Logic judgements are easy. They are impersonal, and are "true" or "false". Something with no choice is not a judgement. Something with two choices is a simple judgement (assuming all the facts are given). Something with three choices, however, is complex. And that's where value judgements come in.
Value Judgements (the MBTIs "F") are judgements based on values. For one, each value is given a weight. When the judgement is made it is, "greater than", "less than", or "equal to". And, unlike logic judgements which are inherently impersonal, value judgements are personal, as they value other people's values as well (possibly with a different weight).
Because logic is simple, and values are complex, some who can make value judgements can easily make logic judgements, but they may be repulsed by its impersonal nature (being impersonal would have a "negative" weight). However, some who make logic judgements cannot (without much practice) make value judgements, as it is more complex, and its personal nature is, well, illogical. Thus they are "scared" of it.
So, i've been wondering about value judgements. It seems to me that many people (even Fs) do not ascribe weights to their values. To them, values are either "positive" or "negative" (and possibly also "neutral"). So, when a positive and a negative value are in conflict, the judgements is easily chosen for the positive. However, when two positives are in conflict, many value judgers do not know what to do. Without weights, they are at a loss.
The question is, why don't people give weights to their values. I was guessing for one of two reasons. One, giving an actual weight requires serious thought. And many people are just plain lazy when it comes to areas they aren't to interested in, or do not see immediate results. Two, if people actually did assign weights, they'd have to live accordingly, and the possible lifestyle change is not desired.
I mentioned this to a friend last night. He suggested a different reason. That people don't realize values are personal. Instead, they think values are universal. Thus, the person thinks that if he has a value, it must be everybody's value. "Noone can argue since values are universal, and not personal. And, if someone does value things otherwise, they are simply incorrect. They are not arguing with me, they are arguing with a universal constant."
That would also hinder the weight system, as weights are inherently personal.
I find that thought rather interesting. Sometimes my own values are personal, and other times i believe they are universal. I think it is something to be concious of.