# INFJ's, INTJ's, and not being very J-like



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

So INFJ's are J's, but we still have issues sometimes with J things like procrastination, motivation, discipline, consistency, timeliness, and decisiveness. INTJ's sometimes have similar issues with inertia and simply avoiding life for fear of failure. I attribute this to being Perceiving dominant (Ni), but I'd like to know your thoughts about how and why this manifests and what it's like for you. How are you like a J and how are you not and what is the psychology and type theory like behind it?


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

Not sure about INTJs, but I think I come off more stereotypically "Jish" than a lot of the FJs I've known. At least in regards to working with INFJs and ESFJs specifically.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

I'm a 'J' (Te is my strongest function), but I still struggle with procrastination. I know there are things that need to be done, but my hatred for those tasks is so immense that it takes every ounce of will I have to stay on track.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

The J/P dichotomy in MBTI is misleading because INTJ's are primarily dominant Percievers (Introverted Intuition is a Perception function). Inferior Se, repressed by dominant Ni, does indeed give a layer of inertia to INTJ's. They might need external motivational force at times to keep them engaged with the world.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Wistfulness said:


> *The J/P dichotomy in MBTI is misleading because INTJ's are primarily dominant Percievers *(Introverted Intuition is a Perception function). Inferior Se, repressed by dominant Ni, does indeed give a layer of inertia to INTJ's. They might need external motivational force at times to keep them engaged with the world.


This is a common misconception. To clarify, the culprit lies within type dynamics. The J/P dichotomy stands very well on its own much like the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> This is a common misconception. To clarify, the culprit lies within type dynamics. The J/P dichotomy stands very well on its own much like the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five.


You are correct. I didn't mean to say otherwise.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Might interest you:
Why INFPs, INTPs, INFJs, & INTJs Struggle to Act


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Nope. Nope nope nope. You say that INFJs struggle with discipline, consistency, timeliness, and the like, but these aren't INFJ problems. They're your problems. Most INFJs I've met excel in these areas.

As a J type, INFJs are undeniably more "J" than their prospecting counterpart, INFP.

I wish you the best of luck with your problems, pal.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

Would anyone like to provide some specific examples from their own lives or of people you know?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

lackofmops said:


> Nope. Nope nope nope. You say that INFJs struggle with discipline, consistency, timeliness, and the like, but these aren't INFJ problems. They're your problems. Most INFJs I've met excel in these areas.
> 
> As a J type, INFJs are undeniably more "J" than their prospecting counterpart, INFP.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck with your problems, pal.


I would offer that those "INFJs" you know are actually ISFJs.

SJs are very reliable and hard-working people.


----------



## piscesfish (Nov 30, 2013)

Gotta agree somewhat with @lackofmops here. Most INFJs (including myself) are very well-endowed when it comes to J traits. Our Ni thrives on advance preparation and organizational perfection. It's what we do.

Now, I do find that there are some INFJs-- a minority subgroup, if you will-- that (and maybe are mistyped INFPs) mistype as or are at least similar to INFPs. In contrast to us INxJ-leaning INFJs, these people are far more dreamy and disengaged and seem perceiver-like. So perhaps it is this subgroup to which you are referring, but if so, it does not apply to all INFJs, and certainly not to all Ni-types (like I said, Ni is an inherently J function).

As a sidenote, I'd guess that enneagram comes into play here, too. For example, INFJ 1s and 6s are more likely to be more J-like INFJs, while 4s and 9s may be the ones to fall under the aforementioned subtype.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

lackofmops said:


> Nope. Nope nope nope. You say that INFJs struggle with discipline, consistency, timeliness, and the like, but these aren't INFJ problems. They're your problems. Most INFJs I've met excel in these areas.
> 
> As a J type, INFJs are undeniably more "J" than their prospecting counterpart, INFP.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck with your problems, pal.


I know an ENTJ who almost cried in front of me because his home life was falling apart. Drawing from that, based on your reasoning, ENTJs struggle with emotional expression and getting themselves into bad circumstances. Do you agree? Probably not. It's nonsensical to lump people of the same type together and assume that they're always going to excel or fail at certain things simply because of their MB. Even if you have met INFJs who are generally disciplined, you can't take those experiences and use them to determine how every INFJ is going to act. 

INFJs _are_ known to have procrastination problems. It's such a widespread joke in Myers-Briggs discussions that I'm surprised at it being questioned here.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

I struggle with procrastination (I'm actually procrastinating as we speak). I'm not a very good "J" as far as external matters go; I'm more about the organization in my head. When it comes to examining whatever thought or emotion pops up, I am incredibly stringent. 

I had a discussion about this with someone recently (an ENFP -- the inquisitor of INxJs, if you will) and we eventually came to the conclusion that INxJs who struggle with procrastination and timeliness work this way because they've learned that they work best on their toes. An INTJ acquaintance of mine who preaches sermons will literally make up his points as he's sitting in the audience, then deliver whatever he came up with as if he's been honing it for weeks. In my college classes I often wait until the day-of to turn in my assignments, and then I end up getting 100 while people who spent days preparing get lower grades.

While this is something that I find _useful_ about myself, I don't like that I've used it to my advantage so often. I believe that if I keep it up and don't practice some discipline, it's going to come around and bite me one of these days. As of yet, I haven't faced any real, damaging consequences. Part of me wishes that I would just so I could learn my lesson. 

If I'm given time to over-think things, then I will, and that usually results in poorer quality in my work. Spontaneity favors me for some reason, but I know that this won't always be the case. It hasn't been, in some instances. There were times when I knew I could have turned in better quality assignments if I had given myself more time (but even then, I usually get at least a 90 on those). 

I believe that this is a result of a weird, somewhat broken Ni/Ti (where INFJs are concerned, obviously). For one, my Ni has been fed with the idea that I can get away with last-minute work, and so it has more reason to make me believe that I don't need to work on my procrastination problem. My Ti gets stressed out if it's given to broad of an idea to work with ("Well, I have to write an essay about Confucian application in law... how am I going to write this, exactly? Too many ideas..."), and it won't break down and actually _do_ something until it has to -- the last minute.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

lackofmops said:


> Nope. Nope nope nope. You say that INFJs struggle with discipline, consistency, timeliness, and the like, but these aren't INFJ problems. They're your problems. Most INFJs I've met excel in these areas.
> 
> As a J type, INFJs are undeniably more "J" than their prospecting counterpart, INFP.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck with your problems, pal.


Au contraire; I am on a facebook group for only INFJ's and someone asked a question about qualities you don't have but admire, and several people talked about these problems. Procrastination was a big one. This is why I wanted to gather more information on the subject, because it does seem to be a pattern. I highly doubt all these people are mistyped INFP's. Obviously not every INJ will have the same issues to the same degree, and I do think it reflects somewhat the strength of the J preference.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

zosio913 said:


> I struggle with procrastination (I'm actually procrastinating as we speak). I'm not a very good "J" as far as external matters go; I'm more about the organization in my head. When it comes to examining whatever thought or emotion pops up, I am incredibly stringent.
> 
> I had a discussion about this with someone recently (an ENFP -- the inquisitor of INxJs, if you will) and we eventually came to the conclusion that INxJs who struggle with procrastination and timeliness work this way because they've learned that they work best on their toes. An INTJ acquaintance of mine who preaches sermons will literally make up his points as he's sitting in the audience, then deliver whatever he came up with as if he's been honing it for weeks. In my college classes I often wait until the day-of to turn in my assignments, and then I end up getting 100 while people who spent days preparing get lower grades.
> 
> ...


I've never been able to consistently or reliably do this, although I can relate to the Ni-Ti bit. I have to at least have several well thought out ideas to work with if I am going to pull something off at the last minute. In high school I was a huge procrastinator because I daydreamed all the time and feared failure, and it didn't work out well at all. In college I got my act together and finally started acting like a real J and it felt good. I still would sometimes simply not be able to finish my philosophy papers until the last minute (and one time had to ask for an extension) because like you say, there were too many possibilities for what to say and I couldn't think of how to be specific enough. That was another problem. Ni thinks an idea makes perfect sense and there is great logic in it but then when you go to actually write about it you realize you can't really put it into words normal people understand. What I would do is start thinking about the idea for a paper immediately, and just keep developing and refining it until I basically have a good outline; this would take most of the time before the deadline. Then I would write a rough draft and edit it according to comments.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

greenfairy026 said:


> So INFJ's are J's, but we still have issues sometimes with J things like procrastination, motivation, discipline, consistency, timeliness, and decisiveness. INTJ's sometimes have similar issues with inertia and simply avoiding life for fear of failure. I attribute this to being Perceiving dominant (Ni), but I'd like to know your thoughts about how and why this manifests and what it's like for you. How are you like a J and how are you not and what is the psychology and type theory like behind it?


I think this just is related to interest. I'm an INTJ so I'll limit myself to my type. When something is very interesting to an INTJ he'll be on top of it like an ENTJ. Te will be leading here. But if it's not interesting enough and just something that has to be done, then procrastination will happen.

As a contrast, ENTJ's don't have this problem. They just can't stand the fact that it's not done yet even if they hate the task they have to do. If they believe it has to be done they'll prioritize it and won't rest until they get it done.

INTJ's have this strongly with knowledge seeking. When they haven't figured something out yet, they'll keep going at it until they have figured it out. This is more internal so less visible to the outside world.


----------



## Van Meter (Sep 28, 2012)

I've noticed Infjs seem to either drift one of two ways. One stays Infj, the other develops Ti-Se, which compromises Ni-Fe to a noticeable extent. I feel that the first route is not very challenging, but I can't say that its necessarily bad. The world can use a little bit of classic Infj. The second route is extremely challenging, but I've experienced that true growth comes from it. You can handle more things that come your way, and are less likely to write off situations or people. Some people say that Ni is a perceiving function, I strongly disagree. It is fundamentally a function that looks to categorize things and box them up. While it is a great function, it leads to some noticeable downfalls. It tends to discriminate things that really should be looked at in a little more depth. A well developed Ti can serve that purpose, and a little Se can aid in putting an idea into fruition.

This is heavily my own experience, which is full of subjective factors, so I'm not proposing some sort of unifying theory or anything. People have different goals that might not need Ti very much.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> Nope. Nope nope nope. You say that INFJs struggle with discipline, consistency, timeliness, and the like, but these aren't INFJ problems. They're your problems. Most INFJs I've met excel in these areas.
> 
> As a J type, INFJs are undeniably more "J" than their prospecting counterpart, INFP.
> 
> I wish you the best of luck with your problems, pal.


The INFJs you know may be ISFJs. They do have all the qualities like discipline, timeliness, and consistency. 

My mother is ISFJ and I have two ex BFs and one of my best friends being ISFJs. I (INFJ) am definitely the lazy one compare to them. The most telling is work. They get the work done before play. I procrastinate and always wait until the last minute to finish school work or work work. I am on time when the event is important otherwise I tend to be slightly late to arrive.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Peter said:


> I think this just is related to interest. I'm an INTJ so I'll limit myself to my type. When something is very interesting to an INTJ he'll be on top of it like an ENTJ. Te will be leading here. But if it's not interesting enough and just something that has to be done, then procrastination will happen.
> 
> As a contrast, ENTJ's don't have this problem. They just can't stand the fact that it's not done yet even if they hate the task they have to do. If they believe it has to be done they'll prioritize it and won't rest until they get it done.
> 
> INTJ's have this strongly with knowledge seeking. When they haven't figured something out yet, they'll keep going at it until they have figured it out. This is more internal so less visible to the outside world.


I am the same as an INFJ. I am on it only when I am interested otherwise I can't be bothered or I'd procrastinate. When I am interested to know something, I'd search high and low to find information until I feel it's done. I call it my "fire". It burns inside that nobody sees because I tend to go at it alone.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

piscesfish said:


> Gotta agree somewhat with @lackofmops here. Most INFJs (including myself) are very well-endowed when it comes to J traits. Our Ni thrives on advance preparation and organizational perfection. It's what we do.
> 
> Now, I do find that there are some INFJs-- a minority subgroup, if you will-- that (and maybe are mistyped INFPs) mistype as or are at least similar to INFPs. In contrast to us INxJ-leaning INFJs, these people are far more dreamy and disengaged and seem perceiver-like. So perhaps it is this subgroup to which you are referring, but if so, it does not apply to all INFJs, and certainly not to all Ni-types (like I said, Ni is an inherently J function).
> 
> As a sidenote, I'd guess that enneagram comes into play here, too. For example, INFJ 1s and 6s are more likely to be more J-like INFJs, while 4s and 9s may be the ones to fall under the aforementioned subtype.


I think you are mixing apples and oranges. I am very organized in my mind and in regards to my belongings. My job is analytical in nature. This is why I can procrastinate but get the work done faster than my workers because I have a system to connect dots in my mind.

Friends comment on how organized and prepared I am. Yet I still procrastinate and struggle with discipline issue when it's something I am not interested in doing (chores).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

zosio913 said:


> The only purpose that the 4 letters really serve are to point to the 8 functions, which are the _real_ indicator of type.





zosio913 said:


> I would refer you to @emberfly's quote. I'm honestly baffled at your reasoning in regards to all of this. Your understanding of the Myers-Briggs is too rigid and black-and-white to actually be applied to individuals.


Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.

And among the things that Myers discovered — despite some lip service to the functions — is that the dichotomies are really what type is about. And as James Reynierse has (rightly) noted, 50 more years of MBTI-related data has very much confirmed the correctness of Myers's dichotomy-centric perspective, and strongly suggests that the proper characterization of the so-called "cognitive functions" is that they're essentially what Reynierse calls a "category mistake."

What's more, and contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible — in part because, as Myers understood, _all_ the dichotomy _combinations_ correspond to noteworthy aspects of personality. Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with _four different dominant functions_), and she may or may not have been right about that (Keirsey certainly disagreed) — but she correctly understood that there was nothing particularly special about the combinations that purportedly correspond to the functions.

If you're interested in reading a lot more about the INFP=Fi-Ne-Si-Te model — a function stack that's inconsistent with both Jung _and_ Myers and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks — and about the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and the posts linked to in its last two paragraphs.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

zosio913 said:


> Seriously? Do you even know how the 8 functions work?
> 
> By your reasoning, because I'm not good at regularly organizing my external environment, or valuing a time table, I'm an INFP. An INFP has a vastly different set of functions, one that doesn't match up with an INFJ in the slightest. Same goes for INTPs and INTJs.
> 
> Myers-Briggs is about much more than the sum of the 4 letters. The only purpose that the 4 letters really serve are to point to the 8 functions, which are the _real_ indicator of type. The fact that my room is usually a mess and that I get my assignments done at the last minute doesn't change the fact that I use Ni rather than Ne, or Fe rather than Fi.


So what I'm hearing here is that you have an issue with type dynamics. It is the part of the theory that says P/J point to respective functions. However, the P/J dichotomy has a meaning all on its own similar to that of the Conscientiousness domain of the Big Five.

[HR][/HR]


zosio913 said:


> My thoughts exactly. I think that people misunderstand the application of J in regards to S and N. SJs are the ones who are going to be more externally organized; that's their world. NJs certainly _can_ be externally organized (I would say that ENTJs are best at this, generally), but I wouldn't say that it's our main priority. *We're more about organizing the abstract.*


This sounds like what an INTP or INFP would do a la Ti or Fi. 

Otherwise I think you may be misleading yourself by assuming that "organization" means very specific things. The J concept is more general and abstract than you give it credit. Being organized does not necessarily mean that all of your things are neatly packed and labelled etc. It is conceptually broader. You appear to otherwise be thinking of the concept in very concrete terms.

[HR][/HR]


greenfairy026 said:


> Myers Briggs type theory includes cognitive functions with it. The 4 letters don't really mean much without them. In fact, just going by the dichotomies creates more mistyping I think because if you are going to type by descriptions that creates so much variation in your categories it makes it imprecise to an impractical degree, as well as being practically useless for people who don't neatly fit into the boxes. You don't think it is possible to legitimately have some J traits and some P traits in different areas? Most people do. You're just throwing them out of the system or ignoring the ways in which they don't fit and refusing to give an explanatory account. You can keep thinking everyone is mistyped if you want but if you're not even using the same system as other people you don't really have a valid place to tell them they are not the type they say they are. Not that anyone does anyway.


Yes, the MBTI does point to function-attitudes. It is inaccurate to state that the "4 letters don't really mean much without them." They have plenty of meaning all on their own. Here are many examples:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/273458-mbti-reference.html

EDIT: To put it in terms of analogy, what you're suggesting is akin to saying that red and blue have no meaning; to understand it, you need to be looking at scarlet or crimson and navy or sky blue.

Of course everyone has J and P traits, just like E/I, S/N, T/F, and even the precious cognitive functions (Fe/Fi, Ne/Ni, etc). What's your point? You are right, @_Abraxas_ is not using the same system as other people. Because most people rely on an arbitrary system derived from their own understanding. 

Does that mean people are necessarily mistyped? Not really. But let's be honest about the "system" we're using. Myself, I rely upon the official material for the MBTI since I am a certified practitioner. Or if we're going to talk functions, then I rely upon the writings of Jung as a source. What "system" are you working from?


[HR][/HR]


emberfly said:


> I'm not sure. Could you give me an example of a chaotic work environment? I definitely do well when there are clearly-defined deadlines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From Jung on Te:

_"Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned."_

From Jung's Thinking definition:

_"Thinking is the psychological function which, following its own laws, brings the contents of ideation into conceptual connection with one another ... The term 'thinking' should, in my view be confined to the linking up of ideas by means of a concept"_

If Te is simply bringing ideas together by means of a concept which are based on criteria supplied by external conditions, then what does it have to do with organizing the outside world or any other such thing?

Could that organizational component not categorically come from the Judging category itself?

This kind of thinking (no pun intended) allows for the idea that a NiFe can be an INFJ or INFP depending on a general preference for being planful or flexible for example. No?


[HR][/HR]


zosio913 said:


> I would refer you to @_emberfly_'s quote. I'm honestly baffled at your reasoning in regards to all of this. Your understanding of the Myers-Briggs is too rigid and black-and-white to actually be applied to individuals.


Or perhaps yours is not rigid enough and allows for many ideations and rationalizations that are incongruent with reality? 

That would fall in line with a Ni-dom. Well an extreme one. Have a look at Jung's go-to example of a Ni-dom:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/181689-tertiary-function.html#post4756686

Joking aside, wouldn't a supposedly "P-ish" Ni-dom (someone who is flexible and open to possibilities) be more receptive to a different perspective that may not match their own? J's are decisive and closure-seeking. Which is what it seems like you are doing here. I'm not suggesting what type you are or aren't, but offering some things to consider.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Functions do not validate certain aspects of dichotomies. Dichotomies sometimes validate certain aspects of the functions. They are not the same at all. They overlap in some respects, and that's it. This is what I meant by "hand waving" them in. Specific aspects of each function piggyback on research that validates the dichotomies - not the other way around.
> 
> Function enthusiasts seem to think that just because a few sentences of a function description correlate with data backing up one or more dichotomies, that somehow means functions "exist". It does not. It means Jung got a few things right. That's it.
> 
> Also, I'm not the one standing on the fringe shouting inward and arguing some radical point of view here. My information in this thread is congruent with the general sentiment of experts in the field. Again, I refer you here to posts made by @_reckful_ on the topic of "dichotomies versus functions".


So why is it that the official Myers Briggs website talks about cognitive functions? And didn't Jung's theories come before the letter typing system?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

greenfairy026 said:


> So why is it that the official Myers Briggs website talks about cognitive functions? And didn't Jung's theories come before the letter typing system?


There's no question that Myers and the official MBTI folks have always given a certain amount of what I've often characterized as "lip service" to the cognitive functions, but there's also no question that the dichotomies have always been, and remain, what the official MBTI is really all about, and I've put a long discussion of that (from this long INTJforum post) in the spoiler.


* *




For anyone who thinks that the rejection of the functions that Reynierse advocates would represent a revolutionary shift as far as the "official" MBTI is concerned, I'd argue, to the contrary, that the MBTI has essentially been centered around the dichotomies from the beginning. Aside from the test instruments themselves, the analysis in Myers' Gifts Differing focuses substantially more on the dichotomies than the functions. Myers was a nobody who didn't even have a psychology degree — not to mention a woman in mid-20th-century America — and I assume that background had at least something to do with the fact that her writings tend to somewhat disingenuously downplay the extent to which her typology differs from Jung. So it's no surprise, in that context, that the introductory chapters of Gifts Differing, besides introducing the four dichotomies, also include quite a bit of lip service to Jung's conceptions — or, at least, what Myers claimed were Jung's conceptions — of the dominant and auxiliary functions. But, with that behind her, Chapters 4-7 describe the effects of the "EI Preference," the "SN Preference," the "TF Preference" and the "JP Preference," and those four chapters total _22 pages_. Chapter 8 then describes the eight functions — and that chapter consists _solely_ of a half-page table for each function, for a total of _four pages_. What's more, those four pages were simply Briggs' summaries of Jung's function descriptions, and Myers _ignored_ (and/or adjusted) substantial portions of those in creating her own type portraits. (As one example, as discussed in this post, Myers' IS_Js bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And for a detailed discussion of the surgery Myers performed on Jung's conception of Te, see this post.)

But most tellingly, following Myers' introductory and portrait chapters, the second half of Gifts Differing — covering a variety of topics, including "Use of the Opposites," "Type and Marriage," "Learning Styles" and "Type and Occupation" — focuses _almost exclusively_ on the dichotomies, both singly and in combinations that don't correspond to the functions. She talks about introverts and extraverts, thinking types and feeling types, intuitives and sensing types, judging types and perceptive types, "INs," "ESs," "NF types," "STs," "introverts with thinking" (i.e., ITs), "EF types," "ESF types," "ISTs" and on and on. At one point in the Type and Marriage chapter, "FJ types with extraverted feeling" are mentioned, but that's very much the exception that proves the rule. References to the functions (and the dichotomy combinations that correspond to them) are almost entirely absent from the book's second half, and on the rare occasions when she refers to one of the two-letter combinations that corresponds to a function — e.g., SJ (Si) — she most often makes no reference to the function. At one point, for example, she notes that "Judging types, especially those who prefer sensing (the –S–J types), like their work to be organized, systematic, and foreseeable." I'm not suggesting that this means Myers didn't really believe in the functions (necessarily, anyway), but she was certainly not a theorist who thought the functions were anything like the main event.

Five years later, the 1985 edition of the MBTI Manual, co-authored by Myers, was even more lopsided in favor of the dichotomies. In a 1990 article ("Review of Research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 70, 1187) in which John B. Murray concluded that the MBTI's "indices of reliability and validity have been extensively investigated and have been judged acceptable," Murray noted that over 1500 studies were included in the 1985 Manual — many of them either discussed in the text or included in one or more tables of statistics. And good luck finding _any results_ in that manual that are framed in terms of the cognitive functions. The 1985 Manual is full of statistics correlating type with interests, occupations, scholastic achievement, other personality measures, etc. — and the reported correlations _almost exclusively_ involve the four dichotomies, the sixteen types and/or dichotomy combinations with no meaningful function correspondence — with the combinations most often included (by a _wide margin_) being ST, SF, NT and NF. So, on top of the fact that Myers and the rest of the official MBTI establishment were predominantly dichotomy-focused, it's also clear that the independent psychologists conducting many of those studies weren't laboring under any misconception that the MBTI dichotomies were relatively superficial indicators (convenient for testing and/or labeling purposes) while the cognitive functions were what the typology was _really about_.

The third edition of the MBTI Manual was published in 1998 and, according to the Reynierse article I linked to above, it cites a grand total of _eight studies_ involving "type dynamics" (i.e., the functions model) — and Reynierse summarizes them as "six studies that failed, one with a questionable interpretation, and one where contradictory evidence was offered as support." He then notes, "Type theory's claim that type dynamics is superior to the static model and the straightforward contribution of the individual preferences rests on this ephemeral empirical foundation."

And finally, I think it's also worth noting that the 17-page report that an ENFJ (for example) receives after taking the relatively recent MBTI _Step II_ test includes page after page of dichotomy-based analysis (including five separate subscales for each of the four dichotomies) and not a single mention of "extraverted feeling" or "introverted intuition" other than a diagram near the end that shows that "ENFJs like Feeling best, Intuition next, Sensing third and Thinking least," and one brief note about tending to use Feeling in the "outer world" and Intuition in the "inner world." _All the rest_ of the ENFJ descriptions in the report — after the brief initial profile, which isn't broken down by components — are descriptions of N (not Ni or Ne), F (not Fi or Fe) and so on, and they're the _same descriptions_ of N and F (and the five subscales of each) that ENFPs receive in their reports (notwithstanding the fact that ENFJs are Fe-Ni and ENFPs are Ne-Fi). And Nancy Harkey has pointed out that "there is no discussion in the Step II manual of applying type dynamics (dominant, auxiliary etc.) to the overall preferences. I really don't know what that means at the moment, but it is curious."

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

I tend not to see J and P as being action orientated at all. I tend to see it like this. 

J - closure seeking. Does not like unanswered questions and wants to find conclusion as soon as able. 
P - possibility seeking. Does not like to close the door on anything and always open to possibility of revision of previously decided upon things. 

In that way J's can absolutely procrastinators, as mentioned, it's an avoidance thing rather than a possibility seeking thing.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

zosio913 said:


> I know an ENTJ who almost cried in front of me because his home life was falling apart. Drawing from that, based on your reasoning, ENTJs struggle with emotional expression and getting themselves into bad circumstances. Do you agree? Probably not. It's nonsensical to lump people of the same type together and assume that they're always going to excel or fail at certain things simply because of their MB. Even if you have met INFJs who are generally disciplined, you can't take those experiences and use them to determine how every INFJ is going to act.
> 
> INFJs _are_ known to have procrastination problems. It's such a widespread joke in Myers-Briggs discussions that I'm surprised at it being questioned here.


True, but the original poster was doing the same thing (lumping all types together) by saying that all INFJs struggle in these areas. I agree that each member of a type is unique.

We're all special little snowflakes.



emberfly said:


> I would offer that those "INFJs" you know are actually ISFJs.
> 
> SJs are very reliable and hard-working people.


This is probably true. People can score as INFJ on a test when they are in fact another type.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

reckful said:


> Carl Jung — mystical streak notwithstanding — was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the _science_ of personality.
> 
> And among the things that Myers discovered — despite some lip service to the functions — is that the dichotomies are really what type is about. And as James Reynierse has (rightly) noted, 50 more years of MBTI-related data has very much confirmed the correctness of Myers's dichotomy-centric perspective, and strongly suggests that the proper characterization of the so-called "cognitive functions" is that they're essentially what Reynierse calls a "category mistake."
> 
> ...


While I can't say you and @_Abraxas_ et al are wrong because I would have to read all your sources and data and that would take a long time, I can say the following. Incorporating cognitive functions into the theory in my opinion and those of many people and even going so far as to say that the dichotomies illustrate the function relationships, has far superior and more inclusive explanatory power for understanding what we observe and experience in ourselves and others. Theories are a malleable thing which respond to the people who use them, and while the official creators of original versions of a theory might have a specific interpretation of it, I think others may have an equally valid interpretation provided it is internally consistent and reflects reality accurately. Plus it is worth keeping in mind that science (especially social science) depends on so many factors that the data almost always has multiple interpretations based on what exactly is observed, how it is observed, who is interpreting it, what framework they are using, etc. I think this debate is based largely on Te vs. Ti.

Te: collective observation, collective conclusions
Ti: individual logic

or

Ti: This is right because it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to you there's nothing I can do. End.
Te: This is right because read this mountain of data. End.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

lackofmops said:


> True, but the original poster was doing the same thing (lumping all types together) by saying that all INFJs struggle in these areas. I agree that each member of a type is unique.
> 
> We're all special little snowflakes.
> 
> ...


I was not actually trying to say all INFJ's are like this. Only that a sufficiently large number are as to merit elaboration and explanation.

Personally I rarely score as INFJ. I arrived at that conclusion by extensive study of the functions. I see them as fundamental partly because they describe me better than the dichotomies. I scored on the original test as INTJ, then took a version in college and got INFP, then got that for awhile, then decided INFP didn't really fit that well, then started scoring INTP a lot, thought Ti and Fe fit really well, and finally after being told over and over I am not in fact INTP and admitting they were right I arrived at INFJ. And Ni and Se in fact really fit me better than Ne and Si did. If I were to go solely by the dichotomies I would have to say my type has changed throughout my life, which is inconsistent with the theory; however I have patterns now on the dichotomies which are consistently different than they used to be and I am happier. I think people's externally observable characteristics reflect function and general psychological development.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

greenfairy026 said:


> ...


More like,

You: "I really want this thing I believe to be true. If I try really hard, I can avoid accepting that I'm wrong and admitting it. Instead I'll try to sound really sensitive and inclusive of all points of view, because that's the intelligent thing to do, right? You guys are being jerks. Please notice me, sempai - I'm a good person."

Us: "Here are a shitload of facts, read them at your leisure. TL;DR, you're wrong. It's not a big deal. Don't worry about it - been there, done that. The more you know. Please stop beating a dead horse."

Functions have nothing to do with it. Unless you mean those of us who prefer thinking to feeling criticizing you and correcting you without mixing honey and sugar into the medicine.


----------



## greenfairy026 (Apr 23, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> More like,
> 
> You: "I really want this thing I believe to be true. If I try really hard, I can avoid accepting that I'm wrong and admitting it. Instead I'll try to sound really sensitive and inclusive of all points of view, because that's the intelligent thing to do, right? You guys are being jerks. Please notice me, sempai - I'm a good person."
> 
> ...


If that's the way you want to think about it by all means I can't stop you. Have fun.

P.S. Some philosophers think facts are imaginary.


----------



## LittleMissCurious (Jul 1, 2012)

The MBTI was built upon Jung's theory of psychological types, point, blank period. Of course subsequent researchers have wanted to distinguish themselves by promoting something unique, but I think the point is overstated. Pushing the dichotomy between P and J speaks to the instrument itself and making it more convenient to create a questionnaire that will lead someone to fall clearly on one side versus the other. If the MBTI asked more nuanced questions, it would have to grapple with the nuances of human personality, which cognitive function theory actually addresses. The fact that people treat P and J as if they were functions in themselves is why so many people mistype themselves. 

When the MBTI discusses P and J, it is referring to the sensory world. The MBTI without the underlying functions is pointless and largely without basis.

I would say that I am much more J like than people might think.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Both INTJs and INFJs are Pi-dominants and leading with a function that only focuses when there's a point to do so (Ni).

As scattered as Ne types are, INFPs can be a lot more set in their routines and little comforts, even more so when they reach an age mature enough for their Si and Te to be developed in a sensible way. 

J and P as dichotomies representing a set of stereotypes never made sense to me.
Even more so since their "organization" is often reflective of their dominant function.
It's quite obvious that a Te and a Fe dominant will be both more focused than a Ne dominant but only concerning specific areas of interest, often explaining why their respective views clash.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Everyone and every type puts off tasks they don't like or are not geared towards. 

I feel J is more about trying to predict, plan, organize, think ahead rather than discipline and productivity. 

A J might be more productive because they're often constantly aware of the future and it drives/pressures them or makes them focused, but could also get stuck in planning mode and spend more time making plans than acting on them (or be unproductive because they rigidly stick to a bad plan/option instead of allowing for new input/change, even achieving something that isn't useful in the end). 

A P might be more productive because they tend to need less plans to act, but they might procrastinate because they don't feel pressured to do so or refuse to narrow down on an option (or be unproductive because they jump from one thing to another which could result in a lot of things get done, but nothing gets achieved)


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> Everyone and every type puts off tasks they don't like or are not geared towards.
> 
> I feel J is more about trying to predict, plan, organize, think ahead rather than discipline and productivity.
> 
> ...


Yes, I think a major dinstinguishing factor is that J's are largely externally-driven, whereas P's are mostly internally-driven.

J: "the deadline is soon approaching; I have to start working on this or I will fail."
P: "I have no interest in this, so I don't see why I should have to do it. My grade doesn't matter to me."



InSolitude said:


> I tend not to see J and P as being action orientated at all. I tend to see it like this.
> 
> J - closure seeking. Does not like unanswered questions and wants to find conclusion as soon as able.
> P - possibility seeking. Does not like to close the door on anything and always open to possibility of revision of previously decided upon things.
> ...


And I agree with this. A well-intentioned P might find it difficult to begin working due to difficulty narrowing down what it is that they have to do (or want to do).*

Whereas to J's it is more obvious what needs to be done. There is rarely this indecision aspect because the decision-making process is objective.

The only time a J would have difficulty deciding on something would be if there isn't enough objective data upon which to base an opinion or decision.



*I wonder how this plays in with SPs, though. It makes total sense to me why NPs would struggle with this, but why would SPs struggle with this?


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

@Abraxas

I'll get around to reading the links that you posted when I have the time, but as of now I do not understand why you are treating the 8 functions theory as something that is mutually exclusive. 

It is not a matter of believing what I wish to believe. If what you were suggesting provided a better explanation, then I would latch onto it and accept it. As I see it, however, your explanation only takes away a more detailed facet of the MB and replaces it with something that is too rigid to work with actual individuals. Perhaps I'm just not fully understanding what you're trying to say at the moment -- having Ni/Ti makes grasping new systems a tad difficult :tongue:


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Mostly I can see that I'm not ambitious or a perfectionist per se -not that I don't work on myself or find ways of improving. It might have to do with my general outlook that perfectionism is actually a limited standard and I try to be open to more possibilities. My ambitions can probably be seen as pragmatic approaches to counter my otherwise dreamy predisposition. Clutter does make me a little antsy and almost lends itself to feeling more scatterbrained if I don't do some amount of tidying, but I really hate laundry and dishes, so I normally I wait until I ran out of dishes before I wash all of them at once. The same with clothes.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> Clutter does make me a little antsy and almost lends itself to feeling more scatterbrained if I don't do some amount of tidying,


I would love it if you could expound on this. I find this really fascinating.


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

emberfly said:


> I would love it if you could expound on this. I find this really fascinating.


lol Why would you find this fascinating? Ok, where to begin... the thing is I've got mountains of books (most on bookshelves), medical, science, National Geographic magazines. When I read something or something sparked my interest I will go through a few of these books or magazines and they end up askew on my desk and back on top of other books (horizontally) and they then pile up just like how my thoughts pile up in a way and then it becomes harder to sort through them later when another thought or idea sparks my interest. Then I have papers that should be filed, but I have a special place to put them in the corner of my bookshelf so they don't get lost. Having to stop to think where things are is a bit annoying to me, so I rather have a certain place where things are put like my shoes are always by my door and the keys are always in the same place to save the stress of looking for them.

Right now looking around I've got papers on my desk and on the floor and on the table. Haha.

My son also contributes to messes of course and he will often pull all the cushions off the couch and they will be everywhere. When I go to clean up after him, I have a couple of containers behind the couch that I just chuck the toys over the couch in hopes that they made it into the containers because I really just want it out of the way so I don't trip.

For those times that I do a clean sweep over the whole house and everything is put away (which might be once every two to three months), I feel at ease and then its vacation time and I take a little holiday in my mind where can relax once again with my thoughts without having to wonder where things are and what I should be doing (practically speaking) to keep ahead of things.

Was that too much information?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Eudaimonia said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it's not really what I wanted. You said it makes you feel antsy and scatterbrained. I get why you wouldn't want to trip or lose things, but how does it make you antsy and scatterbrained?


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

emberfly said:


> No, it's not really what I wanted. You said it makes you feel antsy and scatterbrained. I get why you wouldn't want to trip or lose things, but how does it make you antsy and scatterbrained?



Somehow the need to introspect outweighs all other needs or the consequences will be that the inner self forces it way up in inappropriate times where I can't focus on the outer anymore.

Knowing all those "needs" pulls me out of myself to think about things I don't want to think about instead of thinking through the questions that I feel brings me to a better understanding of the world and myself in relation to it. It is like putting punctuation marks in the middle of my thought process and it not only irritates me it can counteract my ability to function.

If I can't think through my thoughts in fullness and feel a satisfaction from coming to a well formed conclusion, it is as if I become very discombobulated.

There were times that I felt such disruption from my thoughts that it didn't feel safe for me to drive. Seriously. It becomes a huge issue for me to be able to sort my thoughts and feelings. If I'm not given that time, there is no more inner or outer connection and I can't think clearly or know what I'm doing altogether.

Keeping ahead of the accumulating small things that can turn into something bigger and harder to handle down the road stifling my mind which in turn affects all of me.


----------

