Clearing Up The J/P Myth

[ptgatsby]

Totally untrue, because I do all of these, even being methodical. Not as well as an ISTJ, but equal to an INTJ. In fact, these could be traits of anyone who has a "Chart the Course" interaction style.

Those are taken from the Step II factor analysis. Those are the measured traits.

["?"]

Interesting post "?" (you have the kewlest username evar) I too am confused when people discuss single letters of the MBTI types, if one says " oh well, I'm right in the middle of the J/P divide, so im probably J at work and P at home" Uh no you aren't, because (I'm in favor of replacing because with becoz) that would mean a whole different set of functions, the difference is not in J vs P, but in NiTe or TeNi vs TiNe or NeTi (for example), so if you were P instead of J your whole worldview would change, not only how organized you are or how punctual you are.

Thanks Dark Razor. There is a story behind the username. However short version, after realizing that the MBTI Step II was off, I realized that I was not INTP, thus dumped INTrPosr.

There was an article that I put on the INTP Central forum, months or maybe years ago, regarding the fact that many people fail to follow instructions of determining type, by answering questions as to the way they are at work. As a whole we all can appear SJ-ish since the temperament is more oriented toward traditional institutions. You always respond to answers, as you are when home and alone.

[Il Morto Qui Parla]

She did:

The only generalization I'm comfortable with about J/P differences is that J's like to approach the world with structure; they feel better following a plan; they like closure and want things completed. P's like to approach the world preferring to keep their options open. And that's as specific about J/P as I'm willing to get!

So what does that mean, bearing in mind that you then went on to question even this vague description?

MBTI tests ask about behaviour. Most literature on the J/P axis, just like literature on the E/I and T/F axes, describes behaviour as well as motivations. So I don't know why the author of this article thinks she is qualified to re-write type theory and present it as unquestionable fact, especially when her descriptions are so vague as to be of little or no help.

["?"]

Those are taken from the Step II factor analysis. Those are the measured traits.

Unfortunately when I took the Step II, it resulted in INTP. After asking questions on it, I was amazed that the assessement can be over a 25% inaccuarate. For that reason, they have developed a new assessment. It still seems to be a work in progress.

["?"]

So what does that mean, bearing in mind that you then went on to question even this vague description?

It means what it says. Are you attempting to read more into it? She simply dismisses all of the stereotyping that seems to be prevalent on forums. Actually I did not see the article initially at her site, instead at her husbands. As for ISTPs liking to work within a structure yet have freedom to move around seemed quite clear also.

MBTI tests ask about behaviour. Most literature on the J/P axis, just like literature on the E/I and T/F axes, describes behaviour as well as motivations.

And as a result, people are constantly getting their dichotomies confused. I know quite a few who claim to be ENTJ, who constantly respond erroneously to a need to be around people, an enjoyment of taking long solitary walks, getting caught up in soap operas, etc.

So I don't know why the author of this article thinks she is qualified to re-write type theory and present it as unquestionable fact, especially when her descriptions are so vague as to be of little or no help.

I would suggest asking her. She has a question and answer at INFJ.COM and I put her worksite in the initial thread.

Even some in this thread has answered to the fact that there are SFJs who are messy, and perceiving types that like orderliness. I prefer to be on time for meetings, although I know that could never work from a clock.

[ptgatsby]

Unfortunately when I took the Step II, it resulted in INTP. After asking questions on it, I was amazed that the assessement can be over a 25% inaccuarate. For that reason, they have developed a new assessment. It still seems to be a work in progress.

No one knows if the assessment is accurate - type is based on faith in the underlying functional theories. Step III is a look at J/P in an attempt to deal with the problems between J/P, yes... how well, I don't know.

Regardless of how you feel about type, or your type, MBTI is the theory and those are the traits that correlate to the J and the functional attitude. One doesn't get to redefine the theory to suite their own preference.

If you took the Step II and picked all J traits, the tester would mark you as a J. Even in reviewing your results, they would be hard pressed to let you pick P openly. They would view it as projection (though they would let you pick it for yourself in the end).

Also note that those traits are polar opposites from each other (you test one or the other, not both, hence the distribution complaints within MBTI.)

-

For your edit;

What I am saying is that the end result of action depends on your type, but the type itself does not manifest itself across a full range of behaviours.

Her point was no point, except that generalised trait theories don't match up with common generalised behaviours. Which is generally false; evidence shows that specific types do have generalised behaviours... hence the strawman. It replaces what is known with a false argument.

She's not wrong, exactly... I don't see the value in what she said. The generalised behaviour is based upon your expierences, with a bias towards your type. Type, of all "trait" theories, is the last one that should be generalised to behaviour... which is about all I agree with her article.

[Il Morto Qui Parla]

the thing is "?", if you reject generalisations, then you reject MBTI. I can accept contradictions within MBTI and use basic common sense, ie not every J will be 100% J at everything they do, T's have feelings, F's can think, I's can have friends etc. - but once you dispute the general framework, you discredit the concept of MBTI. I mean, you call yourself ISTP, but if you reject the conventional descriptions of the functions, then to what extent are you an ISTP? Wouldn't you be better off not typing yourself if you want to reject generalisations?

["?"]

Pgatsby and Il Morto Qui Parla, we're getting way off topic here. Pgatsby you seem to be arguing the exact point that the statement originally posted makes, that you cannot determine J/P by anything except that Js like structure and closure, and that Ps are comfortable with less structure and keeping their options open. Other than that, cleanliness and being on time has no bearing on the J/P dichotomy.

You are right that I am suspect of generalizations and sterotypes that can mislead and circumvent anyone from determining their best fit type. Myers-Briggs only provides a slight disclaimer, in her book "Gifts Differing" that alludes to there being non mechanical ISTPs. I think that there may be quite a few INJs who who conflict between the inner and outer worlds which result in their not being as organized as other Judging types, resulting in consistently messy desks.

[ptgatsby]

Pgatsby and Il Morto Qui Parla, we're getting way off topic here. Pgatsby you seem to be arguing the exact point that the statement originally posted makes, that you cannot determine J/P by anything except that Js like structure and closure, and that Ps are comfortable with less structure and keeping their options open. Other than that, cleanliness and being on time has no bearing on the J/P dichotomy.

I have an issue with the way the article sets up a false argument, then debunks it with personal experiences. That's not very helpful. It was just a forum post and there is nothing wrong with that - it doesn't need to be a carefully structured essay on the nature of J/Ps. However, I do take exception to the argument presented;


The first stereotype is the notion that J's are always on time, and P's are always late. IT'S NOT TRUE!


The problem I have is that the false part is "always". This is important to talk about when dealing with MBTI. Js operate according to schedules, to order... they tend, just like that J/P trait is a preference, to be on time. Same with order, physical or not. Always creates a false argument to disprove something that (at least historically - I'm not sure how Step II dealt with punctual as a descriptor, though it seems to exist in some way).

Central to this is that there are sub-traits under the J/P divide, and these preferences will influence how each J views the world. On top of that, despite the tendency to do things in a structured and orderly way, there are huge development issues involved... even though the underlying nature will express itself, other pressures can mitigate or exaggerate certain traits.

Some MBTI tests actually ask if one is punctual or leisurely directly. (PDF Warning)... Advice is commonly given in terms of structured time here. Even attempts to match FFM and MBTI use punctual as a benchmark (PDF Warning) (on the table, Item P97)

[Maverick]

ptgatsby, that was an excellent post