.Category
{J/P Exercise}
.Stage
{Beyond Basics}
.Title
{Putting Private Preferences Public}
.Minimum
{3 - 4 Js and 3 - 4 Ps}
.Ideal
{10 Js and 10 Ps}
.Maximum
{15 - 20 Js and 15 - 20 Ps}
.TimeMin
{30 minutes based on the minimum number of participants}
.TimeMax
{60 - 75 minutes based on larger group sizes.}
.Object1
{To highlight and experience the differences between J and P behavior}
.Object2
{To experience the difficulty that Js have in being publicly open-ended and the Ps being publicly directive}
.Object3
{To help Js and Ps understand how their perceptions of themselves are different from others}
.Material1
{Flipchart paper (several sheets) for each group}
.Material2
{Markers}
.Material3
{Masking tape}
.Material4
{J/P Highlights or Good J/P Words handouts (Optional)}
.Instruct1
{Assuming 20 participants (10 Ps and 10 Js).  Group 1 = five highest scored Js.  Group 2 = five highest scored Ps.  Group 3 remaining five Js.  Group 4 remaining five Ps.  (See Trainer Tips.)}
.Instruct2
{<BI>Variation:<N>  You could have the participants self-select into two groups of Js and two group's of Ps.  This could be done with or without regard to scores.}
.Instruct3
{Write the following instructions for the exercise on flipchart paper:}
.Box1
{Js raise three open ended questions about Ps and raise three open ended questions about Js.  Illustration:  "Are Ps ever on time?" is not an open ended question; it is a judgement in question form.  Ps make three judgements about Js and three judgements about Ps.  Illustration:  "Js speak harshly" is not a judgement; it is a description of how Js speak.}
.instruct4
{}
.Instruct5
{Begin exercise by saying to group:  "You have 15 minutes to complete this task."}
.Debrief1
{Have each group share their results and have the other groups react.  (Repeat sharing and reaction from all groups.)}
.Debrief2
{Ask the group if they see any patterns in the responses (e.g., did the Js come up with three new questions or variations on the same theme?  Did the Ps give just information rather than judgements?)  The point of this is that Js, even when working at being P, are really directive, and Ps, while working to be directive, are really open-ended.}
.Debrief3
{Ask the group if this exercise was difficult to do.  If so, what implications does this have for people who believe that they have ready access and can use their non-preferences easily in the outer world?  What does this say for people who might think that they are different types depending on the situation (e.g., home versus work)?}
.Debrief4
{To complete the group debriefing, give a brief presentation and a handout to reinforce the J/P differences and group's learnings.  (See Good J/P Words, J/P Highlights, or J/P Strengths and Weaknesses handouts.)}
.Caution1
{This exercise requires trainer confidence and knowledge about Jung's theory and group dynamics.  If the exercise is not handled well the participants and/or the trainer may become defensive.  Also, the line between Perception and Judgment (direction and non-direction) is a thin one at times.}
.Caution2
{Discussing the content of the open-ended questions for Js is not really important.  What is important is whether or not the questions are open-ended.  For example, a closed question:  "Do you want vanilla ice cream for dessert?" versus an open question:  "What would you like to have for dessert?" Js often raise a question for which they already have a hypothesis, and only wish to have it confirmed.}
.Caution3
{Discussing the content of the judgments for the Ps is not relevant.  What is important is whether or not the statement is a true judgment (e.g., is it directional with no room to move?).  For example, a statement that appears to be judgmental:  "Js are compulsive!" versus a "good" judgmental statement:  "Js are always compulsive and it is ridiculous!"}
