Ti has its own rules defined by localized logic it has been exposed to. If Te comes in and tries to force Ti to work according to some other rules that violate the Ti rules of logic, of course Ti gets pissed, even if the Te rules are real and in the best interest of problem solving.
I see the Te-Ti conflict all the time between INTPs and ISTJs at work.
I'm not convinced that Fi vs Fe, or Ti vs Te really work by different rules. I think it's more or less the same rules respectively: a gift for recognizing and judging sound from unsound connections of logic or of value. That would explain why NTs often understand eachother and NFs often get along great, regardless of the P/J difference.
I think they understand the language of the other. But that they differ in what they want to formulate in that language, in the goal they're interested in obtaining when they follow their T or F rules. It's what they are naturally inclined to want to DO with their abilities that defines the difference: e or i.
I have a couple of close long-time ENFJ-friends and love them, weaknesses and all. I experience them as very warm, empathic and always energising, funny and interesting to be with. A lot of self-ironic humor too and weird intuitive leaps to laugh about. They often take a personal responsibility for contributing to the wellbeing and growth of others, being great friends, co-workers, parents and partners. It's bordering of self sacrifice at times, but they don't complain much, just get worn out and try a bit harder. If they don't do it, nobody will, they feel, and people's wellbeing is too important for them to quit. They are not quitters.
This said, I have also for a long time regarded their analysis of peoples' motives and feelings as somewhat 'superficial'. It's like they often stop their analysis too soon, land it on a conventional conclusion ("Really, he just needs a girlfriend and some healthy hobbies, then he'll stop throwing TV-sets out the window because the voices have told him to."). It's not that they are being 'wrong' in general (yes, he would benefit from getting a girlfriend, but would it cure his psychosis?), but they sum up the situation in a bit simplified way that never quite hits home in my eyes, but nevertheless would be a generally workable and constructive, say, if you have to teach a class of 28 hormonally raging teens.
And my guess is that this Fe-Fi difference parallels the difference of Te-Ti. Ti supposedly wants to get it all right and principally figured out first and foremost, while Te supposedly decides at an earlier point of reasoning that enough is enough and concludes with a workable approximation that can be converted in some rational action.
Usually I'm not very bothered by the difference, though. Since my Fi 'knows' what's right anyway and I'm too ENFP'ishly all over the place seeing a load of other interesting cues in the conversation, I don't often try to hammer home my points with my ENFJs, just suggesting a possible unrecognized depth and move on.
Thus it's not really different sensibilities for value, empathy, feeling and people, as I see it. It's just different points of stopping the process, different thresholds for feeling enough satiation or satisfaction with one's assessment of what's going on. And this difference would just reflect what we are interested in using our assessments for: They want to do good in the world with it (extraversion of value), I want to grasp it in detail so it contributes to and is consistent with a whole inner network of values and relations (introversion of value), that I've been building over the years in order to meaningfully select the valuable from the worthless in the relentless bombardment of Ne-perceptions I live under.
Rings a bell, anyone?
Just wondering.
