Why We Disagree On Type Calls

[reckful]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But I am curious to know why you've changed your call on Jung's type from ISTP to something ending with a J.

I've never thought Jung was an ISTP, or any kind of S. My first choice is INTJ and my second choice is INFJ, and you can read more about why in this post.

 

[Mal12345]

I've never thought Jung was an ISTP, or any kind of S. My first choice is INTJ and my second choice is INFJ, and you can read more about why in this post.

I've just completed about 10 minutes of online research and discovered that someone on this forum misquoted you at one time. WSidis thought that Jung was an ISTP in a "dom tert loop."

I prefer to go with INFJ myself.

 

[Southern Kross]

"Naturally it [difficulty observing type] depends very largely also upon the attitude of the observer, whether he lays hold of the conscious or the unconscious character of a personality. Speaking generally a judging observer will tend to seize the conscious character, while a perceptive observer will be influenced more by the unconscious character, since judgment is chiefly interested in the conscious motivation of the psychic process, while perception tends to register the mere happening." (Psychological Types, 427.)

So Judgers tend to "lay hold of" the conscious, that is, the superior, or conscious, dominant function which motivates or drives a person; while Perceivers register behavioral actuality which creeps up from the unconscious ego, representing functions that the person is not completely aware of or in control of.

I used to make various observations about my 8w7 ESTJ former boss, who is quite the man's man and completely in charge of his external realm of activity. But external control and - in his case - domination, is implicitly about controlling the subconscious, or unconscious, subjective factor.

As a result, his actual behavior, as I observed it, was entirely childish for a man's man such as him. He was childishly selfish, and he had the 2-year-old's greedy attitude of "mine! mine! mine!" His entire personal world was ego-dominant. And he used to "play" with other people like they were his toys. If he was bored, he would create problems, while pretending to be completely innocent of everything, and then order his employees to clean up the messes while blaming them for it all.

If I were a Judger, these things would not register with me. Judging is something I've developed through personality theory. Perceivers, I've found, don't understand my judgments about personality issues such as motives which Judgers are instinctively aware of. An untrained observer of human behavior doesn't understand, and becomes a victim of Judger motivations they can't comprehend because they, as every untrained person, assumes everybody else's thought-patterns match their own. Thus the average Perceiver is left standing flat-footed while the Judger, who instinctively understands motivation and thus can gain control over humans through their various motivations, runs circles around him.

That's not to say that Judgers are always right, instincts are not omniscient. But if Judgers are right more often than not in their instincts about what drives people, then they can gain the upper-hand more often than not.

The Perceiver doesn't think in such terms. Judgers ruined my childhood. Judgers are intensely competitive at games, while I played them for fun. Winning or losing didn't affect me, I was interested in observing the outcomes. For some reason, this makes Judgers extremely angry. Whenever Judgers became involved in sports I was active in, they ruined it for me because it stopped being fun due to the constant pressure to succeed and win. They didn't see me as motivated by perception, but only the fact that I was not driven enough by their motives to take it all so seriously. Of course I realize we had different ideas about the concept of "fun." "Fun" to me was playing the game, "fun" was in the "journey" and in observing the outcome; "fun" to them was plotting how to win and then winning the game.

Since, for me, outcomes are objective, these outcomes are spoiled by any cheating. For Judgers, cheating was part of the game. As an example, my former boss, who would cheat anybody at any time; and even if he lost in the end, the fact that someone else got cheated made it all worthwhile. I literally observed him clap his hands together once and then start rubbing them together in glee, grinning as if he was some villain in a "b" grade movie. I watched as he falsified his computerized business records in order to cheat some Israeli businessmen out of a mere $5000, which to him is chicken feed, simply in order to win a contract which others were competing for. Money wasn't the motive, winning was the motive.

We disagree on type calls because we focus on different elements of a personality. Judgers focus on motives, while Perceivers focus on behaviors. I've described personality in this post which to me is mostly a behavior, by instinct. But due to personality training I can delve down to the motives, it just doesn't come as easy to me.

Interesting theory. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. Just to clarify, when you say Judgers you mean Je (dom or aux) and when you say Perceivers you mean Pe (dom or aux), right? If not, ignore the following.

I feel like there's some variables you need to clear up for it to make sense to me. I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just muddled in my head:

- Just because it is "observation", does that mean that the assessment/perception must be extroverted in attitude? Doesn't it come back to how you prefer to evaluate the data or filter the observations, regardless of whether J or P is extroverted or introverted? I'm not familiar enough with Jung to know what he says on this matter.

- When reading people, don't Pi doms Perceive internal states and Ji doms Judge internal states, and Pe doms Perceive external states, and Je doms Judge external states? Doesn't the dominant function (with assistance from the aux) determine whether people focus more on outward behaviour or inferred internal thought process, when trying to understand a person's motivations?

- Can't there be unconscious and conscious motivation? Couldn't this be a more significant factor? I would say I (as a Ji+Pe) focus a lot on unconscious motivation, whereas, I often see Je+Pi (in either order) users think a lot more about conscious motivation. I only think about external behaviour in so much as it is unconscious motivation seeping through.

- How could you say one is better at reading people's type than the other? If Je is better at reading the dominant function, and Pe is better at reading the auxliary (and/or other functions?), it doesn't mean that the Pe-user wouldn't be aware of this fact. In the process of typing someone, I (a Pe user) may get a vibe from that person that corresponds to a particular function, but I don't automatically ascribe that function to the dominant position. I can juggle that individual conclusion in with other factors in order to come to overall conclusion about type. In other words, just because Je may make more linear inferences about type (ie. the function that they sense most in another person is the dominant one), doesn't mean Pe will follow the same line.

- I'm Pe and rather competitive. I'm not very inclined to be obnoxious and obsessive about it or to cheat, but I do get invested in the winning or losing of sports and games. However, like you, I would say I am more interested in outcomes, rather than the exploits used to achieve something. I don't care if my strategy is really clever; I just want to win (not at any cost, though). Do you put this down to a different kind of competitiveness?

 

[Mal12345]

Interesting theory. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. Just to clarify, when you say Judgers you mean Je (dom or aux) and when you say Perceivers you mean Pe (dom or aux), right? If not, ignore the following.

I feel like there's some variables you need to clear up for it to make sense to me. I'm not saying you're wrong; it's just muddled in my head:

- Just because it is "observation", does that mean that the assessment/perception must be extroverted in attitude? Doesn't it come back to how you prefer to evaluate the data or filter the observations, regardless of whether J or P is extroverted or introverted? I'm not familiar enough with Jung to know what he says on this matter.

- When reading people, don't Pi doms Perceive internal states and Ji doms Judge internal states, and Pe doms Perceive external states, and Je doms Judge external states? Doesn't the dominant function (with assistance from the aux) determine whether people focus more on outward behaviour or inferred internal thought process, when trying to understand a person's motivations?

- Can't there be unconscious and conscious motivation? Couldn't this be a more significant factor? I would say I (as a Ji+Pe) focus a lot on unconscious motivation, whereas, I often see Je+Pi (in either order) users think a lot more about conscious motivation. I only think about external behaviour in so much as it is unconscious motivation seeping through.

- How could you say one is better at reading people's type than the other? If Je is better at reading the dominant function, and Pe is better at reading the auxliary (and/or other functions?), it doesn't mean that the Pe-user wouldn't be aware of this fact. In the process of typing someone, I (a Pe user) may get a vibe from that person that corresponds to a particular function, but I don't automatically ascribe that function to the dominant position. I can juggle that individual conclusion in with other factors in order to come to overall conclusion about type. In other words, just because Je may make more linear inferences about type (ie. the function that they sense most in another person is the dominant one), doesn't mean Pe will follow the same line.

- I'm Pe and rather competitive. I'm not very inclined to be obnoxious and obsessive about it or to cheat, but I do get invested in the winning or losing of sports and games. However, like you, I would say I am more interested in outcomes, rather than the exploits used to achieve something. I don't care if my strategy is really clever; I just want to win (not at any cost, though). Do you put this down to a different kind of competitiveness?

It's not a competitiveness by lifestyle, by ego, it's only what may be called a sporadic competitiveness since it only involves games. INFP is playfully competitive.

The way you can tell the difference is that the ego, which is invested in the dominant function, is not primarily interested in material rewards but in self-satisfaction; that is, even if it is an extroverted ego, the primary interest is not external to the ego, the interest is simply in satisfying the ego. My former Te boss once cheated another businessman in a deal, but the fact that he also lost money didn't faze him, he (his ego) was satisfied by the mere fact that he had cheated someone.

 

[Mal12345]

"Can't there be unconscious and conscious motivation? Couldn't this be a more significant factor? I would say I (as a Ji+Pe) focus a lot on unconscious motivation, whereas, I often see Je+Pi (in either order) users think a lot more about conscious motivation. I only think about external behaviour in so much as it is unconscious motivation seeping through."

There is unconscious and conscious motivation, conscious and unconscious ego. But in this we must separate what we personally can achieve from what is given in theory. That's not to say the theory is wrong, it's flexible enough to include those who, through long practice, have overcome the instinctual habits of their dominant function.

 

[Mal12345]

Just because it is "observation", does that mean that the assessment/perception must be extroverted in attitude? Doesn't it come back to how you prefer to evaluate the data or filter the observations, regardless of whether J or P is extroverted or introverted? I'm not familiar enough with Jung to know what he says on this matter.

I don't think that judging type by either internal or external standards really matters here. It depends on whether Jung intended to apply actual functions in this case, or just judging and perceiving generally. How can one apply these generally? I see my feet moving as I walk. I judge the distance between myself and the other side of the crosswalk as I walk across the street.

 

[reckful]

I don't think that judging type by either internal or external standards really matters here. It depends on whether Jung intended to apply actual functions in this case, or just judging and perceiving generally. How can one apply these generally? I see my feet moving as I walk. I judge the distance between myself and the other side of the crosswalk as I walk across the street.

I explained in my first post why it was reasonably clear that Jung's reference to "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" was to J-doms and P-doms, and your reply said, "I'm not disagreeing with any of that."

Not disagreeing with that was a change from your earlier reply to OrangeAppled (who raised the same issue), where you claimed that it was your Pe-aux, rather than your Ji-dom, that made you a "perceiver" for purposes of that Jung passage.

And now you're saying you think Jung's reference to "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" may not have involved the observer's "functions" at all.

As I also said in my first post, "There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them."

In any case, if you ever make up your mind, let us know.

 

[Mal12345]

I explained in my first post why it was reasonably clear that Jung's reference to "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" was to J-doms and P-doms, and your reply said, "I'm not disagreeing with any of that."

Not disagreeing with that was a change from your earlier reply to OrangeAppled (who raised the same issue), where you claimed that it was your Pe-aux, rather than your Ji-dom, that made you a "perceiver" for purposes of that Jung passage.

And now you're saying you think Jung's reference to "judging observers" and "perceiving observers" may not have involved the observer's "functions" at all.

As I also said in my first post, "There's quite a lot of stuff in Psychological Types that reasonable people can disagree about, but I don't think this is one of them."

In any case, if you ever make up your mind, let us know.

I'm bored with responding to the same question over and over again. As far as I'm concerned, at this point in time everybody can make up their own minds about Judging and Perceiving in the context of the quote.

 

[Mal12345]

It is a mistake to refer to how "I myself" (whoever is responding) go about typology, because it is out of the context of Jung's argument. And even then, below that point in Jung's discussion he refers to those who, after practice, have equally developed judging and perceiving with respect to type-watching and are now more-or-less confused as to which is the dominant function. Then I suppose there is a level of competence beyond that, in which a typologist has not only developed both perceiving and judging, but has also developed the skill to distinguish them while observing type.

I think it is sufficient to state that both Judging and Perceiving, whatever their orientations, have their own subjective filters that, while they can never be removed from thought in general (as necessary a priori to the very conditions of thought), they can be sorted out and distinguished through long practice. The actual process is up to the individual.

 

[Mal12345]

Here's an example for you all at:

http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6

Mr. rmcnew is stating the following:

This is concerning the belief that if a person is confused between a logical and ethical function, they are a P type ... and if confused between a sensory and intuitive function, a J type. I noticed that this view seems to be supported in mainstream socionics theory, but I know some who do not follow it.

For example: I know people who think they are certain type and know they are confused between either a logical/ethical function or sensory/intuitive function, yet they will intentionally choose oppositelly to this theory...​

It may be supported in mainstream socionics theory, but it originated with Carl Jung.

But that's not a large enough error to concern myself with. His more grievous error occurs when he writes:

For example: I know people who...​

Jung's theory isn't about the people you know, it's about the natural inclination of perceiving and judging when making type calls.

 

[Mal12345]

Whichever function one uses to judge a person's type according to external standards, the Judger sees only motives, which is Ego. The dominant function supports the Ego. The reason we act on the Ego is for the Ego's own satisfaction. Judger's are motivated by their own Egos more than Perceivers.

It never ceases to irritate me when a Judger claims that I acted according to such and such motive. And whenever you find someone habitually starting sentences with "That's because you...", you can be assured this person is a Judger, whether Ji or Je doesn't matter.

"Of course you did, you wanted to win." "Of course you think that way, you're a racist."

Imputing motives to others is very easy and is often correct; not always. But I've never met a Judger who didn't think they were always correct about it. Of course, they think they're really smart.

We Perceivers obviously think we're above all that Ego motivation. But that's because we're Perceivers.

 

[ScottJames]

I think we often disagree on type for two main reasons - because typing is difficult and because good information is surprisingly difficult to find (while bad information and bad reference points are all over the place *cough* celebritytypes.com)

The reason why it's difficult is because we all project our mental processes onto other people and we all over-value our own experience. Everyone does and anyone who doesn't realize this will never be good at typing. It's a mental hall of mirrors and in order to get good at it we need to start with good information and good teachers and we need to seek criticism and be corrected repeatedly. We're all full of cognitive biases and it takes a lot of work to become aware of them and to calibrate accordingly.

The best profiler I know is also the most cautious, which I don't think is a coincidence. He carefully considers all possibilities and accounts well for his own biases.

The easiest trap to fall into is thinking that we have it all figured out. I speak sometimes as though my opinion about a person's type is fact. At a deeper level though, I make it a policy to never believe anything I think more than 99%. On several occasions I've felt confident enough in a person's type to post it publicly and then realized that I was missing something and that I had mistyped them. I think the only way to get good at it is to constantly look for how you might be wrong and to be willing to be open to accept it when you are.

 

[Cellmold]

It's an interesting idea. But it would be far simpler to acknowledge that people disagree on type calls because this theory is empirically unsubstantiated and therefore people must rely on methods of convincing one another instead.

Which means there will always be disagreement.