Judging vs. Perceiving: What’s the Difference?

To most people, Judging vs. Perceiving probably seems rather straightforward. I mean, judgers are the organized, responsible planners, while perceivers are the chaotic, impulsive, and carefree… right? Well, it’s actually not quite that cut and dry. In my personal opinion, the Judging vs. Perceiving dichotomy, in and of itself, doesn’t actually explain very much about someone. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that it’s probably the most useless dichotomy in the Myers-Briggs theory. However, it isn’t completely without significance. In this article, I’m going to give a general overview of the Judging vs. Perceiving dichotomy, including what it does and does not indicate.

How Does Judging and Perceiving Relate to the Cognitive Functions?

Most Myers-Briggs dichotomies, the ones originally identified by Carl Jung, correlate directly to pairs of cognitive functions. For instance, Thinking in the Thinking vs. Feeling dichotomy has two corresponding functions: Extraverted Thinking (Te) and Introverted Thinking (Ti). Feeling, Sensing, and Intuition also each break down into two potential cognitive functions, one introverted and one extraverted. However, the same cannot be said about Judging and Percieving. Why?

From a cognitive function standpoint, Judging and Perceiving is actually more of a designation, than a dichotomy. Being a judger simply indicates that a person’s most preferred extraverted function is a judging function. Conversely, a perceiver’s preferred extraverted function is a perceiving function. Of course, this preferred extraverted function will only be dominant in the extraverts. For the introverts, it will be auxiliary, or their second function. However, since the extraverted function is the one that’s most often display to the world, the J/P designation makes a degree of sense.

The Judging and Perceiving Functions

The Judging functions encompass two pairs of cognitive functions, totaling to four. The judging functions are our “logic” functions, or decision-making functions. They apply reason to our perceptions, and come to judgements. This is why Carl Jung actually referred to dominant judgers (or those whose dominant function is a judging function) as rationals.

The judging functions are Introverted Thinking (Ti), Introverted Feeling (Fi), Extraverted Thinking (Te), and Extraverted Feeling (Fe).

The Perceiving functions also encompass two pairs of cognitive functions, totaling to four. The perceiving functions are perception functions, or focused on forming perceptions of reality. These functions do not attribute value or apply judgements to these perceptions. They simply perceive or absorb information in whatever form each specific function prefers. This is why Carl Jung referred to dominant perceivers as irrationals.

The perceiving functions are Introverted Intuition (Ni), Introverted Sensing (Si), Extraverted Intuition (Ne), and Extraverted Sensing (Se).

Bottom Line: judgers have either Te or Fe within their top two functions. Whereas, perceivers have Se or Ne within their top two functions.

Judging vs. Perceiving Misconceptions

1. Perceivers are adaptable, while judgers aren’t

According to Jung, this is actually incorrect. The most adaptable types are the extraverts, because they adjust themselves based on external information. In addition, extraverts are usually the quickest to respond to what’s going on around them, because the introvert’s instinct is to process internally first. Now, with that being said, the IJ types will (on average) be the least adaptable of all the types, while the EP types will be the most adaptable. However, as extraverts, EJs won’t be far behind the EPs, which is why so many EJs mistype as perceiving types.

Read More: Introversion vs Extraversion

2. Judgers are judgmental, while perceivers are open-minded

Some people fall in the trap of thinking that Judging types will be more judgmental by default, which is incorrect. How open-minded or judgmental someone is largely depends on other factors, like their background, their influences, their worldview, how specific their opinions/beliefs are, etc. Now, certain personality types are known for coming across as more critical than others (on average), but that can also vary, and it’s going to be context-specific. The bottom line is that anyone can be judgmental, and anyone can be open-minded (i.e.: accepting of others and their differences). For the record, the open-mindedness tied to Ne, or the NPs, is not the same thing as what I’m referring to here. While associating this term with NPs is not incorrect, it has created a lot of confusion.

3. Judgers are organized, while perceivers aren’t

It’s true that Judging types, on average, prefer an organized environment, while Perceiving types, on average, are more indifferent to chaos in their environment. However, you have to be a bit careful in using this as a basis for identifying someone’s personality type, for a couple of different reasons. First, the main cognitive functions that desire a form of order are Te and Si. Te wants external structure and Si wants physical consistency. A Judger without either of these functions may appear more like a Perceiver in the stereotypical organization sense. I’m primarily referring to the NFJs here. Additionally, many perceivers learn that some degree of organization is necessary to be successful in life or to keep up with their responsibilities. In other words, over time, perceivers might develop habits that are stereotypically associated with judgers.

Note: I’ve seen some people describe percievers as ordering their internal world, while judgers order their external world. While that seems like a logical statement to make, a lot of perceivers do not relate to it. (Those with Si might.) Feel free to inform me otherwise.

What Can The J vs. P Dichotomy Tell Us?

Perceivers focus on the journey, while judgers focus on the outcome

Stereotypically, judgers are the responsible ones who get things done, while perceivers are the lazy, carefree, distractible ones, who enjoy life. Obviously, this is an unfair stereotype, but as with most stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth hidden in it. Namely, in life, perceivers naturally prioritize the exploratory process, or the “journey” as many people like to call it, while judgers naturally prioritize reaching a certain endpoint, or fulfilling a specific vision.

Of course, as mentioned, this tendency does provoke people to mistakenly describe perceivers as lazy, and judgers as hard-working. However, in reality, it has more to do with judgers envisioning things a certain way, whether for better or for worse. (The lazy or ineffective Judger gets stuck on a vision, but does nothing to get there, while simultaneously being incapable of accepting current reality.) On the other hand, perceivers tend to keep things more general, or subject to change. The responsible perceiver may have a general vision for their future or a general direction for their life, but these things aren’t usually overly precise. (The lazy or ineffective Perceiver has no specific vision or direction for their life, and just aimlessly follows their impulses or whims.)

The above distinction actually accounts for several of the common judging vs. perceiving characteristics, that people associate with this dichotomy. I want to address some of these individually.

1. Planning vs. Improvisation

Judgers are known for being planners, while perceivers prefer to rely on spontaneity or improvisation. It is certainly true that, on average, a Judger will prefer to prepare for whatever is coming next. Many tend to not like to be thrown into new situations without any kind of warning or advanced notice. However, sometimes, the same can be said about certain IXXP types, since introversion makes them a bit less adaptable. In addition, NPs often view themselves as planners, because they like to run mental simulations of possible future scenarios. The difference between judgers and perceivers in this category is going to have more to do with how much they value the plan.

Here’s what I mean by that.

Because perceivers prioritize the journey or the process, they’re prone to getting waylaid or distracted, whether that be because they want to explore options or simply live for the moment rather than constantly for the future. In other words, any plans made are still extremely subject to change, and may be thrown out a moment’s notice. On the other hand, judgers rely more on planning or preparation to ensure specific outcomes, which is why they may come across as less flexible than perceivers. Although, the EXXJ types are usually adept at adjusting their plans mid-action, while the IXXJ types rely much more on prediction and forethought.

2. Closure vs. Procrastination

Judgers are known for desiring closure, while perceivers like to put things off until the last possible moment. Of course, this makes sense if judgers are outcome-focused, and perceivers are journey-focused. However, this type of thing is influenced greatly by external factors. For instance, a perceiver from a structured househould may find themselves (a majority of the time) completing tasks or making decisions early to “get it over with”, so they can move on to the fun stuff. On the other hand, a judger might appear to procastinate on making a decision, because they’re trying to gather as much information as possible so they can make the best decision possible.

The reality here is that a lot of people don’t like having decisions hanging over their heads, even perceivers. (Of course, some people are more bothered by it than others.) Similarily, the notion that only judgers enjoy marking stuff off their to-do list is somewhat narrow-minded. It could easily apply to the perceiver that has been weighed down by responsibilities.

3. Starting vs. Completing

Similar to some of the above points, perceivers are known for being energized by the start of projects. They’ll ride that wave of initial excitement until it wears off, and then they’ll move on to something new. This lack of follow through emphasizes the journey-focus. If it’s not fun, why continue? (Of course, depending on context, this also wreaks of irresponsibility. The responsible and disciplined perceiver won’t just abandon projects or tasks that actually matter, and the irresponsible judger might once it gets too hard to continue.)

In contrast, judgers are supposed to get more of a thrill from the completion of a project, making them more willing to push through that monotonous or “boring” phase. Of course, given my earlier explanation concerning judgers and plans, the logic follows that a judger would be more likely to see something through to completion if they spent a bunch of time planning or preparing for it. However, that’s not to say that they‘ll never decide to give up on a project or a goal partway through because it no longer holds the same priority in their mind.

Although, taking a look at the big picture, it’s important to recognize that everyone gets a thrill or strong feeling of satisfaction from accomplishing something that took a lot of effort and dedication. That’s human nature.

4. Tribe vs. Self

Judgers are supposed to be group-oriented, while perceivers are supposed to be individualistic. The main distinction that I want to make here is that, for judgers, it’s less about being group-oriented, and more about basing their identity on external factors. An FJ is more likely to be “group-oriented” in the classic sense, because their extraverted judging function (Fe) is focused on how they impact people. Many FJs gain a sense of self or self-worth from playing a vital role in other people’s lives. TJs, on the other hand, may or may not be people-focused, but they will focus on external, objective factors to determine their effectiveness and real world value. Judgers won’t necessarily see themselves as not being individualistic though, because these external things are what individually matter to them.

In contrast, perceivers use internal factors to determine their sense or self or identity, which can make them somewhat inflexible when it comes to altering who they are. Rather than adapt themselves to their surroundings, perceivers usually prefer to switch environments, if their identity becomes too at odds with it.

Of course, as with anything, you can’t take this to an extreme. Healthy judgers will also have key aspects of their identity that they’re unwilling to budge on, just like healthy perceivers won’t just cut and run constantly.

In Conclusion…

In my personal opinion, the Judging vs Perceiving dichotomy is the only dichotomy that actually exists on a sliding scale. Of course, this is because it’s not based on specific cognitive functions. Obviously, some people will fit all the stereotypical tendencies for their personality type, so it’ll be easy for them to identify themselves as a judger or a perciever. However, more people than you might think actually slot somewhere in the middle, having some judger traits and some perceiver traits. That’s why it far more important to learn about the individual cognitive functions, to figure out which ones fit best.

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!