Oops sorry, I did not catch the edit.
I seldom read books. I'm an auditory learner and learn best buy listening to people talk, or by talking myself, and I supplement it with visual. That's not to say I can't learn from books, I can, I just try to avoid it when possible. Normally when I learn from books I look at figures, examples, and in particular graphs, and conceptualize those. I read text as needed to explain things when the images themselves don't speak enough or lack context.
Accepting or rejecting learned material seems... odd? I mean, if it's factual information, there isn't really any rejection to happen. To do so is just an intellectual disservice. My gut instinct reaction though, almost always is to reject it all outright, or accept all, and I sometimes do that. In particular if I am lazy or already have a lot of information backlogged about that particular concept or idea (i.e. I already know and understand a lot about it and therefore can make leaps much easier with back support). However, I'll often think "wait a second, look at the details and each case, you don't know if that's call for reason to do so", and I'll force myself to look more closely at it to see if it's justified. Generally though, I am a very black and white thinker. I make a conscious effort to not do that though, albeit it's a challenge.
With question2 I tried to provoke something else, that failed actually. But again I will analyze this:
1) "To do so is just an intellectual disservice. ", you are trying to logically find the flaw, this is a Ti indicator. (Fe-users don't think about an intellectual disservice, actually they don't even "think", they "feel").
2) "I'll often think "wait a second, look at the details and each case, you don't know if that's call for reason to do so", and I'll force myself to look more closely at it to see if it's justified.", logical deduction, and you take things apart (e.g. look at it closely / kind of reverse-engineering it), it's a Ti indicator.
-------
Also your locus of control is in yourself, or in universal logic, this is a T indicator. You do not externalize control to some other authority figure, like an F would naturally do.
----
So you think you are an Fe dominant, but I think you are a Ti dominant. (An INTP actually).
Ti is the polar opposite of Fe.
The confusion might be there, because polar opposites show the same "signals" in outer reality. This is the same as saying: Ti leaves an Fe-shadow. And Fe leaves a Ti-shadow. If you act like one side (Fe or Ti) you automatically also act out the other side, this is a like a law of physics (metaphysics in this case). A casual observer cannot see the difference between Fe and Ti. To know whether it is one or the other we need to know the underlying intent of the actor. This can only be found by following the stream of thought of the actor instead of just 1 quick/casual snapshot of the actor.
As an example:
- Ti warns somebody about a logical flaw in its reasoning. The goal is to solve flawed logic.
- Fe helps somebody out of "unlogical" love/compassion/devotion. The goal is to "unlogically" join them, merge with their problems, to work on it together.
However both can look the same, and have the same effect: "the person is helped". If a casual/quick observer does not look at the details too much and takes a quick snapshot of such situation, then this observer cannot see the difference between Ti/Fe in this example.
Maybe this example seems obviously different for Ti/Fe but in real life there can be many situations where Ti/Fe are almost similar, in the trails these functions leave in reality. In a lot of cases its very hard to see, unless you know the person well, and/or unless you have studied typology for a few years.
Every Ti will have his fake-Fe following him in his life, like curse you cannot get rid of. After a while it will be generally known, to the Ti and the circle of daily friends, that the Ti is a helpful person. Kind of an "Fe". But this is just coincidence, it is only a (meta-)physical shadow effect of the real Ti intent.
There is something in MBTI which is weird and which is kind of stopping common shadow knowledge. The MBTI system is a bit weird in the way its setup under the hood. In MBTI the shadow functions are written as function 3&4, but these are not real functions as 1&2. The 3&4 shadow functions are just accidentally seen a lot. Thats why they put them on position 3&4. >> Because casual outside observers seem to "see these functions" working in you, while it is actually your function 1 & 2.
MBTI is just a superficial theory. The answer is under the hood, with deeper knowledge of the functions. Because the functions themselves are defined by Jung as a system of opposites. You cannot have Ti without suppressing Fe. The more Ti, the less Fe. Even though a casual observer will see some (fake) Fe, there is no Fe in a Ti-user, or otherwise Fe will cancel-out/annihilate his Ti. If you mix them you get void/zero/nothing. Thus even-deveopment of all functions equates to becoming a dead stone. Your mind needs feedback in a certain direction to function, and this direction needs to be relatively stable to be able to adapt to it well over time (of which the effect is intelligence / learning).
---
P.S. Maybe as an Asperger, you have been hammered by society to "simulate" Fe to the maximum you can. And you have used the shadow effect of your Ti to show them Fe. Maybe you have focused on it so much that you even went into believing that you are an Fe?
----
Disclaimer: I made very hasty conclusions about you here, because I tried to profile you, based on just a few lines of text from you. So I might be off for you personally, but since I think there is a big chance I am right, I just risked it, and told you what I think might be the case. In any case, the other general info would be of value anyway.