P vs. J = Pre-decision vs. Post-decision?

[simulatedworld]

This is an excerpt of mine from an e-mail correspondence with an INTP friend who is kind of agonizing over the INTP vs. INTJ dichotomy and annoyed that IPs lead with a judging function (and IJs, with a perceiving one.)

I argued that MBTI's J vs. P is simply not the same thing as Jung's terms for perceiving vs. judging functions, but is its own unique fourth attribute.

Anyway here are my thoughts on J and P, if anyone has any response:

His inflexibility on Christianity is not characteristically INTJ; INTPs do this constantly on issues that they've spent so much time thinking about that they've mentally classified the issue as "solved." An INTP takes a long time to get to this conclusion with most things, much longer than an INTJ--they insist on seriously considering every bit of data they can find during the decision process--this is another difference from INTJ, who is much more willing to apply his theories and act on his conclusions with little to no experience and relatively little data. To spend too long in considering all the angles and thus fail to act would be inefficient, and that's where MBTI's J function comes in.

The kid is simply absolutely convinced that he's spent enough time on that issue and therefore found the correct answer, and now he's gone into INTP-certainty mode about it where he's very unwilling to listen to any new evidence or information. INTJs are not really inherently more rigid than INTPs; they're just harder to set into motion and they value efficiency so much that they often come to a fast decision in lieu of considering every possible angle (sounds like you are exactly right that Chris Anderson is INTP.) Only when new evidence arises indicating the previous conclusion was likely erroneous will the INTJ continue spending serious time deliberating new possibilities--but he reaches this point more easily than an INTP who's already "concluded" that issue in his mind.

The difference is pre-decision and post-decision preference. That's a good way of describing the MBTI J/P dichotomy--Ps are more comfortable pre-decision (that's why they take so long to make a determination in the first place), but become rigid post-decision because this is no longer comfortable territory. They're just really uncomfortable making definite, final decisions on anything important (trivial decisions aside) without being ABSOLUTELY SURE it was the right decision, so this fear of being boxed in combines poorly with the unfortunate fact that decisions must be made to exist practically. Ps may be so afraid of making wrong definite determinations that they convince themselves that the "definite decisions" they've made MUST be correct--the alternative is uncomfortable enough that they will sometimes deny new post-decision information in order to avoid accepting having made the feared "final judgment" incorrectly.

Js are the opposite--most comfortable post-decision, resulting sometimes in hasty judgments. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate further here.

 

[Costrin]

I must say... I don't really relate to your INTP description...

This is an excerpt of mine from an e-mail correspondence with an INTP friend who is kind of agonizing over the INTP vs. INTJ dichotomy and annoyed that IPs lead with a judging function (and IJs, with a perceiving one.)

I argued that MBTI's J vs. P is simply not the same thing as Jung's terms for perceiving vs. judging functions, but is its own unique fourth attribute.

Anyway here are my thoughts on J and P, if anyone has any response:

Maybe introduce him to Socionics (or not, you may never hear the end of it).

His inflexibility on Christianity is not characteristically INTJ; INTPs do this constantly on issues that they've spent so much time thinking about that they've mentally classified the issue as "solved."

I don't think I've ever classified an issue as "solved". I have classified stuff as "99% solved, though".

The kid is simply absolutely convinced that he's spent enough time on that issue and therefore found the correct answer, and now he's gone into INTP-certainty mode about it where he's very unwilling to listen to any new evidence or information.

I can't recall ever doing this, and I can't envision me realistically doing something like this. There have been times, however, when I've decided not to listen to people's arguments when I've classified them in my head as unintelligent due to a bad track record. However, I have a tendency to want to lecture on subjects I'm knowledgeable about, and of course in the process of doing that, people will disagree and present arguments, and if it's something I haven't heard before, then I will consider it.

Ps may be so afraid of making wrong definite determinations that they convince themselves that the "definite decisions" they've made MUST be correct--the alternative is uncomfortable enough that they will sometimes deny new post-decision information in order to avoid accepting having made the feared "final judgment" incorrectly.

I definitely don't do this. If I made a decision and it turned out it was wrong, then I'll say "based on the information I had at the time, it was the best decision", or if it was apparent that I had the information available, and just made a mistake, then, "I made a mistake. Oh well, no use regretting it. Learn from it and move on."

Or maybe I have some hidden cognitive dissonance going on. Hiding from myself the times when I've been irrational...

Anyway, the rest I agree with.

 

[Nocapszy]

Read my P and J thread for insight.

 

[simulatedworld]

I don't think I've ever classified an issue as "solved". I have classified stuff as "99% solved, though".



I definitely don't do this. If I made a decision and it turned out it was wrong, then I'll say "based on the information I had at the time, it was the best decision", or if it was apparent that I had the information available, and just made a mistake, then, "I made a mistake. Oh well, no use regretting it. Learn from it and move on."

Or maybe I have some hidden cognitive dissonance going on. Hiding from myself the times when I've been irrational...

Anyway, the rest I agree with.

Well, that cognitive dissonance part is what I'm referring to. Many INTPs are much smarter than the general population and painfully aware of it, so much so that they don't give the viewpoints of others due consideration, at times. Of course you would change your approach if you realized you were wrong; the problem comes with the realization part! INTJs seem more able to recognize past mistakes than INTPs, and I think it's because the INTJ didn't put the same vast amount of time into the original decision and therefore doesn't mind trying something else--if you can show a strong intuitive reason why it should be tried.

Irrationality is the INTP's dreaded bogeyman. They spend SO much time on their hypothetical ideas that they actually can become more rigid about changing them than their J counterparts, for fear of having wasted time on an incorrect theory (hence the aforementioned cognitive dissonance)--anything to avoid accepting that one has acted irrationally! Maybe I'm misreading the cognitive process, but INTPs are terrific at justifying almost anything they want to themselves because as dominant Ti types they find inner rational consistency to be extremely important.

So important that, from the outside looking in, they will ignore new information because they don't like having any of their basic thought pillars questioned. It gets even worse when the idea you're questioning is one on which they've built hundreds of bigger thought patterns, because they're so incredibly threatened by the idea of throwing out ALL those thoughts (this directly threatens their Ti ability, which is often 95% of their self image) that they'll go to great lengths to convince themselves that their premises are still correct (moreso than INTJs), which sometimes does involve ignoring new information by cleverly convincing themselves that it doesn't need addressing.

INTJs don't bother with this bullshit; they recognize the gross inefficiency inherent in this strategy, bite the bullet and throw out the old idea (along with any that were built directly on it.)

In short, INTPs will spend a nearly limitless amount of time coming up with new arguments to justify anything they want to be true. Sometimes I want to just smack them and say, "Shut up and do it already, you can't logic your way out of this one!" and that's coming from another NTP! Imagine how bad it must look to an SJ, for instance. INTJs will try to do something like this sometimes, but usually are quicker to reach the conclusion that some issues require prompt action and simply can't be hypothetical-problem-solved to death.

 

[Costrin]

long post

Well. Your experiences are different than mine then. I don't recall doing any of those things you described. In fact, I tend to welcome new information. New information is great. Undiscovered territory. If I have to throw out all my old theories, fine. That just means there's that much more room for me to explore.

Of course, if I really do have cognitive dissonance, then I wouldn't remember ever doing this, would I?

 

[527468]

Ps skip from data to data making a decision for each piece. P is more likely to say it depends and then spend too much time figuring it out thus consistency is objective.

Js take a sample and make a single decision. J is more likely to make a mistake by assuming the incorrect data thus consistency is subjective.

 

[simulatedworld]

Ps skip from data to data making a decision for each piece. P is more likely to say it depends and then spend too much time figuring it out thus consistency is objective.

Js take a sample and make a single decision. J is more likely to make a mistake by assuming the incorrect data thus consistency is subjective.

Leave it to INTJ to condense that into one sentence. Thanks.

 

[527468]

I feel free to speak my mind and I know not everyone likes that, but I can be sexy.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well. Your experiences are different than mine then. I don't recall doing any of those things you described. In fact, I tend to welcome new information. New information is great. Undiscovered territory. If I have to throw out all my old theories, fine. That just means there's that much more room for me to explore.

Of course, if I really do have cognitive dissonance, then I wouldn't remember ever doing this, would I?

And you never did anything like that when you were younger or less mature than you are now?

I think a balanced INTP would be, well, balanced enough to avoid this...it doesn't apply to all but I've seen it come up in various INTPs I know and I was intuiting a guess as to why. They seem to somehow logically short circuit themselves into isolation, social awkwardness and ultimately depression because their powers of logical self-justification are so great.

But, knowing that it doesn't fit you is another piece of information, so thank you.

 

[simulatedworld]

I feel free to speak my mind and I know not everyone likes that, but I can be sexy.

Oh, I just now noticed that my previous post came off as sarcastic. Actually I meant that seriously; you put it more succinctly and it actually kind of helped prove my point about NTJs and efficiency: you are simply more to the point than we NTPs.

That was an honest thank you!

 

[Scott]

I'm with Costrin here - what you describe just really doesn't seem to resonate with my experience. Like Costrin, I'm not sure I've ever classified an issue as 'solved', and I'm always willing to hear new information and try to integrate it into my understanding and see the implications on the fly.

Sometimes I may look like what you describe, but I don't think that the mechanics behind it are as you see them. A couple of possible reasons for this come to mind.

First, sometimes I can't come up with a response that I feel is adequate in the moment, though I'm fairly certain that the new information isn't sufficient to overturn my belief. This happens for me more often than it happens for most it seems, precisely because of the precision I desire in anything I say (the "Ps take a long time to come to conclusions because they consider every possibility" thing). When this happens, I'm not usually really satisfied with my response, but I still have to give a response so I say that I'm not convinced, and may give the most incisive critique I can think of in the moment to why the new information isn't sufficient. It's certainly true that my analysis tends to have to do with inner logic, so I can see why it may sound like I'm not willing to reconsider my position, but in reality this confusion is only due to the person I'm hypothetically talking to only seeing the higher-level functions expressed and missing out on the lower-level functions that really are taking the new information into consideration and doing the best (often terribly unsatisfying) business with it that I can in the moment.

The second reason that comes to mind is the one that Costrin mentioned - sometimes I just don't really value what the other person is saying. This is often the case when I don't trust the other person's sources, or when I know that the other person often asserts things without putting them through anything remotely close to the rigor that I put things through before I assert them, or sometimes just due to the other person's tone. (If the other person is being patronizing or speaking with an air of superiority or... whatever else I don't appreciate - I'm likely to more or less ignore their argument and refuse to dignify it with consideration until we've dealt with the problem of their attempt to manipulate the conversational dynamic)

Even in these two cases though, I'm very likely to admit that "I don't know", or to express something as a tentative positions with plenty of modifiers, or to just give a number of ideas rather than asserting any position.


In fairness, I should say that I do see some INTPs (maybe particularly online) who seem to have certain conclusions and stick to them without any willingness to consider, or even be gracious toward, other perspectives. It's really hard for me to speak to those sorts of people though, and I really don't identify with them at all (and not because I haven't thought about whether I might sometimes come off like that).

 

[Scott]

(and to answer the question you then asked Costrin, since it could equally be asked of me - I think that it's true that I'm more epistemically humble than I used to be, but I was never someone who would be at all assertive with my beliefs. Sometimes I'd have conversations with people where I'd challenge their processes (like how they came to conclusions and stuff like that), and could be immaturely assertive in those challenges, but I was always more comfortable staying within the world of talking about processes, without having to assert or defend any thesis of my own. I've always erred on the side of being less assertive and expressing myself less confidently than I rightly could and have only very rarely erred on the other side.)

Hope that's helpful.

 

[simulatedworld]

Cool, thanks for the response, Scott.

I didn't expect any INTPs to actually own up to doing this, and I'm sure that many of you don't. (Those who do, by nature of the INTP thinking style, probably don't even realize it.) Theoretically, a totally balanced person would never express any unhealthy type-biased behavior, so when discussing these negative type tendencies we are really generally only referring to people who haven't learned any better yet.

Of course, maybe this is all an incorrect perception on my part--it just seems like INTPs are sometimes too rational for their own good in dealing with others, and this was my attempt at a guess as to why. Insight appreciated.


Also, Scott:

Everything you said about being open to new information and so on, all of that is very typical INTP behavior on an issue on which one has not yet reached a very high level of certainty, but I think you're fooling yourself if you don't think you've classified many issues in your head as "solved."

"or when I know that the other person often asserts things without putting them through anything remotely close to the rigor that I put things through before I assert them..."

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You make assumptions that your conclusions must be better simply because you've spent more time on them, and that isn't always the case. INxPs are always open to considering new information or looking at it in a different light, but dominant Ti/Fi keeps them less open to actually changing internal personal belief systems based on that new information--this is where the IxxP's leading with a judging function manifests itself most obviously. They like to consider new information because they enjoy the "hunt", as it were, of considering it, but rarely end up fundamentally changing their beliefs on things that they've already spent a lot of time considering--the sheer amount of processing time creates a false sense of security in one's conclusions.

Dominant Ni people (INTJ, INFJ), while more rigid and therefore less willing to listen to new data, are more adept at changing inner personal belief systems once convinced to give the new data a chance--they don't place nearly as much importance on Ti, and so inner logical correctness isn't such a high priority.

I wouldn't expect any INTP to read this and say, "Wow yeah, I totally do that!" because the behavior I'm observing is fairly irrational and, again, INTPs hate being irrational. But I've seen a number of you do it...though obviously not all.

Example:

Me: Hey, I think you're wrong about [issue x]. Want to hear my justification?
INTP: Sure, let's hear it. *listens*...no, that can't be right because of x, y, and z reasons.
Me: Are you sure? It seems like a, b, and c reasons would indicate otherwise.
INTP: No, trust me, I've spent a LOT of time considering this and I'm therefore very confident in my conclusion on it.
Me: Want to hear 27825 other supporting details?
INTP: Sure, I don't have anything else to do today.

But rarely do these 27825 details actually create a change in the INTP's belief system.


Me: Hey, I think you're wrong about [issue x]. Want to hear my justification?
INTJ: No, I don't want to hear it; I'm pretty sure I've already made this decision and it doesn't need reconsidering.
Me: But come on, I really think I have useful new data!
INTJ: Really, no, I don't think you do.
Me: Pleeeease? Seriously this might be really important to reaching your goals efficiently.
INTJ: No, I don't care.
Me: Dude come on, just humor me and listen for a minute.
INTJ: *sigh*...fine. *listens* Hmm...yeah, I guess I hadn't considered that. I'll have to change the way I'm doing that; I'd hate to be doing anything inefficiently.
Me: Want to hear 27825 other supporting details?
INTJ: No, I have shit to do! What an awful waste of time!


Not sure if that helps but...this is kind of how working with each type feels. INTJs are inherently less flexible about opening discussions that appear to have already been solved, but once you crack that first shell their dominant Ni takes over and they're willing/able to restructure internal logical systems much more easily. INTPs will listen to my ideas much more readily, but rarely seem swayed by new evidence because, again, the sheer amount of computational time spent on the issue creates a false sense of security in their conclusions.

I have one very brilliant INTP friend with whom I frequently discuss game theory. We are both pretty big poker nerds, but he is more experienced than I, so when we have disagreements over poker theory he tends to use appeal to authority as a justification for why I must be wrong. "You can't argue with me about this because I know more about it than you do!" is much more likely to come from an INTP than from an INTJ, who will either simply ignore you and go about his business or actually change his perspective based on your arguments.

An INTJ is more interested in having a method that works and applies to some real goal than in proving you wrong purely for argument's sake--but INTPs seem to have the opposite preference most often.

 

[Costrin]

Example:

Me: Hey, I think you're wrong about [issue x]. Want to hear my justification?
INTP: Sure, let's hear it. *listens*...no, that can't be right because of x, y, and z reasons.
Me: Are you sure? It seems like a, b, and c reasons would indicate otherwise.
INTP: No, trust me, I've spent a LOT of time considering this and I'm therefore very confident in my conclusion on it.
Me: Want to hear 27825 other supporting details?
INTP: Sure, I don't have anything else to do today.

But rarely do these 27825 details actually create a change in the INTP's belief system.

Ah. I sometimes say this, but I don't really mean it in an absolutist sense. It's much easier to say this than divulge all the information I've collected and the perspectives required to understand it all.

One possibility, maybe your 27825 supporting details are wrong/ not strong enough compared to other details that he already discovered? If this really is an issue he's "sure" on, then he's likely already heard the arguments you're presenting, and already found them not to be convincing. You may not be introducing any new information or perspectives to him. That may be your problem.

Alternatively, it could be you're not giving him enough time. Naturally, we take a long time to come to a conclusion. You know this, but maybe you aren't applying it to reconsidering a conclusion. An INTP will have to weigh in the new information and perspectives, and compare it to every other piece of information. This is highly likely not going to happen fast enough for the course of a single conversation. Try talking to him in a few days/weeks. He may have changed his opinion, or come up with some counter-arguments.

 

[simulatedworld]

Ah. I sometimes say this, but I don't really mean it in an absolutist sense. It's much easier to say this than divulge all the information I've collected and the perspectives required to understand it all.

One possibility, maybe your 27825 supporting details are wrong/ not strong enough compared to other details that he already discovered? If this really is an issue he's "sure" on, then he's likely already heard the arguments you're presenting, and already found them not to be convincing. You may not be introducing any new information or perspectives to him. That may be your problem.

Alternatively, it could be you're not giving him enough time. Naturally, we take a long time to come to a conclusion. You know this, but maybe you aren't applying it to reconsidering a conclusion. An INTP will have to weigh in the new information and perspectives, and compare it to every other piece of information. This is highly likely not going to happen fast enough for the course of a single conversation. Try talking to him in a few days/weeks. He may have changed his opinion, or come up with some counter-arguments.

True, I'm not immune to being wrong either and I'm sure that sometimes I'm simply not actually introducing new information, but the fact that INTPs *know* they usually consider the issues more than others seems to lead them to overconfidence in their conclusions (once they've had time to actually reach a conclusion.) They're usually right, but when they're occasionally wrong it's absolutely impossible to convince them otherwise.

The particular INTP I mentioned last post actually gets so irritated with me for continuing to try and poke holes in his argument that he assumes I must be lying about belief in my side and don't care about the truth, and it's based on this incredibly arrogant presumption he makes that he's obviously factually correct, and that he's somehow "doing me a favor" by continuing to enlighten poor, misinformed me.

"Why must you continue to waste my time on these obviously wrong arguments?" is a reasonable response when the INTP is actually right, but the problem is they ALWAYS think they're right. He's perfectly willing to change plans abruptly or listen to other ideas when it's a relatively insignificant issue to him, or one in which he has little to no interest, and this is where the P-flexibility is most evident...but I've never heard this guy admit fault or change positions after a long argument on an issue he considers important even once in the 10+ years I've been friends with him, and I think that's kind of unhealthy.

 

[Costrin]

True, I'm not immune to being wrong either and I'm sure that sometimes I'm simply not actually introducing new information, but the fact that INTPs *know* they usually consider the issues more than others seems to lead them to overconfidence in their conclusions (once they've had time to actually reach a conclusion.) They're usually right, but when they're occasionally wrong it's absolutely impossible to convince them otherwise.

The particular INTP I mentioned last post actually gets so irritated with me for continuing to try and poke holes in his argument that he assumes I must be lying about belief in my side and don't care about the truth, and it's based on this incredibly arrogant presumption he makes that he's obviously factually correct, and that he's somehow "doing me a favor" by continuing to enlighten poor, misinformed me.

"Why must you continue to waste my time on these obviously wrong arguments?" is a reasonable response when the INTP is actually right, but the problem is they ALWAYS think they're right. He's perfectly willing to change plans abruptly or listen to other ideas when it's a relatively insignificant issue to him, or one in which he has little to no interest, and this is where the P-flexibility is most evident...but I've never heard this guy admit fault or change positions after a long argument on an issue he considers important even once in the 10+ years I've been friends with him, and I think that's kind of unhealthy.

Conclusion: Get a better INTP.