How to determine if i am a P or a J?

[INTJMom]

well, thanks everybody.
i reviewed the answers, and im a P kind of guy, but i do got some J traits(i like to plan certain things, i kinda like closure, i dont have a lot of problem making a decision, but overall i like possiblities,i am spontaneous ,play now-work later, work best close to "last minute".

so im an xNTP
tnx all.

What do you mean by "liking possibilities"?

 

[me_plus_one]

Maybe he reffers to having many open options.

But to answer the J/P question, think of studying for an exam. If you'd prepare for it a few days in advance, you are J. If you'd wake up early on the day of the exam just to study for it because you didn't do it on time, then you are P.
Something similar: you have a project to do and you know about it many weeks in advance. It it will be ready ahead time, you are a J. If you'll work on it until 3 AM in the night before the deadline because it's unfinished, you are P.
If you have you next weeks already planned, with a schedule, you are J. If you don't know what you are going to do the next hour, you are P.
And the list goes on....


(P.S. There might be P's who would actually learn for a test before it happens or J's who might not have their projects ready on time, but among the people I know, those thing usually happen.)

 

[Venom]

I'm just curious what you prefer in regards to P and J...

Judging:
*Plan many of the details in advance before moving into action.
*Focus on task-related action; complete meaningful segments before moving on.
*Work best and avoid stress when keep ahead of deadlines.
*Naturally use targets, dates and standard routines to manage life.
Perceiving:
*Comfortable moving into action without a plan; plan on-the-go.
*Like to multitask, have variety, mix work and play.
*Naturally tolerant of time pressure; work best close to the deadlines.
*Instinctively avoid commitments which interfere with flexibility, freedom and variety

I find that these kind of lists become kind of useless when talking about NJs

An ESFJ is far more organized and scheduled than an ENFJ. An ESTJ I know keeps his place absolutely spotless, while I personally clean when its practical to do so (i batch my tasks together to save time and be more efficient).

NJ = organize if its actually useful/required to organize
SJ = organize for the sake of organizing

 

[Mondo]

SJ's enjoy organizing their physical environment.
NJ's are more so interested in organizing their ideas (and at times..) the idea of others.

NJ's make better supervillians.
SJ's make better naggers.

 

[Totenkindly]

...NJ = organize if its actually useful/required to organize
SJ = organize for the sake of organizing

Meh, I would recast that second bit.

Think about what is going on here.

S's work in the tangible world.
They are NOT organizing for the "sake of organizing."
They are organizing because tangible organization enables them to work more efficiently.
It's useful organization for them.
It is NOT useful organization for N's.

N's need the tangible organization less.
They seem mentally able to hold insinuations, intimations, relationships between data up in their head and visualize images and metaphors that passes for tangible organization for S's.

So both ARE doing organization.
And both types find their particular style of organization useful.
It is just that these organizations are made manifest in different spheres.

I don't think we should diminish or downplay what S's do.
They're actually functioning in ways that make THEM more effective.
Those ways just happen to usually not be as useful for N's.

But everyone organizes data in some way.
It just tends to be either (1) linear organization or (2) spatial/web-style organization.

 

[entropie]

Meh, I would recast that second bit.

Think about what is going on here.

S's work in the tangible world.
They are NOT organizing for the "sake of organizing."
They are organizing because tangible organization enables them to work more efficiently.
It's useful organization for them.
It is NOT useful organization for N's.

N's need the tangible organization less.
They seem mentally able to hold insinuations, intimations, relationships between data up in their head and visualize images and metaphors that passes for tangible organization for S's.

So both ARE doing organization.
And both types find their particular style of organization useful.
It is just that these organizations are made manifest in different spheres.

I don't think we should diminish or downplay what S's do.
They're actually functioning in ways that make THEM more effective.
Those ways just happen to usually not be as useful for N's.

But everyone organizes data in some way.
It just tends to be either (1) linear organization or (2) spatial/web-style organization.

I aggree but I tend to see it, even more balanced, partially from experience.

In my opinion S concentrate on the building blocks, while N concentrate on what can be made of the building blocks. Because both functions are within all personalities, a dominat S or N can always have traits from their partner function.

So, if you have a SP for example, organizing things, according to information about the things gathered, he is likely to associate work to people, who are capable of accomplishing it. This I like to see as a hierachial business structure. The main problem is, information goes long ways and in the final product, you are not likely to see, where a mistake was made, if there is one.

If you have a NP, organizing thing, I imagine that as a team effort. Where different people from different fields of intrest try to form a synergy to maximize the output and the information about it gathered in the process. The downside again is that the team can have communication problems or complicate things, cause they have no clear line of graspable work that's need to be done. Or the team effort can go in the wrong direction, because there is no regulation mechanism or noone who like in a hierachial structure, takes in the building blocks first and then finalizes the concept.

That's a more business talk approach, but I see many qualities of dominant S and N being reflected here. And their combination would make for the best strategy depending on the nature of the project.

 

[Bella]

I like to organize because I like order and because it's just....nice to organize. I swear, it lifts my mood. (dork)
I don't know if that falls in Jennifer or Babyon Candle's category.

 

[entropie]

I do not see the conncetion, why J's are associated with being more organized. In my opinion that is a thing, you can only say, if you view it from a certain standpoint.

A functioning p can be as organized as a J. When I watch my eStP friend, handling like 500 friends he has a week that is a masterpiece of organization. He is and that is true, more prone to get distracted and does not meet deadlines exactly on time. But he is not lazy and misses them by a day.

There is the need and the intrest to aquire new information for p's and that gives them a broader view on things, what can make them, if proper developed, masters of organisation in business or personal life. I myself am a strict organizer, I always meet deadlines in the last minute, but I meet them. I do not calculate enough time for my personal things I need to do, but I manage to do them. While in group situations, I wont transfer my personal behaviour on others and always remember giving them time to finish work (if they need it).

I personally find it insulting, if J's are always associated with being the better organizers. They organize more rational, more tangible, but if you see it on the other hand a p takes in far more information in the process of organizing, or wants to at least.

That means the starting point from which you look at a p's organizing talents is a completly different than that of a J. And if the p nevertheless manages his things, he will not be as efficient as a J in it, but he will have a broader perspective in the end.

And which of the 2 outcomes you prefer, everyone answered with his MBTI test. And there is completly no telling that either one of the two are good or bad. They just are.

 

[autumn]

House is a fictional character, his personality in the show does only work, because it plays well together within the environment its put in and the other characters it reacts too. Most of the time fictional characters aint good to compare for type, although they can set nice ideals .

If you want to find out about p or J, you really should look into function analysis. The 4-letter type code is only a description for function distribution, many people confuse that.

If you are for example ENTP, you would have:

Extraverted Intuition
Introverted Thinking
---
Extraverted Feeling
Introverted Sensing

The first 2 indicate your primary functions, while the last 2 indicate auxiliary functions. How you use them in life, should become from secure on the top, so the first function, to insecure on the bottom, the forth function.

N and S, so Intuition and Sensing are perceiving functions, while T and F are rational functions. So while T and F are the CPU of your computer that processes the information, N and S are different mechanisms to gather information, through concious or unconcious means.

So, if your 1st function is a perceiving functions, your are in terms of MBTI a p and if it is a rational function you are a J.

To associate that J's are more to be the leader type or whatever associations there are, is not good. But to have a rational function as your primary one brings certain advantages with it when it comes to being sure about a decision. While a perceiving function for example, can't stop taking in new information or looking for new, before it makes a decision. - (on the other hand it can mean that J's are to quickly or strictly to make a decision)

And from that point on, you can draw all kinds of new connections

You are right to point out that function theory is really helpful here, and that P and J are only shorthand for function dynamics. However, I just wanted to clarify some terminology and make some adjustments here.

First, I am generally used to seeing the 1st function called the "dominant" and the 2nd being called the "auxiliary," and then the next simply the "3rd function" and the last (4th) being called the "inferior function." Instead you have the first two called "dominant" and the 3rd and 4th being called "auxiliary." While technically it isn't exactly incorrect, it doesn't follow standard terminology and could be confusing.

Additionally, P and J primarily indicate is which functions are extraverted. So if you are a P, you extravert your perceiving function (S or N, thus making either Se or Ne one of your top two functions). It doesn't determine which is more prominent, though; I and E take care of that. If you are E, your extraverted function is also your primary (1st) one, whereas if you are I, your extraverted function is your auxiliary and the other one of your top 2 (your introverted one) is your primary function.

Thus, (and I think this is very important), you have types like INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ, which are "J-types" but actually have a perceiving function as their primary (Ni for INFJ and INTJ and Si for ISTJ and ISFJ). Likewise you have "P-types" (INFP and ISFP, for example) which actually have a judging function as their primary (Fi in these examples). However, since in these cases the dominant functions in question will of necessity be introverted, they may not be as readily apparent to another person upon casual (or sometimes even closer) observation. The extroverted functions, in these specific examples, though auxiliary, may be more readily observable...not because of their prominence in the hierarchy of personal usage preference but by virtue of their being extroverted. I think that realizing this and keeping it in mind helps alleviate stereotypes by adding a layer of intricacy and nuance to function theory.

autumn

 

[Venom]

this isnt exactly fool proof, but the best ive seen:

Ps are aggressive in their theories and weak in their conclusions
J's are aggressive in their conclusions and weak in their theories

aggressive does not mean angry and weak does not mean "its not a good conclusion"...it just means more hesitant.

 

[Venom]

I like to organize because I like order and because it's just....nice to organize. I swear, it lifts my mood. (dork)
I don't know if that falls in Jennifer or Babyon Candle's category.

my point about SJs is proven after all...

 

[entropie]

You are right to point out that function theory is really helpful here, and that P and J are only shorthand for function dynamics. However, I just wanted to clarify some terminology and make some adjustments here.

First, I am generally used to seeing the 1st function called the "dominant" and the 2nd being called the "auxiliary," and then the next simply the "3rd function" and the last (4th) being called the "inferior function." Instead you have the first two called "dominant" and the 3rd and 4th being called "auxiliary." While technically it isn't exactly incorrect, it doesn't follow standard terminology and could be confusing.

Additionally, P and J primarily indicate is which functions are extraverted. So if you are a P, you extravert your perceiving function (S or N, thus making either Se or Ne one of your top two functions). It doesn't determine which is more prominent, though; I and E take care of that. If you are E, your extraverted function is also your primary (1st) one, whereas if you are I, your extraverted function is your auxiliary and the other one of your top 2 (your introverted one) is your primary function.

Thus, (and I think this is very important), you have types like INFJ, INTJ, ISTJ, and ISFJ, which are "J-types" but actually have a perceiving function as their primary (Ni for INFJ and INTJ and Si for ISTJ and ISFJ). Likewise you have "P-types" (INFP and ISFP, for example) which actually have a judging function as their primary (Fi in these examples). However, since in these cases the dominant functions in question will of necessity be introverted, they may not be as readily apparent to another person upon casual (or sometimes even closer) observation. The extroverted functions, in these specific examples, though auxiliary, may be more readily observable...not because of their prominence in the hierarchy of personal usage preference but by virtue of their being extroverted. I think that realizing this and keeping it in mind helps alleviate stereotypes by adding a layer of intricacy and nuance to function theory.

autumn

yeah, I am sorry, my conceptualisation only works with E-types, forgot about that for a moment and confused it. But it's acctually good to know someone reads my shit, even it is just to point out the mistakes. Sometimes I get the feeling, I post a three hour long essay and I get no response

 

[Eric B]

The defintions I have come to see are best (most accurate and concise) are:

J: Decision making is based on external standards
P: Information Gathering from external source

I until recently struggled with sorting out which judgments were which, but now with these definitions (based on Jung's own definitions), it's easier to see what is really what.

 

[INTJMom]

So can it be: decision making vs information gathering?

I'm not sure where this falls into it, but when I have a choice to make, I like to know what all my options are. I've always been that way. I don't already know what I want. I want to know what I have to choose from. I spend a lot of time researching when I am going to buy something, especially if it's expensive and I won't be replacing it for a long time. I guess I try to decide what the pros and cons are so I can decide which ones I want.

I have read that P types will research a thing to death, so I don't know what the difference is.

 

[entropie]

So can it be: decision making vs information gathering?

I am more into:

J: having understood a thing to its core and able to transmit that meaning to other people in one good sentence

But that does only go for my INFJ and maybe haphazard + Überführer. What it is with extroverted J's is a different thing

 

[Eric B]

So can it be: decision making vs information gathering?

I'm not sure where this falls into it, but when I have a choice to make, I like to know what all my options are. I've always been that way. I don't already know what I want. I want to know what I have to choose from. I spend a lot of time researching when I am going to buy something, especially if it's expensive and I won't be replacing it for a long time. I guess I try to decide what the pros and cons are so I can decide which ones I want.

I have read that P types will research a thing to death, so I don't know what the difference is.

What you describe would fit your professed type!
You make decisions ("judge") based on external standards (researching; not already knowing, etc). In this case, it is logical criteria.
With P's, it's the perception itself that is externally referenced, so I know in my case, it's just finding out information for its own sake, or to explore possibilities; not necessarily to make decisions (which will likely be based on an already known internal criteria, such as logic or values, and the researching might be to compare with these criteria as well).

 

[entropie]

What you describe would fit your professed type!
You make decisions ("judge") based on external standards (researching; not already knowing, etc). In this case, it is logical criteria.
With P's, it's the perception itself that is externally referenced, so I know in my case, it's just finding out information for its own sake, or to explore possibilities; not necessarily to make decisions (which will likely be based on an already known internal criteria, such as logic or values, and the researching might be to compare with these criteria as well).

That is again superficial, said a millionen times and possibly true