We often think of the J-personality types as the lawmakers of the Myers-Briggs. This is due to the fact that their preferred Judging function is directed outwardly, working to create a sense of order and predictability in the outside world. Not only do we think of J-types as lawmakers, but we also tend to view them as more dutiful or responsible than P-types. This, again, relates to the fact that the laws to which they subscribe are external in nature, making their dutifulness and devotion more readily apparent. In short, we often perceive J-types to be more lawful, dutiful, and responsible than P-types. But is this really the case?
In my recent post, The Laws of P-Types, I outlined how P-types (e.g., ENFPs, INFPs, INTPs) are equally disposed to lawmaking as J-types. The only difference is the direction and locus of application of their laws. Namely, the laws of J-types are external, on ready display. The laws of P-types, by contrast, are introverted in their direction and focus. They are focused on regulating and directing the self. And since the laws of P-types are introverted, they are not readily observed or understood from without.
So if P-types create laws to the same extent as J-types, we are caused to wonder if P-types might not also be equally dutiful and responsible. After all, why would they create laws for themselves if they did not have the intention of following them? In my view, P-types have the potential to be just as dutiful and just as responsible as J-types. In order to do so, however, P-types must develop a consistent set of laws to follow. And this can be one of their greatest challenges.
One of the advantages for J-types is that many of the laws they follow are pre-existing. Many Fe and Te laws are collective in nature, so all the J-type has to do is learn and follow them (e.g., the Ten Commandments). This is why SJ types, in particular, have the reputation for being so staunchly loyal and dutiful to tradition and convention. They see it as unnecessary to over-analyze what they should do, but merely see it as their role to follow the pregiven rules.
For P-types, by contrast, finding a favorable set of rules is not so easy (especially for NP types). Rather than importing laws from without, P-types feel they must decide for themselves what their governing rules should be. Before doing so, however, they see it necessary to understand and define the self. They consider self-knowledge a prerequisite for self-governance. While many have noted the desire of P-types to understand themselves, they often overlook the fact that, especially for IPs, this is not the end of the story. P-types want to understand themselves in order to more effectively govern and direct themselves; self-understanding is a means to that end. If they are successful in chartering a coherent set of inner rules and precepts, they can act with a similar degree of conviction and dutifulness as J-types. Consider the lives of Immanuel Kant (INTP), Soren Kierkegaard (INFP), or William James (ENTP) as examples.
This discussion has some definite moral implications. Namely, for P-types, especially IPs, there is the sense that morality is not based on following the laws “out there” (i.e., Te or Fe laws), so much as following the laws “in here,” that is, their own inner directives. From the perspective of a J-type, a P-type who is acting according to an unseen inner law might be viewed as acting immorally, especially when that law runs contrary to an existing outer law. From the P’s perspective, however, he is acting dutifully by holding fast to his own inner law. This is not to say that the laws of Js and Ps will always be at odds with each other. Nor is it to say that P-types think only of themselves in their lawmaking efforts. The take home point is that, in order to feel authentic, the laws of P-types must be derived from within.
In sum, P-types can be understood as seeking self-knowledge as a means to more effective self-governance and self-direction. For INTPs & INFPs in particular, finding a “purpose in life” presumes finding themselves first. And while there are certainly some commonalities in the ways that FPs and TPs go about doing so, there are also some noteworthy differences. We will explore these differences in the next post in this series.
Related Posts:
