J vs P differences | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

J vs P differences

Interesting, can you elaborate?

Lol! I knew I'd be called on this - and this is more how I view it, but I know others can explain it a lot better.

It's kind of deep, but it's part of Jungian cognitive theory. Your thoughts come first, and then your actions. How you think things through shows what your preferences are. Your strongest preference will come first. Your actions show up with your judging and perception. It's difficult because you can't really catalog it - it happens automatically when you think. You don't stop to think; you just do it.

All MBTI does is show how you respond to your environment, based on your preferences.

This is the "easiest" description I found of it here: http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/jungian_functions.htm but it does take time to get through it.

That's how I view it, anyway.
Read this thread title out loud. I dare you.

My ISTP bf is happy with go with the flow, whereas I need to know what's happening so I can have predictability!

This is sometimes a cause of friction, and him telling me to lighten up and be more flexible, and I'm telling him to be more mindful of time etc and to be more efficient, relaiable and organized.

My ENTP X husband used to call me "anal"... meh
My ISTP bf is happy with go with the flow, whereas I need to know what's happening so I can have predictability!

This is sometimes a cause of friction, and him telling me to lighten up and be more flexible, and I'm telling him to be more mindful of time etc and to be more efficient, relaiable and organized.

My ENTP X husband used to call me "anal"... meh

I like knowing what i'm doing and what to expect even if everything doesn't go as planned. Complete spontaneity is annoying to me. I hate the idea of being asked to simply jump in the deep end and swim. I hate when someone says, "Just trust me. We'll be fine." I'd rather know for myself (i think).
Last edited:
I like knowing what i'm doing and what to expect even if everything doesn't go as planned. Complete spontaneity is annoying to me. I hate the idea of being asked to simply jump in the deep end and swim. I hate when someone says, "Just trust me. We'll be fine." I'd rather know for myself (i think).

I know! it can upset me so much that I feel like crying out of frustration sometimes. It's like some people just can't understand HOW important routines, plans and predictability are for me...

There is an actual sense of fear with spontinuity. Yes, like being thrown in the deep end. Good analogy Restraint :)
Yeah, I agree with all that. It's why I endlessly go through "what if's" in my mind. Play everything out from every angle and possibility. That way I feel prepared in my mind--no surprises!
Read this thread title out loud. I dare you.


Thanks for all the insight on the J side of things, everybody.

As a perceiver, I can't stand routine. I have goals, as opposed to plans, and tend to pursue them in logical ways, but in a less structured fashion. I do what must be done, but generally without overplanning (or planning at all).

The list writing thing is something that my best friend (INTJ) does all the time.

I never make lists.
Last edited:
Said the title out loud several times before being able to type it clearly! ROFL!

It's not so much Fe/Fi as Ne/Ni ;) The perceiving functions determine P/J. Extroverted perceiving functions as a dominant functions make for quicker reactions to things, and it also allows them to not hold on to those reactions as long.
I like this. My Ne/Ni are equal; accounts for the confusion between my J-ness and P-ness. Heh.
Merging the threads makes sense. Lots of good info here.
Jungs description of judgement and perception varies from the mbti equivalent. So don't try to compare the two as it will only lead to confusion.

While mbti uses the same terminology as jung, their definitions are very different.

Jung seperates his types into "general attitude types" and "function-types". Under "general attitude types" there is "extraverted" attitude and the "introverted" attitude, amongst the "function-types" which he also terms the "most differentiated functions", he identified the following types "sensation, intuition, feeling and thinking".

He categorised sensation and intuition as irrational\unconcious\perception functions, and feeling and thinking as rational\concious\judgement functions, because feeling and thinking serve a a faculty for judgement while sensation and intuition are for observationan and synthesis.

His types are:

extraverted type
=>extraverted rational types-> (extraverted thinking type & extraverted feeling type)
=>extraverted irrational types-> (extraverted sensation type & Extraverted Intuitive Type)

introverted types
=>introverted rational types-> (introverted thinking type & introverted feeling type)
=>introverted irrational types-> (introverted sensation type & introverted Intuitive Type)

I have extracted sections from Jungs work on psychological types where he describes & distinguishes his ideas of perception and judgment.

[the sections in quotes are the excerpts from Jungs Psychological types, you can find the full text of chap 10 of his book here http://psychclassics.asu.edu/Jung/types.htm .You can find a lexicon of his terms here http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html , you will probably find better ones if you dig around. (another one http://www.nyaap.org/index.php/id/7 and another http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=869&Itemid=41)

"...Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgement is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening."
I think this is pretty self explanatory.
Summary: judgement is a concious process while perception tends to be an unconcious process, judgement wantst to structure and systemise\ conceptualise, while perception is happy merely registering the happenings the perciver observes. Perception is satisfied with mere apprehension while judgement seeks conclusiveness.

(the section below is in reference to rational types)
"...The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these(extr. thinking & extr. feeling) types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions."
Summary: a dominant emphasis on judgement (concious function) restricts perception (unconcious function) and vice versa. A high degree of preference of the one (judgement\perception) has an inhibitory effect on the other, and the inhibited function tends to be less developed. So here Jung is saying that a high degree of preference for concious judgement over perception will correspond to a infantile\primitive perception function(intuition, sensation). To the extent that the one is preferred the other is repressed.

"In reference to extraverted irrational types (Extr. intuition & sensing)
...I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. But the functions of judgment are none the less present, although they eke out a largely unconscious existence."
summary: Perception registers both law-determined and accidental occurrnces. Perception types subordinate judgement to perception and vice versa.

"...This rational presentation is exclusively valid for the rational types; it by no means applies to the irrational, whose rapport is based not at all upon judgment but upon the parallelism of actual living events."
"...The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself."
"...Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind. These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience,"
he lost me here, this sounds very similar to Kants idea of a "thing-in-itself" and shopenhauers "will and representation"
"5. Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types (Intr. Feeling & Intr. Thikinking)
...Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data."
refering to the introverted intuitive:
"As a rule, the intuitive stops at perception; perception is his principal problem..."
Last edited:
Think of it this way:

J's make better farmers. P's make better hunters.
My answer to the OP is I don't recognise this preference in others, I look at the whole picture.

I get wary when people look at the differences between two letters as in P v J as they may be quite simple to explain as in J gets things done and P puts off, but the difference between an INJ and INP are substantial and completion of projects and such is not a big factor in deciding type.

There are INJs who hardly finish anything they start and INPs who are highly motivated, external factors and upbringing have an effect here.

Can you expand on this? I used to test as INTP, but now test as INFP at times. But the two are so different that I am wondering if I'm really just INFJ. What are some of the key differences between INFJs and INFPs?
this might just be me: Perceivers are more likely to operate under the idea that "I don't feel like it" is a good reason not to do something. this would explain why they work well near deadlines; they start to "feel" concerned only when the deadline is near, and only then do they act. P's don't initiate; they react, and will keep waiting until there's something to react to.
this could include IxxJ because it's perceiving dominant.

motivation, for perceivers, is a force that acts upon a person. for judgers, it's a phenomenon that's observed as an action is being taken.
Last edited:
My thinking is that Ps use Divergent Thinking while Js use Convergent Thinking. Divergent thinking takes one thing and thinks up many options or possibilities with that thing, I liken it to a branching tree, it prefers to keep options open. Convergent Thinking takes many things and makes The One Solution out of them, I liken it to a great river system with little streams converging into a huge river, it prefers closure and for things to be settled.
I am the most disorganized J I have ever met. However, I need conclusions and I need a plan. I don't fit nicely into either category, but I know the judging preference is definitely stronger.

It's a fine line, but I once read of an easy way to figure this one out. If you're okay with not knowing, (e.g. calling yourself INF J/P or EST J/P)... you're a P.

A judging type would need to have a definite type.

Actually, this really makes sense to me. I've learned to deal with ambiguity when I have to, but naturally it is very irksome to me. I've been wondering whether I'm actually a P as well, because every now and then I get that result, and parts of the descriptions really resonate with me. But I usually test as a J, and overall the descriptions for INFJ fit me better. I think my Fi is stronger than my Fe, but my Ni is also stronger than my Ne, so that doesn't really help. So I've been debating, and it really bothers me not to be able to choose one. I'm that way in other things, too. I can't think of any examples right now, but I know I've thought that before! I think the desire to make a firm decision is very J, so I think this is a good test.
A friend of mine dug out a very good description:
Judging and Perceiving are two different ways in which people like to interact and orient themselves with respect the world. Like Thinking and Feeling, however, these words do not refer to the same concepts that most people associate them with when they use these words.

Instead, Judgers interact with the world by organizing it in some way. In a word, they are decisive. J-types become uneasy when things are undecided, plans aren't finalized, lists aren't made, or no definite goal is in sight. Keep in mind: this only refers to how they orient themselves with the outside world and external things. Internal things may be still be disorganized, undecided, and flexible without any trouble at all, because a Judger will draw their information from within and use it to structure the world outside.

Perceivers, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They draw on their information from the outside world, and use that information to structure their internal ideas or values or selves. Instead of being decisive, Perceivers are speculative. The condition that Judgers crave--the fixed goals, lists, and detailed plans for action--may actually constrict a Perceiver and inhibit their ability to gather information. For this reason, Perceivers remain spontaneous, may change their plans (on what to do, in the outside world) quite easily, maintain flexibility, and adapt to external changes easily. As with Judging, these qualities are only meant to describe how a Perceiver interacts with the external world and ideas. Internally, they may still be very structured and definite in their thoughts.

To put shapes to the concepts: Judgers thinking a very linear fashion. Once a goal is in mind, a J-type figures out the steps that have to be taken, and gets to work, one step at a time. a P-type, on the other hand, thinks quite circularly. Once a goal is in mind, they may look at the world around them and figure out a few paths that may yield progress towards a solution, and do a little bit of work on each one. They then reevaluate where they are in relation to their goal, and do a bit more work on new paths that look like they may yield progress. In this way a Perceiver's work is much less efficient, but they gain the advantage of learning many unexpected things along their way to a solution.
You know what’s funny about this whole thread?

INFJs are actually perceivers..............

mawhhaha. I’m serious. They are.
  • Like
Reactions: Phoenix Down