I've found it amusing that you've kept referring to tests as though to strengthen your argument that you are an N.
Tests have no validity over one's type. Tests, by themselves, prove nothing. Nothing. No self-respecting NT would believe in the validity of an instrument which has no assurance beyond a give-or-take 70% measured success rate nor for a system which is not even scientifically proven. The system isn't perfect, it's still being understood and adapted to, and we're all along for the ride should we choose to board.
No one is 100% anything. lol If you were 100% N, I'd suspect the rest of your body were on life support and you were locked up in a psychiatric ward due to incoherent ramblings.
Obviously, I don't believe that testing "100% N" means I never use any Sensing. That should be understood based on the inherent limitations in the system--of course I use S sometimes; I just prefer to use N a lot more. The very fact that I know and acknowledge this should quell any suspicions you might have about my supposed overconfidence in the validity of MBTI.
The fact that you felt you had to point all of this out to me seems kind of telling--this stuff goes with the territory of using any system of generalizations.
I obviously don't think it's perfect, but it doesn't
need to be in order to be useful. You people who run around spouting off this stuff about how it's "unproven" are missing the point; it's not intended to accurately predict every thought or action that everyone will have. Even if it's right 51% of the time, it still has value because it adds an added degree of predictability.
For instance, I'll use a little game theory example, cause I'm a nerd about that stuff.
Say I'm dealing you random cards from a standard deck, and you're trying to predict which ones will come up. After I've gone through half the deck, you notice from counting that only 7 of 26 red cards remain.
Now, on your 27th prediction, if you had to guess, would you say that a red or black card will come up? Someone who misunderstands MBTI and the inherent limitations of generalizations would say:
"I have no idea! Both are possible, so there's no sense in trying to guess!"
This person, of course, would avoid making any generalizations about anything, ever, because some red card might get upset.
But someone who gets the bloody point would say:
"Black, obviously. I could be wrong, but I'm going to guess black until shown evidence otherwise,
because that's most probable."
All things are uncertain but that doesn't make them equally probable--generalizations have uses as long as you don't expect them to be accurate in all cases.