[...]In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.
Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people. [...]
Here are just some personal impressions of my own on the difference between T and F. They don't necessarily relate to what's quoted above; my impressions are of a very general nature.
I tend to think of F as associative and augmentative, while I think of T as analytical and reductionist. IOW, Fs tend to generalize where as Ts tend to dissect.
On Fs:
When I (as an INFP) am given topic X to consider, my first question tends to be something along the line of "What else is similar to this topic?" So I cast a wide net in my memory and try to remember similar or related topics in order to provide context for topic X. The more context I can provide, the more meaning topic X seems to acquire and the more insight I gain into the workings of context X. Random associations are productive in that they provide new contexts; whimsicality is one means of encouraging and exploring new associations.
Associations are often intertwined with emotions, so emotions are welcomed and viewed as a productive means of pursuing associations. (That is, emotions are recognized and accepted by Fs as a tool for examining topic X the same way that logic is recognized and accepted by Ts as a tool for examining Topic X.)
The danger with this kind of associative thinking, of course, is that my view of topic X becomes so diffuse and global that topic X begins to mean everything and nothing at the same time. You see this on INFP message boards. Everyone has their own different whimsical interpretation of topic X, and everyone just talks past each other. When acting as a discussion group, INFPs can pull in unrelated material and expand a subject out to the point where there's no real insight or content left.
On Ts:
It seems to me that when Ts are given topic X to consider, they start pulling topic X apart to see how it works, and/or they start comparing their existing or favorite analytical tools to topic X.
Once analysis begins, there seems to be a process of paring down and refining topic X to its essence; Ts seem to remove complicating or unnecessary factors in order to best analyze topic X in isolation. This is where the human element seems to get excluded; Ts seem to find the human element too vague and changeable for consistent analysis; they seem to think that if they uniformly exclude it, the process of exclusion itself becomes some kind of analytical norm.
The danger with this kind of thinking, of course, is that topic X is sliced and diced to the point of losing its original meaning. You see this on INTP message boards. Topics get analyzed to the point that they've lost their original context. Interesting threads devolve into heated arguments about unproductive, trivial tangents. A discussion about religion turns into an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if only because the issue of the sizes of angels and pins is more quantifiable and debatable than the much vaguer issue of religion and its meaning to the individual human.
****
Naturally I've oversimplified my description of how these things work. But I've been curious why INFPs demonstrate whimsicality, use of hyperbole, interest in vague associations to unrelated subjects, and can end up with nonsensical views of certain subjects (especially related to science); whereas INTPs prefer rigor and exactness and sometimes get sidetracked into blind alleys or end up with very limited and blinkered view of certain subjects (especially those involving the human element).
It seems to me that I can explain much of the difference if I think of Fs as preferring an augmentative/associative mode of thought whereas Ts prefer an analytical/reductionist mode of thought.
I also like this description because it sidesteps the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I find that Fs and Ts can be equally objective or subjective depending on how they select and apply their favorite tools for purposes of examination of Topic X. IOW, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs are equally prone to arguing in favor of a personal agenda or prejudice without much regard to real objectivity. [Note: The issue of objectivity/subjectivity links back to the quote at the start of the message and actually serves as my starting point.]
This description of Ts and Fs also sidesteps the issue of empathy vs. lack of empathy. With their T and F being introverted, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs can be equally chilly and unempathetic or warm and empathetic in their end judgments and outward actions. That is, Ts and Fs express themselves differently, but their end decision or action may in fact be pretty much the same.
***
I don't know whether this difference in approach (generalizing vs. dissecting) would be the essence of the difference between Ts and Fs, merely intrinsic to it, or simply an interesting byproduct of it.
I think both Ts and Fs can understand and take interest in either process (augmentative vs. reductionist); Ts apply contextual tools as part of their analytical process and Fs apply analysis as part of finding context. But when Ts and Fs leap straight to the final result without demonstrating the process by which they achieved their result, then their counterpart on the other side of the T/F dichotomy probably isn't going to see much meaning in the result.
Disclaimer: Much of the previous discussion is based on comparisons of INFPs vs. INTPs. I would be curious whether INFJs and INTJs might see any application of the same rules to them as well.
(Just some random, java-fueled thoughts on a Saturday afternoon. This very post is a good example of the kind of generalizing, associative thinking that INFPs do.)
FL