Pi = Judger, Pe = Perceiver; why?

[teslashock]

How would you address people talking about NiFi or NeTe or any such variation? Are you saying that if Ni is involved, then it has to use Te or Fe, no exceptions?

I wouldn't say that any one function definitively necessitates the use of any other function.

Ni/Ji loops happen, and so do Ne/Te loops. The former occurs when one is extremely introverted and a bit shut off from reality. The latter occurs when one depends too much on external information to for self validation.

In order to be cognitively healthy and mentally productive, however, I'd say that Pi necessitates Je while Pe necessitates Ji.

+a lot

I am really tired of people asking for proof that a made up labeling system's method is "proven."

-1

The labeling system isn't founded on nothing. There is an abstract theory that backs up the labels and the way we've chosen to assign the labels.

Maybe I'm giving Z too much credit, but I don't think he was ever looking for a definitive proof of why Je/Pi-ers should be labeled judgers, and why Pe/Ji-ers should be labeled perceivers. I've only skimmed the thread, but my immediate impression is that he's looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why Pe/Ji are labeled "perceivers" and why Pi/Je are labeled "judgers." Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.

(I think a better title for this thread would have been "Pi = judger, Ji = perceiver; why?")

Anywho, maybe you could try being contemplative, speculative, and perhaps a bit instructive, rather than criticizing someone for their inquiry before you really even understand the question.

Double

 

[Zarathustra]

OK, so to get the thread back to its original purpose:

So, given all this discussion, do you not find it the slightest bit odd that Ni and Si are in the dom or aux of all Judgers.

I mean, I understand that it's just like that according to the framework, but, assuming that the framework is actually representative of reality (I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying let's assume), then it would seem that Ni and Si are just as correlated to whether one is a Judger as having Te or Fe as one's dom or aux.

Assuming the framework is representationally true, do you think it's merely a case of correlation but not causation that Ni and Si are 100% correlated with Jness, or do you think the underlying relationship is just as causal as the Fe and Te correlation?

Isn't it at least interesting that all NJs have Ni, and all SJs have Si?

I'm sorry, Z, but this sounds like, "isn't it the least bit interesting that an antiparticle has the opposite charge of its corresponding particle?" It's definitional.

It is part of the whole "Ji goes with Pe and Je goes with Pi" architecture of MBTI. It's like being amazed that not only does one plus one equal 2, but 2 minus one equals one!

Unless there's some core empirical kind of observation that you'd like to make that might reach new conclusions, I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at.

An understandable response, but not really a valuable one. I mean, I already lead with this exact notion in my post.

The nugget I was trying to get at, which Tesla got but both you and Sim missed, is the potential relevance, importance, and causes of Pi/Je aux/dom and Pe/Ji aux/dom correlation if MBTI theory is representationally true vs being simply internally consistently true.

You and Sim chose the cynical route; Tesla kept her mind open to the potentially deeper truth, and wrote a perfect response enumerating the details of what I was trying to point to.

Z, I'm sure you understand that definitively speaking, according to the labeling system, Pi goes with Je, and Ji goes with Pe. You're just looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why the two are correlated, beyond the labeling system. Why the labeling system is the way it is, so to speak.

Exactly.

Judgers internalize the information that they gather externally to fit some kind of impersonal construct, and the construct itself has no judgments attached to it (Pi). However, judgers use this construct made from information in the external environment to make judgments of value/worth (Je). Without the construct, no reasonable judgments about reality could be made, but since the construct aids in judgment about reality, Pi-ers are labeled as judgers.

For judgers, judgment is founded and aided by perception.

Perceivers, on the other hand, react more immediately to the information they gather externally (Pe). What allows them to do that is the existence of a priorly formed internal construct based on values that are derived internally according to the self (Ji). Without this construct, Pe-ers would have no long-established structure to aid them in their on-the-fly reactions to their environment. Since Ji serves to aid in perception, Pe/Ji-ers are called perceivers.

For perceivers, perception is founded and aided by judgment.

All brilliant.

Both Ps and Js have perceiving and judging functions. One is just extroverted while the other introverted, and the one that is extroverted is the one that contributes most to their outward personality that's observable by others, so we label them according to the one that's extroverted.

So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

What do you think? Which makes more sense?

Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?

If you're wondering why Je-ers can't also be Pe-ers and why Ji-ers can't also be Pi-ers, I'd say it's due to a cognitive inconsistency between Pi/Ji and Pe/Je that just doesn't compute well. It doesn't make any sense for someone to simultaneously see the environment as something to empirically evaluate before garnering an impression (Je) while also responding immediately to it, according to momentary sense impressions, before understanding it empirically (Pe). Likewise, it doesn't make sense to build an internal construct that's derived subjectively (Ji) while also building an internal construct that's made from external information (Pi).

Now here's the controversial part, which uumlau points to in his next question (and which Sim provides a good answer to in his post).

Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

And with regards to the latter two sentences: don't we rather regularly talk about PeJe and PiJi loops?

(Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)

So according to this logic, the only way for one to have both a perceiving and judging function juxtaposed in the primary two functions, one would need Je/Pi or Pe/Ji.

And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

Honestly, though, great post.

How would you address people talking about NiFi or NeTe or any such variation? Are you saying that if Ni is involved, then it has to use Te or Fe, no exceptions?

As mentioned above, great question.

You just realized this?

Honestly, yes.

And I didn't even do so alone; it was while talking with SS about it.

Furthermore, I didn't even make the connection that it extended beyond just Ni to Si (and thus Pi as a whole) for another day or two, and then later that day I finally made the last connection that Pi aux/dom inherently meant Je dom/aux.

I've never really read a book on MBTI, I've only been participating on the forum regularly for a month or so, and the whole J/P logic was really the last piece of the puzzle that I hadn't yet figured out.

Until I had this realization, I'd been spending most my MBTI thinking time on a whole nother issue (although, J/P balance was a significant part of that other issue, which is what eventually led to the conversation that led to this realization).

In addition, all TPs are Ti dom/aux, TJs are Te dom/aux, FPs are Fi dom/aux and FJs are Fe dom/aux.

Also, TPs are Fe tert/inf, TJs are Fi tert/inf, FPs are Te tert/inf, FJs are Ti tert/inf, NPs are Si tert/inf, NJs are Se tert/inf, SPs are Ni tert/inf, and SJs are Ne tert/inf.

Yeah, most all of these one's I'd realized.

It was the broader categorization of Je/Ji and Pe/Pi that I hadn't yet come to understand.

This is the kind of structural pattern NeTi thinks about all the time!

Yes, yes it is.

Which is why I started this thread: to benefit from that thinking.

I'd been spending all my time creating my own theory relating quantum theory and probability to functional balance and type theory.

(And working 60 hours a week...)

NiFi is usually described as an INTJ with poor command of Te...so he turns to tertiary Fi for judgment because it's more comfortable, being oriented in the same direction as the dominant. Poor command of aux seems to correlate with extreme introversion/extroversion and the associated problems.

Exactly.

The even messier answer is when you get into issues like an INTJ who (and I know you take objection to these kinds of claims, Sim, but this is what my above-mentioned theory-in-development is all about) claims to use Ne and Ti and how his Ni and Te might work in tandem with these other functions.

THAT is the really high level shit that I haven't even really gotten to working on yet (and to which uumlau's question referred).

If anyone already has or wants to take up that ball, I plan on getting into it over the next three months or so and would appreciate a summary of any smart person's already-trodden thought-paths...

Ne+Te is an ENFP with ineffective Fi leading to difficulty with subjective self-reflection, etc.

Read: Happy Puppy.

Except I'm not sure, at least with her, it has so much to do with difficulty with subjective self-reflection so much as suppression of Fi due to traumatic emotional experiences in the past.

Orobas: thoughts? feelings?

+a lot

I am really tired of people asking for proof that a made up labeling system's method is "proven."

Meh.

As I said above: you and uumlau seem to be comfortable resigning to cynicism and settling with MBTI theory as being merely internally consistently true.

Maybe you've already gone through the battles I'm going through, and I'll eventually end up in the same spot... or maybe Tesla and I are just a little less cynical and a little more open-minded...

 

[simulatedworld]

-1

The labeling system isn't founded on nothing. There is an abstract theory that backs up the labels and the way we've chosen to assign the labels.

Maybe I'm giving Z too much credit, but I don't think he was ever looking for a definitive proof of why Je/Pi-ers should be labeled judgers, and why Pe/Ji-ers should be labeled perceivers. I've only skimmed the thread, but my immediate impression is that he's looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why Pe/Ji are labeled "perceivers" and why Pi/Je are labeled "judgers." Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.

(I think a better title for this thread would have been "Pi = judger, Ji = perceiver; why?")

Anywho, maybe you could try being contemplative, speculative, and perhaps a bit instructive, rather than criticizing someone for their inquiry before you really even understand the question.

Double

I don't think Z was looking for that either. I was responding to uumlau's general criticism that people are asking for proof of arbitrarily designated labels.

There is an abstract theory, sure, but it's still just a made up labeling system based on subjective criteria. I think his point was that ideas like every Pi dom is a J, etc. are definitionally built into the naming system, so it's meaningless to ask for proof of this.

Since psychological type in Jungian terms cannot be empirically tested we're forced to treat it as subjective. So there's no proof that an INTP is an INTP. I didn't say the theory was based on nothing--but since all type classifications are ultimately subjective, it's meaningless to ask for proof that the categories exist in the first place.

As for the reasoning Pe+Ji/Ji+Pe is called "P" and Je+Pi/Pi+Je is called "J", I already answered that: it's because the labels "Perceiving" and "Judging" are intended as descriptions of the person's preferred method of engaging the external world. (As opposed to a system like Socionics, where they're intended as descriptions of the dominant function.)

The advantage in the MBTI J/P system is in its ability to correlate each function with a two-letter combination. e.g., all NJs are dom/aux Ni users, etc.

That system doesn't work in Socionics because when we talk about "NJs" we could be referring to either ENxj or INxp types...it's not really certain.

The advantage to the Socionics system is that it's a little easier to understand whether perception or judgment is dominant, since there's no confusion with Ji doms being labeled xxxP and Pi doms being labeled xxxJ. It's just a difference in the way the systems define the terms Perceiving/Judging.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice about placing criticism before comprehension

Honestly, yes.

And I didn't even do so alone; it was while talking with SS about it.

Furthermore, I didn't even make the connection that it extended beyond just Ni to Si (and thus Pi as a whole) for another day or two, and then later that day I finally made the last connection that Pi aux/dom inherently meant Je dom/aux.

I've never really read a book on MBTI, I've only been participating on the forum regularly for a month or so, and the whole J/P logic was really the last piece of the puzzle that I hadn't yet figured out.

Oh, ok. Well, now you should see the interval vs. external organizational focus difference, right? Js try to keep the external life organized carefully (Je) but allow more open internal perspectives of experience (Pi), while Ps insist on consistent internal organization (Ji) but keep their outward lives more open to change (Pe.) Focusing on J/P as a percentage dichotomy will hold back your understanding of functions, imho.

I know the MBTI literature tends to show lists of "J traits" or "P traits", but these are not the definition of xxxJ or xxxP. They're just general observations by the authors, many of which are kind of questionable.

The actual definition of xxxJ vs. xxxP is dependent on how functions are oriented.

Until I had this realization, I'd been spending most my MBTI thinking time on a whole nother issue (although, J/P balance was a significant part of that other issue, which is what eventually led to the conversation that led to this realization).



Yeah, most all of these one's I'd realized.

It was the broader categorization of Je/Ji and Pe/Pi that I hadn't yet come to understand.





Yes, yes it is.

Which is why I started this thread: to benefit from that thinking.

I'd been spending all my time creating my own theory relating quantum theory and probability to functional balance and type theory.

(And working 60 hours a week...)



Exactly.

The even messier answer is when you get into issues like an INTJ who (and I know you take objection to these kinds of claims, Sim, but this is what my above-mentioned theory-in-development is all about) claims to use Ne and Ti and how his Ni and Te might work in tandem with these other functions.

THAT is the really high level shit that I haven't even really gotten to working on yet (and to which uumlau's question referred).

If anyone already has or wants to take up that ball, I plan on getting into it over the next three months or so and would appreciate a summary of any smart person's already-trodden thought-paths...

I don't think INTJs are incapable of experiencing the Ne or Ti perspectives, but that they'll be noticeably less natural than Te or Ni. I don't think you can be "borderline P/J" because changing P/J implies totally different functions.

Read: Happy Puppy.

Except I'm not sure, at least with her, it has so much to do with difficulty with subjective self-reflection so much as suppression of Fi due to traumatic emotional experiences in the past.

Orobas: thoughts? feelings?

Well, I imagine the latter would lead to the former, no?

Another good example of NeTe loop ENFP: Little Linguist.

Meh.

As I said above: you and uumlau seem to be comfortable resigning to cynicism and settling with MBTI theory as being merely internally consistently true.

Maybe you've already gone through the battles I'm going through, and I'll eventually end up in the same spot... or maybe Tesla and I are just a little less cynical and a little more open-minded...

That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means. It doesn't mean, "anal retentive about schedules" or "insists on having a plan for absolutely everything" or any of the other common J stereotypes. (Some of those things are common among Js, but they are not what makes someone a J--functional orientation is.)

It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.

Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't think INTJs are incapable of experiencing the Ne or Ti perspectives, but that they'll be noticeably less natural than Te or Ni. I don't think you can be "borderline P/J" because changing P/J implies totally different functions.

Well, wait til you see my theory. That is exactly what it addresses.

Well, I imagine the latter would lead to the former, no?

Perhaps. Not sure if it necessarily does, but, to be honest, I went back and read what you wrote and what I wrote an hour or two ago, and what I wrote was a bit sloppy. You talked about an effect; I talked about a cause. I just used general enough language to somewhat conflate the two.

That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means.

It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.

Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.

 

[simulatedworld]

Perhaps. Not sure if it necessarily does, but, to be honest, I went back and read what you wrote and what I wrote an hour or two ago, and what I wrote was a bit sloppy. You talked about an effect; I talked about a cause. I just used general enough language to somewhat conflate the two.

What is it that you're looking for, again? You want to know what commonly listed "J traits" in MBTI literature are associated with Pi dominance?

oh btw, I made an edit or two above that you may have missed.

Ie, what conceptual definition does Pi carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pi-ers appear "judgmental" in contrast to Pe-ers, and what conceptual definition does Pe carry with it (if there is one) that can aid in explaining why Pe-ers appear "perceptive" in contrast to Pi-ers.

Pi-ers appear "judgmental" (relative to Pe-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Je to deal with the external world.

Pe-ers appear "perceptive" (relative to Pi-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Pe to deal with the external world.

The strongest extroverted function is what most other people see most often when they interact with you. It's that simple.

 

[teslashock]

I don't think Z was looking for that either. I was responding to uumlau's general criticism that people are asking for proof of arbitrarily designated labels.

uumlau's "general" criticism was a specific response to Z's inquiry about why Pi = judging while Pe = perceiving. Read:

I'm sorry, Z, but this sounds like, "isn't it the least bit interesting that an antiparticle has the opposite charge of its corresponding particle?" It's definitional.

It is part of the whole "Ji goes with Pe and Je goes with Pi" architecture of MBTI. It's like being amazed that not only does one plus one equal 2, but 2 minus one equals one!

Unless there's some core empirical kind of observation that you'd like to make that might reach new conclusions, I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at

and the fact that you supported this criticism ("+a lot...ramble, ramble") implies that you also believe Z's specific inquiry is more or less trivial.

It was not unfair for me to assume that this was your stance, given the context of the posts. Z drew the conclusion that you were criticizing his inquiry as well, so obviously my "comprehension" is not that off.

You can go back on your claim regarding a specific criticism and say that you were making a general one, not targeted at Z, but I'm not buying it.

There is an abstract theory, sure, but it's still just a made up labeling system based on subjective criteria. I think his point was that ideas like every Pi dom is a J, etc. are definitionally built into the naming system, so it's meaningless to ask for proof of this.

Since psychological type in Jungian terms cannot be empirically tested we're forced to treat it as subjective. So there's no proof that an INTP is an INTP. I didn't say the theory was based on nothing--but since all type classifications are ultimately subjective, it's meaningless to ask for proof that the categories exist in the first place.

Ok, that's great. I think we'd all agree with you on that. But what's your point?

I don't think Z's idea for this thread was to prove that a perceiver is a perceiver or that a judger is a judger. Again, it was merely to inquire about how Pi is corollary to judgement while Pe is corollary to perceiver, outside of being definitively true.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice about placing criticism before comprehension

Maybe you ought to maintain your position in a discussion rather than trying to subtly change your meaning to make your opponent look wrong.

That's a pretty typical ENTP maneuver, but I'm not buying it.

That's what I was trying to tell you...there is no "correlation" to be researched between Pi and xxxJ types, because "extroverts the preferred Judging function and introverts the preferred Perceiving function" is, definitionally, the only thing "xxxJ" actually means.

It's not as if there's a set of "J qualities" to be compared to and correlated with "Pi/Je qualities"; they're definitionally the same thing. A "J quality" is simply the combined set of all qualities true of all Pi+Je and Je+Pi types.

I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

Wondering about the correlation between the two is like wondering about the correlation between F types and having an F function in their top two. That's the sole definition of "F type" in the first place.

I disagree. I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.

 

[teslashock]

Pi-ers appear "judgmental" (relative to Pe-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Je to deal with the external world.

Pe-ers appear "perceptive" (relative to Pi-ers) to most external observers because they prefer using Pe to deal with the external world.

The strongest extroverted function is what most other people see most often when they interact with you. It's that simple.

Fair enough, that's a start as to why Pe-ers are deemed perceivers while Je-ers (and thus Pi-ers) are deemed judgers, and that's pretty much exactly what I said in my post to Z a couple pages back.

Rather than assuming that his inquiry was based on pure hogwash, I responded to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he wasn't asking for an empirical proof regarding a system that doesn't use empirical data to define itself.

You could try that next time rather than jumping the gun onto your high horse about how MBTI and cognitive functions are just arbitrary labeling systems! I think we all understand that by now.

 

[teslashock]

So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

What do you think? Which makes more sense?

Socionics looks like a convoluted mess to me, and I've never really tried to make sense of it, so I can't really offer much further discussion on that matter.

Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?

But yeah, from what I know, that's what socionics does. I see merit to labeling based on the extroverted function (since that's what we most often see) as well as labeling based off of the dominant function, and in truth, it doesn't matter too much to me which label is used. Understanding the labels is the most important part.

We could start calling INTJs banana-doms and ENTPs apple-doms, and that essentially wouldn't make any difference regarding the actual cognitive traits we assign to these two types (we'd just get a little hungry during the discussion probably).

Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

(Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)

Ok. Well you seem to come to terms with what I've said here, so I don't really know what else to say to this.

And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

Honestly, though, great post.

Ti :workout:

 

[simulatedworld]

uumlau's "general" criticism was a specific response to Z's inquiry about why Pi = judging while Pe = perceiving. Read:



and the fact that you supported this criticism ("+a lot...ramble, ramble") implies that you also believe Z's specific inquiry is more or less trivial.

It was not unfair for me to assume that this was your stance, given the context of the posts. Z drew the conclusion that you were criticizing his inquiry as well, so obviously my "comprehension" is not that off.

I don't think I actually said anything about what I thought Z meant. I just read uumlau's post and it reminded me of a common mistake that a lot of people on the forum make.

You can go back on your claim regarding a specific criticism and say that you were making a general one, not targeted at Z, but I'm not buying it.

Suit yourself.

Ok, that's great. I think we'd all agree with you on that. But what's your point?

The point was to explain why the answer to his question is definitionally obvious...

I don't think Z's idea for this thread was to prove that a perceiver is a perceiver or that a judger is a judger. Again, it was merely to inquire about how Pi is corollary to judgement while Pe is corollary to perceiver, outside of being definitively true.

Neither do I, but you know what I meant better than I do.

Maybe you ought to maintain your position in a discussion rather than trying to subtly change your meaning to make your opponent look wrong.

That's a pretty typical ENTP maneuver, but I'm not buying it.

While I do think the answer to Z's question is pretty obvious, I don't think I said he was looking for proof of the categories...if you look at my response directly to him (rather than the part to uumlau) you can see that I directed my efforts toward explaining why his question is obvious.

I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.

I disagree. I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.

The answer to that is the same reason any combination of dom/aux functions is opposed in terms of both rationality and orientation: balance.

Pi provides the best assistant to Je and vice versa because that way we get a balance between extroversion/introversion and perception/judgment.

The strongest extroverted function is the one most visible to others, and thus Perceiving/Judging is a description of preference for dealing with the external world: in a more open-ended (Perceiving) or decisive (Judging) fashion.

What is so difficult about this?

 

[INTP]

i think jungs idea(where j and p is based on first function instead of extraverted function) of j and p is totally shitty. jung intp and entp use totally different functions, and mbti intp and entp use the same functions. both judge whats inside their heads and perceive the outer world without judgment. even tho intp uses judging function as first function they are not judgmental towards the outer world, like entp is not judgmental towards outer world either. however intj(jung intp) judges the outer world, just like entj..

i know entp(with high introversion and low extraversion) and intj and im much more like the entp guy than what the intj is. so i think it would be wrong to label the intj as intp since his functions are totally different(he clearly thinks differently) from entp.

 

[Eric B]

Making J/P refer to extraverted function rather than dominant function really came in handy for identifying temperament (both conative, and the Interaction Styles as well) in the types.

I�ve actually wondered about this quite a bit myself. I remember reading something like what appled wrote- about the extraverted preference being the �face� we show to others, and being the one we use to interact with the outside world- probably in Thompson�s book. Beyond that, I�ve got my own minor theory about behavior differences:

Judgers typically don�t seem to like the external world to be subject to change as much as Ps do. I think it�s because when the more dominant P function (be it specifically the dom or aux) is introverted, we prefer to have the external world remain relatively stagnant so that we are free to perceive introverted information. I know this much is true for Ni doms: we thrive on exploring internal possibilities and unstable external environments inhibit our ability to do this. Freedom is found in the mind, and external changes (that we aren�t in firm control of) constrict this freedom.

I suppose the inverse is true for perceivers. When the more dominant P function (again, whether dom or aux) is directed outward, then �freedom� would be found where the external world is more subject to change- allowing them to explore external options.

I'm finally reading the book, and just yesterday got up to a part wher she describes J as "linear" and P as "holistic" (she spells it "wholistic"). Of course, in her theory, J and P have special significance, because they identify actual brain hemispheres. Last year, I was talking to her about the Mark Bruzon page http://player2000gi.host-ed.net/jungian_functions.htm, that defines T as linear and F as holistic (and I had assumed drew from her because it mentions the brain hemispheres as well). She did not agree, and couldn't seem to understand the rationale behind that, and I was having trouble explaining it, but it did make sense (you have to see his illustrations on the page to get an idea).

So if both are true, it means that T and J are both linear, but perhaps in different ways, while F and P are both holistic.
I know in Bruzon's theory, linear/holistic are connected with the "connections" between events (T="this causes that" with lines connecting the dots; F is more about an overall "harmony" represented by events being enclosed in a circle).
To Lenore, linear/holistic is
J[Je/Pi: left brain]="one-after-the-other" rules; desires predictability; structuring reality before it exists

P[Pe/Ji: right brain]="all-at-once" approach to life; desires probability; adjusting to conditions here and now, in light of their impact on our goals.

So these sound similar, but both can be true.
In my correlations of type with the old temperament systems, using "people/task focus" as the other factor besides introversion/extroversion; I discovered that T and J are both "task" focused" (less "responsive"), and F and P are more "people" focused (more responsive). Task-focus is "directive" for the Interaction Style (S+T, N+J) and "structure focused" for the temperament (S+J, N+T), and people-focus is "informing' for the Interaction Style (S+F, N+P), and "motive focused" for the temperament (S+P, N+F).

So what's happening is that linear and holistic seems to be connected directly to task vs people. But in two different areas. What we end up with is that TJ's are the most linear; FP's are the most holistic, and TP's and FJ's are inbetween; mixing linear and holistic in one way or another.
(Would this seem to fit those groups in anyone else's view?)
Bruzon's use of the terms are connected with tying together our perceptions, and Lenore's seem to be more about the actual decision making process itself.

I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

I think wondering about the correlation between Pi/Je and why Pi aids in judgment is analagous to wondering about the correlation between all pairs of functions that work together and build off of each other (Ti/Fe, Te/Fi, Ne/Si, Se/Ni).

I know that you readily admit that Ti/Fe, like all the other aforementioned pairs, go hand-in-hand, as we've had conversations on the matter. The purpose of Z's inquiry was to better understand why Pi/Je go hand-in-hand.

It's about the preferred functions which define the type. If you prefer one function, and one orientation (i/e), then the others will be suppressed. An auxiliary will be chosen, and naturally gravitate to the opposite orientation. Whichever orientation is extraverted, will determine J/P. In fact, according to one person (Brenda Mullins, Personality Page), I/E and J/P develope even before the functions themselves. So the young child will have their inner or outer orientation, and the first function that develops (or more accurately, differentiates) will fall into place according to its i/e or J/P attitude. A function of the opposite j/p form will will eventually fall into place next to it as auxiliary, in the opposite orientation.
In Bruzon's theory, it is the perceiving function that determines the orientation, which he frames as the "matrix". Pe=wide area matrix, and Ji will operate off of this. Pi=local area matrix, and Je will work off of this.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm not even gunna go and quote all this stuff, cuz this is just getting dumb.

Simply put, Sim: Tesla has provided tons of value with her responses.

Furthermore, she has been spot on with each criticism she's made about your posts.

She understood the point, from the very first post she wrote.

You, in 5-6 posts now, have still failed to see the point (and, thus, have provided very little value to the discussion).

It's very clearly seen here:

I think the purpose of this thread was to understand why Pi is corollary to judging, or in other words, why Pi is corollary to Je or why Pi is labeled as a judging function. We get that Pi falls under the definition of xxxJ, and that by the sheer fact of being labeled this way, it is, but the purpose here is to explore why.

Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.

When I read two posts like these, I feel like the second person is just absolutely missing the point of the first person's post.

Like, it just reads with a loud "DONG!"

She gets it; you don't. Simple as that.

I've asked for a number of comments, observations, explanations, and opinions on this post, but here are the main ones off the type of my head: I'm looking for a deeper reason, beyond being merely definitional, beyond mere internal consistency, about why Pi and Je go together; how this combination of dom/aux functions relates to judgmentalness; whether that's really a good definition of judgmentalness, as opposed to Socionics' definition; and more.

(please read the bolded and italicized part over and over until you truly understand it if you're going to respond.)

Just read this post again. It answered everything I asked. After it, I asked more questions. To be honest, in my opinion, after this response, most all of the questions she answered had an adequately definitive statement (aside from the ones which I asked for her to go further into in this post). From that point on, I just wish the discussion had continued forth, as opposed to getting bogged down in you attempting to answer questions in a way that I wasn't looking for them to be answered in the first place, after those questions had already been previously and adequately addressed (which was further followed by your subsequent attempts to justify your answers and responses).

This is the main part of her response that was awesome (although, it was her entire post, from first word to last, that showed she truly understood what I was getting at):

Judgers internalize the information that they gather externally to fit some kind of impersonal construct, and the construct itself has no judgments attached to it (Pi). However, judgers use this construct made from information in the external environment to make judgments of value/worth (Je). Without the construct, no reasonable judgments about reality could be made, but since the construct aids in judgment about reality, Pi-ers are labeled as judgers.

For judgers, judgment is expressed outwardly and founded and aided behind the scenes by perception.

Perceivers, on the other hand, react more immediately to the information they gather externally (Pe). What allows them to do that is the existence of a priorly formed internal construct based on values that are derived internally according to the self (Ji). Without this construct, Pe-ers would have no long-established structure to aid them in their on-the-fly reactions to their environment. Since Ji serves to aid in perception, Pe/Ji-ers are called perceivers.

For perceivers, perception is expressed outwardly and founded and aided behind the scenes by judgment.

Here's an example of how she really understood what I was getting at (particularly the bolded and italicized -- to be honest, I'm not quite sure "conceptual explanation" are the best words to describe what I'm looking for, but that's probably just due to a subjective difference in preference for certain words between me and Tesla (i.e., "conceptual", in this case -- I probably would have preferred "deeper"), but the latter bolded and italicized part shows that she understood exactly what I was looking for):

Z, I'm sure you understand how the labeling system works from a definitive standpoint. You seem to be just looking for some kind of conceptual explanation for why the labeling system has come to be labeled the way it is labeled, or why the labeling system is the way it is, so to speak.

And here's where I thought the quality of her explanation fell off a little bit, and where I'd like the discussion to continue on from this point on:

I'm not really sure where else you want to go with this thread, but if you're wondering why Je-ers can't also be Pe-ers (why they must be excluslively judgers) and why Ji-ers can't also be Pi-ers (why they must be exclusively perceivers), I'd say it's due to a cognitive inconsistency between Pi/Ji and Pe/Je that just doesn't compute well.

It doesn't make any sense for someone to simultaneously see the environment as something to empirically evaluate before garnering an impression (Je) while also responding immediately to it, according to momentary sense impressions, before understanding it empirically (Pe). Likewise, it doesn't make sense to build an internal construct that's derived subjectively (Ji) while also building an internal construct that's made from external information (Pi).

So according to this logic, the only way for one to have both a perceiving and judging function juxtaposed in the primary two functions, one would need Je/Pi or Pe/Ji.

Which is why I wrote this post:

Now here's the controversial part, which uumlau points to in his next question (and which Sim provides a good answer to in his post).

Before this part of your post, everything rang with absolute truth.

In this paragraph, that ringing stopped sounding so true...

The words that I've bolded just don't carry much force.

I'm not sure whether they lack force because they aren't necessarily representationally true, and thus you're having a hard time making a strong case about this part of the theory, or whether you are actually capable of a strong explanation of these matters, but just got tired or lazy.

And with regards to the latter two sentences: don't we rather regularly talk about PeJe and PiJi loops?

(Note: I see you address these in your post directly above this one, and I think your claim about how they relate to healthy/unhealthy cognition and mental productivity/unproductiveness has a load of merit to it.)

...

And now we're back to mere internal consistency.

Honestly, though, great post.

I also brought up this point, which Tesla has responded to a post or two above:

So, that being said, do you think the Socionics notation or the MBTI notation is better (taking that word to mean whatever you want it to) on this issue?

I used to write Socionics off, because, among other things, I didn't understand the reason why it's j/p labeling wasn't consistent with MBTI's J/P labeling, but, having just come to understand it, I think there's a lot of merit to Socionics' method.

What do you think? Which makes more sense?

Labeling one a J if one has Je in one's dom or aux, or labeling one a j if one's dominant function is a J function?

Sim, it's not really a problem that you're not getting what I'm trying to get at, cuz Tesla already provided a ton of valuable information perfectly in line with what I was looking for (you eventually touched on some of it, but she'd already answered all of those questions in her original post, in more depth and with more force), other than the fact that you've now completely derailed this thread in an attempt to justify your responses, and thus hindered further on-point discussion, delving and elaboration.

If you see this post: one of the primary negative traits I'm talking about is your apparent need for combativeness. While I completely empathize with the need to confront and combat something when it needs to be confronted or combatted, all too often, you seem a priori to bring this frame into whatever post or discussion you are reading and thus impose it upon the discussion, essentially creating conflict or combativeness where none need exist in the first place.

 

[onemoretime]

Maybe this is known to some of you, but I'm sure it's not known to the lot of you...

I was kicking some thoughts around in my head the other day, and I realized that all NJs (INTJ, INFJ, ENTJ, ENFJ) are either Ni doms or Ni auxs.

At the same time, all NPs (INTP, ENTP, INFP, ENFP) are Ne doms or Ne auxs.

Then I realized that something similar holds true for Ss.

All SJs (ISTJ, ESTJ, ISFJ, ESFJ) are Si doms or auxs, and all SPs (ESFP, ISTP, ESTP, ISFP) are Se doms or auxs.

Accordingly, all Pi doms or auxs are Judgers, and all Pe doms or auxs are Perceivers.

So, my question to you is: what is it about having Pi (Ni,Si) as your dom or aux that makes one a Judger, and what is it about Pe (Ne,Se) as your dom or aux that makes one a Perceiver?

If I get you correctly, is the question "what does it mean to be a judger or a perceiver"?

 

[Nonsensical]

I think this is a very intriguing concept. I don't think people should label it off because in the field of psychology, a lot of is just made up concepts that are not easily proven. So what's to say this isn't relevant.

 

[uumlau]

With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.

 

[onemoretime]

With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.

Sorry to offend you. You're right - there's no excusing the incivility.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I don't think I actually said anything about what I thought Z meant. I just read uumlau's post and it reminded me of a common mistake that a lot of people on the forum make.



Suit yourself.





The point was to explain why the answer to his question is definitionally obvious...



Neither do I, but you know what I meant better than I do.





While I do think the answer to Z's question is pretty obvious, I don't think I said he was looking for proof of the categories...if you look at my response directly to him (rather than the part to uumlau) you can see that I directed my efforts toward explaining why his question is obvious.





Sorry, I guess I just thought that was really obvious. Since P/J denotes the type of function that is the strongest extroverted process, shouldn't it be obvious that it's referring to the person's preferred way of dealing with the external world?

I guess I just figured this wouldn't be that hard to figure out.





The answer to that is the same reason any combination of dom/aux functions is opposed in terms of both rationality and orientation: balance.

Pi provides the best assistant to Je and vice versa because that way we get a balance between extroversion/introversion and perception/judgment.

The strongest extroverted function is the one most visible to others, and thus Perceiving/Judging is a description of preference for dealing with the external world: in a more open-ended (Perceiving) or decisive (Judging) fashion.

What is so difficult about this?

I can't help but notice your Tesla response lacks the reactionary and hostile tone of your usual posts. Hmmm. Wonder why that is?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

i think jungs idea(where j and p is based on first function instead of extraverted function) of j and p is totally shitty. jung intp and entp use totally different functions, and mbti intp and entp use the same functions. both judge whats inside their heads and perceive the outer world without judgment. even tho intp uses judging function as first function they are not judgmental towards the outer world, like entp is not judgmental towards outer world either. however intj(jung intp) judges the outer world, just like entj..


i know entp(with high introversion and low extraversion) and intj and im much more like the entp guy than what the intj is. so i think it would be wrong to label the intj as intp since his functions are totally different(he clearly thinks differently) from entp.

The similarities between intp and entp can be better explained by this:

Ti/Ne

Ne/Ti

It's as simple as that. The J/P dichotomy just confounds things and encourages more false assumptions than doing any good by classifying similar types together as judgers or perceivers.

And of course you wouldn't be like an INTJ. An INTJ uses: Ni/Te which is totally different.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I'll publically acknowledge (at least from what I've seen lately) I think sim has been showing higher levels of self-control and using better manners overall to express his thoughts.

But there's stuff in that response above that could be "called out" too ...

Since this post is irrelevant to the thread, my apologies for the derail.

 

[Night]

With luck, this post will be removed with all the other pointless arguing here.

I'm publicly calling the both of you out, OMT and Z. Be more civil to each other. Neither should make excuses about the others' being rude as a justification for one's own incivility.

I'm going to leave this post intact as an instructive guide for everyone involved in this thread.

Please listen to uumlau.