[InvisibleJim]

Good Day Ladies and Gentlemen,


I considered that after reading a few of the posts here that publishing this in other locations may lead to both some improvement to the thought processes around the community in addition to generating valuable feedback for myself.

Particularly as some individuals have difficulty discerning which side of IxTJ or INTx they are here and the archetypal descriptions and their basis may be useful to those looking for a little guidance.

Recently I've spent a lot of time covering the basics of cognitive functions with others and I thought it would be of great use to have such written down and transferable to others at a few key strokes... so... here we go.

Archetypes

To understand what a cognitive function is we should understand the basis from where the idea is created and that is archetypal behaviour. An archetype is a model of a person, personality or behaviour.

When Freud first started developing the psychoanalysis theories (such as the seduction theory) he outlined that in effect each individual followed the same archetypal path.

Although initially a fan of Freud’s works Jung wasn’t content with the situation sensitivity of most of Freud’s theories and the lack of a global system to encompass all cognitive behaviour.

Therefore in the Jungian system each of the cognitive functions correlates to an 'archetypal' identifiable way of approaching a situation in the brain and this attempts to provide more flexibility as these numerous archetypes can be mixed and matched into various ordered cognitive style systems.

One thing to note is that you cannot scientifically track an Archetype from a bundle of neurons in the brain; it’s just a bundle of almost arbitrary processes an individual engages in which can appear stereotypically similar to another individual from observation.

Cognitive Functions

A cognitive function correlates to one generally identifiable cognitive response that correlates to a certain archetype of thought.

One should note that a cognitive function does not necessarily correlate with behaviour or personal preference: behaviour is often situational and every time I see a ‘I really like the colour green, do most other INTJs really like the colour green?’ my heart dies a little. I won’t even get into the statistical insignificance of such a result against the entire population of humanity.

Archetypal Group Behaviour

The first aspect I should start of with is that yes, to a point behaviour is influenced by cognition, however.. we should be careful that we don’t deduce our cognition strictly from behaviour.

Now why doesn’t behaviour relate to cognition? Because behaviour and choice is a learned process and is not dependant upon how we cognitively deduce scenarios but what experiences we have and what choices we have available within our individual lives.

I once forwarded some results in a study that said that 67% of managers were INTJ. Behaviourally, perhaps: a certain type of ‘managerial’ attitude is expected of all managers and therefore behaviour and personal choice modifies to maximise the role these individuals enjoy and INTJ is ‘seen’ as a managerial type to be. However, this is group behaviour because people are modifying their behaviour to meet others expectations. It has nothing to do with cognitive deduction and processing.

This often makes MBTI style testing irrelevant; you could cognitively be an ISFJ, be assigned a managerial role, becoming moody and then tick all of the INTJ boxes on the sheet. More often than not cognitive style testing does not correlate with cognitive function but with behavioural function. This is a very important distinction.

However, this does not strictly mean that our behaviour is not impacted by our cognitive functioning! After all the method we take to deal with scenarios will, to a point be driven by our cognitive functioning. But we should be careful that we aren’t group behaving into a cognitive function due to surrounding environmental factors.

Perception versus Judging Functions

Some functions are an attempt to ponder our surrounding data whether those be in our internal or external environment and these are called the perceiving functions; within the patterns of information within mind (intuition - N) or in the world through our senses (sensing - S) respectively.

The other functions are how we judge a situation whether that be via critical analysis (thinking - T) or what instinctually feels like the right thing to do (feeling – F)

Basic Description of Functions

Perceiving Functions,

Intituion - N – The process of perceiving patterns in the internal mind relating to pulling chunks of information and data together to either form new ideas or correlation between them.

Sensing – S – The process of dealing with sensory information in the external environment including appreciating and dealing with the patterns and information presented in the present context.

Judging Functions,

Thinking – T – The process of critically analysing the information available to the individual in an attempt to reach a conclusion regarding what is intrinsically logical or rational.

Feeling – F – The process of instinctively analysing the information available to the individual in an attempt to reach a conclusion that feels the most instinctively right to the viewer.

Function versus Attitude

Function is just that, a preset way of cognitively dealing with our environment: however, attitude gives it either an introverted or extroverted flavour. As a result perception is either limited to the self or engages actively with the world; in akin to this that judgement is either limited to the self or engages actively with the world.

This is where the behavioural side of cognitive functions come to play, those who are introverted do not overwhelmingly enjoy sharing their thoughts regarding that function with others; naturally this contrasts with the extroverted position.

Effect of Attitude on Functions

Perceiving functions flavoured with attitudes:

Introverted Intuition – Ni – A mindscape individual to the user. Intuition does not freely engage with the external environment instead only engaging once supporting extroverted functions have shown the environment is non-hostile to the ideas brought forward. This could potentially be an observational debater who phases out of discussions to ponder and returns much later with their conclusive thoughts based upon the evidence they are aware and agree with.

Extroverted Intuition – Ne – A mindscape shared with the world. Intuition engages freely between the external environment and the self leading to continual exchange of ideas and correlations with no requirement to check the safety of the environment. This could potentially, but not always the advancing debater who communicates new ideas continuously during a debate.

Introverted Sensing – Si – A sensory appreciation individual to the user. Sensing does not share its appreciations with others willingly. Potentially an individual who tends to focus on matters of distaste and taste such as a singer who dislikes how their voice sounds and presents this opinion occasionally to friends.

Extroverted Sensing – Se – A sensory appreciation shared with the world. Sensing shares its thoughts freely with the environment. Could potentially be an individual that shares their observed opinions with regards to looks and décor.

Judging functions flavoured with attitudes:

Introverted Thinking – Ti – A critical analysis judgement unique to the user. Internal judgement is formed internal to the user most often not considering external input during the judging process. Potentially could be an individual who feels a sense of satisfaction as a result of critically analysing all aspects of a situation for merit and categorisation.

Extroverted Thinking – Te – A critical analysis judgement shared externally with the world. Judgement is formed by the user continually sense checking the external environment during formation. Potentially could be an individual who feels a sense of satisfaction as a result of analysing and balancing external factors against their own internal logical processes.

Introverted Feeling – Fi – An instinctive judgement unique to the users. Internal judgement is formed by the user based upon what feels right and wrong to them; instinctive hunches from the external environment are not considered during the formation of this judgement. Could potentially be an individual with strong moral convictions regarding a scenario and who is right or wrong.

Extroverted Feeling – Fe – An instinctive judgement shared with the community. Judgement is formed by both what the user considers is write or wrong while also considering their awareness of what others instinctive feelings might be. This could be an individual who challenges their own assumptions to gain a instinctive compromise between individuals within their community.

The Dominant Function and Attitude – The Self

As we develop as individuals the theory states that we develop an archetypal ‘preference’ for a function as a mixture of nature, nurture and indeed conscious choice. This is looked upon as how we view ourself.

This attitude and function is also how we view our behaviour, Jung theorised that we identify this archetype with our own sexuality. Therefore as a male INTJ my dominant cognitive function is Ni (introverted intuition). Therefore the introverted intuitive mindset of pondering in a quite way is seen by me as ‘typical male behaviour’. By contrast it’s opposite Se (extroverted sensing) is seen as ‘typical female behaviour’ lots of chit chat, making noise and ruckus etc.

Of course, as before this can lead to situational misunderstanding because behaviour and cognitive function are not necessarily one and the same.

However, it is most important when considering type to correctly identify the dominant cognitive function (a notably difficult task for dominant perceivers!). This will tend to insure that an individual is most confident in their type and indeed that we minimise instances of ‘I feel like ENFP but I’m sure I use Ti a lot’ as the other functions should fall into place as a direct consequence.

Exceptional Notes

The cognitive functions are based on Archetypes, however, people are flexible and evolving, one would not be surprised if in a 1,000 years time that the Archetypes we use and enjoy today could be completely societally irrelevant to those individuals. If you aren't happy with the identified Archetypes I totally encourage you to try to find a better way of redefining them to assist all of humanity to better understand the secrets of the human brain.

[MrFreakaficial]

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Particularly as some individuals have difficulty discerning which side of IxTJ or INTx they are here and the archetypal descriptions and their basis may be useful to those looking for a little guidance. Archetypal Group Behaviour The first aspect I should start of with is that yes, to a point behaviour is influenced by cognition, however.. we should be careful that we don’t deduce our cognition strictly from behaviour. Now why doesn’t behaviour relate to cognition? Because behaviour and choice is a learned process and is not dependant upon how we cognitively deduce scenarios but what experiences we have and what choices we have available within our individual lives. I once forwarded some results in a study that said that 67% of managers were INTJ. Behaviourally, perhaps: a certain type of ‘managerial’ attitude is expected of all managers and therefore behaviour and personal choice modifies to maximise the role these individuals enjoy and INTJ is ‘seen’ as a managerial type to be. However, this is group behaviour because people are modifying their behaviour to meet others expectations. It has nothing to do with cognitive deduction and processing. This often makes MBTI style testing irrelevant; you could cognitively be an ISFJ, be assigned a managerial role, becoming moody and then tick all of the INTJ boxes on the sheet. More often than not cognitive style testing does not correlate with cognitive function but with behavioural function. This is a very important distinction. However, this does not strictly mean that our behaviour is not impacted by our cognitive functioning! After all the method we take to deal with scenarios will, to a point be driven by our cognitive functioning. But we should be careful that we aren’t group behaving into a cognitive function due to surrounding environmental factors.

I used to think I was an INTJ, and I scored as one on many tests. Despite fundamentally being an emotional person, I recognized the value of objective, logical approaches, and tried to utilize them to obtain a peace of mind in hard times. It certainly took research until I realized my erroneous judgement. This should help clear things up for some people.

[Solaris]

Well, this being the forum it is, I do have to first wonder about your qualification to make such a post.

Second, I totally agree about the "I like green, do all INTJs" type posts. I've known more than my statistical share of INTJs, and they are not all the same. My husband and I sometimes joke that I married my mother because they are both INTJs, but they are really two very different people.

I prefer to look at MBTI as a sort of skeleton, or the framing of a building. You can build 5 skyscrapers from the same plan, but each could look very different outside. The people who come and go from that building will also leave their own marks.

I agree that certain functions/attitudes are associated with a particular gender. I abhor this. It is this association that makes the sweeping generalizations about type compatibility I've seen places to be gender biased, and; woefully lacking therefore.

I'll have to ponder the rest a bit before I can comment on it.

[InvisibleJim]

Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, this being the forum it is, I do have to first wonder about your qualification to make such a post. Second, I totally agree about the "I like green, do all INTJs" type posts. I've known more than my statistical share of INTJs, and they are not all the same. My husband and I sometimes joke that I married my mother because they are both INTJs, but they are really two very different people. I prefer to look at MBTI as a sort of skeleton, or the framing of a building. You can build 5 skyscrapers from the same plan, but each could look very different outside. The people who come and go from that building will also leave their own marks. I agree that certain functions/attitudes are associated with a particular gender. I abhor this. It is this association that makes the sweeping generalizations about type compatibility I've seen places to be gender biased, and; woefully lacking therefore. I'll have to ponder the rest a bit before I can comment on it.

The point of such a post is two fold. The first is to share knowledge that I may have. If you have any relevant technical points to make, then by all means, do make them.

Yes, this is all vary basic compared to to other more advanced descriptions. But the main point was that intuition is a function and that the attitude creates the differentiation. You don't gain superpowers by having introverted intuition compared to extroverted intuition.

Regarding qualifications, those aren't required for something which should be this basic and fundamental to the MBTI and other Jungian types. If people don't have a basic understanding of these things then a lot of very basic questions are asked: Am I INTP or INTJ?

If you wish you can read a similar but more detailed account in Jung - Psychological types - 1921.

[MrFreakaficial]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, this being the forum it is, I do have to first wonder about your qualification to make such a post.

I'd say this would only be a problem if the thread were titled "The Cognitive Function Basics" rather than "Jim's Cognitive Function Basics." It's his take on things, an opinion rather than a strict schema.

[Solaris]

Actually, it's a pretty normal question for the forum, in general. People around here like to know what people's qualifications are, or what they've been studying, or how long, etc. I, for one, like to know on what base of knowledge a post like that is made before I will really take it seriously. Writing a long post doesn't make you knowledgeable. I've read enough and studied enough to see that it's ok, but maybe oversimplified...but maybe that's what he was going for.

[Rudy]

I agree very much with the primary thrust of your distinction between cognition and behavior, OP. Like MrFreakaficial, I originally tested as INTJ, but came to realize that this was because the tests were based on my behavioral choices, rather than on my cognitive function alignment.

I very much like your descriptions of the eight functions; it was similar descriptions elsewhere that allowed me to identify my actual type, recognizing that I used Fe rather than Fi, and Ti rather than Te.

However, the problem I have at this point is the following: if the tests we have aren't any good, of what value is a typing system that provides no reliable way of typing people? This is not a criticism of your verbalization, but of MBTI in general.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree very much with the primary thrust of your distinction between cognition and behavior, OP. Like MrFreakaficial, I originally tested as INTJ, but came to realize that this was because the tests were based on my behavioral choices, rather than on my cognitive function alignment. I very much like your descriptions of the eight functions; it was similar descriptions elsewhere that allowed me to identify my actual type, recognizing that I used Fe rather than Fi, and Ti rather than Te. However, the problem I have at this point is the following: if the tests we have aren't any good, of what value is a typing system that provides no reliable way of typing people? This is not a criticism of your verbalization, but of MBTI in general.

I think that's not something a test can account for though. The real MBTI tries though. It has different test sections which type you in different ways. It's not all "this" or "this" scenarios like the humanmetrics test.

People are people, and some just never will realize that the way they are behaving is not really the way they are, just the way they think they are.

[InvisibleJim]

Originally Posted by Rudy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree very much with the primary thrust of your distinction between cognition and behavior, OP. Like MrFreakaficial, I originally tested as INTJ, but came to realize that this was because the tests were based on my behavioral choices, rather than on my cognitive function alignment. I very much like your descriptions of the eight functions; it was similar descriptions elsewhere that allowed me to identify my actual type, recognizing that I used Fe rather than Fi, and Ti rather than Te. However, the problem I have at this point is the following: if the tests we have aren't any good, of what value is a typing system that provides no reliable way of typing people? This is not a criticism of your verbalization, but of MBTI in general.

The MBTI tests that often exist on the internet are really based upon behavioural dichotomies, basically gauging a light/unbenchmarked form of Kiersey temperament sorter. Although I have never taken a proper MBTI type-1 test from what I have been told (second hand) that it is quite different from what you would find active for free. I have no first hand experience if that is the case.

I think your own experience outlines the value of having very clear and straightforward descriptions of the cognitive archetypes and how these form cognitive style models and indeed the limitations of the models. Gaining an improved perspective of the basis of MBTI type that allowed you to reach a more satisfactory personal conclusion regarding your type.

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that's not something a test can account for though. The real MBTI tries though. It has different test sections which type you in different ways. It's not all "this" or "this" scenarios like the humanmetrics test. People are people, and some just never will realize that the way they are behaving is not really the way they are, just the way they think they are.

I agree, the real MBTI test should be better considering it's benchmarking and the variety it should contain. I know a gentleman who is very interested in developing a scenario based way of testing type and cognitive function in addition to rorschach type testing and how reactions to that may lead to a way to identify cognition in play.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The MBTI tests that often exist on the internet are really based upon behavioural dichotomies, basically gauging a light/unbenchmarked form of Kiersey temperament sorter. Although I have never taken a proper MBTI type-1 test from what I have been told (second hand) that it is quite different from what you would find active for free. I have no first hand experience if that is the case. I think your own experience outlines the value of having very clear and straightforward descriptions of the cognitive archetypes and how these form cognitive style models and indeed the limitations of the models. Gaining an improved perspective of the basis of MBTI type that allowed you to reach a more satisfactory personal conclusion regarding your type. I agree, the real MBTI test should be better considering it's benchmarking and the variety it should contain. I know a gentleman who is very interested in developing a scenario based way of testing type and cognitive function in addition to rorschach type testing and how reactions to that may lead to a way to identify cognition in play.

I did take the "real" MBTI. I forget which version, I'd have to look again. I found it quite interesting. They, of course, take back the questions, so I can't really post examples. It's been almost ...3 years?? since I took it. I have the results though. Whole sections of the test are *not* based on behavior to help eliminate some of that bias.

As to the Rorshach thing: I think that's interesting, but the test needs to not be so complicated and specialized to administer that it prevents people from taking it. Also, as it's usually administered to groups, that needs to be kept in mind also. It's a frustrating and limiting balance that must be maintained -- detailed enough to be reliable, but not so detailed that it's cumbersome.

[Zsych]

	Feeling – F – The process of instinctively analysing the information available to the individual in an attempt to reach a conclusion that feels the most instinctively right to the viewer.

I think this should be rephrased to:
Feeling – F – The process of instinctively analysing the information available to the individual in an attempt to reach a conclusion that feels the most emotionally comfortable to the viewer.

INTJ are plenty emotional IMO. With emotions being attached to other things than most people. Sense of right may be more dependent on understood principles of how things should be rather than empathy and reducing discomfort.

[InvisibleJim]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think this should be rephrased to: Feeling – F – The process of instinctively analysing the information available to the individual in an attempt to reach a conclusion that feels the most emotionally comfortable to the viewer. INTJ are plenty emotional IMO. With emotions being attached to other things than most people. Sense of right may be more dependent on understood principles of how things should be rather than empathy and reducing discomfort.

I thought it would be nice to add a reference for flavour.

	Originally Posted by MBTI Manual 3rd Edition
	Feeling - Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved.

There is a concise reason that I label feeling cognitive functions as 'instinctive' rather than 'emotional'.

Firstly the meaning of instinctive:

	Originally Posted by Free Dictionary
	Arising from impulse; spontaneous and unthinking.

Therefore it is by definition the opposite of critical thinking.

Now the reason I leave emotion out it although I am quite aware that those with feeling dichotomies can view themselves as more emotional is that emotion is sited at the 'older' base of the brain and cognition implies thinking using the higher functions.

You can see any MBTI type become emotional and lose their cognition; admittedly there may be some truth in that some types are less likely to lose cognition to emotion than others. But as has often been protested by I and especially T dichotomies: I feel emotions intensely but I keep them bottled up and under control at most times.

Then have a look at ENTPs as a good comparison. Flurries of energy and emotion in action because they have an extroverted and irrational (N) attitude to their dominant function. I don't think they are continuously disintegrating from their Pe-Ji/Ne-Ti aspect to Je-Pi/Fe-Si aspect under stress in an attempt to engage their emotions to help them make decisions when they are in a positive or bubbly mood.

Additional: You may wish to check out a good search for the words 'emotion and MBTI' there are a lot of good articles out there discussing the topic and many are in disagreement even from those who would bravely label themselves experts.

[Solaris]

"Pe-Ji/Ne-Ti is redundant. J/P indicates which preference is used externally, it is not a preference or function itself. I agree that certain characteristics tend to land with one or the other, but it is still not a function or preference in the way N/S, T/F are.

[InvisibleJim]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Pe-Ji/Ne-Ti is redundant. J/P indicates which preference is used externally, it is not a preference or function itself. I agree that certain characteristics tend to land with one or the other, but it is still not a function or preference in the way N/S, T/F are.

I can't agree that Pi-Je/Ni-Te is redundant, because the cognitive functions for an INTJ are Ni-Te-Fi-Se in the MBTI manual 3rd edition. The characteristic of these functions are Pi-Je-Ji-Pe.

The reason that an INTJ has a J is imply because of the dominant conscious pair (Pi-Je) the Judgement is extroverted and thus imposed on the world. I completely agree it's not a distinct function, but a consequence of those functions and as a consequence MBTI seems to say it is a 'measurable quantity' with the J/P dichotomy.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can't agree that Pi-Je/Ni-Te is redundant, because the cognitive functions for an INTJ are Ni-Te-Fi-Se in the MBTI manual 3rd edition. The characteristic of these functions are Pi-Je-Ji-Pe. The reason that an INTJ has a J is imply because of the dominant conscious pair (Pi-Je) the Judgement is extroverted and thus imposed on the world. I completely agree it's not a distinct function, but a consequence of those functions and as a consequence MBTI seems to say it is a 'measurable quantity' with the J/P dichotomy.

Te already indicates the externalization of a judging function, hence to try to modify/clarify it with Je is redundant. T is a judging function, Te is an extroverted judging function. It's as redundant as saying "the red car is red."

[InvisibleJim]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Te already indicates the externalization of a judging function, hence to try to modify/clarify it with Je is redundant. T is a judging function, Te is an extroverted judging function. It's as redundant as saying "the red car is red."

It's important when you consider that the 'normal state' of an INTJ is Ni-Te, but in the stress position is Fi-Se. i.e. initially the view of the self is flexible and the outer world is ordered and critically analysed to protect that.

In the fail position or the excessive sensory experience the inner world becomes fixed either as a consequence of or as consequential counterpoint of external disorder (Ji<->Pe) and the INTJ loses its 'Ni worldview' that comes very naturally to an Ni dominant.

I recommend Naomi Quenk's book "Was That Really Me? How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality as a good guide to this inferior functional relationship and how that effects each of the types in turn.

You can also read about it in Jung's work on the Anima/Animus in particular to the effect of it flooding the self image. This is usually where the MBTI type descriptions reveal Fi as the relief of the Ni function for INTJs and the Se arises as a fearful consequence to Ni dominance.

[Solaris]

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's important when you consider that the 'normal state' of an INTJ is Ni-Te, but in the stress position is Fi-Se. i.e. initially the view of the self is flexible and the outer world is ordered and critically analysed to protect that. In the fail position or the excessive sensory experience the inner world becomes fixed either as a consequence of or as consequential counterpoint of external disorder (Ji<->Pe) and the INTJ loses its 'Ni worldview' that comes very naturally to an Ni dominant. I recommend Naomi Quenk's book "Was That Really Me? How Everyday Stress Brings Out Our Hidden Personality as a good guide to this inferior functional relationship and how that effects each of the types in turn. You can also read about it in Jung's work on the Anima/Animus in particular to the effect of it flooding the self image. This is usually where the MBTI type descriptions reveal Fi as the relief of the Ni function for INTJs and the Se arises as a fearful consequence to Ni dominance.

You are either missing my point or ignoring it, as you did my request for your qualifications. I am not talking about shadow functions and such here. I am talking about why Te does not need to be modified with "Je" which, as far as I know, does not exist in any accepted MBTI publications. It *is* redundant, as I said. Nobody uses Te internally, you simply cannot. If you internalize T, it is Ti. You are taking a poorly understood aspect of the MBTI description and complicating it. I don't see how this adds to overall understanding.

[InvisibleJim]

Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You are either missing my point or ignoring it, as you did my request for your qualifications. I am not talking about shadow functions and such here. I am talking about why Te does not need to be modified with "Je" which, as far as I know, does not exist in any accepted MBTI publications. It *is* redundant, as I said. Nobody uses Te internally, you simply cannot. If you internalize T, it is Ti. You are taking a poorly understood aspect of the MBTI description and complicating it. I don't see how this adds to overall understanding.

Without asking: "Jim could I ask what are your qualifications?" rather than continually offering the statement 'I don't think Jim is qualified.' will not receive an answer. If you wish to ask the question in a good mannered way then I may just answer.

I'm not here to defend myself nor are you; this is the free thinker forum: INTJ. As I said, ask a direct and reasonable question, get a direct answer. Make an assumption then I'm not going to convince you otherwise as I have better things to do.

We are missing one another's points.

For example, regarding requests such as "Am I INTP or INTJ?" (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
e.g.) the cognitive direction is opposite (Ji->Pe versus Pi->Je) therefore the cognition is opposite and it should be easy to break apart that particular type confusion as the INTP has a rigid internal image and places themselves in a flexible environment and the INTJ has a loose internal image but exercises rigid external control upon it's environment.

Then if your INTJ finds himself puzzled about his type later he says 'I don't think I am INTJ' they should still be showing some tendency of Pi->Je, therefore a natural place to start would be with the INFJ, ISTJ or ISFJ. I'm not going to debate fixed types or variable types, because this could be a consequence of either depending on as before, momentary behaviour.

Therefore the answer to your question is very simple, Je is not a redundant description because both Te and Fe are subset archetypes of Je.

Because it is poorly understood is exactly why we should talk about it. It should not be ignored because it is 'too hard', all of the users in this forum are older than 18 and considering the fact this is an INTJ forum: why would we be afraid to deal with 'hard sums'?

[Solaris]

By the way, it's bullshit to try and make anyone ask permission to even ask a question and then say "may just answer." Also, don't misquote me, nobody likes that. In case you forgot, I said:

	Originally Posted by Solaris
	Well, this being the forum it is, I do have to first wonder about your qualification to make such a post.

That is a perfectly valid thing to wonder about, since you pass yourself off as having substantial knowledge. To continually dodge the question is highly suspect.

My problem with this Je Pe nonsense is that it's redundant nonsense. An INTP, by definition, uses a P function outwardly. The J and P of your type already alert others which function you use externally. You don't need to say it again. When you do, it's called being redundant.

Also, age is not a magical way to understand MBTI, so the age of the forum is irrelevant. People come here trying to understand the basics, and I just see no reason to add an extra layer that isn't even needed.

[InvisibleJim]

Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

By the way, it's bullshit to try and make anyone ask permission to even ask a question and then say "may just answer." Also, don't misquote me, nobody likes that. In case you forgot, I said:   Originally Posted by Solaris Well, this being the forum it is, I do have to first wonder about your qualification to make such a post. That is a perfectly valid thing to wonder about, since you pass yourself off as having substantial knowledge. To continually dodge the question is highly suspect. My problem with this Je Pe nonsense is that it's redundant nonsense. An INTP, by definition, uses a P function outwardly. The J and P of your type already alert others which function you use externally. You don't need to say it again. When you do, it's called being redundant. Also, age is not a magical way to understand MBTI, so the age of the forum is irrelevant. People come here trying to understand the basics, and I just see no reason to add an extra layer that isn't even needed.

Oh dear, I wrote another essay! To help with the reading I split it into sections.

- Misquote and Erroneous Assumptions

To assume is to make an ass of u and me, especially when you ignore the evidence you have already been given.

I did not misquote you because you did not use a question mark, instead stating that you 'wonder about my qualifications' which is a statement, not a question.

Let me explain the rational thing for you to have did on the first instance:

Gentlemen enters: Presents mostly accurate and relevant article with only a few small things that a narcissist would chose to pick up and complain about: This implies some knowledge, if perhaps not a PhD in Typology then at least knowledge picked up through trying to learn typology.

Therefore, there are two cases.

Case A) InvisibleJim has some knowledge which is good -> No reason to question his right to make a post
Case B) InvisibleJim needs to learn more about typology -> Let us teach InvisibleJim about typology.

In short you do not require me to explain my qualifications, you should have reached an independent conclusion from critical analysing what I presented to the group or correct it accordingly.

However, since you are adamant that your own deductive logic did not satisfy your own particular requirements then I'm only too happy to oblige your request.

- Qualifications

I am an engineer who is busy with real life work by day and has been playing with typology for a few years at night. I am active across 7 typology forums and lurk on many others. I was invited here by a friend because as she said 'It's about time you joined 'our' forum with the other INTJs'. I have been watching this forum for about a year merely observing and making the odd post. This is merely my personal opinion formed upon my initial experiences with you, please prove me wrong in time.

- Regarding, Your Opinion and My Opinion on the Relevance of the J/P Categorisation of Cognitive Function Archetypes

By all theories: Jungian; MBTI; Socionics; Beebe and Lenore the dominant function is the seat of the view of self, for the INTJ the J is not the internal viewpoint, P is the internal viewpoint of the self and therefore the distinction is not bunk, most especially on any introvert focused forum. (See MBTI manual 3rd edition for example, 3rd Reference).

In the simplest metaphorical sense T/F are to J as Chevy and Ford are to cars. Cognitively, that works because it is tidy and thus relevant, we don't stop calling cars, well cars.

Ji-Pe identifies that the INTP type has a fixed internal perspective but does not have a natural tendency for external categorization and security in most cases; none of the general trend towards deference to authority we see from ExxJ types and the conscious independent effort to control the environments risk as we see from IxxJ types.

This answers Link 1. An important discussion that happens frequently due to a lack of knowledge caused by an exclusion of ideas regarding the orientation of the cognitive functions and their attitude!

Link 2: Yes, MBTI and age should correlate to some degree because the dominant function is seated as a child as you will find in the (4th reference) MBTI Manual 3rd edition (you like references after all). I don't feel the need to explain that further, open a book please.

- Opinion Summary

Yes, you are splitting hairs over a minor issue and I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your opinion. I would ask that you be considerate of the opposite 'opinion' rather than repeating the same post again... and again and crying 'You're WRONG!'. Yes, it is opinion, typology is fun, but you cannot physically measure or predict the effects continually in every situation.

Now I was nice by leaving that paragraph to the end and trying to add more flavour and understanding to the thread than simply posting it at the start and nothing else; which I could have done.

- Otherwise

I cannot identify where I mentioned the age of the forum anywhere in my post, so I don't understand your statement otherwise. If you can show me what you are addressing directly then I am intrigued to answer you.

I'm not going to address any of these points again, this has now been 3 posts of back and forth and you will simply have agree to disagree with; perhaps you can present some evidence to convince me otherwise in time because I don't buy that just because T/F are a subset of J this makes the J irrelevant.

[Solaris]

	Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	all of the users in this forum are older than 18 and considering the fact this is an INTJ forum: why would we be afraid to deal with 'hard sums'?

The age of the forum doesn't mean they understand the subject at hand. A new, and somewhat nebulous, topic is rarely easy to understand from the outset.

That's where you mentioned age of the forum.

[InvisibleJim]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The age of the forum doesn't mean they understand the subject at hand. A new, and somewhat nebulous, topic is rarely easy to understand from the outset. That's where you mentioned age of the forum.

That is the age of the users, not the age of the forum.

[Solaris]

	Originally Posted by InvisibleJim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is the age of the users, not the age of the forum.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant forum in a collective sense. Not the physical date INTJforum was opened. Still, age is no guarantee of understanding MBTI. So, that they are 18+ is irrelevant.

[InvisibleJim]

	Originally Posted by Solaris To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant forum in a collective sense. Not the physical date INTJforum was opened. Still, age is no guarantee of understanding MBTI. So, that they are 18+ is irrelevant.

Then how do people every understand MBTI if you aren't willing to allow them to at least try to understand that? Your argument is circular.

Age is important because I don't expect 5 year olds to understand that, but I do expect anyone over 15 to at least have the aspiration to have a bash at it. It's not neuroscience or rocket chemistry.

I will not reply further to your posts in this thread.