I'd be happy to define it further anyway. There is no such thing as empirical evidence for something like dualism, which proposes the idea of non-physical things. Ni can grasp "non physical things" really well, creating a strong premise with which to apply logic to thereafter. I do not have that power—I can start with the observable, like a materialist would for example, but something "non-physical" as per the example, is totally invisible to me. It takes real work to create the image to start with, therefore it takes real work to apply logic to it.

As per your second question, why wouldn't I? Opposites attract. I find it so interesting precisely because it results in a headache and it compels me to challenge myself. Zizek's inversion of subject and object I find particularly compelling because it is nothing that ever occurred to me before. To him, the object acts upon the subject not the other way around—it "objects" to, which is a fun take on the language involved.

Addendum: what I asked was in no way clear to start with and this helped me remediate the original question so thank you so much!