I heard an ENTJ once said, something like this,
"The ideal man would be someone like me (or my archetype), without my bad traits."
Even if he recognizes his faults, I still find the statement to be egotistic. Though actually, it's not the egotism that surprises me, but the merits of the statement.
I could have responded something like,
"Well, that can't be possible, right? For almost every positive trait you manage to develop, something perceivably bad comes with it. The good comes with the bad, it's like they're interlocked. Yin and Yang. One comes with the other. That's why morality is relative, with few absolute grounds."
It's kinda like Perceiving and Judging. Correlated. But more like inversely proportional with each other. You can't increase J when you develop P and vice versa. Each of them have their good and bad traits.
They cannot be separated in such a way that one can just have a wishful thinking of not having some of the traits or trade-offs that a certain decision makes.
The statement the ENTJ said made me think of TJs actually think of character progression as something like an RPG-like leveling up where there's a clean-cut progression where there's hardly minimal tradeoff.
On the other hand, a perceiver may value hierarchical equality because of their full awareness of trade-offs, and it helps them better by seeing things in gray, hence the carefulness in decision making.