# 𝗠𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀-𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝘀®𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗧𝗼 𝗕𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗢𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴[Poll]



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

Emily Francos Self08/13/2020

Everyone has a specific personality type. The Myers-Briggs group created a test that tells you exactly which personality type you are, resulting in a system made up of 16 Myers-Briggs personality types, each with their own distinct traits.











According to the Myers-Briggs group, "Perception involves all the ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves all the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for them to differ correspondingly in their interests, reactions, values, motivations, and skills."
All IxTx Types (INTJ, ISTJ, INTP, ISTP) w/ Countertype Michael, Practical Typing Mara, Spacey & Mark
Each Myers-Briggs personality type is made of four of these traits:

E: extrovert
I: introvert
S: sensing
N: intuition
T: thinking
F: feeling
J: judging
P: perceiving
The way these traits interact within each type is what makes us so different from one another, in both good and not-so-good ways (we all have our own negative personality traits to take ownership of). Sometimes, this includes just how controlling we are in our relationships.

Here's each personality type and how controlling they are, ranked from most to least controlling.

The *ENTJ *personality type is naturally assertive and decisive. This can often make them seem dominating and controlling in their relationship. They do not naturally handle emotions well and they can seem insensitive to how their significant other feels.
Objective Personality Part 2 with Dave Powers | Type Talks E38
*ISFJs* are a personality type that can be a bit controlling. They enjoy having a strict structure and order in life. So, while they may be controlling, they are very loyal and faithful in their relationships.

*ESFPs* can be a bit sneaky when it comes to being controlling. They don't like to play games in their relationships but they can make their partner feel like they may not be able to have their own opinion in the relationship by being overbearing.

*ENFPs* are very passionate but sometimes they put the cart before the horse. They can come into problems with being controlling when they are thinking about all the possibilities and when they try to get to the future faster than it comes, it can come across as controlling. They really need to focus on the present.

*ESTJs* are dedicated to their significant other when they are in a relationship even though they tend to stray away from their feelings and emotions. They are very serious about committing to their partner so they can seem a little controlling when they have a hard time expressing how they feel for their partner because they may come off as overbearing when they express their emotions through their actions.

*ESTPs* are very passionate. They are highly emotional and they keep the conversation easily. Therefore, their passion can be taken as being overbearing and controlling when they are just looking to continue having fun.

*INFPs *can have overly idealized expectations for their relationships. This can lead to struggles in their relationship and conflicts because they have certain needs that they need to be met in their relationship.

*ENTPs *can struggle with following through with the promises they make to their partner. They can be a bit manipulative of their partner and they always seem to think they are right. This manipulation can be seen as controlling because they can cause their partner to feel out of sorts and unable to talk to them about it.

*ISTJ *People with the ISTJ personality type are not ones to be controlling. In relationships, they can struggle with showing their romantic side. They need someone to meet them equally in a relationship to feel comfortable.

*ISTPs *don't like to be controlling because they prefer to have short term relationships so they stay away from real relationships. They also need to have their own independence.

*INFJs *are not typically a controlling personality type. They can quickly pick up on their partner's feelings and they really like intimate relationships. They do the best in romantic relationships where they have the same core values as their partner.

*ISFPs* are not the type that will be controlling. They are the ones that would rather defer to their significant other so that they don't have to make decisions, but when they do, they take their partner's wants into consideration.

*INTJs* are not ones that will be overly controlling in their relationship. This is because they have a hard time expressing their emotions and communicating their feelings. If they are pressured, they usually run the other way in a romantic relationship if things move too fast.

*INTPs* are highly unlikely to become controlling in their relationship. They keep themselves distant until they are comfortable and have proven themselves in their relationship. INTPs struggle with expressing their emotions.

*ESFJs *are very supportive of their partner and they are deeply devoted. ESFJs will not take control away from their significant other because they need to know that their support, loyalty, and devotion are loved by their partner and they need similar gestures given to them in return.

*ENFJs *are very aware of their partner's feelings. They are less likely to be controlling because they are so concerned about their partner's happiness that they will put their own emotional needs on the back burner to make their significant other happy.









*IxxJ, ExxP Observer:* Can calmly use both reasons and values, not too much people-pleaser or self-centered, either very specialist or very generalist, likes to get more imformation

*IxxP, ExxJ Decider*: Can calmly see both realities and concepts, not too much generalist or specialist, either very people-pleaser or very self-centered, likes to be decisive


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

the heck
J in the mbti is literally about wanting to have control


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Barring institutional and/or physical power differentials, no one can be controlled unless they want to be or allow themselves to be controlled. People trap themselves.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Barring institutional and/or physical power differentials, no one can be controlled unless they want to be or allow themselves to be controlled. People trap themselves.


Yea because no such thing as a psychological power differential amirite


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> Yea because no such thing as a psychological power differential amirite


If I told you to jump off a bridge, would you?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> If I told you to jump off a bridge, would you?


I have no attachment to you


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> I have no attachment to you


So if someone you loved, told you to jump off a bridge, would you?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> So if someone you loved, told you to jump off a bridge, would you?


Prob nothing so extreme but doesnt mean I don't do things for others because of the attachment. 

It's just basic psychology and depending on one's familial background it can get really bad if bad habits are perpetuated and the person is abused and doesn't know how things could be different.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> Prob nothing so extreme but doesnt mean I don't do things for others because of the attachment.
> 
> It's just basic psychology and depending on one's familial background it can get really bad if bad habits are perpetuated and the person is abused and doesn't know how things could be different.


In a one on one situation, in order for someone to control another, it requires permission from the person who believes themselves to be controlled, to be controlled. 

In abusive situations, there are often financial or physical power differentials. In other words, the person who feels controlled is concretely dependent on the controller.


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

I think arrogance is my problem. I'm sometimes controlling of my own space and when people change things in iy without my permission I get very peeved. I'm not very condescending I don't think, I don't try to be.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> In a one on one situation, in order for someone to control another, it requires permission from the person who believes themselves to be controlled, to be controlled.
> 
> In abusive situations, there are often financial or physical power differentials. In other words, the person who feels controlled is concretely dependent on the controller.


do you think being pushed into a corner means you consent?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> do you think being pushed into a corner means you consent?


Having already addressed physical power differentials, I'm uncertain why you brought this up.


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

I've been married for 10 yrs, so this is a bit of BS


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

As far as control goes, I tend to agree with this for INFJ's. But generally speaking, I think any type can struggle with control as the ego seeks to control things out of fear. And that can take form in many ways depending on ennegram and mental states/health levels too.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

mia-me said:


> In a one on one situation, in order for someone to control another, it requires permission from the person who believes themselves to be controlled, to be controlled.
> 
> In abusive situations, there are often financial or physical power differentials. In other words, the person who feels controlled is concretely dependent on the controller.


The susceptibility to a psychological power differential starts from the inescapable threat of physical/material power differentials (at least under learned helplessness theories). A person believing themselves to be controlled due to conditioning isn't "giving permission" to be controlled, at least under any current understanding of proper consent. If there is any evidence of learned helplessness, it requires a retraining of the perception of agency. So, that non-material power dynamic is a distinct phenomenon worth addressing. I mean, you kind of touched on it with institutional power, which is the result of the same dynamic.

(also, that list in the OP is bizarre)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Having already addressed physical power differentials, I'm uncertain why you brought this up.


I'm not talking about literal corners, but psychological ones. It can happen despite the physical differential, i.e. from woman to man. Saying one consents to being controlled is like saying when you're pushed into a corner you are giving consent, when really you don't have a choice, it's coercion not consent. The one doing the controlling relies on stepping on some weakness or taking advantage of something in the other person that they can't fight against. It's possible to develop in a way that let's one escape that situation, but that still doesn't mean there was consent previously.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> The susceptibility to a psychological power differential *starts* *from the inescapable threat of physical/material power differentials* (at least under learned helplessness theories). A person believing themselves to be controlled due to conditioning isn't "giving permission" to be controlled, at least under any current understanding of proper consent. If there is any evidence of learned helplessness, it requires a retraining of the perception of agency. So, that non-material power dynamic is a distinct phenomenon worth addressing. I mean, you kind of touched on it with institutional power, which is the result of the same dynamic.
> 
> (also, that list in the OP is bizarre)


Couched in this manner, it describes every person since that's the condition that every child grows up in. And yet, not every adult experiences learned helplessness.


Red Panda said:


> I'm not talking about literal corners, but psychological ones. It can happen despite the physical differential, i.e. from woman to man. Saying one consents to being controlled is like saying when you're pushed into a corner you are giving consent, when really you don't have a choice, it's coercion not consent. The one doing the controlling relies on stepping on some weakness or taking advantage of something in the other person that they can't fight against. It's possible to develop in a way that let's one escape that situation, but that still doesn't mean there was consent previously.


Okay, let's run with your woman to man psychological scenario. Can you expand on how women mind control men? Be specific and concrete in your examples, naming exact weaknesses.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Okay, let's run with your woman to man psychological scenario. Can you expand on how women mind control men? Be specific and concrete in your examples, naming exact weaknesses.











Signs of Controlling Behavior


What is controlling behavior and how can you recognize it? Learn what causes controlling behavior, what the signs are, and how to deal with it.




www.webmd.com












Controlling People: 12 Signs to Watch For


Controlling people can take a toll on your self-image and overall well-being. Learn how to recognize controlling behavior and when it becomes abusive.




www.healthline.com





as for the weakness, that depends on the case, it can be fear of loneliness, previous attachment issues, family dynamics, self esteem, not knowing any better, etc.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

mia-me said:


> Couched in this manner, it describes every person since that's the condition that every child grows up in. And yet, not every adult experiences learned helplessness.


Every child is dependent on a caregiver for material support, but not every child grows up with inescapable, adverse experiences that rob them of agency to protect their personal safety to a degree that would lead to learned helplessness behaviors later in life.

This is all pretty well established, so I'm not sure why you're arguing about it.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> Signs of Controlling Behavior
> 
> 
> What is controlling behavior and how can you recognize it? Learn what causes controlling behavior, what the signs are, and how to deal with it.
> ...


Can you copy and paste the articles? The reason I ask is that I won't click on any links on PerC.


Squirt said:


> Every child is dependent on a caregiver for material support, but not every child grows up with inescapable, adverse experiences that rob them of agency to protect their personal safety to a degree that would lead to learned helplessness behaviors later in life.
> 
> This is all pretty well established, so I'm not sure why you're arguing about it.


Notice how I used the phrase 'couched in this manner'? 

Both of you are pointing towards mental health conditions, for how one person can psychologically control another. But they don't address psychologically healthy individuals which is what I was addressing.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

mia-me said:


> Can you copy and paste the articles? The reason I ask is that I won't click on any links on PerC.
> Notice how I used the phrase 'couched in this manner'?
> 
> Both of you are pointing towards mental health conditions, for how one person can psychologically control another. But they don't address psychologically healthy individuals which is what I was addressing.


You originally said “no one.” If you want to include qualifiers now, I have nothing further to add.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> You originally said “no one.” If you want to include qualifiers now, I have nothing further to add.


Since the opening post is a generalization, I perceived it in terms of a generalization relative to the norm.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Can you copy and paste the articles? The reason I ask is that I won't click on any links on PerC.


I'm not referring to pathological states btw, I've encountered this sort of thing in many average people (both the one doing the controlling and the other), who sure might benefit from some counseling but not to the level of being diagnosed with something and whatnot.
I have personal experience of being on the receiving end of many such behaviors from my older sister (by 8 years), and in combination with anxiety and self esteem issues I had it was quite a big problem in my life, I was feeling like I can't do anything without her approval. So you can say I've been on one more extreme end of this, but I've seen and had people talk to me about their relationships that had such elements even if it wasn't any pathology involved on either sides. Sometimes if I'm anxious about something I may even do some of those myself (i.e. criticism), tho it doesn't really last long as I feel that it actually worsens my mood.




> *What is Controlling Behavior?*
> Chances are good that, at some point in your life, you will run into controlling people. While everyone wants a measure of control over their own lives, controlling people also want to have a say in other people’s lives. At some point, wanting control over minute details of other people’s lives can cross the line into abusiveness.
> Whether dealing with a controlling boss or romantic partner, it’s important to recognize the signs of controlling behavior and learn the best way to deal with it. Many people try to control others out of a sense of anxiety. They may feel that if they aren’t in charge, things won’t turn out the way they want. For some, it’s not a sense of anxiety driving their control issues but a personality disorder.
> No matter the reason you find yourself on the receiving end of someone’s controlling behavior, it can leave you feeling embarrassed, angry, and inferior. Recognizing the signs and understanding the cause can help you understand the best way to deal with it.
> ...






> *They make you think everything’s your fault*
> 
> You’re blamed for minor things you have nothing to do with. If something goes wrong, they take on the role of victim and make you believe you’re responsible for things beyond your control.
> You might hear “it’s all your fault” or “you shouldn’t have done this” come up in conversation.
> ...


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Red Panda said:


> I'm not referring to pathological states btw, I've encountered this sort of thing in many average people (both the one doing the controlling and the other), who sure might benefit from some counseling but not to the level of being diagnosed with something and whatnot.
> I have personal experience of being on the receiving end of many such behaviors from my older sister (by 8 years), and in combination with anxiety and self esteem issues I had it was quite a big problem in my life, I was feeling like I can't do anything without her approval. So you can say I've been on one more extreme end of this, but I've seen and had people talk to me about their relationships that had such elements even if it wasn't any pathology involved on either sides.


Firstly, your situation was as a child with some obvious disparities in size and emotional development. Now that you're an adult, do you allow her to control you?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

mia-me said:


> Firstly, your situation was as a child with some obvious disparities in size and emotional development. Now that you're an adult, do you allow her to control you?


It took a lot of work to change the situation, at first I didn't even know what the problem was other than feeling "bad" about our relationship. Being an adult isn't what made a difference, but working on it did I was 25 when I finally felt I can actually resist her attitude, and then took a few more years of adjusting to stop feeling like her opinion is godly. Still sometimes it gets to me as it's not easy to block away criticism and not consider if the person is right, tho nowadays it makes me more angry than anything, that she behaves like that. So it's not a simple "consent: y/n" thing, it takes a lot of work to change how one feels/thinks and one can't just will to do this from one moment to the next, because the previous paradigm feels like your whole world is dependent on what the other person decides, so the idea of going against that can feel like falling down a cliff. I don't think it's uncommon in romance, when the person is controlling and makes you feel they do everything better and you need them, that the idea of breaking up is life-destroying, when someone has a background that makes them vulnerable to being controlled. That's a bit of a more extreme example perhaps, but people can get vulnerable to all sorts of bad behaviors when they're in love and don't know better, plus it can start small and can even escalate.


----------



## ENFPathetic (Apr 3, 2018)

How is ESTJ not at the very top. I mean, if we're talking stereotypes, you'd think the Gordon Ramsays of this world are the most controlling ones.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> It took a lot of work to change the situation, at first I didn't even know what the problem was other than feeling "bad" about our relationship. Being an adult isn't what made a difference, but working on it did I was 25 when I finally felt I can actually resist her attitude, and *then took a few more years of adjusting to stop feeling like her opinion is godly. *Still sometimes it gets to me as it's not easy to block away criticism and not consider if the person is right, tho nowadays it makes me more angry than anything, that she behaves like that. So it's not a simple "consent: y/n" thing, it takes a lot of work to *change how one feels/thinks and one can't just will to do this from one moment to the next, because the previous paradigm feels like your whole world is dependent on what the other person decides, so the idea of going against that can feel like falling down a cliff.* I don't think it's uncommon in romance, when the person is controlling and makes you feel they do everything better and you need them, that the idea of breaking up is life-destroying, when someone has a background that makes them vulnerable to being controlled. That's a bit of a more extreme example perhaps, but people can get vulnerable to all sorts of bad behaviors when they're in love and don't know better, plus it can start small and can even escalate.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think what @mia-me was getting at was that, even if you feel like it's "not a choice", unless one is a child who is dependent, or otherwise physically unable to make a choice, this _perception _is false and one is fully _capable _of changing it. Your view of your sister as "godly" is clearly not realistic, but it put her in a position of power over you that you allowed by giving her that status. In other words, just because something feels a certain way doesn't make it true. However, I agree that it isn't so black-and-white and may range from mild to severe difficulties that might take a long time to disentangle.

The assertion sounds a bit like laying blame on a circumstance outside a "powerless" person's control. Yet, the point is to give back that control by saying it is in their power to change it - through aligning perception to the reality and overcoming those feelings that prevent them from doing what is necessary. It sounds like you've already done that in your situation, and that takes a tremendous amount of self-assurance and mastery if there is a background of abusive tactics. Overall, I'm guessing mia-me's message was about offering such empowerment rather than cruelly judging people who don't feel they have it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think what @mia-me was getting at was that, even if you feel like it's "not a choice", unless one is a child who is dependent, or otherwise physically unable to make a choice, this _perception _is false and one is fully _capable _of changing it. Your view of your sister as "godly" is clearly not realistic, but it put her in a position of power over you that you allowed by giving her that status. In other words, just because something feels a certain way doesn't make it true. However, I agree that it isn't so black-and-white and may range from mild to severe difficulties that might take a long time to disentangle.
> 
> The assertion sounds a bit like laying blame on a circumstance outside a "powerless" person's control. Yet, the point is to give back that control by saying it is in their power to change it - through aligning perception to the reality and overcoming those feelings that prevent them from doing what is necessary. It sounds like you've already done that in your situation, and that takes a tremendous amount of self-assurance and mastery if there is a background of abusive tactics. Overall, I'm guessing mia-me's message was about offering such empowerment rather than cruelly judging people who don't feel they have it.


I don't disagree that it's within the person's potential to escape such a situation, as I've experienced it myself, but I disagree with describing it the way she did as it gives a false sense of how that person is experiencing the situation, making it appear as if it's just a matter of will/consent that is within a person's power to change at any moment not to mention how it implies they _want_ it, which many abusers, bullies and otherwise controlling people think as well, in order to justify their behaviors.

Anyways, I've met other people in similar dynamics, whether family or romance and many times even if they understand they dislike the situation still find themselves unable to break away, because it takes a lot of work to change how one experiences the relationship and potentially all relationships in their lives. There's a whole field of psychology called Systemic/Systems that focuses on that kind of thing and it sprung after observing sick people in a mental hospital who were having tremendous progress only to backtrack a lot, after meeting their family members once after a long time. It's interesting stuff.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> I don't disagree that it's within the person's potential to escape such a situation, as I've experienced it myself, but I disagree with describing it the way she did as it gives a false sense of how that person is experiencing the situation, *making it appear as if it's just a matter of will/consent that is within a person's power to change at any moment not to mention how it implies they want it, which many abusers, bullies and otherwise controlling people think as well, in order to justify their behaviors.*
> 
> Anyways, I've met other people in similar dynamics, whether family or romance and many times even if they understand they dislike the situation still find themselves unable to break away, because it takes a lot of work to change how one experiences the relationship and potentially all relationships in their lives. There's a whole field of psychology called Systemic/Systems that focuses on that kind of thing and it sprung after observing sick people in a mental hospital who were having tremendous progress only to backtrack a lot, after meeting their family members once after a long time. It's interesting stuff.


The bolded above is the crux of why the statement might be problematic, rather than the accuracy of it. How is this fact used to one's advantage or disadvantage by implication? Where can such a statement blur matters of consent? I think that is where it is valuable to make more nuanced/qualified claims, even if it's not rejected at face value.

I doubt that excusing the abusive implications was mia-me's intent, but it is a sticky problem, for sure.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Relative to love, of course it's not easy to break free. BTDT hardcore but that doesn't mean anyone's controlling me. Love is an addiction, considering the dopaminergic responses in the human body. So, like any other form of addiction, some do better going cold turkey and others, a slow weaning off.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

ENTP. It depends. I can be very assertive at times. I think military training taught me how to be more decisive and able to take charge, particularly in moments of chaos. I'm terrific in a crisis (I fall apart afterwards). I'm the kind of guy you want around when plans go awry. I kind of suck at the everyday details.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

X10E8 said:


> *ENTPs *can struggle with following through with the promises they make to their partner. They can be a bit manipulative of their partner and they always seem to think they are right. This manipulation can be seen as controlling because they can cause their partner to feel out of sorts and unable to talk to them about it.


This seems really odd. As an ENTP, following through on my promises is very important to me and something I have done very well. Making promises to myself and others and keeping the promises gives me a lot of confidence and joy.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> the heck
> J in the mbti is literally about wanting to have control


There’s a significant difference between self control and the desire to control others. In fact, the penchant for self control often comes from a realisation of the lack of control over the objective world, & hence other people.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Infinitus said:


> There’s a significant difference between self control and the desire to control others. In fact, the penchant for self control often comes from a realisation of the lack of control over the objective world, & hence other people.


in the MBTI, J is described as a focus on controlling the external, so naturally the J's psychology is gonna be prone to include controlling other people - how wide that sphere of influence and if it's healthy or not will depend on more individual factors
now to be clear, I don't think this means that being J equates to being a malicious control freak


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> in the MBTI, J is described as a focus on controlling the external, so naturally the J's psychology is gonna be prone to include controlling other people - how wide that sphere of influence and if it's healthy or not will depend on more individual factors
> now to be clear, I don't think this means that being J equates to being a malicious control freak


According to both Jung and Briggs, the J/P dichotomy is about making decisions. J are more prone to make decisions and P to leave options open. Both derive a sense of control from this.

In practicality, Js can be less controlling of others than Ps, it really depends on the type/functions.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Infinitus said:


> According to both Jung and Briggs, the J/P dichotomy is about making decisions. J are more prone to make decisions and P to leave options open. Both derive a sense of control from this.
> 
> In practicality, Js can be less controlling of others than Ps, it really depends on the type/functions.


Jung and Briggs don't define J or even E/I the same way though. It's very convoluted, but I'll try giving a brief explanation: In Jung's theory, J simply means to be F or T dom. But MBTI's definitions include symptoms of intro/extraversion in addition to that, as what Jung saw as introversion was the attitude of needing your expectations of the external match it, which is what the MBTI measures with J (controlling the external). Seeking conclusions is a matter of preferring judgment, but needing to keep things predictable and certain in your environment is introversion. In Jungian theory E and I are on their own axis (which is also explicitly stated in the simplified book written by Jung's colleague Dr Jacobi), and the functions are 4, which means those two attitudes encompass the personality in full the way functions do, there's no alternation between judging and perception, that was something M-B added.

I think Ps can have some controlling attitudes due to neuroticism (Stress, anxieyt etc) but they're more haphazard and situational, more like bursts than a constant attitude.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> Jung and Briggs don't define J or even E/I the same way though. It's very convoluted, but I'll try giving a brief explanation: In Jung's theory, J simply means to be F or T dom. But MBTI's definitions include symptoms of intro/extraversion in addition to that, as what Jung saw as introversion was the attitude of needing your expectations of the external match it, which is what the MBTI measures with J (controlling the external). Seeking conclusions is a matter of preferring judgment, but needing to keep things predictable and certain in your environment is introversion. In Jungian theory E and I are on their own axis (which is also explicitly stated in the simplified book written by Jung's colleague Dr Jacobi), and the functions are 4, which means those two attitudes encompass the personality in full the way functions do, there's no alternation between judging and perception, that was something M-B added.
> 
> I think Ps can have some controlling attitudes due to neuroticism (Stress, anxieyt etc) but they're more haphazard and situational, more like bursts than a constant attitude.


From my reading of Jung and Briggs, this explanation is accurate (and doesn't conflict with what you've said):


Personality Junkie said:


> The judging functions are *thinking and feeling*. These functions determine how you make decisions; based on values, ethics, and the emotional needs of others (feelers) or logic, causality, and efficiency (thinkers). The perceiving functions are sensing and intuition.


It's all about making decisions, not "controlling the external", although that is one aspect of making decisions. We don't even have to consider the E/I dichotomy, as that's only part of the impetus for decision making, & honestly doesn't matter in a lot of instances.

I know for a fact some J types don't like taking control of situations and/or people, it can be more often out of necessity, or taking hold of a problem one knows won't get solved without intervention. If one makes a habit of such, on the surface you'll definitely _appear_ more controlling. Though I wouldn't categorise that as being a 'controlling type', per the OP's question.🤷‍♂️


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

T's condescending
J's controlling in the sense of from their own perspective
P's controlling in the sense when they all get together on somehting?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Infinitus said:


> From my reading of Jung and Briggs, this explanation is accurate (and doesn't conflict with what you've said):
> 
> 
> It's all about making decisions, not "controlling the external", although that is one aspect of making decisions. We don't even have to consider the E/I dichotomy, as that's only part of the impetus for decision making, & honestly doesn't matter in a lot of instances.
> ...


the mbti describes the Js as needing to have things under control, because in their system they define extraversion as "externalization", so Js having "externalized" decision-making leads to preferring things to go their way
_"I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible. "_
that's from the official site, it's more detailed in the manual
does the way MBTI defines J make sense if we only look at the semantics here? no it doesn't imo, obv someone with J shouldn't be a perceiving-dom, but that's how they type people

I don't think it's so controversial, most if not all Js I've met IRL are pretty proud of their drive and ability to have things under control, including other people be it in a negative or positive manner (selfishly or not), or otherwise they simply avoid anything that threatens to change their minds or w/e, exercising their control like that.


----------



## Infinitus (Jul 12, 2019)

Red Panda said:


> the mbti describes the Js as needing to have things under control, because in their system they define extraversion as "externalization", so Js having "externalized" decision-making leads to preferring things to go their way


I don’t disagree with that, we don’t like not having control of our lives. Though ‘having things under control’ doesn’t necessarily equate to controlling people, either in situations or relationships. I derive a sense of control all by myself. Which was my original point.


Red Panda said:


> I don't think it's so controversial, most if not all Js I've met IRL are pretty proud of their drive and ability to have things under control, including other people be it in a negative or positive manner (selfishly or not), or otherwise they simply avoid anything that threatens to change their minds or w/e, exercising their control like that.


I do think it’s controversial if you consider the original post is about controlling behaviour in the context of relationships, which is unhealthy & potentially dangerous. The fact is that both Js & Ps are capable of controlling behaviours. Whereas the original comment I responded to makes it out like control is purely a J thing.

I’m also proud of my drive and my ability for self control, I would never be proud of controlling people in the ways you quoted in an earlier post: gaslighting, emotional manipulation, lying, taking charge of others finances, dictating where someone can go, keeping tabs, invading privacy, etc. I don’t consider myself potentially abusive because MBTI says I prefer a decision-making function. I’m J and have no desire to control others. 🤷‍♂️


----------

