Hi Evan, I like the post that I'm quoting below. Though I'd like to challenge some points and see what comes up, I hope its okay?
if you're an Ni dominant, there are two choices for MBTI type: INTJ and INFJ. You are INTJ if you use Te/Fi and INFJ if you use Fe/Ti. But what if you're an Ni dominant that uses Fe/Ti but prefers Ti to Fe? You can't call yourself INTJ because the functions don't match. But INFJ implies that you use Fe more than Ti. Neither type is a particularly good description of your function usage.
Indeed this was an open question in Jungian theory before it was quantified into MBTI. - MBTI, however, were right in assuming that
for most INFJs Fe supercedes Ti. - Though you could put at least two different spins on it:
1: There are INFJs who really do use Ti more than Fe. Examples of these would include Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer or Plato (for those who believe that these were likely INFJs). - (Likewise, from this perspective Ayn Rand might be said to be close to be Ni/Fi.)
2: Another perspective would be, that indeed, MBTI really did nail all people when they made the types. This is not as unlikely as it sounds. - From this perspective we see that Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer and Plato are indeed using a very well developed form of Ni/Ti in their reasonings, but yet they still yield to that F-fingerprint of an INFJ type. To put it bluntly: Wittgensteing being
in love with reason gives him away as someone who uses, or at least, is naturally disposed to use, F rather than T.
Schopenhauer is an exception, but Wittgenstein and Plato give thenselves away as F-ish-types in their philosophies, even though those philosophies do not rely on F arguments they end up relying on ideals, that have certain trinklish flavour to them. - When Plato says that the ruling elite should live in poverty
and that they won't mind because of their virtue, this is a form of idealism that sets him apart from typical NTs who are pragmatic rather than idealistic.
In my personal life I know several INFJs who believe themselves to be INTs. The above mentioned inclanation towards idealism and enthusiam gives them away though
EDIT: Oh yes, and similarily, you could also say that the very notion of wanting to defy the established function orders on extraordinary grounds attests to a certain idealism in itself
Though I don't understand how you arrive at this:
Thinking/Feeling is certainly a false dichotomy.
I mean, its as false as any other intellectual dichotomy, but not more so than that?