Why We Disagree On Type Calls

[violet_crown]

I think it's an interesting idea presented in the OP, but wouldn't it make more sense to orient this around the attitude of the perceiving rather than judging function? If people who are Je tend to hone in on motivation, it's more likely because they're Pi, than Je, per se.

 

[Mal12345]

I think it's an interesting idea presented in the OP, but wouldn't it make more sense to orient this around the attitude of the perceiving rather than judging function? If people who are Je tend to hone in on motivation, it's more likely because they're Pi, than Je, per se.

We're addressing the conscious attitude of the type-observer here. Pi in this case is relatively unconscious, even if it is auxiliary to Je.

 

[Totenkindly]

So I could say as an internal judger that I scan this thread as some kind of detailed defense of the writer's perspective or even a semi-veiled criticism of those who have annoyed him by disagreeing so consistently, but I would be viewed in terms of behavior by a perceiver as acting in a way that is unnecessarily disruptive to the ideas being laid out in this thread?

 

[violet_crown]

We're addressing the conscious attitude of the type-observer here. Pi in this case is relatively unconscious, even if it is auxiliary to Je.

What do you mean by "conscious attitude"? There's nothing I've ever come across that suggests that the auxiliary is "unconscious". It can be underdeveloped, but it's by definition not an unconscious function.

 

[Entropic]

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.

Getting hung up on small words here. Seems to miss out the context. It is possible that Jung is simply referring to Je, but it doesn't change anything in what I've written in the above. It still holds true.

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.

I would argue no person sees type exactly the same since that is indeed affected by personal cognition and no person thinks exactly the same, even though there are various heuristics that still attempt to systematize this to varying degrees. Seeing differences in how to understand type is not just something that introverts are therefore fallacious to. This is by itself flawed logic since if introverts perceive the world differently to extroverts, then ideally none in fact truly see type fully for what it is, but merely those introverted or extroverted reflections that they are more interested in understanding when it comes to type theory.

You indeed also see this a lot where extroverts regardless of Pe or Je are more inclined to refer to and focus on the externalization of type i.e. behavior, what it says about type X in descriptions etc. Sensors are also subject of this to a very large degree.

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.

That's a very over-complicated way of trying to make sense of it. The and probably more accurate answer is self-awareness, or lack thereof. For some people, especially extroverts whose consciousness is naturally oriented towards the extroverted world, it is difficult to perform the sufficient introspection required to first see what it is inside themselves and reference this back to the outside, rather than first seeing what exists outside themselves and try to map their experiences this way.

Sensors also suffer a similar problem in that they often have difficulties grasping the theoretical and intuitive depth that personality type theory is ultimately founded upon, in that personality is not something tangible and concrete that which they can observe with the five senses but exists beyond the physical world. They thus tend to become overly pre-occupied in trying to understand type from what can be tangibly observed. I think a good example of this aspect of human psychology the ability to read body language and how this infers to people's true motivations, thinking patterns etc.

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] As a dominant perceiver, what I am focused on when understanding this thread is how the content of the thread and the OP matches my understanding of the system(s). Are the impressions I receive congruent with my internal model? This is why I thought I was an INTP because I thought I judged information based on its logical nature and to a degree yes, of course, logic matters, but insofar that logic is capable of reinforcing the intuitive points and patterns that I perceive.

Is the argument to support this conceptual framework reasonable? I care more about the concepts than I care about the logic in that logic must carry the concepts rather than vice versa, and this is how we understand the difference between dominant perception and judgement.

 

[Mal12345]

What do you mean by "conscious attitude"? There's nothing I've ever come across that suggests that the auxiliary is "unconscious". It can be underdeveloped, but it's by definition not an unconscious function.

I'm just going with Jung here. "Unconscious" is fairly equated with "undifferentiated." As a function becomes more conscious, it becomes more differentiated from the other functions, therefore it is more under the control of volitional choice. Undifferentiated functions operate unconsciously, which Jung states causes them to become mixed up with the dominant function (which is the function most differentiated from the rest).

According to the OP and Jung, those who are objectively judging a type see the function that is most differentiated, i.e., dominant. Those who are objectively perceiving a type don't see any "deeper" than judgers, they are just more prone to finding the undifferentiated functions.

 

[Mal12345]

Getting hung up on small words here. Seems to miss out the context. It is possible that Jung is simply referring to Je, but it doesn't change anything in what I've written in the above. It still holds true.

Donating two sentences to making a point is not getting "hung up" on it. It simply serves to play into the fact that there is a more relevant idea.
So try not to get so hung up on my getting "hung up."

I would argue no person sees type exactly the same

Of course they don't. But we're not talking people here, we're talking theories about types of people, i.e., judging types and perceiving types.

Isince that is indeed affected by personal cognition and no person thinks exactly the same, even though there are various heuristics that still attempt to systematize this to varying degrees. Seeing differences in how to understand type is not just something that introverts are therefore fallacious to. This is by itself flawed logic since if introverts perceive the world differently to extroverts, then ideally none in fact truly see type fully for what it is, but merely those introverted or extroverted reflections that they are more interested in understanding when it comes to type theory.

The issue you bring up is solved through extensive practice in type-watching. The OP is merely talking about those who haven't learned to see the difference between dominants and auxiliaries. Jung STATES that there are those - not related to type - who after having practiced type-watching become confused by various motives and behaviors.

The flawed logic in your argument is based on the assumption that I was treating types as describing cognition set in stone. But I am only limiting the discussion to the theoretical level, whereas in practice, introverts and extroverts can overcome the cognitive limitations which are merely cognitive habits set in place by nature and nurture.

You indeed also see this a lot where extroverts regardless of Pe or Je are more inclined to refer to and focus on the externalization of type i.e. behavior, what it says about type X in descriptions etc. Sensors are also subject of this to a very large degree.

This isn't what Jung says about the situation:

"[j]udgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening."
(472)

"The mere happening" is behavioral (what was said and done), while the conscious motivation (the why it was said and done) of the psychic process is that which is controlled by the dominant function.

That's a very over-complicated way of trying to make sense of it. The and probably more accurate answer is self-awareness, or lack thereof. For some people, especially extroverts whose consciousness is naturally oriented towards the extroverted world, it is difficult to perform the sufficient introspection required to first see what it is inside themselves and reference this back to the outside, rather than first seeing what exists outside themselves and try to map their experiences this way.

My explanation is no more complicated than yours, and in fact my explanation was shorter and less complicated. And the difference in your spiel only amounts to focusing on extroversion and introversion, whereas I focused on perceiving and judging.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that yours is a different way of looking at this.

Sensors also suffer a similar problem in that they often have difficulties grasping the theoretical and intuitive depth that personality type theory is ultimately founded upon, in that personality is not something tangible and concrete that which they can observe with the five senses but exists beyond the physical world. They thus tend to become overly pre-occupied in trying to understand type from what can be tangibly observed. I think a good example of this aspect of human psychology the ability to read body language and how this infers to people's true motivations, thinking patterns etc.

That again is just a different way of looking at the same subject. Complicated or over-complicated is of no consequence to any of this.

 

[Lark]

I think the OP actually is a little too indepth, the reason I disagree with most of the type calls that are made here on this forum is because they are based upon pretty shallow criteria, the tribal groupings as defined by the division of the forum into subforums even and what that means the NT, SJ, NF groupings.

Most of the understanding of each are prejudicial and prejorative, so when people type people they're attributing negative qualities or labels to them.

Alternatively there's some posters who're doing the classic thing of seeking to appear in the know, exhibit knowledge which is different from, perhaps in their view superior to that of other posters and I think that's why when one typology appears exhausted there's the jumping ship to another type usually ahead of everyone else and then when enough people have jumped ship too and picked up enough to match or challenge the knowledge of the early jumpers it happens again.

 

[violet_crown]

According to the OP and Jung, those who are objectively judging a type see the function that is most differentiated, i.e., dominant. Those who are objectively perceiving a type don't see any "deeper" than judgers, they are just more prone to finding the undifferentiated functions.

I thought your claim was that people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me. While people who were Pe were more attentive of actual behaviors. Whatever the case, there would have to be some sort of assumption that people who are Pe dom or auxiliary are superior synthesizers of raw data than people who are Pi dom or aux, which is utter crap.

 

[Mal12345]

I thought your claim was that people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me. While people who were Pe were more attentive of actual behaviors. Whatever the case, there would have to be some sort of assumption that people who are Pe dom or auxiliary are superior synthesizers of raw data than people who are Pi dom or aux, which is utter crap.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Mal12345]

I think the OP actually is a little too indepth, the reason I disagree with most of the type calls that are made here on this forum is because they are based upon pretty shallow criteria, the tribal groupings as defined by the division of the forum into subforums even and what that means the NT, SJ, NF groupings.

Most of the understanding of each are prejudicial and prejorative, so when people type people they're attributing negative qualities or labels to them.

Alternatively there's some posters who're doing the classic thing of seeking to appear in the know, exhibit knowledge which is different from, perhaps in their view superior to that of other posters and I think that's why when one typology appears exhausted there's the jumping ship to another type usually ahead of everyone else and then when enough people have jumped ship too and picked up enough to match or challenge the knowledge of the early jumpers it happens again.

All kinds of things go on here, even (*gasp*) deceitful typings, or playing games with others in determining one's own type. (I.e., trolling the typologists.)

Also, try to remember that Jung's typings were done in person, not over some electronic media, so the OP is limited to his technological context.

 

[violet_crown]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

That's alright. I don't think you know what you're talking about, either.

 

[Mal12345]

That's alright. I don't think you know what you're talking about, either.

Instead of being rude, why don't you explain to the forum what you meant?

For example: "superior synthesizers of raw data."
And your "Pe dom or auxiliary" which has nothing to do with the OP argument.
And: "people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me."
Yes, "to you," but not to Jung, since both conscious and unconscious motivations exist.

 

[Entropic]

Donating two sentences to making a point is not getting "hung up" on it. It simply serves to play into the fact that there is a more relevant idea.
So try not to get so hung up on my getting "hung up."

How is getting hung up on one particular word but failing to see how it fits into a larger context not being hung up and nitpicky?

Of course they don't. But we're not talking people here, we're talking theories about types of people, i.e., judging types and perceiving types.

But the theory attempts to desribe people.

The issue you bring up is solved through extensive practice in type-watching. The OP is merely talking about those who haven't learned to see the difference between dominants and auxiliaries. Jung STATES that there are those - not related to type - who after having practiced type-watching become confused by various motives and behaviors.

Sigh. I even fail to see how this point is relevant. What you are getting hung up here seems to be persona, not necessarily actual cognition.

The flawed logic in your argument is based on the assumption that I was treating types as describing cognition set in stone. But I am only limiting the discussion to the theoretical level, whereas in practice, introverts and extroverts can overcome the cognitive limitations which are merely cognitive habits set in place by nature and nurture.

Never assumed such a thing. The flawed logic in your argument is that you completely and utterly fail to understand the logic of my argument to begin with.

This isn't what Jung says about the situation:

"[j]udgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening."
(472)

Yes. Exactly. Because perception is that, perception. And all types that lead with perception i.e. ENP, ESP, INJ and ISJ focus on perception first, judgement later, because the dominant function is a perception function.

"The mere happening" is behavioral (what was said and done), while the conscious motivation (the why it was said and done) of the psychic process is that which is controlled by the dominant function.

No. You don't seem to understand how judgement and perception works. Ni can for example be very focus on intent and finding meaning, and Fe can too. How do we separate them? On the kind of information they look out for and how the Ni type differs in trying to make sense of things compared to the Fe type.

My explanation is no more complicated than yours, and in fact my explanation was shorter and less complicated. And the difference in your spiel only amounts to focusing on extroversion and introversion, whereas I focused on perceiving and judging.

Less complicated? It's convoluted as fuck. Lack of self-awareess describes why people fail to see their own cognition. This may hhave several causes, some of which I mentioned to support my reasoning. I would say that my explanation is quite simple - it doesn't try to justify why people lack awareness by formulating a convoluted logical system.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that yours is a different way of looking at this.

Of course it is, because I don't share your cognition.

That again is just a different way of looking at the same subject. Complicated or over-complicated is of no consequence to any of this.

Then why even assert that your point of view has prominence over other point of views to begin with, even if implicitly?

 

[Speed Gavroche]

We disagree because some people re good at typing, and some are bad.

So, some people are rights, and some others are wrong. That's just that.

 

[violet_crown]

Instead of being rude, why don't you explain to the forum what you meant?

For example: "superior synthesizers of raw data."
And your "Pe dom or auxiliary" which has nothing to do with the OP argument.
And: "people who were Je were more attuned to motivation, which would imply a subconscious impetus/less differentiated function to me."
Yes, "to you," but not to Jung, since both conscious and unconscious motivations exist.

I could leap through all these Ti hoops, or I can just feed into your belief that J's are all out to shit in your applesauce.

Think I'll go with the latter.

 

[Mal12345]

I could leap through all these Ti hoops, or I can just feed into your belief that J's are all out to shit in your applesauce.

Think I'll go with the latter.

I don't care. The trolls can have this thread. My idea presented in the OP stands unaffected.

 

[violet_crown]

I don't care. The trolls can have this thread. My idea presented in the OP stands unaffected.

We'll always have Paris.

 

[reckful]

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.

There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them. In talking about "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" in that quote from Chapter 10, Jung is talking about J-doms and P-doms. One reason we know this is that Jung made the exact same point in Chapter 4. In explaining why Jordan (an Ni-dom) viewed introverts as the "more impassioned" types and extraverts as the "less impassioned" types, Jung explained that it was because irrational types (P-doms) like Jordan — and note that Jordan was a Pi-dom, not a Pe-dom — tend to type people based on their unconscious sides. And Jung explained that, by contrast, rational types (J-doms) like himself tend to type people based on their conscious sides. As he put it: "Thus Jordan's formulations accord on the whole with reality, though not with the reality as it is understood by the rational types, but with the reality which for them is unconscious."

And in Chapter 10, after making the same distinction in that paragraph you quoted, Jung reiterated the fact that, as a Ji-dom, his own tendency was to type people on the basis of their conscious sides. As he put it (in his summary of the "extraverted rational types"):

But we have to consider whether by "rational" we are speaking from the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology or from that of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. This observer could easily arrive at a contrary judgment, especially if he intuitively apprehended merely the outward behaviour of the person observed and judged accordingly. On the whole, the life of this type is never dependent on rational judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to outward behaviour, without any concern for the internal economy of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and fortuitous nature of certain unconscious manifestations than of the reasonableness of his conscious intentions and motivations. I therefore base my judgment on what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am willing to grant that one could equally well conceive and present such a psychology from precisely the opposite angle. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different psychology, I would have described the rational types in the reverse way, from the standpoint of the unconscious—as irrational, therefore.

So, contrary to your interpretation, it seems clear to me that Jung thought that an irrational observer (N-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their unconscious side whether the observer was an Ne-dom or an Ni-dom (like Jordan) and that a rational observer (J-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their "conscious psychology" whether the observer was a Je-dom or a Ji-dom (like Jung).

 

[Mal12345]

There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them. In talking about "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" in that quote from Chapter 10, Jung is talking about J-doms and P-doms. One reason we know this is that Jung made the exact same point in Chapter 4. In explaining why Jordan (an Ni-dom) viewed introverts as the "more impassioned" types and extraverts as the "less impassioned" types, Jung explained that it was because irrational types (P-doms) like Jordan — and note that Jordan was a Pi-dom, not a Pe-dom — tend to type people based on their unconscious sides. And Jung explained that, by contrast, rational types (J-doms) like himself tend to type people based on their conscious sides. As he put it: "Thus Jordan's formulations accord on the whole with reality, though not with the reality as it is understood by the rational types, but with the reality which for them is unconscious."

And in Chapter 10, after making the same distinction in that paragraph you quoted, Jung reiterated the fact that, as a Ji-dom, his own tendency was to type people on the basis of their conscious sides. As he put it (in his summary of the "extraverted rational types"):

​

So, contrary to your interpretation, it seems clear to me that Jung thought that an irrational observer (N-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their unconscious side whether the observer was an Ne-dom or an Ni-dom (like Jordan) and that a rational observer (J-dom) would tend to type a subject based on their "conscious psychology" whether the observer was a Je-dom or a Ji-dom (like Jung).

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But I am curious to know why you've changed your call on Jung's type from ISTP to something ending with a J.