We all judge and perceive – all the time!
That pesky last letter of your type – J or P – is one of the most mysterious of the behaviors. Are judging types the people who pass judgment, and perceiving types the ones who perceive? Not really. In truth, we must perceive in order to judge, and we must judge in order to perceive. Let me explain.
We are all perceiving – and judging – at all times. Perception is the act of experiencing our senses – hearing, proprioception, emotions, etc. So-called “judgment” – a term that made more sense when Carl Jung first popularized it 1921 – is the act of having an internal response to the data our senses provide. We can’t help but perceive, and we can’t help but have a response. There is always input flowing toward us, and we use our response to that input to file a memory of what we experienced.
Hypothetically, you could perceive without judgment, but you would have no memory of what you’d experienced because you would have no way to categorize – and thus “file away” – what had happened. Yet it is important to note that our “judgments” – responses – are as nuanced as they are myriad.
What does it mean to judge?
Judgements in the realm of cognitive perception and neurotypology are not black-and-white experiences, but complex responses to stimuli. A smell might bring nostalgia: we perceive the smell, and our judgment is nostalgia. If that sounds wrong, that’s because it is quite contrary to how we use the word “judgment” today.
Our modern-day use of the word “judgment” is generally about discerning good from bad, wrong from right, or at least optimal from suboptimal. Judgment, colloquially, tends to refer to whether we believe something should be either condemned or excused, curbed or exalted, shunned or embraced. Hence, many cognitive typology aficionados have moved away from using the word “judgment.” The best alternate term I’ve heard comes from Harry Murrell of Cognitive Personality Theory: the concept Carl Jung called judging is best referred to as a codec – a system for encoding data. (The parallel term which Harry has coined for our perceiving functions is lens.)
Feelings and thoughts are two forms of “judgment.” Carl Jung explained feeling in this way in Psychological Types, “Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definitive value in the sense of acceptance or rejection (‘like’ or ‘dislike’).” He observes that “feeling” also refers to the mood we are in, but he adds, “But even a mood, whether it be a general or only partial feeling, implies a valuation; not of one definite, individual conscience content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.”
Examples of perceiving and judging
So far we’ve established that all people receive stimuli and all people encode that stimulation through some kind of response to the stimulation. What, in practical terms, does that actually mean?
If you’re having a discussion with someone, you will have a plethora of inputs – perceptions – associated with the experience. These may include observing: their facial expressions (Se), similarities to past experiences (Si), the concepts they’re trying to convey (Ne), and your own internal dialogue (Ni). These perceptions will have responses within you which may include concluding that: their facial expression is angry (Fe), you also feel angry (Fi), this conversation is a bad pattern (Ti), you need to implement a system to avoid this (Te).
In the above example we’ve explored four forms of observation (perceiving), and four forms of responding (judging). As this example illustrates, all people utilize all eight cognitive functions (which are the internal forms of focus at the heart of typology). We also use all eight behaviors which are typically described as four dichotomies (introversion versus extroversion, sensing versus intuition/abstraction, thinking versus feeling, and perceiving versus judging/responding). Because all people use all eight behaviors externally and all eight of the cognitive functions internally, why do we say that someone is a P or a J in the first place?
Being a P versus a J
Your type is about your preferences. We all developed a hierarchy of preferences at a very young age which is largely built upon skill. When we’re more skilled at a particular method for accomplishing a task, we favor that method. The cognitive function with which you are the best is your dominant one, and all other functions are subservient to the needs of your dominant function. The full hierarchy of our eight cognitive functions is built around our first two, which is why there are sixteen types in total (eight times two makes sixteen possibilities). Your type, however, is only a matter of preference and skill; due to traumas, life circumstances, and growth throughout your life, you will have plenty of idiosyncrasies which are at odds with what is “typical” for your type.
In practical terms, what it means to be a J is being a person of action, organization, and planning. Being a P lends itself to being spontaneous, open-ended, and cautious. However, plenty of Ps are organized – and some are even more attached to closure than their J countertypes. The apparent contradictions are biggest when we look at introverts, which leads us to an exploration of what it really means – at a cognitive functionality level – to be a P or a J.
Your highest extroverted cognitive function is a perceiving function if you’re a P. Your highest extroverted function is a codec if you are a J. Thus, due to your own hierarchy of internal and external behaviors, Js appear to have a preference of responding, and Ps appear to have a preference of perceiving.
Why do I say that this appears to be the case? Because for introverts, your highest extroverted function isn’t your dominant function. Thus, I**J types actually lead (internally and invisibility!) with an introverted perceiving function (Ni or Si), and I**P types actually lead with an introverted codec (Fi or Ti).
Extroverts, of course, lead with an extroverted function, and thus, their dominant function is more obviously visible in their behaviors. E**J types lead with a judging function – a codec (Te or Fe), and E**P types lead with a perceiving function (Ne or Se).
What does this mean for each type?
E*FJs leads with Fe, a codec for how to provide responses that protect emotion-based interests. I*FJs have Fe auxiliary, and thus it is their first extroverted function. Fe in the auxiliary position means that it is either subject to Ni (in INFJs) or Si (in ISFJs), which, in comparison to Fe-dominants, can make the Fe-user occasionally more careful and effective with their social interactions due to prior introspections, but it can also mean being more likely to be mentally elsewhere (such as an INFJ being caught in a Ni-Ti loop).
E*TJs lead with Te, a codec for responding to external perceptions of thoughts or systems. I*TJs have Te auxiliary. These four types have Te in compulsory positions – dominant or auxiliary – and thus come across as judging types. In particular, these types can come across as more stereotypically “judgmental” as the Te function lends itself to more detached and systematic approaches to problems than Fe.
ES*Ps lead with Se, a lens for absorbing external sensory inputs. IS*Ps have an Se auxiliary (which is either serving Fi or Ti). High Se is associated with having better coordination, being more interested in outdoor activities, and generally being a body-centric person. Se dominants often identify more as introverts because their external focus isn’t people-centric, but sensory-centric, often focusing on enjoying the atmosphere or hiking, rather than the company of conversation.
EN*Ps lead with Ne, a lens for absorbing external concepts. IN*Ps have an Ne auxiliary. All four types are known to be very exploratory, continually seeking new abstract inputs to fuel themselves intellectually. Where Se is about the perception of the concrete, physical, tangible, sensory world, Ne is about the abstract, ephemeral, conceptual, mental world. Those with high Ne are generally far more interested in the “Why?” than the “What?”
To summarize:
All people are perceiving and judging at all moments, using a lens and a codec in concert to absorb and sort our experiences.
All people have a preference for honing a particular hierarchy of types of perception (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) and responses (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti).
Whether someone is a P or J is determined by whether their highest extroverted function is perceptual (P) or discerning (J).