Clearing Up The J/P Myth

[Wandering]

First off, GO VICKY JO !!

By the way: Vicky Jo is a life coach professionally certified in various domains, including the MBTI :rolli:

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

I'm always late - and I mean always.

Another myth is about Js being tidy and Ps being messy. Whoa again!

I'm ready to bet I have the messiest flat in the whole building (a tower building with more than 10 floors and at least 4 flats on each floor).

Then there's the added problem of people who try to figure out whether they are J or P based on these same criteria! Well, as the Mafiosos say, "fuhgettabouttit!"

I always test as INFP - the only time I didn't was when the test was NOT based on the MBTI dichotomies.

What's interesting is that my husband and I score equally on any questions of early-starting and pressure-prompted -- because we do both! Since the two of us possess the Chart-the-Course interaction style, we tend to put just enough energy into an event early on in the process to figure out what must be done to arrive at the goal point. But then we forget about the whole matter until we're "pressure-prompted" to actually set the wheels in motion for the event. Invariably, we cut the margin too finely, and quality of life can be rather questionable until the event has ended.

That is EXACTLY me!! Give me an assignment due in two months, and I'll diligently think about it and prepare for it for the next 3 days. And then... I'll forget about it until 3 days before it is due.

There are other stereotypes around J/P -- you probably know what they are. I've heard that "Js are determined and energetic while Ps are unmotivated wimps."

I'm one of the less motivated people I've ever known.

***

As for my opinion about the J/P dichotomy: it shouldn't exist, because it is totally unsupported by both theory and observation.

The 4-letter codes are just that: codes. What they are NOT is acronyms. For example, INFP codes for DomFi+AuxNe:
1- NF as the core
2- P to determine which function is Extraverted, in this case the Perceiving one
3- I to determine which function is the Dominant, in this case the Introverted one
Thus DomNi+AuxNe. See any J/P in this? No. Because it's not there.

Before anyone tells me that by rejecting the J/P dichotomy, I'm throwing the baby with the bathwater, let me say: all I'm rejecting is the TEST. I'm fine with the codes and with the 16 MBTI types. What I am not fine with is the TEST used to type people. Testing for things like Introversion vs Extraversion, or "Feeling" vs "Thinking", that's already iffy enough, since by definition everyone has BOTH sides of each set. But testing for P/J, that's downright ridiculous, since P/J is only a MARKER: it only serves to designate which sort the Extraverted function will be (a Perceiving one or a Judging one). I *guess* you could argue that it tests for Se/Ne vs Fe/Te, but what exactly are the common points between Se and Ne, and Fe and Te?? I'm definitely not Extraverted in the same way an INTJ is Extraverted, for example. So to be accurate, the P/J test would need to test for all 4 of the Extraverted functions, which it doesn't. Instead it tests for traits that are supposedly associated with each pair of functions. Let's see:

Judging
Systematic
Planful
Early Starting
Scheduled
Methodical

How does this relate in any way to Fe ? Te, yes, I can see that. But Fe???

Perceiving
Casual
Open-ended
Prompted
Spontaneous
Emergent

I might see a bit more of a relationship between those adjectives and both Se and Ne, but it's still pulling at straws, as far as I'm concerned. And more problematic: several of those traits can apply to Fe too...

The P/J dichotomy simply isn't supported, neither by theory, nor by practical observation. Thus, it shouldn't exist. That's how real scientists work: when something isn't supported by theory and contradicts the observations, then it is discarded. It is high time the P/J dichotomy be discarded.

IMO, of course.

 

[Athenian200]

But I'm a strong J, and my Te is abysmal compared to my Fe by every measure I know of. How do you explain that, Wandering?

 

["?"]

First off, GO VICKY JO !!

By the way: Vicky Jo is a life coach professionally certified in various domains, including the MBTI :rolli:

Yeah and INFJ I may add. She has really helped me find my best fit type. I had no interest in justifying her credentials since some here reject Jung.

As for my opinion about the J/P dichotomy: it shouldn't exist, because it is totally unsupported by both theory and observation.

100% AGREED. I eventually dumped the test and MBTI and went straight to the source. One can determine best fit type by reading Jung's functions.

Before anyone tells me that by rejecting the J/P dichotomy, I'm throwing the baby with the bathwater, let me say: all I'm rejecting is the TEST. I'm fine with the codes and with the 16 MBTI types. What I am not fine with is the TEST used to type people. Testing for things like Introversion vs Extraversion, or "Feeling" vs "Thinking", that's already iffy enough, since by definition everyone has BOTH sides of each set. But testing for P/J, that's downright ridiculous, since P/J is only a MARKER: it only serves to designate which sort the Extraverted function will be (a Perceiving one or a Judging one).

BING-O!!!

 

[Wandering]

But I'm a strong J, and my Te is abysmal compared to my Fe by every measure I know of. How do you explain that, Wandering?

Your Te may be low, but you are (in my eyes at least) quite clearly a strong Thinker (a Feeler with strong Thinking, is what I mean). So my guess is simply that you favour a Ti approach to life more than an Fe one when answering MBTI tests

 

[Athenian200]

Your Te may be low, but you are (in my eyes at least) quite clearly a strong Thinker (a Feeler with strong Thinking, is what I mean). So my guess is simply that you favour a Ti approach to life more than an Fe one when answering MBTI tests

Well now, if that's the case, why don't xxTP's typically test as J's?

See what I mean?

 

[Wandering]

Well now, if that's the case, why don't xxTP's typically test as J's?

See what I mean?

Not really

xxTPs: ESTP, ISTP, ENTP, INTP. The Extraverts in there would strongly identify with their Extraverted Perceiving Dominant, while the Introverts would have a Perceiving function as both Auxiliary and Tertiary, and I've admitted that the traits used to test for P do vaguely relate to the Perceiving functions (more than J relates to Fe, at least).

 

[MerkW]

I very much support the abolition of these dreadful stereotypes. I have many J characteristics (even though I am a P), which may be attributed to (1) Over-focus on dom. Ti, (2) Relatively well-developed Te, (3) My OCD.

 

[INTJMom]

Judging
Systematic
Planful
Early Starting
Scheduled
Methodical

Perceiving
Casual
Open-ended
Prompted
Spontaneous
Emergent


I don't understand the meaning of the two words I bolded.

 

["?"]

Well now, if that's the case, why don't xxTP's typically test as J's?

See what I mean?

Maybe this will help. Much of type is knowing and understanding the jargon of the system. Anyone still thinking that Feeling types are about emotions should be ashamed of themselves and the fact that introverts are shy is silly.

These are just a few examples from the humanmetrics.com test. I hate picking on this test, but it’s a prime example of flawed questions that can really throw off the average SP.

You are almost never late for your appointments
YES NO
It is true, I am almost never late. Sensors in general have a better idea of time than intuitives. However, this is a J/P question.

You are more interested in a general idea than in the details of its realization
YES NO
I would think that the average INJ would answer this no, but this is not a J/P question, it’s a S/N question.


It is in your nature to assume responsibility
YES NO
Again, I would answer this yes, but the results would be J. ISTPs are highly responsible people, which is why many descriptions show that they have a disdain for general stereotypes of SPs, therefore mistype.


You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed
YES NO
Totally disagree and even ESPs do not like change for it’s own sake. That's an ENP thing. But we know this is a J/P question.

You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate
about various options
YES NO
Well of course I do. All SPs like to act immediately. Where we differ from NJs is they are seeking closure and we are seeking expediency. I would answer this question as yes also, but I know it would skew my results.

 

[Athenian200]

Maybe this will help. Much of type is knowing and understanding the jargon of the system. Anyone still thinking that Feeling types are about emotions should be ashamed of themselves and the fact that introverts are shy is silly.

These are just a few examples from the humanmetrics.com test. I hate picking on this test, but it's a prime example of flawed questions that can really throw off the average SP.

So... you're saying that you would test as J if you answered the questions without awareness of what they were intended to measure? So in other words, it probably wouldn't throw off an INTP, but it would potentially throw off an ISTP? I admit, I probably wasn't aware of that due to the dearth of S's on this board. Hmm...

 

["?"]

Judging
Systematic
Planful
Early Starting
Scheduled
Methodical

Perceiving
Casual
Open-ended
Prompted
Spontaneous
Emergent


I don't understand the meaning of the two words I bolded.

Judging (What does that mean in this case, and is it relevant? Myers-Briggs says that judging does not mean being judgemental.)
Systematic (Yes, in the name of I don't like change, but I am not one to sustain a boring routine)
Planful (Yes, all "Chart the Course" types are, but what is meant by planful? Do I write them down, no.)
Early Starting (Yes, if I know what I am to do, I will get started.)
Scheduled (No)
Methodical (No)

Perceiving (What does that mean again, and is it relevant?)
Casual (Yes)
Open-ended (Not if it hinders expediency)
Prompted (I think you were meaning pressure prompted. SPs would prefer deadlines than to keep things too open for extended periods.)
Spontaneous (Yes, but not when it comes to surprises. My being spontaneous is guaged by the impact that I am seeking which is a core need of all SPs).
Emergent (I am just not sure what that means in this instance. Emergent because I have let things slide or emergent because I want expediency?)

Again these can easily be misconstrued on the NJ/SP basis.

 

["?"]

So... you're saying that you would test as J if you answered the questions without awareness of what they were intended to measure? So in other words, it probably wouldn't throw off an INTP, but it would potentially throw off an ISTP? I admit, I probably wasn't aware of that due to the dearth of S's on this board. Hmm...

It could also work in the reversal of many mistyping as sensing as well. So we will not even go into practitioners thoughts on this whole rare type thing started by Myers-Briggs and Keirsey.

 

[marm]

The letters of the type code(including J/P) do accurately describe behavioral traits. There are two difficulties here. The behavioral traits are only general descriptions meaning no one fits them perfectly all of the time. They're just tendencies. Furthermore, behavioral traits only indirectly relate to cognitive functions. We infer the cognitive functions because we can't observe them directly and its even difficult to observe them in ourselves.

So, the general behavioral traits only generally apply to the general cognitive functions. MBTI makes more sense in the broad pattern than when picking apart the details(the whole is greater than the parts). Traits and cognitive functions are obviously correlative, but they can also be considered as separate ways of looking at a person.

I'm withholding opinion at the moment about J/P because I don't understand MBTI Step II and I haven't seen MBTI Step III. They seem meaningful to me even though I've talked about them to great extent with Wandering. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Wandering, do you think your being an exception points to a new rule? (inside joke)

 

[Gabe]

The letters of the type code(including J/P) do accurately describe behavioral traits. There are two difficulties here. The behavioral traits are only general descriptions meaning no one fits them perfectly all of the time. They're just tendencies. Furthermore, behavioral traits only indirectly relate to cognitive functions. We infer the cognitive functions because we can't observe them directly and its even difficult to observe them in ourselves.

So, the general behavioral traits only generally apply to the general cognitive functions. MBTI makes more sense in the broad pattern than when picking apart the details(the whole is greater than the parts). Traits and cognitive functions are obviously correlative, but they can also be considered as separate ways of looking at a person.

I'm withholding opinion at the moment about J/P because I don't understand MBTI Step II and I haven't seen MBTI Step III. They seem meaningful to me even though I've talked about them to great extent with Wandering. Exceptions don't disprove the rule. Wandering, do you think your being an exception points to a new rule? (inside joke)

It's not about 'exceptions' or 'a rule'. It's about a 'rule' that didn't even exist in the first place that's false.
-Is that list that I keep seeing on this thread even from the MBTI manual?(something tells me it aint)
Type is not a 'trait' system of personality. Using conventionally-minded behavioral traits will get you nowhere. Everyone would immediately realize this if they started accurately typing others. They realize that two people that they saw (accurately!) as very different happen to have the same type pattern. There is a wonderfully illustrative book about this by Dario Nardi called "Character and personality type".

 

[marm]

It's not about 'exceptions' or 'a rule'. It's about a 'rule' that didn't even exist in the first place that's false.

What do you mean by this? It exists as far as MBTI testing goes. Are you saying we should get rid of MBTI and get back to Jung. Personally, I don't see a conflict between MBTI and Jung.

-Is that list that I keep seeing on this thread even from the MBTI manual?(something tells me it aint)

From what I understand, it comes from MBTI Step II, but I've never taken it myself. Why do you doubt it if you know nothing about it?

Type is not a 'trait' system of personality. Using conventionally-minded behavioral traits will get you nowhere. Everyone would immediately realize this if they started accurately typing others. They realize that two people that they saw (accurately!) as very different happen to have the same type pattern. There is a wonderfully illustrative book about this by Dario Nardi called "Character and personality type".

I didn't say that types are traits. I was only speculating that there is a correlation. The MBTI Step II seems to imply this. Besides, common sense tells me that the only way I can type someone is by observing their behavior as I can't enter their head. I agree that cognitive functions are more fundamental, but I'd say they're fundamental to our whole way of being including our behavior(traits). Cognitive functiosn can only be directly observed in ourselves. They can only be experienced subjectively, but not seen objectively.

I normally think in terms of cognitive functions. Typology only started making much more sense when I explored them. However, I like to explore all angles, and to question the things that I assume I know. I realize that most MBTI practitioners dismiss traits, but I'm not one to take others' opinion on authority. I wish to explore it and decide for myself. I'm just playing around with ideas. The whole reason I'm exploring Temperament and Interaction Styles is to knock my mind out of its normal assumptions of how to understand people. Exploring this is important even if only as a thought experiment.

I have Nardi's book and have studied it. Its an interesting book. I don't entirely know what to think of it as he says in the intro that its primarily based on observation and not theory. Its not clear what are the differences he is observing. Humans are complex creatures. I will say that what Nardi is describing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with types vs traits.

 

[Gabe]

Ok, rephrasing what I wrote. I will chose to discard the step II because it doesn't agree with Jung (or other stuff I've read) or my own experience. I think it adds a lot of adjectives to the dichotomies that weren't their in Isabel's original conception, and that shouldn't be thier. I also conclude (with a few anectotes) that this is one of the things that led to test-and-tell approaches, where people are described formulaically, given useless advice, and told to leave. I really think that's the result of stuff like this.

 

[Gabe]

Oh my, did I get carried away. Back to you post. what I meant about traits was that, say, you hear about the 'theorist' description and you think 'oh, geeks'. But then you'd find out that you know and ISTJ, ISFP, INTJ, INTP, and an ESFJ all of whom are people you considered really geeky.

It's PSYCHOLOGICAL type. Everything else is wallpaper.

 

[marm]

I have no idea what writing by Quenk your referring to. If you want to discuss this, then you're going to have to give me some more information. Did you find this writing on the web or is it from a book?

In order to genuinely evaluate the MBTI Step II, we'd have to see research done using it. I haven't yet seen any research. If anyone knows where to find it, I'd be glad to see it. Then we could have an actually useful discussion about it.

Why are you so sure of yourself? Why are you so uninterested in exploring other possibilities?

Jung and Myers may have been right in some ways, but they might have been wrong in other ways. Jung never had researched any of his theories, and much research has been done since Myers developed MBTI. For instance, the correlations between MBTI and FFM are significant even though theoretically they're different. Research must come before theory if we're ever to determine if theories are accurate.

 

[Gabe]

I have no idea what writing by Quenk your referring to. If you want to discuss this, then you're going to have to give me some more information. Did you find this writing on the web or is it from a book?

In order to genuinely evaluate the MBTI Step II, we'd have to see research done using it. I haven't yet seen any research. If anyone knows where to find it, I'd be glad to see it. Then we could have an actually useful discussion about it.

Why are you so sure of yourself? Why are you so uninterested in exploring other possibilities?

Jung and Myers may have been right in some ways, but they might have been wrong in other ways. Jung never had researched any of his theories, and much research has been done since Myers developed MBTI. For instance, the correlations between MBTI and FFM are significant even though theoretically they're different. Research must come before theory if we're ever to determine if theories are accurate.

I'm not interested in exploring other possibilities because I already know that This is what happens as a result:

Type Insights

 

[Gabe]

That's a link to 'horror stories'.