'Judging' versus 'Perceiving' Leading Function

[Haphazard]

Okay, according to MBTI theory, you can either lead with a 'judging' function (EJ or IP) or a 'perceiving' function (EP or IJ)

Also, apparently, according to MBTI theory, the order of functions is about 'how conscious a function is,' and how much use is put into it. People tend to rely on their first two functions.

On top of this, kids are said to develop their first function first and the others aren't visible until 12 to 15 years of age.

So, I've been trying to put all of this together for a while... how the hell does this work? What does 'judging' and 'perceiving' really mean? Because I'm pretty sure I'm missing something -- how could somebody possibly run with one or the other for twelve years? How can somebody have a more dominant judging function than perceiving function? Doesn't one need to process information before one can make judgments? And doesn't one need to make judgments to do anything at all? I can almost understand perception before judgement, but not judgement before perception, and I don't mean just temporally (even though there would be a temporal problem with children in MBTI theory).

I realize that 'judgment' and 'perception' are more than just 'deciding' and 'gathering information,' but even then, how does this work?

[Athenian200]

Well, there's really no similarity between IJ and EP. People only notice the Extraverted function in real life.

That's the period of meaningful development. Before that period, most people make primitive, simplistic judgments or perceptions. So yes, you always have both, but you don't really start using a process consciously and deliberately until it starts to develop. You do notice that most people don't seem as able to control their actions, plan, or perceive situations clearly before the age of about 12, right? In fact, in one culture (can't remember which), 12 is the "age of accountability," and before that you couldn't be held accountable for a crime because you aren't considered "aware" enough to know right from wrong.

So from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Basically, the functional order isn't as meaningful as you'd think... all that's known of Ni and Si is that they lend themselves to J-oriented behaviors. IJ's usually seem more "J" in keeping track of things they need to do and having long memories, EJ's seem more "J" in pushing their agendas on others and getting more things done. But both types tend to do both these things to some degree.

And all that's known of Ti and Fi is that they lend themselves to P-oriented behaviors, but I can't provide as much on that.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

...from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Yup. You use them all. It's more a matter of prioritization.

For the record, I have seen secondary functions manifest in young children. Everyone's different, not all move as quickly to the secondary. And perhaps the secondary wasn't yet as matured as the primary, but it was still discernable.

And all that's known of Ti and Fi is that they lend themselves to P-oriented behaviors, but I can't provide as much on that.

Well, they're open-ended externally because they need all the information to fuel the internal judging. That's what happens.

The experience is rather odd. Inside, I feel like a very critical person. Every comment, every piece of information that comes in, is immediately crunched, i.e., applied to the model of reality so that there is a definite, describable model that things either conform to or do NOT conform to. But it's constantly being refreshed by every new piece of information. So each piece of info is being weighed as "correct" or 'incorrect", judged, and saved or discarded.

But outwardly, everything's all flexy. Even if internally it's not. Because there is always "more information" that could invalidate the model, so I can't judge EXTERNALLY (the information "out there" is limitless and can't be evaluated that way, to me), only internally (because that is where my standards are specific, and definable, and supreme). So it's judged only when it comes inside.

[Badlands]

The J/P preference indicates whether the leading extraverted function is Percieving or Judging. Which function is actually in the lead really has not much to do with it beyond I/E itself once the auxiliary has established itself. When trying to type an adult as an I or an E, people tend to analyze the traits falling into I preference and E preference, instead of comparing Xi/Ye to Ye/Xi; for people that did not know the child well before the auxiliary established itself, this is rather tedious to establish any certainty upon.

For a more general, straightforward, and accurate answer, judging types judge the world around them (with Fe or Te) and percieve inside them (with Si or Ni), while percieving types percieve the world around them (with Se or Ne), while judging inside them (with Fi or Ti).

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

So from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Basically, the functional order isn't as meaningful as you'd think...

Okay, this is all I needed to know. Especially that last part. It's a lot clearer now.

To everyone else: this is not about judgement versus perception, it's about leading functions...

[Thursday]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

Okay, this is all I needed to know. Especially that last part. It's a lot clearer now.

To everyone else: this is not about judgement versus perception, it's about leading functions...

Its amazing how these simple matters can be taking off course

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Well, they're open-ended externally because they need all the information to fuel the internal judging. That's what happens.

The experience is rather odd. Inside, I feel like a very critical person. Every comment, every piece of information that comes in, is immediately crunched, i.e., applied to the model of reality so that there is a definite, describable model that things either conform to or do NOT conform to. But it's constantly being refreshed by every new piece of information. So each piece of info is being weighed as "correct" or 'incorrect", judged, and saved or discarded.

But outwardly, everything's all flexy. Even if internally it's not. Because there is always "more information" that could invalidate the model, so I can't judge EXTERNALLY (the information "out there" is limitless and can't be evaluated that way, to me), only internally (because that is where my standards are specific, and definable, and supreme). So it's judged only when it comes inside.

That makes some sense to me. I feel like I do that to information some of the time, except that I try to create rules/guidelines based on it that won't require me to do this continually, or at least simplify the extent to which I have to do this as it can get very complex very quickly if I can't automate it.

For me, it's like I see one piece of information in several ways, and I have to accept and express just one in order to do anything other than sit in contemplation. In fact, my biggest communication flaw is probably assuming people see the things I say from as many perspectives as I do (for instance, the way Jen misunderstood my complaints as a sense of superiority and condemnation of others rather than just trying to list any flaws I could think of. For instance, if I'd known she would read it, I probably wouldn't have said it that way [if at all]. It always feels weird having one group of people read or overhear I what I said with another in mind, because I know it has a completely different meaning for them, and that they won't get an accurate picture from what I said.). Of course, some of the shades of meaning are subtle enough that I can't even express them and still make sense. It's a bit like when you take a picture with a digital camera, and every pixel has to be just one color while collectively still giving the impression of the original picture. Or perhaps trying to convey 3-D information via a single 2-D slice. Somehow, the mind can easily make sense of it when it's moving, but a 2-D freeze-frame representation of a 3-D image is confusing unless the angle is just right.

There's a reason I ask "Does that make sense?" so often. Because I'm actually not sure I did make sense until someone else tells me I did. I usually strongly suspect I did, and need another person to explain why I didn't if they don't think so, but I don't really feel sure unless someone or something confirms I did. I'm often afraid that what I'm saying will come across as gibberish or nonsense (because I'm aware of leaving so many inexpressible gaps that I expect people to fill in mentally), and then feel a bit relieved when I go back and read it a few days later and think "Wow, did I really write something like that? I can't believe I expressed myself that well."

I can't put my finger on what makes Ti and Fi different because neither is apparent in the expression, but I can certainly feel a difference in how they affect me viscerally.

Ti (usually) just leaves me with a calm, subtle, disarming feeling. Often accompanied by a sense of fairness or consistency, and the vague sense that whether I understand is important, and that they see that there's room for improvement in their own understanding of things. Although they don't explicitly say this, it seems to come through.


Fi (usually) being used in a strong way makes me feel tired, nervous, anxious, and ill. I then feel a strong need to read philosophy such as Hegel or Aristotle, do math problems (and I don't even like math usually), and read technical manuals. Sometimes even read the "Jedi Code" several times as well. It's a bit like the need to get an awful taste out of your mouth after having eaten something very bitter and/or burned... except that it's my mind rather than my mouth. And a sense of imbalance/anxiety like someone tried to turn the world upside down, or increase/decrease gravity abruptly.

Notice I said "usually." This is because some FP's don't have this effect on me, and manage to seem closer to the Ti "effect" (although the one I described is most common for me). And of course, some TP's have an effect closer to (but different from) the second one, except that it pushes me to read about etiquette, the Social Contract, fantasy/mythology and history (especially medieval or classical eras), and things of that sort. It's not as strong or frightening in that latter case as much as an irritated feeling.

[Haphazard]

Originally Posted by AvereX

Its amazing how these simple matters can be taking off course

I know. I sometimes wish people would read the original post.

["?"]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

Well, there's really no similarity between IJ and EP. People only notice the Extraverted function in real life.

It is what Myers-Briggs leads us to believe, understandably when considering Jung's theory on conscious and unconscious. However, Jung clearly theorizes that introverted functions are noticeable to onlookers in saying

The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.

The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.

[Thursday]

Originally Posted by Haphazard

I know. I sometimes wish people would read the original post.

Counting on people to read anything is a fools gold
but hey
the few that matter in this regard will be staunch supporters of what is vital