You seem to have a different definition of MBTI than I do anyway, so we're gonna keep missing unless we're defining our terms (this is a problem throughout this forum, unfortunately).
Anyway, the reason I responded to your first post was that with the four dichotomies perspective, I don't fit the result I get. I'm more I than E (correct), more N than S (correct), more T than F (a problem...), and more J than P (correct). The problem here is that I don't identify with the INTJ description. INFJ is a better fit even though I use Thinking more than Feeling.
According to the data I've observed (which is all I have to go on, obviously), I trust logic more than value judgments. In fact, I don't trust my value judgments much at all, unless I can reason them out and fit them into my framework.
I don't see how it makes any sense for you to claim to know that I use Feeling more than Thinking, as you obviously have much less data than I do. I get that you are defending the system -- it's understandable (Si).
If you take the function perspective, this whole thing can be explained like this: my Thinking is introverted and my Feeling is extroverted. Even if I'm Ni>Ti>Fe, my Feeling function is still my first extroverted function, which may be what you're seeing. Or you may be seeing my Intuition and calling it Feeling (which is actually what I think is the case). Many Ti dominants have problems understanding Intuition dominants. Intuition is definitely irrational, and it is my dominant function. In that sense, I do rely more on an irrational function than my Thinking function. But I don't rely on Feeling more than Thinking (Feeling is rational, anyway). You may be confusing emotion and Feeling. Feeling is defined as conscious value judgments. Emotion is actually more in the realm of perceiving functions.
Also, I'm not the only person I know that this applies to. I know another INFJ that seems to use Thinking more than Feeling, and I know an ISTJ (my mother) that definitely uses Feeling more than Thinking. This is why I'm suggesting that a prescribed function order should be thrown out. At least from the function theory perspective, it's possible for auxiliary and tertiary functions to be switched around.
I may have explained it better above. If not, please explain why this is contradictory. It's possible I assumed you would make an intuitive leap and left out a step of reasoning.That seems self contradictory to me as a whole.
It's fair play when it's discussion. It's not fair play when it's dismissal.Idea vs. idea, fair play.
I take it as an attack -- you can't expect me not to defend myself. In fact, I'm sure you DID expect me to defend myself.If my claim is so laughable, why take it seriously? Of course, I don't personally think it is.
Hm, I would say the same thing to you. I don't see what you would call "unanswerable rhetoric" in my first post -- care to quote what you're talking about?No, it's just that when I think you or anyone is wrong, I think it better to provide an argument, for the sake of the world. A blog is better suited to unanswerable rhetoric than a message board, which is better suited to dialog.