Way off. Read our exchange again. Your silly "argument" just summed up that my post was arrogant, without support. So I made an equally silly accusation without support - i.e., just subjective interpretation of your post. Tit for tat.
So your point is that the phrase "a good handle" is purely up to subjective interpretation and that I was wrong to assume it has any particular standardized meaning?
lol @ pseudo-Ni. (I'd tell you that this kind of nonsense should add support to my claim that you don't have a good handle on Ni, but then again, I wouldn't want to make the "mistake" of assuming that the phrase "a good handle" actually has any typically accepted meaning, now would I?)
Since standardized, typical meanings of phrases don't seem even remotely relevant to you, I choose to subjectively interpret this section of your post as, "Congratulations, Sim, you were absolutely correct in calling me arrogant."
Why thank you, Q; in fact I was absolutely correct in that regard.
Again, way off. Not what I meant. I'm not talking qualities of ENTP, fitting them or not. I'm talking function use, cognitive processing.
Ummm, then why on earth did you bother mentioning that you "aren't an archetypical [sic] ENTP"? What would be the point of making this distinction if not to imply that non-archetypal ENTPs (as opposed to archetypal ones) are capable of having a good handle on Ni?
Again, not what I meant.
Theoretically, I can utilize Ni better than a particular INJ, say, even if it is their dominant function, as it would depend on the INJ, that I'm compared to. An ESFP can utilize Ne better than me, as it would depend on that specific ESFP. Even if that ESFP leads with Se.
Theoretically, but generally not. It should be intuitively obvious that most people who naturally see from the Ni perspective are more proficient with it than most people who don't.
But, ^, that's all bullshit, is what I'm getting at.
My point to tesla was that, such comparisons are essentially meaningless, hence why I think you felt that "arrogant" undertone, when it was actually dismissal of that whole idea/concept.
The strength of my functions is relative to my own other functions, not relative to other people's functions. Within versus between. Within is relevant, between is not, was my point to tesla.
So "a good handle" on Ni just means that it's better than most of your other functions? Does that mean I have "a good handle" on Ti if I'm a retard with an IQ of 25, but happen to be even worse at every other function? :zzz:
Even if that weren't a specious and misleading use of the phrase "a good handle", which it is, you'd still be wrong according to most function models because shadows are, by definition, weaker and less accessible than preferred orientations.
What you can compare, in terms of relative between people, would be manifestations of behaviours/ideas. And, I'd say a whole lot more goes into that, like comparative intelligence levels, etc., than mere function comparison.
Uh huh, and certain behaviors and ideas tend to suggest varying levels of strength of each cognitive function. Some people are clearly more proficient in any given cognitive process than other people.
Relative to myself. I already hinted that to tesla - calling my "good handle", highly subjective. To be more clear: I dismiss the context of relativity you're bringing in, as did tesla with her comment about INJs, as rationally irrelevant.
Great. I dismiss your attempt to nullify any and all comparisons of cognitive ability between different people just to support your overconfident assessment of your Ni abilities, as both rationally irrelevant and
really grasping at straws. (It's also classic Ne--rather than attempt to invalidate my point on its own terms, you've just tried to broaden the context so as to render it irrelevant so that you can avoid addressing it meaningfully. Clever, but not really sound.)
If I'm better at salsa dancing than I am at most other things, but 99% of people can salsa dance better than I can, that means I have a good handle on salsa dancing? Really?
And, once more, to hit the point home, I find such above comparison illogical.
How the heck do you go about comparing the strength of cognitive functions between people in any practical way? I'd love to hear this.
You can compare the manifestations of things, and assign likely cognitive functions you think are at work, but, again, that individual's own skills, intelligence, etc., confounds the matter beyond any legitimate comparison of cognitive functions in isolation. You can say, X seems to be leading with Ne, while Y is leading with Si, thus, X has more strength in Ne than Si, and Y has more strength in Si than Ne, but, you cannot make any leaps from that to comparing X's strength of Si to Y's, or Y's strength of Ne to X's (illogical leap).
Sure you can, because you can associate certain cognitive strengths with certain abilities in related tasks. If a sociopathic serial killer explains that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong because morality doesn't exist and the only thing that matters is his own self-gratification, we can
probably infer that his Fi isn't so hot.
No, we can't
prove it deductively, but let's just save the trouble of spending another page and a half going over why deductive proof is a meaningless concept in such a nebulous and purely conjectural subject as Jungian typology and recounting Critical Thinking 101 definitions of...what do they call it?--oh yeah,
inductive reasoning.
So no, being ESFP doesn't
guarantee 100% that you understand the Se perspective better than any given INTP, but it makes it awfully probable. The INTP's overall intelligence would have to vastly outclass the ESFP's in order for this
not to be true.
Are there extraordinarily brilliant ENTPs with a better handle on Ni than the average INTJ? Probably. Is it at all likely that you're one of them? Probably not.
This kind of thinking leads to the slippery slope of SJs can't be creative, NFs are emos, NTs are smart, and other such nonsense.
No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking just leads us to recognize that we can infer relative cognitive strengths between individuals on the basis of outwardly displayed abilities and demonstrations of competence and understanding. My ESFJ mom sucks at Ti. My INTP friend is great at it. That much is obvious, no matter how much you want to take the "omg but it's all subjective and unprovable!!!" defense because you've been backed into a corner.
Bottom line, if you want to deny the possibility of comparing relative cognitive strengths between individuals just so you can bend over backwards inventing your own subjective, non-standard definitions for phrases with clearly defined meanings like "a good handle" in order to pretend you didn't overestimate the strength of your shadow functions, knock yourself out, but you're not fooling anyone. :hi:
I'm going to bed.