Are Judgers Better Than Perceivers?
With perceivers described as lazy and carefree go with the flow types, and judgers described as organized, on time, and focused, are judgers better than perceivers? Are perceivers simply out of touch with modern society, and unable to adjust to it's demands and needs?
Are judgers better than perceivers?
I tend to notice that it is really common to have "perceivers guilt". This is to be overly critical of the P letter in your four letter code. Perceivers fault themselves on being too late and too flexible. There is a lot of advice on how to be less like a perceiver, and more like a judger. Judgers however, only rarely speak of being a perceiver as something positive, sometimes acknowledging that perceivers are "a little more creative" and "fun to be around" "present types".
There are actually handbooks out there that recommend all of us to be more proactive, to be goal-oriented, to have long-term focus, and to live a life of careful organization and deliberation. The good news, if being a judging type is all rays and sunshine, as stereotypes suggest, is that anyone can learn to be proactive. But the real news is that perceivers are highly underrated as coworkers. We have a problem with constantly defining perceiving types as "what judgers are not."
Hidden skills for perceivers
Perceivers have an area of excellence often missed: and that is skill in seeing the immediate use or application of any idea. Perceivers excel at seeing how to implement anything in the moment. They are the best for identifying options, and seeing alternative ways to implement a decision. They are the quickest at noticing a problem with enforcing a goal, far before anyone else can notice it. Perceivers are going to have more opinions about application - and are going to react more strongly to bad adaptions.
Perceivers see the implications of goals and are faster at identifying potential obstacles a goal may face. They see the direct value of any option, knowing which options seem to offer the best value. They see how to optimize a decision, deciding how optimal or practical an idea is in the moment. And they know how to feedback and ask the right questions to learn more about a system or a goal. It is generally the case that perceivers take more control when it comes to immediate application of an idea. Judgers take more control when it comes to long-term plans about an idea. But judgers usually don't care about how it is actually implemented, preferring to leave those details to others.
Differences between idealistic judgers and traditional judgers
So are judgers better than perceivers? It depends on what environment or situation you are in. Often, perceivers see more, and listen more, and are more in the moment. Usually, perceivers are going to excel in adaptable environments that are constantly changing. Think of a journalist department, with new news coming up every day. Judgers on the other hand are usually better in environments that are more organized and that allow better focus.
But don't forget to consider the differences between NF - idealist judgers, compared to STs - traditional judgers. Idealistic judgers (NFJ) have goals that are often more vague or general, and more about self-transcendence and growth, and rational judgers (STJ) have goals that are more about self-enhancement. You will have to factor in the situation and the context the person is in to truly see what gifts and skills they can offer.