I don't think the question is especially meaningful. I'm sorry, you don't just go, "Hey, I think I'll develop my Te, now," or "I think it's time to work on Fi."
We need to remember that the functions are "how you think", and it's remarkably difficult to "think about how you think". Even back when I was still in single-digit ages, I recall "thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking" and noting that it was just an endless recursion. In the end, you don't really understand how you think without a great deal of self awareness or a good strong structure/language upon which one can rely to describe and develop such an understanding.
One of the things I learned as I investigated the functions is that Ni, for me, really is "how I think." Not just sort of. Not just in an unconscious way. Not just in an "intuitive" way. It's how I synthesize my understanding of the world around me. Te lends a degree of sanity, but no it doesn't even begin to drive my thought process.
I can look back on my life, before I did school, in preschool and kindergarten, in elementary and middle school, in high school, in college and graduate school, I was always using Ni. There was no way I could emphasize Te to a degree greater than I used Ni. When I pay attention to how I learned, how I developed understanding, it was always via Ni. Te was always secondary, providing a means of support, verifying that my Ni-understanding reflected reality, enabling me to communicate my Ni-vision to those who regard my intuitions as surprising and inobvious.
The reason I know that Ni is dominant for me is that I don't do "calculations" in my head: I "see" the answer. Where people get confused about Ni is that it is so often associated with "Ah ha!" insights or other intuitive leaps, when for me, there is no "insight", there is no, "Ah ha!", there is no intuitive leap. I simply just keep on looking at the input data and switch out contexts, eventually hitting upon a context that fits everything I've observed, at which point I use that context to leap to new ideas outside the context.
Now, all INTJs tend to emphasize Te to a degree, but that has nothing to do with "overdevelopment" of Te or underdevelopment of intuition. It has to do with the ability to use Te to turn our intuitive grasp of everything into something concrete enough that we can verify our understanding. We don't "overdevelop" Te so much as rely upon Te to allow communication of our more complicated ideas, especially in early years.
These days, I incorporate Fi ad Se, because Ni and Te alone leave a bunch of ideas and understandings unaddressed. Ni-Te needs a conclusion. Fi-Se simply needs to understand what IS and eventually perhaps develop a values-based understanding of the world.