• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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?

:jew:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Oh, and before anyone gets there, I suppose I should mention that if Pi is your dom or aux, then Je is inherently your aux or dom.

And for Pe doms and auxs the same holds true with regards to Ji.

The correlation for these phenomena is 100%; the question is, what is the cause?
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
It's about the orientation of the extroverted function. Pi dom/aux have extroverted judging functions (Fe or Te) and Pe dom/aux have extroverted perceiving functions (Ne or Se).

EDIT: I don't know. It's probably some balancing act of the mind. If you didn't have the contrast, you mind would probably fracture to an extent (cognitive dissonance).
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's about the orientation of the extroverted function. Pi dom/aux have extroverted judging functions (Fe or Te) and Pe dom/aux have extroverted perceiving functions (Ne or Se).

Yeah, I said as much in the second post.

But why does that make one a Judger and one a Perceiver?

Why wouldn't one with Ji be called a Judger and one with Pi be called a Perceiver?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Hint: it's easier for me to understand why Judgers would be called Judgers.

What I can't quite wrap my head around is why Perceivers would be called Perceivers...
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
MBTI labels P/J based on the extroverted function, because that is the "face" you show; it's how you deal with the external world.

The auxiliary function is opposite in nature; if the dominant function is judging & extroverted, then the aux must be perceiving and it would be oriented inward for balance. MBTI is based on Jung's theory, and he seemed to think that this balance was logical and so MBTI developed the function order accordingly.
 

proximo

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
584
Hint: it's easier for me to understand why Judgers would be called Judgers.

What I can't quite wrap my head around is why Perceivers would be called Perceivers...

Uh, well to me I find that the IxxP's can sometimes seem a bit J-ish compared to the ExxP, whose perceiving function isn't only extraverted, but uppermost in usage and preference. I mean, you can sort of see ExxP's flexing, looking, perceiving, whilst IxxP's when they talk, it feels to me like it's coming from their dominant Ji function.

Nothing scientific there, just my own inklings, for what it's worth.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
MBTI labels P/J based on the extroverted function, because that is the "face" you show; it's how you deal with the external world.

The auxiliary function is opposite in nature; if the dominant function is judging & extroverted, then the aux must be perceiving and it would be oriented inward for balance. MBTI is based on Jung's theory, and he seemed to think that this balance was logical and so MBTI developed the function order accordingly.

So then, would Je doms have more of whatever "Judgers" have than Je auxs?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Uh, well to me I find that the IxxP's can sometimes seem a bit J-ish compared to the ExxP, whose perceiving function isn't only extraverted, but uppermost in usage and preference. I mean, you can sort of see ExxP's flexing, looking, perceiving, whilst IxxP's when they talk, it feels to me like it's coming from their dominant Ji function.

Nothing scientific there, just my own inklings, for what it's worth.

No, that's actually good stuff!

Check this out. When coupled with what I say below...

So then, would Je doms have more of whatever "Judgers" have than Je auxs?

... it would seem that there would be a spectrum from Judger to Perceiver:

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?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
... it would seem that there would be a spectrum from Judger to Perceiver:

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

This might explain why Jag is such a crotchety old bastard!

:wink:
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So then, would Je doms have more of whatever "Judgers" have than Je auxs?

Well, what is it that judgers have? :D

But yes, Je-doms will prefer their judging function, and Je-aux will prefer their perceiving function. The nature of the orientation will still make Je-aux appear "judging" though. Generally, when you get to know introverts, you find a surprise. IxxJs may be more flexible or even "soft" than you'd expect, and IxxPs will have a strong backbone under that flexible skin.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?

:jew:

Ummm.. Yes. That is the definition of J and P. The letter correlates to what is being extravereted. J means someone that Extraverts Judgement, so therefore they are have Introverted Perception. P means someone Extraverts Perception, so therefore they have Introverted Judgement.

Why? In this case it's just notation, so it's really up to the creator so it works however they want it to. I personaly think Meyers's way of denoting the process order is unintuitive and it causes a lot of confusion. It would make more sense and be more consistent if the 4th letter worked like the 1st letter, and J and P refered to whether the dominant process was Judging or Perceiving. But oh well, that's not how she chose to do it and I'm not sure why.

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?

Ehh, I think it might only be that way very superficially, if even that much. That something is Extraverted or Introverted does not make it less or more so. I think the very manner in which people look at the 4th letter as a dichotomy (which is entirely the fault of how Meyers and Briggs chose to label it) causes people to really misunderstand.

If you can dare to read the whole the whole thing, the third link down in my signature might be of interest to you (though much of it is only peripherally related to this topic).
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I personaly think Meyers's way of denoting the process order is unintuitive and it causes a lot of confusion. It would make more sense and be more consistent if the 4th letter worked like the 1st letter, and J and P refered to whether the dominant process was Judging or Perceiving. But oh well, that's not how she chose to do it and I'm not sure why.

It's for testing purposes. It's easier to test external behavior, so testing for the extroverted function is a simple way to determine what someone's dominant function is. Of course, we all know it is flawed, because much of what "P/J" tests for can be a bit stereotypical & behavior is not always in-line with cognitive function, but in order to simplify the system to get it to the masses, it was probably seen as "necessary".
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Ummm.. Yes. That is the definition of J and P. The letter correlates to what is being extravereted. J means someone that Extraverts Judgement, so therefore they are have Introverted Perception. P means someone Extraverts Perception, so therefore they have Introverted Judgement.

Why? In this case it's just notation, so it's really up to the creator so it works however they want it to. I personaly think Meyers's way of denoting the process order is unintuitive and it causes a lot of confusion. It would make more sense and be more consistent if the 4th letter worked like the 1st letter, and J and P refered to whether the dominant process was Judging or Perceiving. But oh well, that's not how she chose to do it and I'm not sure why.

Is this the reason for the difference between Socionics notation and MBTI notation?

EDIT: on second thought, I don't think it is. But that was another question of mine about which I wanted to start a thread...

EDIT2: Wait, on third thought, maybe it is the reason...
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Ehh, I think it might only be that way very superficially, if even that much. That something is Extraverted or Introverted does not make it less or more so.

It's not the Extravertedness or Intravertedness that I was referring to...

It was whether the Je function was dominant or auxiliary.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Is this the reason for the difference between Socionics notation and MBTI notation?

EDIT: on second thought, I don't think it is. But that was another question of mine about which I wanted to start a thread...

EDIT2: Wait, on third thought, maybe it is the reason...

Well, you're on to something. I wouldn't call it the reason because there are more than one, but it's one of the big differences, and this case I have to side with socionics.


It's not the Extravertedness or Intravertedness that I was referring to...

It was whether the Je function was dominant or auxiliary.

Well, I can see what you're saying, but by having the The E__J ranks as much more judgemental than the I__P, you are in fact implying that the E vs I of a process makes a difference in which is more judgemental, are you not?
 
G

Glycerine

Guest
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".
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Well, I can see what you're saying, but by having the The E__J ranks as much more judgemental than the I__P, you are in fact implying that the E vs I of a process makes a difference in which is more judgemental, are you not?

I believe that would be the case based on my claim, but it would be purely correlatiional, not causational.

I mean, I didn't say the ExxP is more judgmental that IxxP...

Get my drift?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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".

Yeah, I figured I might be misusing it a bit, but, at the same time, am I really?

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

I mean, might there not be some kind of correlation between liking closure and being judgmental and liking options and being perceiving?
 
Top