Rationals (Judgers) xxxJ

[Jarno]

I wonder, do rationals see themselves as having a kind of disadvantage?

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

[EyeSeeCold]

Can you be more explicit on the disadvantage?


The party example makes the difference out to be last-minute adaptability vs planned directiveness.

[tcaudilllg]

Seems to me that the defining trait of a judging type is looking at an irrational situation, and seeing something immediately wrong with it.

[717495]

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

Simplified pop-psychology:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...perceiving.asp

Judging (J)
I use my decision-making (Judging) preference (whether it is Thinking or Feeling) in my outer life. To others, I seem to prefer a planned or orderly way of life, like to have things settled and organized, feel more comfortable when decisions are made, and like to bring life under control as much as possible.

Since this pair only describes what I prefer in the outer world, I may, inside, feel flexible and open to new information (which I am).

Do not confuse Judging with judgmental, in its negative sense about people and events. They are not related.

The following statements generally apply to me:
* I like to have things decided.
* I appear to be task oriented.
* I like to make lists of things to do.
* I like to get my work done before playing.
* I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
* Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information.

Here, the rational type:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types

I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment. But we must not overlook the point, whether by 'reasoning' we are referring to the standpoint of the individual's subjective psychology, or to the standpoint of the observer, who perceives and judges from without. For such an observer could easily arrive at an opposite judgment, especially if he has a merely intuitive apprehension of the behaviour of the observed, and judges accordingly. In its totality, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality. If observation is restricted to behaviour, without any concern for the domestic interior of the individual's consciousness, one may get an even stronger impression of the irrational and accidental character of certain unconscious manifestations in the individual's behaviour than of the reasonableness of his conscious purposes and motivations. I, therefore, base my judgment upon what the individual feels to be his conscious psychology. But I am prepared to grant that we may equally well entertain a precisely opposite conception of such a psychology, and present it accordingly. I am also convinced that, had I myself chanced to possess a different individual psychology, I should have described the rational types in the reversed way, from the standpoint of the unconscious-as irrational, therefore. This circumstance aggravates the difficulty of a lucid presentation of psychological matters to a degree not to be underestimated, and immeasurably increases the possibility of misunderstandings. The discussions which develop from these misunderstandings are, as a rule, quite hopeless, since the real issue is never joined, each side speaking, as it were, in a different tongue. Such experience is merely one reason the more for basing my presentation upon the subjective conscious psychology of the individual, since there, at least, one has a definite objective footing, which completely [p. 454] drops away the moment we try to ground psychological principles upon the unconscious. For the observed, in this case, could undertake no kind of co-operation, because there is nothing of which he is not more informed than his own unconscious. The judgment would entirely devolve upon the observer -- a certain guarantee that its basis would be his own individual psychology, which would infallibly be imposed upon the observed. To my mind, this is the case in the psychologies both of Freud and of Adler. The individual is completely at the mercy of the arbitrary discretion of his observing critic -- which can never be the case when the conscious psychology of the observed is accepted as the basis. After all, he is the only competent judge, since he alone knows his own motives.

The reasonableness that characterizes the conscious management of life in both these types, involves a conscious exclusion of the accidental and non-rational. Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment. It is not the absolute strength of sensation, for instance, which turns the scales in the motivation of action, but judgment, Thus, in a certain sense, the perceiving-functions share the same fate as feeling in the case of the first type, or thinking in that of the second. They are relatively repressed, and therefore in an inferior state of differentiation. This circumstance gives a particular stamp to the unconscious [p. 455] of both our types; what such men do consciously and intentionally accords with reason (their reason of course), but what happens to them corresponds either with infantile, primitive sensations, or with similarly archaic intuitions. I will try to make clear what I mean by these latter concepts in the sections that follow. At all events, that which happens to this type is irrational (from their own standpoint of course). Now, since there are vast numbers of men whose lives consist in what happens to them more than in actions resulting from reasoned intention, it might conceivably happen, that such a man, after careful analysis, would describe both our types as irrational. We must grant him, however, that only too often a man's unconscious makes a far stronger impression upon one than his conscious, and that his actions often have considerably more weight and meaning than his reasoned motivations.

The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint. Subjectively they consider nothing rational save what is generally considered as such. But reason is also very largely subjective and individual. In our case this share is repressed -- increasingly so, in fact, the more the significance of the object is exalted, Both the subject and subjective reason, therefore, are always threatened with repression and, when it descends, they fall under the tyranny of the unconscious, which in this case possesses most unpleasant qualities. We have already spoken of its thinking. But, in addition, there are primitive sensations, which reveal themselves in compulsive forms, as, for instance, an abnormal compulsive pleasure seeking in every conceivable direction ; there are also primitive intuitions, which can become a positive torture to the individuals concerned, not to mention their entourage. Everything disagreeable and painful, everything disgusting, [p. 456] ugly, and evil is scented out or suspected, and these as a rule only correspond with half-truths, than which nothing is more calculated to create misunderstandings of the most poisonous kind. The powerful influence of the opposing unconscious contents necessarily brings about a frequent interruption of the rational conscious government, namely, a striking subservience to the element of chance, so that, either by virtue of their sensational value or unconscious significance, accidental happenings acquire a compelling influence.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

5. Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types

Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning [p. 496] judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data. But the predominance of one or other factor, conditioned by a psychic disposition often existing from early youth, deflects the reasoning function. For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible. A rational type has always a typical reasonal variation. Thus, the introverted rational types unquestionably have a reasoning judgment, only it is a judgment whose leading note is subjective. The laws of logic are not necessarily deflected, since its onesidedness lies in the premise. The premise is the predominance of the subjective factor existing beneath every conclusion and colouring every judgment. Its superior value as compared with the objective factor is self-evident from the beginning. As already stated, it is not just a question of value bestowed, but of a natural disposition existing before all rational valuation. Hence, to the introvert rational judgment necessarily appears to have many nuances which differentiate it from that of the extravert. Thus, to the introvert, to mention the most general instance, that chain of reasoning which leads to the subjective factor appears rather more reasonable than that which leads to the object. This difference, which in the individual case is practically insignificant, indeed almost unnoticeable, effects unbridgeable oppositions in the gross; these are the more irritating, the less we are aware of the minimal standpoint displacement produced by the psychological premise in the individual case. A [p. 497] capital error regularly creeps in here, for one labours to prove a fallacy in the conclusion, instead of realizing the difference of the psychological premise. Such a realization is a difficult matter for every rational type, since it undermines the apparent, absolute validity of his own principle, and delivers him over to its antithesis, which certainly amounts to a catastrophe.

Almost more even than the extraverted is the introverted type subject to misunderstanding: not so much because the extravert is a more merciless or critical adversary, than he himself can easily be, but because the style of the epoch in which he himself participates is against him. Not in relation to the extraverted type, but as against our general accidental world-philosophy, he finds himself in the minority, not of course numerically, but from the evidence of his own feeling. In so far as he is a convinced participator in the general style, he undermines his own foundations, since the present style, with its almost exclusive acknowledgment of the visible and the tangible, is opposed to his principle. Because of its invisibility, he is obliged to depreciate the subjective factor, and to force himself to join in the extraverted overvaluation of the object. He himself sets the subjective factor at too low a value, and his feelings of inferiority are his chastisement for this sin. Little wonder, therefore, that it is precisely our epoch, and particularly those movements which are somewhat ahead of the time, that reveal the subjective factor in every kind of exaggerated, crude and grotesque form of expression. I refer to the art of the present day.

The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and [p. 498] protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert. Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judment of 'egoist' would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by its general efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.

.

[Lobo]

I wonder, do rationals see themselves as having a kind of disadvantage?

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

When it comes to be very easy-going, I do see myself at a disadvantage. It's hard for me sometimes to just go with the flow of events. Actually, I prefer not to know about a party until the last minute because then I get anxiety from an impending event (never fails). Future events are registered in the back of my mind, and it's close to impossible for me not to prepare for it in some way or another. It's an advantage in that I'll surely be prepared and on time (on the dot), but it does suck when things like a party aren't suppose to cause stress .

[Raver]

I think it all balances out in the end because irrationals have trouble simply getting something that needs to be done and this can get in the way of having fun if you're worrying about things that rationals would of finished easily.

[Cat King Cole]

So far in this thread I'm looking like a Rational type. I think that speaks of an obvious problem.

[Jarno]

When it comes to be very easy-going, I do see myself at a disadvantage. It's hard for me sometimes to just go with the flow of events.

yes that's what I meant indeed.

It seems they can be so stubborn and rigid at times that it is difficult for themselves to cope with it.

[The Ineffable]

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

That doesn't not describe Socionics j/p. Also, if that were true, the Duality between Rationals would have been implausible.

That "catch the train else you'll be left behind" is more of an Ethical Rational attitude than an Irrational. In fact I don't know what made you conclude that such readiness can be an Irrational quality...

[FDG]

I wonder, do rationals see themselves as having a kind of disadvantage?

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

That depends on whether such judger had planned to do something else or not. Otherwise I can't see why a last-minute invitation would be refused. Unless by "in advance" you mean 30 mins - 1 h.

[consentingadult]

I wonder, do rationals see themselves as having a kind of disadvantage?

From my perspective (perceiver), I tend to see them that way. If somebody calls me to go to a party, I stand up and go. But judgers can't do this, they need to know it in advance, so they can prepare for it. They are also easely stressed and can't change their mind quickly.

This is how I see many rationals as well. I used to have an LSE friend who I used to call on Friday evenings asking "What are you doing tonite?", he'd typically answer "Uhhh, nothing, just watching TV". So I would ask him if he wanted to join going somewhere, and he never ever accepted. If, however, I would ask him 3 weeks ahead, it would pretty much always be a yes.

Same thing with my current rational friends, acquitances and even family members. You always have to file a request in three-fold five weeks ahead if you want to meet with them. Consequence: I only meet them very occasionally. Fortunately, there are also irrationals in my network!

[Bardia]

I don't have a problem with spontaneous plans. Someone can call me up when I'm not busy and say lets go do this, meet in 10 minutes and I'll be good if I'm not doing anything. The problem is if I already have plans I will most likely go with whatever I have planned unless the new thing is a rare opportunity such as someone calling me up saying they have an extra ticket to a concert of a band I really like or something like that. Also, it's really frustrating when people cancel plans, change plans to something I don't want to do, or are consistently an hour late late. Those are the kind of things that annoy me.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Guys, this isn't Myers-Briggs.

[Galen]

I always interrupt the things I'm doing in order to do completely different things. If you aren't like me then you're just a weird person and I don't want anything to do with you. True fact.

[The Ineffable]

I always interrupt the things I'm doing in order to do completely different things. If you aren't like me then you're just a weird person and I don't want anything to do with you. True fact.

Do you sometimes cancel plans too, like the bad examples of Bardia, cracka, etc?

[cracka]

I don't have a problem with spontaneous plans. Someone can call me up when I'm not busy and say lets go do this, meet in 10 minutes and I'll be good if I'm not doing anything. The problem is if I already have plans I will most likely go with whatever I have planned unless the new thing is a rare opportunity such as someone calling me up saying they have an extra ticket to a concert of a band I really like or something like that. Also, it's really frustrating when people cancel plans, change plans to something I don't want to do, or are consistently an hour late late. Those are the kind of things that annoy me.

I concur with everything said in this post. The easiest way to not be friends with me is to cancel on me or be late most of the time. I usually will give someone a chance or two but after that I won't go out of my way to hang out with someone. If this makes anyone feel that I'm at a disadvantage in life, oh well...lol.

[FDG]

I don't have a problem with spontaneous plans. Someone can call me up when I'm not busy and say lets go do this, meet in 10 minutes and I'll be good if I'm not doing anything. The problem is if I already have plans I will most likely go with whatever I have planned unless the new thing is a rare opportunity such as someone calling me up saying they have an extra ticket to a concert of a band I really like or something like that. Also, it's really frustrating when people cancel plans, change plans to something I don't want to do, or are consistently an hour late late. Those are the kind of things that annoy me.

Yeah, same.

[Begoner]

This is how I see many rationals as well. I used to have an LSE friend who I used to call on Friday evenings asking "What are you doing tonite?", he'd typically answer "Uhhh, nothing, just watching TV". So I would ask him if he wanted to join going somewhere, and he never ever accepted. If, however, I would ask him 3 weeks ahead, it would pretty much always be a yes.

I probably act this way, too. If I've settled down comfortably, made some popcorn, and started watching a good movie, I'd be loathe to interrupt what I'm currently doing. On the other hand, if I weren't doing something particularly engaging, I would be very open to suggestions of doing something else. It's not so much that I need to prepare for something, but that I don't want to interrupt an activity in midstream. Consequently, 2 hours' notice is almost always plenty, and even no notice at all is fine in some cases.

Edit: obviously, I can interrupt an activity under certain circumstances. If the house is burning down, I don't need three weeks' notice to evacuate: I'll put down whatever I'm doing and leave, like any sane person.

[DirectorAbbie]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

[consentingadult]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

I agree they are not as dependable, but why is it a disadvantage in your opinion?

[Bardia]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

I agree they are not as dependable, but why is it a disadvantage in your opinion?

Idk about Abbie but if people are not dependable I will cease trying to hang out with them. Inconsistency signals a lack of interest imo.

When I have something planned I think I unconsciously prepare for it. So when plans are canceled it is a disappointment or when asked to do something I wasn't expecting I may not feel like doing it because I wasn't storing energy or thinking about it.

[EyeSeeCold]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

Manage to oblige me and I'd go to the end of the world to fulfill a task.

[Jarno]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

yes I was interested in the opposite view too.

I guess being dependable is something that others like, but I myself don't find it a disadvantage. Actually you can depend more on me to say yes to a new sudden event than a rational, so I guess it also depends on what you call dependable.

[pianosinger]

Irrationals are at a disadvantage because they're not as dependable.

Not necessarily true.

I am pretty good at keeping my schedule open much of the time. I can often be ready at an hour's notice to drop everything and help a friend, and I often do. How is that not dependable?

Disciplined, I am not. Dependable, I believe I am.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

You want time to prepare for a party because you're shy and middle-class and vulnerable to negative social criticism and need time to 'prepare your defenses' in case somebody says something that you don't like. (The root of social anxiety)

A lot of people are that way though.

Nothing to do with being a judger. I love you a lot dear but I believe that's just an excuse.

This is hard to do and takes practice, but when somebody says things we don't like it's no excuse not to live our own lives, is it? Parties can be a lot of fun! Of course there will be your jerks there that aren't very empathetic to your feelings....but I think if I let them ruin my happiness, then that makes me the weak one. Sometimes I just want to dance like the world is ending and not care what anybody else thinks of me, of how gay I am, of how awkward I am, of all my 'loser qualities' you know? I just want to be....free.

Now I'm trying to lighten up more and enjoy parties and extroverted-ish stuff and not be intimidated by all the manly straight jocks. I'll just hit on them instead and use my gay powers on them. =D