How Cognitive Functions Changed the Way I Understand People

On patterns, patience, and learning to understand people without judgment

Feb 8, 2026 — 22 min read

Warning: This is a very long read. I was initially thinking to break it up into a series but I don’t think there’s any point to a series where it’s just me turning one long thought into multiple long thoughts. If you’re here for the usual quick takeaways, this might not be it. If you’re curious about how cognitive functions reshaped the way I understand people, settle in and get some good tea/water.

I was 14 when my school made us take an MBTI (Myers Brigg Type Indicator) test. After that, we had to group ourselves by our results and sit with our groups. I was the only INTJ in the class.

I didn’t feel sad or awkward. Intrigued is a better word. Something about my 4-letter combination made me curious. I went home and immediately started looking it up. At first I thought it was just another personality quiz, like the ones on Facebook, but the more I read up on it, the more I realized there was more to it than what we typically know.

Hello everyone! Welcome to another Articles by Victoria, the place where I randomly write things I’m curious about. In this article, well… let’s just say it’s gonna be long and personal. Overall, I want to walk you through how I use cognitive functions as a framework, not to label people or put them in boxes, but to genuinely understand why they operate the way they do. And maybe, by the end of this article, you'll see why this shift in perspective changed the way I interact with everyone around me.

Introduction to Cognitive Functions

Most people know MBTI as a party trick. Feeling or Thinking, Introverted or Extroverted. They might think it’s basically the same as asking if you’re a Cancer or an Aquarius. Fun for parties, nothing more. When someone asks me:

“Do you believe in MBTI?”

I see the question itself is already wrongly worded because it already assumes MBTI is something that you “believe” in. Like a religion or astrology or some cosmic identity quiz that promises to tell you your fate.

I never saw it that way.

So my answer to such questions is: I don’t believe in MBTI.

Because I use it as a system instead. And to me, those two things are completely different.

Belief is passive. You accept something and let it define you. But using it as a system is active. You take what is useful, you discard what is not, and you let it sharpen how you observe the world. That is how I treat MBTI, especially in terms of what it represents: cognitive functions.

Not as truth, not as science, but as a lens. Most of my friends know that MBTI to me is a way to see patterns in how people think, how they respond, and how they move through their lives.

So the real question is not whether I believe in MBTI. The real question is whether understanding cognitive functions helps me understand people better.

Because unlike the party trick version, to me the four letters are shorthand for something deeper: cognitive functions AKA the way people actually think and process information. How they decide, how they react, how they navigate the world.

Why Believing in MBTI is just BS

Before moving on, I should explain another reason why I don’t “believe” in MBTI. Astrology boxes people based on actual facts like their birth dates. People born in July 12th can’t deny they are Cancer. People born in January 21st can’t deny they are Aquarius. However, the same doesn’t apply to MBTI.

A typical MBTI test asks you to choose traits based on how you think you behave, which is where things get messy. People often type themselves based on who they want to be, or who they think they should be, or whatever mood they were in when they took the test. They rarely observe themselves objectively over a long period of time to figure out what are their natural tendencies.

An extrovert might say they are an introvert because they enjoy quiet weekends. A thinker might choose “feeling” because they see themselves as empathetic. It becomes more about confirming your identity and biases rather than actually learning about yourself. The self-reported nature of MBTI is one of the major reasons why it is not accepted as “science” because the results are highly inaccurate.

Example: A YouTuber got different results every time she took the test because she’s not very sure of her own tendencies and chooses a different answer each time.

That is why when someone tells me their type, I don’t immediately take it as truth. I simply can’t. Not because I don’t trust them, but because MBTI is not something I “believe” in. It is something I observe.

Before going further, I want to be clear about where this framework falls short.

Limitations and Considerations

MBTI is self-reported and can vary depending on mood, context, or life stage.
Cognitive functions describe tendencies, not certainties. People may act differently under stress, in unfamiliar situations, or as they grow.
MBTI should not be used to judge, label, or limit someone’s potential.
These frameworks are tools for reflection, not scientific fact.

How Cognitive Functions Are Useful

The letters like E vs I are simply shortcuts, and sometimes I use it to superficially explain some concepts to friends who don’t know about cognitive functions (because trust me, the conversation won’t end if I go too deep). It’s just easier to grasp for daily conversations. Cognitive functions are the real tendencies I’ve noticed over time, and they show themselves over time through behaviour, not through an online quiz.

So when I try to understand someone, I focus on how they think, how they solve problems, how they express themselves, how they react in emotional moments. I don’t rely on what they tell me they are. I rely on what I see (which to a certain extent can be inaccurate as well since people only show what they want you to see but at least, I know the habits of thinking of their public persona).

And this is where cognitive functions start becoming useful. They turn vague self-labels into something you can actually observe and understand. Cognitive functions are not binary. They are a spectrum. Everyone has a bit of everything. What matters is how often someone uses one cognitive function over another, as this reveals how they process information and make decisions.

Most people treat MBTI like a party trick, but cognitive functions are a tool. They help me recognise patterns in how people think and behave, and once you start noticing those, you begin seeing things you never paid attention to before.

And this is where I started to become obsessed about cognitive functions. Not in a strange “let me observe everyone I know” way, although I definitely had a phase like that. I became obsessed because these tendencies I’ve observed finally made sense of people in a way nothing else ever had. And once I notice that, life becomes a lot less confusing.

How I Started Noticing Cognitive Functions in Real Life

After I learned that cognitive functions were the true hidden value behind MBTI, something strange happened. It was like my brain suddenly unlocked a new filter. I started noticing little details in people that I never paid attention to before. The way someone speaks, pauses, reacts, hesitates, gets excited, or gets defensive. All these tiny behaviours became clues.

At first, I was not even thinking in terms of “Fe” or “Ti” or whatever cognitive function names the internet throws around. I was simply observing how people navigate their environment. Only later did I realize:

“Oh, these behaviours actually have names.”

For example, I noticed some people always paid attention to the emotional atmosphere in a group. Even before they said anything, they would subtly check the mood of the room. They can easily sense the feelings of others and adjust their tone accordingly. If someone looked uncomfortable, they softened their words. I did not know what to call it at the time, but later I learned this pattern is associated with something called Fe (Extraverted Feeling) - to describe ones who naturally tune into group emotions.

Then there were people who lean the opposite. Instead of scanning the room, they looked inward first. They cared about what felt right to them. They made decisions based on their internal compass. If something did not sit well with them, they would quietly withdraw or rethink it. They were not concerned about the group vibe as much as being true to themselves. This, I learned later, matched the pattern called Fi (Introverted Feeling) - to describe ones whose intrinsic values must be aligned before locking in on a decision.

And then I started noticing thinking functions too. Some people needed time to organise their thoughts internally before they spoke. You could almost see their brain quietly sorting things out in the background. They talked in a thoughtful, analytical way, carefully choosing words to match their exact meaning, breaking down complex ideas into their core components. They cared a lot about precision. I did not know the name yet, but now I know that was Ti (Introverted Thinking).

Meanwhile, other people heard a problem and immediately jumped into problem-solving/troubleshooting mode. “What’s the problem here?”, “Why this problem exists and how do we fix it?” They move quickly to solve issues and come up with solutions: “Ok, here’s the plan” or “What’s next to implement” or “Let us conclude what we’ve discussed”. That direct, outcome focused, action-oriented style was something called Te (Extraverted Thinking).

I did not learn these names first. I observed the behaviours first. The names came later, and honestly, they were just labels for cognitive functions I already understood and observed in my day to day environment.

What made this whole thing addictive was how consistent people were once you started paying attention. Like they had a signature. A mental default mode. The same way your handwriting always looks like your handwriting, people’s thinking patterns also have their own style.

Quick Clarification

A lot of resources online talk about "mental models" which are frameworks for understanding how things work, like mental models of leadership, decision-making, or problem-solving. But what I was noticing wasn't about what people understood; it was about how their minds naturally operated. These are cognitive functions AKA the underlying patterns that shape how someone processes information, makes decisions, and interacts with the world, regardless of the topic. So just to be clear, mental models are not the same as cognitive functions.

How I Changed After Learning About Cognitive Functions

As an INTJ, I naturally see people as systems.

That sentence alone probably explains why I often come across as cold, detached, or overly goal oriented to a lot of people. I tend to break interactions down into patterns, inputs, outputs, constraints, and outcomes. When something feels misaligned, my first instinct is to analyze it. Where did it break? What assumption failed? What variable changed? Where exactly did it start?

A lot of the times, people would leave silently because they felt I was cold and distant. The one who stayed would communicate that they see my strengths as a loyal friend, a reliable problem solver and a quiet presence for them. At the same time, they acknowlege that from the outside, I can look like I only care about results.

What most people do not see is how much thinking happens behind the scenes. The hours spent replaying conversations. The effort I put into understanding motivations, incentives, and communication styles so future interactions go more smoothly. I am not disengaged from the relationship. I am deeply engaged, just in a way that is largely invisible.

Looking back, I think part of this instinct was shaped much earlier.

I moved between several different schools growing up. Each time, I would make friends, build routines, find my place, and then 2-4 years later, leave. The pattern repeated often enough that I started internalising a quiet rule. People come into your life for a season. They are companions, not constants.

That realisation subtly reshaped how I related to others. I stopped anchoring my sense of stability in permanence. Instead, I became more observant. If relationships were temporary, then understanding people became more important than holding onto them. I began paying attention to how different people thought, reacted, and processed information.

By high school, this curiosity had evolved into something more structured. I started paying attention and observing cognitive functions early in high school. It became an accidental training ground for this.

There was the classmate who always refer to past data before deciding anything. That slow, steady, “let me look at what was done before” mindset eventually I learned is called Si (Introverted Sensing).

And then there was the friend who came up with 10 ideas rapidly, bouncing from one possibility to another, easily connecting the dots between seemingly unrelated ideas. Later I learned, that was a typical Ne (Extraverted Intuition) at work.

And of course, there were classmates who easily predicted questions for the final exams nobody else saw. While everyone was focusing on the present and studying the chapters for tomorrow’s quiz, this person was already mentally living in next month and jotting down notes on topics for the finals. That turned out to be Ni (Introverted Intuition).

Once again, I emphasize: It was never about typing people. It was about understanding how their minds moved. Once you see their tendencies, you start understanding why some people react fast while others stay quiet. Why some people get overwhelmed by too many options and others get excited. Why some people argue logically while others argue emotionally. Nothing becomes random anymore.

Because as someone with INTJ cognitive functions, I used to see things in black and white. I couldn't understand why people weren't as result-oriented as I was, even though we grew up with similar cultures and values. Why were people so strange? Why they need to get me to agree on their side first before solving the problem right away themselves? Why when I told someone the objective truth, they were overly defensive at that moment and only agree I was right after some time passed? Why do they expect me to always be on their side and validate them even when I see this pattern is unhealthy for them? Why do small talks exists? I couldn't fathom why so many people operated so differently from me.

This used to be me: impatient, confused, sometimes frustrated by what seemed like inefficiency or emotional detours. I treated emotions as an optional feature, because I met so many people who were distracted by them. But once I started learning cognitive functions, the most surprising thing is that I become more patient. I stop trying to make others understand my point of view because I can see the mental processes behind them. I understand why this person is the way they are rather than judging their output. Because if there is one biggest takeaway from studying cognitive functions is that:

Don’t judge others too quickly. Everyone is doing the best they can in their own way.

That is when cognitive functions stop feeling like a psychology theory and start feeling like a language. A way to understand people gently. Because suddenly, even the smallest behaviours tell a story.

Something to address

I can already imagine the comments:

But Vic, u r still labelling people based on cognitive functions, isn't that the same thing? U said it’s "not to label people or put them in boxes" so this is contradicting.

You’re right to question that, and I think the distinction matters before we proceed. I don’t use cognitive functions to label people in the sense of fixing them into a type or expecting them to behave a certain way. I use them as a descriptive framework, not a predictive one. It helps me understand how someone might be processing a situation, not who they are or how they will act.

Labeling, to me, is when a framework is used to reduce someone to a category or to justify assumptions. What I’m describing is closer to observation over time, with room for context, growth, and contradiction. People can share similar cognitive tendencies and still act very differently depending on environment, stress, or values.

So yes, there is categorisation involved, but it’s loose, tentative, and always secondary to the actual person in front of me. The moment a framework stops helping me understand someone and starts limiting how I see them, I drop it. I’m not predicting outcomes, I’m adjusting how I communicate.

Understanding Function Stacks: Because People Aren't One-Dimensional

What was challenging for me when I first study cognitive functions is actually learning to identify them as a stack. In real life, people don't operate on just one function at a time. They have a stack AKA a hierarchy of cognitive functions they lean on in order: Dominant, Secondary, Tertiary, and Inferior.

The Dominant is their go-to function. It’s what they do best and what comes most automatically. The Secondary supports the dominant and helps balance it out, often you will see it being used together with the Dom. The Tertiary usually shows up in closer friend circles and family, when they are relaxed. The Inferior is the weakest or least conscious part of their stack and often appears under stress or when they are really trying to grow.

For example, someone's dominant function might be Fe (Extraverted Feeling), but you'd also see their secondary function, like Ni (Introverted Intuition), show up depending on the context. That's why spotting cognitive functions wasn't as straightforward as I initially thought. People exist on a spectrum and the how they use their stacks according to different situations makes them unique.

This is where long-term observation became crucial. You can't just watch someone for five minutes and confidently identify their cognitive functions. You have to see them across different situations like when they are stressed, relaxed, problem-solving, socializing. Over time, you start noticing which functions they lean on most often and naturally, which ones show up under pressure, and which ones seem like an afterthought.

Take an INTJ for example. Their function stack is: Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Their dominant Introverted Intuition (Ni) drives them toward long-term vision and pattern recognition, and their secondary Extraverted Thinking (Te) pushes them to execute efficiently, ask practical questions and focus on how to solve the problem or turn vision into reality. Extraverted Thinking also means they are external-logic driven. If the whole world including experts say horses are blue, then they would accept that as the objective truth, even if their hunch say otherwise. What this means is you would see someone who thinks ahead, easliy recognise patterns from given information, relies on data for decisions, and works on actionable plans consistently without much supervision.

And their tertiary function Introverted Feeling (Fi) lets them feel inwardly and care about others, but it’s guided by their internal values rather than outward emotional expression. They make decisions based on whether something aligns with their internal sense of right and wrong, not on whether it will be socially well received. Because of this, they require little to no validation from others and how this looks like IRL is someone who seems indifferent when, in reality, they are being very deliberate about what and who they choose to engage with.

Random revelation about how to tell whether an INTJ likes you (as a friend at least):
They will sacrifice their own time, focus, or energy without asking for recognition to help you. They might be dealing with their own things, but they can put that aside to help you solve yours first. They might do it so nonchalantly that you’d assume they help everybody like that too, when in fact, they are selective on who they give that energy to.

Finally, their last function Extarverted Sensing (Se), because this is their inferior function, this means they can struggle with being fully engaged in the present moment. They often miss small details like your new haircut or shirt. They often live in their own thoughts, and too much sensory info from external world can feel overwhelming.

Putting it altogether, this is what the function stack of an INTJ looks like.

Once again, humans are messy. Culture, values, religion, emotional/mental maturity, trauma and experience all shape behaviour. A cognitive function stack like this explains tendencies, but it doesn’t define the entire person. Although uncommon, people will have outlier behaviours and as they become more balanced, they might not always lean into their dominant functions and instead, use all their functions effectively.

Most importantly, don’t rank types or judge them. Every type has their own strengths and blindspots. And understand that being self-aware is also an ongoing skill, which is why so many people mistyped themselves for years.

How I use Cognitive Functions Day to Day

Enough with the theory, let me explain what it does for me in real life.

Throughout the years of learning cognitive functions, I’ve found that it can be surprisingly useful for resolving conflicts or even preventing them, especially if I know the person well.

For example, an ESTJ (based on long-term observation) once asked one of my teammates, an INFJ, to run an errand that was outside their usual duties. The ESTJ was effectively senior to the INFJ, and because INFJs have secondary Extraverted Feeling (Fe), they care a lot about harmony and often find it hard to say no.

Knowing this, I stepped in as a neutral party. ESTJs are Te-dominant, which means they really value efficiency and practicality. So I framed it objectively and told the ESTJ that the task was unfamiliar to the INFJ and it would take them longer than it would take the ESTJ to do it themselves. No personal judgment, just facts.

The ESTJ paused, thought about it, and said, “True, I guess I could get it done in 10 minutes if I start now.” They went back to their seat, and the conflict resolved before it even started.

This is fun to recall, so another example. I have a good colleague who is ESFJ. Their dominant Fe means they love people, they love talking about people, they love connecting with people, and they love harmony. Fe-dominant types in cases I often see, may get drained if they feel invisible or unacknowledged by their team.

There was a time I publicly complimented them saying “Hey, I really appreciate how much you care about the team. It actually makes a difference.” I can see the reaction was an instant smile. I could tell it mattered to them because most of their teammates were either inferior Fe users or Fi users, which made the office vibe feel less like a community and more like a cold, transactional corporation, and Fe users don’t do well there. They need a warm, community-like environment to thrive so I suggested they can consider transferring if their current team felt draining for them.

These are small examples, but it shows how a little insight into cognitive functions can help interactions run smoothly, saving time, energy, and stress for everyone. And these are automatic decisions I made after observing their cognitive functions for a while and understanding what they need in that moment. I wouldn’t be able to apply this if I only know MBTI as the 4-letter personality quiz.

Why this matters (for me)

I’m not gonna try to convince you that everyone should study cognitive functions. Everyone has their own way of understanding people. Some do it so naturally, probably like those with Fe functions. They can sense emotions in a room so quickly and effortlessly that when you ask them how they do it, they don’t even know. That’s just how their cognitive function stack works. Fe gives them that ability to empathize without needing to overthink.

But for those like me, it’s different. Sometimes it’s hard to get others. Sometimes it’s hard for others to understand our inner world. For me, studying cognitive functions is the closest thing I have to a “manual” for understanding people. I don’t know how to intuitively sense how someone is feeling. I don’t know how to read emotions or intentions in a split second. If someone can teach this to me in a methodical, systematic approach, please let me know. Until then, what I do know is how to gather data and analyze patterns. That’s my systematic approach. It’s the most reliable way I’ve found to figure out why people act the way they do, what drives them, and how they think. Simple as that.

Just a day before publishing this post, I found this blog post of an ENFJ writing about cognitive functions too. I thought it is interesting to read from a Fe user’s perspective so if you’re interested, read here.

The Fun Part: How to spot cognitive functions for newbies

I don’t know who would have read this far (if you do, thanks) but sometimes the fun part of analyzing people is collecting enough data on common phrases certain cognitive functions would typically say. When you spot that, you can start forming a hypothesis and an INTJ like me loves solving puzzles that is human behaviour and human nature hehe.

This isn’t meant to type people conclusively, but to help notice recurring tendencies you might otherwise miss. Adjusting the hypothesis continuously is also part of observing how cognitive functions are used day to day in people, so take this guide with a grain of salt:

Fe Extraverted Feeling users

Says “we feel” more often than “I feel”
Often checks in with team like “how do we feel about this”
Notices tension or mood shifts before others
Thrives on harmony, connections and group values

Fi Introverted Feeling users

Speaks from personal values: “I feel…” or “Personally…”
Makes decisions based on internal compass, not group consensus
Quiet or reserved until something touches their values
Can light up or shut down when deeply aligned or misaligned

Te Extraverted Thinking users

Focuses on action and outcomes: “Here’s what to do next”, can seem blunt or impatient
Loves efficiency and practical solutions, would point out if something is inefficient
Externally logical: relies on objective verifiable data
Organizes people or projects naturally

Ti Introverted Thinking users

Thinks carefully before doing: “Let me think about that”
Loves precision and breaking problems into core principles
Complex, personal internal logic: “The truth is what makes sense for me”
Need to understand the “why” behind everything

Ne Extraverted Intuition users

Constantly connects ideas and possibilities: “What if…?”
Loves brainstorming and open-ended exploration, very creative
Can jump rapidly between unrelated concepts
Helps people blend with circumstances and readily adapt by seeing new possibilities

Ni Introverted Intuition users

Future-oriented and strategic: “I can see this happening…”
Easily spot patterns and synthesizes information into overarching themes and possiblities
Can seem quiet, distant, or lost in thought, not present in the moment
Often sees the bigger picture, seeks deeper meaning, can seem philosophical

Se Extraverted Sensing users

Lives in the moment, experiences the world with all senses, notices details others miss
Says things like “Did you see that?” or “Look at this!”
Action-oriented: acts quickly and responds immediately
Novelty-seeking: Thrives on new sensory experiences and simulation, try new things

Si Introverted Sensing users

Relies on subjectively stored past experiences and remembers in detail: “This reminds me of…”
Notices patterns from history: Effective at internalizing lessons from mistakes and successes
Prefers stability and established routines, making them dependable but sometimes resistant to radical change
Internally compares new situations to what has worked before

Conclusion

Studying cognitive functions is not about typing people. It’s about noticing, observing, understanding. It’s about seeing the logic behind their actions, the patterns in their thinking. It’s about compassion, better communication, and more awareness of yourself and others.

Now instead of thinking “Why is this person being difficult” or “Why is it so hard to communicate with this person” or “Why this person never gets what I’m trying to say”, you can tell yourself “So that is how they view the world and interpret my words” and “Now I know what’s the best way to communicate with this person”.

Even with its limits, it makes life with people less confusing and more interesting. It makes yapping with friends about “why they do that” not just gossip, but analytical exercises in understanding human thought patterns and behaviour.

Because in the end, understanding people is not about the four letters. It’s about seeing them, really seeing them. And sometimes, that is enough.

Thanks for reading! I’m curious to know your own personal thoughts and experiences on this topic! Feel free to connect or let me know in the comments! Cheers!