I would say that the view I had was true for some thinkers and the view she has of feelers is true for some feelers. .
The only Fs who are an exception to her view are those who are able to use the Thinking function properly. This is the only way one can avoid being dominated by 'what I felt like'.
She's certainly wrapped it up as if it were a rational foundation but she's scarely made the case that it is the case for all feelers, .
Where does it say that the message depicts all feelers?
nor has she made an adequate case that all thinkers are immune to having flawed logic..
Relevance? She is only talking about Feelers, not thinkers.
I like to say that her choice of lanugage reveals a feeling source for her post. The creeps is more of a "it feels like" type of a statement. Whether she did so as a joke or not, the fact that it came to her as title is very telling...
That is a peripheral remark. Her thesis was that Fs tend to make decisions based on how they felt due to lack of adequate support of the Thinking function.
You overlooked that in favor of citing an emotional reaction. This is just like the scenario where I am explaining a case to an F and they dont hear any of it because they were too busy studying my body language, intonation and facial expressions. Their excuse is but Ts do it too! Yes, Ts do it to the extent that they rely on their Feeling function. As some in this thread have said Thinkers can be whimsical too. Yes, just less whimsical. There is a fine line between getting thrown off the rails by your emotions here and there and being completely ruled by them.
I think the most troubling aspects of the Feeler/Thinker divide are those people who are unbalanced too much in either direction. The feeler who doesn't apply logic and the thinker who fears/distrusts the shadow F side and yet is possessed by it again and again and unwittingly uses logic to justify its dictates.
So, the more F you are the more whimsical you are likely to be. One could say, but what about the shadow or tertiary F. Is not it also the case that the lower the function, the more difficult it is to control? Yes. But in most cases when it spins out of control, it is supressed by Thinking. When it does manifest externally, it is usually the case that the Thinker sees no problem with letting it show. Does not see any negative rational consequences behind this.
It's the extremes that cause most of the difficulties in this world. That's the view I am coming to more and more.
Feeling is clearly more responsible for the difficulties in this world. Too much thinking will merely lead the person to avoid being able to recognize the implicit needs of other people. But they would be able to think clearly and make sound decisions.This could only lead to very few problems, namely some people will just be getting trampled over. It is their fault. They should have just been stronger. A Feeler could say that a lack of Feeling leads to a very uncooperative society. That is not true. A good thinker will see when it is time to cooperate and when it is time to fend for oneself by virtue of analysis.
If anything supressing Feeling will retrench whimsical acts of cooperation and other banalities Feeling is responsible for.
Thinkers use logic unwittingly to justify its dictates? Yeah. The dictates of logic is doing what is rational. The bad news for the 'feeler' is that the sympathy card gets removed from the table. Without this, it is difficult to persuade the thinker to do the bidding of a feeler based on simply 'I want you to', or 'I feel like it'.
I see no problem at all with this.
Excessive on Thinking is not nearly as problematic as excessively reliance on Feeling because the former in the former case one is able to make sound decisions, in the latter one is not because they are governed by erratic winds of passion.