You still don't get it. Jesus.
No,
you don't get it, and you never have. You never understand any conclusions arrived at through Ne and you probably never will, so I'd just throw in the towel at this point if I were you.
Poppy, an INTJ, once made this comment:
What's your rationale for making a statement about "INFJs generally". Do you know 50% or more of the world's INFJs?
Her voice of reason was refreshing.
It's a matter of inference.
Here's a little metaphor for you:
Let's say I have a bag containing 1,000 marbles of unknown color. I draw one marble from the bag and find that it's green. I draw another from the bag and find that it's also green. I continue doing this until I've drawn 25 marbles from the bag and find that 23 of them are green, and 2 are blue.
Now, I've only seen 2.5% of the marbles in the bag at this point, but I can still reasonably infer that there's a good chance the majority of the marbles in the bag are green. Every time I draw another green marble, the chance the majority of marbles in the bag are green increases a little bit more.
Now, is it possible that there are only 23 green marbles in the bag, and I just happened to get a really biased sample by drawing all of them? Sure, but it's very, very unlikely, and every time I draw another green marble it becomes even less likely. I don't need to see 50% or more of the marbles to be able to infer that it's probable that the majority of the marbles in the bag are green. The accuracy of such estimation gradually increases as the sample size expands. This is how most studies are done--scientists take a sample of, say, 1,000 people (which constitutes roughly .0000001% of the planet's population) and infer from the trends within the small sample what trends are likely to be shown by the total group. If this method were invalid, no scientific studies about characteristics of people would ever have any merit at all because none of them have ever been performed on over 50% of the world's population.
Nobody is ever going to meet 50% of the INFJs on the planet; that's ridiculous. But if I've met 25 INFJs and all of them are good at reading the emotions of others, it can be reasonably inferred that INFJs in general are probably good at reading the emotions of others. Statistically, if this were not true, it's highly unlikely that
every INFJ I've met would be good at that.
Granted, I could have met a really biased sample of INFJs and gotten the wrong idea, but the more INFJs I meet who show the characteristic in question, the less likely that becomes.
I'd like to ask you if you understand now, but somehow I doubt it.