Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

[Venom]

ExxJs would be the most judgmental.
IxxJs would the second most.
IxxPs would be the third most.
and ExxPs would be the least judgmental.

Does the same really go for perceptiveness?

Would ExxPs be the most perceptive?
Followed by IxxPs?
Followed by IxxJs?
Followed by ExxJs?

It seems to work rather cleanly from most judgmental to least judgmental, but are IxxJs and ExxJs indeed less perceptive than ExxPs and IxxPs?

I guess the question becomes: is perceiving really a thing-in-itself, or is it simply a lack of judging?

except that in reality, its the IPs who are the most stubborn of all!

You are using the wrong definition of "judgement" In MBTI terms, judging = likes closure and perceiving= likes options. However, judging does not equate to being "judgmental" and perceiving does not equate to being "perceptive".

exactly! J =! judgmental

I mean, ExxPs seem to much less judgmental (in the normal, everyday sense of the word) than your typical ExxJ, in my opinion.

but Fi can be one of the most judgmental functions! And sensor Ti is basically "gut logic", which is as much a function of whim as Fi is!

My experience is different. I find that EPs can be quite judgemental.

He gets it!

while close-mindedness might be a P's form of "openness" (echh... the worst -- this is what I hate about some Ps... they think they're open-minded, when, in fact, they're close-minded as shit).

Yep...ENFPs with rampant Fi

I wonder who you're talking about, here.

I'm closed minded regarding a couple of subjects, why?

Because what I believe in, (regarding these several subjects) happens to be categorically right.

It's not even about me, it's about the TRUTH.

exhibit A...her Fi has been violated

In fact, it's not; it is, as you said, deluded "open-mindedness".

In the perception of the subject, they are open-minded; however, in truth, they are close-minded.

I'm thinking of the close-minded ExFP who thinks she's open-minded because she believes in... hmm, let's say, gay marriage, for example... and she cannot imagine how anybody else could not have a different opinion about gay marriage, and, furthermore, that anyone who does have a different opinion must be close-minded.

In this case, the ExFP might think she's open-minded, but, in reality, an open-minded person would be open to the idea that people could have differing opinions about gay marriage.

Thus, her "open-mindedness" is actually close-mindedness.

CLASSIC Fi closed mindedness!

Loved your answer... this is Ni magic.

Ni to the rescue...see at least a Ni person can simultaneously sit on the fence about issues, knowing "HOW" certain people believe certain things without just assuming the other person is evil, stupid or arrogant.

I've run into this before. And it's not limited to any particular type, but is does seem to be an aspect of "P".

There is no one so close-minded as someone who believes that oneself is open-minded. They listen to your opinion, consider it, and then inform you that they don't find it persuasive, or that they don't understand why you believe that your arguments imply your conclusion or any number of such things. In general, their response seems to indicate that you have the burden of proof, but of course, you can't prove jack to them.

The "J" style is more about getting things done. Anything that gets in the way of getting things done must be resolved, and "J" types will engage in plenty of negotiation so long as they're willing to pay the price to accomplish a task. This may not precisely be "openminded," but one can easily see the grounds by which one might change their mind. The "P" style on the other hand typically doesn't have a task to accomplish, there is no particular leverage by which to get them to listen, they have nothing to lose by insisting on their particular beliefs.

In function terms, Te and Fe are about interacting and sharing with other people. There is necessarily a give and take. Particular individuals might be stubborn, but they play by the give and the take if either Te or Fe predominates. Fi and Ti, however, have established core values and principles. Those principles do not whimsically change, in spite of the superficially whimsical nature of Fi and Ti (which is really the whimsical nature of Ne or Se).

In summary, Fi blows.

 

[PeaceBaby]

To uumlau, aphrodite and zarathustra:

Why does the Fi dominant clap in the same scenario (in your respective opinions)?

 

[Zarathustra]

To uumlau, aphrodite and zarathustra:

Why does the Fi dominant clap in the same scenario (in your respective opinions)?

Wow.

I don't wanna have the pretense to think that I know the answer to this question for sure.

Never thought of it before...

My quick hypothesis would be that, if they do clap in this scenario, it's because they either:

a) feel the genuine desire to clap (Fi, or even Fe [I think the traditional non-Fe using F doms and auxs are more likely to use Fe than the traditional non Fe-using T doms and auxs])

or

b) don't feel the genuine desire to clap, but clap for some other ulterior reason than does the Fe user, such as their desire to not feel ostracized (which might hurt their Fi).

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Perhaps because the *why* does matter, so the two things are really not the same...

As an INTJ, I certainly identify with what uumlau was saying, and I really don't think what he described is the same process an Fe-user engages in.

I think Fe users feel a tug on their heart strings to follow the social rule and have a genuine desire to follow this tug, and thus follow it naturally -- something very different than what an INTJ feels when he merely mimics this behavior.

You are making assumptions about Fe being the same for Fe dom/aux/tert. It isn't the same, hence the difficulty in understanding it and Fi. I have a genuine desire most of the time to engage with people how they need me to, whether that is along societal expectations, or our own made up rules at that point. But I also, in more of a group, or 'stranger' scenario follow general rules of etiquette and manners, for the most part. They are both Fe; extraverting to the object, which is a person or a group. The why doesn't matter, the fact that you are giving your energy outward to the object is what matters. If an Fi-er did this on a consistent basis, according to the description and definition of Fe, they'd be more of an Fe-er, not an Fi-er. It's what is mostly done, the behavior that is most often exhibited, regardless of WHY you think you do it (which you probably wouldn't know in the case of a tert function anyway, until one was older and wiser). In the case of a tert function, it can be tricky to figure out.

The difference is in whether we feel a genuine desire to clap, or only clap due to our wanting to follow the general social rule so that our goals will not be compromised due to ostracization for not following the rule.

Either one could be taking place at any one time, but, even when the former occurs, it's likely due to Fi (not Fe), and, when we do the latter, we, as uumlau said, try to feign Fe (or Fi) using our Te.

In certain circumstances, however, perhaps under the influence of certain drugs, or for an INTJ who actually happens to genuinely use Fe (which I believe is very rare), we may actually use Fe in this scenario.

I just don't think that's true in the vast majority of circumstances.

I think the bottom line is what you have to go by to avoid definition overlap, is the action. What action does this person display overall? No matter the motivation or feeling behind it. If the action is extraverted, it is Fe.

To uumlau, aphrodite and zarathustra:

Why does the Fi dominant clap in the same scenario (in your respective opinions)?

I notice you ask lots of questions, but rarely answer questions. Why is that?

Since clapping is done in a social context, I'd wager that the Fi-er is using Fe at that point. Just like most Fe-ers use Fi at some times. I think I said that if someone, most of the time, knew they should clap but didn't because they simply didn't feel like it, that's Fi, or unhealthy Fe; Fe turned inward to self.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think the bottom line is what you have to go by to avoid definition overlap; the action. What action does this person display overall? No matter the motivation or feeling behind it. If the action is extraverted, it is Fe.

Well, I guess we just disagree.

Just because it's more difficult when you bring motivation into the picture, doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

This reminds me of the story of the man who was looking around on the floor for something when a stranger asked, "What are you looking for?"

He replied, "I dropped a quarter in the closet."

The stranger replied, "Well, then why are you looking for it out here?"

The man replied, "Cuz it's too dark in the closet to find it."

 

[Zarathustra]

Furthermore, this whole "extraverting" business you speak of wreaks of the action being predicated by a genuine desire, which, in my opinion, is really not the case in the "ulterior motive" scenarios I've described (for both INTJs and INFPs).

 

[uumlau]

To uumlau, aphrodite and zarathustra:

Why does the Fi dominant clap in the same scenario (in your respective opinions)?

Let's see if I can put things together a bit more, because, as you've noted PB, identifying an action as arising from a single function is like unbaking a cake.

The main reason I used clapping as an example is that it is a very very simple rule that everyone knows. So, everyone claps.

I may very well be very moved and clap enthusiastically, but let's face it, most live performances are mediocre, or simply aren't something in which one is interested. So, I'll clap, but it feels "completely fake." It's just there because it's supposed to be there. I don't "feel like clapping." I just do it, just cuz.

I would imagine an Fi dom would feel similarly. However, being "dom" would imply that one is perhaps more likely to do exactly as one feels. So if one really feels like clapping, then one claps, and if one doesn't feel like clapping, one doesn't clap, and doesn't care about any peer pressure to clap. This is, to be sure, an extreme example, and in my experience there is a decent amount of "Fe" to be found in any reasonably mature Fi dom. And there is of course the problem of trying to unbake the cake. If one claps, is one "using Fi" "using Te" or "using Fe"? I'm not IxFP, so I really can't tell you what went into the cake, as I could for my personal example.

My speculation with respect to Fe is that Fe would clap and cheer because the object isn't simply just to express appreciation for the quality of the performance, but to encourage the performers, to send positive vibes, etc., even if the performance is "bad." That there is a motivation to clap for a bad/mediocre performance beyond "just following the rules of politeness." I've known strong Fe types to smile and clap and put on a show of support, and then tell me in private that they thought the performance was awful.

 

[Zarathustra]

And more importantly, what does this all have to do with the purpose of this thread?!?

 

[PeaceBaby]

^Threads are like trees; they grow branches, intertwine ...

 

[uumlau]

And more importantly, what does this all have to do with the purpose of this thread?!?

Hmm, I think the topics between your thread and AGA's threads are blurring in my mind. They're mildly related in that AGA is sure that INTJs use Fe, not Fi. The same way that Pi goes with Je and Pe goes with Ji, Te goes with Fi and Fe goes with Ti. Yet AGA seems certain that Te and Fe go together, which breaks the whole pattern.

 

[simulatedworld]

I've asked for a number of comments, observations, explanations, and opinions on this post, but here are the main ones off the type of my head: I'm looking for a deeper reason, beyond being merely definitional, beyond mere internal consistency, about why Pi and Je go together; how this combination of dom/aux functions relates to judgmentalness; whether that's really a good definition of judgmentalness, as opposed to Socionics' definition; and more.

(please read the bolded and italicized part over and over until you truly understand it if you're going to respond.)

Can you pile any more undue condescension onto that post? You just figured out in the last week that all NJs share dom/aux Ni. Cut me some slack here and the favor will be returned.

I believe you have made an error in the assumption that being a Judging type implies that one must be judgmental...so I don't understand why you're looking for a relationship between Pi+Je use and "judgmentalness." There isn't one.

Did you want to know why Myers chose to label the rational processes "judgment" and the irrational ones "perception"?

Or did you want to know what it is about Pi and Je that makes them work well together?

Or something else?

Judgers internalize the information that they gather externally to fit some kind of impersonal construct, and the construct itself has no judgments attached to it (Pi). However, judgers use this construct made from information in the external environment to make judgments of value/worth (Je). Without the construct, no reasonable judgments about reality could be made, but since the construct aids in judgment about reality, Pi-ers are labeled as judgers.

For judgers, judgment is expressed outwardly and founded and aided behind the scenes by perception.

Perceivers, on the other hand, react more immediately to the information they gather externally (Pe). What allows them to do that is the existence of a priorly formed internal construct based on values that are derived internally according to the self (Ji). Without this construct, Pe-ers would have no long-established structure to aid them in their on-the-fly reactions to their environment. Since Ji serves to aid in perception, Pe/Ji-ers are called perceivers.

For perceivers, perception is expressed outwardly and founded and aided behind the scenes by judgment.

This is an extended version of what I said. It's also readily obvious if you know how functions work.

Myers labeled Jung's rational functions as "Judgment" and his irrational ones as "Perception." This is because the rational functions use a linear, structured approach that focuses on evaluation of information, a decision or "judgment." This doesn't mean people who prefer these functions are judgmental and Myers didn't intend the term in that context. She designed the 4th letter of MBTI types to be a reflection of that person's dominant mode of extroversion.

I know what you were looking for, Z...you wanted to know what characteristics of Pi can be described as "judgmental" and why. The answer is that there aren't any, because no one ever claimed that Pi is judgmental. Pi is not considered a Judging function and it has no judgmental properties. The only reason Pi+Je people are termed "Judgers" is that, in the context Myers intended when she coined those terms, the "Perceiving/Judging" label is only intended to describe the external approach...not the internal one.

So, Pi+Je (and Je+Pi) types aren't labeled "Judgers" because they're judgmental; they're only labeled that way because Je's method of dealing with the external world is deliberate, methodical and focused on evaluating information.

 

[Jaguar]

Can you pile any more undue condescension onto that post?

Oh, the irony.

 

[Zarathustra]

Oh, the irony.

Thank you for getting to that before I did...

 

[Zarathustra]

Sim, I'll respond when I get home from work.

For the moment, I'm just gunna chalk this up to you really not reading the thread thoroughly at all...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Yet my ironical comment is spurned - it was hardly "vacuous" ...

I still have thoughts to share with you on your reply my dear z ... I wanted to convey something deeper to you than just a quick slap of comedy or insult.

There's a humility, that we are all learning, all growing, all coming into the equation as an individual variable. Even if we don't understand the math, each variable is worthy of consideration. And respect.

Be nice - pretty is as pretty does.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yet my ironical comment is spurned

I still have thoughts to share with you on your reply my dear z ... I wanted to convey something deeper to you than just a quick slap of comedy or insult.

There's a humility, that we are all learning, all growing, all coming into the equation as an individual variable. Even if we don't understand the math, each variable is worthy of consideration. And respect.

Be nice - pretty is as pretty does.

PeaceBaby, I'm all for this conversation, but let's bring it to our walls or something...

There's a very specific history with onemoretime that you may not understand, and that's why, amongst other reasons, I treated him the way I did.

Not all people are worthy of respect: Hitler is a good example... and onemoretime.

 

[PeaceBaby]

^ walls it shall be. You should relax a little though I think on the paths your threads take ... you can always pull it back on topic and sometimes great truths are revealed through the branching of thought on thought.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ And that's awfully Ne of you, but I usually make my threads with a very specific idea in mind, and so, when the thread goes off topic, something I may have been thinking about and wanting to discuss for 2-3 weeks or more is essentially being pushed aside.

Not that I disagree that valuable discussion can take place concerning alternate thought-paths, and I am somewhat open to those creeping in, but I'd prefer to satisfy my Ni's desire to focus in on the matter it so desires.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sim, I'll respond when I get home from work.

For the moment, I'm just gunna chalk this up to you really not reading the thread thoroughly at all...

Don't be a douche.


I see two possibilities for the meaning of your question:

1) You wanted to know about the dynamics between Pi and Je that make them show up together so often and compliment each other so well.

I already answered that here:

The answer to that is the same reason any combination of dom/aux functions is opposed in terms of both rationality and orientation: balance.

Pi provides the best assistant to Je and vice versa because that way we get a balance between extroversion/introversion and perception/judgment.

The strongest extroverted function is the one most visible to others, and thus Perceiving/Judging is a description of preference for dealing with the external world: in a more open-ended (Perceiving) or decisive (Judging) fashion.

If we have too much extroversion, we are too dependent on external validation; too much introversion and we're too dependent on internal validation; too much perception and we're indecisive and unable to move forward; too much judgment and we're stubborn and unable to change course with new information.

So in terms of coping with life in general, objective judgment is the best balance for subjective perception and vice versa. (Same for subjective judgment/objective perception.)


2) You wanted to know what it is about Pi that makes it "judgmental."

If this is what you meant, then you've made a mistake by assuming that being a "Judging" type in MBTI terms is supposed to imply that you're judgmental. It's not.

I wasn't just mindlessly restating the definitions; I was trying to clear up the meaning of the term "Judging" in an MBTI context for you because you seem to have erroneously assumed that it implies a Judging type must be a judgmental person.

That's what I was trying to tell you. I have not just been harping on circular definitional repetition; I've been trying to tell you that no one ever claimed that Pi or Pi-dominant people are "judgmental" in the first place. If you inferred that from MBTI's use of the term "Judging", then you've misinterpreted that term's meaning in this context.

Myers designed the 4th MBTI letter to describe one's preferred attitude for dealing with the external world. So being a "Judger" in MBTI terms doesn't make you "judgmental"; literally, the only thing it means is that you prefer a "rational" attitude for dealing with the outer world.

Note that nowhere is it stated or implied that Pi is "judgmental" or a Judging function. It's neither, and being a J type doesn't imply that it is.

Is it mildly counterintuitive that "Introverted Judging" types are actually dominant in introverted perception? Yes, and that can be a little confusing at first, but the utility in looking at it that way is that we can freely refer to "NTJs" as one group of people using the same function orientations, regardless of which is dominant.

If we use the Socionics method and take "Judger" to mean "someone who is dominant in a Judging process" (note that it does NOT carry this meaning in MBTI), then we have trouble elsewhere because an "NTj" could be an Ni/Te user or a Ti/Ne user depending on the first letter. We don't really know.

Another advantage of MBTI's choice of meaning for words Judging/Perceiving is that each function can be aligned clearly with one particular combination of two type letters, which I find makes the relationship between types and functions easier to understand.

If we use "Judging" to mean "dominant in a rational process" as it does in Socionics, then we can't make distinctions such as, "All NJs share Ni as dom/aux function" anymore because some NJs are Ni users and others are Ne users. It gets more confusing.


Now, if neither of those is what you meant by your question, I'm all ears as to what it is you actually wanted to know, but I've reread the entire thread now and I think you've grossly misinterpreted my responses as nothing but circular repetition of definitions. That's not what I've been trying to say.

 

[Zarathustra]

Can you pile any more undue condescension onto that post? You just figured out in the last week that all NJs share dom/aux Ni. Cut me some slack here and the favor will be returned.

I believe you have made an error in the assumption that being a Judging type implies that one must be judgmental...so I don't understand why you're looking for a relationship between Pi+Je use and "judgmentalness." There isn't one.

Did you want to know why Myers chose to label the rational processes "judgment" and the irrational ones "perception"?

Or did you want to know what it is about Pi and Je that makes them work well together?

Or something else?

This is an extended version of what I said. It's also readily obvious if you know how functions work.

Myers labeled Jung's rational functions as "Judgment" and his irrational ones as "Perception." This is because the rational functions use a linear, structured approach that focuses on evaluation of information, a decision or "judgment." This doesn't mean people who prefer these functions are judgmental and Myers didn't intend the term in that context. She designed the 4th letter of MBTI types to be a reflection of that person's dominant mode of extroversion.

I know what you were looking for, Z...you wanted to know what characteristics of Pi can be described as "judgmental" and why. The answer is that there aren't any, because no one ever claimed that Pi is judgmental. Pi is not considered a Judging function and it has no judgmental properties. The only reason Pi+Je people are termed "Judgers" is that, in the context Myers intended when she coined those terms, the "Perceiving/Judging" label is only intended to describe the external approach...not the internal one.

So, Pi+Je (and Je+Pi) types aren't labeled "Judgers" because they're judgmental; they're only labeled that way because Je's method of dealing with the external world is deliberate, methodical and focused on evaluating information.

Sim, I'll respond when I get home from work.

For the moment, I'm just gunna chalk this up to you really not reading the thread thoroughly at all...

You know, Sim, I actually apologize for this comment I made about you seemingly not having read the thread thoroughly, cuz, having now read your entire post, it's not really the one that deserved that accusation.

I was at work and (ironically) only read the first section of your post.

This post as a whole is actually far better than anything else you wrote in this thread.

There's actually some worthwhile, new information here.

That being said, the reason why I made the accusation (although, really, I was just making an excuse for you) was because last night and/or this morning, most of your posts seemed to reflect the fact that you weren't fully versed or up-to-date in the thread.

Most all of your questions and answers seemed out of touch or out of time with the (at the time) present state of the thread.

The same doesn't really hold for this post.