Oh and here's the general difference between Jungian F and MBTI's F: Jungian F was about the interface between feelings and value-judgment. MBTI F is about the interface between tenderness/compassion and feelings. Someone then who has a tender, caring nature, but who has not a very strong, discriminating sense of value judgment, would probably be less of a Jungian F.
Note that some who preach the idea that "feeling judgment has noooooooothing to do with emotion" have it wrong, and that's a shallow misrepresentation of Jung's actual view. Rather, the correct version of that statement is feeling judgment is not *entirely determined* by emotion, and involves our cognitive faculties of discerning value. The actual wave of physical sensation of positive/negative pleasure tones does not encapsulate the judgment, but rather the associations formed between it and concepts of value (termed "feeling-ideas" by Jung) are what lie at the heart of Jungian feeling.
You've stated you identify with this "unemotional" woman in your blog, which certainly makes you not the typical F; at the same time, the way you describe your relation to feelings is more along the lines of an "X" on T-F than a T I'd say. The gist is that it turns out free outward expression of affect is an extravert thing. You probably introvert your feelings, which makes you an "unemotional" person, but still with deep feelings that are held inside (sort of an inwardly passionate person rather than an effusive person).
Your Agreeableness score is also moderate.
All this is why I think you're more of an X than a T or an F.
I think you have a good, solid feeling function by the Jungian schools. You have inwardly passionate feelings, and seem to have a good sense of what is important to you.... something which some thinking types struggle with, as they can provide objective knowledge, while skirting questions of value judgment...you don't seem like that type of person (I kind of am, by the way, it's something I think ethical/F types and/or people with strong Jungian-F can inspire me to do more though). Anyway, in theories like socionics, it's very possible to have a strong influence from what they call the "hidden agenda" information element, and I think you definitely could fit some XLI with a strong hidden agenda Fi. If you want, you can also consider being some kind of Fi type, by the way-- I know at least one example of someone who tends to score T on MBTI tests, but considers herself a Fi-dominant.
Note that being an N or Open to Experience in the MBTI/Big 5 does NOT necessarily convince me someone is an intuitive in the Jungian systems.
Jung was a lot more willing to speak of sensation types who are creative and open to experience (vs the MBTI's Ss are traditional, and generally more closed to experience)...in fact he typed HIMSELF a sensation type at one point, and he definitely viewed himself as a creative, highly imaginative person. Whether you're a sensation or intuitive type is up to you to decide! We can talk that out. I guess you got intuitive results in the socionics tests you took, so that says something though. But to be totally honest, I feel like socionics N presentation is also somewhat MBTI-i-fied, and I have my own ideas on it.
Also you'll notice when I discuss functions theories I mix and match socionics, Jung, and other sources--that's because I tend not to like to view the systems as artificially different although I do acknowledge they organize the ideas differently. But it's better to get what's really conceptually going on rather than just blindly applying their rules.
