Unless feeling measures worth in a quantified way, as in monetary worth based on market value, then worth is defined emotionally. Something with high worth (of high esteem to ourselves) elicits a positive emotional reaction. If it didn't, then its worth would be diminished. Is there anything of high worth to you that elicits a negative emotional reaction?
At that point, Thinking types have an emotional reaction as well. What I am saying is that the extraverted Feeling mode of determining relative merit based on stepping into the shoes of others can be done, and is often done, without emotion. When I realize that someone really is going to be hurt, sure, emotion kicks in, but it can for Thinking types as well, especially if they disagree with the path being taken.
Jung's definitions of subjective and objective have no relevance here. What I interpret the quoted passage to mean is that extroverted feeling gets its values from outside of the self as opposed to within. As I mentioned before, we need not concern ourselves with the basis of the values themselves, for they don't have any bearing on the emotionality of feeling types.
I actually quoted this passage to highlight Jung's point that it is very difficult for non-Fi's to describe or relate to Fi since they don't communicate the process readily. One of the Fi's I interviewed about this said, "Until I taught preschoolers about faith, and had to get it into simple terms, I'd never been able to talk about those same concepts with adults. They just
were, inside me as an image, not something crafted with words."
What I mean is that any function that evaluates worth is dealing in emotional territory, because what is worth if it isn't either quantitative or emotional (and I'm sure the feeling function does not do quantitative market analyses on objects)? The feeling function itself is not emotional.
Your last line--maybe we're actually in agreement here with a bit of a Fe/Ne mixup at attempting to extravert our thoughts and be understood by each other? And I'd say nonquantitative/nonemotional worth involves a sense of knowing that is so tightly tied to schema created through experiences (not unlike the categorical schema used by Te) that the judgment comes instantaneously when things are tied tightly to similar experiences, and with conscious consideration of the schema in more difficult situations.
I would be interested, edcoaching, to hear your account of why feelers are characterized in all the type descriptions as more emotional. Do you categorically reject them?
Which are you reading? My favorites are Lawrence's Description of the 16 Types, created in an iterative process by about 100 people of each verified type; the ones we did through extensive interviewing which were then edited by people of that type; Myers herself who doesn't talk about emotions; Kroeger, whose descriptions are much like mine. I tend to favor ones written by the types themselves or through extensive research with those types, but it's hard to know which those are without background information...
All that said...yeah, feeling types probably feel more free to express emotions partly because it's part of the feminine culture and there are still more female Feeling types...and Jung's descriptions definitely talk about Fe as emotional but he was describing type through the lens of psychiatric treatment--the Te's also sound crazy in his writing!