J/P=D/M

[professor goodstain]

hi
i'd like to introduce two new symbols to replace the now archaic and antiquated J and P. the two new ones will still be just as confusing and blurry as the old symbols 'judging' and 'perceiving'. but, at the very least, they will eliminate any negative connotations behind the initial interpretation of the symbols and not the original use of them as a tool to designate S/N and F/T's external or internal focus in their order.

see if you like this:
J (Judging) will now be D (Discipline)
P (Perceiving) will now be M (Motivated)

after all, aren't J's alot more disciplined and P's alot more motivated?

 

[INTP]

after all, aren't J's alot more disciplined and P's alot more motivated?

need better explanation why those are better. J and P are pretty well explained and makes more sense than D and M if there is no further explanation

 

[Savage Idealist]

How is P Motivated? I mean if J is to be disciplined then P should embody something of the opposite quality, but I don't see how motivation fills that role; if anything motivation is more of an E/J trait.

 

[rav3n]

What do you consider motivated if not Te which is Je?

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

A p wouldn't do anything without out first being motivated it's selfish thus more introverted and controlling Ti and Fi. I can see the discipline, but it's harder for me to describe.

 

[Tabula]

Hm. I have a hard time separating "discipline" and "motivated" in my mind - they seem like a package deal, though not the same, I know. At least in one direction - to be disciplined is to necessarily be motivated to keep that sort of relationship with something/anything. I guess one could be motivated without being disciplined, but how motivated could you possibly be, then, or why would someone who is motivated without (or with less; there's the bias) discipline be more motivated, or primarily motivated, more so than the "D" or enough to have that as their letter? I think, for someone interested enough to learn more about what J/P actually mean, the negative connotation that may or may not be associated with it becomes irrelevant, or at the very least, less relevant. To someone who'd rely on that, though, I don't see how that'd even be important, then. That's not to say I'm not in favor of making it as relevant/devoid of negative connotation and ambiguity as possible, however, I just don't see how D/M will accomplish that. By trying to keep them "equal" or neutral, or without negativity (I really think Judging is the perceived negative one, if anything; perceiving seems more neutral, but maybe that's just me, or maybe that's even the point - judging being sort of more "active" and therefore open to either positive or negative interpretation, and perceiving being "neutral" or "passive.") it's like that intent carried over into the meanings of the actual words you chose.

Maybe someone should just make up new words to use. No negative connotation there, unless it's just displeasing to the ear.

I think the ambiguity is probably the biggest issue, at least for me. Everything I've tried to come up with could be taken too many ways. But I guess that's all you can really hope for in one word, taken from the context of everday use and put into this theory to mean something else/denote something else/or sort of something else but similar. I wish there were just different letter notation used in the context of different theories, in order to make it clearer. If that makes any sense at all.

If any dichotomy carries more negative connotation than any other, I think it'd be the T/F, though, and if the negative connotation is your primary concern (as you said that changing J/P to D/M will only accomplish a reduction in this and not a clarification/reduction in ambiguity) maybe focusing on T/F might be better? But, heh, just because I think that carries the most negative connotation, doesn't mean other people think it does, evidenced, I guess, by your focusing/wanting to change the J/P at all, nor does that mean you haven't thought about T/F too. Argh. ^_^

I gather this doesn't help at all.

 

[chris1207]

Actually, if my interactions with Satine are any indication, Perceivers would be better described as M = Masochistic

That would leave us J's = S = Sadistic. :O

Satine knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Such Irony]

I like discipline for J, but how about flexible for P? MBTI F could then be replaced with Value-oriented (V) so F isn't used twice.

 

[skylights]

after all, aren't J's alot more disciplined and P's alot more motivated?

not really? Js are usually externally disciplined but Ps are internally so. and motivated to do what?

i agree that J and P are a bit confusing though. because the MBTI divisions really are about whether you're an extraverted Perceiver / introverted Judger or introverted Perceiver / extraverted Judger, not just a Judger or Perceiver. otherwise INFPs should be Js, a la socionics.

i mean really, if it were up to me, i'd just use the function codes - we'd be NeFi, and so on.