I'm sorry that I accused you of trolling, but you often come into these threads and make extreme, hyperbolic assumptions and twist the original meaning of ones' posts in attempts to make them look foolish, so that's what I thought your intention was here. Since your intention apparently was not ill and trollish, then I'm left only to assume that you sincerely do not understand the implications of my earlier post that started all of this.
If you want to have a civil conversation about it, we can, and I'll try to elaborate a bit:
Of course we can stop (my use of the phrase "can't stop" was not to be taken literally), and of course we have free will (way to state the obvious). It is, however, as Peguy has noticed and I elaborated on, a characteristic of those whom we label Ne-ers to take on these negative qualities that I outlined a bit. It is thus harder, for those to whom we assign the Ne label, to break out of this cycle. It's not impossible, but it takes more effort than a non Ne-er to overcome these negative traits, since these negative traits are definitionally related to Ne.
This is true of all the functions and all the flaws that we associate with these functions. It takes balance with other functions and/or breaking free of our own trodden and worn cognitive pathways to overcome the flaws that we take on as a result of our natural and practiced cognition. (I'm sure that you have/had certain flaws as a result of your cognition being driven primarily by Te, and you have hopefully learned and/or are learning to overcome these flaws by complimenting Te with other functions.)
That's one of the central aims of typology: it's a way for us to assign labels to certain categories of cognition and use the ease of communication that is granted by these labels to better understand ourselves (functions are not scapegoats; they are communication devices). We can use typological labels to describe/analyze our weaknesses and strengths as well as practice new perspectives to obtain cognitive balance, finding new ways to build on our strengths and overcome our weaknesses.
The fact that you seem to think that I and others around here use functions as scapegoats for our behavior is quite baffling to me. Newton said that mass on Earth falls toward the ground as a result of a term he coined gravity. He was not *blaming* this behavior of mass on gravity (again, that would be quite silly, considering that gravity and falling objects are, by definition, causally related). He was coming up with a term to *describe* and to *analyze* this behavior. When I say "I do/think/believe X because of Y function", I am not blaming X on Y. I am using a formerly established label, Y, to describe my behavior/beliefs/cognition, X, so I can better categorize, analyze, and understand myself and my actions.