• 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.

Why We Disagree On Type Calls

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
"Naturally it [difficulty observing type] depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening." (Psychological Types, 427.)

So Judgers tend to "lay hold of" the conscious, that is, the superior, or conscious, dominant function which motivates or drives a person; while Perceivers register behavioral actuality which creeps up from the unconscious ego, representing functions that the person is not completely aware of or in control of.

I used to make various observations about my 8w7 ESTJ former boss, who is quite the man's man and completely in charge of his external realm of activity. But external control and - in his case - domination, is implicitly about controlling the subconscious, or unconscious, subjective factor.

As a result, his actual behavior, as I observed it, was entirely childish for a man's man such as him. He was childishly selfish, and he had the 2-year-old's greedy attitude of "mine! mine! mine!" His entire personal world was ego-dominant. And he used to "play" with other people like they were his toys. If he was bored, he would create problems, while pretending to be completely innocent of everything, and then order his employees to clean up the messes while blaming them for it all.

If I were a Judger, these things would not register with me. Judging is something I've developed through personality theory. Perceivers, I've found, don't understand my judgments about personality issues such as motives which Judgers are instinctively aware of. An untrained observer of human behavior doesn't understand, and becomes a victim of Judger motivations they can't comprehend because they, as every untrained person, assumes everybody else's thought-patterns match their own. Thus the average Perceiver is left standing flat-footed while the Judger, who instinctively understands motivation and thus can gain control over humans through their various motivations, runs circles around him.

That's not to say that Judgers are always right, instincts are not omniscient. But if Judgers are right more often than not in their instincts about what drives people, then they can gain the upper-hand more often than not.

The Perceiver doesn't think in such terms. Judgers ruined my childhood. Judgers are intensely competitive at games, while I played them for fun. Winning or losing didn't affect me, I was interested in observing the outcomes. For some reason, this makes Judgers extremely angry. Whenever Judgers became involved in sports I was active in, they ruined it for me because it stopped being fun due to the constant pressure to succeed and win. They didn't see me as motivated by perception, but only the fact that I was not driven enough by their motives to take it all so seriously. Of course I realize we had different ideas about the concept of "fun." "Fun" to me was playing the game, "fun" was in the "journey" and in observing the outcome; "fun" to them was plotting how to win and then winning the game.

Since, for me, outcomes are objective, these outcomes are spoiled by any cheating. For Judgers, cheating was part of the game. As an example, my former boss, who would cheat anybody at any time; and even if he lost in the end, the fact that someone else got cheated made it all worthwhile. I literally observed him clap his hands together once and then start rubbing them together in glee, grinning as if he was some villain in a "b" grade movie. I watched as he falsified his computerized business records in order to cheat some Israeli businessmen out of a mere $5000, which to him is chicken feed, simply in order to win a contract which others were competing for. Money wasn't the motive, winning was the motive.

We disagree on type calls because we focus on different elements of a personality. Judgers focus on motives, while Perceivers focus on behaviors. I've described personality in this post which to me is mostly a behavior, by instinct. But due to personality training I can delve down to the motives, it just doesn't come as easy to me.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Okay, I was too darn lazy to read this, but this is a phenomenon I have found very funny; people are just so sure of themselves and what types they declare others to be (and this attitude can be commonly observed with "any" opinions people develop on a variety of topics), without being open-minded enough to question their initial assumptions and check them against outside perspectives to "test" the fundamental architecture of their designs.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Okay, I was too darn lazy to read this, but this is a phenomenon I have found very funny; people are just so sure of themselves and what types they declare others to be (and this attitude can be commonly observed with "any" opinions people develop on a variety of topics), without being open-minded enough to question their initial assumptions and check them against outside perspectives to "test" the fundamental architecture of their designs.

^Sorry, didn't bother to read.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I am confused as to how you are using "judgers". You sort of imply you are a perceiver & not a judger, but you apparently identify as Ti-dom which is a judging type...? Or are you referring specifically to extroverted judging & extroverted perceiving?

Your sports illustration did not make sense to me either. Sports terrified me as a child & I found them very unenjoyable partly because of all the rules & competition & lack of imagination. If I play any games with friends, it was "make it up as you go along" silly stuff with no real winning & not much structure, if any at all.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am confused as to how you are using "judgers". You sort of imply you are a perceiver & not a judger, but you apparently identify as Ti-dom which is a judging type...? Or are you referring specifically to extroverted judging & extroverted perceiving?

Your sports illustration did not make sense to me either. Sports terrified me as a child & I found them very unenjoyable partly because of all the rules & competition & lack of imagination. If I play any games with friends, it was "make it up as you go along" silly stuff with no real winning & not much structure, if any at all.

In the quote, Jung distinguishes between "judging observers" and "perceiving observers." They are simply observing types of people; but you're right, his distinction between judgers and perceptives is obscure because I didn't give enough context.

The context that matters here is the application of judgment versus perception, and this application is external. Whereas for a Ti-dom, this application is internal.

I wasn't scared of sports, at first; I was scared of some of the types of kids that I had to play sports with. Eventually I gave up on sports, the whole system is dominated by Judgers in the traditional sense, i.e., externals.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
"Naturally it [difficulty observing type] depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening." (Psychological Types, 427.)

So Judgers tend to "lay hold of" the conscious, that is, the superior, or conscious, dominant function which motivates or drives a person; while Perceivers register behavioral actuality which creeps up from the unconscious ego, representing functions that the person is not completely aware of or in control of.

I used to make various observations about my 8w7 ESTJ former boss, who is quite the man's man and completely in charge of his external realm of activity. But external control and - in his case - domination, is implicitly about controlling the subconscious, or unconscious, subjective factor.

As a result, his actual behavior, as I observed it, was entirely childish for a man's man such as him. He was childishly selfish, and he had the 2-year-old's greedy attitude of "mine! mine! mine!" His entire personal world was ego-dominant. And he used to "play" with other people like they were his toys. If he was bored, he would create problems, while pretending to be completely innocent of everything, and then order his employees to clean up the messes while blaming them for it all.

If I were a Judger, these things would not register with me. Judging is something I've developed through personality theory. Perceivers, I've found, don't understand my judgments about personality issues such as motives which Judgers are instinctively aware of. An untrained observer of human behavior doesn't understand, and becomes a victim of Judger motivations they can't comprehend because they, as every untrained person, assumes everybody else's thought-patterns match their own. Thus the average Perceiver is left standing flat-footed while the Judger, who instinctively understands motivation and thus can gain control over humans through their various motivations, runs circles around him.

That's not to say that Judgers are always right, instincts are not omniscient. But if Judgers are right more often than not in their instincts about what drives people, then they can gain the upper-hand more often than not.

The Perceiver doesn't think in such terms. Judgers ruined my childhood. Judgers are intensely competitive at games, while I played them for fun. Winning or losing didn't affect me, I was interested in observing the outcomes. For some reason, this makes Judgers extremely angry. Whenever Judgers became involved in sports I was active in, they ruined it for me because it stopped being fun due to the constant pressure to succeed and win. They didn't see me as motivated by perception, but only the fact that I was not driven enough by their motives to take it all so seriously. Of course I realize we had different ideas about the concept of "fun." "Fun" to me was playing the game, "fun" was in the "journey" and in observing the outcome; "fun" to them was plotting how to win and then winning the game.

Since, for me, outcomes are objective, these outcomes are spoiled by any cheating. For Judgers, cheating was part of the game. As an example, my former boss, who would cheat anybody at any time; and even if he lost in the end, the fact that someone else got cheated made it all worthwhile. I literally observed him clap his hands together once and then start rubbing them together in glee, grinning as if he was some villain in a "b" grade movie. I watched as he falsified his computerized business records in order to cheat some Israeli businessmen out of a mere $5000, which to him is chicken feed, simply in order to win a contract which others were competing for. Money wasn't the motive, winning was the motive.

We disagree on type calls because we focus on different elements of a personality. Judgers focus on motives, while Perceivers focus on behaviors. I've described personality in this post which to me is mostly a behavior, by instinct. But due to personality training I can delve down to the motives, it just doesn't come as easy to me.

Can you give more examples and elaborate. I understand what u mean by the words judgers and percievers. But I'm not sure what you mean about judgers focus on motives. What does that mean, motives? I need an example. And I also need an example of the behaviors percievers focus on.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Can you give more examples and elaborate. I understand what u mean by the words judgers and percievers. But I'm not sure what you mean about judgers focus on motives. What does that mean, motives? I need an example. And I also need an example of the behaviors percievers focus on.

My former boss was not only a tremendous extravert, but a great example of type.

His motive was to win at any cost.

His behavior, as observed by me, was childish and selfish; his methods were extremely crude albeit devious and effective.

Picking a worker up by his shirt and yelling in his face was an extremely crude and childish management technique. And all he was trying to do was prevent the employee from winning (i.e., doing things his way and not the boss's way). And it was effective, because the employee started doing things the boss's way after this 6'-3" husky individual bellowed directly into his face. The ends justify the means.

Jung is pointing to an oppositional attitude between conscious and relatively unconscious functions. The context of the quote was the extraverted person. The external life of this personality is very well developed, their effectiveness and sense of control lies in the eternal realm. The internal, the subconscious, remains undeveloped, "archaic" as Jung would say, and primitive. In one and the same act of bellowing in someone's face, both his internal, subjective primitiveness and external, objective effectiveness are revealed.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My former boss was not only a tremendous extravert, but a great example of type.

His motive was to win at any cost.

His behavior, as observed by me, was childish and selfish; his methods were extremely crude albeit devious and effective.

Picking a worker up by his shirt and yelling in his face was an extremely crude and childish management technique. And all he was trying to do was prevent the employee from winning (i.e., doing things his way and not the boss's way). And it was effective, because the employee started doing things the boss's way after this 6'-3" husky individual bellowed directly into his face. The ends justify the means.

Jung is pointing to an oppositional attitude between conscious and relatively unconscious functions. The context of the quote was the extraverted person. The external life of this personality is very well developed, their effectiveness and sense of control lies in the eternal realm. The internal, the subconscious, remains undeveloped, "archaic" as Jung would say, and primitive. In one and the same act of bellowing in someone's face, both his internal, subjective primitiveness and external, objective effectiveness are revealed.

So are you saying that if the poor bloke that was yelled at by the boss was a judger...he would see the boss as an egotistical control freak

But if the poor bloke was a perciever he would see the boss as an 3 year old child or see through the rough exterior and into the pathetic human he was?
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So are you saying that if the poor bloke that was yelled at by the boss was a judger...he would see the boss as an egotistical control freak

But if the poor bloke was a perciever he would see the boss as an 3 year old child or see through the rough exterior and into the pathetic human he was?

Recall that I was giving my own interpretation of my former boss. Jung would say his behavior was primitive, I would say childish.

I'm really just interpreting Jung here. He believed that perceivers and judgers, who are both observing someone's type in his example, come to different conclusions about type. I can't very well speak for the poor bloke's perception although I strongly believe he is the Perceiver type (having worked in the same company with him for over 8 years). What I see him doing is describing the event to his friends and family, some of them responding to it by laughing hysterically (yes) and some of them with anger. Beyond that, since the bloke knows zilch about typing people, he wouldn't see it as primitive or childish, just extremely hilarious.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So are you saying that if the poor bloke that was yelled at by the boss was a judger...he would see the boss as an egotistical control freak

But if the poor bloke was a perciever he would see the boss as an 3 year old child or see through the rough exterior and into the pathetic human he was?

I should also mention that the ego here comes from the unconscious, primitive or infantile motivation.

I don't see him, realistically, as judging the boss at all.

Let's look at your question another way. If the bloke was a perceiver (let's say ESFP) and also a type-watcher, then he would see him as... let's say, feral.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I should also mention that the ego here comes from the unconscious, primitive or infantile motivation.

I don't see him, realistically, as judging the boss at all.

Let's look at your question another way. If the bloke was a perceiver (let's say ESFP) and also a type-watcher, then he would see him as... let's say, feral.

hmmm ok. I'll have to give it some thought.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
hmmm ok. I'll have to give it some thought.

It's really not that complicated.

Jung is simply saying that Judgers are better at finding a person's dominant function than Perceivers.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In Jungian cognition:
Judger = Egoic or ego-dominant judging e.g. Te, Ti, Fe, Fi
Perceiver = Eogic or ego-dominant perceiving e.g. Ni, Ne, Se, Si

This has little to nothing to do with the MBTI letter code of J/P that seems to be indicated in the OP.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Mostly we disagree because:
1. Typing people is difficult, even with a proper test/assessment.
2. People often think they know more than they do.
3. There is a general lack of knowledge of reliable methods for assessing someone's type.

There are a few people who seem to be pretty good at this on the forum. [MENTION=5356]Speed Gavroche[/MENTION] is one example.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
In Jungian cognition:
Judger = Egoic or ego-dominant judging e.g. Te, Ti, Fe, Fi
Perceiver = Eogic or ego-dominant perceiving e.g. Ni, Ne, Se, Si

This has little to nothing to do with the MBTI letter code of J/P that seems to be indicated in the OP.

I dealt with this criticism in the first page of the thread. The Jung quote isn't related to Socionics theory. Judging and perceiving are externalized functions, and indeed, the quote concerned typing others.

"Naturally it [difficulty observing type] depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening." (Psychological Types, 427.)
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I dealt with this criticism in the first page of the thread. The Jung quote isn't related to Socionics theory. Judging and perceiving are externalized functions, and indeed, the quote concerned typing others.

I never mentioned socionics or socionics theory, nor did I mention MBTI. I am simply stating the very basics of Jungian cognition and why S and N are considered irrational and T and F rational.
"Naturally it [difficulty observing type] depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening." (Psychological Types, 427.)

By the way, what you are describing here is actually not in disagreement with what I wrote. I think you don't understand what Jung meant by judging and perceiving. Perceivers, as in, those that lead with S and N, are irrational types, they simply observe mere happenings. Why? They lead with perception. Rational types lead with judgement, so they will try to filter all information through various systems, may they be logical or ethical in nature.

You are confusing MBTI terminology and theory with pure Jungian theory. What Jung wrote in the quote you provided doesn't apply to MBTI introverts. It's exactly what OrangeAppled wrote. An INTP is a judger first, perceiver second, because he is Ti dominant, not Ne dominant.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I never mentioned socionics or socionics theory, nor did I mention MBTI. I am simply stating the very basics of Jungian cognition and why S and N are considered irrational and T and F rational.

By the way, what you are describing here is actually not in disagreement with what I wrote. I think you don't understand what Jung meant by judging and perceiving. Perceivers, as in, those that lead with S and N, are irrational types, they simply observe mere happenings. Why? They lead with perception. Rational types lead with judgement, so they will try to filter all information through various systems, may they be logical or ethical in nature.

You are confusing MBTI terminology and theory with pure Jungian theory. What Jung wrote in the quote you provided doesn't apply to MBTI introverts. It's exactly what OrangeAppled wrote. An INTP is a judger first, perceiver second, because he is Ti dominant, not Ne dominant.

I know all this. But the INTP is a subjective judger, whereas the person in Jung's example is judging objective facts. So the INTP will be using objective perception.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,444
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I am confused as to how you are using "judgers". You sort of imply you are a perceiver & not a judger, but you apparently identify as Ti-dom which is a judging type...? Or are you referring specifically to extroverted judging & extroverted perceiving?

Yeah, Ti doms are judgers in Jung's system, because Ti is a judging (or rational, as he calls it) function. This is why in socionics, an MBTI INTP is an INTj.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yeah, Ti doms are judgers in Jung's system, because Ti is a judging (or rational, as he calls it) function. This is why in socionics, an MBTI INTP is an INTj.

It doesn't matter if you call them "doms." Ti is a judging function - according to Jung, subjective judging. Whereas, type calling is an objectively-oriented judgment in Jung's example.

Of relevant matter here is the lack of real-world (objective) judgment of the INTP/INFP/ISTP/ISFP types. Their judgment is more effective when oriented inward - on value-systems or logic-systems. Externally, when making type calls, they don't see type the same way as the external judgers.

My theory also explains why some people on this forum are great at typing others, but lousy at typing themselves. The latter is a subjectively-oriented process of determining type, since we can't very well see ourselves from the outside.
 
Top