As INTP - we all know we're J's and not P's right?

[NaturalOrder]

OK - so I'm new here (glad to be here btw - nice to hang with others of the Tribe NT) and so am not trying to purposefully incur any flaming BUT....

This was one of the first distinctions about being an INTP (more correctly understanding the MBTI) that really surprised me, but then when I reflected on it knew it was true...and made a lot more sense...

The J (Judging) and the P (Perceiving) APPLY TO WHAT WE EXTROVERT - what we are from the Outside. But INTP being dominant Introvert...and further applying Jung's law of polarities...if we are P on the outside...this applies to our (Secondary or Auxillary) Extroverted Introversion...meaning we are J's on the 'inside'...our dominant Thinking is Judging...which is why we care to find the perfect word

Also why a (say female) ESFJ might call you something like a 'control freak' when you start to expound on how you see the world...thinking that you were impressing her...not that it bothers you...not that you care...yup comments on how you think roll off you like water (after you stab your leg - under the table - with the restaurant fork)....

Any comments/observations on how you can see yourself as a (Introverted) Thinking Judger?

 

[TimeAsylums]

We all know:

http://personalityjunkie.com/03/judging-perceiving-ijs-ips/


By the way,

Welcome to the forum

 

[Architect]

Reminds me of the bad old days when all we had was PUM (Please Understand Me). Nothing about the functions, and nothing about judging versus perceiving functions. It was hard, hard back then my children.

 

[NaturalOrder]

Damn that was quick - and I thought I was being clever...sad thing about my life I come to realizations like these long (too long) sometimes...after the fact...

Thanks for the welcome...and since you linked to the site of this next (for me somewhat revelatory) insight (Personality Junkie - great site)...

Do we all know that we are least amendable...find ourselves at greatest odds...NOT with someone who have the very opposite functional stack (say ESFJ) but one whose dominant attitudinal (same) preference is opposite ours?

I.E. Extraverted Thinking...(to our Introverted Thinking) which goes a long way to explain (in our ESTJ dominated culture) why we can feel so alone?

Do we? Do we all know this?...wait don't answer...I'm just slow arriving to the party...

Cheers TimeAsylums

 

[TimeAsylums]

Easy:

I (ntroversion) vs. E (xtraversion)

@Architect originally shared all of this but you should read everything on PJ, the home page has classes 101, 201...etc

 

[NaturalOrder]

Yeah - looks like I have some catching up to do...

Thanks again

 

[Brontosaurie]

no we are P because P/J refers to the orientation of the primary extraverted function.

nice sophistry though.

 

[John_Mann]

We are J's only inside our minds.

 

[NaturalOrder]

Yes - that's my understanding - we are only J's inside our minds...but it being the dominant place we pivot from - and (in that) our dominant preference 'colors'...informs all the other preferences in our functional stack...

That's a significant detail - no?

 

[John_Mann]

But it's a direct implication in being a P.

P and J it's just the preference we guide our organizing (anti chaos) power.

P directs the organization ability to the mind/ideas/primordial images.

J directs to the objects.

J take some immediate advantage because it's easy to identify the absolute value of a neat desk.

But a bunch of organized ideas don't give an automatically useful output. You can make a very good reason structure, but if you're using false premises or incomplete information your organized reasoning it's just a puke in a pile of shit.

That's the dangerous of Ti. Sometimes it's just like a quest to capture the rainbow's pot of gold.

 

[Ink]

But it's a direct implication in being a P.

The dominant function is quite a lot more powerful than the auxilliary function, thus two dominant judgers (IPs and EJs) will share a lot of personality traits in common despite its different directions. I personally favour socionics way of labeling whether a person is a judger or not by looking at the dominant function, but to each their own I guess.

 

[John_Mann]

The dominant function is quite a lot more powerful than the auxilliary function, thus two dominant judgers (IPs and EJs) will share a lot of personality traits in common despite its different directions. I personally favour socionics way of labeling whether a person is a judger or not by looking at the dominant function, but to each their own I guess.

Yeah, that's true. I don't rely on just in MBTI too.

I even consider Pod'Lair in some cases.

Speaking in the devil, I prefer the term they use instead of judgement: discernment.

As socionics use ethics/logics in place of feel/think, it's more proper I think. Values instead of ethics is much better.

Feelings are nothing more than pre-valuated decisions or discernment.

And the value measure is the attached pleasure or pain in everyone's experienced phenomena (perceived/caused thought or perceived/caused action).

 

[Brontosaurie]

Speaking in the devil, I prefer the term they use instead of judgement: discernment.

makes perception even more indistinguishable from judgment

perception necessarily entails discernment

so does judging, of course, but discernment ought not be its essential defining attribute. discernment is simply a principle inherent to all information processing.

 

[John_Mann]

makes perception even more indistinguishable from judgment

perception necessarily entails discernment

so does judging, of course, but discernment ought not be its essential defining attribute. discernment is simply a principle inherent to all information processing.

Like you said: information processing.

But if we better define information we can make a distinction between data and information.

Data is unprocessed, is just a measurement with no attributed value.

Information is data processed.

Perception is data gathering.

Discernment is data processing, or information.

If you can discern something you must value these things first and then you can compare it's values.

So discern/judge and perception are two distinct animals.

Language can be very tricky, b/c in daily speech we can take both discern and perception as synonymous.

 

[Brontosaurie]

there is no such thing as raw data unless the system is closed, defined and under our control, as with computers. what we perceive is limited and determined by our innate brain structures. these are adaptations and contain behavioral components. environmentally correct values are already in place in perception. we don't perceive a neutral undifferentiated stream of data to which we then attach values. we perceive threats, peers, food etc. most importantly we perceive objects, and objects represent values; they entail discernment by necessity.

in short, we cannot make a clear distinction between data and processing because the data we have access to, the bits or quanta of perception, are pre-processed in response to previous environmental challenges. to perceive raw data would require a bandwidth the size of the universe. raw data is a meaningless notion in the context of the human psyche, though useful in computing where the input terms are clearly and explicitly defined in order to maintain control and thus promote utility. above all, raw data couldn't possibly differ by "sensation" and "intuition". both of these appear in MBTI to be high-level top-down procedures involving discernment. damn, that wasn't "in short". oh well maybe it was a better explanation.

would you argue that perception is innate and judgment is conditioned/deliberate? or that perception is unconscious and judgment conscious? neither of those premises are the case in jung or MBTI, but you need one of them to defend the P/J dichotomy itself. in my opinion, jung was on to something. there is some distinction to make, but there must be a better labelling than judgment/perception or rational/irrational.

i propose:

S/N as abstraction level
T/F as precision or specification level

sort of.

i don't see what's more judgmental about the latter. they're both aspects of cognition to me, and it seems unnecessary to conflate either of them with the broader concepts of judgment and perception.

 

[John_Mann]

there is no such thing as raw data unless the system is closed, defined and under our control, as with computers. what we perceive is limited and determined by our innate brain structures. these are adaptations and contain behavioral components. environmentally correct values are already in place in perception. we don't perceive a neutral undifferentiated stream of data to which we then attach values. we perceive threats, peers, food etc. most importantly we perceive objects, and objects represent values; they entail discernment by necessity.

in short, we cannot make a clear distinction between data and processing because the data we have access to, the bits or quanta of perception, are pre-processed in response to previous environmental challenges. to perceive raw data would require a bandwidth the size of the universe. raw data is a meaningless notion in the context of the human psyche, though useful in computing where the input terms are clearly and explicitly defined in order to maintain control and thus promote utility. above all, raw data couldn't possibly differ by "sensation" and "intuition". both of these appear in MBTI to be high-level top-down procedures involving discernment. damn, that wasn't "in short". oh well maybe it was a better explanation.

would you argue that perception is innate and judgment is conditioned/deliberate? or that perception is unconscious and judgment conscious? neither of those premises are the case in jung or MBTI, but you need one of them to defend the P/J dichotomy itself. in my opinion, jung was on to something. there is some distinction to make, but there must be a better labelling than judgment/perception or rational/irrational.

i propose:

S/N as abstraction level
T/F as precision or specification level

sort of.

i don't see what's more judgmental about the latter. they're both aspects of cognition to me, and it seems unnecessary to conflate either of them with the broader concepts of judgment and perception.

So did you never have just a bunch of loose facts and had no effing idea what it meant?

If you can relate, that's raw data.

 

[Brontosaurie]

So did you never have just a bunch of loose facts and had no effing idea what it meant?

If you can relate, that's raw data.

raw data is a string of bits or a waveform, not an experiential "fact". we have no access to anything remotely resembling raw sensory data.

 

[Brontosaurie]

so what do people think about treating abstraction and generalization as separate dimensions? as said that's my solution to this J/P ordeal, but it's mostly an interpretation/explication of MBTI.

 

[John_Mann]

raw data is a string of bits or a waveform, not an experiential "fact". we have no access to anything remotely resembling raw sensory data.

Raw data is anything you cannot explain by a model.

You can perceive it, but you can't process that.

It's not hard to understand that.

I think you're taking the perception of raw data as biased perception.

 

[Cherry Cola]

could you exemplify?

 

[John_Mann]

could you exemplify?

Of course.

Take the approach of Edward Titchener and his idea about "stimulus error".

Titchener believed the mind could be broken down into parts (structuralism).

If extensive enough research was done then the process of higher order thinking could be "followed" by making connections with the parts of the brain being used at certain times during the thinking process.

The individual sensations would explain how humans thought about things.

The testing process in which Titchener went about studying his theory was by quizzing people as they observed objects.

He asked each subject to describe an object and the "adjectives" or sensations they derived from the object...without saying the name of the actual object.

Titchener believed that it took away from the raw data set.


Example:

This (Pencil) is:

-yellow
-wood
-smooth
-rough
-sharp
-long
-thin

Search more about structuralism and specially "stimulus error" about perception and raw data.

One more example about "mind in parts" is memetics.

If someone does not accept the existence of raw data, so there's no need of thinking at all. Because everything is already processed and known.

If there's no raw data, everyone must understand all languages in the world. Because if you can perceive the letters and symbols you must perceive the information (from the combination of letters/symbols) too.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No it just means that all languages share a common origin in human cognition, Chomsky's been onto that notion for quite some time with his "universal grammar".

The "raw" data cannot be processed without sinking into a pre-existing cognitive structure (archetypes are an example of such a structure or a part of one) and it cannot be perceived until it has been processed. Hence why there is no true raw data. But I get what you mean now nonetheless.

 

[John_Mann]

The "raw" data cannot be processed without sinking into a pre-existing cognitive structure (archetypes are an example of such a structure or a part of one) and it cannot be perceived until it has been processed. Hence why there is no true raw data.

Oh yeah I cannot perceive because I need to judge first. But I cannot judge because I need to perceive first.

Did you ever heard about circular thought?

 

[John_Mann]

The very nature of MBTI is to distinct perception as a irrational function (data gathering) and judgement as a rational function (data processing to become information).

How someone can deal with information in an irrational mode?

 

[John_Mann]

No it just means that all languages share a common origin in human cognition, Chomsky's been onto that notion for quite some time with his "universal grammar".

Então quer dizer que você consegue entender quando eu escrevo em português, mesmo sem nunca ter estudado (pensado, processado) o modelo de entendimento dessa língua?

Garota esperta!

 

[redbaron]

Então quer dizer que você consegue entender quando eu escrevo em português, mesmo sem nunca ter estudado (pensado, processado) o modelo de entendimento dessa língua?

Garota esperta!

Goddag mann økseskaft.

 

[John_Mann]

Goddag mann økseskaft.

Good morning ax handle? LOL

I'm relying on Google, but I have no idea what it means. I have no magical perceptions, that phrase is complete nonsense to me, literally raw data.

 

[own8ge]

P = Internal J, External P.
J = Internal P, External J.

(Internal = Subjective/Introverted)
(External = Objective/Extroverted)

MBTI Dichotomies focus on the external perspective.

Yes the ITP (Ji Dominant) is a Judging dominant. But not a J/P Judging, don't take it out of context.
Ji-Pe combination = P
Je-Pi combination = J

 

[Cherry Cola]

Good morning ax handle? LOL

I'm relying on Google, but I have no idea what it means. I have no magical perceptions, that phrase is complete nonsense to me, literally raw data.

It means you missed my point and was making a glaring straw-man trying to prove something by speaking to me in Portuguese or whatever Spanish-like language it was.

 

[John_Mann]

It means you missed my point and was making a glaring straw-man trying to prove something by speaking to me in Portuguese or whatever Spanish-like language it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x56O4G8VsiA

 

[Brontosaurie]

Oh yeah I cannot perceive because I need to judge first. But I cannot judge because I need to perceive first.

Did you ever heard about circular thought?

did you ever hear about flat-out denying your opponent's stance only to later adopt it and profess it as your own? it seems you have.

you just explained to yourself why J/P is an unsound dichotomy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes indeed, and how about call it Russels paradox instead of circular reasoning.

 

[DIALECTIC]

Originally Posted by John_Mann
Oh yeah I cannot perceive because I need to judge first. But I cannot judge because I need to perceive first.

Did you ever heard about circular thought?

did you ever hear about flat-out denying your opponent's stance only to later adopt it and profess it as your own? it seems you

BINGO !!!!

I guess it is because our natural stance, in order to be as objective as possible, is to perceive externals (Ne) and judge internals (Ti) BUT in times of stress / grip experiences, we tend to do the exact opposite i.e: we judge externals (Fe; hence our absolutism, aggression, animosity, therefore basically the total loss of the legendary INTP's relativism / mediation !) and we perceive internals (Si; hence our paranoia, anxiety, depression, hypocondria etc.) so people around us view us as opinionated and negative and we end up thinking what we wrongly feel instead of naturally feeling what we think !!

 

[NaturalOrder]

BINGO !!!!

I guess it is because our natural stance, in order to be as objective as possible, is to perceive externals (Ne) and judge internals (Ti) BUT in times of stress / grip experiences, we tend to do the exact opposite i.e: we judge externals (Fe; hence our absolutism, aggression, animosity, therefore basically the total loss of the legendary INTP's relativism / mediation !) and we perceive internals (Si; hence our paranoia, anxiety, depression, hypocondria etc.) so people around us view us as opinionated and negative and we end up thinking what we wrongly feel instead of naturally feeling what we think !!

Wow - that's an apt description of what my experience is like when 'in the grip'...thanks for that Dialectic...and I will probably (eventually) plagiarize it...but perfect description (for me at least)

 

[DIALECTIC]

Wow - that's an apt description of what my experience is like when 'in the grip'...thanks for that Dialectic...and I will probably (eventually) plagiarize it...but perfect description (for me at least)

In the grip, INTP (Ti Ne Si Fe) become our negative twin, a fake ESFJ (Fe Si Ne Ti)... The same way, an ESFJ in the grip will become the ESFJ's negative twin, a fake INTP ! Being around an ESFJ in the grip is an awful experience for an INTP especially when both are in the grip ! I know, my ex partner of 11 years was an ESFJ...
I loved her as an ESFJ true to her type... But i fucking despised her when she was in the grip as she was my worst traits ten fold ! The same way she didn't like me at all in the grip as i reminded her an excessively negative / gossipy / weakminded version of her !

Amazing that in order to see our own faults (to be able to correct them), we first have to project onto others and be disgusted at them !

 

[Oddity]

http://personalityjunkie.com/03/judging-perceiving-ijs-ips/

Like EJs, IPs can also be prone to labeling many Perceiving activities “a waste of time.

Can anyone give examples of said "Perceiving activities"?