• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is it Illogical to be Dominantly Je?

Blackwater

New member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
454
MBTI Type
ERTP
This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

Observation -> Conclusion

- Right?

Translated into MBTI we then have:

Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

What are your experiences and opinions?
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I think a better way of looking at it is as a circle... we start from one or the other and modify as time moves on, back and forth.

The only difference is where the "comfort" spot is... do you stop on conclusion? or observation? ie: Do you prefer having things concluded, only opening them up when something prompts you to do it... or do you prefer things being open, only closing them when needed?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think a better way of looking at it is as a circle... we start from one or the other and modify as time moves on, back and forth.

Yes. It's kind of difficult to start with a judgment without any sort of perception whatsoever.

The only difference is where the "comfort" spot is... do you stop on conclusion? or observation? ie: Do you prefer having things concluded, only opening them up when something prompts you to do it... or do you prefer things being open, only closing them when needed?

The "Comfort Spot" concept sounds like a good way to summarize it. Very good. Continue! :D

But seriously, yes. I hate to close things off and even find myself reopening things I thought were closed because I'm now uncomfortable with them closed. And closure-oriented people feel comfortable with things settled.

As far as EJ's go, yes, even the ENTJ likes to have things settled. They might be more apt to change them based on new information than an ESTJ (who is referencing Si -- the internal model of the ideal world, usually based on past experience), but they'll still opt to go in a direction and change later once it becomes clear they need to change.
 

Prometheus

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
43
MBTI Type
INTJ
P is not observation.
J is not conclusion.

J means that the type has either a first or second external judging function.
P means the opposite.
That means that if P and J were observation and conclusion respectively, ExxJ and IxxP would part from a conclusion but IxxJ and ExxP would part from observation.

I agree with ptgatsby, though.
It is a circle.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

Observation -> Conclusion

- Right?

Translated into MBTI we then have:

Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

What are your experiences and opinions?

Yes, it it akward to have a judging function preceed perceiving. This isnt the case only with EJs, but also with IPs. For reasons pointed out in this post, all the informaiton EJs collect is monitored through the prejudices of the conventional society. So they often have a strong bias towards collecting information that affirms their judgments and taking lightly or ignoring information that is irrelevant or antithetical to them. Same goes for the IPs, everything is immediately filtered through their inner principles. Since perceiving functions work unconsciously, we are not aware (both EJs and IPs) how we show a distinct partiality for information that affirms what we already believe to be true. IPs do this to a lesser degree because their perceiving function accesses the external world directly whilst the external world is engaged directly with the judgment.
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
This thing looks disturbing. At least on paper.

Now, the logical way of going about things in general would be:

Observation -> Conclusion

- Right?

Translated into MBTI we then have:

Observation (P) -> Conclusion (J)

But in the case of types that are dominantly extroverted judgers, that's ENTJ, ESTJ, ENFJ, ESFJ the sequence seems to have been flipped on its head:

Conclusion (J) -> Observation (P)

Also meaning that whatever perceptory input one recieves through one's auxiliary perceptive function will always be subordinate to the already existant jugdments in one's mind.

So is there any truth to this? I have personally observed signs that could be interpreted as indicative of this behavior in ESTJs, ESFJs, and ENFJs, but I have a hard time imagining the almighty ENTJ falling prey to this.

What are your experiences and opinions?
Leave the ENTJ out.
 

FDG

pathwise dependent
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,903
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w8
Of course first comes observation and then comes conclusion. But here's how it goes in my mind:

I have my own version of how things should be in order for maximum efficiency to be reached (Te). I observe how things are right now. I want to change them so that they match my version of how things should be. Of course the first time I observed the world I didn't know how it should have been, and the model has been built over time and with Ni-observation.

"Information" is what I use to build the ideal model. So I'm open to every kind of information provided that it improves the model - if it doesn't, then I have no problem discarding it.

What makes EJs seem more rigid is that if we observe that things are changing towards a direction which is different from the "ideal" we have, we will try to steer the situation towards a course of action we prefer.
 

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
That sounds right to me. I see what I want and how I want things to go and I'll try to make them happen in the way I think they should. Of course nothing ever happens that way, but I always try.

I'm very much open to adjusting my plans and I know people don't always recognize that. Sometimes my statements come out more final than what they are. I sometimes wish people would contradict me more because I'm not really married to what I say but people often take it as my conclusion. What kind of J would I be if I didn't schedule in the unexpected? ;) I also sometimes use it to see if people are going to let me do what I want and not voice their opinion or preferences ("Don't just sit there with your tongue in your mouth!")

IPs seem to be more open than what they are and EJs seem to be more closed than what they are at least those are my observations of the types. I've run across some IFPs that would.not.budge and I'm like :9436: :eek:uch:.
 
Top