Perceiving versus Judging: Humbleness versus Pretentiousness?

[NeverAmI]

I know this is tough to think about, but these labels/definitions are on the extremes of both sides.

Perceivers are known to hold out on decisions, to be unassuming, not to jump to conclusions, that seems quite humble to me. I ask you not to judge based on people that claim to be a certain type, but rather on the jungian definitions of judging/perceiving.

Is there a direct causation between perceiving/judging and humbleness/pretentiousness?

Definitions (From Princeton):

Pretentious - making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction;

Humble - cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"

Jungian Definitions (from http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/judging_perceiving.htm)

With Judgers:

• Present a timetable and stick to it (or provide maximum warning if not).
• Allow time to them to prepare.
• Show your achievements and results.
• Allow closure on consensus items, document those areas that require more work or discussion.
• Itemize achievements and decisions reached so far.
• Acknowledge the need for closure and short time schedules.

With Perceivers:

• Allow time for things to flow, not necessarily following your calendar.
• Bring in new ideas and possibilities.
• Acknowledge the time for creativity.
• Encourage autonomy and personal freedom.
• Realize changes in direction are not necessarily impulsiveness.

If you have better/different definitions, please share them in addition to your opinions!

 

[Anthile]

Personally, I don't really like the P/J axis because nobody really seems to know what it does. In fact, it seems to me that almost every MBTI-related page defines it differently and worse, every definition is ridiculously exaggerated. It draws Js as anal-retentive workaholics and Ps as nonviable slackers.
'Jungian Definitions' makes my head hurt! Jung didn't even have the J/P axis, it was later added by Myers/Briggs. Changingminds.org is a bad site and you should feel bad for linking to it.

 

[NeverAmI]

'Jungian Definitions' makes my head hurt! Jung didn't even have the J/P axis, it was later added by Myers/Briggs.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

Changingminds.org is a bad site and you should feel bad for linking to it.

Why would I feel bad? I have no frame of reference on the MBTI credibility of sites. I am here to learn, that is why I am asking quesitons.

If no site is any better than that one at giving descriptions of J vs P then why does it matter?

 

[walfin]

Humble - cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"

You're using the verb definition, not the adjective one?

I don't think it's humility v pretentiousness per se - it's a whole different attitude to life. + I don't like the connotations - subservience v pretentious might be more fair.

 

[NeverAmI]

In fact, it seems to me that almost every MBTI-related page defines it differently and worse, every definition is ridiculously exaggerated. It draws Js as anal-retentive workaholics and Ps as nonviable slackers.

You appear to exaggerate it worse than any of the sites I have read from!

Judging vs Perceiving is simply the extroversion/introversion of your judging and data collection functions, right?

So, are there any similarities or commonalities between types that predominantly use ni, si, te, or fe (Judging)?

Are there any commonalities between types that predominantly use ne, se, ti, or fi (Perceiving)?

Wouldn't those commonalities, if any, be the descriptions of Judging vs Perceiving?

 

[NeverAmI]

Humble - cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"

You're using the verb definition, not the adjective one?

I don't think it's humility v pretentiousness per se - it's a whole different attitude to life. + I don't like the connotations - subservience v pretentious might be more fair.

Well, they are extremes, yes, but I have no alternate agenda with this argument. Perhaps humbleness versus arrogance? I actually do like subservience though, nice choice!

How would you describe someone that is 100% judging?

 

[Words]

How would you describe someone that is 100% judging?

I think this depends on their intellect/capability(with F or T). If capable, a reliable(T) and humble(F) person? If not, a negative?

aren't perceivers as judgers (using inferior functions) worse? stress plays a role?

 

[boradicus]

Personally, I don't really like the P/J axis because nobody really seems to know what it does. In fact, it seems to me that almost every MBTI-related page defines it differently and worse, every definition is ridiculously exaggerated. It draws Js as anal-retentive workaholics and Ps as nonviable slackers.
'Jungian Definitions' makes my head hurt! Jung didn't even have the J/P axis, it was later added by Myers/Briggs. Changingminds.org is a bad site and you should feel bad for linking to it.

You are right lol - feigned pretentiousness in a humbling context lolz ! -

Yep yep yup - I agree >>>

My understanding is that the P/J axis is not actually an axis per se but a preference determining axis. In other words, the P/J axis determines which of the two most dominated functions is presented to the world most frequently (e.g. if you are an N and you are a P you will extrovert or present to the world your N side, but if you are a J and an N, then the N side will be introverted). Therefore what is really important is the functionality of the F/T and N/S axes and their interrelationship with each other.

In essence, because someone shows up as a 'P,' that is not a direct descriptor of their personality as being some perceptive pushover; just because a primary function (dominant/extroverted |or| auxiliary/introverted) is extroverted or presented first to the world does not nullify the potential intractability of the judgment axis.

Am I making any sense....?

 

[NeverAmI]

You are right lol - feigned pretentiousness in a humbling context lolz ! -

Yep yep yup - I agree >>>

My understanding is that the P/J axis is not actually an axis per se but a preference determining axis. In other words, the P/J axis determines which of the two most dominated functions is presented to the world most frequently (e.g. if you are an N and you are a P you will extrovert or present to the world your N side, but if you are a J and an N, then the N side will be introverted). Therefore what is really important is the functionality of the F/T and N/S axes and their interrelationship with each other.

In essence, because someone shows up as a 'P,' that is not a direct descriptor of their personality as being some perceptive pushover; just because a primary function (dominant/extroverted |or| auxiliary/introverted) is extroverted or presented first to the world does not nullify the potential intractability of the judgment axis.

Am I making any sense....?

Yes, that makes perfect sense, I think you are right! Even without an axis, I could still see perceivers vs judgers as having commonalities/differences but maybe that range is too wide like you are all saying or my correlation was just bad in the first place.

I had this thought on the way to work this morning, and I was curious to see what everyone thinks. Yes, I know I didn't frame the question well, but that's what I get for posting something so early.

We are too dynamic to really make observations that way I guess, unless perhaps extensive research were done.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Honestly, if I were really interested in making a generalized distinction between P and J, it would probably be subjective and objective respectively. Someone that is P, being that their judging function is introverted, will actually make more subjective judgments - as much as people like to think Ti is 'objective'. This is primarily because introverted judging, from what I understand, is more consulting ones own inner mental construct as a frame of reference for decision making, where extroverted judging is consulting the outside world as a frame of reference for making decisions. This, I would guess, is where the "J = driven and P = procrastinate" stereotype emerges, as J's are people that will make judgments that effect the external world while P's make judgments that effect their internal model of the world (the drive is there in both, one is simply directed inward (Perceiving) and the other outward (Judging)).

 

[NeverAmI]

That seems like a good way to look at it. Someone, I can't remember who, mentioned that,

"Judgers seek to change the world to adapt to them while perceivers seek to change themselves to adapt to the world."

 

[TheHmmmm]

Personally, I don't really like the P/J axis because nobody really seems to know what it does. In fact, it seems to me that almost every MBTI-related page defines it differently and worse, every definition is ridiculously exaggerated. It draws Js as anal-retentive workaholics and Ps as nonviable slackers.
'Jungian Definitions' makes my head hurt! Jung didn't even have the J/P axis, it was later added by Myers/Briggs. Changingminds.org is a bad site and you should feel bad for linking to it.

I agree. I actually think Myers-Briggs did a crappy job organizing the functions. No one can ever seem to understand how J/P commands the functions (not that I claim to either).

 

[Adymus]

Honestly, if I were really interested in making a generalized distinction between P and J, it would probably be subjective and objective respectively. Someone that is P, being that their judging function is introverted, will actually make more subjective judgments - as much as people like to think Ti is 'objective'. This is primarily because introverted judging, from what I understand, is more consulting ones own inner mental construct as a frame of reference for decision making, where extroverted judging is consulting the outside world as a frame of reference for making decisions. This, I would guess, is where the "J = driven and P = procrastinate" stereotype emerges, as J's are people that will make judgments that effect the external world while P's make judgments that effect their internal model of the world (the drive is there in both, one is simply directed inward (Perceiving) and the other outward (Judging)).

Not quite, because everyone has both subjective and objective functions in both their directive and adaptive sides. btw, I like to use the words "Adaptive" instead of perceiving, and "directive" instead of of Judging.

Objective and subjective actually refers to extroverted and introverted, respectively. For instance, you are right, Ti is a person's compass of subjective logic, however the information they take in from Ne is objective external patterns. Information that is apart from the self. While for a directive type, it is their primary from of perceptions, such as Ni, that is their subjective worldview model, and their form of directive discernment, such as Fe, which is the objective social dynamics.

 

[boradicus]

But this is not to say that data taken in by the perceiving function is processed any less rigorously by the introverted judging function, or that the extroverted judging function is necessarily more rigid by nature once the data has been collected and assimilated. However, the alacrity with which data is gathered and the number of perspectives willing to be admitted are different between perceiving functions, necessarily resulting in some disparity in the length of time required for the judging function to process them.

Perhaps this is somewhat akin to the number of threads a multiprocessor can handle simultaneously. Perhaps what causes such recalcitrance on the part of a "J" then is that the relationship between the perception of external data and the processing of internal data is weighted more heavily in terms of investment on the internal side, in contrast to the leaner more composite internal model of the introverted judging personality.

I am thinking out loud here so this could be rather erroneous although inspired...

I have often thought, however, that one potential difference between an intuitively perceiving person and a sense-oriented perceiving person could have something to do with how the internal model is constructed and navigated. For instance, in my mind, and intuitive would have a dense yet comparatively smaller internal model for judging whereas a sensing person would have a larger more incrementally built up model that is parsed using some brute force algorithm... I am not sure how this correlates to what I said in the paragraph above however because for one I am merely speculating at this point, and secondly I am neglecting to use my Ti (sounds a bit like a calculator !)

 

[cheese]

I have often thought, however, that one potential difference between an intuitively perceiving person and a sense-oriented perceiving person could have something to do with how the internal model is constructed and navigated. For instance, in my mind, and intuitive would have a dense yet comparatively smaller internal model for judging whereas a sensing person would have a larger more incrementally built up model that is parsed using some brute force algorithm... I am not sure how this correlates to what I said in the paragraph above however because for one I am merely speculating at this point, and secondly I am neglecting to use my Ti (sounds a bit like a calculator !)

I think this makes sense. Principles vs specific applications. The former encompass the latter. A system of formulae would be more concise than one of derived data.

 

[boradicus]

I think this makes sense. Principles vs specific applications. The former encompass the latter. A system of formulae would be more concise than one of derived data.

I think you are misunderstanding my poorly communicated ramblings lol - my fault here...

What I am referring to is not principles, beliefs, etc. but more what Jung talks about with the differentiation between polar functions... for instance, if i am looking at you, I then have a picture of you in my head - right? Right. So then as I observe you, I build up a composite memory of you and the way you act, move, sound, etc. Then the next time I see you or someone like you, I have this context about you that helps me to differentiate you from anyone else and to differentiate you from you so that I am not dismissive of the same you but continue to grow in my understanding of who you are.

Am I making myself any clearer at all? I know there is a psychological term for what I am talking about but I cannot remember the term. Basically what I said earlier was along the lines of perception oriented people taking like a 360 panorama view of you and eventually record the angles of interest, whereas a judgment oriented person probably takes a few straight up stills and add them to the database without much beforehand filtering, and files them in one place. Now the intuitive probably creates multiple files, all with references to each other for each of the pan shots - or something like that.

Basic idea: there is some difference between Judging and perceiving persons - maybe it has something to do with the emphasis given to each function in relation to the way perceptions are built up.... that is all I am rambling about =)

The idea from Jung is that we can't have just and external process - that is why the auxiliary function and the dominant are not the same energetic style (i.e. I/E lol) - which allows for the perception of time and other distinguishing characteristics of our environment due to some quality of reflection (introversion) that gauges against the external - and this is what i mean by 'model' because we all have them.

blah blah blah and all that =)

 

[boradicus]

I think this makes sense. Principles vs specific applications. The former encompass the latter. A system of formulae would be more concise than one of derived data.

I think I get what you are saying though - which sounds like the difference between a vector graphic and a raster image.... basically the former is compressed? Is that what you mean? Although I wouldn't coincide that with principles... but neither were what I mean although I think I understand now what you meant and it is really getting either very late or very early and I'm tired and sleepy Good night everyone.... ZZZzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzz

 

[boradicus]

I wonder if I can be pretentiously perceptive.... I don't want to be of course.... but you know... there was this time when.......... Seriously - I think there have been times, whilst being spurned to creative perceptive inspiration by a single view held by another party where I crossed the line of merely seeing things differently and attempting to explain them to (healthy? - but this begs the question 'is it actually healthy for a non-dominant perceiving type to be encouraged to have a more open point of view????) alternate potential perspectives and began to have perhaps a little too much fun in my idea generation. Ashamed to say, I have felt a bit pretentious at times in doing so...