The P and J Muddling

[Nocapszy]

Well, by now it's gotten to a level of irritation.
Well, it's been there. But now I'm actually scratching the itch.

I'm composing a rather lengthy decryption letter to you guys.
It's kind of dry so far. I'll make it funnish if I can so you'll at least be able to get through it.

In the mean time, I guess I'll host a Q and A discussion (ask in this thread).

I think I've got it mostly pinned down, but it might shed some light onto the underlying confusion, and I'll be able to shorten the big post, which is, again, forthcoming.

Read about the P and J muddling here

Quick link to the Judgement portion

 

[Simplexity]

I usually just spread them on separate slices... there's other ways?

 

[Nocapszy]

What happens when you put the slices together?

Or do you eat them with the sauces on the... outside...?

 

["?"]

A concern that I have is when people continue to focus on the J/P dichotomy, they are failing to grow in understanding type since at some point you will finally realize that the dichotomies have little to do with type. It's merely a code used by Myers-Briggs to show whether you extravert with a judging/perceiving function and is redundant since once the basic principles are understood, you immediately know which function should be extraverted and at what level.

 

[edcoaching]

A concern that I have is when people continue to focus on the J/P dichotomy, they are failing to grow in understanding type since at some point you will finally realize that the dichotomies have little to do with type. It's merely a code used by Myers-Briggs to show whether you extravert with a judging/perceiving function and is redundant since once the basic principles are understood, you immediately know which function should be extraverted and at what level.

Amen

 

[Nocapszy]

A concern that I have is when people continue to focus on the J/P dichotomy, they are failing to grow in understanding type since at some point you will finally realize that the dichotomies have little to do with type. It's merely a code used by Myers-Briggs to show whether you extravert with a judging/perceiving function and is redundant since once the basic principles are understood, you immediately know which function should be extraverted and at what level.

Believe me. I know the code.
You're a pretty observant chap to know all this, and yet you managed to miss the hundreds of posts of mine saying exactly the same thing?

My plan here is to make the fourth letter into something substantively viable since;
a) people insist on using it
b) it's a horrid muddled, confused digit
c) it's beyond vague... it's just wrong a lot of the time.

Pair A and either of the other two, and there's good reason to have it hammered the hell out.

 

[miss fortune]

but what would it mean if a person always has an extremely HIGH P score on tests then?

 

[redacted]

^It means that you score really high on P on tests

 

[miss fortune]

then why do people have to go and make the whole concept so complex in the thread then... :steam:... there's really no shame in being direct!

 

[Jack Flak]

I have no questions, only answers.

 

[Nocapszy]

then why do people have to go and make the whole concept so complex in the thread then... :steam:... there's really no shame in being direct!

Alright now calm down. Just take a deep breath, and use it to explain to me what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[miss fortune]

I was enjoying being false mad there actually... I was just wondering why the fuck J or P matter since there are conflicting messages in the thread- I asked a simple question in hopes of having things clarified but nothing was clarified

I just want to understand what's going on!

 

[Nocapszy]

In what thread? Mine?
There aren't really. Unless you count the disagreement I had with the question mark, but I figured it would be obvious that someone had to be wrong.

In the way of knowing what's going on, I'd recommend you excersize some patience, while I finish composing my Letter to the People.
P mark and J mark can potentially be reliable tools. Their decrepit definitions are about to be retired by my, as aforementioned, forthcoming epic post.

 

[Nocapszy]

The Q and A is for specific questions.

If ya get to broad, you may as well just wait for the full explanation.

 

[miss fortune]

was refering to everyone's posts in the thread... and I'm still waiting for said epic post, but shall have to retire to bed at some point, as I have work tommorrow

 

["?"]

but what would it mean if a person always has an extremely HIGH P score on tests then?

It means that you score really high on P on tests

That’s scary because I thought that I had posted a response to this, however I don’t see it. First as stated in my original response I agree with Dissonance because that is the simple answer. Clearly if one scores high on any function, they should consider it as their dominant function. But to clarify my concerns referenced above, Myers-Briggs’ theory can be misleading in particularly when it comes to the introverted types. MB agrees with Jung when he speaks of the auxiliary function by saying:

Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.

That seems to contradict Myers-Briggs’ theory somewhat where she gives greater development to the auxiliary function. When we consider the J/P in introverts we’re not looking at some function equal to the dominant but something of lesser sovereignty. Jung goes on to say:

But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.

Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle. For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function.

Again it is less apparent in the extravert type since Myers-Briggs admits that the world is shown their dominant function. She argues that Jung gives very little thought to the introvert’s dominant function thus theorizes that it is the secondary or auxiliary function which we show the world. This is completely untrue in Jung’s eyes since the first thing he notes in his introduction is:

The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. 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.

This is my reason for always contesting discussion of the J/P. The code is irrelevant and redundant when considering that the dominant function for extraverts is apparent in knowing that EJs dominate with a judging function (Te/Fe) and EPs with a perceiving function (Se/Ne). Where the confusion comes in is that contrary to her theory IPs dominate with a judging function (Ti/Fi) and IJs with a perceiving function (Si/Ni).

 

[redacted]

Clearly if one scores high on any function, they should consider it as their dominant function.

Hmm..... watch out for that, though. None of the tests are weighted correctly (in fact, I don't know if I've even seen a weighted test at all), and no one can accurately answer all the questions.

I think this is the reason so many people get confused -- they'll score really high on one function but they really prefer it in the opposite direction, or they might attribute T things to N things and vice versa...

The last test I took (the new cogprocesses one), I scored highest on Ti... but I know it's not in the same ballpark of usage as my Ni.

 

[Jack Flak]

To question mark: Yeah, what dissonance said. Considering the fact that he and I almost never agree on type shit, you better listen.

Function tests don't tell you what you're doing with your brain more often, only what you think you're good at. To top it off, the test questions can be odd, and the functions themselves are poorly defined.

 

[redacted]

the functions themselves are poorly defined.

Nocap -- this is quite an issue, do you agree?

Maybe you could work some function definitions into your enlightening post...

I could do it if you don't want to...

 

[Nocapszy]

Hmm..... watch out for that, though. None of the tests are weighted correctly (in fact, I don't know if I've even seen a weighted test at all), and no one can accurately answer all the questions.

I think this is the reason so many people get confused -- they'll score really high on one function but they really prefer it in the opposite direction, or they might attribute T things to N things and vice versa...

The last test I took (the new cogprocesses one), I scored highest on Ti... but I know it's not in the same ballpark of usage as my Ni.

Exactly.
They're saturated with specific repetitious rhetoric.
And the rhetoric is not only inaccurate, (because of lackluster terminology implication assessment) but also used so frequently that the terms begin to blur.

On top of that, it's fat with "multiple intelligences" influence.
These tests are a thing of the past. Meyers and Briggs had better be sure they made the right business move by inconveniencing Haight. I have little remorse for publicly trashing its reputation, and especially after they put my good friend out like that.

Of course, responsible ol' Haight will tell me to take it easy on them, and I will if he asks.
Not that they could do anything to him.
He complied, probably immediately, (or as close to immediately as he could, if I have even a decent read on him) with their request.