[snapdragons]

What are some of the main differences between TJ's and FJ's? Such as with processing, decision-making, etc.? Since both have the J function I would assume both strive for some sort of order. Any ideas?

 

[LiquidLight]

J isn't a function in this context. Honestly Te and Fe are basically opposite processes. That can't really co-exist (they would cancel each other out). Fe appeals to the objective world from an evaluative standpoint (love it/hate it, good/bad, nice/ugly, etc) and Te appeals to the outside world conceptually (logic, process, coherence, categorization, etc). So the similarities between the two functions are superficial and behavioral not cognitive. Cognitively Te and Fe doms couldn't be further away from each other (sort of like Ni and Si).

Also really its not right to think of this as FJ and TJ because, for example, Ni and Si-types aren't really J's (they are in actuality dominant perception types with a judging auxiliary) and Ti and Fi-dominants are really J's (they are introverted judging types with a perceiving auxiliary) but with MBTI the J only points toward extraversion (which is a problem for introverts) and closure-seeking/non-closure-seeking (which has nothing to do with the Te or Fe function itself).

 

[LotusBlossom]

so I suppose the J/P dichotomy in MBTI(as with the other dichotomies) is written with a lot of inductive reasoning, then?

 

[LiquidLight]

so I suppose the J/P dichotomy in MBTI(as with the other dichotomies) is written with a lot of inductive reasoning, then?

Yea. I mean the entire theory revolves around J/P. The function attitudes in MBTI are tested as I/E, S/N, F/T, and J/P with J/P really being the deciding factor as to what your dominant function is. So lets say you score E,S,F MBTI determines if you are ESFJ (Fe-dom) or ESFP (Se-dom) based on where your J/P score lands. The idea here is that if you are strongly J we can infer you have a strong Te or Fe preference (as they define it), This type of inference is probably okay in the case of people who score strongly J or P (which is a dubious assumption to begin with but nevertheless...) but what happens when you get the 50/50 J/P? Or you're an ESFP with a lot of Te? Is the person an ESFJ or ESFP? We can't know (now we have to start looking at the other scores like if their N is really low or S is really high), but you can see how someone could easily mistype themselves if they just go off J/P (sometimes really mistype as ESFJ and ESFP have no common functions). You get people asking "am I ISFP or ISFJ" which on its face sounds silly. The two types are nothing alike (same with INFP and INFJ), but if you are just looking at the dichotomies it would seem that you could be an ISFx or INFx, nonsensical as this would actually be.

 

[Inguz]

Yea. I mean the entire theory revolves around J/P. The function attitudes in MBTI are tested as I/E, S/N, F/T, and J/P with J/P really being the deciding factor as to what your dominant function is. So lets say you score E,S,F MBTI determines if you are ESFJ (Fe-dom) or ESFP (Se-dom) based on where your J/P score lands. The idea here is that if you are strongly J we can infer you have a strong Te or Fe preference (as they define it), This type of inference is probably okay in the case of people who score strongly J or P (which is a dubious assumption to begin with but nevertheless...) but what happens when you get the 50/50 J/P? Or you're an ESFP with a lot of Te? Is the person an ESFJ or ESFP? We can't know (now we have to start looking at the other scores like if their N is really low or S is really high), but you can see how someone could easily mistype themselves if they just go off J/P (sometimes really mistype as ESFJ and ESFP have no common functions). You get people asking "am I ISFP or ISFJ" which on its face sounds silly. The two types are nothing alike (same with INFP and INFJ), but if you are just looking at the dichotomies it would seem that you could be an ISFx or INFx, nonsensical as this would actually be.

Well, how can this be avoided? The strong points about resolving it around J/P in this manner is J side include Te, Fe, Si, Ni as Dominant and Auxiliary for all J-types, reversed P side includes Ti, Fi, Se, Ne Dominant and Auxiliary also for all P-types, and changing your type letters to the opposite is your function set upside down.

I don't disagree to your critique per se, but is there a better way to do it?

 

[LiquidLight]

Well, how can this be avoided? The strong points about resolving it around J/P in this manner is J side include Te, Fe, Si, Ni as Dominant and Auxiliary for all J-types, reversed P side includes Ti, Fi, Se, Ne Dominant and Auxiliary also for all P-types, and changing your type letters to the opposite is your function set upside down.

I don't disagree to your critique per se, but is there a better way to do it?

Not if we're talking about a test. Because just testing the functions out right is more straightforward, but this requires that the functions are being properly defined and measured (many times they are not) and we still have to infer often what someone's type is (a lot of people just have general preferences for and against certain functions like strong overall Intuition and weak Sensation, which leads us to believe the person is an intuitive, but we may not know which flavor). Trying to measure someone's personality like this on a test is an inherently flawed process. The only reason I think MBTI is a little less successful is because they attempt to use behavior as a justification for type (judging/perceiving) and to me that is fine if you're just trying to figure out what role someone might be good at in the workplace (which is what MBTI really does) but if you are really trying to figure out how someone thinks, you're gonna have big problems trying to tie type to behavior in this way. Because like I said all Ni or Si-doms are not closure-seeking in real life (despite them all being J's in MBTI). So by adding this dimension we are forcing people into roles that fit the theory but may not actually accurately represent who the person really is. A person could be typed as a Feeling perceiver (say ISFP) when typologically the person is really a Si-dom ISFJ, but may not fit the Guardian or closure-seeking J mold that MBTI lays out. MBTI sort of forces you to play by their rules.

 

[Owfin]

INTJ and INFJ: Very little difference
ENTJ and ENFJ: Very large difference
INTJ and ENTJ, INFJ and ENFJ: Apples and oranges

The fact that in all cases they are "only a letter apart" is what is so agravating about the MBTI system when you try to use it simply as a label for various cognitive function orderings. You change one of the letters, it changes a moderate to mild preference. You change another, you get a huge divide. Change another, and you aren't even comparing the same things. And it's all very arbitrary. If you simply used labels like:

Ni T and Ni F: Very little difference
Te N and Fe N: Very large difference
Ni T and Te N, Ni F and Fe N: Apples and oranges

Now not only is the distinction made more clear, but it doesn't make assumptions about the orientation of the auxiliary. In MBTI, types who are Je (extroverted judgers) are labeled as J, while types with Ji (introverted judging) are P. And P types have extroverted perceiving and J types have introverted perceiving. So, by labeling INFJs, for example, as judgers, you are making the implict assumption that they have extroverted judging. This causes so much frustration with typing when you tend to lean towards the "wrong" orientation of your auxiliary and tertiary. These people say, "I know that I am dominant Ni, but I seem to have Fi. Am I mistyped? But I know I'm not a thinker." They will often have typing troubles and feel pigeonholed.

Simply acknowledging somebody as having F auxiliary, however, does not assume. The auxiliary can't be S in a N dominant because... well, it'd be easier to explain in my terms. Since the OP is an S and I'm one too, think of physical reality. The one you touch with your hands and you experience with your own eyes. You don't need to question that you actually really experienced that sensation of your hands on your keyboard, right? Now imagine someone who doesn't treat that as what really happened and does not treat their own sensation as valid evidence that they touched the keyboard. That is the gulf between dominant and inferior. There is no way those can coexist. Well, actually, there is, but it doesn't last very long and involves a lot of blood and one of them dead by the end.

Whereas F can hang out with Ni without much problem. They don't get in eachothers way and hey, Ni can back up its understanding with F when faced with opposing (like S) views on what something is. Why is it F in the auxiliary? Well, you probably have a preference for one over the other. But as you can see, you don't need to be as strong about it as you do with Ni. Change the orientation of Ni and you change where you find truth. Change the F and you can use it for a different situation.

 

[Angelic Gardevoir]

One has Fe as their primary judging function. The other has Te as their primary judging function. /smartass answer

In all seriousness though, Fe is more people oriented while Te is more logic oriented. That's about it in a nutshell.

 

[Robopop]

Not if we're talking about a test. Because just testing the functions out right is more straightforward, but this requires that the functions are being properly defined and measured (many times they are not) and we still have to infer often what someone's type is (a lot of people just have general preferences for and against certain functions like strong overall Intuition and weak Sensation, which leads us to believe the person is an intuitive, but we may not know which flavor). Trying to measure someone's personality like this on a test is an inherently flawed process. The only reason I think MBTI is a little less successful is because they attempt to use behavior as a justification for type (judging/perceiving) and to me that is fine if you're just trying to figure out what role someone might be good at in the workplace (which is what MBTI really does) but if you are really trying to figure out how someone thinks, you're gonna have big problems trying to tie type to behavior in this way. Because like I said all Ni or Si-doms are not closure-seeking in real life (despite them all being J's in MBTI). So by adding this dimension we are forcing people into roles that fit the theory but may not actually accurately represent who the person really is. A person could be typed as a Feeling perceiver (say ISFP) when typologically the person is really a Si-dom ISFJ, but may not fit the Guardian or closure-seeking J mold that MBTI lays out. MBTI sort of forces you to play by their rules.

IxxJs are generally closure-seeking when it comes to external standards/obligations but it is not their top priority compared to ExxJs. Grouping IxxJs and ExxJs makes sense if the types are fairly balanced, if they are not they will be pretty different from each other(the same with the IxxPs and ExxPs). Like IxxPs present a fairly open and exploratory attitude(Pe) but they have highly refined personal principles that they will not bend easily(Ji), it's kind of the same with ExxPs but they put more priority on exploring their environments/having many different interesting experiences as possible(Pe) and less on individuality(Ji).

 

[snapdragons]

Wow these are all good responses. What does an "extroverted judger" look like? How is this different from a perceiver, then? Does this mean FJ's and TJ's are not at all that different, and most of the difference would depend on whether they are an Ni or Si?

 

[Owfin]

Wow these are all good responses. What does an "extroverted judger" look like? How is this different from a perceiver, then? Does this mean FJ's and TJ's are not at all that different, and most of the difference would depend on whether they are an Ni or Si?

It all rests on the dominant function. Ones with the same dominant cognitive function are very similar, ones without are not.

Extroverted judging uses external arbiters to determine:
Te: Correctness, validity, defining systems, etc. An example of a Te source is the scientific method.
Fe: Values (rationalizing moral ones and defining ones like good/bad, nice/mean, etc.). Examples of arbiters that can be used by Fe are some philosophies and other people's opinions.

Introverted perceiving uses internal ideas to understand and see:
Ni: Meaning, stuff not covered by S (yeah, I'm not good with describing Ni lol)
Si: What something is

 

[snapdragons]

"Extroverted judging uses external arbiters to determine:
Te: Correctness, validity, defining systems, etc. An example of a Te source is the scientific method."

Okay, this makes more sense. Judgers have to have "closure" so to speak, but TJ's use something along the lines of scientific method in order to reach the closure?

 

[INTJellectual]

I'll make this short:

TJ = anger prone, likes efficiency, hates wasting time,wants to get shit done
FJ = caring, concern for others, sensitive, maybe prone to highblood, follows what is ethical

 

[Owfin]

Okay, this makes more sense. Judgers have to have "closure" so to speak, but TJ's use something along the lines of scientific method in order to reach the closure?

I just ignore J/P since it's very hard to reconcile with cognitive functions in a way that doesn't make assumptions about somebody.

 

[JungyesMBTIno]

I just ignore J/P since it's very hard to reconcile with cognitive functions in a way that doesn't make assumptions about somebody.

Same here! I'd love to see it just disappear altogether. People get way too caught up on it, while it's just very trivial in the scheme of typology and worthless in psychology.

 

[snapdragons]

What are supposed to be the functions of the P and J? The way we think the world should be, or our outlook on the way the world should be? I've never understood it that much.

 

[Dastan]

How is this different from a perceiver, then? Does this mean FJ's and TJ's are not at all that different, and most of the difference would depend on whether they are an Ni or Si?

They have many things in common e.g. something that makes them keeping their lifes more in order and balance than Ps... "meeting deadlines" etc like the test describe J and P.

I personally think that Js in general are more confident in their beliefs (Si: experience Ni: insight) and have a talent for using information for application more directly than Ps. And they exhibit a little (!) temporary inflexibility when they are confronted with new ideas or meanings that revise their own thoughts whereas Ps (especially NPs) have little problems with completely new ideas.



Interesting is that perceiving and judging in the external world should be much more substantial for describing personalities than perceiving and judging in the subjective inner world when the type letters J/P just refer to the external J/P!

 

[LimeDegree]

That is the gulf between dominant and inferior. There is no way those can coexist. Well, actually, there is, but it doesn't last very long and involves a lot of blood and one of them dead by the end.

I love that you managed to bring bloodshed into cognitive function explanation...it makes it so much more exciting!

Introverted perceiving uses internal ideas to understand and see:
Ni: Meaning, stuff not covered by S (yeah, I'm not good with describing Ni lol)
Si: What something is

This is what makes it difficult for me to determine what Si is at it's core, I can't seem to find anyone comparing/contrasting it with other functions in controlled situations. *sad panda*

As for TJ vs. FJ....I've noticed a trend where F types focus more on their relationship with people, while T-types identify more with their connection to, well, everything else outside of interpersonal rapport...social structures, theories, rules, buildings, etc. But I'm no expert, it's just kind of a pattern I started to pick up on. Everyone is welcome to tear me a new one if they dislike that opinion. Looking forward to it. <sighs>

 

[Killjoy]

FJ: "I think we should go for a walk, dear. We've both put on some weight recently "

TJ: "Put the cupcake down, Jabba - You're getting fat."