• 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.

'Judging' versus 'Perceiving' Leading Function

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Okay, according to MBTI theory, you can either lead with a 'judging' function (EJ or IP) or a 'perceiving' function (EP or IJ)

Also, apparently, according to MBTI theory, the order of functions is about 'how conscious a function is,' and how much use is put into it. People tend to rely on their first two functions.

On top of this, kids are said to develop their first function first and the others aren't visible until 12 to 15 years of age.

So, I've been trying to put all of this together for a while... how the hell does this work? What does 'judging' and 'perceiving' really mean? Because I'm pretty sure I'm missing something -- how could somebody possibly run with one or the other for twelve years? How can somebody have a more dominant judging function than perceiving function? Doesn't one need to process information before one can make judgments? And doesn't one need to make judgments to do anything at all? I can almost understand perception before judgement, but not judgement before perception, and I don't mean just temporally (even though there would be a temporal problem with children in MBTI theory).

I realize that 'judgment' and 'perception' are more than just 'deciding' and 'gathering information,' but even then, how does this work?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Well, there's really no similarity between IJ and EP. People only notice the Extraverted function in real life.

That's the period of meaningful development. Before that period, most people make primitive, simplistic judgments or perceptions. So yes, you always have both, but you don't really start using a process consciously and deliberately until it starts to develop. You do notice that most people don't seem as able to control their actions, plan, or perceive situations clearly before the age of about 12, right? In fact, in one culture (can't remember which), 12 is the "age of accountability," and before that you couldn't be held accountable for a crime because you aren't considered "aware" enough to know right from wrong.

So from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Basically, the functional order isn't as meaningful as you'd think... all that's known of Ni and Si is that they lend themselves to J-oriented behaviors. IJ's usually seem more "J" in keeping track of things they need to do and having long memories, EJ's seem more "J" in pushing their agendas on others and getting more things done. But both types tend to do both these things to some degree.

And all that's known of Ti and Fi is that they lend themselves to P-oriented behaviors, but I can't provide as much on that.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
...from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Yup. You use them all. It's more a matter of prioritization.

For the record, I have seen secondary functions manifest in young children. Everyone's different, not all move as quickly to the secondary. And perhaps the secondary wasn't yet as matured as the primary, but it was still discernable.

And all that's known of Ti and Fi is that they lend themselves to P-oriented behaviors, but I can't provide as much on that.

Well, they're open-ended externally because they need all the information to fuel the internal judging. That's what happens.

The experience is rather odd. Inside, I feel like a very critical person. Every comment, every piece of information that comes in, is immediately crunched, i.e., applied to the model of reality so that there is a definite, describable model that things either conform to or do NOT conform to. But it's constantly being refreshed by every new piece of information. So each piece of info is being weighed as "correct" or 'incorrect", judged, and saved or discarded.

But outwardly, everything's all flexy. Even if internally it's not. Because there is always "more information" that could invalidate the model, so I can't judge EXTERNALLY (the information "out there" is limitless and can't be evaluated that way, to me), only internally (because that is where my standards are specific, and definable, and supreme). So it's judged only when it comes inside.
 

Badlands

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
98
MBTI Type
INTP
The J/P preference indicates whether the leading extraverted function is Percieving or Judging. Which function is actually in the lead really has not much to do with it beyond I/E itself once the auxiliary has established itself. When trying to type an adult as an I or an E, people tend to analyze the traits falling into I preference and E preference, instead of comparing Xi/Ye to Ye/Xi; for people that did not know the child well before the auxiliary established itself, this is rather tedious to establish any certainty upon.

For a more general, straightforward, and accurate answer, judging types judge the world around them (with Fe or Te) and percieve inside them (with Si or Ni), while percieving types percieve the world around them (with Se or Ne), while judging inside them (with Fi or Ti).
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
So from the moment you start interacting with the world, you're able to use all functions in a primitive, basic way. Developing them past that basic point is what's referred to. For instance, even an INFP has enough "T" to learn how to use a doorknob, or seek and fetch an object for another person from a fairly early age, but they would struggle with more complex T-oriented tasks. And even an ESTJ experiences emotional discomfort if someone is cruel to them, but they may not be as able to express or deal with their discomfort, and would tend just react to everything with either anger or repression until reaching a higher level of development.

Basically, the functional order isn't as meaningful as you'd think...

Okay, this is all I needed to know. Especially that last part. It's a lot clearer now.

To everyone else: this is not about judgement versus perception, it's about leading functions...
 

Thursday

Earth Exalted
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
3,960
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Okay, this is all I needed to know. Especially that last part. It's a lot clearer now.

To everyone else: this is not about judgement versus perception, it's about leading functions...

Its amazing how these simple matters can be taking off course
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Well, they're open-ended externally because they need all the information to fuel the internal judging. That's what happens.

The experience is rather odd. Inside, I feel like a very critical person. Every comment, every piece of information that comes in, is immediately crunched, i.e., applied to the model of reality so that there is a definite, describable model that things either conform to or do NOT conform to. But it's constantly being refreshed by every new piece of information. So each piece of info is being weighed as "correct" or 'incorrect", judged, and saved or discarded.

But outwardly, everything's all flexy. Even if internally it's not. Because there is always "more information" that could invalidate the model, so I can't judge EXTERNALLY (the information "out there" is limitless and can't be evaluated that way, to me), only internally (because that is where my standards are specific, and definable, and supreme). So it's judged only when it comes inside.

That makes some sense to me. I feel like I do that to information some of the time, except that I try to create rules/guidelines based on it that won't require me to do this continually, or at least simplify the extent to which I have to do this as it can get very complex very quickly if I can't automate it.

For me, it's like I see one piece of information in several ways, and I have to accept and express just one in order to do anything other than sit in contemplation. In fact, my biggest communication flaw is probably assuming people see the things I say from as many perspectives as I do (for instance, the way Jen misunderstood my complaints as a sense of superiority and condemnation of others rather than just trying to list any flaws I could think of. For instance, if I'd known she would read it, I probably wouldn't have said it that way [if at all]. It always feels weird having one group of people read or overhear I what I said with another in mind, because I know it has a completely different meaning for them, and that they won't get an accurate picture from what I said.). :doh: Of course, some of the shades of meaning are subtle enough that I can't even express them and still make sense. It's a bit like when you take a picture with a digital camera, and every pixel has to be just one color while collectively still giving the impression of the original picture. Or perhaps trying to convey 3-D information via a single 2-D slice. Somehow, the mind can easily make sense of it when it's moving, but a 2-D freeze-frame representation of a 3-D image is confusing unless the angle is just right.

There's a reason I ask "Does that make sense?" so often. Because I'm actually not sure I did make sense until someone else tells me I did. I usually strongly suspect I did, and need another person to explain why I didn't if they don't think so, but I don't really feel sure unless someone or something confirms I did. I'm often afraid that what I'm saying will come across as gibberish or nonsense (because I'm aware of leaving so many inexpressible gaps that I expect people to fill in mentally), and then feel a bit relieved when I go back and read it a few days later and think "Wow, did I really write something like that? I can't believe I expressed myself that well."

I can't put my finger on what makes Ti and Fi different because neither is apparent in the expression, but I can certainly feel a difference in how they affect me viscerally.

Ti (usually) just leaves me with a calm, subtle, disarming feeling. Often accompanied by a sense of fairness or consistency, and the vague sense that whether I understand is important, and that they see that there's room for improvement in their own understanding of things. Although they don't explicitly say this, it seems to come through.


Fi (usually) being used in a strong way makes me feel tired, nervous, anxious, and ill. I then feel a strong need to read philosophy such as Hegel or Aristotle, do math problems (and I don't even like math usually), and read technical manuals. Sometimes even read the "Jedi Code" several times as well. It's a bit like the need to get an awful taste out of your mouth after having eaten something very bitter and/or burned... except that it's my mind rather than my mouth. And a sense of imbalance/anxiety like someone tried to turn the world upside down, or increase/decrease gravity abruptly.

Notice I said "usually." This is because some FP's don't have this effect on me, and manage to seem closer to the Ti "effect" (although the one I described is most common for me). And of course, some TP's have an effect closer to (but different from) the second one, except that it pushes me to read about etiquette, the Social Contract, fantasy/mythology and history (especially medieval or classical eras), and things of that sort. It's not as strong or frightening in that latter case as much as an irritated feeling.
 

"?"

New member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,167
MBTI Type
TiSe
Well, there's really no similarity between IJ and EP. People only notice the Extraverted function in real life.
It is what Myers-Briggs leads us to believe, understandably when considering Jung's theory on conscious and unconscious. However, Jung clearly theorizes that introverted functions are noticeable to onlookers in saying
The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.

The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.
 

Thursday

Earth Exalted
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
3,960
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I know. I sometimes wish people would read the original post.

Counting on people to read anything is a fools gold
but hey
the few that matter in this regard will be staunch supporters of what is vital
 

GZA

Resident Snot-Nose
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
1,771
MBTI Type
infp
Even if people didn't read the original post and follow it, there was still a good discussion, no? Your original post isn't the most clear post with the most obvious question to answer, either... it mentions children's functions, what percieving and judging really mean, and the relationship between dominant and judging functions, so it should be no surpise that different people discussed different things. I think it was a great post for that reason, really... it has us thinking about several interrelated things.

I think it makes some sense with how children could have one strong function and a bunch of vague ones. We often measure the strength of our functions as a percentage (i.e. 70% Te, 60% Ni, 85% Fi, 55% Se, or whatever). For children, maybe only one of their functions has developed enough to be apparent (i.e. maybe 25% Te, but only single digit percentiles for the other functions, making them insignificant). Thats my theory for now, anyway, I'm not sure how that aligns with the true MBTI theory.

Is that what you intended to discuss in the original post?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,190
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Even if people didn't read the original post and follow it, there was still a good discussion, no? Your original post isn't the most clear post with the most obvious question to answer, either... it mentions children's functions, what percieving and judging really mean, and the relationship between dominant and judging functions, so it should be no surpise that different people discussed different things. I think it was a great post for that reason, really... it has us thinking about several interrelated things.

That was the problem as well as the beauty of it.

I know I tried to comply in my first response. Right now, I've reread the OP a number of times and still don't see anything "deeper" hidden with it, so if Hap could clarify, then that would help guide the responses. Otherwise he can expect it to continue to depart from his internal intentions.

People use all the functions. Because they are developing as kids, they tend to prefer one and focus on it beyond others; it's unnuanced (as are all the functions at that stage).

This is (imo) a bio wiring thing; they have a particular way they enjoy approaching the world, which can be attached to one of the functions as described in MBTI.

For example (and these are still guesses on my part, but they make sense), kids with Ti will feel the least amount of anxiety staying detached, sitting back, observing, trying to "figure out the world" so that they can understand what is happening. If they try to engage the world first without having put things together, then their anxiety increases, which negatively impacts their desire to act and take risks.

Other functions might also be tied up in anxiety-avoidance and "risk management," but the function in question ultimately determines external behavior. Children with Ti would still feel anxiety if forced to act on their judgments and take personal risks, they do NOT feel anxiety (and in fact even feel pleasure) in understanding how the world works, so they have no need to externalize their ideas... there is both positive and negative reinforce in keeping the judgments INSIDE, that's what they prefer.

COmpare to ENTP, which uses Ne+Ti. Here, they still have the need to perceive possibilities and understand how they fit together, but they actually get a rush from testing things in the external world. They don't have the anxiety at taking risks that INTPs generally do; they remain fully engaged externally and experience more fear over boredom and not being able to "try things out."

We can extrapolate this to all the function use. There is combination of anxiety and pleasure (negative and positive stimulation) that is at work in each child, that helps determine how they perceiving and then act in (or apart from) the world.

Parental influence and environment cannot really change the wiring that much, it either rewards the behavior or punishes it. When innate behavior is unduly punished, it damages the child because they now must act in ways that constantly create internal anxiety and throw the kids out of whack.

So all the functions exist. (And yes, the categories are probably somewhat an arbitrary distinction, they might not be as separated in reality or separated quite the same way as MBTI makes them out to be.) SOme functions when used caused anxiety or offer positive stimulation, others offer less. So the child avoids functions that cause anxiety and decrease pleasure and chases functions that bring enjoyment and pleasure and reduce anxiety.
 
Top