User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Senior Member Blackwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ERTP
    Posts
    454

    Default Is it Illogical to be Dominantly Je?

    This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

    Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

    Observation -> Conclusion

    - Right?

    Translated into MBTI we then have:

    Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

    But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

    Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

    Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

    So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

    What are your experiences and opinions?
    best collection of philosopher typings online

    http://www.celebritytypes.com/philosophers/

  2. #2
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    I think a better way of looking at it is as a circle... we start from one or the other and modify as time moves on, back and forth.

    The only difference is where the "comfort" spot is... do you stop on conclusion? or observation? ie: Do you prefer having things concluded, only opening them up when something prompts you to do it... or do you prefer things being open, only closing them when needed?

  3. #3
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I think a better way of looking at it is as a circle... we start from one or the other and modify as time moves on, back and forth.
    Yes. It's kind of difficult to start with a judgment without any sort of perception whatsoever.

    The only difference is where the "comfort" spot is... do you stop on conclusion? or observation? ie: Do you prefer having things concluded, only opening them up when something prompts you to do it... or do you prefer things being open, only closing them when needed?
    The "Comfort Spot" concept sounds like a good way to summarize it. Very good. Continue!

    But seriously, yes. I hate to close things off and even find myself reopening things I thought were closed because I'm now uncomfortable with them closed. And closure-oriented people feel comfortable with things settled.

    As far as EJ's go, yes, even the ENTJ likes to have things settled. They might be more apt to change them based on new information than an ESTJ (who is referencing Si -- the internal model of the ideal world, usually based on past experience), but they'll still opt to go in a direction and change later once it becomes clear they need to change.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #4
    Member Prometheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    43

    Default

    P is not observation.
    J is not conclusion.

    J means that the type has either a first or second external judging function.
    P means the opposite.
    That means that if P and J were observation and conclusion respectively, ExxJ and IxxP would part from a conclusion but IxxJ and ExxP would part from observation.

    I agree with ptgatsby, though.
    It is a circle.

  5. #5
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

    Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

    Observation -> Conclusion

    - Right?

    Translated into MBTI we then have:

    Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

    But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

    Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

    Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

    So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

    What are your experiences and opinions?
    Yes, it it akward to have a judging function preceed perceiving. This isnt the case only with EJs, but also with IPs. For reasons pointed out in this post, all the informaiton EJs collect is monitored through the prejudices of the conventional society. So they often have a strong bias towards collecting information that affirms their judgments and taking lightly or ignoring information that is irrelevant or antithetical to them. Same goes for the IPs, everything is immediately filtered through their inner principles. Since perceiving functions work unconsciously, we are not aware (both EJs and IPs) how we show a distinct partiality for information that affirms what we already believe to be true. IPs do this to a lesser degree because their perceiving function accesses the external world directly whilst the external world is engaged directly with the judgment.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #6
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

    Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

    Observation -> Conclusion

    - Right?

    Translated into MBTI we then have:

    Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

    But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

    Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

    Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

    So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

    What are your experiences and opinions?
    Leave the ENTJ out.

  7. #7
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

    Observation -> Conclusion

    - Right?
    No.

    That is a very illogical thing to suggest.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  8. #8
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Of course first comes observation and then comes conclusion. But here's how it goes in my mind:

    I have my own version of how things should be in order for maximum efficiency to be reached (Te). I observe how things are right now. I want to change them so that they match my version of how things should be. Of course the first time I observed the world I didn't know how it should have been, and the model has been built over time and with Ni-observation.

    "Information" is what I use to build the ideal model. So I'm open to every kind of information provided that it improves the model - if it doesn't, then I have no problem discarding it.

    What makes EJs seem more rigid is that if we observe that things are changing towards a direction which is different from the "ideal" we have, we will try to steer the situation towards a course of action we prefer.

  9. #9
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    That sounds right to me. I see what I want and how I want things to go and I'll try to make them happen in the way I think they should. Of course nothing ever happens that way, but I always try.

    I'm very much open to adjusting my plans and I know people don't always recognize that. Sometimes my statements come out more final than what they are. I sometimes wish people would contradict me more because I'm not really married to what I say but people often take it as my conclusion. What kind of J would I be if I didn't schedule in the unexpected? I also sometimes use it to see if people are going to let me do what I want and not voice their opinion or preferences ("Don't just sit there with your tongue in your mouth!")

    IPs seem to be more open than what they are and EJs seem to be more closed than what they are at least those are my observations of the types. I've run across some IFPs that would.not.budge and I'm like :ouch:.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

Similar Threads

  1. Is it possible to be an "XXXX"?
    By swordpath in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 06-16-2016, 09:21 PM
  2. is it possible to be a peaceful muslim?
    By Il Morto Qui Parla in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 04-23-2010, 09:11 PM
  3. [NT] Is it possible to be an INTP that has ENTP tendencies?
    By Optimus Prime in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 04:02 PM
  4. What is it like to be human?
    By Grayscale in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-07-2008, 01:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO