“Know Your Judger”: Understanding Judging (J) Personality Types

让我们来搞清楚你的“判定者（J）”人格吧~

By Elaine Schallock

Judgers. Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em…

Spotting a Judger is not exactly an exercise in guesswork. Generally speaking, you’ll know one when you meet one. Anytime the phrase “strong personality” is used to describe somebody you can pretty much bet your bean-pile that “somebody” is a Judger; that’s because Judging types tend to show little restraint when it comes to expressing their opinions, preferences, feelings, methods and viewpoints, often irrespective of whether they’ve actually been asked for them. But as types generally known for “putting everything out there”, it’s ironic the degree to which the plight of Judgers (is that a thing?) remains largely misunderstood.

你不用去猜测一个人是否是“判定者”，通常来说，“判定者”十分好辨认。“判定者”是典型的“强势人格”，这是因为判定类型的人格会直接表达他们的观点，偏好，感情，解决方法和观点，即使他们并没有被要求回答。即使“判定者”会把所有已知内容提供出来，讽刺的是大部分情况下，他们还是会面临被误解的困境。

As A.J. details in his book, My True Type, a “Judger” is any of the personality types that exhibits a preference for Extraverted Judging (Te or Fe) ahead of Introverted Judging (Ti or Fi) in the functional stack (or, more simply, any type ending in “J”). Judgers are marked by their strong desire to facilitate consistency and order in the outside world—either systematically among objects (Te) or relationally among people (Fe). Unlike Perceiving, which is a divergent process that moves toward plurality, Judging, as a convergent process, tends to narrow in on a singularity, or one best option. This is true for Introverted Judging functions as well as Extraverted Judging functions.

正如A.J.在书中详述的，“判定者”是展现出偏好Extraverted Judging (Te or Fe)多于Introverted Judging (Ti or Fi)的一个类型。“判定者”十分显著的是他们最求使外界一致和秩序性的追求，不仅在事物间的系统性，还有人群间的关联性。和知觉者（P）不一样的是，知觉者做决定的过程是一个发散的过程，从熵值爆表的多元对策走向收敛的过程，趋向于得出一个单一的最好的决定。

However, when an Extraverted Judging function (Extraverted Thinking (Te) or Extraverted Feeling (Fe)) is being employed and this singular “best option” emerges, it presents itself objectively, as the “best option” for everyone (a byproduct of the Extraverted direction of Judging)—not merely for the Judger himself. This is the organic product of being a Judger since conclusions are typically made with the larger collective in mind. For Judgers, conclusions are rarely conceived of as products of “opinion” (an unequivocally subjective term), but rather objectively, as “facts”, available for anyone to deduce given the same information they themselves are privy to. They therefore expect that their conclusions will more or less be met with unanimity.

 然而，当“判定者”运用外向判断 (Extraverted Thinking (Te)或 Extraverted Feeling (Fe))后，一个“最好的决定”出现，这不仅是对“判定者”而言的，也是对所有人的“最好的决定”。这是“判定者”的有机产物，因为所有结论都更大程度地在脑海里集合得出。对于“判定者”来说，结论很少是接受“观点”（一个定义不明的主观术语）后的产物，而是更加客观的“事实”，可为接受同样信息的任何人演绎出的结论。于是“判定者”或多或少地希望他们地结论得到全体认可。

(As an aside, readers used to dealing with strong Judgers have likely experienced the almost comical way in which Judgers act genuinely taken aback anytime someone doesn’t see things the same way they do or get on board with their agenda. I can definitively say that this isn’t an “act”; many Judgers truly fail to fathom how it’s possible that others don’t see their conclusions with the same crystal clarity and level of conviction that they do.)

读者可能会看到“判定者”这样一个滑稽的场景，当别人和“判定者”不持同一观点或不同意他们的议程时，“判定者”会退居后方任人安排。我可以确切地看出这并不是表演的行为，许多“判定者”不能够彻底了解他人看待他们的结论，并不像“判定者”那样清晰和明确。

The presumption of unanimity often leads Judgers to push their agenda through unquestioningly, mindless of any individual protestations. Whether real or imagined, the perceived “collective consensus” naturally takes precedence over any individual objection in the mind of the Judger.Keen readers of course will interpret this as a euphemistic way of saying that Judgers have a tendency to come off as a wee bit, well…domineering. This naturally tends to rub some people the wrong way.

放任的同意经常导致“判定者”毫无疑虑地推进他们的议程，而不顾个人的反对。“集体一致性”在“判定者”看来要比个人反对的声音理所应当的重要一点。敏锐的读者可能会把这个解读为“判定者”比较强势，专横。

Introvert Perceivers (IP types) in particular struggle with what they perceive as overbearing behavior from Judgers since from their vantage point individual concerns (the central focus of IP types) are being steamrolled and violated. It isn’t uncommon for IPs to accuse Judgers of being tyrannical. This is understandable; after all, it’s the job of IPs to protect the little guy and support the underdog—if only for the symbolic purpose of reminding the world that unchecked authoritarianism is unacceptable.

内向直觉者（IP）会尤其感知到“判定者”令人难以忍受的行为，因为他们的优势：对个人需求的关注（IP人格的中心点）被粉碎和孤立了。而且IPs也不会去指责“判定者”的强势。这是可以理解的，毕竟IPs的工作就是保护弱小者和劣势者，因为未经抑制的权威主义是难以接受的。

But while the position of the IP type is understandable, so is that of the Judger. People and objects simply do not exist as islands. Some situations, by their very nature, are complex, affecting systems or groups of people and so require large-scale decision-making, whether we like it or not. It is not always practical, or even possible, to survey every potential individual consideration or objection before a decision must be made. Necessity occasionally demands that someone step forward and spearhead large-scale decision-making processes (ideally as democratically as possible).

既然IPs所处的位置是可以被理解的，“判定者”也是可以被理解的。人和物都不是孤立存在的。有一些情况，究其本质是十分复杂的，并且受多元系统和人群的影响，所以它需要大规模的决策制定，不管我们喜欢与否。“判定者”也并不实际，它可能在做决定前，已经涵盖了每一种可能性和每种可能发出的反对声音。一个首先站出来发声和做决定的人是十分必要的。

But here’s the rub: there is a considerable amount of responsibility associated with making pronouncements and decisions for the collective and—when pressed—most people confess that they really don’t want to shoulder that burden. But sometimes it’s unavoidable; have you ever observed what happens when a group of people is trying to make a decision about something (where to have lunch, for example)? Often, everyone will silently look questioningly at each other briefly before fixating all on the Judger, as if to say, “You’ll spearhead a decision for us, right?”

但矛盾点在于，相当有可能发生这么一种情况发生在为集体做决策的人身上，当所有人受到压力时，集体大部分人会坦言自已不想承担这份压力。这种情况有时是无法避免的，你是否观察到，当集体要做决定时，会有这么一种情况：所有人都迷茫地看着对方直到所有目光都聚集在“判定者”身上，就像在说：”你会会为我们做决定的，对吧？“

The thing about Judgers, like lawyers, is that everyone loves to hate them until they need one. (And even then, often, it’s only begrudgingly that they agree to rely on them.) I would invite those struggling with a Judger in their lives to reflect honestly on the number of times in which they relied on a Judger for leadership and decision-making when they were uncomfortable doing so and then to see whether it’s possible to feel some measure of gratitude for the times when a Judger bore that responsibility. It’s unfair to turn to a Judger for guidance only to harbor resentment for what is perceived as controlling behavior after the fact. What Judgers know (and will happily relay) is that most everyone has strong opinions, it’s simply that Judgers are more naturally inclined to assert them.

一个关于”判定者“的事实是，他们如同律师一样，人们在不需要他们时总是讨厌他们（而且即使是这个时候，人们也不愿承认自己需要依赖他们）。”判定者“请思考一下有多少次当他人不愿意自己做出决定而依赖于你的领导，然后当你厌烦这份责任后，你是否还能收到别人的感激。对”判定者“来说不公平的是，别人追寻你的领导，但事后又对这种控制性行为怀恨在心。”判定者“自知每个人都是有自己想法的，只是”判定者“能更自然地把自己地想法表达出来。

With that said, Judgers bear an additional measure of responsibility beyond the weight of group decision-making. They also have a personal responsibility to ensure that they are being wise Judgers. I’m sure you’re well aware that there is a world of difference between a wise Judger and an immature one; and you’ve most likely encountered both. A wise Judger gathers as much information as is practical before drawing a conclusion. A wise Judger becomes aware of his or her own personal biases and attempts to adjust accordingly before moving forward with a judgment. A wise Judger takes the weight of group decision-making seriously and is capable of experiencing the ramifications of guilt as a result of a decision that negatively affects others. A wise Judger is willing to correct erroneous judgments when he or she has been given new information or proven wrong.

这么说来，”判定者“在群体决策制定中比别人承担着更大的压力。同时，他们还有强烈的责任感确保自己是个明智的”判定者“。我知道你们自己晓得一个成熟的”判定者“是有别于不成熟的”判定者“的，而且你极有可能会遇到这两种人。成熟的”判定者“会在决策前尽可能地收集所有有效信息。成熟的”判定者“会明确自己的私人偏好，并致力于在决定过程中有依据地修正他们。成熟的”判定者“会严肃地承担起决策制定地责任，也有能力承担决策失败后的不良后果。成熟的”判定者“得知新信息或已知错误信息后，会愿意修正他们的判断。

Unwise Judgers deserve the negative press they receive, and Perceivers and Judgers both have a responsibility to quash the tyrannical antics of unwise Judgers by calling their authority into question. However, wise Judgers have a place on the personality spectrum and do play an important role in society. To some extent we all rely on the authority of wise Judgers to help guide us in areas we are less schooled in: doctors, teachers, etc. Hopefully by understanding their worldview and process as Judgers we can be a bit more patient the next time one not so subtly expresses his or her opinion…

然而不成熟的”判定者“理应承受他们造成的负面影响，”知觉者“和”判定者“都有责任将不成熟的”判定者“专横无理的决定扼杀在摇篮里。成熟的”判定者“有他们自己的责任范围，在社会上也扮演重要角色。在某种程度上，我们都会依赖成熟的”判定者“帮助指导我们在不熟悉的领域。

• 看完这篇还是很感慨的，首先作为一个INFJ和INFP中摇摆不定的人，确实遇到过P和J中间值的尴尬取向。就平时而言，自己像个发育到一半的判定者，然后会在某些时候飘回知觉者的角色，这样，不太好吧，想要好好发展自己的人格，内心还是有很强烈的客观改变现状的渴望，不好好发展判定者的角色可不行。