P and J

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I just now noticed from many character portrayals in movies, with comparison to real persons I know (and some serious thought) that P people are sometimes so damned intense they would kick J people ass with their speed of action - what some would call determinedness without knowing it better.

The movie that made me bounce this idea was Collateral, with Tom Cruise as the hit man. No I'm not the kind of person who sees a movie and believes in it. The movie rather made me reflect on the P people I know.

Once I thought about it I think I realize it. P person in the flow can make such instant 180 degree turns on demand that it can make anyone's head dizzy.

Then again, that what would be the work of determinedness for a J person, would not be so much that for the P person. He/she might not think all the time about the determinedness part (I can tell).

P person's flow is knowing the goal and keeping it cool, and just doing their thing. THe next thing to do comes after the first when they've done it. No need to schedule it.

So how I feel is that P is just not an incapable version of J, but that the capabilities manifest in a different ways.

THoughts?

 

[INTJMom]

...So how I feel is that P is just not an incapable version of J, but that the capabilities manifest in a different ways.

THoughts?

I agree with you.
P has advantages and disadvantages just as J does.

I see the advantage of P being able to adjust quickly to changing circumstances. They're not so stuck on their pre-set agenda. They're a lot more able to play the hand they're dealt successfully.

I think it's good that you have realized that no function is an inferior version of another.
They all have strengths and weaknesses, and we need all types.

 

[Athenian200]

P person's flow is knowing the goal and keeping it cool, and just doing their thing. THe next thing to do comes after the first when they've done it. No need to schedule it.

So how I feel is that P is just not an incapable version of J, but that the capabilities manifest in a different ways.

THoughts?

I have to admit... P's do look kind of strange to me. I mean, always wavering and indecisive, it's so irritating. It's like they have no will power, unless something really horrible happens.

They often manage to do relatively well (sometimes even better than me) somehow, so I guess they must have something going for them. But it seems to me that they just get a lot of lucky breaks. Perhaps what looks to me like simple fortune is actually based on something I didn't/couldn't perceive existing in the situation?

Out of curiosity, how would they know what the next thing to do after the first thing was, if they didn't plan? Or do they still make at least some kind of tentative plans based on understanding a goal, despite being P's?

 

[findthejake]

we make it up as we go along. Sometimes I think of a bigger picture but the end result is always miles away from the original plan

 

[Athenian200]

we make it up as we go along. Sometimes I think of a bigger picture but the end result is always miles away from the original plan

See, that makes no sense to me. If the end result isn't the same as the result you planned, and didn't contribute to any particular goal, then technically, didn't you fail to achieve anything?

This is convincing me that J/P really is the biggest divide in how the psyche is structured.

 

[Mycroft]

we make it up as we go along. Sometimes I think of a bigger picture but the end result is always miles away from the original plan

That would make me lose my mind.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Well it's no magic, things can be done the flexible way or the determined way, or some combination. The flexible way is to choose interchangable parts for your big scheme. Also you should keep the cost of change low. So that you won't lose time/money/value anything else that much if I change from one planned option to another. It means choosing only such options which don't have unrecoverable initial investments in them, and utilizing such resources that are always available, so you can take the options at the last time.

It also requires to not be too much emotionally attached to the pre-planned option, but rather to emotionally attach to some wider set of things. For example, knowing that your friends would like practice volley ball some day but you don't know if the court is reserved or not, you could check what kinds of alternative sports they do, and then arrange the meeting in such a sports centre that has the needed facilites for their alternative sports. Like ping pong tables or gym. Some of the people will be unhappy if the planned sport can't be done, but because of the unity of the group, they won't spoil the sport practice, whatever practice it will be.

On the other hand, if the people are willing to pay for the volley ball court reservation upfront, that's all the better and this flexibility won't be needed.

If it's a system you have to design, if you have the list of items available and you know it before, then you can design it from the ground up. On the other hand, if the system in question is the network of a LAN party, you can't be sure of everything. Then you'll know that you need somekind of network storage, some cables to borrow for participants who've forgotten them, different games to suit for everyone's playing preferences, etc. Some of the games will be played over tcp/ip, others ipx/spx, so you'll have to prepare to have both protocolls installed in all the computers that need it. That means that if someone needs to install a protocol, they must have the system installation disk with them in the LAN party. SO in this case, flexibility is accomplished by pre-planning. You will also invite such people who have good enough variety in their choice of games and aren't overly serious about playing any one particular game, so that the event works out well.

Just 2 examples.

 

[Totenkindly]

See, that makes no sense to me. If the end result isn't the same as the result you planned, and didn't contribute to any particular goal, then technically, didn't you fail to achieve anything?

One way that might work to think of it:
- J generally focuses on the end result.
- P generally focuses on the process.

I've tried to work like a J (due to overthinking things, then trying to implement them)... and it never works. The process is what informs me of the goal. I am having to learn to accept and accommodate that; any attempt to do something is a process of discovery, not implementation.

Writers talk about this a lot.

A J-style writer generally has things mapped out. They've got the outline, they've got the plan, and they follow it straight out. They are creating their own vision.

Stephen King, a P style writer, compares writing to unearthing a large fossil. You don't know what on earth you're even dealing with, you simply start digging. maybe you know where you want to dig, even what you hope to find, but the 'story' already exists in a sense and what you uncover as you go impacts how your dig and where things end up.

Since events dictate the end result for a P, their skill/satisfaction has to be more in the process rather than having a clearly defined end goal, much of the time.

 

[substitute]

For me, the reason why I might not even consider having a planned goal is because of something like this: "if I decide now what I want to do, then some more information might come to light soon that will reveal that I made the wrong decision. I might discover something that shows me that what I'm trying to do isn't the best thing to do. If that's the case, I need to be able to switch and adapt my goal according to that new information, so that I can always feel like whatever it is I'm trying to do is the best thing I can do."

I have intentions, but they're always to do with principles and concepts, rather than actions and results. For example, rather than plan "I'm going to get some flowers for Jane to make her happy", I'd be more likely to 'plan' "I want to make Jane happy" and then look out for information that will help me decide on a way to do that. I consider that buying flowers is one option, but I leave it until the last minute before I do anything because I might, for all I know, in the few hours leading up to seeing her, discover she is allergic to flowers and really loves chocolates. In which case, I've now bought her something that will give her discomfort, and I haven't any money left now to make her happy with some chocolates.

Basically, as I say, my intention is to do with what sort of a result I want - which is usually to solve things, sort things out, make people happy, make things run well. I stay on the lookout for information which will help me diagnose the reasons why these things might not already be achieved, and help me to formulate work-in-progress plans that take account of all the up to date info.

To me, the J way of living seems bizarre and unnecessarily difficult. If you make a decision and a plan and then doggedly stick to it no matter what, when it's only based on the info you had to hand at the time of making it, then for all you know you could be spending years futilely working towards something that, in the end, will be pointless or will not actually achieve the result that you wanted your goal to have.

For example, a husband who wants to make his wife happy might decide that he needs to be rich so that he can buy her all the things she wants. He might make a plan to work hard and climb the ladder at work to achieve this. He'd be determined and steadfast and not let things sway him. But in the end, he might return home with a diamond necklace for his wife, to find her in bed with a poor student, who she fell for because he simply had time for her, because she was unhappy and lonely when her husband was always away and working. All she wanted was for him to spend time with her. There might have been dozens of signals and red flags for him to notice that his goal of making his wife happy wasn't being achieved by his plan of working really hard to get rich. But he didn't notice them because he was so single mindedly fixed on his plan.

The P would, I think, have been more likely to realise at an earlier point that his wife wasn't really that bothered about being rich, and seemed to just want to spend more time with him, and thereby perceived that the best thing to do would be to abandon the career advancement plan and find a way to alter his career in such a way that'd allow him to spend more time with her.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

This is convincing me that J/P really is the biggest divide in how the psyche is structured.

I certainly consider it a bigger division than with E/I or F/T, personally.

 

[cascadeco]

Huh. I can see both methods.

For me, I like planning things like trips, and social events, so I have a general idea of what's going to happen in my life. I like having a general structure.

But I also know by this point that half the time, things don't always work out (friends cancel because they aren't feeling well, etc), so I guess I don't freak out when my plans fall through. I might be disappointed, but then I get over it. It's kinda an 'expected' possibility that things could change. So I don't get really worked up if things change on me.

Substitute, with your J example of the husband, I really don't think that would ever be something I'd do, and I guess I don't feel I operate that way - i.e. being so single-minded and attached to a huge life plan that I'm caught off guard when other people and events don't shape themselves to my plan. *I* may be able to implement a level of control on MY life, but I never in my wildest dreams think I can begin to add any control/structure to anyone else...because they're operating of their own accord. But I kind of see what you were trying to illustrate - I'm just not really sure this is a strictly J/P scenario. I think it's a combo of things.

 

[Totenkindly]

I agree with substitute's description of P -- that is how I understand my thinking process in my head. My ultimate goal is picking the best/most efficient/effective solution, and this demands constant modification of my plans as I go, as new information comes to light. To predetermine goals feels painful and even wrong to me.

In J's favor, the most functional J's seem to consistently review their decisions and change them if new information occurs. They simply feel more secure feeling at a particular moment if they have a goal they can articulate cleanly. As a P, I hate how inconstant that feels -- I would rather not articulate the goal until I know it's the best one. So I have no choice but to focus on "process," rather than results.

 

[substitute]

I certainly consider it a bigger division than with E/I or F/T, personally.

Oh I dunno about that.... my brother's ENFP so the only function difference between us is Ti/Fi, and yet last night we were up until 5am arguing and misunderstanding each other as though we'd been speaking in heiroglyphs.

It seemed like anything I said, no matter how clearly I tried to say it, he took completely the wrong way, and vice versa. It was one of the most stressful conversations I've ever had in my life - second only to another one I had with him a few months ago!!

Most of the time we get along fine, but now and again it comes about that there's been a huge backlog of 'times' when one has assumed that the other meant something other than what they meant, and that monolithic misunderstandings have been lurking, unbenownst to us, beneath the surface for ...well, years.

And then when we try to correct these misunderstandings, it only seems to create even more, and consolidate the ones we already have.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Oh I dunno about that.... my brother's ENFP so the only function difference between us is Ti/Fi, and yet last night we were up until 5am arguing and misunderstanding each other as though we'd been speaking in heiroglyphs.

Yeah those two functions can make a big difference in interpersonal relations. I was concerned about my own experiences and intrapersonal flexibility. It seems that T and F functions may suggest totally incompatible end results, whereas J/P is about the methods to achieve the results.

Of course the method can become the end result for some; someone can demand that a decision be made, whereas someone else would rather have it remain open.

 

[Mycroft]

...because she was unhappy and lonely when her husband was always away and working. All she wanted was for him to spend time with her.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, allow me to present you with P-caricaturization-of-a-failed-J-relationship A.

 

[Athenian200]

I define the goal itself ahead of time, but not the process for reaching the goal. I usually just choose whichever process for reaching it looks best at the time, but then if it becomes impractical/unworkable, I'll switch to another method of reaching the same goal. I'm perfectly willing to use any reasonable method, or ignore various details, as long as it still works toward the same basic goal. Also, I'm willing to abandon smaller goals for the sake of larger ones if the situation requires it, so I prioritize. Also, my goals aren't always very specific/exact. They can be if I'm trying to meet someone else's goals (which I often am), but my personal goals are usually more abstract, although I still work towards them.

This just proves why J's are more successful in the long run. It makes no sense to go somewhere without having any idea of where you're going. P's only care about processes, and don't have an eye on what the process is actually producing until it's too late, and thus they don't seem to intentionally produce anything except art and accidents (although sometimes they are very useful accidents).

 

[Totenkindly]

This just proves why J's are more successful in the long run.

That's only because you're using a "J" definition of "success," silly.

P's only care about processes, and don't have an eye on what the process is actually producing until it's too late, and thus they don't seem to intentionally produce anything except art and accidents (although sometimes they are very useful accidents).

Excuse me, but I think your type bias is showing.

 

[Athenian200]

That's only because you're using a "J" definition of "success," silly.

There's another? The P's probably couldn't agree on a definition of success, so only J's have one.

Excuse me, but I think your type bias is showing.

Well, I am a J... wouldn't you expect me to be a little biased? I mean, I'm not called a "Judging" type for nothing. Besides, I didn't say that was what P's actually did, I was just saying that that's all that P's appear to be doing from a J perspective, stumbling around and somehow managing to get by.

 

[Mycroft]

There's another? The P's probably couldn't agree on a definition of success, so only J's have one.

Ps have all variety of definitions of success. The important thing is that their definitions allow them to feel smugly superior to Js while keeping them largely out of our way. Everyone wins!

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I think the vagueness of the goals works on a continuum in the J/P spectrum.

My extreme-P friend drives me nuts, because seemingly almost anything can change to almost anything; he considers that it's trivial to ask 10 people for some other hobby than initially planned, because supposedly everyone just wants to have fun and any action could produce the wanted results. I of course disagree. He also used to fish for changes in plans all the time depending on what he wanted to do. So I decided to make a mega number about how much it sucks for him to miss out everything we have planned and what we will do, and how much fun the rest of us are going to have. This approach worked; he didn't get to change the plans, but he adopted his schedule to the pre-set schedule. A silly guy really, it's just that others will have to make HIS life bad because of the changes he always makes, and not to accept that he will make other's plans fail. He never ever seems to stop trying tho. I think perhaps 1-3% of population are more P than him.