition of the J/P thing if you are an introvert or go to Personality Junkie for more accurate definitions. I kept futiley trying to figure out whether or not I was an INFP or an INTP; I finally decided to ignore the J/P thing entirely and decided that since N was my dominant function; that I had to be an INXJ. Since INTJ didn't fit; I finally settled on INFJ.


----------



## reckful

Dreamer777 said:


> here, i started a thread for you to observe in the INFJ forum on reality:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/171164-does-reality-exist-what-reality.html


Needless to say, that thread is kind of meaningless without a matching thread in the INFP forum.

If you go to a New-Agey gathering and there are booths devoted to the flakier/fringier beliefs/practices that fall under the "New Age" umbrella (crystals and auras and etc.), are the people manning and paying attention to those booths more likely to be NFPs or NFJs? Answer: NFPs.

If you go to a gathering of hard scientists, are you likely to find more INFJs or INFPs? Answer: INFJs.

I don't know where you've gotten the impression that the average INFJ is more flaky/mystical/mind-over-mattery than the average INFP, but I believe the _cold, hard facts_ are the other way around.

In any case, I remain skeptical of your claim that, when it comes to the issue of "what is reality," INFPs are basically "J-ish" and INFJ's are basically "P-ish."


----------



## Octavarium

@reckful @Dreamer777

I think perhaps the biggest issue here is that the functions are often defined in a way that doesn't match the dichotomies they're supposed to correlate with, and it's particularly problematic with J/P. I mean... even Kroeger & Thuesen talk about how rigid INFPs are about their values despite their outwardly flexible, live and let live approach. From the functions POV, the INFP's rigidity would be explained by the fact that they are dominant judgers, so they are inwardly J but outwardly P. But, from the dichotomy perspective, inflexibility about values/moral rules would be more of a J thing, so more typical of INFJs than INFPs.

The same issue exists with Ni and Ne. There are lots of definitions of the functions, but one of the definitions of Ni that's floating around suggests that it's about how signs relate to meanings, and how we can change the way we interpret the outer world and come up with new perspectives/paradigm shifts by doing so. So, from the Ni perspective, my post may seem to have a particular meaning, but that's only because we are choosing to interpret it in a particular way. In fact, it's just letters on a screen. My words only have particular meanings because as a society, we have agreed to use language in a certain way, so that we can communicate. As another example, Ni might ask: what if failing an exam, or losing your job, was seen as a cause for celebration? That kind of failure isn't an objectively bad thing. It just is. It's only a bad thing because we choose to interpret it that way.

Now, isn't that way of thinking about as open ended as you can get? If anything can be interpreted as anything else, you can't possibly make any judgements about anything because, well, that's just the way you're choosing to interpret it.
If you see failure in that way, WTF would motivate you to succeed? I wouldn't be an Ni-dom going by that definition, but I can see how, if that was somebody's default way of thinking, if that was what their mind was constantly doing, they'd start to wonder whether anything at all is real. It seems like an extreme NP way of thinking by the dichotomies, but in function theory, anyone who thinks like that would be classified as an IN_J.

Meanwhile, Ne (well, one definition of it, at least) is about focusing on the potential that objects hold. It's about seeing what things in the outer world might become. That suggests to me that Ne users are the people who want to improve what's already there, while Ni users are the ones coming up with totally new paradigm shifts. But, in the dichotomies, it tends to be the NJs who are interested in improving what's already there.

So, my point is that in your discussion about INFJs and INFPs, what @Dreamer777 is describing is consistent with at least one interpretation of the functions, but @reckful is describing the dichotomies. So perhaps when you talk about "INFJs" or "INFPs", you're not talking about the same group of people. When people get into functions/dichotomy debates, everyone ends up talking past each other because they're using the same terms to refer to different things. Does INFJ mean I + N + F + J or does it mean Ni > Fe > Ti > Se? These debates end up going around in circles because people don't clarify that at the beginning.


----------



## bearotter

gravity always wins said:


> These debates end up going around in circles because people don't clarify that at the beginning.




Second this point. To give an example when reckful writes




reckful said:


> I don't know where you've gotten the impression that the average INFJ is more flaky/mystical/mind-over-mattery than the average INFP, but I believe the _cold, hard facts are the other way around._



given he subscribes to the dichotomies, he's obviously referring to the INFJ as defined by the dichotomies, not by a functions POV.





> definitions of Ni that's floating around suggests that it's about how signs relate to meanings




I think one place this is covered is http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions

(which is a mixture possibly of exerpts and interpretations).





> It seems like an extreme NP way of thinking by the dichotomies,




Yeah, this hits on something I've observed, which is that, while Myers clearly writes in Gifts Differing about how P / J are meant to classify one's orientation to the "outer world," I don't see much evidence of the way the dichotomies are framed in the tests to really make this distinction. It seems like if you're P-ish you're P-ish, and if you're J-ish you're J-ish. Meaning, whether you're an introvert or not, P/J isn't really going to _relate _to that part of your type much directly. 

I have my theory on what the relation could be, if things were cleaned up a bit, which is that I can see inferior Se or Ne in an Si or Ni resulting in an attempt to block the need to be perceptive as to outer events, and thus adopt an overly "get stuff decided so I don't have to be open to data!" outlook.

But, the thing is I can see cognitive extroverts with an S-dominance still having a really J-like attitude. What I can propose above is only one possible explanation for what the relation between J and cognitive type as proposed by Myers might be, not that this explanation always holds or that J/P isn't its own best (which honestly seems to be the case for the most part).




But then, I also see little evidence N/S in the dichotomies dimensions relates much to a strong identification with intuiting v. sensing. 

I can accept the dichotomies as their own thing, but it seems unlikely they always correspond to what I'd call a reasonable typing by functions.


----------



## reckful

There's no question that, when I refer to INFJs and INFPs, I'm talking about the kind of people who test J and P, respectively, based on the J/P dichotomy (and the official MBTI J/P items set up to tap into it). But that's also who Drenth purports to be talking about when he refers to INFJs and INFPs. And I disagree with his perspective that those MBTI items are somehow just tapping into people's _outward-oriented self_, and that people tend to be schizophrenic when it comes to J/P characteristics — either rigid/structured outwardly and open-ended/unstructured inwardly or _vice versa_.

Lenore Thomson is one of the more well-known _function_-centric MBTI theorists but, in Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, she devotes a chapter to "The Fourth Type Category." She notes that J's "may decide before all the facts are in or limit their options just to have things settled and off their minds" while P's "never feel they have enough information to decide, and may seek new options even after deciding." J's "prefer structure; will organize time and efforts to meet goals and deadlines," while P's "resist structure; may not start a project until motivated by the arrival of a deadline." J's "are responsible, firm, true to their word, but may be unwilling to change, even when things are going badly," while P's "are curious, adaptable, masters of improvisation, but may not follow through or stick to something very long."

And note that Thomson is talking here about _all_ J types (both EJs and IJs) vs. _all_ P types (both EPs and IPs). And note that her focus is a mix of external and internal. She says J's want to get the matter "off their minds" — which is not a portrait of an IJ who is externally decisive but would _internally_ have preferred to keep the matter open. And she says P's "never *feel* they have enough information" — which is similarly not a portrait of an IJ who is externally open but somehow _internally_ decisive and driven to come to firm conclusions.


----------



## Old Intern

*@Dreamer777* what you experience as J-ish in yourself is Fi conviction, and sense of rightness, or your sense of being reasonable?

*J* *is about a kind of external order. *People who are grouped as J have Te or Fe as a relatively high priority ( Fe and Te judging being the whole meaning or determining factor of J). INFJ's sense of order - extroverted judging - is relationship focused Fe not Te, so what you are seeing as flakey is the absense of what you recognize as thinking - Te?

This is the way I look at it anyway because Ti has it's own kind of order too. I simply see everything as context and desired outcome dependant, more than thinking in absolutes.

Also Se taking action has it's own type of decisiveness but if you talk to Se doms you can see how they WANT to make it up as they go. The only consistent way to describe J is how you see it actually spelled out - strong preference for Te or Fe.


----------



## Dreamer777

reckful said:


> There's no question that, when I refer to INFJs and INFPs, I'm talking about the kind of people who test J and P, respectively, based on the J/P dichotomy (and the official MBTI J/P items set up to tap into it). But that's also who Drenth purports to be talking about when he refers to INFJs and INFPs. And I disagree with his perspective that those MBTI items are somehow just tapping into people's _outward-oriented self_, and that people tend to be schizophrenic when it comes to J/P characteristics — either rigid/structured outwardly and open-ended/unstructured inwardly or _vice versa_.
> 
> Lenore Thomson is one of the more well-known _function_-centric MBTI theorists but, in Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, she devotes a chapter to "The Fourth Type Category." She notes that J's "may decide before all the facts are in or limit their options just to have things settled and off their minds" while P's "never feel they have enough information to decide, and may seek new options even after deciding." J's "prefer structure; will organize time and efforts to meet goals and deadlines," while P's "resist structure; may not start a project until motivated by the arrival of a deadline." J's "are responsible, firm, true to their word, but may be unwilling to change, even when things are going badly," while P's "are curious, adaptable, masters of improvisation, but may not follow through or stick to something very long."
> 
> And note that Thomson is talking here about _all_ J types (both EJs and IJs) vs. _all_ P types (both EPs and IPs). And note that her focus is a mix of external and internal. She says J's want to get the matter "off their minds" — which is not a portrait of an IJ who is externally decisive but would _internally_ have preferred to keep the matter open. And she says P's "never *feel* they have enough information" — which is similarly not a portrait of an IJ who is externally open but somehow _internally_ decisive and driven to come to firm conclusions.


the inner world is not the external world. the J's get the matter of their minds relate to the matters in their external world, the matters going on in their inner mind is different. vice verse for P's and keeping the matter open, open in their external matters/external world, closed with conclusiveness in their inner world. example: and INFP's values is not open for debate, it is conclusive and closed - their inner J, but they are P's in their external world. and an INFJ's perception of what reality is is endlessly open and changing, their inner P, but they are J in their external world.

as a matter of fact, here's another example for you, from me as an INFP, i have now concluded and closed the matter of what J and P means in MBTI, i have found enough evidence to my satisfaction to come up with a conclusion as i already mentioned in previous posts on this thread, that's my inner J, it must have conclusion and closure and structure, and settle the matter as quickly as possible to get it off my mind and move on to other things, total J attitude.

whereas you as an INTJ have not come to any conclusion, you leave it open, that's your inner P. you search still for more data, i don't, i've found enough to satisfy my mind, and it's now concluded for me.


ps: even look on this thread here at an INFJ @TreasureTower's avatar "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" Albert Einstein and the signature at the end of the post: It isn't necessary to believe everything is true, only what is necessary. ~Kafka 

Those are all inner perceiving, as an INFJ who is an external judger. Go to the thread i started in INFJ, look at how open-ended they are with what reality is? there is no conclusive answer, that's their inner P even though they are outer J's.


----------



## Octavarium

People who "have not come to any conclusion" and who "search still for more data" don't generally begin their posts with "There's no question..."


----------



## Dreamer777

gravity always wins said:


> People who "have not come to any conclusion" and who "search still for more data" don't generally begin their posts with "There's no question..."


huh? i dont' really understand what ur saying, plz interpret??


----------



## Octavarium

Dreamer777 said:


> huh? i dont' really understand what ur saying, plz interpret??


You've told @reckful more than once that he hasn't come to a conclusion, but his posts seem pretty conclusive to me.


----------



## bearotter

Dreamer777 said:


> Those are all inner perceiving, as an INFJ who is an external judger. Go to the thread i started in INFJ, look at how open-ended they are with what reality is?




And that's where it gets sticky (not to say you're wrong here, but just that it's an issue bound to be difficult to resolve satisfactorily). What is _reality _in this context? I could make a reasonable case for there being a reality that INFJ's acknowledge (and in fact the reality both you and they are probably conversing about), which they (by Myers' theory) would not be terribly open-ended with respect to, which INFP's would be claimed to be open-ended with respect to.

Actually by Myers' theory, almost everything you see of the INFJ's processes should correspond to their judging function, not their perceiving function. In fact, she titles an entire section "Difficulty of seeing the introverts' dominant process".


----------



## Robopop

Old Intern said:


> *Also Se taking action has it's own type of decisiveness *but if you talk to Se doms you can see how they WANT to make it up as they go. The only consistent way to describe J is how you see it actually spelled out - strong preference for Te or Fe.


This in particular is so true, extroverted sensation's impulsiveness implies a kind of decisiveness the only difference Te or Fe is much more deliberate in coming towards a conclusion, it has a solid goal or agenda in mind before hand while Pe is making seemingly random decisions in the moment as it goes along.


----------



## Old Intern

Robopop said:


> This in particular is so true, extroverted sensation's impulsiveness implies a kind of decisiveness the only difference Te or Fe is much more deliberate in coming towards a conclusion, it has a solid goal or agenda in mind before hand while Pe is making seemingly random decisions in the moment as it goes along.


I wouldn't call it random, or not for myself anyway. Ti is like a framework but it's my own framework, not an absolute that I believe everyone "should" see or adhere to, and it establishes the fall-back position or outer parameters, or limits? These limits protect what I know about myself, competancies and wants, or building blocks that would be valuable for me to have more options and learning experiences. Te says what is true and sensible is out there, verrifyable and must be delt with on its own terms. This might not make a decision black and white but it makes it more direct or not filtered through the perception lense. 

Perception in all forms I/E, was describd by Jung as indirect thinking; the data comes in without my first seeking it. That makes it not deliberate thinking, therfore not rationalized - not the same thing as baseless nonsense.

It's not about never making any conclusions in day to day stuff. It's about not wanting life to be all mapped out where all thats left is doing what is already known.

About INFJ's - they are exteamly purposeful and deliberate about relationships. Fe is their defining criteria, even though the NI truck keeps dumping on their brain (like Ne for me) Fe wins (for an INFJ).


----------



## Old Intern

@*Dreamer777 * 

 
You are kind of right about your own inner boudaries, but this is Fi - like mine is Ti.
@reckful, what you see about hard science is Ti influence because T is higher priority to INFJ, compared to INFP.
plus many INFJ's approach Fe satisfaction through the way they communicate and handle knowledge and conceptual understanding, particularly guys do this (Fe response to social pressure).
 
J is not anything at all if not for Strong objective criteria that can only come from Te or Fe having a controlling seat in a persons decisions and actions. Most of what is written about J is annecdotal; examples people can see and understand. Corrolating behavior is not the reason or the framework of the behavior.


----------



## StephMC

tangosthenes said:


> I like to think of P and J as being modifiers of the "type" held in the previous 3 letters.
> INT is a theme. EST is a theme. P or J divides those themes into two distinct characters, who nonetheless share every similarity BUT how they interact with others. Of course, that's not completely true because cognitive functions make up each type, but taking a Tower of Babel approach, it makes sense.
> 
> Although it may seem like there are big differences between INTJ/P ESTJ/P and so on, it still helps to think of the last letter as being a modifier that acts to separate two "types" that would otherwise be exactly the same. You flick on a light switch, a hall of lights come on. The dark hall is one type(INTP?), the lighted hall is another(INTJ?), but they are both INT halls, and that's the important thing.
> 
> So the INT hall would be different from the EST hall, maintaining the qualitative difference.
> 
> Tl;dr: J/P separate two relatively similar types. The types without J and P are what make the major differences between people mentally.


That's really interesting you say that, as I've always felt like J/P contained the biggest differences among the four dichotomies. I might _appear_ similar to ISTJs to people that don't know me, but I am much more like-minded with (in order from most in common to least): INTPs, ESTPs, ISFPs. Heck, I even feel more like-minded with an INTJ, considering we share Ni. With ISTJs, as much as I usually like/respect them, it feels as if there is a vast expanse between our communication styles.

I've seen this in other types as well: My INTP, ESTP, INTJ, and ENTP friends feel the same dissonance with INTJs, ESTJs, INTPs, and ENTJs, respectively. Again, not that you "don't like the other type", but that with zero shared functions it can feel disorienting to communicate with. 

On that note, take the other 3 types I share zero functions with as an ISTP:

INFPs: I can relate a little better with considering we share Ji/Pe
ENFPs: I can still relate to Pe/Ji pretty well, and it's just easier for me to get along with an extrovert.
ESTJs: I struggle with a little more than NFPs, but I can still communicate quite well with their Thinking dominant function. And again, extroverts are easier for me.

So thoughts? Do you feel the opposite, and that you feel the most in common with INTJs?


----------



## tangosthenes

StephMC said:


> That's really interesting you say thap , as I've always felt like J/P contained the biggest differences among the four dichotomies. I might _appear_ similar to ISTJs to people that don't knos
> but I am much more like-minded with (in order from most in common to least): INTPs, ESTPs, ISFPs. Heck, I even feel more like-minded with an INTJ, considering we share Ni. With ISTJs, as much as I usually like/respect them, it feels as if there is a vast expanse between our communication styles.
> 
> I've seen this in other types as well: My INTP, ESTP, INTJ, and ENTP friends feel the same dissonance with INTJs, ESTJs, INTPs, and ENTJs, respectively. Again, not that you "don't like the other type", but that with zero shared functions it can feel disorienting to communicate with.
> 
> On that note, take the other 3 types I share zero functions with as an ISTP:
> 
> INFPs: I can relate a little better with considering we share Ji/Pe
> ENFPs: I can still relate to Pe/Ji pretty well, and it's just easier for me to get along with an extrovert.
> ESTJs: I struggle with a little more than NFPs, but I can still communicate quite well with their Thinking dominant function. And again, extroverts are easier for me.
> 
> So thoughts? Do you feel the opposite, and that you feel the most in common with INTJs?


Your interaction styles are different, so you won't "relate." 

Looking at it from the perspective of comfort, every j/p pair has the opposite cognitive functions of the other.

An EST starts out this way : 0 1 0 1 11 0 01 1
Flick the P switch: 1 0 1 0 11 1 01 0
Flick the J switch: 0 1 0 1 00 1 10 0.

Notice degree of similarity/difference.

There's nothing substantial about this, I was just trying out a different perspective.


----------



## Old Intern

*Instead of a test that either does i/e, t/f, s/n, j/p or else tests for Jung functions directly,*

*A test should be made* on Te/Fi, Ti/Fe with a continuum and priority rank. A test that shows which continuum is more important and then where on each spectrum a person's criteria falls, (Te/Fi, Ti/Fe) would measure brain criteria not behavior habits. Plus a seperate test on an S/N spectrum.


Judging functions are like criteria filters and perception is like a data filter. - it IS that simple.

I'm proof that J/P is not a dividing line! Plenty of people are not extreme one or the other just like there really is such a thing (in real life) as an abivert or near ambivert!

*@StephMC * what you describe is the common thread of Ti, which consequently gets labled P. What is common is not simply a desire to be messy and flakey is it? INTJ similarity fits with this because Ni can seem hard to distiguish between Ti, the difference being Ti is on purpose with words.


----------



## elixare

Ps are static types whereas Js are dynamic type, ie. Ps' cognitions are geared towards processing objects in the space/spatial dimension/axis, whether in a concrete/literal fashion (Se) or in a more creative/imaginative fashion (Ne) whereas J's cognitions are more geared towards processing events/activities/systems in the time/temporal dimension/axis (whether in a more planning fashion as in IXXJs or in a more execution fashion as in EXXJs)

Part of the reason why P's get the stereotype of being unscheduled/tardy etc etc whereas J's are punctual/scheduled etc etc is due to this P cogntion being less concerned with the temporal axis and therefore lower awareness of the flow of time (but greater awareness of spatial objects) whereas J's cognitions are more naturally inclined to think in terms of the time axis

Socionics explains the full extent of the static v dynamic dichotomy best:



wikisocion said:


> In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.
> 
> Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time with events. Statics cannot stand empty space—they immediately fill it with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty time—boredom, stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense, Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.





> Statics
> 
> -Statics view reality as sets of episodes, scenes, pictures. The consciousness of a Static type is oriented towards perceiving these separate, individual states, and not a continuous flows of changes.
> -When statics give descriptions of events, they are inclined to generalize the event itself and treat that event as just another event among similar events (" I usually celebrate New year...").
> -In stories by Statics there is usually one main character who is the central focus of the story; this almost never changes in the course of the story.
> -In stories of Statics descriptions of states dominate over descriptions of actions, flow of events. In addition to this, transition from one state to another is not continuous but rather jumps from one state to another.
> 
> Dynamics
> 
> -For Dynamic types, events are viewed as a continuous sequence, which is not fragmented into separate episodes. The consciousness of a Dynamic type is oriented towards perceiving continuous flows of changes as opposed to discrete states.
> -When describing an event Dynamics are not inclined to generalize and describe the concrete event that has occurred ("Last New year I went to..."). In their stories, one gets the impression that the Dynamic type is at the center of the event that he or she is describing, "drawn" into it.
> -In stories by Dynamics usually all characters at some point become protagonist, assume a central role; this role may even be given to inanimate objects.
> -In stories of Dynamics descriptions of processes dominate (that which is occurring, transpiring, going on, rather than something that has already occurred).





> Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking.
> 
> Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.
> 
> The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.
> 
> Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.
> 
> Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.
> 
> Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.
> 
> Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).


----------



## braided pain

Here's a question I've been wondering: does the type of Pe influence the way it manifests? Seems to me, based on the people I know, that NPs take forever to make up their mind (Ne = lots of possibilities) while SPs will make a decision and reserve the right to change it later (Se = action oriented).

Yes? No? Thoughts? Links?


----------



## Schizoid

braided pain said:


> Here's a question I've been wondering: does the type of Pe influence the way it manifests? Seems to me, based on the people I know, that NPs take forever to make up their mind (Ne = lots of possibilities) while SPs will make a decision and reserve the right to change it later (Se = action oriented).
> 
> Yes? No? Thoughts? Links?



Now I'm not sure whether I'm an ENFP or INFP, but I sure as hell am able to relate to this. I take forever to make a decision. 

I am a VERY indecisive person, I have a difficult time making decisions. Career decisions especially, I think I have changed my mind at least a dozen times. Each time I have an idea, I will get very excited about that idea, and I wanna make that idea become a reality, and then before I make Idea Number 1 become a reality, I had Idea Number 2 pop up in front of me, and then I end up changing my mind and started gravitating toward Idea Number 2. Then when I wanna finalize Idea Number 2 and make it into a reality, I started having Idea Number 3 pop up in front of me, and then I changed my mind again. I just never seem able to make a decision at all, because this cycle just kept repeating itself again and again and again.


----------



## Ksara

childofprodigy said:


> Ps are static types whereas Js are dynamic type, ie. Ps' cognitions are geared towards processing objects in the space/spatial dimension/axis, whether in a concrete/literal fashion (Se) or in a more creative/imaginative fashion (Ne) whereas J's cognitions are more geared towards processing events/activities/systems in the time/temporal dimension/axis (whether in a more planning fashion as in IXXJs or in a more execution fashion as in EXXJs)
> 
> Part of the reason why P's get the stereotype of being unscheduled/tardy etc etc whereas J's are punctual/scheduled etc etc is due to this P cogntion being less concerned with the temporal axis and therefore lower awareness of the flow of time (but greater awareness of spatial objects) whereas J's cognitions are more naturally inclined to think in terms of the time axis
> 
> Socionics explains the full extent of the static v dynamic dichotomy best:


I haven't seen this dichotomy described this way but it does click with a few things in my head.

I have noticed that an ENFP I am close to is quite aware, and makes an effort to be aware of his surrounding, that is of greater concern for spatial objects. I find I miss this element being quite oblivious to what is going on around me. I had someone suggest to my I'm a static type, and so i've been putting this down to introverts/extroversion, that is i'm not so interested in the objects in the world.

How does an introvert static type work? rather than being aware of things/objects in the outer world and where they are spatially and IxxP would be more aware of their own thoughts/feelings/ideas/all inner objects and where they are within themselves?


----------

