The OP made the claim that NTs readily admit to being bad at feelings. My point is that our definitions differ wildly on what constitutes the emotional-driven aspects of life, and that when NTs do admit to it, they are often only admitting to being bad at emotion as defined within their very narrow parameters, that they may have a sense of disdain for anyway. The rest of the Feeling realm that isn't just raw emotion, they often still claim to be good at. To me that renders the admission inaccurate, if not dishonest, and perhaps even a veiled boast in the guise of humility.
I agree, but there can be something of the Dunning-Kruger effect involved, where the Thinker believes they understand more than they do. I'm sure the same thing happens with NFs with regard to impersonal logic, but this is less of an issue as it can be judged by more objective standards (even if they were to refuse to accept that fact). But it can be harder to prove to Thinker that they are overestimating their ability/understanding when it comes to subjective elements, even if it is true. As a Feeler, this can be very frustrating.Ignoring emotional elements can cause them to no longer be a factor. Even if we can't ignore emotional elements, separating them out and considering them separately from everything else is often reasonable, and can simplify analyzing the rest. Even when emotional elements are inextricably intertwined in something, at least some parts of it can be separated out and considered apart from emotional considerations.
I agree to some extent, but there are downsides, as with the blind men and the elephant analogy. In the pursuit of objectivity, subjective data or bias is often ignored or swept under the carpet without recognizing how it can undermine that whole process.Pursuing objectivity is neither blind nor arrogant. It's a very good idea. Even if we can't reach the goal of perfect objectivity, getting a reasonably close approximation is well worth the effort.
Done right, it's not a blind spot, it's something that *helps us find our blind spots*.
Again, I do not mean to claim Feeling is superior to Thinking; there is need and room for both. I only meant to point out that there can be misguided flaws in 'objective' analysis. This is not to say it is worthless; only that it is imperfect, like subjective analysis. If you can't recognize that then you are simply making my point for me.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.Is there a difference? If so, what is it?