I really don't think this is helping by reaffirming stereotypes. I don't know why people assume thinking is always objective. Or that intuition is always subjective.
Because scientific consensus was that thinking was rational and reliable, and intuition was irrational, unreliable, and usually delusional. Religions and theism are intuitive ideas. So naturally, those who adopt the atheistic scientific viewpoint, and reject atheism on the scientific basis, have to reject intuition, or they'd have to reject their basis for atheism, and would have to stop thinking that religions are irrational and/or delusional. It's one or the other. Both just give the subconscious a huge conflict, and make Ni-doms go crazy. It's why Jung said that Ni-doms are either "the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other".
It's also why when INTJs mature, they tend to become very easy-going, stop telling people about their ideas, and just accept the way things are. They effectively drop the scientific viewpoint for the most part.
Jung made the distinction between introverts as subjective and extroverts as objective - it's the basis of his ideas. It's then implied (and explained) that extroverts are extroverts because they demonstrate knowledge objectively (it comes from outside themself), whereas introverts are introverts because they relate knowledge subjectively (it comes from inside themself).
Ti then isn't fundamentally at all considered to be "objective". At least not from what Jung was trying to explain;
Jung's fuller explanation of Introverted Thinking, which can be found in Psychological Types, Chapter X, Section C, Part (III), Paragraph I. "Thinking", is indeed that introverted thinking has an extremely subjective quality, in that the Ti-dom's thinking displays the following:
It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
In Jung's view, the objective goal of thinking, such as in the case of understanding lightning, is to harness the power of electricity. The subject is understanding lightning and electricity, and so the subjective goal is to understand lightning and electricity as clearly as possible. So in Jung's view, the subjective thinker is one whose goal is the subjective goal, to understand lightning and electricity as clearly as possible, until one understands it so well, that the objective evidence inevitably shows that one's theory of lightning and electricity must be true.
This is naturally quite confusing, because this is the approach that science is supposed to be about, understanding the world for its own sake. However, Jung also said in his interview in his later years, that things must be understood in their historical context. Historically, scientists earned their living by being teachers in schools for the sons of rich men, which were called universities, or by being teachers of science for rich nobles and their children, who employed them for that purpose. Rich people want the best, and pay well for it, and so they expect that if they intend to employ someone, then those people should be able to prove their credentials. So in order to gain employment for such purpose, and to keep being employed for such purpose, one had to prove that one knew more about science than anyone else, by developing new scientific ideas, theories and discoveries, that no-one else had come up with. Thus, the concept of "publish or perish", being the primary criteria for keeping one's tenure in a scientific post.
Thus, scientists are also often extroverted thinkers, because the objective of their thinking, is to publish enough new ideas, that they will keep their post, and maybe even advance to an even better post. Scientists who are extroverted thinkers, are liable to be more interested in publishing enough new articles, that it advances their career, their income, and their reputation and fame. Scientists who are introverted thinkers, are liable to be more interested in developing their ideas, and prefer to publish only to see what others might make of them, and if that is not currently their need, then they prefer to publish only just enough to keep them from getting the sack.
and if MBTI is going to argue it uses Jungian Cognitive Functions, it is just a lie because it is clearly not at all compatible.
Not according to the stereotype. Jungian typology didn't include a P/J dichotomy. But it did have an order of the first two functions, which one is dominant, an they have a 1-2-1 correlation, which makes them map each other perfectly: ExxP = Pe-Ji, ExxJ = Je-Pi, IxxP = Ji-Pe, IxxJ = Pi-Je. It's that simple.
A quick google search gives me a good description between introvert (subjective) and extrovert (objective) as it pertains to Jung's ideas, even though it's talking about dreams:
http://mythicdreams.org/jung-subjective-vs-objective-dream-interpretation/
I call every interpretation which equates the dream images with real objects an interpretation on the objective level. In contrast to this is the interpretation which refers every part of the dream and all the actors in it back to the dreamer himself. This I call interpretation on the subjective level. Interpretation on the objective level is analytic, because it breaks down the dream content into memory-complexes that refer to external situations. Interpretation on the subjective level is synthetic, because it detaches the underlying memory-complexes from their external causes, regards them as tendencies or components of the subject, and reunites them with that subject. . . . In this case, therefore, all the contents of the dream are treated as symbols for subjective contents.
What do you think about the part in red?
He is very clear. Say your ENFP girlfriend says she had a dream, where G-d appeared to her, and told her that if you take your usual route home tomorrow, you'll have a car accident on the Freeway coming home from work. The objective viewpoint, as Jung explains it, is that the dream images are REAL. That is, either she saw the REAL G-d, and she was told the future, and you are going to have a car accident if you take the Freeway home, or at the least, that her subconcious deduced that the odds of you having an accident on the Freeway today, is extremely high, and the dream was her intuitive impression, her subconscious' way of communicating with her. Either way, you are better off treating it as real, and thus taking the longer route home.
The subjective viewpoint, as Jung explains it, is that the dream is not about you (the object) at all. It's all about HER (the subject). She's been very stressed lately, and this has translated to her getting over-anxious about you, but has nothing to do with REAL OBJECTS, and then it follows that you should dismiss her dream as some ridiculous delusion about an imaginary being.
It's the same as the stereotype about INTPs, and exactly what INTJs complain about INTPs, that they're happy to come up with new ideas, but aren't bothered about doing anything with them. Jung simply provides an explanation for it, that the behaviour of INTPS is RATIONAL.
FYI, I find this quote very interesting and perturbing. In this quote, Jung associates analysis with extroversion and synthesis with introversion. INTJs generally say they synthesise ideas. INTPs are normally considered analytical by nature. According to this quote, INTJs AND INTPs both synthesise ideas, and Extroverts are analysts.
