A comment on the thread in general (IOW, not directed at any one post in particular):
Ti-Doms and Te-Doms may love their T, but they also all have an F function somewhere in their top 4 functions, and they may be quite good at using it. Similarly, I'm an Fi-Dom. As a result, Ti is my bottom-most function. But I know how to use it; I'm not brilliant at it, but I can use my Ti better than many.
A simplistic analogy:
One can make generalizations about the life of dancers (feet-users) versus the life of artisans (hand-users). You do this by looking at dancers and artisans as two separate groups and you make predictions as to how their preference for one or the other affects their life: Artisans will probably be more sedentary than dancers; dancers will probably spend their lives in clubs and have more love affairs than artisans; and so on. But it's more difficult to make generalizations about how this or that dancer uses his hands. After all, dancers have hands, and they know how to use them with at least a minimum level of proficiency. One shouldn't treat the dancers as being handless.
So as others in this thread have suggested, it's one thing to make generalizations about how T works vs how F works. But it's quite a different thing to make generalizations about how T-users use their F or how F-users use their T. Everyone has access to both T and F in varying degrees, and some people can be quite good at using their lower functions.
Also, one has to look at the action of the Inferior function. The Inferior tends to "warp" the use of any given function a bit. For example, here at TypoC we talk a lot about Ti-Doms and their incompetence with Fe. But one can't extrapolate from the example of Ti-Doms and conclude that all Ts are equally incompetent at F in general or Fe in particular. A Ti-Dom's love/hate relationship with Fe is just a reflection of the special status of the Inferior, not a universal template for how all Ts deal with their F.
You aren't making any distinctions between Te/Ti or Fe/Fi here, and I suspect that is important. For instance, your T description here seems more externally oriented, in terms of what is observable. Not being a Ti user, I can't really say how that operates, but I have read that it is the application of logic to internal mental structures rather than outwardly observable things. Some similar distinction would apply for F.[...]
This raises a good point. I/E orientation is going to have a big effect. We're really talking about four separate functions here. I may be quite good at handling emotions inwardly but don't manifest that outwardly (or vice versa). People may see one thing whereas I'm experiencing quite another. Again, that makes it difficult to make generalizations about individual users of these functions and their facility with their lower functions.
[...]I find the above simplistic, but can't exclude the possibility that some T types actually do operate this way. I can describe only what I do. To start, I make a big distinction between the experience of an emotion and the expression of it. I place a negative value not so much on emotions themselves, but on their interference with functioning, particularly decision-making, and on their negative expression. I understand, for example, that people feel anger. It's when they let their anger get the better of them and lose control that it becomes a problem.
I don't apply logic to crush the emotion, but I do use it to try to figure out what has caused the emotion. Especially if it is negative, it suggests some problem that needs to be addressed. I identify that and take steps to address it. Usually this is enough to let the emotion itself dissipate. It has done its job. I therefore don't dwell or focus on the emotion itself, but rather on what it is telling me, all the while working to prevent it from disrupting what needs to be done. This last comes more from habits of self-discipline rather than any explicitly logical process. I suppose a by-product of this approach is that I don't have much appreciation or even vocabulary for emotions themselves. I don't bother trying to describe them, or to differentiate much one from the other, or to examine the sensation of having them in the moment.
I should point out that logic and emotion are not opposites, but rather different beasts entirely. Logic is a process, while emotions are data, inputs to the process. Even a T type cannot make decisions completely separate from emotion, or from Feeling as the subjective judgment function. We need these to tell us what is important, what our priorities are. What I try to avoid is having that one data point - how I feel about something - singlehandedly dictate the outcome. I especially avoid kneejerk reactions to things, since that is most likely a raw emotional response, and has not gone through that logical process along with all the other relevant inputs.
Finally, I do try to keep a tight rein on emotional expressions of all sorts, good and bad. I view my emotions as a private and personal matter, and share them primarily with those close to me. They are no one else's business. This is a good example of where Fi vs. Fe might influence what happens.
This explanation resonates with me. I'm an Fi-Dom but I've gotten pretty good at regulating my emotions with my T over the years (I'm getting on 60 years old). Basically: I experience an emotion. I look at where it's coming from. I decide to give it some weight and act on it, or I blow it off and move on.
More specifically: I see emotions mostly as the result of either boundary issues or emotional bonds*. If it's a boundary issue, then I ask myself if I want to act on it and enforce the boundary. If it's a question of an emotional bond to a personal identity or external idea or person, then I ask myself if it's good or bad and/or something I want to act on.
For example, I have learned over time that I have kind of an enabler/rescuer mentality. Knowing that, I question some emotional attachments that arise within me and I tell myself,
"No, forget about it. You know better than to mix yourself up with a person like that." Another example: Some other individual with a history of anger management issues would hopefully across time learn to question his/her irritations and angers and learn to regulate them rather than acting upon them thoughtlessly.
So in my case it's all become kind of T-ish. Emotions are warning bells telling me that something is up and that I may need to act. But I suspect that it's largely a T process as to how I decide to handle the emotion.
_____________
* I did a post about the nature of emotional bonds here:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...g-relationships-ltr-marriage.html#post2511151