# Judgers and Perceivers at work



## HollyGolightly (Aug 8, 2009)

The work place environment that employees find the most productive is determined by the forth letter in a Myers Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI; judger or perceiver.

The last letter in the four letter Myers Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI determines whether an employee prefers a highly structured or more relaxed climate to work in.
*
Judger Defined*

Judgers require a very structured, ordered and predictable environment to be happy. If Judgers are working in an unorganized environment, Judgers will either try to organize it or they will constantly complain that things are a mess, nothing is in its place or that the disorganized workplace environment affects their productivity. Judgers thrive in union or highly regulated environments. Judgers work first and play later.
*
Perceiver Defined*

Perceivers like a more laid back approach. Perceivers focus on the experience and so perceivers prefer things to unfold as they will. Perceivers do not like to limit options and thrive in dynamic, ever-changing workplace environments. Perceivers can work in a mess; in fact, they prefer to work in chaos as it stimulates creative thinking when predictability is removed. Perceivers seek employers that offer flexible working arrangements. Perceivers love to play, therefore if work is playful and unconventional, they are happy.
*
JUDGERS AND PERCEIVERS WORKING TOGETHER*

*Working with Policies and Procedures*

Perceivers are non-conformists. Perceivers abhor rules and regulations and tend to bend and stretch them every chance they get. Judgers love rules and regulations and will gladly recite them when the opportunity arises. Perceivers will question the need for rules and emphasise the need for flexibility around change.
*
Decision Making*

Judgers are experts at decisive thinking. A judger takes things seriously and analyzes and sums up the pros and cons of a situation quickly and easily. Judgers are frustrated by perceivers that seem to take a life time to make even a simple decision. Perceivers are afraid to make a decision that will limit the experience or the possibilities so they can drag their feet in protest. Judgers get the job done, Perceivers are the idea people that start the project but need the Judgers to see it through to completion.
*
Punctuality*

Judgers are clock watchers. Perceivers don’t own a watch. Judgers love schedules and time lines as it helps them to manage their time and stay organized. Judgers like a nine to five work day whereas Perceivers are far happier coming and going as they see fit and praise the employer that allows them to take a break mid-day and work until midnight one day, and then work 7 am to 3 pm the next day, and work from home the next.
*
Change Management*

Judgers like things planned and react strongly to change that happens without forewarning or discussions. Judgers need to see the rationale and the decision making process behind the change. Perceivers get excited by change and see all the great new options that the change brings. Perceivers will forget to plan ahead when change is coming and rely on Judgers to prepare, plan and gather resources.

Source: Judgers and Perceivers at Work: MBTI or Myers Briggs Type and Preferred Working Environments | Suite101.com
​


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm probably one of the most Perceiving people around, I relate to it so much.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I am heavily P.


----------



## Aerorobyn (Nov 11, 2009)

No doubt, I am definitely a P.


----------



## HollyGolightly (Aug 8, 2009)

I'm so J it hurts


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

This is where the MBTI it's fallacies, particularly when you consider the whole introverted inversion. As an ISTP, my dominant function is judging (Ti), so when we attempt to use MBTI theory of J/P in real life situations it's not a true account of introverted types. I hate to admit it, but this is where Socionics gets it right in the fact that theoretically I dominate with a judging funtion and use a perceiving function (Se) as my auxiliary.


----------



## iceman44 (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm definitely a J. I'd be lost without my list and schedule.:wink:


----------



## Singularity (Sep 22, 2009)

I am definitely a J. At a prior job I was doing all the bookkeeping for a guy that was heavily perceiving. At least once a week I wanted to explode on him. He made my job literally impossible. He would try to "help me" by entering things into the accounting program the WRONG WAY and then just shrug it off like it was no big deal...he was "only trying to help". He was such a mess and disorganized he would lose receipts, paperwork, etc. and then want me to generate reports regarding financial status!!! It was depressing for me because I knew I had no real clue how we were doing because the books were always such a mess. I became very disgruntled and we broke our ties.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

iceman44 said:


> I'm definitely a J. I'd be lost without my list and schedule.:wink:


But you are not an introvert. Myers-Briggs only inverted the dichotomy for introverted types. Her whole premise was that Jung focused only on extravert which is untrue, but MB puts all of her effort in claims that the dominant function for introverts is hidden and they are noticed by their auxiliary. That's just untrue and the insinutation implies that our auxiliary funcitons are well developed. 

The J/P dichotomy really has no use since it only reiterates what extraverted function you use first. Years ago I listed proposed codes that do just as well as the four letter:

ENTJ: ETN
ESTJ: ETS
INTP: ITN
ISTP: ITS
ENTP: ENT
ESTP: EST
INTJ: INT
ISTJ: IST 

..... and so on. Jung refers to the dominant function and then a secondary function that cannot be equal in dominance to the former. That says the theory for MB has some holes in it. By the way as an ENFJ your code would be EFN (extraverted feeling followed by intuition) as opposed to the ENFP being ENF (extaverted inutioin followed by feeling). It says the same thing as the four letter code, without a need for readers to focus on the most ineffectual code J/P.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Singularity said:


> I am definitely a J. At a prior job I was doing all the bookkeeping for a guy that was heavily perceiving. At least once a week I wanted to explode on him. He made my job literally impossible. He would try to "help me" by entering things into the accounting program the WRONG WAY and then just shrug it off like it was no big deal...he was "only trying to help". He was such a mess and disorganized he would lose receipts, paperwork, etc. and then want me to generate reports regarding financial status!!! It was depressing for me because I knew I had no real clue how we were doing because the books were always such a mess. I became very disgruntled and we broke our ties.


I am not sure how much your example is relevant to being a "J", but in reading it, you sound as though the reason for your disgruntlement was not because of your need for structure. A fallacy about J/P is that Js are organized and Ps are not. That is untrue and reminds me of an article written by an INTJ/INFJ husband/wife tandem. Their conclusion is:


> The only generalization I'm comfortable with about J/P differences is that J's like to approach the world in the style of an orderly marching band -- with structure; they feel better following a plan; they like closure and want things completed. P's like to approach the world in the style of a jazz band -- spontaneous, flexible, preferring to keep their options open. And that's as specific about J/P as I'm willing to get!
> 
> Whenever I see conversation deteriorate to the point where J and P are the only letters I'm hearing, then I know the conversation isn't about type theory anymore -- it's about bias and stereotype, or it's being conflated with functions -- and that means there's not enough knowledge about type theory overall to keep the conversation going properly. I personally don't have patience for that, and I believe it's ignorant and inappropriate.
> 
> The bottom line is that you can't point at that last letter and make a boatload of assumptions about it -- because whatever you assume will likely prove untrue for some portion of Earth's population.


Since SPs (particulary STPs) and NJs (particularly INJs) can look-a-like due to the Ti-Se/Ni-Te (and vice-versa) combs, people end up really talking about SJs and NPs in the extreme when they discuss the J/P dichotomy.


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Myers-Briggs only inverted the dichotomy for introverted types. Her whole premise was that Jung focused only on extravert which is untrue, but MB puts all of her effort in claims that the dominant function for introverts is hidden and they are noticed by their auxiliary. That's just untrue and the insinutation implies that our auxiliary funcitons are well developed.


Did she ever give a reason for her view? I certainly didn't get the impression that Jung was only describing the introverts' auxiliary functions when I read his descriptions. He barely touched on the auxiliary as I recall.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Mizmar said:


> Did she ever give a reason for her view?


From "Gifts Differing", she theorizes that Jung gave very little consideration to introverted types. Thus she based her theory on the extraverted functions for both extraverted and introverted types. I am in disagreement since the introverted function is noticeable. Jung's initial paragraph illustrates that there is a difference in saying:


> The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.





Mizmar said:


> I certainly didn't get the impression that Jung was only describing the introverts' auxiliary functions when I read his descriptions. He barely touched on the auxiliary as I recall.


No Jung did not discern a difference in E/I when describing the auxiliary. He does make the distinction (as referenced above) that there are differences between those who prefer E/I. In fact Jung only references to E/I as being supplemental to the true function which must be perceiving (S/N) or judging (T/F) by calling the E/I attitudes:


> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.


 What Jung says about the auxiliary function is:


> ....Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
> 
> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, _i.e_. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it _serves _the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Perseus (Mar 7, 2009)

*This is a very important difference that causes friction everywhere and the various Perseus Systems regard this as the most important scale and E - I the least important.

PS Mechanics
PN Psychedelics
JS Judges
JN Campaigners*


----------



## Mizmar (Aug 12, 2009)

Functianalyst - Thank you for taking the time to share that! I've read most of Jung's 'General Description of the Types" but I don't actually own the book for reference.

I agree with you. I think Jung's description of the introverted types were quite illuminating. I identify MUCH more with his description of the Introverted Intuitive than with Myer's descriptions of either the INTJ or the INFJ. I read 'Gifts Differing" few months ago and came to the conclusion that there was no place for me in her system. Also, although I feel pretty certain that I am a Jungian introverted perceiver, I feel equally certain that I am not a "Judger" in the Myers-Briggs system. At least not in most contexts. (I liked the musical illustration of the difference that you shared.)

Perseus - Your system looks interesting. I'll look for more information about it on the board. I like it better already based simply on the fact that you have a "psychedelic" type.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Mizmar said:


> Functianalyst - Thank you for taking the time to share that! I've read most of Jung's 'General Description of the Types" but I don't actually own the book for reference.
> 
> I agree with you. I think Jung's description of the introverted types were quite illuminating. I identify MUCH more with his description of the Introverted Intuitive than with Myer's descriptions of either the INTJ or the INFJ. I read 'Gifts Differing" few months ago and came to the conclusion that there was no place for me in her system. Also, although I feel pretty certain that I am a Jungian introverted perceiver, I feel equally certain that I am not a "Judger" in the Myers-Briggs system. At least not in most contexts. (I liked the musical illustration of the difference that you shared.)


No problem. I don't really want to bash MB since her studies are quite beneficial. Besides, untiil Berens began her work, I thought that Keirsey's temperament totally mised the point. However you have to put all systems into perspective. Keirsey focuses on two codes that group groups of four, MB focuses on extraversion and how we interact outside of ourselves and Socionics focuses on relationships. 

My only argument is that since all of the systems claim to have based their theories on Jung, then if I know that I am Ti-Se by his work, there should be little confusion what type I am in the respective systems. People tend to focus too much on the dichotomies instead of learning about cognitive functions which is the basis (directly or indirectly) for all of the systems. As I have stated, E/I is merely a supplemental that gives direction to the basic function (S/N,T/F), and J/P has no bearing on one's type since it merely reiterates which extraverted energy is being used. For introverts it can be misleading since it has no bearing on one's dominant type.


----------

