I thought these posts did well at explaining this situation:
Well... You're never 100% T or F. You use both
Point being: T's are said to not give a fuck how something affects a person, only caring about what's "most efficient", F's are said to place consideration for the people involved _above_ [black and white] efficiency. But since in general no one is 100% T or F, no one is going to be a complete robot void of emotions when it comes to decision-making (T) or always make their decision on considerations of the effect on other people (F). In essence, to be a certain side of the T/F dichotomy just means that is the rule by which you play (utmost care about efficiency, or utmost care about the effect on people) a majority of the time ("a majority" does not mean "mostly"; can be as small of a difference as 60/40 (anything more even than this and I don't think you can say you fit on either side of the T/F dichotomy - my opinion)), as PH. also said in their post I quoted here.
[ Eric B's original post ]
I have some possible alternatives to his ideas (semantics/minor stuff so no biggie) but his way of putting it clears up the difference for those a little unclear so I have to mention it.
[ Marmie's post ]
"give/s preference to"
In writing my post, Marmie swooped in. The wording of "give/s preference to" is my take on the whole issue exactly. Gotta include their post now, too.
The above, though, is talking strictly about decision-making it seems (aside from Marmie's input). The underlying principle extends to everything, though: T cares about efficiency, F cares about its ethical values. That is to say, as Arclight's post said, T sees [ethical values or considerations, whatever] as irrelevant, therefore views the world in a linear, cause and effect way strictly while F sees the world through the lens of what their values are.
I read OrangeAppled's signature last night and it really made me not have the demonization of F bias anymore (for now, that is). Essentially, F naturally has values,
thinks their values are important, and thus gives them importance because of principle (the principle that the values they have are important).
Also, and this is what has caused the demonization of F to go away for the time being (understanding the following
, F, besides simply taking in the objective information about an objective event or occurrence, automatically determines how that objective [event, occurrence, whatever] measures up to/fits against their values. Understanding the last part was the whole reason I have dropped the demonization: Understanding 1) They naturally have values they care a lot about and 2) They automatically, ergo not a choice as in a conscious choice of what to do each time, judge things according to their values, really helped me rationalize their behavior which made it acceptable to me (humans having feelings (= values)? well, whether you like it or not, humans do, and caring about your own personal values is rational... so...). Below is her signature for reference.