That's silly. I don't see anything bad with being T or F they both have their pros and cons but I'm sure if someone made a "T's and what is wrong with them" thread, T's would rationally explain why it was false and how T was useful. It's the same thing as the F's arguing about why we have merits too, but we do it perhaps more passionately and abstractly because we are F's. Fs are sensitive, and by knowing that we are sensitive and choosing post this anyways, you are being a "cold" T. Everyone is just playing out their role, there's no reason to be disrespectful or make generalizations about every F or every T though.
As for values and being consistent with them, which you were talking about at the beginning, everyone makes mistakes. I have seen F's and T's do crappy things to one another. I have seen T's go back on their word, thinking they know exactly what they wanted, only to realize they made a mistake but in the mean time have hurt everyone around them. I've seen T's leave people in the shittiest of situations because they didn't have the empathy to help them out and "couldn't deal with it". I have also seen F's leave people because in their "flavor of amorphous emotions which are simply moosh" they didn't know what to do with the person.
In the moosh, as you call it, there is some value and backbone that should be acknowledged. If you put an F in a situation where they "feel" they should help and be there for a person, they will do it every time and they will see it through until their F tells them okay. This is what you T's might call loyalty. We can put ourselves in other people's shoes and treat others or react to them in a way that does not offend them. This is what T's could call respect. We may not have it in our heads every time, especially when we are young, but over time it grows and matures...
I didn't expect to write that much but there it is... I hope it's impersonal enough for you..
When a Feeler is criticized, he feels personally undermined. When a Thinker is criticized (should he really be good at thinking), he will step back and analyze the criticism to see if it is true. If it is true, he will make a mental note to work on it and fix it, if he finds it important. If it is false, he will simply dismiss it.
Hence, for a good Thinking type we have 3 reactions.
A)Analyze and acknowledge the criticism is true and points out a defect which needs to be fixed. Goes on to fix it.
B)Analyze and acknowledge that the criticism is true but does not contain a defect that needs to be fixed, therefore ignores it. (For example, such a defect is often a lack of social graces or sensitivity)
C)Analyze and acknowledge that the criticism is false, therefore dismiss.
You claim that a Feeler will empathize with a hurt person and therefore be determined to help him, and this somehow shows he has a solid core. It is absolutely true that the Feeler will likely help the hurt person with seemingly fierce determination. But this does not show that he has a solid core for the following reasons.
He is inspired by emotion. Today he feels like helping him because he is in a good mood and because he may like the person. Tomorrow when he is in a bad mood and if his father hates that person, or that person did him harm, he may not.
Again, many say Feelers strive to live their life in accordance to their personal values very strictly. If that were the case the Feeler would say. I value helping people, this is a chance for me to do so, so I shall do so now.
Many Feelers do think like this, but that is because they have solidifed their values with Thinking. They have given themselves a solid core. I can think of many examples for this in the non-radical Feeling types, such as the EFP and the IFJ. Many INFJ philanthropists like Mother Theresa and Ghandi have gone out to the world to live out their values. This is not because of Feeling, or because they felt so strongly about, but because they have translated their values into something solid. They knew exactly what they thought and what they valued, and their mood swings or other emotional, or relational circumstances did not stop them. I commend this kind of 'Feeling'.
Another example is Bill Clinton (ENFP), who in his political practices knew exactly what to say to people in order to elicit this or that particular reaction. What to do to win the campaign. What to do to live out his values and make his vision come true. His strong tertiary Thinking faculty allowed him to provide structure for his values and visions.
This conflates the "thinking" function with cognition in general. Here you have set up the umbrella of "thinking" to go over top of "feeling" by suggesting that the result of a feeling decision requires further "thinking" interpretation in order to make itself understood by the subject. Were we to represent this in a Venn diagram, the feeling set would sit entirely within the thinking set. I think that this is incorrect because if it were true, then the feeling function would not be an autonomous function. And if feeling is not an autonomous function, then we wouldn't be able to identify (or isolate) a feeling preference in anyone except for those who are completely irrational.
No function is autonomous. In order for you to motivate your thinking, you need to Feel. For instance, when I get the right answer in a logic problem, I receive a feeling of affirmation.
Secondly, as David Hume famously argued that it is the passions that motivate us to act, not thoughts. You will not live out your intellectual ideas if they are not in any way relevant to you. For example, if it was only Thinking, or only an intellectual notion, all you'd see is 2 plus 2 is 4.(As a small step of a complex mathematical problem) But so what? Why would you continue solving this problem further if you, personally, did not have an interest in mathematics.
Secondly, Intuition requires Sensation. In order for you to dream, or use your imagination, you need to rely on concrete information you have collected. Yes, you may imagine elephants with 60 feet and 50 tails, and many things that do not exist. But it would not be possible for you to get started on such reveries if you have not seeing anything in the concrete world which could inspire your visions.
Can Sensation be autonomous without Intuition. No, if we were to just sense, smell, or see, we would not even develop an instinct which may lead us to further sense, see or smell. We unconsciously pick off data (as well as animals do) which is stored in our minds, or intuitions which is later enacted when evoked by a particular sensation. Consider the example of a dog salivating after hearing a bell. This is because the dog possesses intuition to some degree. The dog, in the back of his mind has a vague idea stored associating the noise of a bell with the sensation of food.
Can Judgment exist without perception? No, because if we did not perceive anything, it would not be possible for us to make any assessments, as we would simply be out of working material. Can perception exist without judgment? No, because consciously or unconsciously, wilfully or not, we make notes of our environment. Even on as rudimentary of a level as a dog being forced to connect the idea of a bell ringing with food. We all make judgments whether we like it or not. A phenomenon to exemplify this would be how a child who has hung around racists for a long time (who has not developed his judgment) inevitably ends up later making racist judgments.
The false generalizations that Mike was talking about. Those were the logical fallacies I was talking about. Sorry. It was more of stating that you're wrong instead of proving you wrong. Bad word choice on my part.
I was not making generalizations. As I said to Mike, I did not state that all Feelers are likely to commit the blunders I've cited. But there is potential for this when Feeling is not properly accomodated by thinking.
The interesting phenomenon to take note of here, which is often observed in very unhealthy dominant Feelers (IFP and EFJ), is that they lapse into pure emotion. Loosing all sense of structure and coherence in their thoughts.
However, a good Feeling faculty is able to use logic to make sense of their values.
What could a paralle to this be? We need passion in order to have any energy to act. Even to act in the least energy consuming endeavor possible, such as contemplation. A thinker who is divorced from feeling will simply stop functioning, will stall like a car with de-activated engine. He will be very rigid and frozen in his ways as he will not have the energy to continue thinking. Feeling will be enslaved to his faculty of thinking. It will not be used to provide energy to re-think matters which he may be wrong about, but will merely be used to provide the energy to affirm the doctrines which he has arrived at in the past.