thanksPT, the difference between you and dissonance is that he doesn't define the functions by what we see in people who've tested a certain way. We use the provided definitions, and use them as 'logic gates' for determining type. Asking him if he's got any other reason than theory for something is wasteful, since they serve as the steady rules, to which type has to conform. You're clearly approaching the concept in exactly the opposite direction he and I are.
Really, what he's using isn't a theory. It's just putting names to information uptake and organization modes.
"ti builds a logical framework in the mind"
If whatever a person is doing is NOT building a logical framework in their mind, then they're not using Ti, they're using something else.
'Ne find analogies between seemingly unrelated events through recognition of patterns and paralleling them"
If someone is say, wondering at the morality of an event and putting that into a bank of stored moral gates, we know they're not using Ne. It's something else.
So whether it originated in theory or not, you can tell, if someone consistently speaks in metaphors/similies saying things like "It works like a rotor in that it does..." or similarly, then they're using Ne. It doesn't necessarily speak to their preferences -- that has to be deciphered over time, but behavioral typing can be done.