First and last letters - an idea

[Two Point Two]

This occurred to me today:

EJs can be described as seeking to maximise the impact of the self on the environment.

EPs can be described as seeking to maximise the impact of the environment on the self.

IJs can be described as seeking to minimise the impact of the environment on the self.

IPs can be described as seeking to minimise the impact of the self on the environment.

What do people think?

My first thought was that it doesn't seem to work as well for IPs as for the others. While they might (sometimes) be described as detached non-interfering observers, is this really something that they consciously seek to bring about? And is it equally true for all IPs?

Also, it should be noted that it's all quite general. IJs don't want to eliminate the impact of the environment on the self; they simply want to control it, minimise unpleasant impact, and always have the opportunity to decide which impacts to allow and which to exclude. Similarly, EPs want to maximise certain kinds of impact from the environment, but this obviously doesn't translate into a desire to be dictated to, or for unpleasant experiences. And EJs are only interested in impacting their environments in certain ways - improving them, for instance.

Thoughts?

 

[Quinlan]

This occurred to me today:

EJs can be described as seeking to maximise the impact of the self on the environment.

EPs can be described as seeking to maximise the impact of the environment on the self.

IJs can be described as seeking to minimise the impact of the environment on the self.

IPs can be described as seeking to minimise the impact of the self on the environment.

What do people think?

My first thought was that it doesn't seem to work as well for IPs as for the others. While they might (sometimes) be described as detached non-interfering observers, is this really something that they consciously seek to bring about? And is it equally true for all IPs?

Also, it should be noted that it's all quite general. IJs don't want to eliminate the impact of the environment on the self; they simply want to control it, minimise unpleasant impact, and always have the opportunity to decide which impacts to allow and which to exclude. Similarly, EPs want to maximise certain kinds of impact from the environment, but this obviously doesn't translate into a desire to be dictated to, or for unpleasant experiences. And EJs are only interested in impacting their environments in certain ways - improving them, for instance.

Thoughts?

Interesting, I often feel that interacting with the environment is like walking on egg shells, I see the EJ types imposing themselves on others and things and thinking how/why could they do those things?

 

[Oaky]

I like what you did there. It makes a lot of sense. I truly do minimize the impact of the environment on myself.

 

[Eric B]

These are the "Sociability Temperament" grouping (one of the forgotten "other combinations" of type letters). These are also the letters that develop first before a definite dominant function is chosen, according to PersonalityPage.
Haven't seen much analysis done of them, though.

So this sounds like it makes sense, though I have to think about IP's wanting to minimize the impact of self on the environment. Since this group encompasses three of the "Behind the Scenes" types, it would seem to match them not wanting to stir the pot too much, though I think that they would like to see the conclusions of their introverted judgment recognized by others.

 

[Poki]

My first thought was that it doesn't seem to work as well for IPs as for the others. While they might (sometimes) be described as detached non-interfering observers, is this really something that they consciously seek to bring about? And is it equally true for all IPs?

Its not that we dont interfere, we just figure out how to do it smoothly with the least amount of interuptions. We get under it all to make our changes.

 

[FDG]

I'm not sure...EPs seem to like having an impact on the environment, too, sometimes much more than me (esp. the Se dominant EPs).

 

[AutumnReverie]

IJs can be described as seeking to minimise the impact of the environment on the self.

IJs don't want to eliminate the impact of the environment on the self; they simply want to control it, minimise unpleasant impact, and always have the opportunity to decide which impacts to allow and which to exclude.

Thoughts?

Hmm, I like this. I think it applies well, to me anyways.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think you are essentially correct because extraversion is inherently optimistic, while introversion is inherently pessimistic. Extraversion actively seeks positive experiences, while introversion actively avoids negative experiences. Then the P/J aspect describes how a person interacts with their environment. So an EJ expects they will be able to make positive things happen, while an EP searches out positive things to happen to them. An IJ expects that they can prevent negative things from happening, while an IP identifies negative things and avoids them.

 

[NewEra]

I could see this, I don't require a lot of impact from the environment. But at the same time, I don't always feel I have to minimize this impact.

 

[cascadeco]

I think you are essentially correct because extraversion is inherently optimistic, while introversion is inherently pessimistic. Extraversion actively seeks positive experiences, while introversion actively avoids negative experiences. Then the P/J aspect describes how a person interacts with their environment. So an EJ expects they will be able to make positive things happen, while an EP searches out positive things to happen to them. An IJ expects that they can prevent negative things from happening, while an IP identifies negative things and avoids them.

I think this is a good summation, and I identify strongly with your IJ description. To the OP - I think it's a decent generalization! Which can be hard to do with mbti. ha.

 

[simulatedworld]

Hmmm that's a really Ni way of looking at it. I like it.

I still say EP/IP/EJ/IJ are by far the most reasonable "temperaments."

You can rephrase this according to functional attitudes...so Je maximizes impact of self on environment, and so on for Ji, Pe, and Pi. (Remember IPs = Ji dom and IJs = Pi dom.)

 

[FallaciaSonata]

Sounds accurate to me. That would explain my pessimism a bit, too, Liquid Laser. I think I understand what you mean by minimizing the impact of the environment....as in, I plan things in such a manner that I don't have much "exposure" in the "extroverted world" that we live in.

Like Chosen One said, I don't require a lot of impact, or stimulation, from the environment, so therefore I avoid "extroverted stimulation" when I can. Not to say that I don't need stimulation in that form, but I get plenty of it just doing things I have to do, like work and college. I don't need more than that.

Interesting stuff. I've grown to prefer this type of grouping as opposed to Keirsey's.

 

[The Outsider]

Makes sense in my case as well.

IP

 

[Two Point Two]

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone.

These are the "Sociability Temperament" grouping (one of the forgotten "other combinations" of type letters). These are also the letters that develop first before a definite dominant function is chosen, according to PersonalityPage.
Haven't seen much analysis done of them, though.

So this sounds like it makes sense, though I have to think about IP's wanting to minimize the impact of self on the environment. Since this group encompasses three of the "Behind the Scenes" types, it would seem to match them not wanting to stir the pot too much, though I think that they would like to see the conclusions of their introverted judgment recognized by others.

Sociability temperament, huh? I haven't come across that - I'll have to look into it. I was actually thinking about how these groupings might be described, and came up with something like 'energy/lifestyle' groupings, which sounds similar.

Its not that we dont interfere, we just figure out how to do it smoothly with the least amount of interuptions. We get under it all to make our changes.

I see - that makes sense. It's not that IPs don't want to change their environment at all; they just seek to do so in the least intrusive way. That would be the more detailed qualification of their description, then. Thanks!

I'm not sure...EPs seem to like having an impact on the environment, too, sometimes much more than me (esp. the Se dominant EPs).

Quite true. Although, I'm wondering - do EPs make an impact because that's their primary intention, or to they make an impact as a side effect of their enthusiastically seeking to be impacted? Is making an impact the way they get impacted?

I'm imagining and EP and an EJ who each start, say, an argument intentionally. With EJs, it seems to me that their goal is frequently to implement change in the external world in some way - they might have started the argument hoping to change people's minds, hoping they'll come around to a certain point of view. The EP might have started the argument instead because they wanted to see what would happen when certain people got angry, or because they felt like participating in a good debate.

All of that's just speculative, though. I'd be interested to hear from some EPs on this.

I think you are essentially correct because extraversion is inherently optimistic, while introversion is inherently pessimistic. Extraversion actively seeks positive experiences, while introversion actively avoids negative experiences. Then the P/J aspect describes how a person interacts with their environment. So an EJ expects they will be able to make positive things happen, while an EP searches out positive things to happen to them. An IJ expects that they can prevent negative things from happening, while an IP identifies negative things and avoids them.

Very interesting - I was wondering, after I made the qualifications to the first formulations, if perhaps there was a better way to phrase them to the effect of something like seeking to maximise positive/minimise negative impacts of the environment/self on the self/environment.

I like your formulation - tying it in with optimism and pessimism works well. As an IJ, I would avoid an ambiguous impact that might have proven positive so as to eliminate the risk of a negative impact - and even though I don't really think of myself as a pessimist, that is a pessimistic attitude to take.

Hmmm that's a really Ni way of looking at it. I like it.

I still say EP/IP/EJ/IJ are by far the most reasonable "temperaments."

You can rephrase this according to functional attitudes...so Je maximizes impact of self on environment, and so on for Ji, Pe, and Pi. (Remember IPs = Ji dom and IJs = Pi dom.)

Ji minimises the impact of self on the environment, Pi minimises the impact of the environment on the self, and Pe maximises the impact of environment on self.

That makes a lot of sense. Because Pe is the reception of information from outside, Ji processes and draw conclusions internally, Je concludes and acts accordingly, and Pi obtains information from an internal source.

I also like the EP/IP/EJ/IJ temperaments - I've used them for a long time in typing people. This time, I tried to find a common thread that could be used to understand the set as a whole.

Sounds accurate to me. That would explain my pessimism a bit, too, Liquid Laser. I think I understand what you mean by minimizing the impact of the environment....as in, I plan things in such a manner that I don't have much "exposure" in the "extroverted world" that we live in.

Like Chosen One said, I don't require a lot of impact, or stimulation, from the environment, so therefore I avoid "extroverted stimulation" when I can. Not to say that I don't need stimulation in that form, but I get plenty of it just doing things I have to do, like work and college. I don't need more than that.

Interesting stuff. I've grown to prefer this type of grouping as opposed to Keirsey's.

Yes, it's similar for me. I think IJs can feel a bit overwhelmed by the external world at times - perhaps because they are compelled to try to monitor everything so as to minimise what they perceive as risks. Minimising contact is a way of ensuring that the input you have to deal with is manageable.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm imagining and EP and an EJ who each start, say, an argument intentionally. With EJs, it seems to me that their goal is frequently to implement change in the external world in some way - they might have started the argument hoping to change people's minds, hoping they'll come around to a certain point of view. The EP might have started the argument instead because they wanted to see what would happen when certain people got angry, or because they felt like participating in a good debate.

Now you know why I'd like to hit some ENTPs with a baseball bat.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Very interesting - I was wondering, after I made the qualifications to the first formulations, if perhaps there was a better way to phrase them to the effect of something like seeking to maximise positive/minimise negative impacts of the environment/self on the self/environment.

I like your formulation - tying it in with optimism and pessimism works well. As an IJ, I would avoid an ambiguous impact that might have proven positive so as to eliminate the risk of a negative impact - and even though I don't really think of myself as a pessimist, that is a pessimistic attitude to take.

Yes, I think you get what I was trying to say. I don't mean pessimism as a person who says "I know something bad is going to happen". Instead I mean it more like, "I forsee how something bad might happen, and I want to prevent that."

 

[Eric B]

Sociability temperament, huh? I haven't come across that - I'll have to look into it. I was actually thinking about how these groupings might be described, and came up with something like 'energy/lifestyle' groupings, which sounds similar.

That was supposedly coined by type theorist George Frisbie in the Journal of Psychological Type. I got that info from another APT person, but otherwise, any searches on this will lead back to here or INTPc.