Strictly speaking, yes. It can be "expressed," but not "verbally."
Possibly not expressed
directly verbally, but it can be expressed
via an extroverted function, which is some form of expression nonetheless.
No, you share translations of those thoughts. Actually sharing Ni would drive people bonkers. (Some INTJs actually try this on a regular basis and are quite bitter that no one understands them.)
Very true.
Same as I said above.
I'm sure there's a pretentious Latin term for what kind of logical fallacy this is.
Yes, you disagree with my premise. Disagreement isn't an argument.
Prima facie, the only difference between Xi and Xe is that Xi is introverted and Xe is extroverted, not that Xi is deep and Xe is shallow. Therefore, one should question why would people regard Xe as shallow and Xi as deep, when it's all just introversion/extroversion. Unless you just want to say "introverted == deep" and call an end to the discussion.
I don't believe I'm saying anything that's all that difficult to understand: extroverted functions are necessarily in the public playground. Everyone can readily observe the quality of others' extroverted functions, while the introverted functions are hidden close to the chest.
The virtue of an extroverted function, such as Te, is that while it isn't "personally" "deep", it has access to the shared knowledge of the group, which is often superior to one's own knowledge. Te can take several sets of ideas from several different sources, and compare and contrast and quickly figure out which set(s) have merit. Ti instead strives to develop one's own system of ideas, which is not directly shared with anyone else. In a way, this is "deep" in that, well, there really isn't any way to do this except build it all up in your own head. The "depth" is nothing more than saying that it is one's own personal understanding.
So unless you have some other concept of "deep" that isn't synonymous with "introverted," you're left with a circular argument.
I liked this part. Actually, I liked this whole post.
I certainly don't think it's circular logic, though.
I love your example of Ti and Te, cuz, well, it's the first time I can admit about myself that a function that's important to me is indeed less "deep" than its corresponding introverted function, and, thus, demonstrate that this argument isn't simply an Ni glory fest.
See, even "deeper" isn't a perfect word; I just think it's better than the word I started with originally, which was "powerful". I also think "robust" and "substantive", the two other words I've used, are helpful in pointing to what it is that I'm trying to express.
See, I have no doubt in my mind that, when it comes to what it is that T does, Ti is more
something than Te, and it's not simply more introverted.
It's more robust, more substantive, and more powerful, all in some particular sense of those words.
That's not to say that Te can't be more useful, or even more powerful, in certain contexts, but that, well, there's just something about Ti that is more something-other-than-simply-introversion than Te.
And I believe the same holds for all other functions: Ni over Ne, Fi over Fe, and Si over Se.
The Xi functions all seem to be more deep, substantive, robust, powerful, thorough, and focused than their Xe counterparts...