Is "close minded" related with "J"

[Goku]

A quick discernment tool of mine, to separate the Js from the Ps, to distinguish INTP from an INTJ, was to assess whether the person seemed open or close minded, in a general sense.

The "open minded" people overwhelmingly tended to be Ps, and the "close minded" people Js.

Although it appears like an insulting stereotype to suggest that all Js are close minded, or maybe being a bit too generous by saying all Ps are open minded, that just seems to be the case.

I've observed and also read in other places that INTPs mistype as INTJs much more often than INTJs mistype as INTPs. I hypothesize this is because INTPs are open minded, and consequently, they question their own feelings, their own subjective experience towards life. xxxPs (or maybe just INTPs) are vulnerable to other peoples' opinions and feelings. I just say this because it's how I am. I'm not really sure how others feel. I often went through life thinking that my feelings were not valid, because they did not match up with the norm. I would trick myself to act and feel how society wanted me to feel.

^I'm an INTP and I think that is more typical of P behavior than J behavior.

Js are known to make decisions. Ps are known to put off making decisions until they have all the information, which is never.

Thus although "close minded" has a negative connotation, it translates into "making a decision."

One must make a decision regarding whether an object is a friend or foe. This would have been a very beneficial trait to a caveman, to quickly discern and make a judgment whether a particular object was a threat or not. A "P" might not have survived these times. An INTP might be thinking "I'm not sure if that's a tiger or just a very large shadow..." but by that time the tiger had already sunk its teeth into the INTP's jugular. INTPs probably didn't do well in those days.

Open minded also means lazy. To think there is a better way to do something means that you want to save time, and saving time is lazy thing to be thinking about.

------------------------------

My general thought is that "close minded" is so closely related with Jness that it is safe to assume one for the other.

For example, I can't help but naturally psychoanalyze people. So if I get the sense that a person is "close minded," I've already decoded 25% of their personality.

I/E (introversion/extraversion) is usually pretty easy to figure out. So for most people in life, I have them 50% figured out within 1 minute.

Isn't that pretty interesting?

 

[Seed-Wad]

I am very interested in this also, I hope some veteran MBTI experts can answer this concisely.

What you said rings true. It is negative to say someone is closed minded, because it is negative. But you bring a good turn to say it also has it's positive sides, some very good sides that complement the P's.

I think you need a combination of P's and J's, where P's leave the J's to get a grip on things and make tough decisions, and where the J's rely (although perhaps often without their knowing) on the P's input to improve themselves without needing to be very introspective themselves. What we need here is good communication and mutual respect between types.

 

[Polaris]

I don't think it could be generalised to 'J' or 'P' traits, it is much more complex than that. One has to consider environmental influences too; nationality, socio-economic background, gender, cultural bias, etc.

This forum is a good example of close-mindedness in that there is a strange trend here for some people to base their arguments on unfounded assumptions, which they persevere with for the sake of winning an argument or pushing a world-view.

Also, keeping in mind INTP's are introverted judgers; Ti is a judging function:

"The common modern practice of considering all ‘Js,’ including the ‘I—Js,’ to be ‘Judging types’ and ‘I—Ps’ ‘Perceiving types’ diverges from Jung’s use of the terms to refer to the dominant and may be contributing to a tendency to interpret the fourth letter of the type code in a misleading way. This oversimplification does a disservice to both Jung and Myers: It overrides Jung’s definition of these concepts, and it obscures both the underlying concept of Extraversion in Myers’ J—P dichotomy and the originality of Myers’ and Briggs’ contribution to Jung’s theory.

Jung focused on the types as defined by the dominant function. Although he noted that such types are not likely to be found “in such pure form in actual life” (1971, para. 666), observing that the other less conscious functions would modify the caricatured personalities of his examples, his section on the auxiliary function seems almost an afterthought. Myers filled that gap by designing a way to identify the auxiliary function, thus extrapolating sixteen types by adding the auxiliaries to Jung’s eight dominant-function types.

Jung considered all of the types that the MBTI® code identifies as I—J to be Perceiving types,1 and all I—Ps to be Judging types,2 because of his emphasis on the supreme importance of the dominant function. For ISTJ, for example, introverted Sensing (Si), a Perceiving function, is what is most important. For ISTP, it is introverted Thinking (Ti), a Judging function. It should be noted that Jung’s categorization also implies different cross-type compatibilities and oppositions than does the J—P classification on Myers’ type charts.

Though Isabel Myers appears to have understood, agreed with, and applied Jung’s understanding of ‘judgment’ and ‘perception,’ she also used the terms in a new way. To identify the auxiliary function, Myers needed a way to determine which function is extraverted and the J—P dichotomy was born. She was also trying to reconcile Jung’s theory with Katharine Briggs’ observations of how people use judging and perceiving. According to the MBTI® Manual, “The J—P dichotomy has two uses. First, in conjunction with the E—I dichotomy, it is used to identify which of the two preferred functions is the leading or dominant function and which is the auxiliary function. Second, it describes identifiable attitudes or orientations to the outer world.” (Myers, et al., 1998, p. 26). Myers continued to use the terms the way Jung used them in Psychological Types, as indicating the dominant function, but she also used them for the new purpose of pointing to the preferred extraverted function.

Myers’ and Briggs’ innovative application of Jung’s theory of judgment and perception made later innovations possible, such as Keirsey’s Temperament theory and Beebe’s Eight-Function Eight-Archetype model. But Myers’ J—P language has caused confusion because she used the terms both ways: in her text to indicate the dominant (1962, pp. 9-16); and in her charts to indicate the extraverted function (1962, p. 18). She could perhaps have avoided the confusion if she had called her new dimension something like the ‘JX—PX’ dichotomy, ‘JX’ for Judging extraverted and ‘PX’ for Perceiving extraverted.

It is undeniable that Briggs and Myers identified something real with their J—P characteristics, because this dichotomy has been so reliably used to identify type codes and to enhance personal and work relationships. But is it getting at who we really are? Have we lost something in forgetting Jung’s J—P categorization? If the J—P dichotomy focuses exclusively on our interface with external reality, then we may all be more than we seem, e.g., ‘P’s could be more ‘J’ than they appear and vice versa."


Source

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

An INTP might be thinking "I'm not sure if that's a tiger or just a very large shadow..." but by that time the tiger had already sunk its teeth into the INTP's jugular.

This needs to go into the MS Paint Thread, black and white, 5 min maximum, text must be included
some day.
I had to giggle quite hard imagining the scene.

 

[Grayman]

I think when you consider the difference between Ni and Ne it is possible that one may tend more to what you are calling close-mindedness. The Ni is good at finding a single practical solution and the Ne is good at finding multiple solutions even if they don't fit. or are not practical.

When Ne brings ideas to Ni, Ni will be more able to recognize the solutions that don't fit but may also throw out some that do because he already has an idea that works and is not willing to spend a bunch of time testing others. Ne will feel like Ni is being close minded and Ni will feel like Ne is living in fantasy land. Ni will be missing out on progress to new and improved methods if he is not careful. Ne will spend too much time on his ideas and not get anything practical done if he is not careful.

I hope I kept the balance well...


Since the sensors are not here to defend themselves, I will say that I view them as the most close minded bunch in comparison to the intuits.

 

[Brontosaurie]

ji&pe versus pi&je. one judges itself and the other the world. go figure.

ExxP is not more open minded than IxxP. just less cautious. a strong pull of IxxP is to remain unbiased, purely assessing, cognitively holistic. not there with the ExxP who just goes with whatever happens and doesn't care whether it shuts off some other potential route of investigation.

that is to say i agree with OP.

 

[Base groove]

In Types, the auxiliary is described by the author as being ever-present with the dominant, and requiring careful attention to a person's behaviour over time to distinguish the dominant, as they will basically appear ambiverted, as every person does, in fact the whole point is that everybody is basically ambiverted... but anyway ... uh

I guess if you look at it that way, J and P is actually equally or even more important/valuable than I and E, even if it was not initially proposed by Jung it is still consistent with his theory, as Polaris wrote above.

All that being said, I do not believe J correlates to being closed minded, and I do not correlate P to open minded. Truth is, when you are interacting with somebody, you are probably interacting with their extraverted character (as they are, after all, ambiverts). In the case of a J, this doesn't shut their perceiving function off, it just shuts it off to you, and you have noticed a pattern in observable behaviour and named it something which it is not.

Really what you should bring up at this point is that the introverted perception functions are probably equal contributors/even more so contributing to a person being closed minded, this I could buy. If anything, P and J disagree most on "how things are"/perceptions of objectivity/../reality.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Maturation may be a critical factor. Assuming two people, one a J and the other a P, and both mature at a similar rate, over the course of time and experience the J will likely question their conclusions while the P will likely have more confidence in their conclusions.

Open mindedness is a misnomer. Confidence I think is a better way to frame the observation.

 

[BigApplePi]

close mind, J & action

A quick discernment tool of mine, to separate the Js from the Ps, to distinguish INTP from an INTJ, was to assess whether the person seemed open or close minded, in a general sense.

The "open minded" people overwhelmingly tended to be Ps, and the "close minded" people Js.

Let me see if I can simplify all this because good ideas have been brought forward.

We can categorize the nature of the human being and how s/he behaves like this. People feel, think and act. Those are different dimensions and don't overlap anymore than height, width and length do.

Forgetting about the feeling and thinking for the moment, acting is definitely separate. One doesn't have to act. One can sit around feeling and thinking and do nothing. Those match up with "P" behavior. Then one can act. Action means choosing and choosing means excluding what is not chosen. That can be matched up with "J" behavior. That's what open and closed mindedness is about. Before action, one's mind is open; the instant action takes place, one's mind closes.

Everyone does both. We both sit around observing and we act. But a good many of us prefer to observe while others prefer to act. That gives rise to the P and J types. The fact that everyone does both gives rise to the confusion if we ignore overall preference.

What is strange is once the literature gets immersed in perceiving and judging types, people forget the foundations of all this and get all confused. Maybe you can think of a different foundation, but action versus non-action is more clear to me as a starter than other choices.

 

[pernoctator]

Js are known to make decisions. Ps are known to put off making decisions until they have all the information, which is never.

Thus although "close minded" has a negative connotation, it translates into "making a decision."

One must make a decision regarding whether an object is a friend or foe. This would have been a very beneficial trait to a caveman, to quickly discern and make a judgment whether a particular object was a threat or not. A "P" might not have survived these times. An INTP might be thinking "I'm not sure if that's a tiger or just a very large shadow..." but by that time the tiger had already sunk its teeth into the INTP's jugular. INTPs probably didn't do well in those days.

You judge others from your own frame of reference; you assume their internal state by imagining your own state in their position. If as a "P" you will not act until you are sure, then you associate action with certainty and certainty means not being open to other possibilities. So you see someone's outward actions like running from a (tiger/shadow/?) and assume he feels as sure about it as you would have needed to feel to take the same action, leading to the not necessarily correct conclusion that you are more open-minded.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Open mindedness is a misnomer. Confidence I think is a better way to frame the observation.

it's not a replacement but a complement. one description is partial to P's, the other to J's.

 

[Grayman]

it's not a replacement but a complement. one description is partial to P's, the other to J's.

I suppose it is more common among both groups to argue one or the other but the words are pointing to different things.


Certainty is discrete. True or false
Confidence is a level on a scale of accuracy
Overconfidence is exaggerating the value of...
Close minded is not accepting new data.

Close mindedness is not the same as certainty or overconfidence but is instead a common result of certainty or overconfidence.

I think J's suffer from overconfidence externally and in action or are thought to because they are more willing to make a snap decision in comparison to the P. Is the J really overconfident or simply more confident in their decision making than the P? I think that depends on the person. Where should the line between overconfidence and confidence be drawn adn who should decide?

 

[Cherry Cola]

ji&pe versus pi&je. one judges itself and the other the world. go figure..

Isn't it more like one judges the world by internal standards applied to an external perception of its function and the other judges the world on its own logic applied internal view of its function?

I think your summary simplifies the issue. I ain't got no good answer to the question posed.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Where should the line between overconfidence and confidence be drawn adn who should decide?

I'll be the decider but you clearly delineated the verbiage. Js tend to be outwardly confident (sometimes more, sometimes less) and Ps are perhaps inwardly confident.

 

[Grayman]

I'll be the decider but you clearly delineated the verbiage. Js tend to be outwardly confident (sometimes more, sometimes less) and Ps are perhaps inwardly confident.

I see what you are trying to describe. I would refrain from saying that J's are outwardly confident but lacking in inward confidence. The expression of confidence functions as you stated but the ownership of confidence is a very personal thing not related to any group. I would not want the J's thinking we view them as weak willed individuals trying to cover it up by acting confident when in fact they are not.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I see what you are trying to describe. I would refrain from saying that J's are outwardly confident but lacking in inward confidence. The expression of confidence functions as you stated but the ownership of confidence is a very personal thing not related to any group. I would not want the J's thinking we view them as weak willed individuals trying to cover it up by acting confident when in fact they are not.

Well I'm a J myself (INFJ) so no offense meant to either Greyman, is your Fe showing?

 

[Grayman]

Well I'm a J myself (INFJ) so no offense meant to either Greyman, is your Fe showing?

Combined with an irritaded Ti saying, "This is not accurately stated in order to convey the proper way the system functions!"

You got me thinking I might be InfJ again.... But then maybe I am.... I did Feel the need to point out to TimeAsylum yesterday how his statement could be missintrepted as insulting even though he was just being honest.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Combined with an irritaded Ti saying, "This is not accurately stated in order to convey the proper way the system functions!"

You got me thinking I might be InfJ again.... But then maybe I am.... I did Feel the need to point out to TimeAsylum yesterday how his statement could be missintrepted as insulting even though he was just being honest.

While INFJs can be nitpicky and bitchy with logic they feel the need to point out a possible insult, they just know if it will be taken as an insult and if so they might point it out unless the forum is really boring and some drama would be welcome, I mean no one blames you for not doing something anyway.

 

[Analyzer]

Ps are more closed minded internally while Js are more closed minded externally.

Of course it's more apparent to others when they make external judgments(Te/Fe) then internal judgments(Ti,Fi ). So Ps in general are seen as more open minded.

 

[Reluctantly]

There was a section where Jung talked about the difference between irrationals and rationals, which amounts to P vs J.

Basically,

Js (or rationals - Jungian Ti, Fi, Fe, and Te - or MBTI xxxJs) would perceive things as axiomatic and then apply reason to those axioms. Their focus is on this process of reasoning that assumes standards in perception. So a physicist could accept the commonly accepted perception that objects revolve around a nucleus in an atom and then reason all of their experimental results in a way that supports this as a basic truth. And if you argue against the idea that atomic particles rotate around the nucleus, this physicist might label you a quack and give out many reasons why you are clearly wrong and have no ground to stand on. It's harder, or more psychologically frustrating, for a J to question their perceptions, but much easier for them to rationalize those perceptions.

Ps (or irrationals - Jungian Ne, Ni, Si, and Se - or MBTI xxxPs) would perceive things in many ways and look at different ways of seeing something. There is a defocus on accepting standards of perception and more of a focus on understanding the different aspects of a situation or set of circumstances. For a P, there is less emphasis on rationalizing everything and more emphasis on different ways of perceiving. An analogy I use,
A J would limit the paths they see and rationalize the path they take as they go down it and experience it more, but a P would expand their possible paths as they take a new path and see all the other paths they didn't take, comparing and contrasting between.

Rationalizing for a P would be more about relating their perceptions, whereas rationalizing for a J would be about ordering them.

basically,

 

[ElvenVeil]

I personally don't put too much stock into p/j as any useful assessement tool within MBTI; not as long as you use functions to navigate and understand people's behavior.

I think I have seen many 'p' people who are much more close minded than 'j' people. What Polaris writes about social background probably has a lot of influence. If you want to use functions, close-mindedsness might come closer to what the subject in focus is. A person relying on si might come of as close minded due to his fondness of tried things, or fear of something very unknown to him. A thinker might be seen as close minded if he sees no point in trying out various things when he already have found the 'right' solution. I am sure general examples could be made with functions in mind.

Tldr: no

 

[Reluctantly]

^ You know, this would be pretty interesting, if people explained how different types are perceived as closed-minded and open-minded. But you always have that problem where people tend to want to over-simplify things...because, you know...it's easier....we all do it. And asking people to do this is then like asking people to do work and at the same time throw out a kind of belief system they have accepted. I've tried on various forums and pretty much gave up on getting people to do this. Usually, typing arguments amount to "they are this type because my methodology says they are and is correct, whereas yours is not correct for this reason". Yeah, it gets old; so I stick to the concepts in hopes that someone will rapport back with their own and maybe we can share some interesting things with each other.

But it seems like human beings have a strong tendency to believe their rationalizations must always equal understanding, to the point that reification becomes enough, absent of what the evidence says.

 

[Goku]

^ You know, this would be pretty interesting, if people explained how different types are perceived as closed-minded and open-minded. But you always have that problem where people tend to want to over-simplify things...because, you know...it's easier....we all do it. And asking people to do this is then like asking people to do work and at the same time throw out a kind of belief system they have accepted. I've tried on various forums and pretty much gave up on getting people to do this. Usually, typing arguments amount to "they are this type because my methodology says they are and is correct, whereas yours is not correct for this reason". Yeah, it gets old; so I stick to the concepts in hopes that someone will rapport back with their own and maybe we can share some interesting things with each other.

But it seems like human beings have a strong tendency to believe their rationalizations must always equal understanding, to the point that reification becomes enough, absent of what the evidence says.

Open minded: there's always a better way of doing things

Closed minded: it's always better to do it the tried and true way than waste time exploring the possibilities

This is, of course, oversimplifying things, making it a black and white category. However, J/P is a very black and white distinction as well.

I prefer to use MBTI as a tool, rather than contemplate about its validity

Thus, the faster I can type someone, the better I can make use of the theory...

Using layman's terms, "closed minded" traits tend to correlate with "J" traits, as I see it. When it comes down to it, I'm flipping a coin between two choices, so pegging someone as "closed minded" could help me deduce their dominant function.

Lets say I'm playing poker with someone, and I've pegged him as an intuitive thinker type. I'm pretty sure he's an introvert. So INT is settled. How can I differentiate an INTP from an INTJ? Well I guess it would come down to my read on how open or closed minded he is.... How serious does he seem? Any presence of OCD traits?

I also correlate Pness with willingness to brainstorm (explore possibilities, open minded ness)

I'm trying to make a decision based on incomplete information. The beauty about this is if I purely guess, I have a 50% chance of being right. So if I have some info that tips the favor, like the closed minded/J theory, my accuracy rate for correctly typing someone improves greatly.

 

[Base groove]

Open minded: there's always a better way of doing things

Closed minded: it's always better to do it the tried and true way than waste time exploring the possibilities

This is, of course, oversimplifying things, making it a black and white category. However, J/P is a very black and white distinction as well.

I prefer to use MBTI as a tool, rather than contemplate about its validity

Thus, the faster I can type someone, the better I can make use of the theory...

I'm trying to make a decision based on incomplete information. The beauty about this is if I purely guess, I have a 50% chance of being right. So if I have some info that tips the favor, like the closed minded/J theory, my accuracy rate for correctly typing someone improves greatly.

I disagree, Goku, as I believe with this methodology you have described, your accuracy actually suffers a severe impairment the more rigorously you apply these criteria. For you to insist that this methodology is sound and valid, even as a "speed-type", is pure hubris. I suggest you abandon it completely.

 

[Reluctantly]

That's interesting. I guess it looks like you want the theory to be applied in various ways. I strayed from doing that, since people usually have personas they build up that go down when they are comfortable with me and, at the same time, don't feel they have to be anything in particular with me. For me, it's more about determining someone's nature. If I think I know someone's nature and I like it, I will become attracted to them.

And I might have this wrong, but would you say this then pretty much means you tend to apply your intuition to the surface of what's going on and use that to give you ideas/possibilities that you can pick and choose from for various reasons? I think I'm the other way around; I go for the deeper meaning behind the surface, using the possibilities to search for that; but once I think I've found that meaning, it becomes a guide for navigating and modulating my interactions with people. And perhaps in this way, I could become close-minded, although I'm always updating that guide as it conflicts with changing perceptions. I'm looking for the constant behind the change that people go through; does that make sense?

Anyway, I hope I didn't misrepresent too much of what you were saying.

 

[Goku]

I disagree, Goku, as I believe with this methodology you have described, your accuracy actually suffers a severe impairment the more rigorously you apply these criteria. For you to insist that this methodology is sound and valid, even as a "speed-type", is pure hubris. I suggest you abandon it completely.

INTJ, figures.

(See, methodology not so inaccurate)

Js are more apt to make "suggestions" to other people as well, therefore displaying their desire to control the external world.

 

[clockwork]

Js (or rationals - Jungian Ti, Fi, Fe, and Te - or MBTI xxxJs)

Ps (or irrationals - Jungian Ne, Ni, Si, and Se - or MBTI xxxPs)

well yes thats the judgement functions on your first line and the perception functions on the second line. But if you just use the letters J/P: then that only works like that with the socionics j/p (lower case), not the MBTI J/P (upper case).

Because in MBTI:
xxxJ= Si/Ni with Te/Fe , as function 1 & 2 or vice versa
xxxP= Se/Ne with Ti/Fi , as function 1 & 2 or vice versa

---

in general: if your definition of close/open mindedness is only about worldview then its only perception function related (e.g. not judgement related). Thus you are simply saying that Si/Ni is more close minded, and Se/Ne is more open minded. Which is true if Ti or Fi are not blocking it as a first function.
an IxxP is open minded with its Ne/Se, but not so much as an ExxP

For example an INFP can block the shit out of new ideas with their Fi.
Unless their Fi is not triggered by it, then it can reach their open-minded Ne. So for the INFP it depends on the subject.

The most openminded is probably the ExNP / the Ne function, if its about abstract stuff that is. Because the ExSP/Se is more open minded about some fun in the moment...

so we could go on.... unless we define stuff properly, especially the question

 

[Reluctantly]

well yes thats the judgement functions on your first line and the perception functions on the second line. But if you just use the letters J/P: then that only works like that with the socionics j/p (lower case), not the MBTI J/P (upper case).

Because in MBTI:
xxxJ= Si/Ni with Te/Fe , as function 1 & 2 or vice versa
xxxP= Se/Ne with Ti/Fi , as function 1 & 2 or vice versa

---

in general: if your definition of close/open mindedness is only about worldview then its only perception function related (e.g. not judgement related). Thus you are simply saying that Si/Ni is more close minded, and Se/Ne is more open minded. Which is true if Ti or Fi are not blocking it as a first function.
an IxxP is open minded with its Ne/Se, but not so much as an ExxP

Yeah, I don't disagree with you. The problem really is that MBTI has ditched the rational/irrational dichotomy from Jung's functions and replaced it with something that often crosses the line (the J/P thing), but yet is so simplified that it can apply to any function. But the rational/irrational dichotomy clarifies a lot of the arguments that people have with J and P.

For example, being conclusive is pretty much associated with J in MBTI, but is actually conceptually associated with Rationals by Jung (Ti, Te, Fe, and Fi). Rationals were basically described as being rational by aligning themselves with commonly held perceptions and focusing on rationalizing those perceptions in ways that can be commonly understood and accepted and seen in an objective light - this could mean someone uses Ti to argue a statistical standard of morality, for example. Irrationals on the other hand, were fine with ditching commonly held perceptions, something that means seeing and interacting with reality in ways that are new and not culturally or socially accepted or even acceptable. Rationalizing for them is a secondary concern, not a primary one like with the Rational, something that is more like a game or to be used for utility.

So I know that when someone argues that someone is, say Ni, and uses the fact that this someone is conclusive and has a worldview, they are not only confused, but have a warped understanding of what these concepts actually mean. Jung originally devised 8 types, the Te, the Fe, the Ti, the Fe, the Si, the Ni, the Ne, and the Se type. The second function wasn't a prominent aspect behind the theory, as you might know. One could then argue there are really only 8 types, where each type has two subtypes, if they really wanted to. And they wouldn't exactly be wrong in that rationalization either. But the point is that this J/P stuff seems to have warped the fundamentals behind the actual Jungian functions that these functions are supposed to be. It's a problem and as long as I find this site interesting, I suppose I'll keep bringing it up.