The False Apperance of I/E, and P/J

Goatman455 said:
I am making a judgment, I am saying that this is too general to be useful, that is a judgment. That is pretty black and white. I am not revising the system because I don't think it is going to be accurate. Some things we should pin down because it is better to do so, other things shouldn't be pinned down. In my opinion, this chart is an example of the latter (no offense to Indigo, it takes courage and intelligence to post one's opinions in this manner, I applaud that). I like MBTI, I like Socionics, they are useful generalizations, this one is not. MBTI purposely left the J/P thing vague because that way it applies to more people. If they wanted to, they could have done exactly what Indigo did, but they didn't.

Discrediting my argument because I am a P is exactly the kind of logic I am trying to prevent.

Socionics and MBTI are based on Jungian ideas. So they are both like cousins or siblings. I am not saying Socionics is based on MBTI, both are based on Jung, and that makes it relevant.
Click to expand...

I'm discrediting your argument on your relativistic approach.

I don't think Soninionics is relevant in the context of Jung and MBIT as switchings what process are represent for each personality type.

your making the judgment that we can't answer this question and this chart is wrong because J and P are too vague.

I can respect that but I don't agree with it.
 
Von Hase said:
Agreed, Gloomy. No one has a more apparent J than an ESTJ, quickly followed by an ISTJ. NTJs fall in behind them, with ENTJs exhibiting a stronger J than INTJs.
Click to expand...

Really? Could have sworn I heard somewhere that INTJ was strongest while INFJ was weakest.

I've gone loopy I guess.
 
Socionics simply inverts the standard MBTI introverts' J and P for the purposes of the code, and to avoid being sued. Socionics assumes the J and P axis represent the dominant function, but acknowledge that these are not the more obvious (aka extroverted) functions by denoting them with a lower case j or p.

Regardless of what Socionics renames any given type, the type still functions on the same Jungian cognitive functions. INFJ in MBTI and INFp in Socionics are still Ni > Fe > Ti > Se. The extroverted Judging function is still apparent. Pulling Socionics into this topic simply muddies the subject that is being discussed.

This is relativist conjecture that does not affect the discussion of extroverted Judging types. All mentioning it does is bring the confusion of the naming convention into question, and it is irrelevant to the topic.
 
Wyote said:
Really? Could have sworn I heard somewhere that INTJ was strongest while INFJ was weakest.

I've gone loopy I guess.
Click to expand...

It's highly possible that you had heard that somewhere. But, in my experience, STJs are really the measure of the J dominant personality. INTJs tend to be a lot more like us, often getting lost in their Ni function. They just seem to have an ability to pull themselves out of it and stay on track more efficiently than we do.
 
Blind Bandit said:
I'm discrediting your argument on your relativistic approach.

I don't think Soninionics is relevant in the context of Jung and MBIT as switchings what process are represent for each personality type.

your making the judgment that we can't answer this question and this chart is wrong because J and P are too vague.

I can respect that but I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

No it certainly odes not. It switches Introverts but no Extroverts.

Socionics saw it to be more in line with Jung to say that Js have a primary judgment and Ps a perception, not to say in which direction their judgment function vs. perception function is pointed.

I am saying the chart won't be correct. Is that absolute enough for you? We need to balance absolutism and relativism or we are just going to keep calling each other the opposite. If you make a correct chart it will have to be done with people's personality results, and the data will change the next time that type is born.



J and P is due to the individual, not due to the type. I don't think some types are more J or P than others, they may appear that way, but that is just because of how you are defining J or P.

I think the amount of disagreement, or refinement of the idea in this thread shows what I am talking about. If this were going to work people would say "Oh definitely, that is so dead on" but even people defending it aren't saying that.

Go ahead and define J and P as I was asking earlier to make this discussion a bit easier to find common ground on.
 
Last edited:
Goatman455 said:
Go ahead and define J and P as I was asking earlier to make this discussion a bit easier to find common ground on.
Click to expand...

Since these are the INFJ Forums, and not the INFp Forums, we'll stick with the MBTI model for Jungian types, but acknowledge that Socionics uses a different labeling system for the same Jungian types.

Therefore:

J is any type that includes an extroverted Judging function as its dominant or secondary function. (Fe or Te)

P is any type that includes an extroverted Perception function as its dominant or secondary function. (Se or Ne)
 
Von Hase said:
Since these are the INFJ Forums, and not the INFp Forums, we'll stick with the MBTI model for Jungian types, but acknowledge that Socionics uses a different labeling system for the same Jungian types.

Therefore:

J is any type that includes an extroverted Judging function as its dominant or secondary function. (Fe or Te)

P is any type that includes an extroverted Perception function as its dominant or secondary function. (Se or Ne)
Click to expand...


Yes, we all know that but what does that mean for you.

What commonalities do Js have, What commonalities do Ps have?
 
Last edited:
Goatman455 said:
What commonalities do Js have, What commonalities do Ps have?
Click to expand...

J's have the commonality that their Judging function is more apparent in their personality than their Perception function, and therefore interact with the world more dominantly with that function. J's are more disposed to make changes in the world around them and take active roles upon themselves. J's are more proactive than not, and are prone to taking action that requires others to participate.

P's have the commonality that their Perception function is more apparent in their personality than their Judging function, and therefore interact with the world more dominantly with that function. P's are more disposed to watch changes in the world around them and take inactive roles upon themselves. P's are less proactive than not, and when they do take action, are prone to taking actions that does not require anyone else to participate.

Goatman455 said:
On that note, INFJs would be more like XNFXs. Since their E/I and J/P is so near the middle.
Click to expand...

A lot of us are more xNFx than not. You'll see a lot of self typing as such on these forums.

The chart is not absolute, just an index of tendencies. If we listed major cities from coldest to hottest, there would always be days where those norms were not applicable. It is in the long term averages that we see the trends. Individuals can never indicate a trend, but a trend can often, but not always, indicate an individual. To continue the temperature analogy, If we state that Dallas is hotter than Chicago, you can safely bet that the temperature is higher in Dallas than Chicago on any given day. You might lose that bet now and again, but if you bet on it everyday, you'll come out far ahead than betting otherwise.
 
Last edited:
On your point, maybe you should leave the thinking and observing to us Ps huh? Just kidding.

What you just said seems more true of I/E to me. E's are more proactive, and Is more reactive.

I think the activity for Ps tends to be more thought/discussion vs action, and vice versa for Js.


Basically what OP is saying is that people near the top of the opposite lists (Js who are high in P), (Is who are high in E) are the most balanced individuals.

On that note, INFJs would be more like XNFXs. Since their E/I and J/P is so near the middle. They cease to become INFJs from a certain perspective. If this chart is absolute, INFJs aren't really as comparable to the other types. It dilutes the meaning of I and J for them, it basically changes the entire scale so that E/I and J/P take on different definitions for each type. That means an INFJs J is very different from an ESTJs J. Likewise, all the sudden most INFJs kind of look like ENFPs a bit when you break down how the functions are then operating. While I admit, I have a lot in common with the INFJs I know, this kind of thinking adds a layer of confusion and inconsistency to a system whose whole point was to simplify and consistify (I know it "wasn't" a word ;).

You see what I mean how this stuff can fall through a bit. You just start to decategorize the types with this thinking. That's ok to think about, but not to make an absolute judgment on.
 
Last edited:
for me the chart seems to make sense since my I isn't too strong and my J isn't too strong either. but i know an infj who is very I and i know different infj who is very J
 
fly away said:
really? how so?
Click to expand...


I try not to make assumptions like this, but when in Rome.

Also I didn't say those trends weren't true for P vs J, but what he said to me seems to be a better description of E/I (though I personally wouldn't begin to describe E/I that way).

I's tend to do things that require solitary activity and Es do things that are more group activities.

He also said Ps perception function is more apparent in their personality, but actually INFJs have a primary perception function and it seems obvious to me. It shouldn't be less apparent just because it is introverted.

Still we are clouding the issue, my point is really this about the chart the OP posted.

"Basically what OP is saying is that people near the top of the opposite lists (Js who are high in P), (Is who are high in E) are the most balanced individuals.

On that note, INFJs would be more like XNFXs. Since their E/I and J/P is so near the middle. They cease to become INFJs from a certain perspective. If this chart is absolute, INFJs aren't really as comparable to the other types. It dilutes the meaning of I and J for them, it basically changes the entire scale so that E/I and J/P take on different definitions for each type. That means an INFJs J is very different from an ESTJs J. Likewise, all the sudden most INFJs kind of look like ENFPs a bit when you break down how the functions are then operating. While I admit, I have a lot in common with the INFJs I know, this kind of thinking adds a layer of confusion and inconsistency to a system whose whole point was to simplify and consistify (I know it "wasn't" a word ;).

You see what I mean how this stuff can fall through a bit. You just start to decategorize the types with this thinking. That's ok to think about, but not to make an absolute judgment on."

"To continue the temperature analogy, If we state that Dallas is hotter than Chicago, you can safely bet that the temperature is higher in Dallas than Chicago on any given day. You might lose that bet now and again, but if you bet on it everyday, you'll come out far ahead than betting otherwise."

Yeah, but what we are doing here is akin to changing the temperature scale completely. For Chicago, we are going to drop 10 degrees, relative to Dallas since Chicago is generally cooler than Dallas. So it can be 90 degrees in both places but colder in Chicago.
 
Last edited:
Goatman455 said:
I try not to make assumptions like this, but when in Rome.

Also I didn't say those trends weren't true for P vs J, but what he said to me seems to be a better description of E/I (though I personally wouldn't begin to describe E/I that way).

I's tend to do things that require solitary activity and Es do things that are more group activities.

He also said Ps perception function is more apparent in their personality, but actually INFJs have a primary perception function and it seems obvious to me. It shouldn't be less apparent just because it is introverted.

Still we are clouding the issue, my point is really this about the chart the OP posted.

"Basically what OP is saying is that people near the top of the opposite lists (Js who are high in P), (Is who are high in E) are the most balanced individuals.

On that note, INFJs would be more like XNFXs. Since their E/I and J/P is so near the middle. They cease to become INFJs from a certain perspective. If this chart is absolute, INFJs aren't really as comparable to the other types. It dilutes the meaning of I and J for them, it basically changes the entire scale so that E/I and J/P take on different definitions for each type. That means an INFJs J is very different from an ESTJs J. Likewise, all the sudden most INFJs kind of look like ENFPs a bit when you break down how the functions are then operating. While I admit, I have a lot in common with the INFJs I know, this kind of thinking adds a layer of confusion and inconsistency to a system whose whole point was to simplify and consistify (I know it "wasn't" a word ;).

You see what I mean how this stuff can fall through a bit. You just start to decategorize the types with this thinking. That's ok to think about, but not to make an absolute judgment on."

"To continue the temperature analogy, If we state that Dallas is hotter than Chicago, you can safely bet that the temperature is higher in Dallas than Chicago on any given day. You might lose that bet now and again, but if you bet on it everyday, you'll come out far ahead than betting otherwise."

Yeah, but what we are doing here is akin to changing the temperature scale completely. For Chicago, we are going to drop 10 degrees, relative to Dallas since Chicago is generally cooler than Dallas. So it can be 90 degrees in both places but colder in Chicago.
Click to expand...


You are far overthinking this, and you do have the wrong impression of what I was trying to do. As other have said, you're trying to disregard this because you feel it is too large of a generilzation. All of MBTI is a large generalization, and people will try to decipher patterns that they see within it. This is simply a pattern I see, and I really do think this is appliable to explaining why some types appear the way that the do.
 
IndigoSensor said:
You are far overthinking this, and you do have the wrong impression of what I was trying to do. As other have said, you're trying to disregard this because you feel it is too large of a generilzation. All of MBTI is a large generalization, and people will try to decipher patterns that they see within it. This is simply a pattern I see, and I really do think this is appliable to explaining why some types appear the way that the do.
Click to expand...



I respect the fact you are doing this, but I just have to go back to the temperature analogy. Some generalizations are best left untouched. That doesn't mean we can't experiment with changing them, but it means that when we do experiment with that, we have to expect it may not work out as planned.

In this case, for the reasons I have stated (It changes the meaning of J and P and makes them less clearly defined) I personally don't think it is accurate.

That said, if someone really likes it, then fine, I definitely say use it if it helps you. That said I just wanted to give my two cents. I am really wondering how the MBTI creators would feel about this chart.
 
It might be more accurate to consider what functions create what effect, and what order they're in. That could possibly create a chart that may be more "accurate" in terms of solid typology.

For instance:
P types: Se, Ne
J types: Si, Ni

Ni would be closer to a low J, especially in the first position, than Si. For P types, primary extroverted perceiving types (ExxP) would probably be more P than secondary extroverted perceiving types.

Or I could be bullshitting :D
 
Goatman455 said:
I try not to make assumptions like this, but when in Rome.

Also I didn't say those trends weren't true for P vs J, but what he said to me seems to be a better description of E/I (though I personally wouldn't begin to describe E/I that way).

I's tend to do things that require solitary activity and Es do things that are more group activities.

He also said Ps perception function is more apparent in their personality, but actually INFJs have a primary perception function and it seems obvious to me. It shouldn't be less apparent just because it is introverted.

Still we are clouding the issue, my point is really this about the chart the OP posted.

"Basically what OP is saying is that people near the top of the opposite lists (Js who are high in P), (Is who are high in E) are the most balanced individuals.

On that note, INFJs would be more like XNFXs. Since their E/I and J/P is so near the middle. They cease to become INFJs from a certain perspective. If this chart is absolute, INFJs aren't really as comparable to the other types. It dilutes the meaning of I and J for them, it basically changes the entire scale so that E/I and J/P take on different definitions for each type. That means an INFJs J is very different from an ESTJs J. Likewise, all the sudden most INFJs kind of look like ENFPs a bit when you break down how the functions are then operating. While I admit, I have a lot in common with the INFJs I know, this kind of thinking adds a layer of confusion and inconsistency to a system whose whole point was to simplify and consistify (I know it "wasn't" a word ;).

You see what I mean how this stuff can fall through a bit. You just start to decategorize the types with this thinking. That's ok to think about, but not to make an absolute judgment on."

"To continue the temperature analogy, If we state that Dallas is hotter than Chicago, you can safely bet that the temperature is higher in Dallas than Chicago on any given day. You might lose that bet now and again, but if you bet on it everyday, you'll come out far ahead than betting otherwise."

Yeah, but what we are doing here is akin to changing the temperature scale completely. For Chicago, we are going to drop 10 degrees, relative to Dallas since Chicago is generally cooler than Dallas. So it can be 90 degrees in both places but colder in Chicago.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but that still doesn't explain why you feel E's are proactive and I's are reactive. What does doing something alone or in a group have to do with being proactive or reactive? That's the part I'm confused about. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, please explain.
 
Last edited:
fly away said:
Interesting, but that still doesn't explain why you feel E's are proactive and I's are reactive. What does doing something alone or in a group have to do with being proactive or reactive? That's the part I'm confused about. Does anyone else feel this way? If so, please explain.
Click to expand...


I don't feel that way necessarily, I just thought his descriptions better fit E/I stereotypes that is all.

Proactive and Reactive are extrovert bias words. They assume the Proaction is acting first with the outer world and Reacting is waiting until prompted.


However if we look at it from an introvert point of view, being Reactive is actually being internally Proactive, and being Proactive is actually being internally Reactive.

I know this is vague so let me know if I should try and clarify further. I am trying not to come out with my ideas too quickly and then have them inaccurate for what I wanted or misunderstood.
 
Goatman455 said:
I don't feel that way necessarily, I just thought his descriptions better fit E/I stereotypes that is all.

Proactive and Reactive are extrovert bias words. They assume the Proaction is acting first with the outer world and Reacting is waiting until prompted.


However if we look at it from an introvert point of view, being Reactive is actually being internally Proactive, and being Proactive is actually being internally Reactive.

I know this is vague so let me know if I should try and clarify further. I am trying not to come out with my ideas too quickly and then have them inaccurate for what I wanted or misunderstood.
Click to expand...

A lot of the extroverts that I know are actually more reactive than they are proactive. In other words, they tend to do things and act based on the actions of others. Not all the time. But a good amount of the time. As for introverts, I don't think the majority of them act based on what others do. I think they usually decide on their actions without necessarily having to react to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top