Tuesday, January 13, 2026

MBTI: My conceptual understanding of the cognitive functions

Full disclosure/disclaimer: I have not yet read Carl Jung's actual work. I'm getting there. It's on my very long list of things to do. So, everything you read here comes from my personal understanding of information I have learned through various sources and experiences. I hope to come back to this later after reading Jung's work (and maybe a few other's too) and check how accurate (or inaccurate) these interpretations are. 

Overview of the Cognitive Functions

Perception

Perception is how we perceive the material reality. Stimuli from the external (and internal) environment triggers our sensory receptors (e.g. EM wave/light on rods/cones of the eye, vibration on cochlear hair cells of the ear, chemical stimuli of the taste receptors on the tongue, pressure on mechanoreceptors of the skin, olfactory cells of the nose, etc.). The brain interprets the nerve signals to create our individual interpretation of the reality around us. You could almost say we are each programmed slightly differently (like the OS of different computer systems) to interpret the signals in our own unique way. I could go down a huge philsophical rabbit hole here, but maybe I'll leave that to another post. Let's say this is how/why there are different manifestations of perceiving which we can describe as a cognitive function (because it literally is cognition taking place in the brain - Define cognition: cognition is the mental process of knowing, learning, understanding, and reasoning, involving acquiring, processing, storing, and using information through thought, experience, and the senses. 

Overview of the Perceptive Functions

N - intuitives

Perception that tends future direction and tends to consider context (mapped information)

Ne - extroverted (aka externally oriented) perception that tends to consider divergent possibilities (analogous to brain storming any/all ideas, or an exploded diagram) 
Ni - introverted (aka internally oriented) perception tends to converge data toward a likely (or fewer likely) possibilities (analogous to extrapolation of data on a graph) 

S - Sensing 

Perception that tends to focus on details and linear information

Se - externally oriented perception - tends to see new experiences - This one seems the most "pure" (imo) - basically sensory information from the environment at present moment (grounded) (logically it would seem that all other perceptive functions would also rely on Se input... I discuss this part of my opinion a bit later in this post.) 
Si - internally oriented perception with a present/past comparison factor, considers details (analogous to a timeline with a start point to present) 

Judging

Judging functions describe the use of the data (the understanding, reasoning, and using information part). Some people make decisions using information they deem objective (not up for interpretation), while others use subjective criteria (like how they or other personally regard something). 

Overview of the Judging Functions

T - thinking

Makes decisions that prioritize logic/objective criteria

Te - extenally oriented judging function - decisions based on information/data/logic external to the person (ie. in "reality", moves the material world) 
Ti - internally oriented judging function - decisions based on internally constructed logic (ie. how things work, how things make sense, internal understanding separate from emotions) 

F  - Feeling

Makes decisions that prioritize emotional/subjective data

Fe - externally focused - tends to prioritize the emotional data external to oneself to inform decisions (how do others feel, what do others like, how do I fit in with others, does it consider the feelings of others or affect the harmony of the group?) 
Fi - internally focused - tends to prioritize the emotional data of the self to make decisions (How do I feel, does it align with my values, does it reflect/express my feelings) 

Once a person has perceived something in the world, and decided that that thing is relevant, they can make decisions with or "manipulate" (either internally or externally) that perception, including storing it in memory for later (side note: it's so crazy how brains are so much like computers - or maybe it's the other way around - we try copy our own systems into the material world and created external brains - aka computers - again, another rabbit hole for another post). 

 In order to create an MBTI type, the theory says that the judging function determines which function is extroverted. There's a bit of controversy around this idea but that's yet another rabbit hole to explore later. For example, if the person is an ENTJ they will extrovert the thinking function (Te). Since their dominant function is also the extroverted one, they end up with a stack like Te-Ni-Se-Fi. An ENTP, in contrast, extroverts the perceiving function, and since their dominant function is E, they end up with Ne-Ti-Fe-Si. An INTJ will end up with a dominant introverted function, in this case Ni, and their extroverted judging function is Te, so Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Same for INTP - The perceiving function is extroverted, that's Ne, but the dominant function is introverted, so they end up with Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. The last two functions are the tertiary and inferior functions. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to focus on the dom and aux, since they are derivable from the 4 letter type that one would get when doing an MBTI test. 

 For me, J and P difference are easiest to recognize/predict based on someone's typical behaviour (read my opinion a little further down after the trigger warning). S/N difference is a lot harder to "see" without having direct insight into someone else's way of thinking, and numerous examples from across various contexts.  Sometimes people can explain how they know something and that gives "clues" (like if context was considered or if they focused on details, or if they had concrete evidence vs "jumped to conclusions" because the "path"/pattern was obvious). In my experience it seems like sensing types often prefer linear problem solving over "reverse engineering". Steps seem obvious to them, while intuitive types tend to jump around and fill in the gaps. I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of people sit closer to the middle of the S/N spectrum and flow often between multiple perceptive cognitive functions. Some people seem to switch between J and P preference too depending on context, and that could also make it harder to narrow down to a single type.

Trigger warning! I'm about to use the word "vibes" which some people really don't like. I like that word though, because it describes energy, and how energy interacts with other energy. Here's another rabbit hole opportunity: did you know that your neurons fire sensory information both from your peripherals to your brain, and your brain to your peripherals, and some areas of the body, like the heart, have enough nerves that it creates its own electromagnetic field and can signal the brain when that field changes? Pretty cool.... Anyways, so here I'm going to jump into vibes. This part is not scientific at all. It's all my personal opinions.

While I'm usually more into the idea of breaking stereotypes, here I've decided to provide some from my own experience, just for shits and giggles: 

 J - Judging - extrovert the judging functions (T/F) - tend towards decisions - desire conclusion
- often give "rushed" vibe or "controlled" vibe
- tend to like structure (probably because it speeds decisions!) 
- in my personal experience, a J tends to give a "hardened" vibe to a personality, and often S type will also have this "harder" vibe

 P - Perceiving - extrovert the perceiving functions (N/S) - tend toward perceiving - desire exploration (often give "laid back" or "passive"/chill vibe), tend not to like too much structure (probably because it impedes exploration) 
- in my experience, P tends to "soften" the personality, and sometimes N can do the same

I can tell usually difference (predict and confirm when that person does an mbti or similar test) between a P and J type by how fast they want to make a decision. A P type, if given the opportunity, will mull over a decision forever.  A J type, if given the opportunity, will be very decisive without allowing time to explore other ideas.  A "middle of the spectrum" person will try to balance the need to decide with more exploration (and vis-versa).

 SJ - tend to stick with "what works" probably because the path to a quick decision is already obvious when considering the information available in the present moment. These tend to be your "by the book" people (whatever the book may be). 

NJ - tend to "jump to conclusions" probably because there are multiple possible paths, and they want the one that fits the context/pattern best, they consider the present moment information only part of the bigger picture. 

NP - tend to "invent" because they enjoy finding the "most optimal" path for a given context among a multitude of possibilities. They also consider the present moment a part of a bigger, but ever changing picture. 

SP - tend to "go with flow" because the information they need is available from the past and present, and there's really no point to attempting to predict the future. Whomever responds best to the present circumstance will likely have the best outcome.

NT/ST - Make decisions that prioritize logic over emotion (could be internally created logic like Ti or external logic like Te) 
NT - tend future and context oriented - they like abstraction and problem solvin
ST - tend present and detailed oriented - they like order 
NF/SF - Make decisions that prioritize emotions over logic 
NF - context oriented - they like emotionally involved abstract ideas like social and political justice or spirituality (these are you therapists and life coaches haha - obviously not all, it's a joke - but that's the vibe)
SF - details/rules oriented (often an overarching cultural/religious "filter" applied) - they like details that support the group harmony (they will probably remember things you like)

XSTJ - task oriented, but focused on "doing it right"
XNTJ - task oriented, but focused on doing it efficiently
XNTP - task oriented, but focused on finding the optimal solution
XSFJ - people oriented, but focused on nurturing and teaching 
XNFJ - people oriented, but focused on finding solutions to personal problems
XXFP - people oriented, but focused on creating the right atmosphere (In my real life experience, I don't encounter much that differentiates the S and N FP types). 

Friday, November 28, 2025

Operation Minerva: Inspiring Young Minds Towards STEAM

I had the great honor of attending Operation Minerva at the TELUS Spark Science Centre.

Operation Minerva empowers girls and gender-diverse youth to explore potential pathways in STEAM by connecting them with mentors through networking and story sharing.

I loved sharing my “non-linear” journey into software development, why I made the choices I did, and what I’ve learned along the way. I tried to distill my experiences into a few pieces of guiding mentorship wisdom for each group I spoke with:

1. Know yourself.
Take time to notice the ideas and activities that spark joy and curiosity. Embrace what makes you unique (your interests are clues).

2. Learn what the day-to-day actually looks like.
A subject might fascinate you, but the job itself may involve 40 hours a week of tasks you don’t enjoy. Get curious: volunteer, do practicums or internships, talk to people in the field, ask questions, and seek out job-shadowing opportunities.

3. Consider your whole life, not just your career.
Work doesn’t have to be your single defining priority. As a famous male model once said, “maybe there’s more to life than being really, really ridiculously good looking - I mean, just work.”

The students asked thoughtful questions like:

“What if I don’t want to do one thing all the time?”

“How do I find someone to job shadow?”

These questions speak to the anxieties many young people face when trying to “find their path,” and programs like Operation Minerva help connect them with answers and support.

Some of the core messages I shared:

- It’s okay to change your mind, explore many paths, or choose careers that offer variety.

- There are people in nearly any business who would be happy to share what they do. Sometimes it’s as simple as Googling a company you’re curious about and reaching out to introduce yourself.

Ultimately, most of my advice circles back to the first point: you get to choose your journey, and your journey is for you.

Friday, October 17, 2025

My MBTI Story

I often see the question "how did you get into MBTI?" On Reddit. My story is too long for a Reddit post, so I decided to put it here: 

The first time I took a personality test was in my high-school CALM (career and life management) class. The test gave me the result of INTJ. At the time, I did not look into it in much depth, but I did find it interesting to compare with my friends. To this day I remember a few of their results too: ISFP, ENFP, ESTP. I learned a bit about what each letter meant but did not concern myself with our compatibility or anything deeper.

Fast forward ~6 years to the time frame right before and after graduating from University with a bachelor degree in Kinesiology. In 4th year university I started to wonder if I had chosen the right field. I had completed a couple of practicums and decided I wanted to pursue a masters in physiotherapy to become a Physiotherapist. Despite my interest in the subject, I couldn’t help but wonder if I should have chosen a more technical field of study. I also started to receive very subtle feedback from instructors and professionals suggesting they questioned my interest in physiotherapy. The career counselor for kinesiology more directly questioned if I would like that field, saying she wondered if I would enjoy the “lack of creativity”. After graduating I spent a couple years trying to fulfill additional academic prerequisites for the physiotherapy program, and attempting to get more practical experience by getting a job in the field. The pattern of subtle negative feedback continued, this time from potential employers. I also did not pass the interview component for entrance to the Physiotherapy program. Eventually I wondered if I should just go to a career counselor to sort myself out because I could not quite put my finger on what I was doing wrong.


 Then a friend told me about their experience with the career counselor and doing a personality test that helped them decide their whole university path. After what felt like a never ending beat down of my confidence, the thought of doing a test to tell me what career path would likely work best sounded like a huge relief. I booked an appointment. I did a few personality tests with hundreds of questions involved, then attended an appointment where two career counselors discussed the results with me. They asked me more questions and explained the meaning behind the results. One of those tests was the Meyer’s Brigg’s test, and my result was INTJ. After reading more about what it meant, and especially about the potential weaknesses of this type, suddenly all my struggles started to make sense - and I was not flawed. I was simply attempting to open a door to a career path that highly favoured people whose strengths were all my weaknesses. I started to recall exact moments during interviews where I had “messed up” (from the interviewer perspective). The more I thought about it, the more my rejection from the Physiotherapy program made complete sense. Most of my answers were focused on objective criteria, research, and creative ideas when they should have been focused on client feelings, present moment criteria, and tried and true methods. After this experience, personality typing became a small guilty pleasure hobby that I occasionally indulged in, but usually amounted to “high brow” gossiping.


Luckily during this same timeframe, I had discovered a new “spark” inside. I volunteered for a small startup that created an iOS application for rehabilitating stroke survivors, and found the design process very interesting. I also took a course called Computers for Kinesiologists. I really enjoyed the programming portion, so much so that I decided to take an Intro to Programming continuing education course, and I really liked that course too. I could feel the allure of the unknown pulling me towards computer programming and eventually I took the leap and applied for the Information Technology Software Development program at a polytechnic school.


At school, one of the classes focused on career planning, which included taking a personality test. Once again I got INTJ (the only one in my class). This time was a bit different because of my previous experiences and interest in the subject. Now I understood what the results meant and I felt more interested in learning the theories behind it, and analyzing how it showed up in my life. It helped that a couple other people also took interest in it and were willing to indulge me in analytical analysis (once again, high brow gossip). But alas, my focus shifted again towards graduation and getting a job in this new field. To my surprise and happiness, I received job offers almost immediately after graduation. It felt so much easier than my previous experience. I felt confident, like all my strengths were exactly what employers were looking for. My weaknesses seemed barely noticeable; sometimes like they were also strengths. I began my career as a software developer!

On one particular team, we had a little bit of fun taking the 16 personalities quiz. Interestingly enough, our team results were very diverse! I again typed as INTJ. This time, I could compare the type my coworkers received to how I perceived them and how they solved problems. The introvert vs extrovert differences were most obvious and predictable. The S vs N dichotomy was more predictable if I worked closely with someone to solve a problem and our problem solving styles were very different - or if they focused on details or steps in the sequence of plan vs the end goal. The F/T dichotomy was much less obvious to me (not predictable), and the P/J dichotomy was only predictable for people who were highly organized or very conscientious (not all Js, but always J types). 

Fast forward a number of years… my interest in personality theory comes and goes in waves. In the last year I have been riding another wave of interest in the subject. Diving deeper into the theories including the cognitive functions and type stacks. Learning the differences between various interpretations of the same idea, and evolving my understanding and analysis to uncover new ideas and perspectives on various situations in my life. I have many new questions and paths to explore. I also can’t help but wonder how I have changed so much and yet “not at all”. Understanding personality theory has helped me develop more empathy towards how other people think. It has also helped me identify and work on my weaknesses. At the very least, it continues to provide me with a lot of mind entertainment.

Thursday, October 9, 2025

N vs S: Self Awareness During Problem Solving

I have now worked as a software developer for over 10 years. During this time I have had several profound moments of self awareness when it comes to cognition. Most of these moments happened when working closely with a coworker who seemingly used the opposite problem solving "strategy" (in terms of cognition). Normally, awareness of how we think tends to be unconscious - we just do it, in whichever way comes most easily to us, and maybe we might reflect on it later. My interest in MBTI has helped me become more conscious of how I think, and occasionally, if I slow down and notice, I can realize when I'm preferring a certain cognitive function over another.
 As an INTJ, I tend to rely on Ni (introverted intuition) often. I excel at reverse engineering, tend to "see" the conclusion first, then piece together information (jumping around, out of sequence) until a path to the goal finally materializes. The vast majority of them time this process is totally out of my conscious awareness. Before I started recognizing it consciously, I had several baffeling interactions with coworkers and project partners. I often wondered why someone was getting hung up on a detail or step that I viewed as irrelevant to the end goal (perhaps this was Ni - Te pushing to come to an objective conclusion). Sometimes I would think something in frustration along the lines of  "don't worry about that. We'll figure it out later - meet me at the next part". This usually occurred when my coworker preferred their Si (introverted sensing) function. Si tends toward step by step processing, concerned with gathering details and applying information from previous experiences. It helps with tasks that require a methodical approach where current and past data is compared to better inform decisions.

From my perspective, Si is like a having a strongly typed programming language running. It enforces type rules and catches errors at compile time in order to prevent errors later. Ni is opposite, allowing implicit  type conversions, which means faster compile time but probably more errors. 

With more experience and more self reflection and awareness, I started to recognize  Ni vs Si conflicts playing out during my interactions. I realized that sometimes that detail the other person was hung up on had the potential to become important later, or reveal a different path altogether if explored. To put on the brakes, I need to activate Ne-Ti and explore the possibilities in the process with more curiosity. Here are a couple stories that illustrate this phenomenon and hopefully show my growth as problem solver and software developer too:

Story 1: Gathering Evidence vs "Psychic" Phenomenon

One time the whole team had to jump in to solve a problem in production. I immediately recognized the location of the problem as being related to a recent change I had seen in a merge request. The change touched code that had the potential to effect that specific functionality of the app. I looked through the recently merged changes and immediately picked out that one. A quick glance at the code confirmed this change could have the result we saw in production (as I visualized it). "This is the one" I said. If we revert this change we can fix this issue. I jumped on a call with another team member and told them my thoughts with confidence. They insisted we go through each recent change one at a time to identify which change caused the issue. It felt like my insight was dismissed or ignored completely. As the pain stakingly slow and tedious process dragged on, I could feel myself becoming increasingly annoyed, and anxious as we got closer to the change I originally identified. Finally we reverted that change and sure enough it fixed the issue. I could feel the "I told you so" raging behind my pursed lips, but I also knew my coworker was right about the process. We required concrete evidence that proved without a doubt that that specific change was the one responsible for the error. Unfortunately "I just know" or an explanation about what the code does would not be enough to convince anyone who didn't know the code intimately or didn't believe in the power of the Ni cognitive function (haha).  This experience helped me realize the value of a methodical approach to problem solving especially when there's a need to justify a decision with concrete proof.

Story 2: Problem Solving Together from the Outside In

I took on a time sensitive task that involved remote configuration. A process totally new to me. I had a very short window to learn how to do it, get it done and into production. I had pieces of the puzzle floating around in my mind (and literally open in a number of tabs in my browser.) I started building the metaphorical puzzle.... At first glance it looked simple - but as I examined further I found several missing pieces. No problem. I asked around a couple questions, got some answers, including step by step documentation, and forged ahead. Then a coworker contacted me interested in learning how to do the task I was working on. I jumped on a call with them and I tried to explain my progress so far, but sheepishly realized I had no idea what I was doing (it's also a very Ni stereotype to be unable to explain your process). I jumped around to various steps...Perhaps my coworker noticed but they didn't let on. They were reading the step by step document and asking questions about each step. I realized I was ahead, but had skipped a couple important steps. We did those things as we went (all while screen sharing).  Eventually we completed the task. In the humble realization of just how many important steps I had missed, I felt a lot of gratitude for my co-worker and their approach to the task. I felt as if we had literally completed a puzzle together - like they had joined me just at the right time to hand me the missing pieces. Upon further reflection I realized most of the steps I had figured out were at the end of the process, like I had naturally been working backwards. Meanwhile my coworker stepped through the process from the beginning forwards, and we happily met in the middle. Later, to my surprise, my coworker thanked me for the knowledge transfer.




Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Analyzing Different S Type Personalities in My Life

Here Is compare the different people close to me who i suspect have S type personalities. An ISFJ, ISFP, and an ISTJ. If I compare them by their cognitive function stack it looks like this: 

ISFP: Fi > Se > Ni > Te
ISFJ: Si > Fe > Ti > Ne
ISTJ: Si > Te > Fi > Ne 

For the sake of privacy, names have been changed. I'll call ISFP Marie, ISFJ Nora, and ISTJ Kris. 

Nora and Kris have a history of tension, especially when it comes to making plans.  Nora has auxiliary function Fe which is related to valuing and maintaining group harmony (even if it overrides her personal preference). Kris is Te auxiliary which is related to maintaining objective rules/organization/planning. After looking at their function stack I suspect this difference is the main reason they have such a hard time planning things with each other. Similarly their tertiary functions are opposite - Kris's Fi helps maintain personal values/authenticity while Nora's Ti deals with her internal logic. Add to this that they both have Ne as their inferior function which is often the one that comes out during stress. Ne deals with making connections about the external world and can manifest as "suspicion" or doubt about meanings. So when Kris and Nora try to make plans one is trying to uphold an objective set of rules that aligns with their personal beliefs and the other is trying to create/maintain harmony that aligns with their inner logic. Both are suspicious and doubting the meaning of each others communication, potentially drawing conclusions or making connections that aren't really there and "reading between the lines" (I have witnessed it first hand haha).

Comparing Marie & Nora
Fi dominant Marie leads from a feeling of authenticity (does this align with my values?), auxiliary function is Se which relates to seeing the world as is and appreciating via senses (she's very nature oriented, likes fancy things, good at art and diy). Ni is about how you interpret the relationship/meaning of what you perceive according to your own internal perspective (like your own mental map), and Te is external organizing. Si dominant (Nora & Kris) lead from a place of "what's familiar, what works - tried and true, tradition, and remembering details of the present moment". This is probably why Marie seems more open to change or more independent minded than either Nora or Kris, and why she might perceive the others as controlling/rigid. Nora is much more family and business oriented than Marie.  While they're both very reserved, often altruistic, and very perceptive about details in the present moment (like cleanliness, fashion), Nora adheres more strictly to tradition and family values, and seems more rigidly tied to those values. Her choices very often consider "what will others think", while Marie is a "free spirit".

I recently went on two separate vacations to the same destination, one with Nora and one with Marie. The difference between these two people in the same environment inspired this analysis. Previously I was certain that both people were "F" types (but on the fence about the J/P dichotomy), but how that F shows up according to the function stack is very different (and it I think my experience reflects this). Nora (Si > Fe), albeit less familiar with the vacation destination often seemed uneasy or uncertain about trying new restaurants and activities, but she always went along with the group if we expressed that we wanted to do those things. Every morning she asked, "what's the plan?" And I'm reluctantly accepted "we'll see, were on vacation" (we probably caused her more stress than we realized).

Next trip was with Marie, who I had typed as an F, but did not consider the function stack. I actually assumed her and Nora were the same type because they have many similarities, despite a few obvious differences I could never quite put my finger on. I assumed Marie's judgements were Fe based, so I was surprised when she made several decisions that I felt were inconsiderate. A couple mornings during our vacation we discussed our plans for the day, and I made sure to communicate our whereabouts so we could meet up and go for lunch or do activities together. Several times (multiple days) I sent messages to check where Marie was only to discover she had gone ahead with a different plan (already had lunch somewhere else, decided to go somewhere different or do a totally different activity) and had not communicated that to me. We ended up doing many more things separately than together. Technically Fe is not in her stack despite being F (although I still suspect it's a strongly developed shadow function for her). She makes decisions first according to how she feels, whereas Nora would make the decisions first by what's familiar to her supported by how she thinks the group feels.

Interestingly, I realized that Marie (Fi > Se > Ni > Te) and her husband (married for over 45 years) share the same cognitive functions but in different orders. He is INTJ: Ni > Te > Fi > Se.

Nora (Si > Fe > Ti > Ne) and her husband (who I suspect is ESTP: Se  > Ti > Fe > Ni), also married for many years, have inverted functions of the same type.

 I suspect Kris's  (Si > Te > Fi > Ne)  husband is an ESTJ: Te > Si > Ne It's interesting to note that if I'm correct then they also share the same functions but in different order.

Maybe I should become a match maker based on MBTI? Wouldn't that be a grift.

After doing this analysis I feel like I have gained some insight on these three people and their chosen behaviors. I think the most important part of learning MBTI is not whetherit's accurate, but that it helps people gain empathy for ourselves and others through imagining and describing how other people might think and make decisions.


Tuesday, August 5, 2025

MBTI Binaries

This entry is inspired by this Reddit post: 

I've been thinking about this post for awhile now.

I think all my family members (myself, spouse, and kids) are ANTD
Ambiverts, N dominant, T dominant, D (balanced J/P)

We could be: 

INTJ : Ni > Te > Fi > Se

INTP: Ti > Ne > Si > Fe

ENTJ: Te > Ni > Ne > Fi

ENTP: Ne > Ti > Fe> Si

Using this tally pointing system (1 point for dom, 0.75 aux, 0.5 3rd, 0.25 inferior) based on where the cognitive functions like in each stack:

Ne: 3 = 2.25

Ni: 2 = 1.75

Ti: 2 = 1.75

Te: 2 = 1.75

Si: 2 = 0.75

Fi: 2 = 0.75

Fe: 2 = 0.75

Se: 1 = 0.25

Translated to cognitive function stack: 
Ne >= Ni = Te = Ti > Fi = Fe = Si > Se

That actually lines up really nicely with these results for myself: