Where did you deduce that whatever I said would mean that feelers have 'less inclination' to think?
F does not mean feeling, nor does feeling mean F. F stands for "Feeling"...a term in MBTI-speak. And "Feeling" is abbreviated as F. This "Feeling" in quotes has a very specific definition according to MBTI, just as "Thinking" does...which....does not...literally translate to thinking (as we use the term, in everyday usage).
Again, I'm having a hard time understanding your point, and your point of what you think I'm trying to say. Esp. this:
In MBTI, eight "things" have been paired off, i.e., dichotomized. E/I, N/S, T/F, P/J. Meaning, in the theory of of MBTI, the pairs are opposite to each other. I didn't say any more or less. Hence, me saying extremes...the true dichotomy. In reality, unless one is a robot, I don't think you have to sell me hard on the idea that "thinkers" can feel, as I never contested that. My point was (from the beginning) that "Thinkers", because they're predisposed to face situations through the "thinking" function, when faced with a situation that overwhelmingly calls for the utilization of a "feeling" function, would be more awkward/uncertain of how to tackle it, than a comparative "Feeler" in the same situation. Which, I called, 'less control'.Both are examples of the stated theory not, as you supposed, the opposing sides of it.
Well, I think, the SJ has more to do with following tradition, than F...so I don't really get your illustration there.ISFJ "You have to do that because you're supposed to". If F was all about emotion then there wouldn't be this strain of irreverent traditionalism running through it. It'd be more independent and individualistic.
Oh and that example is from a negative feedback ISFJ so it's not even about gaining approval particularly.