A Short Treatise on MBTI Traits, with an Emphasis on Delineation of the J/P Trait in Particular
In reality, we are none of these things per se. We are persons who have souls that we cannot even begin to comprehend unless we open up beyond who we seem to be, leading into who we really are. These systems of personality analysis just help us do that, they don't define us. We define ourselves...
I define myself far beyond the scope of MBTI and similar tests and assessments. Yet they do have a lot to say about how I might try to "get a grip" on myself and try to fulfill my potential. I know very well that I am introverted, but I also realize that I am extroverted under the right conditions. It is still more stressful for me than it will be for someone who is normally extroverted. That's sort of a baseline of meaning of personality that Jung has established rather beyond reasonable doubt, and it holds to this day, and it seems like it always held but it was waiting for someone like him with enough intellect and guts combined to say it.
I think that the I/E domain is very accurate, but the other domains are more slippery. They seem less a function of nature than of nurture in some, more of the reverse in others. They seem as though they are built upon the primary I/E orientation as compensatory factors on the one hand, yet with their own functions to fulfill on the other. So, I think that we should allow ourselves more flexibility in thinking about them, because they are rather more dynamic than the I/E trait, and the I/E trait isn't as inflexible as some people seem to think.
But the brain/mind relation does have a tendency to prefer to resolve cognitive dissonance on the foundational level by weighing down on either I or E. It is a gross economic indicator of the psyche's functioning rather than a function per se, a sort of set of other less clear functions which when all rolled up look like a preference to "reach out to the object" or to "abstract from the object", a preference either to "face the inner object" or else to "project the inner object", for example.
But when we look at intuition versus sensation we are looking at something that seems to be similarly structured: Does the psyche find more efficiency in relating to the empirical experience, especially as it is immediately given, or does it trust the more synthetic and collective metasensation that seems to be involved? That is something that looks like it is parallel to the I/E question for the psychical economy, but it is more flexible since the domain is more specialized than the overall psychical economy, and it pertains to phenomena which are more distinct and graspable than is the question of subject/object per se. Anyone can grasp sensations, and intuitions have a sort of objective quality to them as well. Yet all these have a subjective intensity which is innately private. They are more of a mixture of subject/object while being distinct in that sensations pertain more to the part and the form when concrete and intuitions pertain to the whole and the content when abstract. So there is a lot of room here for paradigm shifting because abstract sensation and concrete intuitions are possible, though each are a little difficult to imagine. Yet one can see that intuitions may concern forms, and sensations may concern contents (matter as structural, energy as functional). That is kind of abstract in reference to our topic, but we can see that multiple approaches are possible for the same situation depending on one's outlook and paradigm when it comes to intuition and sensation, and the S can understand and compliment the N and vice versa in more tangible ways than can the E and the I. They are able to integrate aspects of the complimentary trait in a way more true to actually specializing in the other trait under certain favorable conditions, even if they are strongly specialized in one of them as opposed to the other. This is a functional reality, but is also a compensatory reality to the I/E foundation which guides it somewhat.
I think that these two will typically mature into a baseline together so that the orientation and dominant function are pretty stable and are pretty much what Jung laid out. It seems true to what we are. Is it the best description? Probably not. It probably fits into a larger picture that is better nuanced and better related to our actual reality. Even so, I think we only gain by accepting this useful half-measure, as will all other theoretical paradigms that are competently created in earnest sincerity, and then creatively applied with with sincere self-reflection.
That leaves us with the stragglers which are less metapsychological and less cognitive in terms of basic structure and are more concretely related to conscious will and purpose, more reducible to verifiable functionality. The thinking and feeling are clearly important and clearly more amenable to conscious will, since you can easily suppress or savor feelings, choose to ignore them or choose to follow them, let them color your decisions or choose not to, explore and delineate them or let them remain dull and blurry, shape them into structures with complex systems of peculating energy or let the exist like some sort of wild landscape that you live in with uncontrollable features and weather that you adapt to and live in, whether you like it or not. Your thoughts may be guided or pell-mell, focused or loose, tangential or to the point, complex or simple, abstract or concrete, logical or analogical, analytic or synthetic, applied or abstract. Thought and feeling are much more amenable to your choice of method, much more adaptive to situations as situations demand, much more a result of nurture than of nature in their final form (think of socialization and education, experiences and experiments).
This brings us down to your issue. Judgment or Perception. This domain is much less a function of foundational psychical structure, or visceral/cerebrotic approaches to experience. These are more a question of cognitive style vs. efficiency. Some find that seeking closure is expedient and demanded by other necessities, some find it saliently more satisfying on emotional grounds or aesthetic ones. Yet all the same could be said for a willingness to let judgment remain labile and exploratory. But even here there could be many complex permutations of rationale which yet cloak a deep-seated motive coming from all the way in the psyche's roots, the I/E trait. This level could show a preference like this: I prefers J due to the capacity to support the somewhat Stoic pattern of psychical functioning this enables, while E prefers P because of the feedback loop with objects and others that maximizes optimal behavior patterns conducive to their well-being. In the end, it could be a mere matter of style or taste on this point, and it could compensate for deeper preferences rather than complement them.
So I think you may safely know your J or P preference by finding out if you have either a Stoic or an Epicurean mindset with regard to handling the flow of experience in different areas, but especially with regard to emotive/cognitive features. There is probably enough variablity in this area that it could change a lot over life for some, and it could change in different areas while remaining fixed in others.
I don't like to pinch off thoughts when it comes to something that really interests me, for example, and this is to the dismay of many who would prefer the abridged version. Yet when it comes to handling the influx of data, I am J to the max. I want to reach an assessment and feel it. But I am always amenable to updating it. So there are ways that you may understand the J or P aspect in terms of either inner or outer behavior, in terms of situational requirements or the lack thereof. It may be that you are J with regard to some features of your other three domains or are P dependent upon the way your conscious ego waxes and wanes.
I could make a pragmatic recommendation, based on all of the above:
Engage in experiences which shake your psyche up. Do extreme things from time to time and notice how your psyche changes in regards to areas where you are normally J or P in the ensuing periods of time. This, or at least do something extremely unusual. See how you operate in that environment. There are habitual traits people have which show some aspect of this change, such as procrastination. People will put off something until the last minute, then suddenly they are knocking it out. They are "P" with regard to getting it done, but then become suddenly "J" since their time is almost up. They are forced to show their hand. Games of strategy open windows here: when do you finally decide your move? On what basis? How does this change in various circumstances? Are you an opportunistic counter-attacker, for example? Why? Is it because you don't judge the situation to demand a given set of plans? Does an objective analysis of the position reveal that you had access to better and more forceful play but you would simply had rather not done so and so you made moves that lacked structure because your time was running low? That might reveal one way that J and P are relative to conditions. If you are an expert in the King's Gambit, you will flow through decisions in this fast paced, sharp and yet relatively unclear opening system in Chess. If you are not you will need a long period of thinking before you make your moves, none of which have a strategic view and merely are tactical reactions to what your opponent does. The former is more J, the latter more P, and this will change over time in that opening. Do you prefer the J approach in general? You will probably be attracted to openings where sharp tactics are called for since the flow of perception is regulated by necessity and clearly delineated tactical visions. Are you more P in nature? Well you may prefer a decidedly slow and strategic game, where your innate desire to gather more and more experience before closing other psychical processes is less punished by decisive play by an opponent. The exception arises for J's like me, who happen to prefer strategic maneuvering, but this is because we actually can GRASP the strategic concepts and have a strong urge to savor their aesthetics, experiencing tactical motifs as their "skin" or "currency" so to speak. I like to get "J" on the issue of which tactical motif is more productive, which line should I close or open, should I trade this knight for that bishop? It is challenging to be "J" here for non-strategic thinkers, just as it is challenging to be "J" for non-tacticians in open positions.
J and P can be rather open ended for some who approach life in ways that have just enough complexity that a blunt assessment device cannot capture the overall texture of your functioning here. I'd say check out your condition when under pressure, especially in areas you are well versed in, but also in areas where you are not. Try to see if your J or P sticks out like an adaptive mechanism at some stage of your learning/adapting period. See how it changes its emphasis when you get better/more comfortable.