basics on the two exclusion principles

[chemical]

How do intuition/sensation and feeling/thinking exclude each other?

The idea is that they more look past each other than exactly oppose each other. Intuition doesn't will a sensation out of existence, merely it looks around it to the implicit. Sometimes the associations it forms are quite evident in the sensation, but other times not.
Of course nothing is ever pure - an intuitive vision tends to have sensory contents fused with it. However, the difference is the associations/relatedness of existing sensory contents in a vision of a sensation-leading type are themselves sensory in nature, that is, evoked directly by the formation of the sensory image to which the given content belongs.

With feeling/thinking, the point is that both of these occur when certain definite contents are in play (one cannot rationalize without having a basis, as even the vague outlines of a concept or feeling form through repeated experience). The question is what one wishes to elaborate regarding these contents.
One may often find that one can feel and think about the same exact thing, and this is often true. In fact, one of the great functions of thinking which does not antagonize and may indirectly help feeling is by rendering the nature of a content clearer, prior to feeling-into it. That is, establishing a logical context for it changes the feeling type's perception of what the feeling type is judging. New associations form, even if experienced irrationally, elaborating the context of the content they are perceiving with a readiness to judge. They then elaborate the system of feelings evoked by the content in relation to other feelings, potentially ones evoked by other contents they've seen to establish the relative significance with clarity of the feelings, much as a logic type makes logical comparisons to render the relative significance of a definition clear.

The important point here though is logic decidedly could help establish the proper context for the feeling. Normally the feeling type must seek out the proper context under the principle of feeling's operation itself, for the successful elaboration of the relevant feeling content. But a one-sided emphasis on feeling loses the rational clarification of the exact nature of a content itself, since feeling's purpose is not to clarify the content itself so much as clarify the feelingful truths and valuations evoked by them.

The way this occurs in reverse is that where logic seeks to clarify a content, feeling intervenes to give motivation as to the significance of the content through arranging it next to others in accordance with certain valuations.

I think the point of this is basically that while the judgment processes are distinct in what they are rationalizing, there comes a point when each becomes directionless and lacklustre without the healthy intervention of the other, healthy meaning cooperating quite well with the dominant principle of operation.
For instance, if there is no healthy conceptual logic to the relatedness between contents, the feelingful elaboration of one in terms of the other might essentially lead nowhere. In other words, while the processes of rationalization cannot go on simultaneously, the one serves in various ways as a necessary precursor to a foundation for the other.

The italics and many of the musings here explain to me some of why it is theorized that, while among the valued functions, the lowest in strength is the Jungian dichotomous opposite of the lead, yet the superego is dominated by the opposite orientation (in introverted/extravertedness) of this lowest.

[JWC3]

It doesn't seem like they really do exclude each other in practice. Theoretically, I agree, the distinction between these aspects of a person's personality are polarized. In my experience though people simply choose to focous on certain information. It's not that perception of a certain type of input actually inhibits an individual's ability to percieve its theoretical opposite, but rather that people are in situations where they are presented with various types of information at the same time and they just prefer to deal with certain types of information over others.

[chemical]

It doesn't seem like they really do exclude each other in practice.

Essentially, I think it is degrees always. How intuitively you perceive a situation versus how sensorily. How feelingfully you are judging a situation, how thoughtfully. Even thinkers must make judgments of a feelingful nature, namely at least to decide what they feel strongly about thinking about, and what they don't. The importance here though is the extent to which the feeling judgment is essentially determined by thinking features. For instance, there's a large extent to which a "good theory" is essentially determined by examining the logical questions remaining to ask, how much it explains and doesn't, and one's instinctive sense of what is missing. Similarly, what is destructive to someone's psychology can be well understood by thinking/logic, and thus avoiding going that road is something a thinker can do as well as a feeler, and the motivation for this may indeed be loving someone (the fact of which which you determine through feeling judgment).

It gets easier and easier as you move into perception to suggest certain feelings can be determined from perception (as opposed to from certain logical connections).
For instance, the immediate effect of a sense stimulus entails certain feelings, and an inwardly focused logic type who isn't currently focused on logical rationalization will fine observe how the sense stimulus affected him/her. The thing the logic type has a harder time tuning into is when you must relate feeling contents to feeling contents in some sort of relativistic comparison in order to elaborate the nature of a certain feeling.
It's not that they couldn't if it suddenly became relevant, it's just the more complicated instances of this sort of thing tend to remain irrelevant.

people simply choose to focous on certain information.

To elaborate on this, I think essentially people "develop" further in the realm of information they see fit, on a fundamental level. To fulfill particular motivations however, I am sure it is basically BS that someone won't go the other direction. For instance, the intuitive who loves food, and the thinking/logic type who loves someone will certainly exercise the sensation and feeling relevant to those situations. Well, I think in some cases they are truly crippled. But I think in others, their ability to handle these things is pretty fine and dandy, just that they don't prefer beyond fulfilling these motivations to spend their time reasoning/observing certain info forms.

But ethical types tend to have a natural gravitation to the ethical information, it develops a certain richness and subtlety. Like Fe-leads in exactly how they express something in a given moment against a given objective circumstance.

I think of the "opposition/exclusion" as more being that focusing on one direction of a dichotomy tunes you into a greater richness of a certain dimension. Like obviously we have many intuitions which originate in things we observed through the senses, but the richness of intuition built forth upon that foundation takes on a life of its own. Similarly, maybe someone had an intuition about where to start a certain shop but the elaborate sensory planning that went into the shop's richness of content may be unimaginably creative and beyond the basic potentiality conveyed by the intuition.

These functions look past each other, and they don't oppose each other in so much as the only sense they do is they don't operate simultaneously, meaning the psyche must prioritize to an effect of "how far" to take a given function. Where the opposite of it comes up, someone with the energy and wisdom will generally address the question thoroughly, simply that if the aim is to acquire a richness in one direction, the other isn't as necessary.

rather that people are in situations where they are presented with various types of information at the same time and they just prefer to deal with certain types of information over others.

Another spin on what you say here is that people tend to gravitate to situations appropriate to their level of orientation by a function.

But anyway yes, I greatly agree with what you say about how the intuitive in practice is someone who doesn't deal in sensory content or the ethics type someone who doesn't immerse in logical content is too simplistic. I think there's a lot of variability as to how much logic an ethics type goes into, and vice versa, and similarly with sensation/intuition.

I find logic/ethics more confusing than sensation/intuition so I elaborated more. And in a sense it IS more confusing, because the process of defining what exactly is a judgment is a little harder than with perception.