I'm not saying it isn't rational, just that it is fundamentally absent logic thanks to Fi, which deals explicitly in arbitrary binary yes/no value judgement affirmations that are completely subjective, based on feels, and have no place in the scientific method. Ti makes similar binary decisions which are also subjective, but they are based on isomorphisms: whether or not one cataloged thing is like another cataloged thing. The error there can be in cataloging the wrong thing, but the process is logically sound.
Remember, Fi as a function is not emotion, but subjective judgment. It encompasses our values, morals, and sense of what is important in life. As such it can hardly be binary, but rather is quite multifaceted. Its place in the scientific method is right up front, when the scientist or her organization decides what to investigate to begin with. In other words, identifying and describing the problem.
And this is how Ji types learn they can sell a Je type anything with good enough rationalization(s), and based on subjectivity paraded as objectivity. It took time for me to learn that Je types wanted an explanation rather than a justification, and that there's an expectation of negotiation further involved to see what idea proves more objectively sound. Since Ji can more clearly see the long-term ramifications of any particular decision, I can see with a high level of probability what I need to say to convince you of a short-term outcome. Sometimes the answers can even be (imo) plain stupid.
I'm not sure what your point is here. In my example, I was the Je-type, giving an explanation to someone who was likely also Je (ESTJ, probably). I was not trying to control the outcome, just trying to make sure the "boss" had more information on which to make a decision. I see this frequently, especially where I work now. Front-line managers insulate middle and upper managers from important information from "the trenches". This results in bad decisions by middle and upper managers, not because they mean ill or are bad decision makers. They simply lack important information relevant to the decision.
In the case of the coffee pot, an answer to that question should simply be another question: "Why does it matter where the coffee pot is?" This question would address the underlying assumptions to the initial questioning on why it has been placed where it has been placed. Because honestly -- and I get that sometimes a question is just a question framed purely for the purposes of understanding -- 90% of the time it's not. So why pretend that it is? The audience to the question has the capability to extrapolate beyond the question and see a gradation of judgement in that. I can read that there's more to the question than the purpose of understanding, so this is why it is grating. And, who cares if the coffee pot is now located 90cm to the left of where it usually is? (Trust me, I know who cares; it's a rhetorical question more than anything.) Other types do not think in a "This is the best way for this" format. They won't enter into negotiation because they're not wired to do think that way.
Well, the example I was thinking of was a group situation where no one person has claim to where things go (e.g. it's not at my house, or your house). Think of a potluck lunch at work, or a coffee hour at church, or a reception following a lecture. I have been involved in enough of these events to understand that, yes, sometimes there are very good reasons for putting the coffee pot one place vs. another. Now if, as you say, the highlighted question is designed to address the underlying assumptions of my question, that only works if the person correctly guesses whatever those assumptions might be. My original question does indeed serve the purpose of understanding, but understanding in turn serves action. What I come to understand by asking the question might reassure me that no further action is needed. If someone did reply with the question you suggest, the conversation would proceed like this:
Coriolis: Why are you putting the coffee pot there?
Other person: Why does it matter where the coffee pot is?
Coriolis: You don't see any preferred place to put the coffee pot, then - it's all the same?
Other: Yes, why not?
Coriolis: OK, then you won't mind if I move it here.
If the other person really doesn't care, that's fine. If they do, though, I want to understand that before even considering doing anything different. To me, that just seems courteous.
Well, probably this is better stated, "She would not have asked if she knew with certainty." It's obsequious to say that there weren't possibilities raised that were already on her mind; it's not flat-out devoid of judgement. I agree it's better to ask the question in this circumstance since as a human matter there are far more variables and moving parts involved, and text communications alone can be fraught with misunderstandings.
Actually, no. I didn't consider any possibilities at all because I knew that whatever I might come up with had a good chance of being wrong. Why bother? Just ask and know for sure (efficiency + accuracy).
"Validity" being the key term. In the context of validating their own feelings, sure there is logic present for that, but in using it as a cornerstone for attempting external Te validity it's simply incompatible.
The two work together (since no function operates in a vacuum anyway). Fi helps us know what is important to us, what our priorities are; and Te helps us both cross-check it with reality, and achieve it.
I do get that Je can bring a certain will, but it seems from my experience that Ji can also be a very powerful force, a catalyst for change, disrupting Je plans and bringing to light the flaws in Je plans, with a will that can not be denied. I also find Te in the Dom or Aux is more likely to be the steamroller than Fe, but that might just be my biased perception.
Ji as a disruptor - I have seen this often. And that is exactly what Ji does, and a big part of why people with that approach can be very frustrating. By this I mean that Ji is indeed very good at pointing out flaws, at disrupting something, derailing it because there is something wrong with it. Usually, though, it leaves the situation in pieces and walks away, feeling it has done its job. It is not interested in actually fixing the thing so it actually works in the end, or works better, without the problems Ji has correctly identified. That is the drive of Je. I had a boss like this, and he came across as a total naysayer. He could point out all the flaws in anything, which was good, but never had any helpful input on how to fix it.
I'm not aware of too many things, but I know what I know if you know what I mean. And I know INTJs, inside and out. They don't appreciate coddling anyway, and I don't appreciate people trying to steamroll over the first amendment and censor things they don't like by trying to shoe horn it into "hate speech."
Sorry - not a fan of the New Bohemians. (I prefer the old ones, actually.)