Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
You need to reanalyse the quote, it clearly doesn't insinuate that it is a judgement based on emotions when several lines in the quote contradict your statement: eg
"Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect" & "Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterise an emotion".
Finally, the last statement contradicts your statement clearly talking about how it is: "Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)"
There is a difference between emotion and social cognition. Jung's description of Feeling corresponds to social cognition. Jung: "What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on."

That judgement of value is based on emotions. Why do we think some people are good and others are bad? Because we react emotionally to good behavior vs. bad behavior, and then we contemplate our reactions (i.e. Feeling, morality).

That is in contradiction of your vested interest in the desire to see the Jungian-inspired typology converge, it's blinding you with regards to being absolutely honest about the facts: the numerous subtle but significant contradictions affecting how the theories can be understood. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy by connecting dots where none exist, also with several alternatives to rationalise the unhelpful esoteric writing.
Jungian typology is already an intrinsic part of Socionics. SRSI: "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years."