J vs P differences

THIS IS PercievARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!
 
^ I dislike that post.
 
Limit said:
You know what’s funny about this whole thread?

INFJs are actually perceivers...
Click to expand...

Haha, and that's probably why so many "INFJ"s are saying, "but I sound like a P"...

If you're into simple explanations, I can afford one from LOTS of personal experience: J's need structure, P's don't. To be more specific, there always has to be some kind of a plan for a J, but not for a P. NOTE: that "plan" can be VERY loose sometimes, but it is always there somewhere in the J's head.

Example: My father is an off the charts INFP and my mother is equally ESTJ... All my 4 brothers are P's as well :)... So, if we decided to go do something as a family, there would always be 2 plans: one for my dad and brothers and one for my mom and I.

My dad and brothers' "plan" was that we were going to go get pizza and watch a movie.

Me and my mom's "plan" was to spend X number of hours enjoying the company of the family and hopefully doing something fun.

That way, when the boys decided at the last minute it would be better to go mini-golfing and get taco-time on the way AND we had to back-track AND THEN arrived at mini-golf AFTER it was closed so we walked to the bowling alley next door instead... me and mom were fine because our structure, our plan, didn't have to change and the boys didn't need structure to be begin with...

Tricky huh? ;)
 
IndigoSensor said:
Tis true! We just tend to be more heavy on tying all the perceiving together, and therefore often appear "less like" a classical definition of a perceiving behavior might be.
Click to expand...

Do you think that this is why we like leaving things a little more open than an EXXJ might? Or is that just totally not true?

Sometimes I just can't decide on shit so I just leave it which is why I thought I might be an infp for while.

EDIT:

The biggest difference between P and J is that J wants closure while P doesn't really need it. I think this is due to leading with the perceiving function rather than the judging function. This doesn't mean that P's are disorganized, just open minded to the point where they generally don't want to make a decision. I have trouble with this sometimes and I think other IxxJ's do a well since we lead with either Ni or Si.
 
bickelz said:
The biggest difference between P and J is that J wants closure while P doesn't really need it. I think this is due to leading with the perceiving function rather than the judging function. This doesn't mean that P's are disorganized, just open minded to the point where they generally don't want to make a decision. I have trouble with this sometimes and I think other IxxJ's do a well since we lead with either Ni or Si.
Click to expand...

(Not that I'm responding to you in particular, but this post will illustrate my point.)

This is part of the reason why I have avoided talking about typology lately. It is true that J wants closure while P doesn't. And it's also true that since INFJs are Js, they want closure. But since MBTI doesn't quite get at Jungian concepts, the added Ni-dom, Fe-aux isn't necessarily related. Yet when people talk about Jungian concepts nowadays, they use the MBTI code (INFJ).

So in a way, we're conflating two systems and need to define our terms before we proceed... but I hate arguing semantics.
 
KazeCraven said:
(Not that I'm responding to you in particular, but this post will illustrate my point.)

This is part of the reason why I have avoided talking about typology lately. It is true that J wants closure while P doesn't. And it's also true that since INFJs are Js, they want closure. But since MBTI doesn't quite get at Jungian concepts, the added Ni-dom, Fe-aux isn't necessarily related. Yet when people talk about Jungian concepts nowadays, they use the MBTI code (INFJ).

So in a way, we're conflating two systems and need to define our terms before we proceed... but I hate arguing semantics.
Click to expand...

*nods*

However, MBTI, Socionics, Keirsey, etc are all based off of Jungian concepts.
 
Yeah, but I'd think you'd agree that most, if not all, misinterpreted Jung.

Not that that makes them necessarily wrong, but it's just different.
 
I'm organized in a leisurely way. I have a clean house except for I hang once, twice, and thricely worn clothes on chairs in my parlor if I am going to wear them again. If Im not there is a pile in my room for dirty clothes.

I like to organize paper work into folders, stuff random items into storage containers, hang pictures on my wall in certain ways, etc.
 
bickelz said:
I think that Jung (pronounced "Yoong" everybody) wrote about E,I,S,N,F and T but Isabelle Meyers went into J vs P. From my understanding, Jung came up with things like Ni, Si and Fe (Cognitive functions) but Meyers organized them into a more structural based format.
Click to expand...

Well, she did, but Jung already had rationality/irrationality. This is what causes the "J/P flip-flop" going from MBTI to Socionics (and yes, the flip-flop doesn't quite cover the issue).

When putting them into a stuctural based format, Meyers had to make a call regarding how things fit together. Does the strongest extroverted function determine a person's demeanor? Or is it the dominant function regardless of i/e? Also, from my understanding, how the MBTI interprets cognitive functions is different from how Jung stated them. But I'll let someone who understands that better take that.
 
KazeCraven said:
Well, she did, but Jung already had rationality/irrationality. This is what causes the "J/P flip-flop" going from MBTI to Socionics (and yes, the flip-flop doesn't quite cover the issue).
Click to expand...

That make sense of why the J and P mean different things in Socionics. Did Jung mention rationality as T vs F though? I feel like that's how MBTI interpreted it while Socionics said the rationality comes from J vs P. I haven't actually read what he has written himself. Just the interpretations.
 
bickelz said:
I think that Jung (pronounced "Yoong" everybody) wrote about E,I,S,N,F and T but Isabelle Meyers went into J vs P. From my understanding, Jung came up with things like Ni, Si and Fe (Cognitive functions) but Meyers organized them into a more structural based format.
Click to expand...

I had suspected that everyone was pronouncing it wrong. Good call.
 
bickelz said:
That make sense of why the J and P mean different things in Socionics. Did Jung mention rationality as T vs F though? I feel like that's how MBTI interpreted it while Socionics said the rationality comes from J vs P. I haven't actually read what he has written himself. Just the interpretations.
Click to expand...

Rational Introverts: Ti and Fi dominants
Irrational Introverts: Ni and Si dominants

You can read more about it here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Hopefully that will clear things up. But it's long, so basically rational simply refers to the fact that T and F are making discernments, while N and S dominants' "primary problem is that of perception" (to paraphrase Jung).
 
I think both Ni and Fe are less typically "J" in the MBTI test sense than are Si and Te.

I recognise myself as being J in that my thoughts are usually not analytical/process oriented
rather they are mostly spontaneous and just come to me (though I am able to "direct" them
in a sense), whereas on the somewhat rare occassion that I do interact with the environment,
I am doing so in a very deliberate and structured way, externally speaking, and perceiving
direction from within. Having structured thought processes is not too difficult to do, but not
natural either, and being externally spontaneous is very difficult.
 
KazeCraven said:
Rational Introverts: Ti and Fi dominants
Irrational Introverts: Ni and Si dominants

You can read more about it here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Hopefully that will clear things up. But it's long, so basically rational simply refers to the fact that T and F are making discernments, while N and S dominants' "primary problem is that of perception" (to paraphrase Jung).
Click to expand...

This makes some sense but I don't know why you would call Fi a rational function. Or maybe I'm perceiving Fi in the wrong manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top