Diving Deeper Into Judger vs Perceiver | Podcast 0442
Download Episode Here – right click link and select “Save Link As…”
In this podcast Joel and Antonia chat about the deeper differences between judging and perceiving.
————————————————
In this podcast you’ll find:
- What’ is a common misconception of what it means to be a Judger?
- Why can it be challenging to understand the distinction between Judgers and Perceivers?
- What does it mean to be a Judger or Perceiver?
- What are the two things that all humans desire simultaneously?
- How do these two desires show up differently for Judgers and Perceivers?
- What important factor, central to understanding the difference between Judgers and Perceivers, is often overlooked?
- How does the difference between Judgers and Perceivers look without this factor?
- Why can examining cognitive functions really help to grasp the differences between Judgers and Perceivers?
- Interested in learning more about the cognitive functions? Ccheck out our podcast The Car Model.
- What does inner world expression for Perceivers look like?
- What are the two Perceiver styles of inner world expression?
- How do Perceivers interact with the outer world?
- What is Perceivers’ relationship to tracking things and the organization of information?
- How can Perceivers feel like their best selves?
- What does inner world expression for Judgers look like?
- What are the two judger styles of inner world expression of Judgers?
- Why can interruptions be jarring for Judgers?
- What is a good trick for Judgers?
- How do Judgers interact with the outer world?
- Where do Judgers get their creativity from?
- What are the two things that all humans desire simultaneously?
- What can type actually tell us about Judgers and Perceivers?
- How can the complexity of life affect how Judgers and Perceivers show up?
- Why are Judgers and Perceivers sometimes envious of envious or frustrated by the opposite preference?
- What are some admirable traits of both Judgers and Perceivers?
To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:
Subscribe with iTunes
Non-iTunes Link
Soundcloud
Stitcher
Google Play
Spotify
Radio Public
PlayerFM
Listen Notes
If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!
Want to learn more?
Discover Your Personal Genius
We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…
Recommended Posts
Showing 22 comments
Leave a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
To be honest I as a judger feel envy, that you percievers have control over your inner terrain. Structured, clear and beautiful environment saves my energy and helps me to focus. But there are others in the outside world, who don’t have the same preferences as do. That feeling of not having contol is quite stressful. (just an experience of an INFJ mum)
I’m an INFP who prefers the physical environment to be organized, clean, and clutter free so that my time can be as unstructured as possible.
Not sure what to make of that!
Hi. Thanks for a great podcast. In this I as an ISTJ really think i can use the train of thought metafor.
Your explanation of the -p also helps me understand how some people can task switch much easier than I can.
I has always annoyed me that I can’t seem to access things in my mind as easily has a folder in my drawer, but others seem to be able to do so.
I had a colleague ones how was probably the strongest E–P I have ever met, and he could task switch like crazy, but was not able to put a folder back on my desk correctly 🙂
I’ve always been amazed at an ISTJ I work withs ability to resume a task immediately when coming back to it. Complex task and just back from a 2 week vacation? Doesn’t matter, he’s going right away with no ramp up time. It’s like a computer in sleep mode and he just wakes it up ready to go where as I need to boot up and reopen all programs every time.
I understand you confusion HANNU,
because even some expert Type Teachers have not understood the elegant use of the J /P code as explained by Joel and Antonia in many fine Podcasts. Many folk erroneously think and therefore teach that the J stands for Judging Types, and P stands for Perceiving Types. This mistake has been perpetuated for a 100 years. No. As Antonia explains, P stands for Perceiving Extraverted only. J stands for Judging Extroverted only. Nowhere did Myers and Briggs try to have the J and P code alone indicate one’s Dominant Function. J and P only stand for the directional attitude of the function you prefer to extravert. It is therefore a guide as to what opposite function your prefer to introvert.
It is the use of the First and Fourth letter codes together that gets to the dominant function in attitude. And only then if the forced-choice questions are answered in a consistently clear CHOICE on the two scales – E – I dichotomy and J – P dichotomy.
The two letter pair in the code results mean that Dominant Perceiving Types prefer E and P or I and J while Dominant Judging Types prefer E and J or I and P.
As Jung often said, all introverted functions by their private, inner world nature are difficult to observe out in the objective world. Extraverted functions are more easy to identify. So you need to listen to the content of what is being extraverted to pick the function being used and expressed and to also pick that function’s directional attitude accurately. E.g. Perceiving function (S/N) content is more about observations being experienced with insights describing the data points. Eg. (Se/ Ne) “Oh look at that large, green umbrella I see over there”. Or Si/Ni “I remember seeing a green umbrella there last week and now it is missing”.
Conversely, Judging function (T/F) content sounds more like decisions about observations and data points. Eg. Te/Fe) That green umbrella has to be moved away because …. Or (Ti/Fi I like it/ I do not like it there because ….).
Thanks for this comment.
you know what, i should start taking notes and make mindmaps from your podcasts, some insights are very indepth and interesting
Thank you Joel and Antonia for your very helpful podcast teaching Jung’s theory about Dominant Perceiving Types and Dominant Judging Types. I have been using Type in my research method first presented in Brisbane in 1998. It took me several long years to understand the wonderful layers within the MBTI ‘s four letter code via many world experts I personally know. Also re-reading Jung more carefully many times. Jung’s major contribution is his theory that a directional attitude towards the subjective Inner or Objective Outer worlds exists and is embedded in the mental functions. In my experience it helps me to know that code P stands for Perceiving Extraverted, no matter if dominant Perceiving for (E – – P) or non dominant for (I — P). And code J means their Perceiving function is Introverted, no matter dominant for (I – -J) or non-dominant for (E – – J). Jung calls his theory the Directional Attitude of the mental functions. After 24 years, my HANDscapes research results indicate that the dominant Judging types have the most clarity or conscious meta knowledge of the directional attitude of their Judging preference. Eg. E – – J types recognize clear descriptions of Te and Fe Judging facets by Linda Berens, Hartzlers, etc. And I – – P types recognize clear descriptions of their introverted judging facets. My delight in using Jung’s theory used by Myers and Briggs and related questionnaires is that if a person has a clear preference for J at the end of the code this indicates the their judging function is Extraverted. Results for I – – J code indicates a Perceiving type with a Supporting extraverted Judging function. However, when a person like above has a confusion about preferring INFJ or INFP descriptions, their brain and/or life experience may indicate a genuine SLIGHT preference for J versus P when answering the questionnaires. Slight preferences exist and are more complicated. I think that clearly preferred code results help demonstrate Jung’s theories about 1. The directional attitude embedded in mental function preferences. 2. There are Dominant Perceiving and Judging types as per his theory. 3. Expert questionnaires including yours get results for discussion about the code’s meanings. Eg. P means a Perception Extraverted preference and J means a Perception Introverted preference. As your podcast explains, our needs use both worlds but where does our brain prefer to process each function. Thank you for all your fine teaching work around our world. Liz in Australia
Thanks for another stimulating discussion and your heads up about journaling. I have interesting break throughs sometimes but I don’t write them down and frequently lose them. I’m going to start taking notes on my internal processing on occasion because of you guys. It also helps explain why I get so frustrated with my boyfriend occasionally when he breaks my chain of thought. Not his fault; just the way I roll.
Yet another amazing clarification of the framework – I’ve never really thought of being a P-type as “preferring inner-order” but that describes me perfectly.
I can’t quite relate to the idea of maintaining external order while having “inner freedom,” this is something I really need to think about. Pretty sure my wife is a J type (can’t seem to get her interested in typology at all despite trying multiple times, but I have a strong guess of ISFJ right now working from my own observation of the inferior & tertiary dynamics) and there’s just something going on inside her I can’t relate with or simulate, that this probably shines some light on.
OTOH, I’m quite familiar with my 11yo daughter (educated guess ISFP) talking about, asking people about their preferences on things and conveying what appears to be an internal order of preferences for everything & a strict “seeking of sovereignty” as I see it.
Hot take after a tense morning dropping a kid off at his camp-
Judging types – Arranging things and ordering things in the external world without thinking about the order of the finer details and then passing responsibility over to the P-type (drop off at “xyz field”, but how do you get to the registration desk? Why did they not mention “park in the Union garage off Emerson” in the instructions?? Come to think of it, why did this J-type not leave me the brochure/flier with a contact phone# I could use to get more information? Oh and some parents showed up with 2 forms but this J-type spouse only informed me of 1 form, what’s that about?)
Perceiving types – Comb the experience down to the finest of details and bore everyone with the minutiae over text message, while forgetting that I still need to schedule service to have the broken trunk-lid opening switch fixed. (Patting myself on the back for scheduling the glass repair on the windshield, but it’s going to happen during a time window conflicting with picking up said kid from his camp….. then reaching out dutifully to sort out responsibility for who does that)
(This should not be assumed as a generalization, only a vent from the dung heap of a dumpster fire, accept judgments accordingly)
I have a question I’ve been trying to ponder about my type. I’ve always tested as an INFJ, and I relate to the functions. Although, I feel like a bad Fe user compared to others I’ve observed. I’ve never tested as INFP except on one specific test by Personality Junkie. This test definitely defines me as a P type based on behaviors of openness, going with the flow, adaptable, and not outwardly sharing judgements/opinions. I relate to that and have been told that’s true of me since I’m quiet and keep a lot to myself only showing happy, positive “I’ll go with u” on whatever decision. What confuses me is why no other test reports that. I don’t identify as spontaneous at all. I like routine and familiarity. I’m not one to go out and explore which is why I’ve never related to INFP cognitive functions. I don’t relate to Fi at all either. I’ve only ever related to Fi description by Personality Junkie that talks about limited affection in plants, animals, or specific people and less likely to want to create outward harmony. As a mental health therapist, I prefer one on one sessions. I have to hold groups as part of my job, and clients always like me for being laid back and letting them take the lead and decide. I prefer not to direct or control others or even tell them what to do.
I say all of this as a way of asking for help in finding clarification. Would this be a good 10 minute type question? Are there any resources that could help?
Maybe other nods in the system like enneagram 9 sexual subtype and history or social anxiety and depression influence my behaviors. I grew up with dominant xSFJ parents where that agenda was pushed. I also don’t find it easy to get in touch with my own opinions of emotions. I can tell you what someone else is feeling before my own.
Thanks,
Luke
For what its worth you sound like an INFP.
Thank you Antonia,
I’m not sure where I took a wrong turn there. After ignoring my own mess and re-asking myself where do all functions grave for freedom, the naming convention became more logical. It seems that the extraverted functions are easier to pinpoint in relation to freedom/order. According to this line of thought Si (Memory) would want inner freedom although one might think that memories require order for the ease of access. But here I’m probably mixing memory as function and as a repository.
For myself, it might be that the Ti-Ni loop and the overuse of Ni have emphasized the need for inner freedom. I can also imagine that in such situation the Se might be under-developed also in this sense. In other words, I’m not sure what inner order and structure look like for Ti. As you mentioned in the podcast, the idea of inner structure is hard to grasp.
Anyway, after these thoughts I do agree that the current naming convention is good while it contains this kind of deeper insight.
Thank you so much for this.
So Ive always been back and forth between whether I’m an INFP and INFJ. I think because as my life has changed, so have I. As I was listening to this, I was still having a hard time figuring out what resonates with me more. Definitely as a younger person, I felt very: go with the flow. But as life got more complicated, I felt to just keep everything and everyone happy and together, I’ve needed more organization. I think my true preference is for a light plan that gives a direction, but that can easily be changed if the needs or wants arise.
It was kinda funny, just after I finished listening to this, my (ENTJ) husband asked me (as he often does), whats your plan for today? And i was like, (in my head) oh my gosh, whatever I need to do and whatever I usually do. If I have time ill look at my list and pick something that needs done. Outwardly, i think I just gave him a blank stare ?. Until I could verbalize something first thing in the morning…
So what do you think? P or J?
Thanks Joel & Antonia,
I do have a point to make about ‘wandering around’ in Si (Memory) space. My belief is that using this function does not just involve ‘straight-up’ remembering and reflecting thereof, I think it can also involve conjuring up and playing around with hypothetical-scenarios, based on things directly experienced that followed a similar pattern. This could be an attempt to do Ne (exploration) in Si (Memory) space.
I think in short that it would be a discredit to Si to frame it as if it were an ‘unimaginative’ function. You could argue that what I have described above is a ‘bad’ use of Si-Ne and you are actually supposed to go out there ‘disrupting’ a load of patterns in the outer world, and observe the results, rather than just sit around imagining what could happen. I’m sure there’s an element of truth to this, but actually it’s about getting the balance right between the two, especially as it is hugely impractical and destructive to just go around disrupting everything you want without care for the consequences, not to mention the extreme difficulty of getting yourself into every situation you care to be in!
I know you’ve mentioned ‘catastrophizing’ as a low-end use of Si-Ne for ISJs, so you must already realise that Si-Ne can be used for imagining scenarios. However, I’m unclear why ISJs are only acknowledged as using their imaginations in a ‘negative’ way.
Sorry if this is all a bit ‘off-piste’, it’s just been bugging me for a while now.
Catastrophizing is one of the ways Ne ‘grips’ an ISxJs, but definitely not the only way ISxJs experience their inferior.
I think we’ve discussed before how ISxJs will do exactly what you’re describing – “Ne” or pattern recognize a situation they’ve already experienced to dig more understanding out of it (which is why Si/Ne can sometimes look like Ni), and even (as you so wonderfully described) “play” with a scenario built upon markers of familiar territory. And while integrating inferior Ne should be done in the real world, there is a lot of benefit for ISxJs “Ne’ing” inside of themselves.
My apologies if we’ve made it sound like Ne is only used as grip for ISxJs. I’ll be sure to be more clear about that in future episodes.
-A-
Thanks for responding.
Even though functions weren’t discussed in this podcast, I’m going to because they raise some questions against this judger/perceiver -dichotomy. If one compares the functions of each type, one soon notices that the J/P letter of the type matches the kind of the strongest (driver) function for all the extraverted types but none of the introverted types. For the introverted types, the last letter (J/P) matches the kind of the second strongest (co-pilot) function. For example, the strongest function of an estP is Sensation (SE) which is a perceiving function but the strongest function of an istP is Accuracy (TI) which is a judging function and the perceiving Sensation-function comes only second.
This seems a bit illogical to me and makes me wonder. What am I not seeing in this picture? I can imagine two possibilities (and there are probably more)
1. There are deeper things in the system than the functions. One cannot only look at the functions or the function-polarities. The idea that the driver function has the most effect on all aspects of the personality is flawed.
2. There was a mistake in naming the introverted types but the system is so old that they cannot be corrected.
I think I saw somewhere a mention that the J/P -letter refers to the way how each type appears to the outside world. This is how it indeed seems to be as the letter always matches the kind of the first extraverted function: The driver of an extraverted type and the co-pilot of an introverted type. While I agree that as belonging to a social species, we humans are at least partially who we appear to be, but yet I think that we may have a different perception of ourselves internally. Since the dichotomy is about preference over inner order and external chaos or inner chaos and external order, it seems to emphasize the interconnectedness of the extraverted and intraverted sides of a personality.
I’m afraid I might be mixing things here but my goal is to understand why has it been decided that the strongest extraverted function should define the last letter of the type acronyms?
Think of the four letter code as a decoder ring to find the functions. If you see them mostly that way, it becomes easier to understand why a consistent formula would be used (even if it’s a little complicated and has some seeming inconsistency).
An attempt to ‘fix’ the challenge you mentioned about was made in Socionics. They designate the J and P based on the dominant function for the reasons you mention. They add a capital J and P for Extravert types, and a little j and p for Introvert types. So, if you’re an Extraverted type you will remain consistent between both systems, but an Introvert will be the opposite J/P from Myers-Briggs. For example, an ESTP in Socionics and Myers-Briggs are the same (both using Se and Ti). But an ISTp in Socionics would be an ISTJ in Myers-Briggs (both using Si and Te). And an ISTj in Socionics would be an ISTP in Myers-Briggs (both using Ti and Se).
Some people think it helps to designate by the dominant function, but I honestly do not believe it adds clarity. It adds another layer of complexity to remembering the formula. For me, I think “all Judgers extravert their judging function, and all Perceivers extravert their perceiving function regardless of dominant/auxiliary preference” was much simpler to figure out than “All dominant judging types that are Extraverts have a capital J, all dominant perceiving types that are Extraverts have a capital P, but all dominant judging types that are introverts have a lower case j and all dominant perceiving types have a lower case p because they act like the reverse J/P designation in the outer world.” But that’s just a personal preference.
Ultimately, it’s a code that carries a lot of information, and so it’s hard to make that more elegant than it already is.
-A-