I feel like strength v dimensionality has to do with cultivation of a function over time. In other words an elder ILI may have deeper more sophisticated Ni than a teenage ILI. This presupposes a criterion with which to judge them against which is difficult, because it seems like dimensionality is the only non partial criterion, but there nevertheless seems to be a common sense principle at work here, where we can say one is more advanced or "stronger" than the other. In a certain sense they're exactly as strong as one another, but, from another point of view, that would mistakenly reduce all time out of the equation, it would in essence try to "freeze the river" by reducing it to a purely static Ti picture of the function, where there seems to be more. To take it a step further it seems that lower dimension functions could likewise be "stronger" in this sense than higher dimension functions. In essence dimensionality might frame the dimensions of the glass, but time and effort and experience are what fills it. You may have a smaller glass but it could be nevertheless more full (in absolute, not merely relative terms) than someone with a larger glass (although there may be some nooks and crannies you never fill). Again, this presupposes some ill defined notion of commensurability, but just because we lack a good model for such a thing doesn't mean the phenomena in question doesn't exist in some form