User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 393

  1. #71
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Making J/P refer to extraverted function rather than dominant function really came in handy for identifying temperament (both conative, and the Interaction Styles as well) in the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I�ve actually wondered about this quite a bit myself. I remember reading something like what appled wrote- about the extraverted preference being the �face� we show to others, and being the one we use to interact with the outside world- probably in Thompson�s book. Beyond that, I�ve got my own minor theory about behavior differences:

    Judgers typically don�t seem to like the external world to be subject to change as much as Ps do. I think it�s because when the more dominant P function (be it specifically the dom or aux) is introverted, we prefer to have the external world remain relatively stagnant so that we are free to perceive introverted information. I know this much is true for Ni doms: we thrive on exploring internal possibilities and unstable external environments inhibit our ability to do this. Freedom is found in the mind, and external changes (that we aren�t in firm control of) constrict this freedom.

    I suppose the inverse is true for perceivers. When the more dominant P function (again, whether dom or aux) is directed outward, then �freedom� would be found where the external world is more subject to change- allowing them to explore external options.
    I'm finally reading the book, and just yesterday got up to a part wher she describes J as "linear" and P as "holistic" (she spells it "wholistic"). Of course, in her theory, J and P have special significance, because they identify actual brain hemispheres. Last year, I was talking to her about the Mark Bruzon page http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/jungian_functions.htm, that defines T as linear and F as holistic (and I had assumed drew from her because it mentions the brain hemispheres as well). She did not agree, and couldn't seem to understand the rationale behind that, and I was having trouble explaining it, but it did make sense (you have to see his illustrations on the page to get an idea).

    So if both are true, it means that T and J are both linear, but perhaps in different ways, while F and P are both holistic.
    I know in Bruzon's theory, linear/holistic are connected with the "connections" between events (T="this causes that" with lines connecting the dots; F is more about an overall "harmony" represented by events being enclosed in a circle).
    To Lenore, linear/holistic is
    J[Je/Pi: left brain]="one-after-the-other" rules; desires predictability; structuring reality before it exists

    P[Pe/Ji: right brain]="all-at-once" approach to life; desires probability; adjusting to conditions here and now, in light of their impact on our goals.

    So these sound similar, but both can be true.
    In my correlations of type with the old temperament systems, using "people/task focus" as the other factor besides introversion/extroversion; I discovered that T and J are both "task" focused" (less "responsive"), and F and P are more "people" focused (more responsive). Task-focus is "directive" for the Interaction Style (S+T, N+J) and "structure focused" for the temperament (S+J, N+T), and people-focus is "informing' for the Interaction Style (S+F, N+P), and "motive focused" for the temperament (S+P, N+F).

    So what's happening is that linear and holistic seems to be connected directly to task vs people. But in two different areas. What we end up with is that TJ's are the most linear; FP's are the most holistic, and TP's and FJ's are inbetween; mixing linear and holistic in one way or another.
    (Would this seem to fit those groups in anyone else's view?)
    Bruzon's use of the terms are connected with tying together our perceptions, and Lenore's seem to be more about the actual decision making process itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

    I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

    I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.
    It's about the preferred functions which define the type. If you prefer one function, and one orientation (i/e), then the others will be suppressed. An auxiliary will be chosen, and naturally gravitate to the opposite orientation. Whichever orientation is extraverted, will determine J/P. In fact, according to one person (Brenda Mullins, Personality Page), I/E and J/P develope even before the functions themselves. So the young child will have their inner or outer orientation, and the first function that develops (or more accurately, differentiates) will fall into place according to its i/e or J/P attitude. A function of the opposite j/p form will will eventually fall into place next to it as auxiliary, in the opposite orientation.
    In Bruzon's theory, it is the perceiving function that determines the orientation, which he frames as the "matrix". Pe=wide area matrix, and Ji will operate off of this. Pi=local area matrix, and Je will work off of this.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  2. #72
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    I'm not even gunna go and quote all this stuff, cuz this is just getting dumb.

    Simply put, Sim: Tesla has provided tons of value with her responses.

    Furthermore, she has been spot on with each criticism she's made about your posts.

    She understood the point, from the very first post she wrote.

    You, in 5-6 posts now, have still failed to see the point (and, thus, have provided very little value to the discussion).

    It's very clearly seen here:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld
    Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

    I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.
    When I read two posts like these, I feel like the second person is just absolutely missing the point of the first person's post.

    Like, it just reads with a loud "DONG!"

    She gets it; you don't. Simple as that.

    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.)

    Just read this post again. It answered everything I asked. After it, I asked more questions. To be honest, in my opinion, after this response, most all of the questions she answered had an adequately definitive statement (aside from the ones which I asked for her to go further into in this post). From that point on, I just wish the discussion had continued forth, as opposed to getting bogged down in you attempting to answer questions in a way that I wasn't looking for them to be answered in the first place, after those questions had already been previously and adequately addressed (which was further followed by your subsequent attempts to justify your answers and responses).

    This is the main part of her response that was awesome (although, it was her entire post, from first word to last, that showed she truly understood what I was getting at):

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    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.
    Here's an example of how she really understood what I was getting at (particularly the bolded and italicized -- to be honest, I'm not quite sure "conceptual explanation" are the best words to describe what I'm looking for, but that's probably just due to a subjective difference in preference for certain words between me and Tesla (i.e., "conceptual", in this case -- I probably would have preferred "deeper"), but the latter bolded and italicized part shows that she understood exactly what I was looking for):

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    Z, I'm sure you understand how the labeling system works from a definitive standpoint. You seem to be just looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why the labeling system has come to be labeled the way it is labeled, or why the labeling system is the way it is, so to speak.
    And here's where I thought the quality of her explanation fell off a little bit, and where I'd like the discussion to continue on from this point on:

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock
    I'm not really sure where else you want to go with this thread, but if you're wondering why Je-ers can't also be Pe-ers (why they must be excluslively judgers) and why Ji-ers can't also be Pi-ers (why they must be exclusively perceivers), I'd say it's due to a cognitive inconsistency between Pi/Ji and Pe/Je that just doesn't compute well.

    It doesn't make any sense for someone to simultaneously see the environment as something to empirically evaluate before garnering an impression (Je) while also responding immediately to it, according to momentary sense impressions, before understanding it empirically (Pe). Likewise, it doesn't make sense to build an internal construct that's derived subjectively (Ji) while also building an internal construct that's made from external information (Pi).

    So according to this logic, the only way for one to have both a perceiving and judging function juxtaposed in the primary two functions, one would need Je/Pi or Pe/Ji.
    Which is why I wrote this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Now here's the controversial part, which uumlau points to in his next question (and which Sim provides a good answer to in his post).

    Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

    In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

    The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

    I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

    And with regards to the latter two sentences: don't we rather regularly talk about PeJe and PiJi loops?

    (Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)

    ...

    And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

    Honestly, though, great post.

    I also brought up this point, which Tesla has responded to a post or two above:

    Quote Originally Posted by zarathustra
    So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

    I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

    What do you think? Which makes more sense?

    Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?
    Sim, it's not really a problem that you're not getting what I'm trying to get at, cuz Tesla already provided a ton of valuable information perfectly in line with what I was looking for (you eventually touched on some of it, but she'd already answered all of those questions in her original post, in more depth and with more force), other than the fact that you've now completely derailed this thread in an attempt to justify your responses, and thus hindered further on-point discussion, delving and elaboration.

    If you see this post: one of the primary negative traits I'm talking about is your apparent need for combativeness. While I completely empathize with the need to confront and combat something when it needs to be confronted or combatted, all too often, you seem a priori to bring this frame into whatever post or discussion you are reading and thus impose it upon the discussion, essentially creating conflict or combativeness where none need exist in the first place.

  3. #73
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Maybe this is known to some of you, but I'm sure it's not known to the lot of you...

    I was kicking some thoughts around in my head the other day, and I realized that all NJs (INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ) are either Ni doms or Ni auxs.

    At the same time, all NPs (INTP, ENTP, INFP, ENFP) are Ne doms or Ne auxs.

    Then I realized that something similar holds true for Ss.

    All SJs (ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ) are Si doms or auxs, and all SPs (ESFP, ISTP, ESTP, ISFP) are Se doms or auxs.

    Accordingly, all Pi doms or auxs are Judgers, and all Pe doms or auxs are Perceivers.

    So, my question to you is: what is it about having Pi (Ni,Si) as your dom or aux that makes one a Judger, and what is it about Pe (Ne,Se) as your dom or aux that makes one a Perceiver?

    If I get you correctly, is the question "what does it mean to be a judger or a perceiver"?

  4. #74
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I think this is a very intriguing concept. I don't think people should label it off because in the field of psychology, a lot of is just made up concepts that are not easily proven. So what's to say this isn't relevant.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  5. #75
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

    I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  6. #76
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

    I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.
    Sorry to offend you. You're right - there's no excusing the incivility.

  7. #77
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I don't think I actually said anything about what I thought Z meant. I just read uumlau's post and it reminded me of a common mistake that a lot of people on the forum make.



    Suit yourself.





    The point was to explain why the answer to his question is definitionally obvious...



    Neither do I, but you know what I meant better than I do.





    While I do think the answer to Z's question is pretty obvious, I don't think I said he was looking for proof of the categories...if you look at my response directly to him (rather than the part to uumlau) you can see that I directed my efforts toward explaining why his question is obvious.





    Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

    I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.





    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.

    What is so difficult about this?
    I can't help but notice your Tesla response lacks the reactionary and hostile tone of your usual posts. Hmmm. Wonder why that is?
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  8. #78
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i think jungs idea(where j and p is based on first function instead of extraverted function) of j and p is totally shitty. jung intp and entp use totally different functions, and mbti intp and entp use the same functions. both judge whats inside their heads and perceive the outer world without judgment. even tho intp uses judging function as first function they are not judgmental towards the outer world, like entp is not judgmental towards outer world either. however intj(jung intp) judges the outer world, just like entj..


    i know entp(with high introversion and low extraversion) and intj and im much more like the entp guy than what the intj is. so i think it would be wrong to label the intj as intp since his functions are totally different(he clearly thinks differently) from entp.
    The similarities between intp and entp can be better explained by this:

    Ti/Ne

    Ne/Ti

    It's as simple as that. The J/P dichotomy just confounds things and encourages more false assumptions than doing any good by classifying similar types together as judgers or perceivers.

    And of course you wouldn't be like an INTJ. An INTJ uses: Ni/Te which is totally different.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  9. #79
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    I'll publically acknowledge (at least from what I've seen lately) I think sim has been showing higher levels of self-control and using better manners overall to express his thoughts.

    But there's stuff in that response above that could be "called out" too ...

    Since this post is irrelevant to the thread, my apologies for the derail.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  10. #80
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

    I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.
    I'm going to leave this post intact as an instructive guide for everyone involved in this thread.

    Please listen to uumlau.

Similar Threads

  1. The purpose of Pi, Je, Pe, and Ji
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-12-2011, 11:48 AM
  2. Differences between Judgers and Perceivers
    By Robopop in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-21-2010, 11:45 AM
  3. first-borns, family responsibility, and Pi vs Pe
    By the state i am in in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2009, 11:14 PM
  4. Judgers and Perceivers in Online Courses
    By Ozz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 06:14 AM
  5. Pe/Ji vs Pi/Je
    By substitute in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 04:40 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