Aelthwyn

hmmm I just had a further thought on my previous blogpost. I'm not sure if this makes sense, or if it's totally off. It's just my speculation. I was thinking about what introverted perception meant, and how they say all the introverted functions are subjective. Perhaps this is at play with 'closed-minded' people.

When your primary way of percieving is more subjective than objective, you'd sort of have to work to shift gears in order to process a different viewpoint or additional information, and this would mean using a less prefered function which we're supposed to be less conscious of how to use. Hence people reacting in a less rational way when they are asked to do this. How they see it just IS (and they base their judgements on that limited set of data) because they aren't naturally aware of all the rest of the data and have a hard time making themselves see it. They are supposedly using an extroverted/objective deciding function with their more limited perception so they may think they are being more objective than they actually are. And because their T or F is founded on a more external or 'objective' value system I think it's more important to them that there be outside consensus regarding their judgements because if the outside system doesn't align then that kind of shakes the foundation of their judgement. Then I suppose it becomes a matter of how much does their perception adjust to accomodate the oustide system and how much do they try to force the outside to match their first impression. Which, probably depends on how much they are able to take in the extra data. From this I can also immagine them going though an internal war of "This is what I see!" but "This is how everyone says it is/supposed to be!" They would have the task of fitting their data into a preset system, perhaps unconsiously sifting out what doesn't fit as they take things in so that they are only aware of the data that actually fits. I think they would be likely to ask 'does this make sense to everyone else?' On the whole, it seems like this dynamic would still lead to a greater appearance of certainty about things. Objective deciding can back itself up with the argument "everyone else agrees" even if it's not quite everyone of course. Although I think underneath there can be a kind of humility that relises they only see so much and are willing to subjugate themselves to the conclusions of a majority or authority. Extroverted decision-making I think lends these people more drive, or the appearance of being ambitious and a bit uptight, pushing rather than waiting. - More proactive, less receptive.

I think one might be able to say it works like "beliveing is seeing".
Pi & Je: personal perception (how things are) and outside values (how things should be)

On the flipside of this, the 'objective' perceiver with 'subjective' deciding function would see more of the possible data, but perhaps consciously pick and choose what fits with their personal value system when they make a decision. Still, they would have an interest in synthesizing all the data into a system that works for them personally. And they might be more apt to adapt their value-system to fit the data. With the subjective decision making, there would be less need for outside concent, while at the same time also less regard for the imposition of an outide system. With more objective perceiving it could easily leave one with 'to much' data to sift through and more conflicting information making it harder for the subjective judging function to come to a personal conclusion before simply being overwhelmed. This can result in appearing wishy-washy and uncertain. Yet, I think this paring can lead to more subtle stubbornness and elitism where subjective decision-making disregards any conclusions not made by itself, (although not outwardly insisting others agree), especially when believing it has gathered more objective information to back itself up with. It's more likely that they will ask "does this make sense to me?" Also, I think extroverted perception characterizes a person's life with a sense of having life happen to them, sitting back, taking it in, waiting to see what will happen, observing. This gives them the 'go with the flow' seemingly less ambitious or less driven characteristic. - Recpetive, more than proactive.

I think one might be able to say it works more like "seeing is believeing"
Pe & Ji: impersonal observation (how things are) with personal values (how things should be)

Does that seem to make sense? I hope it doesn't sound like I'm painting either in a better or worse light. Just trying to make some guesses at how different types work.