b) yes, you could essentially have a person teaching themselves how to act in what isn't their area, and yes they could perhaps become mediocre at it. they will at all times be limited by their dominating functions, and it will work against them. so, for however much practice you have, you function will always drag you either towards your goal (again, if it is your passion) or against it (if you're trying to pull something that isn't really you).
i think i explained this pretty well above, but just to recap: if it's not in one of your dominant fields, you will most likely suck at it, you won't like it, and you'll become miserable. therefore, i would consider it ignorant not to take the hint.All people are made up of both the rational and the subjective. (This is kind of obvious. Feelers can still do math problems, and thinkers still have feelings.)
The "skills of this caliber" may be weak to begin with, but one can develop them just as one can develop any part of their brain. Even if it's subconscious. (Explained further below.)
oh, i am getting this from a certain median i have extracted from several if not all great personas throughout recorded history. i haven't been the first to mention this connection either, but most others would refer to it as "the collective unconscious" or something similar.Your understanding of other people may be subconscious, but as you said earlier, everyone speaks a different language. How do you know that the "instructions" are subconscious for everyone? Where are you getting this from?
me personally, i don't believe it's a collective unconscious, i think of it more as a set of instructions imprinted in genes that are later compiled into information by the mind. then again, i might just be silly, since this isn't technically possible. :rolli:
the notion of different languages for different types of people is used to decipher these instructions in whatever manner the specific mind for a specific person think is most beneficial. i mean, why else would it do it?
i never argued that point. look at my type, i'm at a split between ENFP and ENTP, because i am a bit touchy feely emo and a bit cold crunching jerk; if anything, i am the living proof of that both sides can have either functions. but that doesn't mean they're equally good at using them.Everyone is a person.
All people are both subjective and objective. (explained above)
Therefore, rational people can relate to subjective people, and vise-versa.
Thus, everyone can communicate effectively with people. It doesn't matter what part of the brain they use to do it, since everyone functions differently anyways.
Being a feeler doesn't mean you can automatically relate to everyone.
Perhaps the midwestern redneck you're talking about would respond better to the OP. You don't know. Everyone relates to different people, despite the subjective/objective difference. Maybe it's the midwestern redneck who needs advice. You don't know this.
generally it seems like you want to argue both usage and strength as two variables, but you keep putting them together under one roof. are you sure you're not INFP?