Katsuni
Priestess Of Syrinx
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,238
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 3w4?
As a section of my ongoing project of Alignment MBTI hybridization, I'm looking for dichotomies to use as axis of interpretation between the various MBTI functions.
The basic concept, is that I'd like to break each function into a two axis, three point referance grid, with explainations of interaction between such.
In the original example that triggered this to begin with, the axis chosen (similar to X and Y axis on a grid) were those of "Good/evil" and "order/chaos" in the terms used by the original alignment grid in D&D.
Now, this's a flawed system for various reasons, and mislabeled at the very least.
For example, their definition of "good/evil" is not good NOR evil at all, but serves only as a description of how strongly related to internalization or externalization one's beliefs serve. In that particular case, "externalization" is translated into "good".
An example of this would be someone who has a religion, or law, or other moral stance or belief, enforcing such externally upon others; they would fight whot they understand to be injustice, or exemplify and praise behaviours they view to be in line with their own beliefs. This isn't GOOD at all, as someone who believed in say... respecting one's elders decisions, in the case of... we'll use arranged marriages, would consider that encouraging such is "good". This would be evil from many of our own viewpoints today in western culture, but it would technically be considered "good" in areas where this is the law, and it would be considered "good" by the individual upholding such.
The term "evil" is used as an internalization, specifically directed upon ones own self, as in "how does this benefit *ME* specifically". They would be less caring about the moral end of things in relation to how they affect others, but far more interested in how things relate to themselves. They really wouldn't care about an arranged marriage at all, unless they were the one being married, since then it directly affects them.
The same is true of the basic concepts of 'order' and 'chaos', though these partially coincide with the basic premise of J and P.
For example, J can be described "in general" as "orderly", at least in the manner of being likely to have judgement based on values, beliefs, and more prone to acceptance of previously entrenched concepts like law, taboo, beliefs, and so on. A strong J would be likely, though not neccesarily, apt to have very strong views on the concept of 'good and evil'.
The P variant, is that of "chaos", but it's not really CHAOS as such at all... it's described more as just being against abstract and illogical idealizations and rules. A J would be likely to "uphold the law" under the assumption that the breaking of the law would pose precidents unwanted, whereas the P would find that a meaningless law which is harmful rather than good, should be completely ignored. If it serves no valid purpose, it should be discarded. Perception focuses upon viewing things from the 'viewpoint', as multiple viewpoints are available, seeing things from another's perspective can provide insight into the validity of the rule imposed. As such, P is not "true" chaos, but rather, challanges the role of rules per the context they exist within.
Now, this is obviously not the BEST way to describe the J/P dichotomy, but it is *A* way to describe it.
Whot I'm looking for in this post, however, is further methods of comparison.
In which ways do J and P differ, whot are the key aspects which makes one a J and one a P. Which traits truly emphasize one particular method of behaviour over another.
As J and P are more or less shorthand for explaining which cognitive functions take precidence in importance, s/n and f/t, this may also be a related position of dichotomy to explore.
I'm not really sure where to start myself, and some which have studied this more than I may have better insight into the matter.
As such, I request that those who have a strong understanding of the workings of MBTI and the cognitive functions, to attempt to describe several areas in which J and P differ, and primarily, to attempt to specify a straight line of reasoning, for exmaple, to list a line along "order/chaos" in which there would be two extremes defined by excessive J or excessive P.
Please try to explain why yeu believe such a dichotomy exists, and think of this in terms of EXTREME cases. I'm looking for obvious black and white discrepencies along the lines of "100% P will be heavily disposed to think in this manner" and "100% J will be heavily preferanced to think in this other manner". Work under the assumption that this will not be a closely related middleground, and that we're looking for specific cases of excessive behaviour or thought process, not just "well some are like this but not all", the "but not all" will cover those with a more mediated balance between J and P, but we're looking for the poles, not the median.
Thanks in advance ^.^
The basic concept, is that I'd like to break each function into a two axis, three point referance grid, with explainations of interaction between such.
In the original example that triggered this to begin with, the axis chosen (similar to X and Y axis on a grid) were those of "Good/evil" and "order/chaos" in the terms used by the original alignment grid in D&D.
Now, this's a flawed system for various reasons, and mislabeled at the very least.
For example, their definition of "good/evil" is not good NOR evil at all, but serves only as a description of how strongly related to internalization or externalization one's beliefs serve. In that particular case, "externalization" is translated into "good".
An example of this would be someone who has a religion, or law, or other moral stance or belief, enforcing such externally upon others; they would fight whot they understand to be injustice, or exemplify and praise behaviours they view to be in line with their own beliefs. This isn't GOOD at all, as someone who believed in say... respecting one's elders decisions, in the case of... we'll use arranged marriages, would consider that encouraging such is "good". This would be evil from many of our own viewpoints today in western culture, but it would technically be considered "good" in areas where this is the law, and it would be considered "good" by the individual upholding such.
The term "evil" is used as an internalization, specifically directed upon ones own self, as in "how does this benefit *ME* specifically". They would be less caring about the moral end of things in relation to how they affect others, but far more interested in how things relate to themselves. They really wouldn't care about an arranged marriage at all, unless they were the one being married, since then it directly affects them.
The same is true of the basic concepts of 'order' and 'chaos', though these partially coincide with the basic premise of J and P.
For example, J can be described "in general" as "orderly", at least in the manner of being likely to have judgement based on values, beliefs, and more prone to acceptance of previously entrenched concepts like law, taboo, beliefs, and so on. A strong J would be likely, though not neccesarily, apt to have very strong views on the concept of 'good and evil'.
The P variant, is that of "chaos", but it's not really CHAOS as such at all... it's described more as just being against abstract and illogical idealizations and rules. A J would be likely to "uphold the law" under the assumption that the breaking of the law would pose precidents unwanted, whereas the P would find that a meaningless law which is harmful rather than good, should be completely ignored. If it serves no valid purpose, it should be discarded. Perception focuses upon viewing things from the 'viewpoint', as multiple viewpoints are available, seeing things from another's perspective can provide insight into the validity of the rule imposed. As such, P is not "true" chaos, but rather, challanges the role of rules per the context they exist within.
Now, this is obviously not the BEST way to describe the J/P dichotomy, but it is *A* way to describe it.
Whot I'm looking for in this post, however, is further methods of comparison.
In which ways do J and P differ, whot are the key aspects which makes one a J and one a P. Which traits truly emphasize one particular method of behaviour over another.
As J and P are more or less shorthand for explaining which cognitive functions take precidence in importance, s/n and f/t, this may also be a related position of dichotomy to explore.
I'm not really sure where to start myself, and some which have studied this more than I may have better insight into the matter.
As such, I request that those who have a strong understanding of the workings of MBTI and the cognitive functions, to attempt to describe several areas in which J and P differ, and primarily, to attempt to specify a straight line of reasoning, for exmaple, to list a line along "order/chaos" in which there would be two extremes defined by excessive J or excessive P.
Please try to explain why yeu believe such a dichotomy exists, and think of this in terms of EXTREME cases. I'm looking for obvious black and white discrepencies along the lines of "100% P will be heavily disposed to think in this manner" and "100% J will be heavily preferanced to think in this other manner". Work under the assumption that this will not be a closely related middleground, and that we're looking for specific cases of excessive behaviour or thought process, not just "well some are like this but not all", the "but not all" will cover those with a more mediated balance between J and P, but we're looking for the poles, not the median.
Thanks in advance ^.^
