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.
Dismissing it is not proof. Prove it. Prove how you can show comparisons in strength of functions, between people.
Sure you can, because you can associate certain cognitive strengths with certain abilities in related tasks.
Uh huh....like this? V
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.
Brilliantly ridiculous! You have equated, in a person with a mental disorder, no less, a belief in morality with Fi, and, self-gratification, not with Fi.
Any more stellar examples?
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.
You're bullshitting again, like the rest of your post that I mostly ignored.
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,
I deny the possibility of comparing relative cognitive function strengths (as isolated variables) between people because it is logically not possible to do so. It is however possible, and logical, to compare functions strength within an individual. < - take a few moments for that to sink in, I dunno, use your Ti
So, I assign subjectivity, from the beginning, even before you entered this discussion, even before it became an actual discussion, way before any attempt you
think you made at "backing me into a corner", to that whose properties
are subjective.
But, if thinking all that makes you feel more confident that you're actually not grasping at straws, and not bullshitting out of your ass, with me, go ahead.
I've said all I need to say on this topic, the holes in your argument are evident, and you haven't given anything substantial to explain that, and bottom line, it can't be rationalized, as it's logically not sound.
You go on the offense, trying to rile the other one up, in hopes they'll slip up (?), and give you an angle of attack, when you can't soundly back up your shit, I've noticed.
So, I'm left with the same old goading, hot air, and irrelevant rationalizations from you by willfully misinterpreting my response to fit your angle of "If I turn what she means, slightly, in this way, make my interpretation take on that angle, I can attack it thata way". Yeah, no. So, rest of your post ignored. Try it on others, but, I can school your ass in that game if you wanna play that shit with me (now,
this is what I call arrogance).
Oh, also, you learned well from zarc, how to assign random behaviors to, MUST be X function, little ESFP.
So, I'm done playing hot-air balloon with ya. :hi: