I know we're not ever going to agree on this. Te wants ideas to apply near-universally in virtually any context before committing itself to accepting them, and once an idea passes this test and is accepted it becomes part of the ENTJ's sense of self. So, Te reasons, we should be very very careful about accepting or showing support for an idea until we have seen clear evidence that it is universally applicable and very unlikely to change.
Te asks: How could we ever accept an idea without carefully testing it to ensure that it will apply in all contexts?
And Fi asks: How can we pretend to support an idea without really believing it? To do so would reveal a total lack of substance and integrity!
And Te again: If we have not yet determined that the idea is objectively and universally applicable, we should not make the mistake of showing support for it or appearing to commit ourselves to it--because (and here comes Fi again) this would force us to admit that we had hastily accepted an idea without giving it due consideration, which would threaten our integrity.
The NeTi approach to ideas is much more fluid than that. The way we decide whether or not to accept an idea is by presuming that it's true long enough to test out how well that works, and then discarding it if it turns out not to hold up. We build a model based on one idea, and if it turns out that idea was wrong, oh well--we quickly and easily discard it and build a new one.
But again, we don't know if it holds up until we try it out for ourselves, and Ti doesn't feel that it's given the idea a fair chance without at least trying to make a case for it.
To me, refusing to try out an idea or make the best argument I can for it feels like I'm giving up integrity because I haven't tried every possible angle for that idea yet.
I hope this makes some sense?